What would be evidence that God exists?

[Trailblazer]

That my beliefs cannot be justified in a vacuum or an echo chamber.

Do you mean that your beliefs depend upon what other people think?
Do you mean you have to justify your beliefs according to what other people think or believe?

The paucity of evidence for God means that you are unjustified in believing that any such being exists.

I do not see it that way. I believe that the preponderance of evidence for God means that I am justified in believing that God exists, even though there have been many times when I have wished that God did not exist, because in many ways, it would be easier to be an atheist.

It is hard to take that seriously when you keep claiming to know things about God's nature.

I never claimed that. I said that I believe God is unknowable.
The Essence of God, God's intrinsic nature, is completely unknowable. All we can ever know are some of the attributes of God and the will of God for every age, as they are revealed by the Messenger.

 

[ppp]

The actual experience itself. It is the experience of the Absolute, and there is no mistaking that.

Religious people also say that they had an experience with the absolute, even though you claim they just have a book. Go to any evangelical church and many non-evangelical ones and you will hear the same. Since you disagree with them..and they often disagree with one another, clearly at least one of you is mistaken about the thing that that you say no one can be mistaken about.

You cannot all be right, but you can all be wrong.

 

[ppp]

Do you mean that your beliefs depend upon what other people think?
Do you mean you have to justify your beliefs according to what other people think or believe?

I mean that evidence that only I can see (vacuum), or that only the people who already agree with my conclusion can see (echo chamber), is necessarily suspect. Even more so if I have to game the rules of logic and dismiss fallacies to get to my conclusion.

These are the things that people do to protect their beliefs from the harsh light of day. I understand why people feel impelled to protect their sense of comfort. I just find it unfortunate. And, of course, sometimes dangerous.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet it seems he speaks to loads of people. Or so they say

No hands? Omni everything...
And there are many who say god wrote some of the bible.

People are free to say or believe whatever they want to say or believe.

If thats what makes you happy. Yet you have just killed the statement in the first paragraph

Why? First you need a god, then you need to show he/she speaks to one person above others. Then you need to explain why god needs a messenger in the first place. Then we have the plethora of religious conmen who make all sorts of claims about sparking to god and hearing gods word. Those are just logical reasons off the top of my head. No doubt there are many more

I cannot prove that God speaks to Messengers, as I said in my OP. I also cannot prove that God does not speak to anyone else, but I already explained why I think God needs a Messenger. from a logical standpoint:
Simple, because God is Spirit, so God cannot speak to humans the way a man can speak to humans.
Also, God cannot write scriptures because God has no hands.

Why God needs a Messenger is not the same as why God uses a Messenger, and I could explain why God uses a Messenger. There are reasons why God uses a Messenger, as I just explained in this post: #198

It is true that we have the plethora of religious con-men who make all sorts of claims about speaking to God and hearing God's word, but that has no bearing on whether there can be true Messengers of God or not.

Logically speaking, the existence of a junkyard with a bunch of junky cars that no longer run does not prove that there is not a new car lot with new cars that run nicely.

Below is a post I wrote to an atheist forum owner about a year and a half ago. He had the same objections to messengers as you have. What he said is in italics.

<<<The only thing I know that the real God does is communicate to Messengers.>>>

You understand that that would be a line that self-declared conman messengers would launch. And you see that it is cause for circular logic?

Of course the self-declared conman messengers would say that, but that does not mean that a Real Messenger of God would not also say that. It is circular logic only if there is no evidence that indicates the Messenger is telling the truth.

It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because most messengers are self-declared conman messengers, therefore ALL messengers are self-declared conman messengers. What indicates whether they were self-declared conman messengers or a Real Messenger of God is the evidence they have to back up their claims.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern

1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

For example, if a person sees 10 people, all of them self-declared conman messengers, they may erroneously conclude that there are no Real Messengers of God.

If there is even one Messenger who represented the Real God, then it is possible there are other Messengers that represented the Real God, since an omnipotent God can send as many Messengers as He wants to, whenever He wants to.

Unless you can prove that there was never a Messenger that represented a Real God it is just your personal opinion that this is not possible.

********************************************
Regarding the existence of Messengers of God, I used to dig in my heels with atheists more so in the past, but lately I have come to realize that I am in a different position than atheists. Since I already believe in God and the Messengers of God, and particularly because I believe in Baha'u'llah, it is much easier for me to see the phony messengers as phonies, since I have someone to compare them to. I do not expect it would be easy, if it was even possible, for an atheist to recognize a Messenger such as Baha'u'llah, not unless that atheist was motivated to believe in God, in which case I would expect that they would be avidly searching for God. That atheist would have to be willing to do what ever it would take, which might entail a lot of work, more than most people are willing to do.

 

[ppp]

I do not see it that way. I believe that the preponderance of evidence for God

I don't see any such thing. All I see is a bunch of people pointing at some things said by another person and calling words evidence for god. Nothing more.

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'i is yet more evidence that I'm correct. Bahais teach that most Messengers aren't capable of delivering an accurate and objectively true message from God.

No, that is not what we believe. We believe that the messages from the true Messengers of God are accurate and true.

 

[Windwalker]

Religious people also say that they had an experience with the absolute, even though you claim they just have a book.

I'm open to them having an experience of God, of course. But if the descriptions of that are not what mystics the world over, through the ages describe, then that doesn't measure up to that. They very well may have spiritual experiences, but I am talking about a satori experience. That's pretty specific. The experience of the Absolute, is absolute. Undeniable.

Go to any evangelical church and many non-evangelical ones and you will hear the same.

No you won't. I was part of them for several years, as I tried to find truth and directions from them following my Awakening experience. While they have experiences they cite, and I can appreicate them, they were not comparable. It was a different order of experience, beyond typical spiritual moments in life, which is what they spoke of.

Of course others have had what I experienced. But it's relatively rare, compared to half the church claiming that. To state here, I'm not saying that as a boast, as it's nothing I did, or tried to have happen. What you hear in Evangelical circles, is not at what I'd call the Absolute. It's very much specific to their beliefs.

Since you disagree with them..and they often disagree with one another, clearly at least one of you is mistaken about the thing that that you say no one can be mistaken about.

You cannot all be right, but you can all be wrong.

Why do you make it a matter of right or wrong, black or white, true or false? Is life actually like that?

I'm talking descriptions of experience. I've heard their descriptions, and while they have value for them, that's not what I experienced, nor would call the same type of thing. What mystics experience, that compares.

What your average "I felt God talk to me" experience is, is not the same thing. If someone in that circle did have an experience like mine, and they described it to me and I can recognize it for what it is, as like knows like, then I'd immediately acknowledge that. Otherwise, it's a different discussion. What I am talking about, transcends religion. It transcends belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Congratulations, you have provided evidence for God.

No, I have not done that because only God can do that....
All I do is tell people what I believe the evidence is.

 

[ppp]

I'm open to them having an experience of God, of course. But if the descriptions of that are not what mystics the world over, through the ages describe, then that doesn't measure up to that. They very well may have spiritual experiences, but I am talking about a satori experience. That's pretty specific. The experience of the Absolute, is absolute. Undeniable.

All that you are saying is that what you say is undeniable is right, and what they say is undeniable is wrong. They say the same thing about you. Y'all can point finger all day. And no doubt will.

What practical demonstration can you make to someone who does not see any difference between the two of you to show that you are correct in your claim that there is an 'Absolute' at all?

 

[Windwalker]

All that you are saying is that what you say is undeniable is right, and what they say is undeniable is wrong. They say the same thing about you. Y'all can point finger all day. And no doubt will.

I would never use the language of "undeniably right". I would say however is it's undeniably real. Tha is all I have ever claimed, and will claim. What I experienced, was absolutely real. What we believe about something, that to us makes it right or wrong, is not a factor. I can change how I think about it, but I can't change the reality of the experience itself. It's like saying the brightness of the noonday sun, is a matter of being "right". No. It's a matter of it being actual or not.

What practical demonstration can you make to someone who does not see any difference between the two of you to show that you are correct in your claim that there is an 'Absolute' at all?

Easy. Go have your own experience, and then judge. I don't see "God" as a logical proposition one can make arguments for. I see it as the experience of Life itself. Either you experience that, or you don't. If you want to know what an orange tastes like, you have to eat one, not read about one or make arguments for oranges. It's subjective, not intellectual.

 

[CG Didymus]

No, I would say the the conception of God that the ancient people held is wrong, but the God as described by Baha'u'llah does exist. Thus if I were you I would look at what Baha'u'llah wrote about God and forget what the Bible says.... just a suggestion. I had no conception of God until I really read Gleanings six years ago. I knew God existed but that had no meaning to me because I had no idea what God was.

We all have suggestions we can give to each other. The problem is Baha'is do maintain the Bible as being true. Then comes the fine print. It is true in a sense. It is true in spirit. Symbolically it is true. Which comes down to Baha'is really saying "no, it is not true... in a literal, historical sense." So no God has no fingers or hands. No, he doesn't shout out things from the sky. No, dead people don't come back to life. No, no, no.

So, it seems to me, and I say this all the time, the only thing true in the Bible for Baha'is is what Baha'u'llah says is true. If he says the flood was symbolic then it is symbolic and never really happened. And I have always agreed and said that is very possibly true, but then why not call the Bible mythology? And call the stories about Jesus myth and legend? Can Baha'is do that? Baha'is beliefs about the Bible seem to me to be saying that, but Baha'is don't use those words.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry. Have to stop you there, which makes all the rest of your argument about messengers completely fall apart. I had a spontaneous experience of the Divine, all on my own, prior to any religious teachings.

Sorry. Have to stop you there. You have what you believe was a spontaneous experience of the Divine.
You have no more proof that you experienced the Divine than any of the Messengers have.

The hundred-dollar difference between what you claim happened to you and what the Messengers claim happened to them is that they either wrote scriptures themselves, as was the case for the Bab and Baha'u'llah, or they have scriptures that were attributed to them, as in the case of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, after which times a religion was established as a result.

A spiritual experience is of no value for anyone except the person who had it, it has no value for humanity as a whole. It is also of no value for other people such as atheists who might want to believe in God. Talking about spiritual experiences to atheists only misleads them into believing it might also be possible for them, and I consider that cruel.

BTW, I just answered your thread's question. What would be evidence that God exists? Direct, first hand experience. That.

Anyone can believe that had direct, first hand experience with God, but there is no reason for anyone else to believe they actually did.

I believe that only Messengers of God ever hear from God, and not directly, but rather through the Holy Spirit.
That anyone could ever have first hand experience with God is.... Oh never mind, I do not want to get banned from this forum.

People can decide for themselves whether to believe what I believe or not. I have no interest in convincing anyone of what I believe, as Baha'u'llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself and I firmly believe that.

 

[Trailblazer]

I mean that evidence that only I can see (vacuum), or that only the people who already agree with my conclusion can see (echo chamber), is necessarily suspect

I fully agree.

These are the things that people do to protect their beliefs from the harsh light of day. I understand why people feel impelled to protect their sense of comfort. I just find it unfortunate. And, of course, sometimes dangerous.

I would be careful not to make sweeping generalizations about religious people because that is illogical. I am anything but comfortable having a religious belief, but since I do not base my life upon what is comfortable, I have the belief.

 

[columbus]

It is the experience of the Absolute, and there is no mistaking that.

I must disagree.
Humans are remarkably capable of self-illusion, AKA delusion.

Nothing personal. I've known lots of people who firmly believe that they had inexplicable experiences. Some are here on RF.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't see any such thing.

Which only goes to show that we all see things differently.

 

[CG Didymus]

I would say the the conception of God that the ancient people held is wrong, but the God as described by Baha'u'llah does exist.

Yes, and why is it wrong? For me, I think it is because different people in different cultures made up their Gods to suit themselves. Their "Gods" gave them rituals to bring rain, to win battles against their enemies, for fertility and so on. Their "Gods" gave them rules to live by that fit their culture and society.

So the problem is Baha'is say the God of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism etc is the one and same real God. But all the Gods of the rest of the people in ancient times and even into fairly recently with tribal people are wrong? Or are they? Baha'is say they have fulfilled prophecies that some tribal people have. And then with the major religions the Gods as believed and described by the followers of those religions isn't exactly right all the time... like with the Christian trinity. So, for me, all of them seem like they could have been made up by people.

 

[columbus]

That anyone could ever have first hand experience with God is...

Don't you believe that the Bahai Messengers did exactly that?

I don't believe you or @Windwalker , except that I believe that you believe it. But at least his is first hand experience, not reading about it.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

All that you are saying is that what you say is undeniable is right, and what they say is undeniable is wrong. They say the same thing about you. Y'all can point finger all day. And no doubt will.

What practical demonstration can you make to someone who does not see any difference between the two of you to show that you are correct in your claim that there is an 'Absolute' at all?

You just beat me to the punch.
I like your logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't you believe that the Bahai Messengers did exactly that?

No, as I told Windwalker, I do not believe anyone ever has a direct experience of God.
I believe that the Bab and Baha'u'llah heard the Voice of God through the Holy Spirit, which acted as a intermediary between them and God.
I also believe that if anyone ever experienced God directly, they would cease to exist.
That is one reason I do not believe that Windwalker had any first hand experience.

I don't believe you or @Windwalker , except that I believe that you believe it. But at least his is first hand experience, not reading about it.

I do not expect you to believe what I believe, very few people do.
I do not see the difference between reading what someone wrote about their experience in scriptures and reading a post on a forum from someone who claimed to have the experience. Both are second hand.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have examined the evidence that supports the claims if Baha'u'llah.

He suffered rather than deny that God sent him. He wrote things that many people believe is what the world needs now, which is still love, but also the oneness of religion and the oneness of all people. In his writings he brought a bunch of rules that to some people sound good and make sense. Some people are satisfied that he fulfilled every prophecy from every religion etc.

I do not give a **** what Christians or Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus think about my beliefs because I know they are true.

I'm not sure that's how Abdul Baha' would put it. Baha'is are trying to bring the people together as one, and that kind of makes it sound like you could give a %#^&. Not giving a %#^& doesn't build bridges that lead to unity. Without that, they'll we probably not give a %#^& about your religion. And they'll say the same thing... "I know my religion and my God are the truth."

So... I have a suggestion for you. Don't be so blunt all the time. Say it with me, "Some Christians and Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus are nice people. And I, as a Baha'i, should be nice to them. Some may hate me. Call me names, but I will treat them with the love God has put in my heart for all people... no matter how stupid their superstitious beliefs are."