What would be evidence that God exists?

[TransmutingSoul]

How are they going to implement them if they can't even convince people that God is real and that their prophet is real?

That is not what a Baha'i can do under Baha'i Law, nor should they 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

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Exactly, all the proof that Christians have for Jesus, the Baha'is themselves say is false and didn't happen... except the "virgin" birth. Did that guy heal the sick, cast out demons and bring back Lazarus from the dead? Well then, maybe he's for real. No wait, Baha'is say that is all untrue. So that takes the credibility of the "proofs" in the NT and Bible away.

 

[McBell]

It's standard Bahai teachings.

Makes as much sense as standard Christian or Muslim teachings.

Tom

I was not aware that the Bahai teach that messengers are semi-divine entities.

 

[McBell]

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.

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

 

[McBell]

Exactly, all the proof that Christians have for Jesus, the Baha'is themselves say is false and didn't happen... except the "virgin" birth. Did that guy heal the sick, cast out demons and bring back Lazarus from the dead? Well then, maybe he's for real. No wait, Baha'is say that is all untrue. So that takes the credibility of the "proofs" in the NT and Bible away.

um...
This precedent is rather problematic.

Is the Earth round? maybe it is. No wait, Flat Earthers say that the Earth is flat like a pancake. So that takes the credibility of the "proofs" of the Round Earthers away.

 

[ChristineM]

As I said in the OP, my premise is that Messengers of God are the only real evidence that God exists

No, they are the only real evidence that they say god exists.

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?

 

[ChristineM]

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.

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

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Are Baha'is exhorted to "teach"? If someone has a question do they try and answer it in a way to cause the person to see what they are saying is true? Do Baha'is ever say, "No, you are wrong, This is what such and such really means"? In which religions is there "no" compulsion? How many people are killed and tortured for not renouncing their religion and converting to another?

Even in the Baha'is Faith, we are told that the world is heading for disaster and that it would be best if we all recognized Baha'u'llah and started obeying his laws. But no pressure, right? Baha'is have the remedy for the world ills, but if we want to stay sick and miserable that is okay with the Baha'is? They are not going to try and "convince" us of the errors of our ways? No, really... if you have the remedy try harder to make convincing arguments.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Are Baha'is exhorted to "teach"? If someone has a question do they try and answer it in a way to cause the person to see what they are saying is true? Do Baha'is ever say, "No, you are wrong, This is what such and such really means"? In which religions is there "no" compulsion? How many people are killed and tortured for not renouncing their religion and converting to another?

Even in the Baha'is Faith, we are told that the world is heading for disaster and that it would be best if we all recognized Baha'u'llah and started obeying his laws. But no pressure, right? Baha'is have the remedy for the world ills, but if we want to stay sick and miserable that is okay with the Baha'is? They are not going to try and "convince" us of the errors of our ways? No, really... if you have the remedy try harder to make convincing arguments.

Yes no pressure CG, as each person must follow their heart, no Baha'i can change a heart, the heart is God's alone.

If a person chooses not to look at, consider and embrace what Baha'u'llah has offered, that was their choice and then that is also not the fault of a person that has chosen to look, consider and embrace.

Any Baha'i will give the teachings to the best of their ability and answer questions to the best of their ability. The responsibility ends there, in fact, if that has been rejected, to go beyond that is not lawful.

If you see there are better answers than what Baha'u'llah offerd CG, then why do you want me to convince you otherwise?

If you see there are valid answers, why would you not personally investigate what else was said?

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Maybe there is... you know how people get behind a candidate and think they are God's gift and going to fix all our problems. Then they get into office and don't fix anything. Well, people listen to the "campaign" speeches, the religious person telling us about how great their God is and how great their prophet is. We get convinced and give it a try. We belief and do all the things we are supposed to, pray and give them money, then find out that most of the other followers are doing very little and many are secretly breaking some of the rules... like lying, cheating, stealing, fornicating. And the person thinks, "What a sucker I've been".

Then they quit, join some opposing religion and "campaign" against the other religion and tell people, "That other religion is full of crap. They are all liars and leading people astray. Their Holy Book is a bunch of baloney. Now this, religion... is the right one. It will fix all our problems."

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

It is evidence of God if it came from God. The fact that for some people it is indistinguishable from a lie has nothing to do with it. There is no reason to think that everyone in the world would recognize it as the truth.

Unless, we can off course confirm the message some other way.

The message cannot be confirmed to have come from God, as I said in the OP, but as I said in the OP 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.

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".

Perhaps I was just lucky, because I never got caught up in all the other religions. I just stumbled upon the Baha'i Faith and I knew it was the truth from God. Now, 50 years later I still know, in spite of all the opposition I have met with from other religious believers (mostly Christians) and atheists. I have wished I could refute it because many times I have not wanted to believe in God, but I cannot refute it because if the evidence that proves to me that it is the truth.

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.

Scientology is not a religion because it was not revealed by God. All the true religions were revealed by God to a Messenger.

Even if I was not a Baha'i, and I was looking at this from a purely logical perspective, I could not see the great religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam as "made up by man" because it does not hold up to scrutiny and it completely discounts the course of history. All the great civilizations originated from a Messenger who established a religion and these civilizations have endured. Man-made philosophies come and go but nothing else has endured like religion.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.

We will therefore investigate religion, seeking from an unprejudiced standpoint to discover whether it is the source of illumination, the cause of development and the animating impulse of all human advancement. We will investigate independently, free from the restrictions of dogmatic beliefs, blind imitations of ancestral forms, and the influence of mere human opinion; for as we enter this question we will find some who declare that religion is a cause of uplift and betterment in the world, while others assert just as positively that it is a detriment and a source of degradation to mankind. We must give these questions thorough and impartial consideration so that no doubt or uncertainty may linger in our minds regarding them.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 270

If you read this chapter in its entirety you will get a broad overview of the Baha’i viewpoint on religion in general, within the context of history and its relationship to present day society.

RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION

 

[McBell]

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

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".

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes no pressure CG, as each person must follow their heart, no Baha'i can change a heart, the heart is God's alone.

If a person chooses not to look at, consider and embrace what Baha'u'llah has offered, that was their choice and then that is also not the fault of a person that has chosen to look, consider and embrace.

Any Baha'i will give the teachings to the best of their ability and answer questions to the best of their ability. The responsibility ends there, in fact, if that has been rejected, to go beyond that is not lawful.

If you see there are better answers than what Baha'u'llah offerd CG, then why do you want me to convince you otherwise?

If you see there are valid answers, why would you not personally investigate what else was said?

Regards Tony

I have investigated... and not all that deeply, and already found some things I find problematic. You and other Baha'is have zero answers for them. You could research it and see if the Baha'i Faith has an answer, or you could do as you usually do and put on to the other person to find it. Do the Baha'is have the answer? What is that answer? Of course some questions you won't ever find an answer, because Baha'u'llah gave no answer. Then, just say so.

Another problem, you say investigate the truth for oneself, but you don't like it when that person's investigation leads to some very tough questions for Baha'is to have to answer. You are here representing a religion that says it is the fulfillment of every single other religion. You tell atheists that there is a God and that he sent several messengers. You best be ready to deal with a lot of questions. Or, just say, "Well, if you really want to know investigate it for yourself."

 

[Trailblazer]

Further, your explanation of the distinction between evidence and proof is clear as mud.

It is very clear to me because I do not get caught up in a morass of details and over-analyze the basic definitions:

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

Let me explain how this applies to Messengers of God:

For obvious reasons, nobody can prove that Messengers of God/Prophets received a message from God such that it is an established fact, like a scientific fact. However, Messengers of God are evidence because they indicate that God might exist.

Please allow me to explain why.

evidence

a. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis.

b. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications: saw no evidence of grief on the mourner's face.

evidence

• The Messenger is evidence that a God exists.
• I saw evidence of a God in the Messenger.

Nonbelievers constantly tell me I do not know what evidence is, but I understand exactly what evidence is, as demonstrated by my examples. Nonbelievers do not like the idea of Messengers being considered evidence so they do not think it is evidence. But by definition a Messenger IS evidence of a God even though it is not proof of a God.

Let me clarify that a bit more.

• The Messenger was evidence that a God exists.

It is evidence because the Messenger might have been from the God, just like the broken window might have been from a burglar. The broken window might also have been because a neighborhood kid threw a rock through the window, and the Messenger might have been a fraud. However, just as we would want to verify that a burglary had not taken place by investigating the burglary, we would want to verify that a God had not sent a Messenger, by investigating the Messenger.

• I saw evidence of a God in the Messenger.

The Messenger was indicative that there might be a God, but it is not proof that there actually IS a God; just as not seeing a sad look on a mourner’s face is evidence that they might not be grieving, although it is not proof that they are not grieving. Again, more investigation is necessary to make these determinations.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have investigated... and not all that deeply, and already found some things I find problematic. You and other Baha'is have zero answers for them. You could research it and see if the Baha'i Faith has an answer, or you could do as you usually do and put on to the other person to find it. Do the Baha'is have the answer? What is that answer? Of course some questions you won't ever find an answer, because Baha'u'llah gave no answer. Then, just say so.

Another problem, you say investigate the truth for oneself, but you don't like it when that person's investigation leads to some very tough questions for Baha'is to have to answer. You are here representing a religion that says it is the fulfillment of every single other religion. You tell atheists that there is a God and that he sent several messengers. You best be ready to deal with a lot of questions. Or, just say, "Well, if you really want to know investigate it for yourself."

Mostly I find that they see the answer given does not suit their view of the world.

To me it is not that the answer has not been given.

The best example is the answer given to many issues we face, is that there is Only One God and that God is the Author of all God sent Faiths

If a person chooses not to consider that is so, that their religious or world view is preferred to what Baha'u'llah offered, how and why would you like me to address that?

That goes for every topic that people choose to talk about.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

True, if we never investigate we can never discover anything. This is simple logic.
If we assume there is nothing to investigate because it is all bunk, then we will never know.
Sadly, this is what most people do. They make up their mind before they even bother to look for themselves.

It is just like Abdu'l-Baha said:

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

“Again, a man proclaims: ‘There lies a garden in which there are trees with broken branches bearing no fruit, and the leaves thereof are faded and yellow! In that garden, also, there are flowering plants with no blooms, and rose bushes withered and dying—go not into that garden!’ A just man, hearing this account of the garden, would not be content without seeing for himself whether it be true or not. He, therefore, enters the garden, and behold, he finds it well tilled; the branches of the trees are sturdy and strong, being also loaded with the sweetest of ripe fruits amongst the luxuriance of beautiful green leaves. The flowering plants are bright with many-hued blossoms; the rose bushes are covered with fragrant and lovely roses and all is verdant and well tended. When the glory of the garden is spread out before the eyes of the just man, he praises God that, through unworthy calumny, he has been led into a place of such wondrous beauty!” Paris Talks, pp. 103-104

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Please don't embarrass yourself by making assumptions about my thought processes. We've already established that your assumptions aren't exactly rational.

But back to that first assumption of yours: did you decide that "a flower, a sunrise, a newborn baby" couldn't be caused by anything other than God because you couldn't think of any other causes?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Unfortunately for some people, this is not how God presents evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unfortunately for some people, this is not how God presents evidence.

Not my problem.

I gave a reasonable standard. If the evidence for your God doesn't meet a reasonable standard, then belief in your God is unreasonable, IMO.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

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

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

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

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

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