What would be evidence that God exists?

[MonkeyFire]

There is no such thing as evidence of God, there is only religion. There is no science, only cosmic order.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So neither were correct? Let me simplify it. Should the Jew convert to Christianity, a Christianity that believed Jesus was God and believe in Satan and hell and followed the leadership of the Pope?

The Jew should have accepted Jesus, the Christian then should have embraced Muhammad and then the Muslim should have embraced the Bab and then the Babi needed to Embrace Baha'u'llah, the One promised in all those scriptures.

Many mistakes would have been avoided.

God knew that would not happen.

That's my view.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you actually believe your own marketing where you think that hope necessarily derives from religious belief? Or that the alternatives to your beliefs are all dark and dismal? I think you are taking the propaganda of your religion too seriously.

Ultimately, my hope rests in God because I believe in God, but I do not believe God is going to do what needs to be done in this world, I believe humans are going to do it.

There is no marketing and there is no propaganda by any clergy, because the Baha'i Faith has no clergy. What Baha'is have are the Baha'i Writings, and we believe that the answers to the world's problems are to be found therein.

I never said that the alternatives to my religious beliefs are dark and dismal. I was just wondering how nonbelievers are faring and what hope they have for the future. It was a heartfelt concern, although now I can see how that sounded, so I should have phrased that question differently: What hope do nonbelievers have for the future?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, but what was the news like in I844? Did the new day dawn or not? That's why Christians still might be right and the things that are happening now are the things that happen prior to the Return of Christ.

Do you really think that Christians are still waiting because they missed the dawn of the new day? Were Christians ever looking for that, or were they looking for the end of the world? No, they were looking for the same Jesus who they believe rose from the dead and ascended into the clouds to return in the same body and fix everything that is wrong in the world instantly...

But it is really a moot point because Jesus said His work was finished here and He was no more in the world, but Christians either do not know the Bible or they ignore the verses they do not like, so they can keep waiting for Jesus.

If... the lessor peace happens, then things will look more like what Baha'i have predicted. But, Baha'i already blew that once by quoting Shoghi Effendi in their pilgrim notes as saying that the lessor peace will happen by the year 2000.

So you are going to base your belief on whether things happen according to what some pilgrims notes said?
I have a really good memory and I just recalled what was posted by a Baha'i who knows Persian years ago on Baha'i Forums, and he said that when Abdu'l-Baha said this century he meant this age. So it was a misunderstanding because of the translation from Persian into English.

According to the UHJ, Abdu’l-Baha anticipated that the Lesser Peace could be established before the end of the twentieth century, but he did not say it would come by then.

427. Calamities Will Continue Until Mankind is Chastened Sufficiently…

"You make reference to calamities and request specific answers if there are any as to when they may occur and with what magnitude. The House of Justice noted your comments that you have read what Bahá’u’lláh had to say about the collapse of the old world order and the coming of the new, and that in recent times friends returning from their pilgrimages spoke of meetings with Hands of the Cause and members of the House of Justice in which the coming of great world upheavals was related to a time 'around the end of the Five Year Plan and afterwards'. The House of Justice points out that calamities have been and are occurring and will continue to happen until mankind has been chastened sufficiently to accept the Manifestation for this day. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá anticipated that the Lesser Peace could be established before the end of the twentieth century. However, Bahá’ís should not be diverted from the work of the Cause by the fear of catastrophes but should try to understand why they occur. The beloved Guardian, in innumerable places, has explained the reasons for these occurrences, and since they happen from time to time as explained above we should not be concerned as to when they occur."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, April 15, 1976)

Lights of Guidance/Calamities and Crisis - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith

 

[Trailblazer]

So you're saying that Baha'u'llah claims to be a manifestation, and in your opinion he is, but you wouldn't assert or state that he is? What? Why in your "opinion" is his claim correct? You don't have to answer this. You've stated your claim good enough already.

The reason I believe His claim to be a Manifestation is very involved, but in short it is because of the evidence.
The reason I do not claim that He was a Manifestation of God is because I cannot prove that to anyone else.

 

[Trailblazer]

And Baha'is have a plan for peace too. Just say "No" We are all one. Religions are all one. Stop fighting each other and live by all these rules no drinking, no sex until you get married... don't do this but do this. Pray and fast. Love God. Love your neighbor. Don't hate. And will every one keep all the laws? Do they keep them now?

I do not know who keeps the laws and who doesn't but I believe that as time goes on Baha'is will become more spiritual and it will be easier for them to keep the laws. The laws were revealed for at least 1000 years, until the next Messenger of God comes. Spiritual growth is a process and it does not happen overnight.

 

[Nimos]

Are you just saying that or are you making a claim? Either way that is totally false, because in my religion it says it will happen in 2034. You are way off.

That is just a claim, the proof is in my scriptures, so your religion must be wrong

 

[Nimos]

The Jew should have accepted Jesus, the Christian then should have embraced Muhammad and then the Muslim should have embraced the Bab and then the Babi needed to Embrace Baha'u'llah, the One promised in all those scriptures.

Many mistakes would have been avoided.

God knew that would not happen.

Maybe God should get up from his throne and give people some actual guidance then, instead of filling them with confusing messages that no seem to be able to figure out? Just a suggestion

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Maybe God should get up from his throne and give people some actual guidance then, instead of filling them with confusing messages that no seem to be able to figure out? Just a suggestion

That's the nature of being human. I se the guidance was given, it is still available.

Humanity, as a whole, has been in the age of Adolescent, Humanity it is now moving to maturity, where we learn the consequences of disobedience.

Thus we all have that choice now, what will be the choice we make?

The Oneness of Humanity is not that complicated, but it does require us to submit to the good of all, of course that does not meet some peoples self fulfilling goals.

Regards Tony

 

[Nimos]

That's the nature of being human. I se the guidance was given, it is still available.

Humanity, as a whole, has been in the age of Adolescent, Humanity it is now moving to maturity, where we learn the consequences of disobedience.

Thus we all have that choice now, what will be the choice we make?

I really don't see how you reach that conclusion...

Lets for the sake of argument assume that the Bahai version is correct, so that, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were former messengers and therefore speak the word of God. Ill even grant you that God exist.

So first God decide to spread his wisdom among the Jews, and will keep it very simple:

Exo 20:13 “You shall not murder.

A page later, God say this:

Exo 21:15 “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
Exo 21:17 “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.

Do you consider this good guidance? First you are told not to murder, which you think "Yeah ok, ill buy that".. before you can even think about whether that is actually right or not, you are told to murder someone and that it is fine. How is that guidance, rather than confusion?

Fair enough, God works in mysterious ways, but at least he made sure to tell the Jews that they were his chosen people. So God decide it's now time to clean up his mess, so he send a new messenger in form of Jesus, because maybe people will understand him better if it comes from one that looks like a human, Instantly there is confusion, because some people don't believe what Jesus is saying, and whenever the Jews get something wrong, or believe in anything besides God, they end up getting killed. So its fair that they don't just take Jesus word for it, especially because it doesn't really fit with what God told them. Anyway long story short, they kill him. So now you have some that are Christians, absolutely perfect!! You would now think that the confusion is complete. And God apparently agree, so to fix this mess he decide that maybe he should send a new messenger, but this time not a Jew, because that would probably only make things worse. So he decide on Muhammad, one from the arabic world, so he claimed that his message are those of God and the final revelation. Clearly that should make people understand.

So then we get this:
[5:51]
O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies; some of them are allies of one another. Whoever of you allies himself with them is one of them. God does not guide the wrongdoing people.

So now the Jews, the once chosen people of God, is apparently in bad standing with him along with the Christians, probably due to the whole Jesus thing, that they just couldn't understand. So God doesn't guide Jews or Christians anymore and now only the muslims. That must be fairly confusing for the Jews right? And the Christians going, weren't Jesus you or your son?

No that was wrong as well, because now this is true:
Muslims do not worship Jesus, who is known as Isa in Arabic, nor do they consider him divine, but they do believe that he was a prophet or messenger of God and he is called the Messiah in the Qu'ran.

So this is obviously really messy, because if Jesus were just a prophet, then the Christians are completely wrong. And the Jews murdered one of God's prophets... that is not good either, especially since God said, "You shall not murder" and now they murdered a bloody prophet, which is probably just as bad as killing God's son right?

But don't worry, because now God have figured it out and is going to settle this mess once and for all, so he send a new messenger, because clearly this have worked so well in the past, so why not keep doing that, right?

So now we get Baha'u'llah, which is the only one capable of speaking with God, despite what was told to those before him... But Baha'u'llah have a good message, that "Everyone is sort of right, if you don't think to much about it and just accept that Baha'u'llah is telling the truth", obviously those other religions, that we don't agree with, like Norse, Egyptians and all those other ones, they are wrong, it would be ridiculous to even consider them true. When this God is so obviously true.

So again, how on Earth do you reach the conclusion that guidance and not confusion have been given?

 

[PureX]

Evidence is not really useful is you can't use them to establish a proof and therefore a truth with. Wouldn't you agree with that? If the evidence doesn't help you to figure out if A is more likely than B, then it's not really good evidence for either A or B.

"More likely" does not logically equate to "truth". Likelihood is based on relative functionality, while truth is based on an absolute ideal.

Im sorry to tell you, but your argument is flawed, not in the sense that you might not be right. But you are not going to convince anyone, simply stating what you believe to be facts without providing evidence.

What one believes is 'evidence'. It may not be convincing to others, but it is evidence.

You are not going to convince any atheist writing something like that

Atheism is a self-perpetuating bias. Once adopted, there in no possible way of anyone else negating it.

You want to convince anyone, you need to give them good evidence for your claim, someone simply stating "facts" without evidence or proof is not compelling.

Everyone seems to have a different criteria for what they consider to e compelling evidence. And that criteria is often so narrow and extreme that no such evidence could possibly emerge. Atheism is a good case in point: atheists demanding physical evidence for a metaphysical proposal. And objective evidence to validate subjective experiences.

 

[ppp]

There is no marketing and there is no propaganda by any clergy

I don't know why you are bring up clergy. Clergy is not required for a system of marketing or propaganda.

I never said that the alternatives to my religious beliefs are dark and dismal.

Not dark and dismal? So, you were feeling "sad" for the bright and hopeful future outlook of non-believers?

I was just wondering how nonbelievers are faring and what hope they have for the future. It was a heartfelt concern, although now I can see how that sounded, so I should have phrased that question differently: What hope do nonbelievers have for the future?

I remember, as a little kid, hearing that kids in other countries did not celebrate Christmas, and that some did not have a summer vacation. And it made me sad, wondering just how those kids coped with such a horrible existence. I was making the assumption that hope only derived from the artifacts of my particular culture. I was also making the assumption that all the individual kids who did not belong to My Group could be treated as a single profile. Classic us-them mentality. Of course, my excuse for such a self-centered view was that I was a little kid with a limited perspective on my fellow humans.

I hope that the BLM movement bears fruit. That I see my parents at the end of the month. That the trip we are planning to Belize can eventually come to pass. That the children in my life find happiness in theirs. That we make first contact. That this kiln I am building functions well. That, despite the occasional set back, the world in aggregate continues to improve. I hope for what matters - the real.

 

[ppp]

"More likely" does not logically equate to "truth". Likelihood is based on relative functionality, while truth is based on an absolute ideal.

Truth is not based on an ideal. Truth is based on reality. Ideals exists only in brains. If there were no brains, reality would still exist. It would still be true that a is a, that a is not not-a, and that a either exists, or does not exist

 

[Nimos]

"More likely" does not logically equate to "truth". Likelihood is based on relative functionality, while truth is based on an absolute ideal.

That is correct if we are talking absolute truth, but you can have agreed on truth and no one can work with absolutes anyway.

Definition
3. a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

What one believes is 'evidence'. It may not be convincing to others, but it is evidence.

Yes, but these are evidence that we would disregard if we were ever trying to get to expand our knowledge or reach an agreement, because they do not benefit with anything.

If you say that A = B therefore B can't = C, because that is what you believe.
And I believe that A = C and therefore B can't = A.

Then we could discuss that from now to eternity, because we would never be able to reach a common understanding.

However if we can find evidence that is not simply based on what either of us wish them to be, then we might get to an agreement. But if everytime we put forward independent evidence, constantly have to go back and argue whether your or my belief of what these could be based on our beliefs, and that this is just as relevant than the independent evidence. Then we have an issue in regards to how we understand and value evidence, and we will have to sort that before in makes sense to move on.

Atheism is a self-perpetuating bias. Once adopted, there in no possible way of anyone else negating it.

It's sort of logic given that atheism is the lack of believe in a God(s). I probably couldn't convince you that unicorns are real either, or is that completely different?

Everyone seems to have a different criteria for what they consider to e compelling evidence. And that criteria is often so narrow and extreme that no such evidence could possibly emerge. Atheism is a good case in point: atheists demanding physical evidence for a metaphysical proposal. And objective evidence to validate subjective experiences.

Ultimately yes, and if God exists, is that really to much to ask? God created a physical Universe if we are to believe the religious people, yet it is completely impossible for God to convince an atheist?

But I have no issues with throwing physical evidence for God out the window to start with. And we can simply stick to the claims made, people rising from the dead, virgin birth, walking on water, moral inconsistencies, floods, the Ark, good and evil.... and the list go on. None of these, points to a God in my opinion.

 

[PureX]

Truth is not based on an ideal. Truth is based on reality. Ideals exists only in brains. If there were no brains, reality would still exist. It would still be true that a is a, that a is not not-a, and that a either exists, or does not exist

That is an absurd statement. "Reality" is a concept created in the brain. It only "exists" as a concept in the brain. "Existence" is also a concept in the brain. It only occurs as a response to nerve stimuli in the brain: no brain, no "reality", no "existence", no "truth", no X "equals" anything, no anything at all. Everythig that is, is 'ideological'.

 

[ppp]

That is an absurd statement. "Reality" is a concept created in the brain. It only "exists" as a concept in the brain. "Existence" is also a concept in the brain. It only occurs as a response to nerve stimuli in the brain: no brain, no "reality", no "existence", no "truth", no X "equals" anything, no anything at all. Everythig that is, is 'ideological'.

If you believe that then you must necessarily be a hard solipsist, arguing with yourself.

 

[PureX]

That is correct if we are talking absolute truth, but you can have agreed on truth and no one can work with absolutes anyway.

"Truth" is an absolute state. There are no "half-truths". There are only facts that appear true from one relative perspective, and untrue form another relative perspective. True is still true, always and only. It is an absolute ideal.

Yes, but these are evidence that we would disregard if we were ever trying to get to expand our knowledge or reach an agreement, because they do not benefit with anything.

Consensus is not a requirement of truth. This is an important fact that we humans forget and ignore way too often.

If you say that A = B therefore B can't = C, because that is what you believe.
And I believe that A = C and therefore B can't = A.

Then we could discuss that from now to eternity, because we would never be able to reach a common understanding.

This is why philosophers do not debate, discuss, or argue what they "believe" to be true. What we believe is not relevant to an attempt at establishing consensus on what is true. Then again, truth does not require consensus. Which is why philosophy has yet been able to determine 'the truth' of anything.

However if we can find evidence that is not simply based on what either of us wish them to be, then we might get to an agreement. But if everytime we put forward independent evidence, constantly have to go back and argue whether your or my belief of what these could be based on our beliefs, and that this is just as relevant than the independent evidence. Then we have an issue in regards to how we understand and value evidence, and we will have to sort that before in makes sense to move on.

Yes, it a very complex endeavor establishing "the truth" of anything. It's a very elusive ideal, and 'the world' is a very dynamic phenomenon.

It's sort of logic given that atheism is the lack of believe in a God(s). I probably couldn't convince you that unicorns are real either, or is that completely different?

"Lack of belief", or "belief in", are both quite irrelevant to the question of the truth (truthfulness) of the God proposition. This is where atheists immediately fall off the logic track in nearly every discussion/debate on that question.

Ultimately yes, and if God exists, is that really to much to ask? God created a physical Universe if we are to believe the religious people, yet it is completely impossible for God to convince an atheist?

Having created all that is, why would God care what any of us "believe" or "unbelieve"? That's the agenda of religion. If you want to "disbelieve" in religion, that's a different discussion, and not pertinent to a definition or debate of atheism.

But I have no issues with throwing physical evidence for God out the window to start with. And we can simply stick to the claims made, people rising from the dead, virgin birth, walking on water, moral inconsistencies, floods, the Ark, good and evil.... and the list go on. None of these, points to a God in my opinion.

Logically, it would be exactly as reasonable to ACCEPT ALL PHYSICALITY as evidence of God's existence as it would be the "throw it all out" as evidence. Yet I suspect your bias would push you very heavily to one side, and away from the other.

 

[Dave Watchman]

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.

Sounds like a fine premise to me.

Like what Paul was saying about having a great cloud of witnesses.

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. - Hebrews 12​

Blind Fanny Crosby

Near The Cross 1869

Jesus, keep me near the cross,
There a precious fountain;
Free to all, a healing stream,
Flows from Calv'ry's mountain.

In the cross, in the cross
Be my glory ever,
Till my raptured soul shall find
Rest beyond the river.

Near the cross, a trembling soul,
Love and mercy found me;
There the Bright and Morning Star
Shed His beams around me.

Near the cross! O lamb of God,
Bring its scenes before me;
Help me walk from day to day
With its shadow o'er me.

Near the cross! I'll watch and wait,
Hoping, trusting ever;
Till I reach the golden strand,
Just beyond the river.

Alison Krause

Humble church version 2010

Katie Gayduchik

Epic Russian version 2018

We weep tears for Jesus,
The Author of our faith,
Around the world.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[PureX]

If you believe that then you must necessarily be a hard solipsist, arguing with yourself.

If I believe that, I could not be a solipsist. As a solipsist believes that their idea of reality creates and controls 'what is'. All I'm saying is that 'what is' will remain forever unknown and unknowable to us. All that we will ever know of it is what we think is, is. And given that this is the humans condition, our knowledge of 'reality' will remain delusion, and our lack of it, profound.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I really don't see how you reach that conclusion...

Lets for the sake of argument assume that the Bahai version is correct, so that, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were former messengers and therefore speak the word of God. Ill even grant you that God exist.

So first God decide to spread his wisdom among the Jews, and will keep it very simple:

Exo 20:13 “You shall not murder.

A page later, God say this:

Exo 21:15 “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
Exo 21:17 “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.

Do you consider this good guidance? First you are told not to murder, which you think "Yeah ok, ill buy that".. before you can even think about whether that is actually right or not, you are told to murder someone and that it is fine. How is that guidance, rather than confusion?

The confusion is only for those that do not submit to God. His Manifestation is the example of the Message given, so your stated quandary is not complex.

Murder is unlawful killing.

Death penalty is lawful and the penalty of death can be given, two laws to which it can be given, you have posted.

In this age, those laws seem harsh, in the age they were given there is a just wisdom to implement them. There would be many scholarly articles available to explain this to any person interested.

I am sure if you asked a Jew, they could explain how to use those laws in justice and how they were used.

When men start being unjust and negligent in administering God's Laws, that is when God sends a Messenger to renew and give us further guidance and as sated mankind has gone through birth, childhood and adolescent and is now finding maturity in spirit and justice.

Many still act childish and as adolescents, many are finding maturity and we can thank God, there are mature people all around the world of many faiths and without faith.

We will find unity, only when we act mature in spirit.

Regards Tony