What verifiable evidence is there that god exists?

[Subduction Zone]

Except there is evidence for God. I freely admit this.

All "evidence" means is a fact that can be used, along with other facts, to support a conclusion.

For instance, if my conclusion is "I know that God exists because I saw him barge into my house and drink all my Diet Coke," then the fact I'm out of Diet Coke is a piece of evidence for the existence of God.

This certainly isn't compelling evidence, and we would need much more evidence to establish the conclusion, but it's still a fact that could be used with other potential facts to make the case for the conclusion, so it is evidence for God.

In that respect, there's plenty of evidence both for and against the existence of God.

That is why I usually add the qualifier "reliable". Reliable evidence will be the same regardless of who looks at it. And if a person is honest he will admit that it is evidence. Unfortunately the only evidence offered is of the sort that you mentioned or even far weaker.

A fair question to ask is if someone that had a different religion gave the religious person the evidence for their God would they switch. The answer is always no telling us that this was not reliable evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

4. The god communicates, but not by messengers.

... and each of these possibilities is repeated for every god-claim.

Hypothetically speaking, this is a logical possibility. (See what i just posted to you on the other thread).

However, my list of the three logical possibilities is based upon what we have evidence for. We have no evidence that God has communicated any way other than Messengers so that is why I do not consider it a logical possibility, although it is hypothetically possible.

Sure, there are people who claim that God has communicated to them, but what evidence do they have to back up such a bold claim? Besides that, what good would it do if God did communicate to a few isolated individuals? That would still leave the rest of the people in the world hanging out to dry. When I talk about communication from God, I am talking about communication that would benefit everyone, not just a few people.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, we can repeatedly test the laws of physics. And so can others. The results are the same for the same experiments. Perhaps you do not understand the nature of evidence. I find that is a common problem among quite a few theists.

Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. I do not dispute that the nature of the evidence for physics and the way it is tested for differs from the nature of the evidence for a religion and how it is demonstrated. All I was trying to say is that a scientist cannot post all the evidence that proves all the laws of physics on a forum, anymore than I can post all the evidence that indicates that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God on a forum, because there is too much evidence in each of these cases.

If there was "too much evidence" you could post at least some of it. No one is asking for all of the evidence. All that is being asked for is some reliable evidence.

The problem with that is that everyone does not agree on what is reliable. What is reliable to me will not be reliable to you. For example, the Writings of Baha'u'llah alone are enough evidence from me to know that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, but they would probably just be words on a page to you and other people.

The point is that we all perceive and evaluate the same evidence differently so what is evidence to me will probably not be evidence to you. That is why it is best if you ask a specific question, and I can probably provide the evidence related to that.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is why I usually add the qualifier "reliable". Reliable evidence will be the same regardless of who looks at it.

No, that is virtually impossible because not everyone agrees on what constitutes reliable evidence for a religion. Religion is not science where evidence can be tested by experimentation. Objective evidence exists but the way it is interpreted is highly subjective since all humans are very different in their knowledge bases and personalities.

A fair question to ask is if someone that had a different religion gave the religious person the evidence for their God would they switch. The answer is always no telling us that this was not reliable evidence.

No, it does not tell us that at all. It tells us that the religious person viewing the evidence of the other religion views it differently than the religious person who belongs to that religion. The person with religion a is so convinced that their religion is the true one that they cannot evaluate the evidence of religion b without a bias. They will almost always reject religion b because it conflicts with their religion, religion a.

This is somewhat analogous to politics. Let's say that we have unequivocal evidence that Trump lied and committed crimes. You would think that would make everyone turn away from Trump but that is not what actually happens. Because of human nature, some people are not going to ever see what Trump did wrong, and instead they will twist the evidence to make it look like Trump really did nothing wrong.

Likewise, even though there is unequivocal evidence that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled all the prophecies in the OT and NT for the Messiah and the return of Christ, Christians do not want to believe that so they will try to twist the meanings of verses and say they do not mean what they clearly say.

Regardless of the fact that all the prophecies for the return of Christ have been fulfilled, Christians will continue waiting forever for Jesus to drop down out of the sky because that is what they want. If people really cared about the truth from God, they would look at the evidence, but most people just want what they want.

Christians say that Jesus promised to return but when I ask for the verses that say that they cannot produce them because they do not exist. Jesus never promised to return, that was a concocted fantasy of the Church. Jesus said that His work was finished here and He was no more in the world (John 17:4, John 17:11). How much clearer can Jesus be? Yet they will deny the evidence that is as plain as the noonday sun in Arizona.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. I do not dispute that the nature of the evidence for physics and the way it is tested for differs from the nature of the evidence for a religion and how it is demonstrated. All I was trying to say is that a scientist cannot post all the evidence that proves all the laws of physics on a forum, anymore than I can post all the evidence that indicates that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God on a forum, because there is too much evidence in each of these cases.

The problem with that is that everyone does not agree on what is reliable. What is reliable to me will not be reliable to you. For example, the Writings of Baha'u'llah alone are enough evidence from me to know that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, but they would probably just be words on a page to you and other people.

The point is that we all perceive and evaluate the same evidence differently so what is evidence to me will probably not be evidence to you. That is why it is best if you ask a specific question, and I can probably provide the evidence related to that.

And you still do not know what reliable is. If only you see something as evidence then it is not by definition reliable.

And it clearly does not fit the title of the thread. Let's look at the thread tile, it asks what verifiable evidence is there that a god exists. It looks like your answer is that you do not have any.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

3. Is far more logical than 5, 6, or 7, which make no sense and have no evidence to back them up..

Really? Do you have **any** evidence for **any**?

No? there you go-- the simplest, #3, is the most logical.

1. has evidence to back it up..

100% false.

2. requires no evidence, just faith.

True. And it is the least logical, after #1.

3. does not require any evidence since it is the default.

Most logical of them all, because it doesn't require complex, and/or magical Super Beings.

1. is the most difficult because we have to look at the evidence.

WHAT "evidence"? YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY... you claim you do, but you never show any, so it's safe to assume you don't have any actual evidence.

2. is easier than 1 because it only requires faith.

Which is why it's the 2nd least logical. #1 is the least logical... .

3. is easiest because it does not require any evidence

And? #4, 5 and 6 are MORE logical than #1 or #2, because they don't involve Magic.

 

[syo]

the Biblical god is a human creation,

The Biblical god raises the dead. So he is fake.

 

[Trailblazer]

Really? Do you have **any** evidence for **any**?

I do but you wouldn’t like it.

No? there you go-- the simplest, #3, is the most logical.

Simple is not always the most logical. It is just easier.

100% false.

100% true.

Most logical of them all, because it doesn't require complex, and/or magical Super Beings.

That does not make it more logical, it just makes it easier.

WHAT "evidence"? YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY... you claim you do, but you never show any, so it's safe to assume you don't have any actual evidence.

I am not going to drive cross country to SHOW you my new red car but that does not mean I do not HAVE a new red car.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you still do not know what reliable is. If only you see something as evidence then it is not by definition reliable.

Reliable: consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted. https://www.google.com/search

If it means that everyone is going to believe it, in that sense it is not reliable. But that does not mean it is not good evidence. What people believe does not determine what is true. That is the fallacy of ad populum.

And it clearly does not fit the title of the thread. Let's look at the thread tile, it asks what verifiable evidence is there that a god exists. It looks like your answer is that you do not have any.

Verifiable evidence is proof.
I never claimed to have proof that God exists. Nobody does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reliable: consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted. https://www.google.com/search

If it means that everyone is going to believe it, in that sense it is not reliable. But that does not mean it is not good evidence. What people believe does not determine what is true. That is the fallacy of ad populum.

Verifiable evidence is proof.
I never claimed to have proof that God exists. Nobody does.

Nope, verifiable evidence is just evidence. And not even everyone will believe it. Look at the massive amount of evidence for the theory of evolution. It is almost all verifiable and yet many people do not accept the theory of evolution.

You keep claiming to have reliable evidence and you can't seem to find any.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope, verifiable evidence is just evidence. And not even everyone will believe it. Look at the massive amount of evidence for the theory of evolution. It is almost all verifiable and yet many people do not accept the theory of evolution.

Evidence that verified that God exists would prove God exists.
Evidence that verified that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God would prove He was a Messenger of God.

But that does not mean that everyone would believe either one. Beliefs are funny things. Once someone has one it does not matter how much verifiable evidence you have to refute them, they will cling to their beliefs. As such, if the theory of evolution contradicts what a Christian believes they will usually pick their religious belief over evolution. Even if we found the body of Jesus and verified it was indeed Jesus through archaeology I am willing to bet that most Christians would still believe in the resurrection.

You keep claiming to have reliable evidence and you can't seem to find any.

I found it a long time ago. Otherwise I would not be a Baha'i.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence that verified that God exists would prove God exists.
Evidence that verified that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God would prove He was a Messenger of God.

But that does not mean that everyone would believe either one. Beliefs are funny things. Once someone has one it does not matter how much verifiable evidence you have to refute them, they will cling to their beliefs. As such, if the theory of evolution contradicts what a Christian believes they will usually pick their religious belief over evolution. Even if we found the body of Jesus and verified it was indeed Jesus through archaeology I am willing to bet that most Christians would still believe in the resurrection.

I found it a long time ago. Otherwise I would not be a Baha'i.

You are changing the terminology. Verifiable evidence would not verify that God exists. It would be merely evidence that everyone could agree that supports an idea.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I do but you wouldn’t like it.

Because you don't have any actual evidence. Me liking it or not, has zip-all to do with it.

Evidence is true, whether you believe or not. Your "evidence" absolutely requires belief-- or else it isn't "evidence".

That's not how it works...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Simple is not always the most logical. It is just easier.

Occam's Razor. So, yeah-- simpler IS more logical.

For one? You don't need Magic Super-Beings (gods)

 

[Trailblazer]

You are changing the terminology. Verifiable evidence would not verify that God exists. It would be merely evidence that everyone could agree that supports an idea.

Verifiable: able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified. https://www.google.com/search
According to the definition of verifiable, verifiable evidence would prove God was true (exists).

But there is no reason to think that everyone would agree on the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you don't have any actual evidence. Me liking it or not, has zip-all to do with it.

Evidence is true, whether you believe or not. Your "evidence" absolutely requires belief-- or else it isn't "evidence".

That's not how it works...

Verifiable: able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified. https://www.google.com/search

Verifiable evidence is true whether you believe it or not, but I never said I had verifiable evidence that God spoke to Baha'u'llah. Even if God spoke you you directly, you would have no verifiable evidence that it was actually God... It might just be your imagination or a delusion.

The upshot of this is that since God can never be verified to exist, nobody can ever have verifiable evidence of God's existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Verifiable: able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified. https://www.google.com/search
According to the definition of verifiable, verifiable evidence would prove God was true (exists).

But there is no reason to think that everyone would agree on the evidence.

Right, the evidence is accurate and true. You do not seem to understand that one piece of evidence alone is usually not proof. One can have verifiable evidence for a concept and the concept would still not be proven. One example is abiogensis. We have all sorts of verifiable evidence for abiogenesis, but we do not have enough evidence yet to paint a clear picture. Don't conflate evidence with proof. Enough evidence is considered proof, that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But one usually needs more than one piece.

For evidence to be reliable it has to be verifiable. The two go hand in hand. One piece of evidence is not "proof" but it can help one's argument. Do you have any verifiable evidence for your beliefs? If not you really cannot say that they are rational.

 

[Trailblazer]

Occam's Razor. So, yeah-- simpler IS more logical.

For one? You don't need Magic Super-Beings (gods)

Simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones, but that does not mean that they are more logical and that does not mean they are correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

Right, the evidence is accurate and true. You do not seem to understand that one piece of evidence alone is usually not proof. One can have verifiable evidence for a concept and the concept would still not be proven. One example is abiogensis. We have all sorts of verifiable evidence for abiogenesis, but we do not have enough evidence yet to paint a clear picture. Don't conflate evidence with proof. Enough evidence is considered proof, that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But one usually needs more than one piece.

You make some good points. Evidence is not the same as proof. I have been saying that since I came to this forum and I posted the definitions.

But verifiable evidence is different from regular evidence, because it meets a different standard. If we had verifiable evidence that God exists, we could verify that God exists.

You cannot compare science with religion since the evidence is of a different kind. No matter how much evidence we have for God's existence or for a Messenger being from God, we can never verify either one of those the same way we can verify scientific facts. That is why we can never prove God exists or prove that Baha'u'llah got messages from God, no matter how much evidence we have.

We can prove it to ourselves but we cannot prove it to everyone else.

For evidence to be reliable it has to be verifiable. The two go hand in hand. One piece of evidence is not "proof" but it can help one's argument. Do you have any verifiable evidence for your beliefs? If not you really cannot say that they are rational.

It is irrational to expect to have verifiable evidence for something that can never be verified. God's existence can never be verified so it is irrational to expect to have verifiable evidence for God.

It is also irrational to expect to be able to verify that Baha'u'llah got messages from God. Since we cannot verify that God exists, how can we verify that Baha'u'llah got messages from God? Even if we could verify God's existence, how could we verify that God spoke to Him, if we were not the one getting the message? So we have no choice but to trust Him, that He is telling the truth, or reject Him and conclude He was lying.

In order to determine if Baha'u'llah was telling the truth all we can do is look at all the evidence that indicates that Hhe was telling the truth. There is plenty of that and some of that evidence is verifiable (testimonies to His character and accounts of His life, accounts of the history of His mission, the authenticity of His Writings, fulfillment of prophecies in the Bible and other religious scriptures, predictions He made that came to pass).

 

[Subduction Zone]

You make some good points. Evidence is not the same as proof. I have been saying that since I came to this forum and I posted the definitions.

But verifiable evidence is different from regular evidence, because it meets a different standard. If we had verifiable evidence that God exists, we could verify that God exists.

And you were doing so good. We could only verify that God exists if the amount of evidence was enough to convince a reasonable person. So far no verifiable evidence has been given. One piece of verifiable evidence would not be "proof" in almost any court case. One always needs more than that.

You cannot compare science with religion since the evidence is of a different kind. No matter how much evidence we have for God's existence or for a Messenger being from God, we can never verify either one of those the same way we can verify scientific facts. That is why we can never prove God exists or prove that Baha'u'llah got messages from God, no matter how much evidence we have.

We can prove it to ourselves but we cannot prove it to everyone else.

It is irrational to expect to have verifiable evidence for something that can never be verified. God's existence can never be verified so it is irrational to expect to have verifiable evidence for God.

It is also irrational to expect to be able to verify that Baha'u'llah got messages from God. Since we cannot verify that God exists, how can we verify that Baha'u'llah got messages from God? Even if we could verify God's existence, how could we verify that God spoke to Him, if we were not the one getting the message? So we have no choice but to trust Him, that He is telling the truth, or reject Him and conclude He was lying.

In order to determine if Baha'u'llah was telling the truth all we can do is look at all the evidence that indicates that Hhe was telling the truth. There is plenty of that and some of that evidence is verifiable (testimonies to His character and accounts of His life, accounts of the history of His mission, the authenticity of His Writings, fulfillment of prophecies in the Bible and other religious scriptures, predictions He made that came to pass).

Yes, the evidence for religion is not reliable, or verifiable. That is the point of this thread.

And if God existed there is no reason that his existence could not be verified. You once again are claiming in essence that God plays hide and seek.