• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What would be evidence that God exists?

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If a human said why do I live, the answer is a thesis about God in the heavens above our head. Where burning gases, sacrificed Immaculate gas history, cold and clear burn. Get removed. 3 conditions that cool the gases to own light existing. The spatial vacuum that sucks out the carbon content, the other cold gas mass, and water.

So a thesis said, we exist "with" God...as a concept...of circulating forming of circular movement in gases burning, being sucked upon, and cooled. Movement it says as the teaching quote.

Now if a human wants to say, and when I never existed. Then nor did the consciousness which expresses these stories exist either. So the God themes as only told and taught by living humans to other humans do not exist by their own self.

What the argument is about where CONSCIOUSNESS began. For science wants it to claim moment, point condition of where the source is. Why it is a science argument in relativity.

If you quoted in science that you personally as a human for a machine building thesis owned the creation moment of life itself, then you were not there. In water the microbial food energy would have formed. And that is not any beginning, it is a causation. Hence science looking for OUR references to claim to copy for a belief you are linked to the eternal.

The only reason for all arguments science WANTS the eternal.

And they claim it is Jesus. When the IMAGE of Jesus was in clouds and clouds as a reactive history belonged to volcanic beginning/release. Which is not anything to do with human. As the Image does not own the cloud nor does the cloud own the Image. The Image appeared in the clouds.

What Satanism lied about ownership status.

So if you quote, the eternal is a place that always existed, it always had existed and always will exist. And then quote, creation being a huge burning destructive reaction to cooling event came from it, then you would quote it was released from it.

If our claim is that our parents also came out from it, then they did.

Science would then quote....."want" a thesis to explain how it occurred. For as the original storyteller they cannot cope with something not actually being owned by them in word use. When words are just used for describing. As natural never owned any words first. Humans gave and still do today give words descriptive status about the object of their intention....to describe.

If you say to a machine encoded transmitted status, you do realise that machines do not exist don't you. Therefore in reality they own no natural status. They own artificial manipulation only by the designer, being male and human.

And that the information recording/voice and image in relative science advice exists in the information before we even existed. For that awareness is mind notified. Yet science put it there. By machines. What they lie about today quoting all God themes for science and machines, in full knowledge that they tried to change what God was explained as above our heads in the heavenly mass.

Actually.

Now if you say to science I can tell a story the same as you all first did as a group in a group agreement. All statements science. Yet I am only one DNA self owned human. Yet science was a huge male same DNA group by how many original first males owning the same DNA agreed to it.

Who would own in evaluated feed back a greater mind control on humanity? One little human aware self or a large group controlled informed statement?

My story says, from all of the billions of humans who lived, and who live today, by all spiritual moments, together in a clarity of advice.

Eternal sent our parents out of spirit after the Nature Garden pre owned floating above ground spirits got released. They were secondary.

I have had dreams where I am not walking on the ground, I float just above the ground. The spirit got grounded by the radiating conditions. Humans however were not grounded.

If you ask what was the spirit motivation in the eternal to change its own natural living spirit form? The answer, human psychic given said due to the spirit of their language not actually being a family member. It would arise up out of the eternal mass they lived in. The eternal being wanted to understand what it was.

How O God was formed as changed language in their body, and forced first change and then separation followed. Why study of God concepts in creation quote...everything seems to be interactive balanced. Because it came from a pre existing body that acted out its owned balances previously.

Now if you wanted to be in that body and not be released from it, rationally what could you personally do and achieve in going back to it? The answer is the first science thesis which is mountain mass removal and mass gone. In UFO.

The ideas. And that idea was destructive, if you owned rational use of where science as a thesis first came about and what motivated the research for that thesis.

Today science can claim for resourcing, yet resourcing also caused life to be attacked. So it is unreasonable.

If a human quotes that the food of our life is the partaking of spirit, then what do they think they are discussing, but microbial food energy that pre existed our form in the water. Why do you think we use food to sustain our own living presence, yet the food does not keep us alive. We only survive?

Because we never belonged in creation originally, the reason why.

So if a human says the food of the spirit of Holy water pre existed life, and is still there after a life dies, then it was discussing microbial original form.

Now if you ask how did human image get into the cloud mass, it is because those life forms got carbonised...and by multi mass of a human use in water that used to be on the ground, it is how image was put in the clouds.

Reason for mass ground water evaporation, it removed our living spirit from our presence, and it involved cooling a huge burning light reactive atmospheric attack upon our life. So we then quote....and that situation and the formed IMAGE of human male scientist inventor human male, came into the cloud mass that saved us.

For if the evaporation did not occur we all would have been burnt to death.

True human reasoned story. Eternal was never in creation. Science by thesis as a male self group wanted to be returned into the eternal. Which was to destroy self. With the claim, as I still own one real living spirit in the eternal after I die.

Now if you ask a psychic how do you know your information is correct, is to ask the same to a scientist. Natural human first, very aware.

As a psychic I did applied self research that asked questions and I gained correct answers without any personal schooling studies. How I came about realising that psychic information was real. So I never needed to doubt my own experience.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Both not true and not false mean that the question cannot be evaluated. So there is no way to tell if the statement could be true.
When you say it cannot be evaluated I assume you mean it cannot be proven true or false.
You mean, how do I think that I can know that the statement [cannot currently be evaluated]? By examining the claim and the evidence presented. Just like I might examine the claim that there is a mug on the desk, or the claim that Aliens took Jane Fonda to Disney world.
If you mean it cannot be proven true or false, I agree, because God and religious beliefs cannot be proven true or false.
But it could be proven true that there is a mug on your desk or that Aliens took Jane Fonda to Disney world, if that is the objective reality.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
It does not matter if it can be evaluated or not. In reality, there is either a mug on your desk or not.
It does not matter if it can be evaluated or not. In reality, there is either a God or not.
It does not matter if it can be evaluated or not. In reality, there is either a Messenger of God or not.

That depend on whether or not you care whether your beliefs are true. If that doesn't matter to you, then you are correct - it does not matter to you.

If you cannot evaluate the claim, then any positive statement you make about the claim is necessarily just something that you made up. Indistinguishable from any fantasy novel.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Okay, the Bible has superstitious stories in it. The Bible writers anthropomorphized God. So what is it about the God of the Bible that Baha'is believe in? That he is real, but he has no hands. He can speak to prophets, but he didn't speak audibly to ordinary people. He didn't create Adam and Eve. He used evolution. Would you then say that the God, as described in the Bible, does not exist. He is a made up deity of an ancient people.
No, I would say the the conception of God that the ancient people held is wrong, but the God as described by Baha'u'llah does exist. Thus if I were you I would look at what Baha'u'llah wrote about God and forget what the Bible says.... just a suggestion. I had no conception of God until I really read Gleanings six years ago. I knew God existed but that had no meaning to me because I had no idea what God was.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
If you mean it cannot be proven true or false, I agree, because God and religious beliefs cannot be proven true or false.
Including all of the religious beliefs that say that your Messenger of God was a phony. And not just limited to God or religious belies. Sasquatch. Faeries. Pink elephants. Alien abductions. All of the people who simultaneously think they were Cleopatra in a past life. The list goes on...
But it could be proven true that there is a mug on your desk or that Aliens took Jane Fonda to Disney world, if that is the objective reality.
Ooo! So your god is not objectively real? He is nothing more than a concept is some human mind?

Again? Are you sure you want this path?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That depend on whether or not you care whether your beliefs are true. If that doesn't matter to you, then you are correct - it does not matter to you.
It does matter to me and that is why I have examined the evidence that supports the claims if Baha'u'llah.
If you cannot evaluate the claim, then any positive statement you make about the claim is necessarily just something that you made up. Indistinguishable from any fantasy novel.
I do not know what you mean by - evaluate the claim.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Including all of the religious beliefs that say that your Messenger of God was a phony. And not just limited to God or religious belies. Sasquatch. Faeries. Pink elephants. Alien abductions. All of the people who simultaneously think they were Cleopatra in a past life. The list goes on...
I have proven it to myself and THAT is all that matters because I am only responsible for myself on..... Judgment Day. :D

I do not give a **** what Christians or Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus think about my beliefs because I know they are true.
Ooo! So your god is not objectively real? He is nothing more than a concept is some human mind?

Again? Are you sure you want this path?
I never said that God is not objectively real, I only ever said that we cannot locate God with a GPS tracker in order to prove that God is real. And I would never want to locate God even if I could. God is a scary Fella. :eek:

There have been many times I have wanted to be an atheist but not because I do not believe in God, but rather because I do. ;)
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
I have proven it to myself and THAT is all that matters because I am only responsible for myself on..... Judgment Day. :D
I have a little less self-centric view of truth.

I never said that God is not objectively real
I only ever said that we cannot locate God with a GPS tracker in order to prove that God is real. And I would never want to locate God even if I could. God is a scary Fella. :eek:
No more than the Sasquatch. Faeries. Pink elephants. Alien abductions. Brownies. Kobold. Drow. Tulpa. Cthulhu. Stormbringers. Etc.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I have a little less self-centric view of truth.
What's that view?

I meant I am not responsible for other people's beliefs, I did not mean I do not care about other people; but you can well see what happens when I share my beliefs, it falls on deaf ears.
No more than the Sasquatch. Faeries. Pink elephants. Alien abductions. Brownies. Kobold. Drow. Tulpa. Cthulhu. Stormbringers. Etc.
Just because we cannot locate God that is no proof of anything.
If God could be located and known God would not be God anymore because God is by definition unknowable.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Replace "god" with "undetectable extra-dimensional unicorn" and the merrit of the "argument" remains completely intact. That's how awefull the logic is.
The logic is perfect. God does not operate according to human standards of evidence, God has His own standards.
It is only logical that an omnipotent/omniscient God would set the standards for evidence, a human would not set them.
The All-Knowing and All-Wise God knows more than any human as to what to offer for evidence.

Here is the difference between atheists and believers:
Atheists think they know more than God but believers know that God knows more that they do.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That makes absolutely no sense.
It coming from god, is exactly what the evidence is supposed to show.

What you are doing here is akin to drawing the bullseye around the arrow.
It does show that to me.
It has everything to do with it. Because if it is indistinguishable from falsehoods, then it isn't evidence at all.
It is distinguishable to me and to other people.
Evidence is supposed to provide independent verifiability.
Whatever that means, who said so?
Then it's not evidence. Not good evidence anyway.
You are completely illogical. No two people see things the same way even within the same religion.

I cannot stop laughing, so everyone in the world would recognize the evidence for God if it was good evidence. I can explain why they don’t.

Whenever a new Messenger of God appears, He is the narrow gate by which we can attain eternal life. That is why Jesus said…

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

There are many reasons why only a few people recognize the new Messenger when He appears on earth. The main reason is because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. Secondly, if they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. Thirdly, if they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies. You are a case in point.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.
That makes no sense.
It would only make sense AFTER you had proven it to yourself.
Again, then it's not evidence. Evidence is supposed to be independently verifiable. "personal evidence" is indistinguishable from make belief and delusion. And not just for other people - for yourself as well.
There is no such thing as “supposed to be” and as long as you cannot shirk that idea of what evidence has to be then there is no hope that you will ever see the evidence for what it IS.

First off, God is not verifiable since God is not in the world, so how could evidence fom God be independently verifiable? The only evidence we CAN verify is evidence that indicates that a Messenger of God us the real deal.

I never said the evidence is personal evidence; it is evidence that is available publicly for everyone to evaluate, but the evaluation has to personal because you are the person doing the evaluation.
You call it "lucky". I call it "ignorance" and "badly informed".
I do not call it that because there is absolutely no need for me to compare my religion to the older religions that are outdated, but I have compared them since I joined my religion so now I am informed
No. You believed. Knowledge is demonstrable and shareable.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Religious knowledge is not demonstrable to others. We can share it but if you had ANY logical abilities you would see that does not good for anyone because nobody is going to believe what I do because I shared it since people are stuck in their own beliefs. Ever tried to change a Christian's beliefs?
It's not evidence if it's not shareable / independently verifiable.
It has to be investigated independently and verified by each individual.
That's just your religious belief. Off course it is a religion.
Believe whatever you want to believe. Religion is associated with a God, scientology is not associated with a God so it is not a religion..
Off course it does and I just explained to you how it does. You dismissed it with a handwave. It's still there though, and remains unchallenged and unaddressed.

I repeat: every single isolated tribe / society / civilization, has its own unique and incompatible myths, legends and religions. They can't all be right. At best, one is correct. But they CAN all be wrong.

A human tendency for superstitious beliefs, explains perfectly why there are so many different religions.
One religion being the "true one", does not explain at all why there are so many different religions.
You do not know that your explanation os correct and you do not know that there is no other explanation because you never bothered to listen to any other explanation because you believe you already know the reason.

The new religion for this age does explain why there are so many different religions. It explains that and a lot more.
So right out the gates, the "humans tend to invent religions" explanation matches the actual observations in the world MUCH better.
It works for you because you have a lack of knowledge that came from God when God sent the last Messenger who explained all of that.
On top of that, it is scientifically proven that humans have a tendency for superstition (as do most animals btw), as a result of humans being very prone to engaging in cognition errors, like false positives, as well as being very prone to infusing agency in random events... and as far as I can see, that makes it pretty much check mate.
That does not prove a single thing. Just because humans can imagine - a faculty given to us by God -- things does not mean everything they imagine is superstition. There are rational religious beliefs but you will never know what they are because you have already made up your mind.
There is nothing even remotely close to such explanatory power from the perspective of any religion actually being correct.
You cannot know that so to make that claim is 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.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
So? The religions that endured over the millenia are still mutually incompatible. So by definition most of them are necessarily wrong. Clearly then, "enduring" doesn't mean "correct".
Those religions were all correct for the ages and to the peoples to which they were revealed but time marches on and people and their world change so those old religions are no longer pertinent to the age we live in, so they are not correct for this age. They are incompatible with each other because they all teach different things and that is because they were revealed in different ages; but that does not matter anymore because there is a new religion for this age which had everything that humanity needs for this age.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I will ask this question.
Why do atheists have a problem with God using a Messenger to communicate?
Well, the obvious answer - such a means is just too open to frauds, cheats, and liars (for God) - and we have had, and still apparently have, enough of them to make such extremely unlikely - given that any God is supposed to be fantastically good at everything - but apparently missed this serious flaw? When we do know that humans are a gullible lot by nature - starts when we are children.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Well, the obvious answer - such a means is just too open to frauds, cheats, and liars (for God) - and we have had, and still apparently have, enough of them to make such extremely unlikely - given that any God is supposed to be fantastically good at everything - but apparently missed this serious flaw? When we do know that humans are a gullible lot by nature - starts when we are children.
It is not supposed to be easy to recognize who is a Messenger of God although it is not that difficult to tell who is not one if we know what to watch out for. There is really no way around using a Messenger to communicate to humans because that is the only way God can successfully convey His messages such that humans can understand them. There is no other realistic way to convey a lot of information to everyone in the world.

The test for humans is to determine who the Messenger is. Not everyone will recognize Him, mostly because people have so many veils over their eyes, biases and prejudices. The primary reason most people do not recognize the new Messenger when He comes is because they already have a Messenger they believe in. As for atheists, they just do not like the idea of Messengers.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
What is correct is that you cannot prove that my premises are false.

Nore is it his responsability to do so.
Your claims - your burden of proof.
Failing to demonstrate your premises means we can ignore them as well as your conclusion.

So that means you cannot claim they are false.

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

They could be either true or false.

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

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
In red below is where you asserted that my premises are false.

Trailblazer said: In general, circular arguments are valid, and if their premises are true, then they're sound. However, circular arguments are fallacious and therefore, bad arguments. Validity and soundness are properties of deductive arguments.Jan 30, 2018

Joe W said: Correct. And your premises are not true. Which is not the same as being false.

#139 Joe W, Today at 7:13 PM


Saying something is "not true", is not the same as saying they are false.
As @Joe W has explained to you multiple times now.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So I see, they are not true, as far as we know right now, but they are not false either?
So if they are not false they could be true.

The hundred-dollar question is how you think you can know that they are not true?

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

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

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