Evidence for God

[Trailblazer]

Why wouldn't God, if real, leave physical evidence? How could a god design and create an entire universe without leaving "fingerprints" in some way?

God did leave real physical evidence of His existence, and that evidence is the Messengers of God that were sent by God.
The Messengers of God are the fingerprints, the footprints in the sand.

Why wouldn't there be sonething akin to the cosmic microwave background radiation? Physics predicted that if the Big Bang really happened, cosmic microwave background radiation should exist... and lo and behold, it does. Why wouldn't there be something similar for God?

And on the flipside, wouldn't a lack of physical, empirical evidence for God indicate God's irrelevance to what we measure empirically in the physical world?

But there isn't a lack of physical evidence, since God sends Messengers on His behalf and they are physical.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which brings us back to you having no evidence, and the atheists are right. It is not the case that they do not know what God is. But it is the case that theists do not know what evidence is, instead.

Theists know what the evidence is and that is why we believe God exists.
Atheists don't know what the evidence is and that is why they don't believe God exists.
It is really as simple as that.

Therefore, if you want to believe, it is fine. But you must have faith. Only faith. 100% faith, and nothing more than that. Any hope to base one's metaphysical belief on a rational basis, must be abandoned the very moment we start believing that, because that belief can exist only with faith.
I am afraid.

It is not 100% faith because it is evidence-based faith, and the Messengers are the evidence. Too bad you don't recognize the evidence, but it was provided by God for all to see.

Rational basis? What is rational is to accept what God provides as evidence, IF you want to believe in God. But if you don't want to believe, that's fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God did leave real physical evidence of His existence, and that evidence is the Messengers of God that were sent by God.

Not what I was getting at, but I think you knew that.

What's the equivalent of the CMBR that points to God? Pointing to some guy who claimed to speak for God is all fine and good, but it's several notches lower on the evidence quality scale than what I'm asking for.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, you have a BELIEF in what you think God is. Your words. You need to demonstrate that your beliefs are true.
You also said :
"I do not believe that spiritual experiences are sufficient evidence for God because those are subjective and they cannot be experienced by everyone."
So now you would have to demonstrate your beliefs in God are true and correct and provide this objective evidence you claim you have.

But what's going to happen is you have no objective evidence and can not demonstrate the God you "know is true" is true at all.
You will present a claim from a person who provided no evidence whatsoever.

What seems to have happened is you decided to hold a belief in a claim that is unwarranted.

The evidence is the Messengers of God. That is the objective evidence for God. You can take it or leave it.

Take away, scientific, academic, legal, personal, spiritual evidence, what are you left with? Some sort of claim and believers choosing confirmation bias.

We are left with the Messengers of God which is the evidence for God.

This is very logical. The issue is you also refuse to accept that your beliefs are not logical. It's been spelled out step by step, a man claiming revelations is already extremely suspect.

It is perfectly logical for God to send a man who is a Messenger to speak for Him, since that is the only way we can ever understand God.
It may be suspect but that does not mean it is not true. It is up to us to decide if it is true or not.

Then add on this God decided to give him ZERO science, philosophy, mathematics or anything new to humans, refused any upcoming reveals about science that was coming soon, mathematics, medical science, technology. But did allow him to give incorrect science that is now outdated and even incorrect on a variety of topics.

Science, philosophy, mathematics, medical science, technology are not the domain of religion, they are for humans to work out on their own.

This thread, post #1. For example:

"When I say I have evidence Atheists always say “that’s not evidence!”

Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?"

and

"Likewise, since Atheists do not believe in the God of theism, they are only left with only a word, God. How can they say there is no evidence for God if they don’t even know what God is? How can they know what kind of evidence to look for if they don’t know what God is? How can they say the evidence would be verifiable if they don’t know what God is? How can they know that God would be verifiable if God existed? Do you understand the problem? It is not logical to say what that evidence should consist of or what it should not consist of if you don’t know anything about the entity you are looking for."

those are rants about atheists.

Those are not rants at atheists. That is just me trying to figure out how they think about God and evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not what I was getting at, but I think you knew that.

What's the equivalent of the CMBR that points to God? Pointing to some guy who claimed to speak for God is all fine and good, but it's several notches lower on the evidence quality scale than what I'm asking for.

Okay, but how would you know that whatever it was, equivalent of the CMBR, was pointing to God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, but how would you know that whatever it was was pointing to God?

That's the question.

Think about the God you believe in; what does your understanding of it predict?

Can you say "if my God exists, you'll be able to look into a telescope/into a microscope/at a Geiger counter display/at a whatever and see _____ in the natural world"?

If the answer is "no," then this implies that your God is irrelevant to the state of the natural world. If your God is the purported creator of the natural world, then this implies a contradiction.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's the question.

Think about the God you believe in; what does your understanding of it predict?

Can you say "if my God exists, you'll be able to look into a telescope/into a microscope/at a Geiger counter display/at a whatever and see _____ in the natural world"?

If the answer is "no," then this implies that your God is irrelevant to the state of the natural world. If your God is the purported creator of the natural world, then this implies a contradiction.

see _____ in the natural world"? What is the _____ ?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can you say "if my God exists, you'll be able to look into a telescope/into a microscope/at a Geiger counter display/at a whatever and see _____ in the natural world"?

If the answer is "no," then this implies that your God is irrelevant to the state of the natural world..

That is totally wrong.
G-d created and maintains the "natural world" .. the universe.
If G-d stopped maintaining the universe, it would cease to exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is totally wrong.
G-d created and maintains the "natural world" .. the universe.
If G-d stopped maintaining the universe, it would cease to exist.

God is like the maintenance man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

see _____ in the natural world"? What is the _____ ?

That's the part that you fill in with whatever your beliefs about God suggest that we should be able to see in the world because God exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is totally wrong.
G-d created and maintains the "natural world" .. the universe.
If G-d stopped maintaining the universe, it would cease to exist.

And the evidence we can see that suggests this claim is true is... what?

 

[Trailblazer]

That's the part that you fill in with whatever your beliefs about God suggest that we should be able to see in the world because God exists.

You said: Can you say "if my God exists, you'll be able to look into a telescope/into a microscope/at a Geiger counter display/at a whatever and see _____ in the natural world"?

I don't expect you to be able to see anything in the world.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And the evidence we can see that suggests this claim is true is... what?

I don't expect you to be able to see anything in the world, as @Trailblazer just said.
..other than the obvious .. that you and the world exist.

I do not believe the world would exist "just because it can",
as to me, it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You said: Can you say "if my God exists, you'll be able to look into a telescope/into a microscope/at a Geiger counter display/at a whatever and see _____ in the natural world"?

I don't expect you to be able to see anything in the world.

So then your God is irrelevant to the natural world in every way we can see or measure.

Do you agree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't expect you to be able to see anything in the world, as @Trailblazer just said.
..other than the obvious .. that you and the world exist.

I do not believe the world would exist "just because it can",
as to me, it makes no sense whatsoever.

So you've got two claims:

- God created the world
- God sustains the world

... and neither of these claims have any empirical evidence that points to their truth?

 

[Trailblazer]

So then your God is irrelevant to the natural world in every way we can see or measure.

Do you agree?

No, just because you can't see or measure God doing anything that doesn't mean that God is not doing anything....
God operates from a higher plane of existence. He is like the man on the skyscraper you can never see since he is too high up there.

Let me put it this way: If you can see and measure things in the material world, x, y, and z, how do you know that God is not maintaining them if God is invisible?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, just because you can't see or measure God doing anything that doesn't mean that God is not doing anything....

It does mean that God isn't doing anything that we can see or measure.

God operates from a higher plane of existence. He is like the man on the skyscraper you can never see since he is too high up there.

But we're looking for justification you - or other theists - could use in the here-and-now.

It's fine to fantasize about how God could be justified if we could only peek into some assumed hidden realm where no human can see, but fanatisies about potential evidence that you don't actually have are no substitute for evidence.

Let me put it this way: If you can see and measure things in the material world, x, y, and z, how do you know that God is not maintaining them if God is invisible?

You told me that God is having no effect that we can see or measure on the world. This means that, as far as we can see or measure, God has no effect on the world.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know that about atheists, but @PearlSeeker is not an atheist and he was the one who asked for the information about Baha'u'llah.
Welcome back from wherever you went.

Thanks. I was on a vacation. Found another good forum, largely untouched by Bahais.
Did you give @PearlSeeker the information that he was seeking from you?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not believe the world would exist "just because it can",
as to me, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Any reason why you think so? And how does your God making a universe makes any sense to you? What need did he have for that?

 

[Trailblazer]

It does mean that God isn't doing anything that we can see or measure.

But we're looking for justification you - or other theists - could use in the here-and-now.

It's fine to fantasize about how God could be justified if we could only peek into some assumed hidden realm where no human can see, but fanatisies about potential evidence that you don't actually have are no substitute for evidence.

I don't know what would be justification for you. The only justification for me was the Messengers of God because they were seen and heard from.

You told me that God is having no effect that we can see or measure on the world. This means that, as far as we can see or measure, God has no effect on the world.

Yes, as far as we can see or measure, God has no effect on the world, but nothing God does can be seen or measured by humans.