What would be evidence that God exists?

[Trailblazer]

My premise is that Messengers of God are the only real evidence that God exists because they are the evidence that God provides and wants us to look at in order to determine that He exists.

Allow me to preface this by saying that nobody can prove that a Messenger received communication from God, since nobody can prove that God exists. As I have been saying in this forum for years, all we have is evidence, and evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

All that said, I want to share part of a conversation I had with an atheist on another forum. I cut parts of it out and am only posting the salient points that support my argument.

His comments are in blue; my comments are in black.

<< Trailblazer >>

Atheist

Trailblazer

<< There is absolutely NO WAY to ever know anything about God without religion. >>
<< There is absolutely NO WAY to ever know anything about God without Messengers of God. >>

<< That is the way it is because God wanted it that way. >>

And what makes you think that "God wanted it that way"? Did he tell you that?

Yes, God did tell me through the Messenger. God does not speak to anyone else directly because (a) Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God, and (b) It is totally unnecessary for God to speak to everyone in the world and tell them the same things, because God can tell it all to a Messenger and everyone can get the same information from what He wrote. The fact that atheists cannot trust that the Messenger speaks for God is their own problem, and since they never even bother to check Him out, they will never know.

<< Yes, God did tell me through the Messenger. >>

How do you know that your "messenger" didn't make it all up?

What evidence did he provide in support of his claims?

I know because there would be no reason for Him to make all that up, no motive, given He got nothing for Himself, no personal gain.

But that is not the main reason I know. I know because of the evidence that supports His claims. The evidence is as follows:

Suppose I wanted to "check out" your "messenger". How would I go about it?

You could check the sources of information on the links above but that is for more in depth study.

Your "evidence" is worse than worthless.

My evidence is worthless to you, but it is not worthless to me. You just demonstrated just how illogical you are.

If we are going to vote for the President, how do we know if he is worthy of being President? How do we know if he will be able to do the job? We investigate the President the same way we would investigate an alleged Messenger of God. We look at his past life, his present life, what he says and how he says it, whether he has kept his promises in the past, and most importantly, we look at his character.

You are the epitome of illogical thinking because you are so biased against the IDEA of a Messenger of God that you cannot think logically at all.

**************************************

I was not implying to this atheist that we can prove that a man was a Messenger of God simply by looking at his past life, his present life, what he says and how he says it, whether he has kept his promises in the past, or by his character. As I said above, nobody can prove that a man was a Messenger of God as a fact, but I now qualify that statement by saying that we can prove it to ourselves, and then we know. How we know is not something other people can understand because they have not gone through the process of proving it to themselves.

There are no shortcuts. If we want to know is a man is a Messenger of God we have to do our own homework. It might require a little homework or a lot of homework; it depends upon our individual requirements. Or we can refuse the homework assignment and forget the whole idea of God. It does not matter to God because God does not need anyone’s belief, but it might matter to us, especially if there is an afterlife, as the Messengers teach.

When we vote for the President do we know unequivocally that he is worthy of being President? Do we know that he will do what he promised to do? No, we do not know that because nobody can predict the future, so we have to put our trust in him. No matter how many facts we have about him, we still have to believe he is the best man for the job, take a chance and vote for him, hoping that will be in our best interest.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, God did tell me through the Messenger. God does not speak to anyone else directly because (a) Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God, and (b) It is totally unnecessary for God to speak to everyone in the world and tell them the same things, because God can tell it all to a Messenger and everyone can get the same information from what He wrote. The fact that atheists cannot trust that the Messenger speaks for God is their own problem, and since they never even bother to check Him out, they will never know.

I find this paragraph does NOT hold up well to logical scrutiny.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

A flower, a sunrise, a newborn baby. These are the only evidence I need because none of these things could exist without God.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Obviously even if someone does reach some of your conclusions (which I do), their philosophical trains of thought / thought paths can also be different than yours to form that conclusion (mine are).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In all the religions (or their preference in words) on and offline, experience, clarity, and stability tends to be evidence. Now how to talk about this type of evidence in a good conversation is impossible. So, were just left with the same question trying to "use a fork to eat tomato soup."

 

[Mindmaster]

Allow me to preface this by saying that nobody can prove that a Messenger received communication from God, since nobody can prove that God exists. As I have been saying in this forum for years, all we have is evidence, and evidence is not the same as proof.

To some extent, to proof the existence of God requires an existence proof that refutes him being a God. Thus, conceptually God may never be provable by any normal means. But, that's OK.

Anyway, to some extent I don't feel it matters if one feels something then it's real for you and you work with it. Does it matter what others think of it? Probably not.

Lastly, I look at the stories in a very metaphorical sense in the way that it makes no sense that these people here or there are the only people that can communicate with God. No, the moral of the story is so can you. This was just one example, and not someone to put on the pedestal and worship. There is no shortcut other than to do the work yourself...

 

[osgart]

Evidence of God would be his feet in the sky somewhere.

The fathomability of perfect moral excellence.

The realization of that excellence in nature.

The inevitable victory of good over evil as a reason why we are here.

The Divine reason and explanation for our existence and the way we exist. Perhaps this is a war to end all wars. Are we all to be transformed from natural to immortal?

Proof of eternal and infinite existence.

Proof that a supreme existence is real.

The reason that God is silent and absent from earth.

The reason for the immoral acts of nature.

Why is life on a fine line between destruction and living?

Why is 99.9% of the universe totally unliveable?

The vast void of deep darkness because?

The many ways you can develope convictions about reality separate and apart from God. Reasons why?

Then I can begin to consider a God existing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My premise is that Messengers of God are the only real evidence that God exists because they are the evidence that God provides and wants us to look at in order to determine that He exists.

Allow me to preface this by saying that nobody can prove that a Messenger received communication from God, since nobody can prove that God exists. As I have been saying in this forum for years, all we have is evidence, and evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

All that said, I want to share part of a conversation I had with an atheist on another forum. I cut parts of it out and am only posting the salient points that support my argument.

His comments are in blue; my comments are in black.

<< Trailblazer >>

Atheist

Trailblazer

<< There is absolutely NO WAY to ever know anything about God without religion. >>
<< There is absolutely NO WAY to ever know anything about God without Messengers of God. >>

<< That is the way it is because God wanted it that way. >>

And what makes you think that "God wanted it that way"? Did he tell you that?

Yes, God did tell me through the Messenger. God does not speak to anyone else directly because (a) Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God, and (b) It is totally unnecessary for God to speak to everyone in the world and tell them the same things, because God can tell it all to a Messenger and everyone can get the same information from what He wrote. The fact that atheists cannot trust that the Messenger speaks for God is their own problem, and since they never even bother to check Him out, they will never know.

<< Yes, God did tell me through the Messenger. >>

How do you know that your "messenger" didn't make it all up?

What evidence did he provide in support of his claims?

I know because there would be no reason for Him to make all that up, no motive, given He got nothing for Himself, no personal gain.

But that is not the main reason I know. I know because of the evidence that supports His claims. The evidence is as follows:

Suppose I wanted to "check out" your "messenger". How would I go about it?

You could check the sources of information on the links above but that is for more in depth study.

Your "evidence" is worse than worthless.

My evidence is worthless to you, but it is not worthless to me. You just demonstrated just how illogical you are.

If we are going to vote for the President, how do we know if he is worthy of being President? How do we know if he will be able to do the job? We investigate the President the same way we would investigate an alleged Messenger of God. We look at his past life, his present life, what he says and how he says it, whether he has kept his promises in the past, and most importantly, we look at his character.

You are the epitome of illogical thinking because you are so biased against the IDEA of a Messenger of God that you cannot think logically at all.

**************************************

I was not implying to this atheist that we can prove that a man was a Messenger of God simply by looking at his past life, his present life, what he says and how he says it, whether he has kept his promises in the past, or by his character. As I said above, nobody can prove that a man was a Messenger of God as a fact, but I now qualify that statement by saying that we can prove it to ourselves, and then we know. How we know is not something other people can understand because they have not gone through the process of proving it to themselves.

There are no shortcuts. If we want to know is a man is a Messenger of God we have to do our own homework. It might require a little homework or a lot of homework; it depends upon our individual requirements. Or we can refuse the homework assignment and forget the whole idea of God. It does not matter to God because God does not need anyone’s belief, but it might matter to us, especially if there is an afterlife, as the Messengers teach.

When we vote for the President do we know unequivocally that he is worthy of being President? Do we know that he will do what he promised to do? No, we do not know that because nobody can predict the future, so we have to put our trust in him. No matter how many facts we have about him, we still have to believe he is the best man for the job, take a chance and vote for him, hoping that will be in our best interest.

Your premise makes no allowance for the fact that humans can lie and claim that they are "messengers," and at the same time ignores the fact that if all the presumed "messengers" that we have so far been presented with are real, then God is an incredibly malleable thing -- changing from continuously so that it becomes impossible to figure out what the heck he is. And that, it seems to me, is a particularly bad way to make yourself known.

In other words, for me, this whole "messenger" thesis makes absolutely zero sense. Or else speaks of not "God" but all sorts of contrary gods trying to gain supremacy.

 

[ppp]

How do you know that your "messenger" didn't make it all up?

I know because there would be no reason for Him to make all that up, no motive, given He got nothing for Himself, no personal gain.

We don't believe everything that someone says on the basis that they had no reason to make it up. Even if your messenger did not make it up, he could simply be wrong.

Your "evidence" is worse than worthless.

My evidence is worthless to you, but it is not worthless to me. You just demonstrated just how illogical you are.

If we are going to vote for the President, how do we know if he is worthy of being President? How do we know if he will be able to do the job? We investigate the President the same way we would investigate an alleged Messenger of God. We look at his past life, his present life, what he says and how he says it, whether he has kept his promises in the past, and most importantly, we look at his character.

You are the epitome of illogical thinking because you are so biased against the IDEA of a Messenger of God that you cannot think logically at all.

The question is not whether the Messenger of God is worthy of being an messenger . The first question is whether there is a god in the first place.

 

[Trailblazer]

I find this paragraph does NOT hold up well to logical scrutiny.

Why?

 

[Trailblazer]

Anyway, to some extent I don't feel it matters if one feels something then it's real for you and you work with it. Does it matter what others think of it? Probably not.

No, it only matters what is true.
What people believe or how many people believe it has nothing to do with whether something is true or not.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious. For example, there was a time in history when most people did not believe we could ever fly in the air, but most people were wrong, as we found out later.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

[sun rise]

The reason that God is silent and absent from earth.

Because God is not visible to you does not mean that God is absent from the earth. The question really is "If God exists, why am I not aware of His reality"?

As far as the rest of your points go, they are valid questions you need to find your own answers for if the questions start consuming you.

For me, those questions started off being unimportant and uninteresting. Then the became important and motivating. At the end of a period of "If God exists" followed by a search for an answer that was meaningful to me and a whiff of personal experience, I became a believer.

And for the OP, to me it's not about messengers, the Avatar, the Christ but about the heart. As the movie "They Might Be Giants" put it "The human heart can see what's hidden to the eyes, and the heart knows things that the mind does not begin to understand."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A flower, a sunrise, a newborn baby. These are the only evidence I need because none of these things could exist without God.

There's a missing link, though. Is it an intelligent assumption that there "must be" X cause of Y?

Was it a "must be" conclusion?

 

[ppp]

And for the OP, to me it's not about messengers, the Avatar, the Christ but about the heart. As the movie "They Might Be Giants" put it "The human heart can see what's hidden to the eyes, and the heart knows things that the mind does not begin to understand."

And yet knowledge is not transferred from heart donor to heart recipient. Nor liver. Nor cornea. Nor kidney.

 

[Nimos]

Hey Trailblazer

Good to see that you are still fighting the damn atheists

all we have is evidence, and evidence is not the same as proof.

That is correct, but you use evidences trying to establish a proof.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

Evidence is not really useful is you can't use them to establish a proof and therefore a truth with. Wouldn't you agree with that? If the evidence doesn't help you to figure out if A is more likely than B, then it's not really good evidence for either A or B.

Yes, God did tell me through the Messenger. God does not speak to anyone else directly because (a) Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God, and (b) It is totally unnecessary for God to speak to everyone in the world and tell them the same things, because God can tell it all to a Messenger and everyone can get the same information from what He wrote. The fact that atheists cannot trust that the Messenger speaks for God is their own problem, and since they never even bother to check Him out, they will never know.

Im sorry to tell you, but your argument is flawed, not in the sense that you might not be right. But you are not going to convince anyone, simply stating what you believe to be facts without providing evidence.

"God did tell me through the Messenger." This is a false statement, since there is no way for you to establish/know this. Because clearly God didn't tell you, he told a messenger that you trust is telling the truth and he then told you that this is what God said. You see why a statement like this is not convincing to anyone?

Its like me saying:
Me: "Some aliens told me, that in the future they will come and save the Earth."
You: "Really aliens? What did they look like?"
Me: "Well, actually it was a friend of mine that spoke with them, but he never lies. Anyway isn't it amazing?"

It is not really compelling, wouldn't you agree? I start by presenting something as a fact, which is clearly false, given that I got this information second hand, with no way of establishing, if my friend is just having fun or might have misunderstood an experience or whatever.

You are not going to convince any atheist writing something like that

And you follow that up with another statement that you can't verify.

God does not speak to anyone else directly because (a) Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God, and (b) It is totally unnecessary for God to speak to everyone in the world and tell them the same things, because God can tell it all to a Messenger and everyone can get the same information from what He wrote.

That is not going to fly with any atheists and I doubt it would with any religious person either. Because you don't present an argument, you state a fact as if it is absolute true. No one is going to buy that!!

Its like me saying: "God loves strawberry ice cream more than anything else. Because that is what Divine Bob told me."

Wouldn't you question the validity of that statement?

The fact that atheists cannot trust that the Messenger speaks for God is their own problem, and since they never even bother to check Him out, they will never know.

I have tried to explain this to you before about the burden of proof. You are not going to get any atheist and probably not a lot of religious people either to go read through Baha'u'llah's texts, trying to put together evidence of whether or not it is true or not.

If you make a claim like this for instance: "Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God"

You have to present a case for why people should accept that statement by finding compelling evidence of why that is the case. And not just call them out as being to "lazy" or not interested in checking it out. You can't expect people to read through 1000s of pages trying to make a case, that is not up to them to make in the first place. It is not helping you convince anyone.

Look at this survey:

Atheists are on the very top when it comes to religious knowledge, despite not believing in any of them, so it's not really fair to say that they don't bother?

My evidence is worthless to you, but it is not worthless to me. You just demonstrated just how illogical you are.

You have to work to present your case, you are talking to people that are very sceptical of God(s). As I told you, earlier.. when I first started reading the bible, I had no strong meaning about God, the bible or anything, I simply didn't care about it, to the point where I probably couldn't even tell you what an atheist were. But I decided to read the bible with an open mind, because I knew that a lot of people thought it was true. And it took me maybe 3-5 pages before, I was convince that it was nonsense, there were so many things that didn't make sense in these few pages, that I was in shock to be honest. But anyway decided to read on to at least give it a fair chance of changing my mind. So when you just throw an atheist some links, then I am not surprised that this is the response you get, because I would probably have reached the same conclusion, but have phrased it differently.

You want to convince anyone, you need to give them good evidence for your claim, someone simply stating "facts" without evidence or proof is not compelling.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hey Trailblazer

Good to see that you are still fighting the damn atheists


That is correct, but you use evidences trying to establish a proof.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

Evidence is not really useful is you can't use them to establish a proof and therefore a truth with. Wouldn't you agree with that? If the evidence doesn't help you to figure out if A is more likely than B, then it's not really good evidence for either A or B.


Im sorry to tell you, but your argument is flawed, not in the sense that you might not be right. But you are not going to convince anyone, simply stating what you believe to be facts without providing evidence.

"God did tell me through the Messenger." This is a false statement, since there is no way for you to establish/know this. Because clearly God didn't tell you, he told a messenger that you trust is telling the truth and he then told you that this is what God said. You see why a statement like this is not convincing to anyone?

Its like me saying:
Me: "Some aliens told me, that in the future they will come and save the Earth."
You: "Really aliens? What did they look like?"
Me: "Well, actually it was a friend of mine that spoke with them, but he never lies. Anyway isn't it amazing?"

It is not really compelling, wouldn't you agree? I start by presenting something as a fact, which is clearly false, given that I got this information second hand, with no way of establishing, if my friend is just having fun or might have misunderstood an experience or whatever.

You are not going to convince any atheist writing something like that

And you follow that up with another statement that you can't verify.

God does not speak to anyone else directly because (a) Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God, and (b) It is totally unnecessary for God to speak to everyone in the world and tell them the same things, because God can tell it all to a Messenger and everyone can get the same information from what He wrote.

That is not going to fly with any atheists and I doubt it would with any religious person either. Because you don't present an argument, you state a fact as if it is absolute true. No one is going to buy that!!

Its like me saying: "God loves strawberry ice cream more than anything else. Because that is what Divine Bob told me."

Wouldn't you question the validity of that statement?


I have tried to explain this to you before about the burden of proof. You are not going to get any atheist and probably not a lot of religious people either to go read through Baha'u'llah's texts, trying to put together evidence of whether or not it is true or not.

If you make a claim like this for instance: "Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God"

You have to present a case for why people should accept that statement by finding compelling evidence of why that is the case. And not just call them out as being to "lazy" or not interested in checking it out. You can't expect people to read through 1000s of pages trying to make a case, that is not up to them to make in the first place. It is not helping you convince anyone.

Look at this survey:

Atheists are on the very top when it comes to religious knowledge, despite not believing in any of them, so it's not really fair to say that they don't bother?


You have to work to present your case, you are talking to people that are very sceptical of God(s). As I told you, earlier.. when I first started reading the bible, I had no strong meaning about God, the bible or anything, I simply didn't care about it, to the point where I probably couldn't even tell you what an atheist were. But I decided to read the bible with an open mind, because I knew that a lot of people thought it was true. And it took me maybe 3-5 pages before, I was convince that it was nonsense, there were so many things that didn't make sense in these few pages, that I was in shock to be honest. But anyway decided to read on to at least give it a fair chance of changing my mind. So when you just throw an atheist some links, then I am not surprised that this is the response you get, because I would probably have reached the same conclusion, but have phrased it differently.

You want to convince anyone, you need to give them good evidence for your claim, someone simply stating "facts" without evidence or proof is not compelling.

You've phrased this so well. Nice.

 

[Nimos]

You've phrased this so well. Nice.

Cheers for that

 

[CG Didymus]

Your premise makes no allowance for the fact that humans can lie and claim that they are "messengers,"

God in the Bible spoke for himself. I'll betcha atheists don't believe it and think it is a lie. But, guess what... Baha'is probably don't believe it either. Especially because it blows their whole idea that God only speaks through his special messengers. So who is the liar here... The Baha'is or the Christians that wrote these things and claimed that God spoke from heaven? Since God speaking would also be proof of his existence, then Baha'is would have to say that these Christian writers were lying.
Mark 1:11 and a voice came out of the heavens: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”
Luke 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”
John 12:28 Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.”
2 Peter 1:18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A flower, a sunrise, a newborn baby. These are the only evidence I need because none of these things could exist without God.

... you assume.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your premise makes no allowance for the fact that humans can lie and claim that they are "messengers," and at the same time ignores the fact that if all the presumed "messengers" that we have so far been presented with are real, then God is an incredibly malleable thing -- changing from continuously so that it becomes impossible to figure out what the heck he is. And that, it seems to me, is a particularly bad way to make yourself known.

In other words, for me, this whole "messenger" thesis makes absolutely zero sense. Or else speaks of not "God" but all sorts of contrary gods trying to gain supremacy.

Of course humans can lie and pretend to be a Messenger of God or they can be deluded and believe they are a Messenger of God when they are not, but the fact that there are false messengers of God does not preclude the existence of true Messengers of God, not anymore than the existence of of junky cars in a junkyard precludes the existence of brand new cars in the brand new car lot down the street.

The messages from the Messengers change continuously because humans and the world they live in changes over time, and humans require a new message suited to the needs of the times. Why would God send a new Messenger just to repeat the same message that was delivered in the past?