What would be evidence that God exists?

[blü 2]

Yes, by exist I mean God is real, not imaginary.

This website describes my conception of God:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_the_Baha'i Faith\

"God is the imperishable, uncreated being who is the source of all existence. He is described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty". Though transcendent and inaccessible directly, his image is reflected in his creation."
That describes an imaginary being in terms of imaginary properties.

For example "omniscient" ─ how does God know there's nothing he (sic) doesn't know he doesn't know?

God is not a 'thing' that can be located on a GPS tracker.

That's because God is an idea, not an entity who hs objective existence independently of that idea.

We know that God exists after we have ample evidence that God exists.
That evidence will constitute proof for us, but it won't be proof for anyone else.

Quite.

But Baha'is tend to be decent people, so may they live long and prosper.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is also a possibility.

Anything is a possibility. That is the nature of belief.

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.

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

PLEASE NOTE: The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

When you claim to know it is a work of fiction you are engaging in an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

You do not know that there is not a Catch-22 so that is another argument from ignorance.
You are welcome to your opinion just as I can have my belief, but when you assert your opinion as fact it becomes an argument from ignorance.

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.

No, there is no reason for you to believe that because you do not know anything about Him.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think this is the most plausible explanation.

Only if you do not know anything about His life, His mission, and His teachings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you have all the proof you can handle. Anything I say will be used against me in a court of law.

Well, you're certainly being judged right now.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is not what a Baha'i can do under Baha'i Law, nor should thay try to, that would be prolteszing.

Baha'u'llah said deliver the Message and let others determine its truth and worth.

There is no compulsion in religion. The Word speaks for itself and it's one own heart that must choose.

Regards Tony

You must be psychic Tony. A minute ago I had picked out that exact sentence you just responded to and I was going to say something similar to what you said, but you saved me the trouble, but I will add a couple of quotes since I am here anyway:

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

 

[Trailblazer]

And here I thought the "telephone" game in grade school was just an activity to keep the students busy...

Atheists want a personal telephone call from God, but there is no telephone.

 

[Trailblazer]

I will ask this question.
It is said god is omni everything, he can create universes, he can create a human race to worship him, he can flood an entire planet with 80 times more water than has ever existed then make thats excess water disappear like it never existed because some people didn't worship him. So why would he need messengers to be his mouthpiece?

Simple, because God is Spirit, so God cannot speak to humans the way a man can speak to humans.
Also, God cannot write scriptures because God has no hands.

That is precisely why God manifests Himself in the form of a Messenger who is both divine and human and can thus bridge the gap between God and humans.

I will ask this question.
Why do atheists have a problem with God using a Messenger to communicate?

 

[Trailblazer]

I still see no comparison, one is taken on faith, the other results

Nope, because we cannot know the results of the President BEFORE he becomes President, so all we have are his campaign promises.

By contrast, we can see the results of the Messenger BEFORE we decide to believe in Him because He has already produced the results.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the definition you present, however, your usage of the word seems to be much better defined as "that which causes or reinforces belief".

Only if there is evidence for that belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you can't establish that your God even exists, then I can't take your pronouncements of his "standards" seriously.

Nobody can establish that God exists, except in their own mind.

I believe that God's existence will be known to everyone after they die but I cannot prove that.
Believers will now what is going on but atheists might just wonder why they are not dead.

 

[columbus]

Only if you do not know anything about His life, His mission, and His teachings.

I do know something about them.

Among those things being that he preaches about a God who is a bit of a bumbler, and requires humans to speak for Him. Those are characteristics God doesn't have, based on evidence that doesn't come from human authority.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, Roman, etc... Who was their messenger? And which civilizations have endured? We are greatly influenced by the Greeks and Romans and others. And influenced by many sects of Christianity that you don't believe have the truth. Maybe Islam? The religion that Baha'i say that the religious leaders are the evil beasts and dragons in Revelation.

As I recall the Roman Empire fell, it did not endure? The civilizations based upon Christianity and Islam have endured.

Well, Baha'is say Adam, Noah, and Abraham were messengers. What religion did they bring? Did God speak to the Buddha? Did God speak to Krishna? Or was Krishna God? Did God send an angel to speak to Muhammad? Did God speak directly to Muhammad? Did God send an angel to speak to Joseph Smith? Did the angel tell him where to find and translate the Book of Mormon from some golden plates? Is there a chance all these stories are fully or partially made up by people?

I believe that God spoke to the Prophets and Messengers that Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha delineated. I do not believe God spoke to Joseph Smith because he was not a Prophet or a Messenger of God.

 

[icehorse]

My evidence is what was revealed on the Writings of Baha’u’llah who carefully explained why nobody except Messengers can understand direct communication from God.

ok, what was their evidence to make such claims?

It is certainly not only a small fraction of people that believe in God because of a religion

the point i was making was that each "messenger" talks to only a subset of humanity. So are you a polytheist (which wouldn't bother me)?

Logically speaking, if God wanted to be convincing to everyone, God could have chosen a method other than Messengers. That God did not choose another method is proof that God did not want to be convincing to everyone.

If invoke the rules of logic, then you have to live by them. You cannot eat your cake and have it too

It is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization to assume that just because many or most messengers were false all messengers were false.

I never made such claims. In this thread, I'm mostly asking for evidence.

God did not do that. God created humans with the ability to use logic and reason, and God then set things up so that we would use these critical thinking capabilities and apply them to the evidence He presented.

Ok, can you give me a few even remotely objective examples of the evidence he presented?

 

[Trailblazer]

Let me know when God sets such standards. Telling me that you believe that some other human has explained them isn't at all the same.
Tom

God sets the standards through His Messengers who are God's Representatives on earth.
God cannot do it Himself since God is not a man who can write scriptures.

 

[McBell]

Only if there is evidence for that belief.

*facepalm*

 

[Trailblazer]

"God is the imperishable, uncreated being who is the source of all existence. He is described as "a personal God, unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty". Though transcendent and inaccessible directly, his image is reflected in his creation."
That describes an imaginary being in terms of imaginary properties.

Funny thing, it sounds like an existent being to me.
That just goes to show we all interpret what we read differently.

For example "omniscient" ─ how does God know there's nothing he (sic) doesn't know he doesn't know?

We humans cannot know how God knows what God knows because God is a mystery, far above human understanding..

That's because God is an idea, not an entity who has objective existence independently of that idea.
Quite.

You do not know that anymore than I can say I know that God is real. I can only know that in my mind, but I cannot prove it.

But Baha'is tend to be decent people, so may they live long and prosper.

Same to atheists!

 

[McBell]

bumper sticker wisdom

More of you really need to go to church.
I don't want you with me in hell​

 

[Trailblazer]

*facepalm*

 

[Trailblazer]

I do know something about them.

Among those things being that he preaches about a God who is a bit of a bumbler, and requires humans to speak for Him. Those are characteristics God doesn't have, based on evidence that doesn't come from human authority.
Tom

How do you know those are characteristics God doesn't have? Did God tell you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nobody can establish that God exists, except in their own mind.

I believe that God's existence will be known to everyone after they die but I cannot prove that.
Believers will now what is going on but atheists might just wonder why they are not dead.

You're quickly reminding me why I gave up trying to reason with you.