What would be evidence that God exists?

[Windwalker]

Sorry. Have to stop you there. You have what you believe was a spontaneous experience of the Divine.

I describe my experience using the term "Divine", because that is the closest in human language that comes close to the actual experience. For lack of any better word, I choose Divine. I can also use other words like Absolute, Infinite, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Transcendent, Spirit, Absolute Love, Life, Light, Ineffable, Timeless, Ever-Present, Eternal, Awareness, Consciousness, Mystery, etc. These are descriptions of my personal experience. I think "God" is a pretty good word to try to capture all of that, personally. That's why I hang on to it.

You have no more proof that you experienced the Divine than any of the Messengers have.

Proof to whom? You? Of course not. How is my experience something you can draw from, unless you experienced that yourself? But I can say that for me, it is not possible for me to doubt something like that. In fact, I've come to find, as I knew all along, it is the very texture and fabric of Life itself. But these are subjective qualities, that one either sees or does not see. All our religious metaphors about blindness and sight, illusion and awareness, are all centered around this. These are descriptions of actual experience.

Now, as far as "messengers" go. I've always struggled with the idea of that. I suppose that's because I began my journey fully aware of the reality of what I rightly term the Divine, or God. I didn't need "messengers" to tell me about the absolute Reality of God. I experienced that first hand. There was no doubt. All I was hoping for was some sort of knowledge from others to draw upon. And what I got from all the "prophets", was a muddled and confused mass of ideas about what these supposedly more in-tune folks with God had shared.

As I've tried to make the point before, it doesn't matter if Jesus Christ himself was telling you in person, face to face, what his thoughts were. How YOU heard them, would reflect you, not his Wisdom. That's the whole problem with "Messengers" at the outset. It doesn't matter how Enlightened they are. What you think they are saying, is coming from your unenlightened mind. The only really way to know Truth, as I've come to see, is by going directly to the Wellspring itself. Not by reason, not by questions, but by release. Truth reveals itself in every single moment, to those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear.

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.

I'm sorry, what? You are saying that the measure of Truth that is spoken by someone on their path to God, is whether or not they either created a religion, or had scriptures written? Oh dear. I don't know what to say here. Truth, with a capital T, speaks all the time to the world. These folks that had religions spring up around them, is a reflection of the cultural times, not a measure of whether they speak Divine Truth or not. That is just elevationism, for the sake of propping up one's faith. It's not only not necessary, but it distracts you.

A spiritual experience is of no value for anyone except the person who had it, it has no value for humanity as a whole.

Wait. What? "As a whole"? Why? Why isn't your little corner of the world, the whole world in itself? You think God measure by quantity, not quality? Think about that a little. What's of more value, one child, or many child? Perhaps each child as everything itself?

That's God to me.

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.

Spiritual experience is not only possible for them, it's every human being's birthright. There is no misleading when it comes to this. There are many paths to finding Truth. (See my signature line below).

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

You're right, of course. But it can inspire them to seek for themselves. That's kind of the point of it.

I believe that only Messengers of God ever hear from God, and not directly, but rather through the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit, is the air in which we all "live and move and have our being". It is what animates all life. Is it what is Life itself, active, full, everywhere, at all times, in all things, to all things, through all things. In each of us. That is what our true birthright is. We are not outside of God, in Reality.

That anyone could ever have first hand experience with God is.... Oh never mind, I do not want to get banned from this forum.

The word is history. It happens all the time. It's part of the human experience. It's not nearly as rare as you want it to be, for some reason. Does it make it seem so far away from you, that it keeps fear at bay?

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not believe anyone ever has a direct experience of God.

My brother said he felt an invisible hand press against him once when he was rock climbing. A Christian friend said that it felt like warm honey was being poured over him at a healing service. I've felt things too, but it could have been the mushrooms.

 

[ppp]

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.

I think you are splitting a non-existent hair there. If someone says that their claim is undeniably right, they are saying that it is undeniably real.

Now, if all that you meant was that you experience was real, but you are not claiming that there is actually an absolute in reality to experience, then I would agree with you. You had a real experience. I would not question that. What I question is your explanation for that experience.

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.

I have had my own experiences. (Thanks for assuming) But no, that won't do it. Because what I (or anyone) correctly believes to be true is indistinguishable from what one mistakenly believes to be true, no matter how strong or absolute that belief is. Absolute certain is folly. Which is my point.

My orgasms are objectively the absolute best ever, absolutely. Prove me wrong.

 

[McBell]

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 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.

But you accept THIRD hand messages from god?

The more you post in this thread, the more it appears that it is yourself you are trying to convince.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

None of that matters as much as whether He was a Manifestation of God, because if He was not a Manifestation of God there is no reason to believe that what He wrote is the truth It all boils down to this: (a) false prophet or (b) true prophet. I have been saying that for seven years on various forums.

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."

Why should I care what other people think if my beliefs, do they care what I think about their beliefs?
It is not divisive to say that because I am not commenting on their beliefs, I am only saying how I feel about my beliefs, but I can see how some people might take offense.

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."

Yeah, I could stand to be a little less blunt sometimes, but I do try to treat everyone respectfully..

 

[Trailblazer]

But you accept THIRD hand messages from god?

No. What do you think those are?

The more you post in this thread, the more it appears that it is yourself you are trying to convince.

No, not at all. I just answer posts.
If I was not convinced, how could I take all the backlash?

 

[ppp]

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.

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.

I can see why you might have assumed so from the overall context, but I am not limiting this to religious people. This a human failing across the board across a range of topics. It is part of our nature. Fortunately, we have devised tools to help us catch ourselves in sloppy thinking. Unfortunately, we tend not to use them. Or pretend to use them correctly. Religion is just one such area.

 

[ppp]

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

Sure. But when I say I do express a belief, I can personally present the evidence and reasoning behind my claim. The religious cannot.

 

[McBell]

No. What do you think those are?

You started out accepting second hand messages from god.
But then it was pointed out that if god can talk to one person (his messenger) then he could talk to all people.
So then all of a sudden you added in another player of telephone, The Holy Spirit, to be an intermediary between god and gods messenger.
So now you are up to third hand messages from god.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure. But when I say I do express a belief, I can personally present the evidence and reasoning behind my claim. The religious cannot.

I can also present the evidence and reasoning behind my claim.
I cannot help it if people do not like my evidence or agree with my reasoning.

 

[McBell]

You started out accepting second hand messages from god.
But then it was pointed out that if god can talk to one person (his messenger) then he could talk to all people.
So then all of a sudden you added in another player of telephone, The Holy Spirit, to be an intermediary between god and gods messenger.
So now you are up to third hand messages from god.

I have not even gotten into that unless you hear said message directly from the messenger, you are up to at the very least fourth hand....

Are you reading a translation of the messengers words?
Now we are up to fifth hand...

 

[ppp]

I can also present the evidence and reasoning behind my claim.
I cannot help it if people do not like my evidence or agree with my reasoning.

Your evidence is... a guy said it.
Your reasoning engages in logical fallacies such as circular reasoning, special pleading, and attempting to argue against points that your interlocutor did not raise in the first place.

Fortunately, we have devised tools to help us catch ourselves in sloppy thinking. Unfortunately, we tend not to use them. Or pretend to use them correctly.

 

[columbus]

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.

I see Baha'u'llah as one of those ancient people. Not as ancient as most "Messengers", but he is one of them. His conception of God is still too primitive to allow mass communication. B's God is still too limited to give everyone An Important Message From God.

Clearly. In whatever form we limited humans can understand.

Zuckerberg and Murdoch and such manage to send messages like that. But you're telling me that the Creator, the very Ground of Being, is incapable of things humans do every day.

I don't believe that God is that limited.

Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

You started out accepting second hand messages from god.
But then it was pointed out that if god can talk to one person (his messenger) then he could talk to all people.
So then all of a sudden you added in another player of telephone, The Holy Spirit, to be an intermediary between god and gods messenger.
So now you are up to third hand messages from god.

There are no first hand messages from God so I accept what is offered.

God could talk to all people but they would not understand a thing God said, so what would be the point?

Some atheists seem to think they are worthy of hearing God speak to them directly, but what makes them worthy of that?
What seems so odd to me is that these atheists do not even think in terms of worthiness, it is as if God owes them something.

I might want a PhD but I do not expect to get one unless I earn it, in which case I am worthy of having it.
Some atheists think God owes it to them to prove He exists to them, as if they can tell an omnipotent God what to do.
It is utterly amazing, they have everything backwards.

If this does not apply to you you can disregard it.

 

[columbus]

No, as I told Windwalker, I do not believe anyone ever has a direct experience of God.

Why are your beliefs more true or trustworthy than his?

I don't mean to me. I don't believe either of you. I mean why is your experience with B* so much more compelling to you? Maybe @Windwalker is the Messenger for the 21st century?
Tom

*sorry, spelling your prophet's name is difficult

 

[McBell]

If this does not apply to you you can disregard it.

It does not apply to the conversation.

Why are you avoiding my point?

 

[Trailblazer]

I have not even gotten into that unless you hear said message directly from the messenger, you are up to at the very least fourth hand....

Are you reading a translation of the messengers words?
Now we are up to fifth hand...

So what? It is better than no message at all.

 

[McBell]

So what? It is better than no message at all.

You disliked second hand, but you yourself are up to at the very least fourth hand.

At least try to be consistent.

It would also help you to stop shooting your own argument in the foot.

 

[columbus]

None of that matters as much as whether He was a Manifestation of God, because if He was not a Manifestation of God there is no reason to believe that what He wrote is the truth It all boils down to this: (a) false prophet or (b) true prophet.

This is simply not true!

He could be speaking truth in a symbolic way. Not an objectively true way, but an important way.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

It does not apply to the conversation.

Why are you avoiding my point?

What is your point?
After you tell me we can determine if what I said applies to the conversation.