• 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!

What would be evidence that God exists?

ppp

Well-Known Member
Some atheists seem to think they are worthy of hearing God speak to them directly, but what makes them worthy of that?
Mere existence. And weirdly enough that is not a quality particular to atheists. :eek:

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.
Hardly. Believers keep telling me that their particular god wants me to believe that he/she/they exists. If their god wants me to believe then that god ought to do the things that would induce me to believe. The fact that the only evidences are the irrational texts and ceremonies of religion can do nothing but push me in the other direction entirely.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
This is simply not true!

He could be speaking truth in a symbolic way. Not an objectively true way, but an important way.
Tom
That's right. He could have been speaking the truth even if he was not a true prophet.
What I should have said is that there would be no reason for me to believe that what he wrote is the objective truth from God unless he was a true prophet.
 

McBell

Unbound
I am not going to even dignify that with an answer because I have already addressed that inane comment umpteen million times.
Except that when all the fluff, window dressing, glitter, glam, etc. is removed from your claim, that is exactly what it all boils down to.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
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.

I don't believe that God is that limited.

Tom
God is not limited but not everyone deserves a message from God.
Those who deserve it can go and get it themselves.....
Baha’i Reference Library online

Also, nobody could understand direct communication from God.

What on earth makes people think they deserve a direct message from an Almighty God?
How arrogant can one be?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
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?
It is interesting that you ask me that because Left Coast asked me to post a thread on that and I told him I would do so next weekend. It will be called something like this:

What convinced me that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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
Not asking you to accept my word. I'm merely sharing personal experience, one which shaped my entire life. That's personal to me. Do with that whatever has meaning to you.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
That's right. He could have been speaking the truth even if he was not a true prophet.
What I should have said is that there would be no reason for me to believe that what he wrote is the objective truth from God unless he was a true prophet.
That depends on the person, his education and intelligence. The question is whether he was speaking any truth? What he wrote was completely rhetoric, just a repeat, except for his claim of being the manifested Allah.
To talk about God (Allah in case of Bahais), one first needs to establish the existence of Allah. Did anyone do that?
So, a person starts with a a-priory belief that there is an Allah, then goes on to claim that he is the manifestation (avatara, that is more than just being a messenger) of this unproved Allah.
Did he provide any proof that he had the authority from any Allah? No, not at all. That is the beauty of Abrahamic religions. The various claimants, whether a prophet, a son, a messenger, a manifestation or a mahdi, have no need to provide any proof.
It will be called something like this:
What convinced me that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God
If it is not in Abrahamic religions forum, you would surely find me posting in the thread. :D
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Mere existence. And weirdly enough that is not a quality particular to atheists. :eek:
Absolutely NOT. The mere fact that you exist does not make you worthy of hearing from God directly!
Hardly. Believers keep telling me that their particular god wants me to believe that he/she/they exists. If their god wants me to believe then that god ought to do the things that would induce me to believe. The fact that the only evidences are the irrational texts and ceremonies of religion can do nothing but push me in the other direction entirely.
God does not need anyone's belief. The only reason God wants anyone to believe is for their own benefit.

It does not affect God if we choose not to believe in Him. Baha’u’llah made it perfectly clear that God has no needs since God is self-sufficient, thus God cannot have a “need” to be believed in.

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 136

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess.” Gleanings, p. 148

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 166


God does not demand that we believe in Him, God wants us to believe in Him, but only for our own benefit, not for God’s benefit.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260


Given these excerpts from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, we can deduce that God does care. However, it is abundantly clear that God needs nothing for Himself because God is self-sufficient, above having needs as humans have. Clearly, God sends Messengers only for the benefit of humans. God cares about humans so God wants them to believe in Him and His Messenger, but God does not need anyone to believe in Him and His Messenger because God does not have needs. Only humans have needs. God has the power to dispense with all of His creatures in one split second but He doesn’t only because He loves them. Why would God create humans if He did not love them? And if He did not love them anymore, why would He not just wipe them out? But He doesn’t do that. Instead God keeps sending Messengers in every age, no doubt hoping that people will recognize them, but not requiring that they do.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.
No, they are not the same thing. To say something is "right" or "wrong" that is pointing to some form of objective agreement, upon some propositional truth. Nothing I have said is stating that. I have shared personal experience. I have not stated anything you need to "believe in".

The question is, what is proof. The answer is personal experience. If you've tasted an orange, no one can tell you you didn't. It's really that simple.

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.
My experience, matches that of others who share a similar experience. That qualifies it as something more than just my personal experience, or interpretation of something. It's like when someone describes the taste of an orange, using whatever metaphors are at their disposal. If someone else has tasted and orange, they'd say, yeah, they're describing an orange. So there is something to the quality of the experience that makes more than just one person's experience.

Again though, it is subjective. You cannot reason it, or argue it in order to have any sort of meaningful understanding of it. It really boils down to actually eating the orange, not making arguments for it. But the fact many can describe the orange, that means something is actually there to taste.

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.
But you see, you are assuming I have all sorts of beliefs propped up around my experience, as if somehow those were proofs for some sort of presumed theology. As I said, how I think about it, changes and grows. The symbols I use, the ways I speak to myself about it, evolve. They are not fixed in some theology, or some belief system. At the end, they are nothing more than just ways to describe something wholly beyond description.
 
Top