What would be evidence that God exists?

[Trailblazer]

Because he's a judgemental prick that rewards gullibility and punishes rationality and reason?

No, because God wants us to search for Him and those who make an effort will be guided by God.

“Whoso maketh efforts for Us,” he shall enjoy the blessings conferred by the words: “In Our Ways shall We assuredly guide him.”” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 266-267

 

[ppp]

I'm with you on everything but the last sentence. The explanation for the event is an attempt to be objective, but it is still a subjective undertaking

I don't buy that. If our undertakings were purely subjective, then we would be unable to communicate. And probably unable to interact at all. Therefore, there is an objective world which we share, and are able to objectively (if not fully) measure, define.

Yes, your experience is uniquely yours. I can't taste the food you are currently eating. But if I eat what you are eating and we describe the experience identically, then it's not "only in your head". It exists outside your head too.

No. That is definitely not true. All that my use of delicious means is that I really, really like what I am eating. The English language does not possess sufficient resolution to convey experience. Hell, depending on what it is I am eating, delicious can mean entirely different things.

You are trying to equate the symbol with the thing. They are not. You are also exaggerating similar into identical.

I would be very interested to see you actually demonstrate that my like of an orange is actually identical to your like of an orange. This is like trying to demonstrate that you experience blue the same way as I do when we look at the same sky. I sincerely doubt that you do.

Yes. Once you compare your experiences with others about something, it becomes something more than only in your head. So, let's talk about the experience of Ultimate Reality then.

Before you can do that, you have to actually define it. What is ultimate reality, and how does it differ from reality?

 

[Trailblazer]

Nore is it his responsability to do so.
Your claims - your burden of proof.

I made no claims, I just stated a premise.

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.

Failing to demonstrate your premises means we can ignore them as well as your conclusion.

It is not my job to demonstrate anything to anyone because I made no claim.
And I already explained how that premise can never be demonstrated:

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.

He's not claiming them to be false.
YOU are claiming they are correct. Your claim, your burden.

Nope, I made no claims. I just stated a premise which is based upon my religious beliefs.
I am always careful never to claim what I cannot prove.

And until you can actually demonstrate they are true or likely true, they can be safely ignored.
Because what is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

You can ignore anything you want to ignore, as I am not trying to convince you of anything...
People who really want to know the truth seek the truth, the others will just fall by the wayside because they never bother to look on the next room since they assume there is nothing to look for.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

 

[Trailblazer]

No. The million dollar question how they can be shown to be true.

I already explained that they cannot be shown to be true, but that does not mean they are not true.

Things are "not true" when you fail to show them true. You have a burden of proof. Failing to meet your burden of proof, renders your claim "not true".

Lol, 100 times lol.
What I can prove to you or to anyone has nothing to do with what is actually true. Proof is just what atheists WANT, but proof does not MAKE anything true. Truth simply exists, independent of the ability to prove it, and we either discover truth of fail to discover it. This is basic logic.

For example, if a man killed his wife, he killed his wife, even if that can never be proven in court....
Likewise, if God exists, God exists, even if that can never be proven.
Likewise, if Messengers of God exist, Messengers of God exist, even if they can never be proven to be Messengers.

Again: what is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

Again, I do not care what you choose to dismiss.

 

[Trailblazer]

It matters, if you care about actually being justified in making those claims.

I made no claims, I just stated my beliefs.

 

[ppp]

Yes, I do understand that, but that does not change the fact that religion is growing in most of the world.
The non-religious are only growing in certain countries of Europe and in North America.

As Pew and Gallup keep pointing out, it is hard to tell about religious growth for three reasons:

1. In countries where there are significant social and/or criminal penalties to not being a believer in the dominant religion, self-reporting is unreliable.
2. In traditionally communist countries where religion has been suppressed for generations, it is difficult to distinguish growth of religious belief from growth of religious openness.
   a) There is also a rebound effect when a prohibited activity becomes allowed. A upswell for a generation or two, then an ebb. It is impossible to tell which is the case at this time.
3. Most of the growth of Islam and Christianity is coming from reproduction. Where children being born into the religion are counted as religious. This may or may not be the case. (See issue #1)

 

[Trailblazer]

No. It is logic that is flawed to the very core. Because you can use the exact same argument, word for word, and replace "god" with ANYTHING your imagination can produce (including things incompatible with god(s)), and the merrit remains the exact same.

No, you could not replace God with anything and make the argument work because only God can set the standards for evidence.

Here is the difference between atheists and believers:

One cares about actual evidence and the other is fine with gullibility.

Here is the difference between atheists and believers:

Believers accept the evidence God provides and atheists do not accept that evidence.
Atheists sit in their nest like a baby bird waiting for mama bird (God) to come and deliver the evidence to them.

That makes no sense.
Atheists don't believe gods are real. So the idea of atheists thinking they know more then a thing that they don't even believe to be real, is utterly nonsensical.

Whenever atheists say that God should communicate directly to everyone instead of using Messengers they are invoking a real God.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's as circular as it gets. Fallacies are not a pathway to truth.

Sometimes they are….. if the premises are true.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1].... The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

It would only make sense AFTER you had proven it to yourself.

OW, you first need to believe (on faith) so that you can then justify your beliefs with... those same beliefs.

No that is not what I said….. You should never believe on faith, you should believe on evidence.

First off, God is not verifiable since God is not in the world, so how could evidence fom God be independently verifiable?

Exactly. By definition of "god", evidence is impossible. Unfalsifiable, unverifiable claims tend to be like that.

Proof is impossible, but evidence is possible.

The only evidence we CAN verify is evidence that indicates that a Messenger of God us the real deal.

Which, as per your own admission, is impossible.

No, it is not impossible since we can verify it (prove it) to ourselves.

And you don't see the problem with that?
You literally just said that such beliefs are dogmatic and not necessarily reflecting truth, since they aren't based on real-world independently verifiable evidence.

However, that does NOT mean that there are NO religious beliefs that reflect the truth.

Yes, I agree: such beliefs are not indicative of truth. When invoking such type of belief, you can believe ANYTHING.

That is true, which is why you need to do a thorough investigation before you adopt a belief.

Which can't be done, since it's not independently verifiable.

It can be investigated independently. In the Baha’i Faith this is called independent investigation of truth, the first principle.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

 

[Windwalker]

I don't buy that. If our undertakings were purely subjective, then we would be unable to communicate. And probably unable to interact at all. Therefore, there is an objective world which we share, and are able to objectively (if not fully) measure, define.

What there is that allows communication is an agreed upon reality that a particular group collectively shares and participates within. The term for that is a "consensus reality", (or what some might term as a consensus trance). What that means is you adopt of particular system and ways of thinking and perceiving truth, that both informs and shapes your experience of reality.

It's not truly "objective" in the sense that it's just laying around waiting to be picked up and known for what it is, or the "truth" of it, completely untouched by the subjective. Not even in the best of our sciences. The understandings of what the truth of that thing is, is not separate from the collective subjective mind. What the "objective truth" of that thing is, is in fact subjectively held and interpreted. How one begins to look at, or raise questions about something, begins in subjective reality. Therefore, it's not ever truly "objective" in the sense that individual, or group perceptions, are removed from it.

No. That is definitely not true. All that my use of delicious means is that I really, really like what I am eating.

Let's assume you and I both had the palates, and the robust descriptive vocabularies of true connoisseurs. Both of us should be picking up on exactly what the other is describing, and agree with each other. "Yes, it has a nutty flavor with a hint asparagus in the background that hits your palate a moment later". Now you have agreement, a competent vocabulary, and you can conclude with a fairly solid degree of confidence, that your experience is the same as others experience.

That's what makes it more than "just inside your head". It actually exists objectively within what is being tasted and described, or at least in how a typical human's tongue experiences it.

The English language does not possess sufficient resolution to convey experience. Hell, depending on what it is I am eating, delicious can mean entirely different things.

Ahh, yes it does. To an extent. Why do you think there are things like poetry, dance, art, song, etc., designed specifically to communicate experience? The use of metaphors are heavily used to describe experience. That's in fact what all these "definitions" of God get confused with. They mistake metaphors as descriptors of facts, like saying "God" and imagining a deified human being in the sky somewhere mysterious.

You are trying to equate the symbol with the thing. They are not. You are also exaggerating similar into identical.

I would never mistake a symbol with the thing itself. That's why I'm not a fundamentalist, or a literalist in any other garb. Fusing the meaning of the symbol with the symbol itself, is a feature of black and white thinkers. They simply don't get poetry.

As far as "exaggerating similar into identical", I don't mean that in terms of 100% anything. Not taking language literally, as if I imagine there is no variations in experience, is not warranted. I mean it in the sense of anything else we use in language to describe a high-degree of similarity. They are "practically" identical, which means, yes, it's close enough to call it the same. No need to take that as a technical fact with a +/- 0.000% tolerance threshold.

I would be very interested to see you actually demonstrate that my like of an orange is actually identical to your like of an orange.

Certainly close enough to say it's the same experience, give or take slight variations, such as the time of day, the other factors such as body temperature difference, or any other such ridiculous comparisons. We're talking about practically the same experience. If you said it tasted like an avocado, then that is not similar at all. Then you might have an argument to be made. But aside from aberrations, the majority of humans in the middle of the bell curve, will all agree upon the taste of an orange.

This is like trying to demonstrate that you experience blue the same way as I do when we look at the same sky. I sincerely doubt that you do.

I don't think there is reason to believe you see or experience red, when I see blue, if your eyes are normal human eyes, and there is not some abbreration with them, you should be seeing pretty much the same thing as me. Is it 100% identical with a +/- 0.000% deviation tolerance? Good god, of course not. Why would I imagine that, or use language to suggest that?

Is that how you think things need to be in order to say it's a shared, objectively true experience of reality between us, that both of us are actually seeing and describing the same thing? Is this just being argumentative for argument's sake?

Before you can do that, you have to actually define it. What is ultimate reality, and how does it differ from reality?

You can't define something objectively that you are subjectively, without including the subjective, as I've pointed out. It will always include the subjective in any objective statements. To speak of it from this sack of skin's set of eyes and limited vocabulary, I like how the Zen Buddhists describe it. The "Is'ness" or "Suchness" of reality. I'll use my own, inexact, non-technical, metaphors to describe it as well. (I'll point you back to those qualifiers, in case I need to).

"What is ultimate reality, and how does it differ from reality?" It doesn't differ from reality, it IS reality. Ultimate Reality, is this reality, seen with the blinders off. Mystics, as well as myself at 18 before all this religious stuff got introduced, describe it as seeing what has been there the whole time, fully, but was unseen, or unrecognized. What you describe as "reality", which is how your average person sees the world, is, really not-reality at all. It's the real world, all coated over with the mentalizations we plaster all over it, ever day. "This is good," that is a tree", trees are for wood", and all these mental constructs we impose upon.

I describe "normal" consensus reality, as "Thought world". It's a world that Reality passes through on its way into how we think about and categorize things. Things we tell ourselves are real or true, of identifiable in some way or another. We impose a name upon it. We separate it from the world. We separate it from ourselves. We separate ourselves from the world and others. All of this is the programming of language and culture and beliefs and values.

Those are all very important things, but they are not "real reality". They are a blending of the subjective worlds of our minds, and the objective world that we are part of. It's sort of like riding on the surface of the water on an air pocket, not fathoming the Ocean. What Ultimate Reality is, is a metaphor to describe dropping all of those mental constructs and see what is simply there, unclouded by all that.

That is the mystical experience. Seeing what has been there the whole time, but obscured because of the mind's ways of defining and categorizing experience into linguistic boxes. The experience of that, release, is commonly described as Bliss. Love. Infinity. Presence. Absolute. Timeless. Boundless. Freedom. Liberty. Awakening. Enlightenment. Truth. Light. Life. Goodness. God. Etc.

Those are instantly recognized as categorically beyond typical emotional responses to the mystic. So if I had to define it, Ultimate Reality is the experience of being a true human being. It's the experience of complete freedom of fear. It is the experience of absolute liberation. It is beyond this normal "reality" we experience as people living out reality in "Thought world". It is Truth itself, without any propositional statements defining it as this or that. It is living Reality in everything, and we are That itself.

Ultimate Reality exists in us, but as they say, it's a case of mistaken identities. Waking up, is seeing that the Truth has always been ours by virtue of being human. It's just a matter of seeing past our ideas of reality, to seeing Reality itself. It has to include the subjective person in their entire being, and not just the thinking mind trying to see "objective reality", which is like trying see and find the eyes that you're already looking through.

 

[ppp]

What there is that allows communication is an agreed upon reality that a particular group collectively shares and participates within. The term for that is a "consensus reality", (or what some might term as a consensus trance). What that means is you adopt of particular system and ways of thinking and perceiving truth, that both informs and shapes your experience of reality.

Baloney. If you had injected me with cyanide 6 seconds after I was born, I would have died. No consensus agreement upon reality is even vaguely required. No awareness of reality is required.

Let's assume you and I both had the palates...

I already addressed this. The map is not the territory. The symbol is not the thing. I am going to skip all these until you present a way to confirm - not just assert - identical experience.

Certainly close enough to say it's the same experience, give or take slight variations, such as the time of day, the other factors such as body temperature difference, or any other such ridiculous comparisons. We're talking about practically the same experience. If you said it tasted like an avocado, then that is not similar at all. Then you might have an argument to be made. But aside from aberrations, the majority of humans in the middle of the bell curve, will all agree upon the taste of an orange.

Which is why I said that the experiences are only similar, not identical. Good enough for adequate communication of meaning. But they are not the same experience. You were all about the 'identical' in your original assertions about your Absolute. Are you backing off of that now? Because that is a different discussion.

I don't think there is reason to believe you see or experience red, when I see blue, if your eyes are normal human eyes, and there is not some abbreration with them, you should be seeing pretty much the same thing as me. Is it 100% identical with a +/- 0.000% deviation tolerance? Good god, of course not. Why would I imagine that, or use language to suggest that?

Holy cow! You don't have to go that far. Different hues, shades, or saturations of blue would be significant enough differences. Simple differences in the lenses in your eyes, or in occipital lobe would change perception. Organic differences in the amygdala would change emotional impact.

Or more vividly. Think about the wide range of ways in which people process sexual stimuli. There may be a bell curve on what is normative pleasure vs pain, but it is a damn shallow curve .

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is why I said that the experiences are only similar, not identical. Good enough for adequate communication of meaning. But they are not the same experience.

And that my friend is why nobody can ever fully understand the suffering of another person. They can only relate to it through the lens of their own experience, and if they never experienced that which is causing suffering in another person, well, I am sure you can do the math.

 

[ppp]

And that my friend is why nobody can ever fully understand the suffering of another person. They can only relate to it through the lens of their own experience, and if they never experienced that which is causing suffering in another person, well, I am sure you can do the math.

I am not all all sure how you are going to end that.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am not all all sure how you are going to end that.

End what?

 

[ppp]

End what?

I cannot do the math - whatever math it is that you were talking about.

 

[Trailblazer]

I cannot do the math - whatever math it is that you were talking about.

Sorry, sometimes I talk very tangentially.
What I meant is that if someone never experienced what is causing suffering in another person, they should not judge that person, because they cannot understand how that person feels.

 

[ppp]

Sorry, sometimes I talk very tangentially.

That is a horrible pun. I love it!

What I meant is that if someone never experienced what is causing suffering in another person, they should not judge that person, because they cannot understand how that person feels.

I mostly agree.

 

[CG Didymus]

I'm sorry, but I do not believe it is possible for all the religions to drop their conflicting claims, not even of any if them actually... They are just too attached to what they believe. They certainly are not going to admit that they are wrong because all the Abrahamic religions except the Baha'i Faith believe they are the only ones who are right...

As for religions just evaporating someday, I do not see that happening either because religion is on the rise, not on the decline. Since the year 2000, religion has made resurgence whereas atheism and agnosticism are on the decline.

The growth rates of the Abrahamic religions from 1910-2010 were as follows: Judaism .11%, Christianity 1.32%, Islam 1.97%, and Baha’i Faith 3.54%.

Atheism was growing at a rate of 6.54% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.05% from 2000-2010. Agnosticism was growing at a rate of 5.45% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.32% from 2000-2010. That demonstrates that both atheism and agnosticism are on the decline but also that there are many more agnostics than atheists.

Statistics from: Growth of religion - Wikipedia

In your community, what has been the growth rate in the last 20 years? Last 10 years? Last year? Then, same with the growth rate in the U.S.? Then, has there been years of rapid increase and then little or no growth or even a decrease?

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'is do not interpret everything in the Bible literally,

What stories in the Bible do you take literally true?

 

[CG Didymus]

I would say the the conception of God that the ancient people held is wrong,

I think it is because different people in different cultures made up their Gods to suit themselves.

That would make sense if there is no God... Otherwise, the Baha'i explanation, that different people in different cultures and different religions had different conceptions of the one true God, is more plausible.

Do you think that some religions do believe in false Gods? Like the Gods of the Greeks?

 

[Windwalker]

Baloney. If you had injected me with cyanide 6 seconds after I was born, I would have died. No consensus agreement upon reality is even vaguely required. No awareness of reality is required.

Collectively, every human shares that understanding of what a dead corpse is. That said however, I'm sure there are those that might not see you as dead, but simply in transition to another state. That really depends on the group's collective ways of interpreting life events. In fact, in the Bible, Paul refers to the dead as "asleep". So there. You've helped me make my point. You're not really dead, according to some group's consensus agreement. You're asleep in the Lord.

The point is, the meaning of experience, is completely conditioned upon how you have been programmed to interpret the world. That is what I was saying, and you seem to be in denial of this for some reason.

I already addressed this. The map is not the territory. The symbol is not the thing. I am going to skip all these until you present a way to confirm - not just assert - identical experience.

I'm not going to use the word "identical" since you are making a big literalist deal of that word choice. Is there a way to confirm that people have nearly identical, more than coincidentally similar experiences? Yes, there are researchers who have done just this, regarding the things I have been saying about mystical experiences. If you're interested, I can present you with their names.

And yes, I fully know the map is not the territory. But the map outlines what is in fact there, if it's a good map. You don't get to throw out the map, because it's not the actual terrain itself. It's a map of the actual terrain, and as such it is useful. We use maps for a reason. Not just because they're fun to look at on road trips.

Which is why I said that the experiences are only similar, not identical. Good enough for adequate communication of meaning. But they are not the same experience. You were all about the 'identical' in your original assertions about your Absolute. Are you backing off of that now? Because that is a different discussion.

Why are you harping on about my use of the word identical, when I, unfortunately, needed to clarify that I did not mean 100% identical. That's ridiculous to assume I am that ignorant, or black and white in my thinking. Of course there are shades of difference, but blue is not red, even if it's s different shade of blue. It's still considered blue as opposed to red. Are you not a human being, because you're not identical 100% to me? In a true sense, you are identical to me, when comparing you against a humpback whale.

Holy cow! You don't have to go that far. Different hues, shades, or saturations of blue would be significant enough differences. Simple differences in the lenses in your eyes, or in occipital lobe would change perception. Organic differences in the amygdala would change emotional impact.

Or more vividly. Think about the wide range of ways in which people process sexual stimuli. There may be a bell curve on what is normative pleasure vs pain, but it is a damn shallow curve .

Yes, you don't have to go that far. That's my point in the ridiculousness of this line of argumentation. If you taste an orange, and you report it tastes like an avocado, that's not the same. But if it is within a range of "sameness", then it is the same type of experience, not a different thing. Not the experience of something entirely other.

My point is, when you compare what people report in mystical experience, they are directly comparable to each other. That says something that it is more than just "in your head", which was your unsupported assertion. How do you account for strikingly similar reports, that transcend cultures and religions? There is something there. That is a rational conclusion to make. Isn't it? Maybe, it's a common human experience, yet rare when placed on a bell curve.