What would be evidence that God exists?

[blü 2]

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.

I assume by 'exist' you mean 'have objective existence', 'be real'?

If so, what would be evidence for the existence of WHAT, exactly? What real entity are we intending to denote when we say 'God'?

And how will we know when we've found [him]? What test will tell us whether some real thing is God or not?

 

[rational experiences]

I never believed in "A God", A defining what males in science claims is the alpha state, and God defined by males by a male definition.

As the non stop argument about God existing and God being inferred to be a male.

Now I know that science incorrectly historically inferred science reasoning as male and female quotes, and used these forms of quotes for a very long time. Human memory and constant word usage forms a memory that by mass of humans expressing owns a reason to quote.....affects how you think today and what you believe today.

Modern day science stopped using old science symbols, proven today, and so said, as a male and a female is only less than self in an animal life, to use these quotes in creation/power/energy themes/thesis is ludicrous.

So they stopped using those quotes for a human purpose. To use science references by their human choices correctly by their human quoted definitions. The name I give is the state I give it to.

Ask anyone today in science, why do you today argue about God themes? Real reason, for science, for science thesis and for powers/resource in the sciences.

In actuality.

So I know as a spiritual human why I do not believe in God, for human males in group historically lied about what they own, why they claim they own it, how they named it and applied thesis in science to it. If science quotes and science owned God, then obviously everyday humans do not.

For the sake of arguments and secret orders and male "quoted" motivation for reasoning the theme, must be a Creator, for if I come to understand "quoted" inference, then I would have achieved what I always wanted to achieve.

Rationally in this theme, to ANTI GOD. For he factually states in the sciences he only achieved the ANTI of CHRIST. If you want to tell the truth in the public.

Therefore a human psychological appraisal of what science suggests it is looking for, when their own machine only comes out of the mass of our planet makes you wonder about that theme. Especially when you read the documents that always quoted God was the planet entity, a Creator body, stone, with the word ONE and first implied to it....where the mass of power is held by the space body.

The only place where a thesis factually begins that involves the building and design of his science machines. From the planet. No matter where he takes his explanations and his worded thesis....it is always just about Planet Earth itself, factually.

Now I always believed by spiritual self research that my family, adult males and adult females, owned the creation of the human baby. Yet I noticed that no mention in the documents of a holy human female baby. So I truly wondered at that idea. What about the rest of you?

If you think you are detailing some great secret, then how come no mention of a holy female baby in these scripts. Seeing female babies do exist and are born.

I would instantly be notified that no truth is owned in any written documents. Truth is lived first, owned first, life is first and truth our life, first.

To then try to reason with everyone and quote, do you not realise you are coerced?

If my human parents came from somewhere there are only 2 options in reality.

From the sexual act of 2 ape parents, who conceived a human like ape person.....or that our parents came directly out of a spirit body.

Now I know that clouds is not any spirit body, for it is reactive, is sometimes present and other times no clouds exist.

Therefore I did a personal human study about spirit and used the human experience to reference and determine it. Seeing it is humans who claim that their original parentage came from some other place. Seeing every single human today was born a baby and from sperm and an ovary interacting.

Everyone is in fact only discussing where they believe their original human parents came from, which is not any God.

Therefore if you quote that our parents came out of a spirit body, then that body always had existed, always will exist and is the only other body other than spatial creation that owns that status. Space just keeps getting larger as mass consumes itself.

 

[icehorse]

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.

I said that I felt this paragraph in the OP didn't hold up well to logical scrutiny, and you asked why:

your point (a): This seems like both quite an arrogant claim by you. It's also quite an extraordinary claim, and you provide zero evidence to back it up.

(b): This is clearly untrue. Whatever "revealed" religion you might want to mention, only a fraction of humans ever get the message of that particular religion. I would say that gods would be much more convincing if in fact they DID speak to everyone.

later in (b): Who is the "Him" you would like us to check out? The god or the messenger? I've checked out several popular gods and their messengers, perhaps as much or more than you have, and I have found the evidence to be missing, and/or self-conflicting, and/or extremely weak.

So let me ask you this: Why would your god create humans with the ability to use logic and reason, and then set things up so that we need to suspend these critical thinking capabilities due to a lack of good evidence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said that I felt this paragraph in the OP didn't hold up well to logical scrutiny, and you asked why:

your point (a): This seems like both quite an arrogant claim by you. It's also quite an extraordinary claim, and you provide zero evidence to back it up.

(b): This is clearly untrue. Whatever "revealed" religion you might want to mention, only a fraction of humans ever get the message of that particular religion. I would say that gods would be much more convincing if in fact they DID speak to everyone.

later in (b): Who is the "Him" you would like us to check out? The god or the messenger? I've checked out several popular gods and their messengers, perhaps as much or more than you have, and I have found the evidence to be missing, and/or self-conflicting, and/or extremely weak.

So let me ask you this: Why would your god create humans with the ability to use logic and reason, and then set things up so that we need to suspend these critical thinking capabilities due to a lack of good evidence?

The bit that I find the funniest is where she pivots from "no person can communicate directly with God" to "these particular people communicated directly with God." I don't think she realizes how she's being self-refuting.

 

[Left Coast]

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.

The most disappointing thing here is that you didn't give any of the evidence that convinces you or explain why it convinces you. Rather than spin our wheels talking about hypotheticals, let's get to brass tax. What's the evidence for any of Baha'i's "messengers" actually being messengers?

 

[sun rise]

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

You've just expressed my understanding except I'd drop the 'if' and 'probably' so I word it as: God exists and it is all about the heart and beyond religion.

 

[ppp]

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.

That is also a possibility.

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."

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.

That is just an attempt to force a Catch-22. There isn't one. All you are doing is engaging in circular reasoning, and trying to justify doing so by citing the title of a work of fiction. Good fiction. But still, fiction. There is no reason to treat your messenger as anything other than just another random guy claiming to hear his particular version of god.

As you said above, he could simply have been delusional. Or as I said before, he could simply have been wrong.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

... you assume.

Or perhaps you assume there is another cause.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

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

Ciao

- viole[/QUOTEAb

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

Ciao

- viole

Absolutely. You get the bad with the good.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or perhaps you assume there is another cause.

To be rationally able to say that "none of these things can exist without God," you would have had to:

- consider every potential explanation,
- confirm that each of them could not explain these things, AND
- confirm that you had not omitted any potential explanation.

... so show your work.

Did you do all that? If you didn't, you've made an assumption.

... and I trust @Samantha Rinne will chime in any moment to explain how wrong you are to think you can prove a negative, since she likes to bring this up all the time talking to atheists.

 

[columbus]

he heard voices that were not from God, in which case he would have been delusional.

I think this is the most plausible explanation.

I'm sure his ego benefited from the belief that he was among the most elite humans in all of history. Rather like the various people I've heard claim to be Jesus, or the Second Coming of Christ, or something. Humans are very prone to such self-aggrandizing illusions.
Frankly, that's what all prophets look like to me.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Absolutely. You get the bad with the good.

So God is also bad?
Tom

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

To be rationally able to say that "none of these things can exist without God," you would have had to:

- consider every potential explanation,
- confirm that each of them could not explain these things, AND
- confirm that you had not omitted any potential explanation.

... so show your work.

Did you do all that? If you didn't, you've made an assumption.

... and I trust @Samantha Rinne will chime in any moment to explain how wrong you are to think you can prove a negative, since she likes to bring this up all the time talking to atheists.

And may I ask how many steps you used to decide there was no God? Or did you just make an assumption because you did not see any proof?

 

[columbus]

The bit that I find the funniest is where she pivots from "no person can communicate directly with God" to "these particular people communicated directly with God." I don't think she realizes how she's being self-refuting.

You haven't read enough of her posts.

She confidently claims to know that the prophets she accepts as true Official Spokesmen for God aren't actually humans. They are Messengers. They look like humans, but are actually semi-divine beings.


It's really simple.
Tom

 

[columbus]

And may I ask how many steps you used to decide there was no God? Or did you just make an assumption because you did not see any proof?

It doesn't take many steps.

You look around. No God.
But lots of delusion prone humans claiming to know enough about God to make sweeping truth claims about God.
You draw the most plausible conclusion.

And you're done. No more steps necessary.
Tom

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They look like humans, but are actually semi-divine beings

In the 1800s?!

That's pretty close to assume divine brings existed but today, they do not.

 

[McBell]

You haven't read enough of her posts.

She confidently claims to know that the prophets she accepts as true Official Spokesmen for God aren't actually humans. They are Messengers. They look like humans, but are actually semi-divine beings.


It's really simple.
Tom

That certainly is one way around it...

 

[columbus]

That certainly is one way around it...

It's standard Bahai teachings.

Makes as much sense as standard Christian or Muslim teachings.

Tom

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Well, let's investigate Jesus. What do we "know" about him from the stories his followers say about him? He was born of a virgin. He was tempted by the devil but didn't give in. He walked on water. He forgave a man of his sins and helped his crippled legs. He rose from the dead.

Now let's see what we "know" about him by what Baha'is say. He was born of a virgin. There is no devil, so that's symbolic. Walked on water? That goes against science, so that's symbolic. Same with all his alleged healings. Those are doubtful. They too are probably symbolic. We are not born in sin, so there's a problem with what Christians say about needing to be forgiven for sins. And rising from the dead. It didn't happen.

They contradict, so further and deeper investigating is needed. Should we trust the writers of the NT? Baha'is have cast some doubt on that. The writers were not eyewitnesses and wrote the stories long after. Some Baha'is question Paul's writings as being contradictory to what Jesus taught. Baha'is say the Bible and the NT can't be taken literally. Baha'is say many doctrines that Christians developed, that were based on the NT, are false... like having inherited a sin nature and thus needing to be "saved". And that Jesus is God.

So, by what Baha'is say, we should not trust the Bible or the NT as a source to determine who God is or what he wants. Even though one Baha'i, Tony, says that the Bible is "sure" spiritual guide. Did God speak from heaven? No. Did he create the world in 6 days about 6000 or so years ago? No. Did he flood the whole world? No. Did Jesus rise from the dead? No. Is the God of the Bible real? Why would we believe it? Baha'is themselves negate most of it. But, we are supposed to believe and trust that Baha'u'llah was sent by God and that he fulfilled the prophecies in the Bible?

Who has done a "thorough" investigation? If Baha'is can't answer some of the deeper questions, then that kind of indicates they really don't know. There are things they didn't investigate and couldn't find answers for. The Baha'is Faith has some very good ideas. How are they going to implement them if they can't even convince people that God is real and that their prophet is real?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

As I said in the OP, 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.

I do not expect everyone to see them as evidence. I do not think that God expects that either, although He might hope so.
What evidence is there that you think I 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.

The only comparison is in the way we go about checking them out in order to determine if they are worthy of our trust and belief.