What would be evidence that God exists?

[Mock Turtle]

I see the world will show us how, as not considering what God has offered, was a grave mistake.

I wonder how far the world has to deteriorate, until some choose to consider the good advice that was available in the 1800's and 1900's.

Regards Tony

I don't think any particular religious belief (of the major religions) has the answers for what we should be doing in order to become more harmonious with our planet or amongst ourselves - too wedded to the texts in most cases and not looking towards what we could be. But then politics tends to interfere in such matters.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't think any particular religious belief (of the major religions) has the answers for what we should be doing in order to become more harmonious with our planet or amongst ourselves - too wedded to the texts in most cases and not looking towards what we could be. But then politics tends to interfere in such matters.

I see there is a Faith that did give the solutions and does have the anwers for the issues we now face.

The full potential of what we can be lays in both spirit and science.

Regards Tony

 

[Mock Turtle]

I see there is a Faith that did give the solutions and does have the anwers for the issues we now face.

The full potential of what we can be lays in both spirit and science.

Regards Tony

I think if we looked at the world unbiased by any particular religious belief, then it seems to be the case (for me at least) that few religions seem to be inclined to give up what they have (rather seeking to gain more converts) and that neither is it likely that atheists or agnostics will convert to some kind of religious belief, no matter what others do. Also, it seems to be that it is those who don't have any religious beliefs who are the ones trying to gain equality and freedoms for all - as in LGBTQ matters, female and child rights, freedom of speech, etc. - and who are pointing out the concrete things we can do to make life better on this planet - for us, other life, and the environment - and where the moral issues are mostly solved (and obvious), but where the religions are the ones fighting over this particular battle ground. Why aren't the religions pointing out our destructive, but often unthinking, behaviour that is producing the harms rather than sermonising about the peripheral issues? That is what I tend to see - that religions just aren't dealing with the important issues and mostly are keeping us from moving forward.

 

[ppp]

Fallacious reasoning does not matter......
All that matters is if Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God or not, and it does not matter if I can demonstrate it to atheists....
If He was He was, if He wasn't He wasn't.

if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Only in a sound argument. Which you don't have. Because:

1. your premises are not true
2. your argument is fallacious
3. Shouting won't help

Just like all the other atheists, you cannot acknowledge what I am saying so you obfuscate. You know what I am saying is true, you just cannot admit it because you are too proud.

That is just your ego-centrism talking.

 

[Nimos]

He says His words are proof and this is evidence that God has mercy in men.

This is irrelevant.

Let's imagine a person is being trialed for a murder, and make the statement "I didn't murder anyone", would you trust such statement? Ignore anything else about the person, simply look at the statement and the fact that the person being accused is the one making it.

Similar you can look at Baha'u'llah making a similar statement, that his word is proof... if you buy that and you want to be consistent, you would have to trust the murderer as well.

So looking at this claim isolated, any statement made by a person that is being accused and claim that they are to be trusted, is useless. Don't confuse this with that meaning that they are not telling the truth, it is not what this is about. Its about whether the statement have any credentials.

As the passage above says, the evidence that indicates that a Messenger was sent by God is His own Self, His Revelation, and the words He has revealed.

Yes, but as above we can consider these evidence useless or as close to useless as possible, to the point where you might as well not mentioning them, because they are so weak that they ought to not convince anyone.

Again, you don't take the murders word for it either.

Anyone can research this evidence and come to their own conclusions.

Yes, they could or they could choose to investigate one of the other 1000s of people claiming similar things. Since you make claims on behalf on Baha'u'llah, wouldn't it be more fair that you present convincing evidence than everyone else having to do it? It's not being unfair here, it would be exactly the same for you, if a Christian came to you with a similar claim and the moment you disagreed, you were told to go read the bible so you could see they were telling the truth.

In that case, you have two options, completely ignore the Christian person making the claim, or tell them that if they are so certain about it, then they should provide the necessary evidence to convince you.

That is not false simply because I cannot prove it is true. As it stands, it is either true or false that God spoke through a Messenger. Even if it is unable to be determined it is still either true or false.

For example, a man murdered his wife or not, that is true or false. The fact that it cannot be proven that he murdered his wife changes nothing -- he either murdered his wife (true) or he did not murder his wife (false).

Agree, but it is about how you present the facts or the case.

If I made the statement... "God doesn't exist", anyone reading that, would understand it as me knowing this to be true, meaning I don't present my argument in a trustworthy manner, but instead as a fact. Therefore it would be reasonable for any religious or nonreligious person for that matter, to require me to proof what im claiming. And if I refuse, they ought to simply dismiss my claim.

If the moment someone raises a finger, at my claim, I back off and say "Just because I can't prove he doesn't exist, doesn't mean that im not right" is to be dishonest and irrational, because then clearly my claim is not backed up by anything.

You see the difference, when atheists say "Im not convinced that a God exist" and "God doesn't exist", and some atheists will actually make the latter claim, and in that case you should demand them to prove it as well. And in most cases what they will argue, is that we can't know anything for certain, but they are as convinced as they can be that God doesn't exist as humanly possible. And again to me, that is just not a trustworthy position. Therefore stating that one is not convince that a God exist or simply that one does not know, is far more honest.

Proof is not what makes Messengers of God true or false, proof is just what atheists want so they can know if it is true but when I give them evidence they don’t like what I give them and they say it is not evidence.

I think we had a long discussion about that in one of the earlier posts

What makes good evidence, again as with the example above with the murderer, claiming his own innocent, is just not good evidence. The same goes with Baha'u'llah claiming his word is proof. It just isn't good evidence.

If you go through each evidence, without mixing them all together, I think you would agree.

a) Claiming to be something, is not good evidence. Agree?
b) Appearing as a good and friendly person, does not automatically make whatever you say true. Agree?
c) Having lived a hard life, does not make what you say true. Agree?
d) Having written a lot of books, does not make them true. Agree?
e) Because other people follow a person, does not make them more trustworthy. Agree?

And the list go on. You have to look at each evidence individually and how strong they are. And if you look at all the ones above, these are all useless evidence.

Take this example, from the bible:

Let's assume that the Jews were kept as slaves by the egyptians as the bible say. And that we have verified this with other sources, like pottery, texts, tools etc. So we are now 99.9% sure that this is true... Does this give any credentials to whether or not God created 10 plagues on the egyptians?

These are separate claims, so to confirm whether or not the plagues happens as the bible say they did, it doesn't really matter much, if the Jews were slaves there or not. Obviously it is a good start to actually being able to confirm that they were even there. But it doesn't tells us anything about whether the plagues were real or not.

God is not going to tell me, or anyone else, except a Messenger! This is what atheists just refuse to accept.

You surely can't expect anyone, atheist or non atheist to take you word for it? That is not to be reasonable Trailblazer. That is to demand people to blindly trust you for no apparent reason.

You wouldn't even do this yourself, if some Christian priest came to you and told you to just accept what he were telling you.

That analogy won’t cut it. Is there any evidence that there are any aliens?

No, and there is no evidence that a God exists either. At least, we know that life can exists in the Universe, which makes it far more likely than that of God.

Even if we knew there were aliens and talked to them, would there be any reason to believe what they said? What are their credentials, what have they done to earn our trust and belief?

Exactly, as I just said above, you clearly wouldn't just accept it either as you demonstrate here. So you expecting others to just accept what you are saying is not consistent.

You have said it yourself, that you do not see God in this world, besides through the messengers, if im not mistaken?. So what have God done to earn your trust? What credentials does he have? He apparently is so scared to interact with us, that he has to do it through humans, which we can't verify whether is telling the truth or not. So why does God earn your trust and not aliens, none of them can be verified?

Continue..

 

[Nimos]

Here is the thing Nimos. FIRST we have to believe that the Messenger really got a message from God, that He was telling the truth when he made His claims, and THEN we believe that anything He wrote about God is the absolute truth, because we believe he was infallible.

Fair enough, but then let's start from the very beginning then.

How do we get to believe that the Messenger really got a message from God?

So first thing we need to figure out, is if God exist, if he doesn't then clearly this whole thing is wrong. So that would be the first requirement, right? Let's be honest that is probably enough to keep us stuck forever

But anyway let's assume we did verify that God exist. Next we would have to demonstrate that Baha'u'llah is really a messenger, because if he isn't, clearly he is lying and we won't get the true message from God, which would be really bad, so how do we figure that out, if God only speak to a messenger?

I really have no clue, how you would demonstrate any of this?

The burden to prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is not my burden because I did not make the claim. The burden of proof rests on Baha’u’llah, and He provided the proof to support His claim.

But you agree that you are making the case on behalf of the Bahai faith right? So couldn't any religious person do the same, "I didn't make the claim about Jesus, the apostle did, so ask them", if that is the argument that religious people want to make, then we should ban all religion for promoting and teaching ignorance.

If atheists do not want to take the time to do the necessary investigation then they will never know about God. That’s just how it works. It is nobody else’s job to do the investigation.

It is simply not how it works... It is not to be reasonable to just shift the burden of proof.

My brother read the Bible five times and he also read all the scriptures of all the other religions before he heard about the Baha’i Faith. Then he heard about the Baha’i Faith and read everything in print that Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi wrote that had been published as of the late 1960s, and he also read everything about the Baha'i Faith that been written by that time. Then after all that research he decided to become a Baha’i.

It doesn't matter if you brother did this or not. It is about what can be expected. Imagine scientists doing this as well, "The universe exists of dark matter and energy." and you as a normal person, asked "What do you mean, do you have any evidence?", "Don't be silly, do your own experiments or just take my word for it. Im not going to show you anything!!", that is not how you should do things. If both religion and science worked like that, people couldn't do anything else.

That is why it makes rather good sense, to not allow people to shift the burden of proof. If scientists believe that there are dark matter and energy, they need to provide the proof, and luckily for us, they are all perfectly on board with that idea

Again, and I am sure I have told you this in the past, ONCE we do the necessary investigation and come to believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God we believe

everything He wrote because we believe it is the same as if God wrote it.

And that is perfectly fine, if you believe that. I question that you have done this investigation good enough, and therefore im not convinced by you stating what you believe to be facts or you telling me to go read 1000s of pages. If the evidence and I would go as far as to say proof, is so compelling, then it should be possible to put together a case, with undeniable proofs fairly easy.

Again, let me remind you why im sceptical, which is because, there are so many religions claiming the same as you are. So why I should believe you over them? its all about providing compelling evidence and proof.

That said, I can explain to you the reason why "Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God" since Baha’u’llah explained it.

That would be a whole lot more interesting, than simply reading it as if it is a fact. So please do

How many atheists do you think are proficient in the Baha’i Faith? From what I have seen most atheists discount the Baha’i Faith out offhand because they assume it is just one more religion like Christianity. That of course is committing the following fallacies:

I don't agree with that, first of all as with all other religions, Christianity, Islam, Hindu and Bahai, you claim that God exist, yet I don't see the Bahai having provided any proof either.

So the general doctrine in Bahai faith might be different, I don't think atheists would disagree with that. But the overall claim about an almighty God is the same, right? Baha'u'llah is basically just another messenger like the type of Jesus, whether or not we believe he was the son of God or not, doesn't really matter. So even that seems to be same idea. So how are atheists making fallacies in that regard?

Good for you Nimos, but if you had spent your time reading the Baha’i Writings instead of the Bible you would not see nonsense, but now that you are so biased against religion it will be difficult for you to see any religion as valid and believable.

It really does not matter, I have also read some of Baha'u'llah text and some of Islams and honestly there is not a big difference. Its claims upon claims with nothing to back them up.

The very one you made in this post that "Baha'u'llah word is proof" is very similar or no different from what Jesus claimed, just phrased differently.

I really don't think im being unfair here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God did produce Books, in every age and dispensation.

Funny how they contradict eachother.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I made no claims, I just stated a premise.

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.

Which is a claim with a burden of proof.
You think premises are exempt from their burden of proof?

It is not my job to demonstrate anything to anyone because I made no claim.
And I already explained how that premise can never be demonstrated:

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.

Making an unfalsifiable claim that can not be supported by evidence / proof, does not exempt it from its burden of proof. It only meets that the burden can't be met.

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Nope, I made no claims. I just stated a premise which is based upon my religious beliefs.

Premises are claims.

People who really want to know the truth seek the truth

As per your own acknowledgement, there is nothing there to seek...........
Instead, there is only stuff there to be believed at face value.

the others will just fall by the wayside because they never bother to look on the next room since they assume there is nothing to look for.[/quote

What room?
I don't have to assume that there is nothing to look for. You're straight up telling me that there's nothing to look for..... The only thing you have, as per your own admission, is a faith based claim for which no evidence or proof can exists and which can only be believed at face value.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I made no claims, I just stated my beliefs.

Which are claims.

A belief = the acceptance of a claim as being true.
A claim = a thing you believe.

You can't have one without the other.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think you are a little optimistic on two fronts - that the Baha'i faith will have much effect or that atheists/agnostics will come to some religious belief (especially of any existing ones) rather than remaining such. Speaking as one, I can't see anything that would persuade me. But I don't know how people's beliefs will change in the future, given that we just don't know that much about the future. The Baha'i faith is a sensible position to take no doubt for those who can't relinquish the grip of faiths though.

I am optimistic because I believe the the Baha'i Faith is a divinely revealed religion. I do not expect atheists and agnostics to be optimistic about a God they do not even believe exists.

I have no idea what will happen in the future, specifically, or when and how and to whom it will happen, but I believe that people will be a lot different in the future, the likes of which humanity has never seen in the past. . Moreover, I believe what the Bab and Baha'u'llah wrote so I believe that everyone will believe in God in the future. How far in the future that will be only God knows.

I also believe that in the future there will be one common faith because that is what God has ordained. What the "name" of that faith will be nobody knows.

There will no doubt be hell to pay before all this comes to pass, and we can already see that hell unfolding all over the world. Are people really that blind that they cannot see the changes taking place all over the world, or are they so mired in their own lives that they don't want to see it? I do not believe any of what is going on with the worldwide pandemic, the ensuing economic crises, and the unprecedented forest fires and hurricanes are a mere coincidence.

“God’s purpose is none other than to usher in, in ways He alone can bring about, and the full significance of which He alone can fathom, the Great, the Golden Age of a long-divided, a long-afflicted humanity. Its present state, indeed even its immediate future, is dark, distressingly dark. Its distant future, however, is radiant, gloriously radiant—so radiant that no eye can visualize it......”
The Promised Day is Come, p. 116

God’s Purpose

 

[Trailblazer]

Only in a sound argument. Which you don't have. Because:

1. your premises are not true
2. your argument is fallacious

If my premises are true it does not matter if my argument is fallacious as if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

I suggest you learn your logical fallacies before you try to teach them to me.

Unless you can prove that my premises are not true, all you have is an argument from ignorance.
I do not have an argument fro ignorance because I am not claiming that my premises are true, I simply believe they are true. You can believe that my premises are not true, but if you assert that that they are not true that 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. 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

 

[Trailblazer]

Only in a sound argument. Which you don't have. Because:

1. your premises are not true
2. your argument is fallacious.

Are all circular arguments invalid?

No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound. It should be more clear now that this line of reasoning is perfectly valid.Aug 18, 2017
Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?

Circular arguments are perfectly valid

18th August 2017 by Tim van der Zee

You have likely heard the claim that circular arguments are wrong or incoherent. In this short post I will outline why this is not the case. Circular arguments are perfectly fine; in fact, they can be quite convincing!

Lets start with perhaps the most famous bad example of a circular argument:

God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists.

It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. It’s also a bad argument from a logical standpoint, as logical arguments tend to be formulated in “if A than B”, and this formulation is missing here. This emphasizes the other weak aspect of this argumentation: both claims have a rather low prior probability.

Lets see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:

If the the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments because they are circular? No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.

Lets examine this a little further by stripping this argumentation type to its most abstract form:

If A then B. If B then A

It should be more clear now that this line of reasoning is perfectly valid. Each individual statement is perfectly valid, and the combination of the two are also valid. In fact, if B stands for something with a non-zero prior probability than the inclusion of the second argument increases the probability that A is true. This is why these types of circular arguments are not only completely valid, they can be convincing as well – if used properly.

Circular arguments are perfectly valid

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:
If what Baha'u'llah wrote is true, God exists, and, if God exists what Baha'u'llah wrote is true.

 

[ppp]

If my premises are true it does not matter if my argument is fallacious, because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true

Only if the argument is both valid in structure and sound. When an argument contains a fallacy it is necessarily unsound. If it is a formal fallacy, it will be both invalid and unsound.

I suggest you learn your logical fallacies before you try to teach them to me.

A few days ago you did not understand the difference between validity and soundness. You had not started to understand that there is a difference between false and not true. You currently think that you can construct a logical syllogism where a premise is not a claim.

Perhaps you should consider that touting your understanding of logical argumentation may be a bit premature.

 

[Trailblazer]

You currently think that you can construct a logical syllogism where a premise is not a claim.

Validity and Soundness

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I cannot prove that my premises are actually true, so I cannot make a sound argument. I was never trying to make an argument because I know I cannot prove that what I believe is true. Read my OP and you will see that:

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.

I was presenting what “I believe is true.” As such, my OP should have not have been stated as a premise, since I am not making a claim; it should have been stated as a belief. I should have said:

My belief 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.

However, if I had been making an argument......

The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

So even though I cannot prove my premises are true, if my premises are true then my conclusions must be true.

So if the premise Baha’u’llah is a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Conversely, the conclusion God exists must be true if the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true.

I am not claiming any of that is true because I know I cannot prove it is true

I cannot prove any of that to anyone else but I know it is true because I have proven it to myself by looking at the evidence that indicates it is true. Nobody can take that knowledge away from me because I did my homework.

 

[Trailblazer]

Funny how they contradict each other.

Talk is cheap. Show me the contradictions.
Remember, additions are not contradictions.

contradiction
the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very different from something else, so that one of them must be wrong:

CONTRADICTION | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is a claim with a burden of proof.
You think premises are exempt from their burden of proof?

I never intended for my premise to be turned into a claim as I was not making a claim, I was stating a belief.

I cannot prove that my premises are actually true, so I cannot make a sound argument. I was never trying to make an argument because I know I cannot prove that what I believe is true. Read my OP and you will see that:

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.

I was presenting what “I believe is true.” As such, my OP should have not have been stated as a premise, since I am not making a claim; it should have been stated as a belief. I should have said:

My belief 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.

As per your own acknowledgement, there is nothing there to seek...........
Instead, there is only stuff there to be believed at face value.

What room?
I don't have to assume that there is nothing to look for. You're straight up telling me that there's nothing to look for..... The only thing you have, as per your own admission, is a faith based claim for which no evidence or proof can exists and which can only be believed at face value.

That is a straw man. I never said all I have is a faith based claim and I never said there is no evidence and I never said it can only be believed at face value.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which are claims.

A belief = the acceptance of a claim as being true.
A claim = a thing you believe.

You can't have one without the other.

Give it up for lost. A belief is not a claim and a claim is not a belief.
I can have a belief without making a claim.

I never made a claim.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=claim+means

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it:
CLAIM | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

In my OP I said:
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.

What I have is a belief, according to the definitions below, but I never claimed it is true, because I cannot prove it is true.

Belief:

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"

https://www.google.com/search

Belief:

the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:

His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.

BELIEF | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[ppp]

I never intended for my premise to be turned into a claim as I was not making a claim, I was stating a belief.

Premises are claims in logical argumentation. They are "turned into claims." They are claims. If you have your own type of "premise" that is somehow not a claim, then you are not engaged in logical reasoning. You are doing something else.

I cannot prove that my premises are actually true,

Enough said.

 

[Trailblazer]

Premises are claims in logical argumentation. They are "turned into claims." They are claims. If you have your own type of "premise" that is somehow not a claim, then you are not engaged in logical reasoning. You are doing something else.

When and where did I EVER say I was engaged in logical reasoning?
I made a mistake in my OP when I used the word premise instead if the word belief and I admitted my mistake.
We all make mistakes, the important thing is that we can admit them and move on.

 

[ppp]

When and where did I EVER say I was engaged in logical reasoning?

Every time you invoked a rule of logical argumentation in an attempt to support your position. Every time you quoted a logical fallacy in an attempt to discredit your criticizers. Every time you cited a site on formal or informal arguments in an attempt to bolster your point.

I made a mistake in my OP when I used the word premise instead if the word belief and I admitted my mistake.

You far, far more just use the word "premise" instead of "belief". But I am glad that you can admit a mistake.