Evidence for God

[CG Didymus]

Why wouldn't God, if real, leave physical evidence?

Baha'is are still going with the "messengers" are the evidence? But they to supposedly existed in this spirit world that the Baha'is claim is real, yet they were able to incarnate into a physical body. Then even God was able to appear to Moses but only showed him his back.

Exodus 22: 21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.​

Of course, Baha'is could say that Moses was one of those special manifestations that could communicate with God. But, to me, why even assume the story was real. And Baha'is probably don't. But if true, then it shows that God was able to make himself seen. Then the Bible also has God sending the "angel of the Lord" to go tell somebody something. Whoever that was? But this angel was also a "messenger" from God and was spirit but was able to appear for a short time then disappeared. But it doesn't matter, Baha'is won't accept this Bible evidence. They just don't have faith that God can do these things.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

Vacation, that must have been a long vacation.....
I had a month off work in February but I didn't go anywhere. I haven't gone on a real vacation for over 10 years, and now that I am widowed it's just me and the cats. They are all I have left so I don't like leaving them with a pet sitter, so I probably won't be going on any vacations.

I imagine there are a lot of forums untouched by Baha'is since most Baha'is are busy in community activities so they don't go on forums.
You'll be happy to know that we lost two of our Baha'is who were on here while you were gone, so now there are fewer of us.

No, I have not gotten to answering his post yet since I am still mulling over what would be best to give him.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then even God was able to appear to Moses but only showed him his back.

Exodus 22: 21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.

I can hardly believe that anyone believes that anyone ever saw God. That anthropomorphism in the Old Testament got straightened out in the New Testament. By the way, this is what progressive revelation is all about, as there was a progression from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.

John 5:37
And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

1 Timothy 6:16
who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

 

[PearlSeeker]

No, I have not gotten to answering his post yet since I am still mulling over what would be best to give him.

Don't bother so much. Just pick a few things that first come to mind so we can discuss it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You'll be happy to know that we lost two of our Baha'is who were on here while you were gone, so now there are fewer of us.

No, I have not gotten to answering his post yet since I am still mulling over what would be best to give him.

No, I am not happy about it. You people are great fun. Bahais are the light of this forum. Which ones and why, if you please?
Too much quoting from Bahaollah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi?

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I am not happy about it. Bahais are the light of this forum. Which ones and why, if you please?
Too much quoting from Bahaollah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi?

Tony and White Light. No, it was not too much quoting, it was something else. I don't know the details as to why they left, it is a staff issue.

Do you like the new forum format? I really like it, it is so much easier to answer posts, especially long ones.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, staff issues are not for us to discuss.
Nice, all over the forum world, even nicer with my 'Dark Reader'.

 

[muhammad_isa]

- God created the world
- God sustains the world

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

It depends which way you look at it..
G-d is responsible for all that we see..

Why do electrons spin around atoms?
You will say, because it is "a natural law", but that does not explain WHY it is a natural law?
What stops the "sky" falling on the earth?
You will say that there is an equilibrium, and planets have natural orbits etc.

..as if the word "natural" explains anything? It really doesn't.

It's simple .. you either believe in G-d, or you don't.
..and that is what G-d has ordained.
A believer has their way of life, and a disbeliever has theirs.

 

[joelr]

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

So much for that "logical"conversation then.
Mormonism has a messenger. Jehovas Witness has a messenger. Many other religions also have a messenger.
There are also hundreds of people right now who claim to be messengers of God. Why are they not worthy of following since by your logic all you need is to say you are a messanger?


Then, when a NEW messenger comes out, with new updates, because humans have messed up the last messages and intervention was needed immediately, you will have to follow this new religion?

I don't think you know what "evidence" means.

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

Evidence can be defined as - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

1) people have claimed to be messengers of Gods forever forming thousands of religions. Today Jesus is in AU, preaching his new messages to a congregation. We know most are making it up.
2) None of these messengers has provided any real proof by performing miracles, demonstrating any ESP or supernatural abilities or knowledge beyond what humans already knew. In your case the science was incorrect, philosophy doesn't exist or any type of knowledge, scientific, medical, psychological, mathematical, historical, was given to demonstrate a divinity was speaking.

3) logically this is evidence, evidence that this is another case of made up revelations.

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.

1) how did you determine that a God can never speak to humans? An infinite God cannot manage communication? In the OT God spoke freely to humans. Krishna spoke freely to humans.

2) God spoke to this messenger supposedly, so that means God CAN speak to humans. Now you propose God can only speak to one human?
These limits are bizarre?

3)It is not perfectly logical for a God to do anything because no Gods have been demonstrated to exist. Who said we can only understand God from a messenger? Not Hinduism? Not the OT?

Not one piece of data here suggests this is real.

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

That's odd, for several reasons. First, the Quran was from a "messenger". It' s FULL OF SCIENCE. Hinduism is full of philosophy.
The OT and NT is full of philosophy, proverbs was good wisdom for the time .

The OT contains a ration for pi.

So by those examples, not true. But where does your scripture say that? Or are you making up apologetics to move the goalpost at a furious pace?

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

They think the same way everyone thinks about evidence?
If I claimed to be a messenger of Thor and presented a scripture everyone would look for miracles, supernatural abilities from me, information in the text that a human could not make up using current knowledge. If those did not exist, no one would believe me. Period.

You somehow want a pass on this. Yes some other people bought into it. If others bought into my Thor cult would that matter to most logical people? No.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It depends which way you look at it..
G-d is responsible for all that we see..

But that's the thing: for real phenomena, it doesn't depend on which way we see it.

An astrophysicist can explain the implications of the Big Bang theory, including why the theory predicts that we should see cosmic microwave background radiation all around us. We can then look and see that there is indeed cosmic microwave background radiation all around us.

So you have nothing analogous that points to God? Nothing that doesn't depend on having already been convinced that God is real?

Why do electrons spin around atoms?
You will say, because it is "a natural law", but that does not explain WHY it is a natural law?
What stops the "sky" falling on the earth?
You will say that there is an equilibrium, and planets have natural orbits etc.

..as if the word "natural" explains anything? It really doesn't.

It's simple .. you either believe in G-d, or you don't.
..and that is what G-d has ordained.
A believer has their way of life, and a disbeliever has theirs.

So there's nothing in the universe that points to God unless the person looking is already predisposed to assume God? I don't think you realize how much you're condemning your own worldview.

There's a Philip K. Dick quote that I happen to agree with:

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.

What you're telling me is that, by this measure, God is not real.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

When you say "Messengers of God," all I hear is "people who claimed to speak for God."

It does not come across as particularly compelling evidence.

In fact, I'd say it's not evidence at all as much as it is just more claims.

 

[muhammad_isa]

An astrophysicist can explain the implications of the Big Bang theory, including why the theory predicts that we should see cosmic microwave background radiation all around us. We can then look and see that there is indeed cosmic microwave background radiation all around us.

No .. a scientist can only explain phenomena in terms of scientific jargon and physical observation.
They cannot explain where the nuclear forces originate, for example.

So you have nothing analogous that points to God?

How can one detect something that is the very fabric of reality?
You just take it all for granted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No .. a scientist can only explain phenomena in terms of scientific jargon and physical observation.
They cannot explain where the nuclear forces originate, for example.

Irrelevant to this discussion. They can think about the implications of their claims and use them to make testable predictions to support those claims.

You can't - or won't - do that, so you don't have that kind of support.

So far, you have a handful of claims and that's it.

How can one detect something that is the very fabric of reality?
You just take it all for granted.

If God were only the fabric of reality, he wouldn't do things like miracles or dictating books to people in the desert.

It's funny how gods can magically shrink: when we need them to be active in the world, we credit them with all sorts of real actions that ought to leave real evidence... but when it's time to ask about that evidence, suddenly the god leaves less of a trace than a mouse.

I think your position is ultimately hypocritical and implies an unwillingness to reflect on the implications of your beliefs.

If the God you believe in is not irrelevant, then it should leave some sign of its existence that even atheists can't deny.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If the God you believe in is not irrelevant, then it should leave some sign of its existence that even atheists can't deny.

You are just spiritually blind. You take the universe for granted.
You just say that it is all "natural" without explaining where nature originates.

 

[danieldemol]

You are just spiritually blind. You take the universe for granted.
You just say that it is all "natural" without explaining where nature originates.

Perhaps nature did not originate though, that may be beyond our current knowledge in my view.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are just spiritually blind. You take the universe for granted.

I'm blind because I don't automatically accept your unsupported claims?

You just say that it is all "natural" without explaining where nature originates.

You realize that I didn't actually say that, right?

Edit: what evidence convinced you that God exists?

 

[viole]

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.

and we know what God is, and that is why we do not believe there is any evidence for Her.

And, as we have seen, you have no evidence of anything. Neither known, nor unknown. And any knowledge you can gather about God, can only come from messengers that provide no evidence whatsoever. You just have to believe them. And belief, is applicable when evidence is scarce, or not existent.

that is why theists invoke faith. They know too, that they have no evidence. Otherwise, they would not need to resort to that.

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

what on earth is evidence based faith? You have one or the other. I have evidence that the speed of light is constant in vacuum. I would look very silly if I said that I have faith that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.

and there is no evidence of any God. When asked, you provided nothing. Just some hearsay about alleged miracles, without a shred of evidence that they really happened, and some self declared messengers. Ergo, any supernatural claim relying on those facts, can be easily explained by vastly more mundane explanations, and therefore cannot be taken seriously, as indicative of anything.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theists know what the evidence is and that is why we believe God exists.

If that were true, at least some theists would be able to articulate in a rational way what that evidence is and how it implies that God exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And, as we have seen, you have no evidence of anything. Neither known, nor unknown. And any knowledge you can gather about God, can only come from messengers that provide no evidence whatsoever. You just have to believe them. And belief, is applicable when evidence is scarce, or not existent.

that is why theists invoke faith. They know too, that they have no evidence. Otherwise, they would not need to resort to that.


But there is no evidence. When asked, you provided nothing. Just some hearsay about alleged miracles, without a shred of evidence that they really happened, and some self declared messengers. Ergo, any supernatural claim relying on those facts, can be easily explained by vastly more mundane explanations, and therefore cannot be taken seriously, as indicative of anything.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, some believers in different positive metaphysics/ontology don't know that there is no proof, evidence or truth for their claims. But as far as I can tell, that is not unique to only idealism/dualism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You realize that I didn't actually say that, right?

Yo said "So there's nothing in the universe that points to God"..

..and I say that all you see, points to G-d.
..over..