What would be evidence that God exists?

[CG Didymus]

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?

Well, Baha'is say they do bring the same spiritual message and only change the social teachings. But... I believe it is Tony I asked this, but I'll restate it and add some more questions just for you... How many wives did God say a Christian should have? How many did Muhammad say? There were more than 600 Laws in Judaism, how many did Jesus bring? Should the teachings of each new messenger be accepted and followed by all people? If not, then was it only a specific message to a specific people at a specific time and place? Which would mean that it wouldn't apply to other people in another place that already had a message that was suited for their culture.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

If he was not a true Messenger of God, he was either lying for some kind of personal gain or he heard voices that were not from God, in which case he would have been delusional.

No, we certainly should not believe something just because there would have been no reason for a man to make it up. Did you miss what I said after that?

I said "But that is not the main reason I know. I know because of the evidence that supports His claims. The evidence is as follows:" I had listed the evidence in the other forum and that is when that atheist came back and said: "Your "evidence" is worse than worthless."

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.

I think the first question is whether the Messenger actually got a message from God. Once we determine that we know that God exists. Since the Messenger is the evidence that God exists it cannot be determined whether God exists without the Messenger, the proverbial Catch-22.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

You are not asking for much, are you osgart?

I know you have high standards, but would you settle for some of those rather than all of those?

Can you imagine that God would want to keep some of those things a mystery?

Some of those I could answer but some are a mystery, and there is an explanation as to why they are a mystery.
Baha'u'llah knew much more than He revealed and He explained why He did not reveal all that He knew. In short. humans do not have the capacity to understand wall that he know at this time in history.:

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 176

Scientific and religious Truth are both relative to the times in which they are discovered/revealed by God. In science, as new discoveries are made they will often replace what was previously considered factual. In religion, Truth from God is additive, and is revealed in stages as humanity is able to understand more and as humanity needs more. That is why Jesus said “John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” God is All-Knowing meaning God knows everything, so if All of God’s Truth was revealed all at once, we would not be able to understand it and we would be dumbfounded. Truth needs to be suited to the capacity of the recipients living at the time.

 

[rational experiences]

The first God as quoted by a science male human theist to build his machine designed right from his point of thought, the fused God mass, Earth a planet....says God is the stone, the one body and the body he abstracts from. For science.

He lives inside of a gas mass heavenly body that was owned historically by the planet release into space, and then space owned evolution of the body of gases, its spirits.

Spirits of the heavens are gases in space. Humans are not in any reference, the spirit form of the gases in space. We use natural light, which is burning gases cooled, in space upon the face of water. Water is natural history mass owned first as natural history.

So we are not involved in science thesis, we own expressing a science thesis in thinking. Thinking is separate, actually destructive as compared to natural/innate human self awareness living for survival only, of its own race and what naturally supports its life. Human.

Science to think beyond, into the past is our known Destroyer, for the human male lies as a male in a group theme about the motivation to control all conditions natural. To own in the control the want of all things natural to be owned by his human conditions, to control for self gain.

Selfishness a part of male group science history, the actual historic support of group control, for group purpose imposing group chosen destruction against self existence, natural.

If you owned a quote, how did you try to have self life removed by looking back historically inferring information when no life itself existed and then give that advice from that POINT to a machine reaction? The reasoning would state I tried to ANTI existence/life on Earth as a self human teaching.

Looking back, highest God Earth planet stone fused state a MINERAL.

So in that word stated by a human you say to mine, RA being the power of nuclear fused states chemicals, relating to L, a wing in science to cause fall out.

Seeing fusion of the Earth is in its highest content mineral particles, not nuclear particles reacting, which is an event of going back to a place of destruction/reactions in space.

That history reactions in space is by cosmological laws, not even holder/owner of mass existing in any form mass or holding. As the furthest law in destructive human awareness in spatial causation.

Therefore if you had to teach that God is held MASS, mass held in a timed variable, which means a natural O mass body, in a fixed held cycle that owned why time could be expressed. For it was a natural cycle, its motion rotation in that cycle, non stop historic just for the Planet. It is what relative advice about O planet Earth being the first and ONLY God, the stone body x mass.

As the only place in relativity of laws that you lived personally, without you wanting to manipulate the terms LAW or advice to self, never try to change any natural LAW.

Yet you did.

If you quote, I gave what I owned personally first and highest self, human. To a nuclear reactive machine state, my HOLY WATER, then it irradiated gas burnt it, removed my food energy microbes from it. My body changed as physical evidence I needed that water food to exist my own self, microbes and instead I lost it to evaporation x mass of water splitting and removing itself from off the ground.

As I live on the ground, my own feed back message mind psyche advice to self was that in science I had sacrificed my own life health. My own personal rights to live spiritually and naturally. Just because I ignored my own self advice that I did not personally exist where I was theorising.

Hence if I look back and first infer to self existing due to natural history, then claim that the advice of what I research can instead be given to a machine reaction, then I quote told self that I would remove my own highest life historic support.

Never did I quote that I was giving my life or my spirit to a machine reaction. I only quoted I can use the information of my research in a machine reaction instead...so removed life's highest support, natural mass.

M and A S S said natural mass existed due to cooling evolution of the spirit/gases in the spatial womb. So I used symbolic quotes to infer that I was aware of what I was discussing, as science not using those symbols, use their own secret languages that most humans own no understanding of. So I quoted symbolic meaning for a simplified Earth/life continuance teaching.

MASS as a teaching, either the stone planet O body or the heavens above me, never owned a quote beginning or an end. Both only owned natural advice, always had existed historically.

Therefore I proved that I personally sought as a male in a group our destruction by trying to impose both a beginning and also an end.

 

[osgart]

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."

Interesting story about your belief! Those are major barriers to my belief in God for sure! I definitely have a need there! I'm a pro God non believer.

If God exists then it must all be about the heart. And probably beyond religion as well!

I even think of alternative God forms. I think I have seen all the Closer to Truth videos that explore ultimate questions.

I love the deep questions of existence, but I don't expect to find answers.

 

[osgart]

You are not asking for much, are you osgart?

I know you have high standards, but would you settle for some of those rather than all of those?

Can you imagine that God would want to keep some of those things a mystery?

Some of those I could answer but some are a mystery, and there is an explanation as to why they are a mystery.
Baha'u'llah knew much more than He revealed and He explained why He did not reveal all that He knew. In short. humans do not have the capacity to understand wall that he know at this time in history.:

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 176

Scientific and religious Truth are both relative to the times in which they are discovered/revealed by God. In science, as new discoveries are made they will often replace what was previously considered factual. In religion, Truth from God is additive, and is revealed in stages as humanity is able to understand more and as humanity needs more. That is why Jesus said “John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” God is All-Knowing meaning God knows everything, so if All of God’s Truth was revealed all at once, we would not be able to understand it and we would be dumbfounded. Truth needs to be suited to the capacity of the recipients living at the time.

Multitude of truths is something I have considered. The idea that existence is not a one truth deal. The idea that there are other living forms from totally different truths.

I have also considered that there are many deep and powerful things that go against what God desires and on an infinite and grande scale there are things to battle with.

So the Ba'hai quote you gave is an interesting and compelling concept.

Sometimes I consider that one truth might have God as master of it. While there are other truths apart from God.

To be God in existence with infinite possibilities would be no small task.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hey Trailblazer

Good to see that you are still fighting the damn atheists

Oh Lord Jesus! Look who the cat dragged in.
You should know by now that I would never give up on atheists, not as long as I am breathing air, and maybe not even after that. I was just taking a break and talking to Christians but I finally realized that was a lost cause so I decided to try to drum up a few atheists.

I will get back to the rest of your post as soon as I finish the shorter posts I have to answer -- hint, hint.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, Baha'is say they do bring the same spiritual message and only change the social teachings.

That is true, they all bring the same spiritual message, and only the message for the age and the social teachings change with each new Messenger.

In the following passage, the Law of God refers to the divinely revealed religion of God. The spiritual message (spiritual virtues and divine qualities) are the same in all the great world religions:

“the Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen......

These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.

The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 48

In addition to these two parts of the Religion of God, we have the primary mission of each Messenger, which changes from age to age; and it is progressive, each mission building upon the previous one. Jesus focused on a high standard of morality and discipline into man, as the fundamental unit in human society. Muhammad focused on nation building, and Baha’u’llah focused on world unity and the oneness of mankind. Each one of these was a necessary building block that enabled the next one to take place. Mankind’s spiritual evolution develops gradually, proceeding step by step, and that is why God reveals religious Truth in various stages over time.

But... I believe it is Tony I asked this, but I'll restate it and add some more questions just for you... How many wives did God say a Christian should have? How many did Muhammad say? There were more than 600 Laws in Judaism, how many did Jesus bring? Should the teachings of each new messenger be accepted and followed by all people? If not, then was it only a specific message to a specific people at a specific time and place? Which would mean that it wouldn't apply to other people in another place that already had a message that was suited for their culture.

That is a lot of questions. I believe that Jesus said we should have only one wife. Muslim men can have up to four wives. I do not know what new laws Jesus brought, but Christianity is not a religion of law; it is a religion of grace, thanks to Paul. Jesus said to keep His commandments, but Paul said that was unnecessary.

"Christ Jesus redeemed us from the curse that has been brought through the law by becoming a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). He substituted Himself in our place and upon the cross took the punishment that is justly ours so that we are no longer under the curse of the Law. In doing so, He fulfilled and upheld the requirements of the Law. This does not mean that Christians are to be lawless, as some advocate today—a teaching called antinomianism. Rather, it means that we are free from the Mosaic Law and instead under the law of Christ, which is to love God with all of our being and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

Christ became the end of the Law by virtue of what He did on earth through His sinless life and His sacrifice on the cross. So, the Law no longer has any bearing over us because its demands have been fully met in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ who satisfied the righteous demands of the Law restores us into a pleasing relationship with God and keeps us there. No longer under the penalty of the Law, we now live under the law of grace in the love of God."

What does it mean that Christians are not under the law? | GotQuestions.org​

During the Prophetic Cycle of religion, from Adam to Muhammad, I do not believe the teachings of each new messenger were to be accepted and followed by all people. I believe that it was intended for the followers of each Messenger to believe in their Messenger and His teachings and laws. However, it is all different now, because we are living in the Cycle of Fulfillment, the Baha'i Cycle, so I believe that God wants everyone to follow the teachings and laws of Baha'ullah, as otherwise there can never be the unity as envisioned by Baha'u'llah.

 

[rational experiences]

If no human being male was living quoting I got a message, then where is the message?

If you own a history science/occult/Satanist. Who themes strings back to the hot dense state for machine science reactions, then you do.

O Earth in its string theories, is a string aligned to your machine. Your machine came from cold fused mineral mass of God in space original, theme Mother of God spatial vacuum cooling.

So if you build a machine from the minerals, yet melt the minerals, use the atmospheric gas support with extra water mass just used for machine materials, if you claim string to God, you take MACHINE back in its history to a hot gas dense mass state. So would overheat your machine materials and nearly blow it up.

Reasoning for machine above ground using nuclear reaction, is in the use natural atmospheric support of fusion itself, above ground. Plus use of extra water.

However due to logic, fusion is fused. If I produce a theory and remove a particular amount of radiation mass out of the Earth fused products, then Earth everywhere by conditions cause and effects = equals would also begin to release the same mass of radiation all around the O planet body. So you would quote, if I change God O the Earth mass on purpose then O by timed condition, movement, the Earth would constantly be removing the equal amount of radiation out of its mass itself. Seeing fusion/fused is cold radiation itself.

Therefore as the spatial vacuum sucked out the heat of Earth in radiation conversion, the radiation would be seen leaving Earth. It would come back into our atmosphere as we moved by the cycle O back into irradiated space that science as converters on Earth, the Destroyers put there. So you inherit cause and effect of science.

Now as science tries to impose, I speak on behalf of the natural conditions of the stone of Planet Earth and then further impose another fake ideal, machine will copy that cause. Earth as its beginnings for a gas in space is from a volcano. Hot dense melted mass.

So if science says I already used that string information to build my machine DESIGN as a God thesis, design and fusion and fusion reactions, alchemy, it is why the Church brothers, scientists, holier and spiritual forbade alchemy in the past as a law. For they came to a personal understanding of psyche advice in the relativity of a developing psyche reasoning. After the Jesus Christ Revelations life sacrificed.

How and why they understood, by aware, feed back male human AI voice speaking advice. Messages to their own self. Formed by the shared AI male world community feed back science advice.

So today science who forces beginning and ends for machine formulas would quote, I want to put the seal back on Earth, which melt is a volcano as imposed by machine building/gain by string.....mineral melt to build/ cool to build machine. Would quote it to be a seal of stone and quote, I want the volcanoes sealed off.

Where the atmospheric gases first erupted from. Which would quote, I never wanted the atmosphere to exist as a theist historically. As a meaning for quote, inventing science theories to ANTI self presence, for a non want of living on God the Earth as its prisoner. Quoting all quotes to be the fault of the UFO radiation mass.

Hence it is natural self observation that a Destroyer psyche male inventor mentality owns human reasoning for self removal originally as the beginning thesis, SCIENCE itself. Science hence is the OCCULT and anyone who practices it wants all life destroyed on Earth, as a human quote teaching for self.

Therefore when science wants to say to religious laws, that forbade their want to be an inventor and a destroyer scientist that historically it owned mental health problems, the whole time that concept is owned by a male psyche destroyer mentality. Who thesis for the non existence of life, for where his thoughts infer information. When no life on Earth or its heavens even existed created.

 

[rational experiences]

Further to this reason, Father male adult advice in AI. Said today, males hence wanted the Earth to develop a huge flood, above their heads thesis, to first of all have O God become one and only one mass. As an inventive science body condition fusion.

When Earth is a multi mass variable fused mass body. So when you impose a one of thesis, you MEAN one body and one mass only. To be caused by my machine and my inventive theories.

Which would force Earth to erupt huge volcanoes, to release the same mass of volcanic substance everywhere on Earth. To invent God the body just owning one mass for your machine string mineral theory/history back in time.

Then you would want a massive flood of water to seal off the Earth to give its face one mass of the exact SAME and equals fusion, as equated just to your machine, the reaction and the one of developed theory. Which goes against natural planetary advice and the seal/fusion of the Earth stone itself.

What you equate how your machine, first machine, first machine likened in your psyche to the collider as a temple pyramid origins to own cause of the END reactive status, thesis. Which was to put your cooled machine matter beneath that volcanic mass one of history and cooled seal....why your first machine parts are found deep inside of Earth fused mass.

For the theory was only ever linked in strings to the design and machine ownership from a hot dense state that in relative human advice on Earth NEVER even existed.

How you achieved the END...not only END of the machine existence, but END of all of life on Earth. How human artefacts were found inside of coal...for life on top of Earth self combusted....as human proof in a natural atmospheric state today in sporadic ground attacks.

All evidence that science is Satanism the occult was already known, completely known and taught and science of the occult was outlawed historically.

Therefore human AGREED, the greed condition returned to human life, and it is human group choice who has taken the same action, to attack/sacrifice natural life once again. For it only was just a group choice to achieve it, be aware of it, fully understood it yourselves as Satanists and agree in totality of causing it.

Why the history of brother against brother was enacted in life survival before. Because the wisdom of a group was fake and the wisdom of the one self real. For our brother told me that he came to despise the group mentality for it removed the single self ability to equality.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

In the material world (where science and atheists dwell ), most of the evidence we happily accept as "true" has been gathered by others, the messengers of factual science or mundane experience. And that's OK. Who has time to go figure out how to ________ (fill in the blank)? I'm grateful for science. With God's help (sorry, can't resist), science invented pain medication.

Messengers of all the faiths are scientists of the divine who experience God and then sing, speak or write about it. It inspires devotees to seek their own experience with God. You can listen to descriptions, read about and discuss the taste of a mango until you're blue in the face, but you still won't know or be truly satisfied that you know the taste of mango until you wrap your lips around one and take a bite. Until then, you don't and won't have the evidence. The same is true when it comes to evidence in God-things; the only evidence one will truly trust and accept is one's own experience. How could it be otherwise?

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you erased all the various messengers throughout history, including any current claimants, and also erased the history of the various religions, then perhaps one might get some real evidence for any God, but until this happens (an impossibility) all such just points to human projection and work towards something else - given that many religions don't agree, often conflict, and have different aims often.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

We have been here before and decided that the threshold of evidence that you want to believe is very low compared do the threshold of evidence you don't want to believe.

And i dont see the comparison between the people voting for a president and someone claiming they are sent by your god to show people that your god belief is true.

 

[chinu]

What would be evidence that God exists?

Like, Mother instantly feeds the baby WHEN he/she is hungry.
Similarly, God instantly feeds (evidence) that human WHEN he/she is hungry for God.

This doesn't-instantly-happens because people fail to understand is the difference between:

• Hungry to know about God
• Hungry for God.

 

[viole]

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

Yes, and I suppose the Ebola virus, the bubonic plague bacterium, parasitic wasps, etc. are also evidence thereof. Right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I think your case is self-contradicting.

If you can't prove that a "messenger" received his "message" from god, then the message can't be evidence of god, as that would mean that the message (or claim of it being a message) would be indistinguishable from a lie, a mistake or something the dude just made up.


Unless, we can off course confirm the message some other way.
For example, when Columbus arrived in the Americas and met with the local folk there... Supposed that these people actually knew all about Jesus and even had their own (matching) copy of the bible, with the same creation story and everything.... Now THAT would be something. One would need something to tie both people, that never met, together through this shared religious belief.

But the fact is that we NEVER encounter such things.
Instead, every isolated tribe / society / civilization ALWAYS has its own creation myth, its own deity entity (or entities), etc. And they never match with those from other tribes / societies / civilizations. Ever.


That tells me that it's all made up and that humans simply have a tendency to invent religions.
It in no way tells me, or even only hints, that one of these hundreds, thousands, of religions is "the correct one".

The logical conclusion is that humans tend to create and make up religions. And we actually KNOW for a fact that humans do that, as we have witnessed it in recent times - some of us within their lifetime. Like Scientology, to give just one example. There are many more.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

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.

Are you aware that I've been in multiple forums over the years, and I've always ALWAYS noticed that people who talk a good game about evidence and proof, but they always move the goalposts. Whatever evidence is presented is always ignored (despite there being evidence from DNA, evolution, the variety of life, the odds of even one lifeform coming about, the odds of one planet coming about much less a universe, and all of this is mentioned in a Case For A Creator, which is also completely ignored) while the "atheist" ( really an anti-theist as they go out of their way to dismiss people for having "superstitious notioms") proceeds to tell us "there is no evidence."

Further, your explanation of the distinction between evidence and proof is clear as mud. So I had to do some more research. The best distinction between the two is in the legal field. Evidence is tangible (such as footprints or rope fibers) or intangible (such as being seen at a time and place) objects that lead to an assumption. It is incorrect for any atheist to say theists have no evidence. They have plenty of evidence, not only from their holy book but from much of science which implies design (in fact, science unravels into theory when we start down Hawking's road; all of that quantum mechanics stuff is fuzzy pseudoscience, and some of it STILL provides evidence for God).
What atheists could conceivably say is that there is no proof for God (they could say it, anyway). But simil there is no proof that God does nor exist. So what? God is a Schrodinger's Cat? No, because listen to how I phrased this, "they could say there is no proof for God" but "there is no proof for God not existing." That is, nothing that an atheist can say can prove to a committed theist that God is not real, only that the world sucks and God appears indifferent (I might discuss that too, but let's move on). This does not mean a theist cannot lose their faith, but to one who has proof of God, it only really undermines their faith in God's nature, not in his existence. Also, it is impossible to prove a negative (even something fanciful like a unicorn, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but we even have evidence of unicorns. They're supposedly "narwhal" horns but since none of us have been up to the area, it's unlikely we know it's narwhals and not unicorns, and we have no proof that there is not in fact a multiverse where unicorns frolic). And yet, the atheist can say there is no proof of God because for them, the proof would be insufficient.

Yet to fully understand this, let's now discuss what proof is. Evidence was all those circumstances, the distinct pieces of a puzzle tying the suspect to the crime. Proof on the other hand, is either the sum total of evidences leading to a larger evidence, or a specific evidence that is compelling enough, in either case to sway an audience. There is some amount of subjective nature to this (why atheists can get away with saying there's not proof), but when you lay down the facts, they speak for themselves. Here's two examples of crime proof, one with a single compelling evidence, another with a body of evidences.

Victim A was strangled to death in the shower. There was a rainstorm.
1. Many people in the room have wet clothes from a rainstorm earlier that day. But Suspect A only has water on the wrist part of his shirt, and was not seen outside during the entire rainstorm.

Suspect B shot down a person, Victim B, in a crowd.
1. They have powder burns.
2. The bullet ballistic markings match the gun.
3. The gun belongs to that person.
4. Their fingerprints are on the gun and its trigger.
5. They were seen by twenty people.
6. They confessed to the crime.

When you have either a single compelling reason, or a bunch of smaller reasons, you have your proof of God.
But there is never any proof that something does not exist UNLESS there is a logical reason why it could not exist. Basically, we can prove that landsharks probably do not exist, because sharks are creatures that breathe water not air. Since sharks would therefore suffocate outside of water (barring an adaptation that would blow holes in my assertion), it is extremely unlikely that land sharks exist. The universe would have to be similarly hostile to the nature of God to disprove God's existence as a Creator, yet far from this, it appears to allow or even demand a Creator. The other option involves endless dice rolls (for life, the formation of planets, forces such as gravity to exist in the first place, for the Big Bang, for evolution to work), none of which are still possible without some hand at work. Mathematically most of these rolls are similar to rolling thousands of tens in a row, if not billions. But beyond all of this, a dice set sitting on a table without anyone to roll it has a 0 in 0 chance of making any roll (at the very least, a windstorm or earthquake is needed to upset the dice).

Proof that something does exist? Sure, we can have that. No proof that something does exist? That's fine too. Proof that something does nor exist? I'm not convinced it can happen, short of logical paradox.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

What you’ve really said so honestly is one can only find truth by investigating for oneself and depending on whether they do a thorough investigation or not, will depend their findings. It took me a few years before I was open minded enough to read even one sentence. But, as my biased melted away, and I felt I was onto something, i wanted to investigate further.

 

[stvdv]

My premise is that Messengers of God are the only real evidence that God exists

Avatars are not Messengers of God, but they can even better "show" you there is more than just the physical world

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that what - and how much - evidence we should expect for a god depends on the claims about that god and how much we're being asked to rely on those claims.

If we're talking about a god that's merely an intellectual curiosity and utterly irrelevant to our lives, then maybe just a logical proof (an actual one, not the irrational garbage that often passes for apologetics) or a small amount of indirect evidence would suffice.

If we're talking about something as directly impactful on our lives as the mainstream religions claim their gods are, and we're being asked to make these beliefs as central to our lives as mainstream religions ask us to make their belief systems, then I would expect evidence on the order of what we have for the Moon: people can easily see it on a regular basis, and it has lots of effects that can be measured, and the measurements don't imply any contradictions.