Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, theists have pretty much failed to present proper evidence for a God. That is not saying that one does not exist. It is merely a reasonable lack of belief.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence
- Thread starter TransmutingSoul
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I disagree. Now the problem is that for some Gods there should be evidence of its existence if it did exist. For example there is the YEC God. There would be all sorts of differences in the Earth and in life if such a God existed. I don't know if we would see direct evidence of it, but we would not see rock strata with millions of years worth of annual layers. We would not see consistent radiometric dating that the Earth is old. Instead it would all show that the Earth was young. But for any God that people worship evidence of that God is needed if it is claimed not to be an evil God.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
From an atheist perspective:
There is no way to know what kind of evidence there would be if God existed, nor is there any way to know what sorts of differences in the Earth and in life we would see if such a God existed.
All we can know is what we see, we can never know what God would do or not do if God existed.
From a theist perspective:
There is evidence for God. It is not the evidence you want but rather the evidence that God provided.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Let's hear your definition of God and what it takes to get into heaven.. Quite a few theists are surprised to discover that by their own definition God is immoral.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You are just in time because I was about to log off and go eat dinner.... yeah, I know how late it is.
But I have those all saved in Word documents so this should be easy.
First, the definition of God: God in the Baháʼí Faith
Second, how to get to heaven.
It is important to note that Baha’is do not believe that heaven is a geographical location, rather, it is a state of the soul. A Baha’i once asked the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith (Shoghi Effendi) how to get to heaven, and here was his answer...
"To 'get to heaven' as you say is dependent on two things--faith in the Manifestation of God in His Day, in other words in this age in Bahá'u'lláh; and good deeds, in other words living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by. But we must always remember that our existence and everything we have or ever will have is dependent upon the mercy of God and His bounty, and therefore He can accept into His heaven, which is really nearness to Him, even the lowliest if He pleases. We always have the hope of receiving His mercy if we reach out for it."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 12, 1957)
Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File
To get the guarantee, you need both faith in Baha’u’llah and good deeds, but I do not think that means that only Baha’is will be in heaven... I can explain further about this tomorrow.
Yes.
This is an area of interest to me. People refer to the five senses, but they are only referring to sensing what exists outside the body, and they are grouping a variety of tactile senses such as temperature, touch, and vibration senses, all with their own receptors, together. We can call these the exteroceptors.
Then, we have a series of senses that tell us about the outer body, the musculoskeletal system surrounding and protecting the viscera (the guts) and nervous system. Thus, we know the orientation of our body and its limbs in space (sitting, standing, arm up, off balance), and we are aware of body motion (walking, turning)
Then, there are senses about the viscera, such as heartburn, a ruptured appendix, and angina. These are mostly pain sensors.
And there are sensory receptors informing us of the liquid state of our bodies - our chemistry - such as thirst when the blood is hyperosmolar, or fever when the immune system is at war in the bloodstream. These last three can be called interoception, and they are also evidence once they become experienced
But we also experience our nervous system when we experience memories, dreams, emotions, cognitive dissonance, and the like. We sense intuitions such as moral intuitions, instincts, and desires arising from the nervous tissue. Should this be called a sense? I'd say so. We sense beauty, for example, but when we do, we are sensing input from our mind added to the exteroceptive content (the appearance of the sunset or the sound of a passage of music).
This is how I view the spiritual sense - something my brain tells me about how I feel about other sensations. Many theists interpret this as evidence of God, but I understand it differently. To me, it is evidence that the brain can generate that mental state.
An unsupported claim is a statement of belief. That's not usually of interest to a critical thinker. He is interested in what you know and can demonstrate to be correct. If you want your claimed believed by such a person, you'll need to present the argument that justifies that belief.
Agreed, but that doesn't address or contradict my claim. My claim is that words that could have been written by men are not evidence of a channeled deity.
And what reward is that? A promise that needn't be fulfilled? There doesn't seem to be much value there before death for somebody comfortable with atheism, and there might be a significant cost.
Those words don't have the same effect on me. I've pulled a random excerpt from your link:
"Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person."
This is ordinary thought, and typical from any believer, although they probably wouldn't use the flowery language unless they were in a pulpit. Here's what it says when you remove the affectations: God can't show himself to man. He's exalted in the extreme. He says he's the only God and he knows everything. He says he manifests through messengers, whose message has the whole world proclaiming him the best and the only god. You can't know this god except through messengers, whose credentials will be himself.
Now throw in a few veriliy's, season liberally with unnecessary capitals, and voila - evidence of a deity, right?
You couldn't determine that the message was from a god, but if it contained thoughts that men couldn't have written, then it wasn't of human origin. Suppose a message written before telescopes described the existence of the Kuiper belt. That needs some 'splainin'. But the kind of thing we just looked at? It's human.
You have evidence that will meet my criteria?
joelr
Well-Known Member
Mmmmm, let's see...........uh, nope. I can definitely see I said "I" read his writings and find it to be very mundane. 100% not evidence to revelations any more than Paul, Muhammad or the Cargo Cults revelations from John From and John Navy.
Yes there is no doubt he is a person. Do you want to call him an artist? Ok, no doubt he is an artist. I'm going to try hard to find a point here related to evidence of a God AND revelations from the God.
Ok, yes so seeing art does indeed validate that a person is an actual artist. But this is a man who wrote a lot of "praise to God" material, not very advanced. No philosophical material, literally bad and wrong science and gave vague answers to questions. Please, prove me wrong on any of that by the way. Now even if he wrote some correct science and was a philosopher, so was Epicurus, so was Socrates and many many others. That doesn't prove revelations? Or a theistic God?
We are literally back at the start where a man made a claim. So did Muhammad, so did Paul, so did Joe Smith, so did Charles Russell of JW fame?? So did Epistles 3 which are known forgeries and not even Paul? So did the 36 other Christian Gospels who all claimed to be writing the words of Jesus. And the 4 in canon who also wrote for Jesus but were MAKING IT UP.
Oh, and when the OT was canonized and put together in ~6BCE, they made up an entire religious history for the Israelites.
In other words, we have massive evidence that this is what people do with religious material. Claim revelations when they are just regular people.
You literally have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER? You don't even have claims of miracles, fights with Satan and exorcisms so your proof becomes this weird abstract "well he was a good guy...so..."
"
In other words, the Hebrew Bible does not accurately represent how people actually practiced religion in the ancient world. He claims this because the Hebrew Bible itself was likely edited and compiled between the 7th and 3rd centuries BCE. So, although the Hebrew Bible preserves traditions going back as far as the 11th century BCE, the theological and cultural positions between the 7th and 3rd centuries BCE were likely read into the past and, among these, was monotheism.
Additionally, attentive readers may notice that there was no discussion of Judaism. Generally speaking, the scholarly consensus is that the religion of Judaism was distinct from ancient Israelite and Judean religion. "
No, you may not co-opt "trustworthy" and "truthful" as evidence of a deity sending messages. Again, not evidence. BUT......he isn't truthful?????? THE SCIENCE IS WRONG????
Shall we go over it in detail again? Science is important. It's part of the Bahai creed. He got it all wrong. That is not trustworthy.
If the science is all wrong how do you know what else is wrong? Oh, how about the fact that he's claiming a God is speaking through him??? Yet he cannot produce anything remarkable ? That is very sketchy?
Please, help me out here, what else is he truthful about? What does he say that isn't just common sense or basic "be nice" type stuff where you say "wow, that was truthful"?? Can you even show evidence of that?
Why would you think truthful backs up a claim of revelations? I have to know? Are you not aware that the Jehovas Witness prophet was also trustworthy and truthful?
BTW,.......
"Epicurus predicted (as reported by Lucretius in his poetic summary De Rerum Natura) the existence of the atom and the molecule (the binding of two atoms to produce a different chemical); the law of inertia (unless retarded by a blow, objects are in constant motion–not proved until Galileo); the principal of universal natural law (the same principles of behavior that apply on earth apply the same everywhere in the universe–a theory denied by Aristotle, and by the Christian Church until Galileo challenged the Church’s view and Newton proved him right); the rain cycle (that rain comes from water that has evaporated from seas and lakes, due to the heat of the sun and the motion of the air, and is stored in clouds, then falls when those clouds are heated or saturated); that sound is a pressure wave of air molecules whose shape determines the sound; that light is comprised of particles; that the sense of smell is caused by the shape of molecules fitting the shape of receptors in the nose; that lightning is caused by friction between storm fronts and consists of rapidly-moving particles (which we now call electrons) that are smaller than the atoms that comprise visible matter; that earthquakes are caused by slipping fault lines; that the Nile rises every year because of snow melting at its source; that animals, including humans, evolved by natural selection; that matter is mostly empty space; that magnetism is the result of a constant discharge and absorption of particles between magnetic objects; that fire is not an element; that there is no center of the universe but many different solar systems with their own planets; and that the speed of light is finite. He also predicted relativity, arguing that motion is relative, and time does not exist except as the relation of objects and events to each other, and hence time is also relative to the observer."
Ok who? He claims Abraham, Muhammad, Paul/Jesus and Hinduism (right?) and other religions are earlier messengers designed for the times. So who are the false messengers?
But what religious doctrine falls short to his? He doesn't give any great philosophy, great literary devices, metaphors, a heros journey arc, what is this better than?
The challenge is there, you are correct. But you are choosing to hold beliefs not supported by facts.
I'm asking you straight out for the facts or the evidence and you do not have an answer.
If I claimed JW was the one true doctrine the world should be following and my evidence was Charles Russell was:
trustworthy
truthful
he himself is the evidence because the quality of his work
I am quite sure ANYONE would say that isn't evidence and being trustworthy, truthful and having quality isn't evidence for revelations. These are all a-priori arguments.
Also you are making an either/or fallacy with the idea that because he sounds truthful in his writing he didn't decide to make a false claim or revelations to gain more attention.
He also may have convinced himself he was communicating with a God. There certainly isn't any evidence of that.
Whoever the OP meant to address, I am certain that I am not included and not interested in joining.
joelr
Well-Known Member
That would depend on the debate..
The usual tactic of the atheist is deviation..
They like to steer the debate to be about empirical evidence .. as they consider it to be a "winning point", when in fact it only serves to end the discussion.
Maybe because anything else you debated about would require evidence? Just because you took on a fictional concept and put emotional attachments to it doesn't mean it becomes this special thing that no longer requires evidence. That is an old apologetic designed to make believers feel better about not having actual evidence.
Yet if I were arguing Zeus or Godzilla or even a multiverse what would you expect? Evidence.
But, then when evidence of a historical nature is presented, excellent evidence of syncretism being used rather than prophets, then a whole new diversion starts. Oh historians don't know this or that or anything to put that down?
Does it end the discussion? Yes, you just admitted it. Because you know there isn't evidence?
So how else would one know about Gods?
Personal feelings?
Super, those also prove Krishna, they prove Jesus told all JW that Satan has fooled every human who is not in JW and soon will be pulled into Hell. They prove every personal deity in Hinduism which every family member has one. It also proves racial superiority, which gender and sex is superior and whatever else you want to be true but don't have evidence.
Atheists are not lacking knowledge either. Some may be. I still study theology, history, apologetics and even read the Quran among other things to study in this field.
joelr
Well-Known Member
No the atheist perspective on evidence for a theistic God in the natural world is not that. It's the opposite. We can see the world was not designed by a creator but cobbled together through probabilities and evolutionary processes. All life demonstrates this. Most organisms are combinations of parts that once served a different purpose and were modified in a way that now just barely works. We still have a tailbone. An appendix which remains from a time when early primates ate only plants. A nerve that runs up and down one side of the body when it could just be a few inches and all sorts of illogical designs that we can trace the changes from our past ancestors. Parts that made sense at one time but were modified by evolution in strange ways. Because there is no designer, just evolutionary pressure for quick change or extinction. And that shows up in the design.
From a theist perspective I see no evidence? Earth formed due to natural laws, evolution is natural, the brutality of nature is exactly what one would expect in a natural world created only by unconscious forces that do not care about individuals or the species.
You cannot show evidence of that. The only way to justify all the horror is to say - well then you get to go to heaven. But that is a Greek/Persian myth adopted by Christianity. No more real than the Greek afterlife of Egyptian.
Weird.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yes he didn't come up with that. In the Middle ages when astronomy became a thing the 7 heavens model (which was literally above the Earth in space and was the entire universe) quickly became obviously a fiction. They could clearly see no 7 layers, celestial temples, Satan in the first layer, angels in the 3rd.....so heaven was moved to a metaphysical dimension.
This he took from the Quran.
"Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person."
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. He isn't saying anything?
God is great and beyond everyone. Except the messengers (like me), and I prove his he is real.
joelr
Well-Known Member
I see that. The prophet claims he is evidence and some seem to actually believe that means he is evidence?
In one way of looking at it, this does mean that God does not exist.
If we consider that God is an object of human worship, then any entity/alien/magic whatsit beyond the knowledge of humanity can't be God, so we only have to consider what's within the scope of knowledge of theists when deciding whether God exists.
Even if some magical entity did exist on the other side of the universe completely unknown to humanity, no theist today is praying to it. It isn't what anyone refers to when they say "God."
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Where you see failure on the part of theists to provide evidence of God, the theist sees a failure of perception on your part.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That means s because theists tend to not understand the concept of evidence. Here they seem to think that dogma is evidence.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
1) The person is only evidence for the existence of a person claiming to have a message from God. It's not evidence for the existence of God.
2) 3) Revelation/message. Again: it's only evidence of a person claiming to have a message from God. How do you know it's from God?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
No, you misunderstand. The theist has all the evidence he needs for the existence of God, and lives his life accordingly.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is not "evidence". " It convinces me" does not make a claim evidence.