• 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!

How to prove God.

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Citing a text that isn't factual is irrelevant. You offer no evidence why any rational mind should consider this true. You making more claims on top of claims is not rational.
I made no claims. Baha’u’llah made the claims. I just believe His claims based upon the evidence.
If you want a factual text I suggest you go to college and buy yourself a textbook.
I don't care what your guru says. I'm asking for facts and reason, not belief and claims based on belief.
If you investigate the truth for yourself instead of asking me to prove it to you, you would find the facts for yourself.
Let's note you have been corrected for irrational claims and wrong statements many times, so how does that inform your confidence that a person is a Messenger of God without denial and delusion?
My confidence that Baha’u’llah is a Messenger of God does not rely upon what anyone else thinks or believes.
Why would I care what other people think or believe, unless they have evidence that refutes my beliefs?
Obviously you missed what the passage said or you chose to ignore it.

“... inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of "other people" as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot measure truth according to what other people say, think or do.
Then that's reason to doubt. If there's an actual God, and it has actual Messengers, then a competent God will find a way to convince even the most objective thinker.
God would only do that if He wanted to. Why should God convince atheists that He exists? Do you really think God cares if you believe in Him? God does not need your belief because God has no needs. Any logical person could figure out that an omnipotent God only does what He wants to so. Since God has not thus far convinced any atheists, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that God has no interest in convincing atheists that He exists. If atheists want to believe in God they will have to do their own homework.
It doesn’t. And the more you make claims the God and its messengers exist, and do so without credible evidence, the more doubt is created.
I made no claims. Baha’u’llah made the claims. I just believe His claims based upon the evidence.
So you could be mistaken about what you believe?
I know I am not mistaken because I did my due diligence and looked at the evidence 100 times over for over 50 years.
You still offer no method to discern an authentic Messenger of God from a fake. So could you be duped by a false Messenger? How would you know?
I already told you how I know, I looked at the evidence. Only a true Messenger could have or would have done what Baha’u’llah did. A false messenger would only have selfish motives. I also know because Baha’u’llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies and no false messenger fulfilled even one of them.
Objectivity would include accepting the possibility your beliefs are mistaken.
You are absolutely wrong about that. Objectivity has no such requirements because objectivity nothing to do with certitude. Having looked at the evidence for over 50 years I would have to be pretty inept at evidence evaluation if I still had doubts.
Can you acknowledge that you, as a fallible being, could be mistaken in your religious beliefs?
Hypothetically I could be wrong because any fallible human could be wrong, but why does it matter to you if I am wrong or not? Is there a reason you need me to be wrong? That is what you should be asking yourself.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
There is? Like what?

Right, so illogical to think that the deity that DID expose itself in the past and leave physical artifacts of its handiwork, just, golly, don't do that no more. Stopped doing it right around the time period in which the printing press and natural philosophy (science) was taking off... What a coincidence.

I do not accept anecdotes as evidence; weeping statues, cloud formations, visions, feelings, etc. And of course modern Christians are about the worst advertisement for Jehovah's influence/power/plan I can imagine (MTG, Paula White, megachurches, prosperity gospel, etc.)
The Messengers of God are the only real evidence for God's existence because that is what God offers as the evidence.

What would be evidence that God exists?

We no longer have to accept anecdotes as evidence; weeping statues, cloud formations, visions, feelings, etc.
Baha'u'llah, the Messenger of God for this age, provided plenty of evidence to back up His claims.
His claims and the evidence are on this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah
 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I am not saying that God exists because many or most people believe in God. I am saying that if that many people believe in God there must be a reason. That reason is because there is good evidence that God exists, evidence atheists are unwilling to accept because they expect God to show up in person even though God is not a person... talk about illogical.:rolleyes:
Ah...
Like:
the earth being flat?
Tomatos being poisonous?
Horse hairs left in water would turn into worms?
Sickness caused by demons?
Sun revolving around the Earth?​
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Interesting how you completely missed the point...
I missed the point because I was suffering from heatstroke and I read it too quickly, but I got your point now.
You meant that atheists are unwilling to accept things like.....

the earth being flat
Tomatos being poisonous
Horse hairs left in water would turn into worms
Sickness caused by demons
Sun revolving around the Earth

So how are these things comparable to the existence of God?
Is there any evidence for any one of these things?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I made no claims. Baha’u’llah made the claims. I just believe His claims based upon the evidence.
If you want a factual text I suggest you go to college and buy yourself a textbook.
What you post on the forum is on you. You offer us no evidence how to determine who is an authentic Messenger of God, nor how to distinguish one from a fraud.

You make claims to these things, we ask questions so you can show us you're telling us the truth. Your guru is irrelevant. You think he's credible, we don't. We need facts.

If you investigate the truth for yourself instead of asking me to prove it to you, you would find the facts for yourself.
We objective thinkers do. That's why we are not convinced by what you claim and post. When we explain our investigation doesn't back your claims you insist your evidence was good enough for a believer. That's why it fails. It needs to be good enough for objective thinkers.

My confidence that Baha’u’llah is a Messenger of God does not rely upon what anyone else thinks or believes.
Why would I care what other people think or believe, unless they have evidence that refutes my beliefs?
Obviously you missed what the passage said or you chose to ignore it.
Dude, knock yourself out. But as soon as you come into an open forum with diverse people you'd better be ready to listen and show your work. That you believe X is irrelevant. If you claim X is true then you have the burden to show it's true to objective thinkers. Most who respond to you explain how your beliefs aren't objective or rational, and you don't care. But then you make claims as if they are rational, so it indicates you don't listen or learn.

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of "other people" as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot measure truth according to what other people say, think or do.
Yet you do.

God would only do that if He wanted to.
Who says? Do you know God?

Why should God convince atheists that He exists?
Because salesmen love to make the hardest sale.

Let's note that believers don't know a God exists. They believe, and may be mistaken. So we cannot point to a single mortal who can honestly say they know a God exists.


Do you really think God cares if you believe in Him?
If a God were to exist it would have a duty to make itself known to the most skeptical. Why? Because skeptics cause the most trouble to theists and religions.

God does not need your belief because God has no needs.
Who says? You keep telling us about God as if he's your neighbor and you BBQ every weekend together. But didn't you say that only Messengers can know God? And you said you aren't a Messenger. I don't want to call you a liar, but ......

Any logical person could figure out that an omnipotent God only does what He wants to so.
Only if a God actually existed, and there are facts about it that could be observed. There aren't.

Since God has not thus far convinced any atheists, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that God has no interest in convincing atheists that He exists. If atheists want to believe in God they will have to do their own homework.
Assuming a God exists. And since assumptions don't leas to rational conclusions, your assertion here fails.

I made no claims.
You've made a series of claims above. You referring to a God as if it's real, and as if you had direct, factual knowledge about it, are all claims. And since you cannot explain how you have this special knowledge, nor offer evidence for them, they are bad claims.

Baha’u’llah made the claims. I just believe His claims based upon the evidence.
So you are a mindless agent, and you have no responsibility for what you post here?

I know I am not mistaken because I did my due diligence and looked at the evidence 100 times over for over 50 years.
So you've decided you are correct despite a lack of credible evidence? That's called confirmation bias.

The evidence e you've given us is your best, yes? And objective thinkers consistently point out how exceptionally weak and subjective it is.

I already told you how I know, I looked at the evidence. Only a true Messenger could have or would have done what Baha’u’llah did. A false messenger would only have selfish motives. I also know because Baha’u’llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies and no false messenger fulfilled even one of them.
Since you're not a Messenger yourself you must be deficient in some way, so maybe you're being duped. How would you know an actual messenger from a fraud since you don't have to tools to know differently?

You are absolutely wrong about that. Objectivity has no such requirements because objectivity nothing to do with certitude. Having looked at the evidence for over 50 years I would have to be pretty inept at evidence evaluation if I still had doubts.
You are certain without objectivity, and that is a dangerous mix. That's what every toxic dogma does through history.

Hypothetically I could be wrong because any fallible human could be wrong, but why does it matter to you if I am wrong or not? Is there a reason you need me to be wrong? That is what you should be asking yourself.

Your beliefs are benign and don't seem to pose any threat. But i always worry about what people can do if they believe they have truth, and conflate personal belief to absolute knowledge.

This is a final few minutes of Bronowski's Ascent of Man, Episode 11:

 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I missed the point because I was suffering from heatstroke and I read it too quickly, but I got your point now.
You meant that atheists are unwilling to accept things like.....

the earth being flat
Tomatos being poisonous
Horse hairs left in water would turn into worms
Sickness caused by demons
Sun revolving around the Earth

So how are these things comparable to the existence of God?
Is there any evidence for any one of these things?
You still missed the point.
That being the number of people believing a thing has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the thing.
Being theist or atheist is completely irrelevant of the point.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
What you post on the forum is on you. You offer us no evidence how to determine who is an authentic Messenger of God, nor how to distinguish one from a fraud.
It is not my job to do homework for other people.
You make claims to these things, we ask questions so you can show us you're telling us the truth. Your guru is irrelevant. You think he's credible, we don't. We need facts.
I presented the facts a long time ago and you said “that’s not evidence.”
We objective thinkers do. That's why we are not convinced by what you claim and post. When we explain our investigation doesn't back your claims you insist your evidence was good enough for a believer. That's why it fails. It needs to be good enough for objective thinkers.
What investigation? Objective thinkers that never even bother to look at the evidence?
Dude, knock yourself out. But as soon as you come into an open forum with diverse people you'd better be ready to listen and show your work. That you believe X is irrelevant. If you claim X is true then you have the burden to show it's true to objective thinkers.
I am not a dude but no matter. I have no burden to prove anything to anyone just because I have a belief. The burden is on people who want to believe something is true. It is called homework.

Most who respond to you explain how your beliefs aren't objective or rational, and you don't care. But then you make claims as if they are rational, so it indicates you don't listen or learn. [/quote]
Do you really think I care what other people think of me? Think again. Your constant criticism of me only make you look bad to good people, little do you know it.
What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of "other people" as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot measure truth according to what other people say, think or do.

Yet you do.
That just shows that you still did not understand the passage even after I posted it twice. I do not measure truth according to what other people say, think or do. I could not care less about what other people say, think or do. The Messengers and Prophets of God are not “other people.”
Who says? Do you know God?
It is called deductive reasoning. Why wouldn’t an omnipotent God do what He wants to do, what could stop Him from doing it? Have you seen God converting any atheists lately?
Because salesmen love to make the hardest sale.
God is not a salesman and God could not care less what people buy.
Let's note that believers don't know a God exists. They believe, and may be mistaken. So we cannot point to a single mortal who can honestly say they know a God exists.
I know, but how I know is not something you could ever understand.
Do you really think God cares if you believe in Him?
If a God were to exist it would have a duty to make itself known to the most skeptical. Why? Because skeptics cause the most trouble to theists and religions.
God has no duties to anyone, let alone skeptics and atheists. If they want to know He exists they have to do their own homework, just like everyone else. The evidence has been revealed by God but if you don’t like God's evidence that’s not God’s problem because God has no problems.

That’s beyond funny. Do you really think that skeptics and atheists bother me? No, they are my best source of entertainment and have been for years. Christians by contrast require more work to answer.
Who says? You keep telling us about God as if he's your neighbor and you BBQ every weekend together. But didn't you say that only Messengers can know God? And you said you aren't a Messenger. I don't want to call you a liar, but ......
I get all my information for Baha’u’llah and supplement that with logic and reason. Only humans and animals have needs. God has no needs because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining.
Only if a God actually existed, and there are facts about it that could be observed. There aren't.
No, there is no reason to assume any facts could be observed, other than that is what you would like to see happen.
Assuming a God exists. And since assumptions don't leas to rational conclusions, your assertion here fails.
Nobody should assume that God exists before doing their homework. What I said about homework stands and it is unassailable. Ever try to get a college degree by asking the teacher to do your homework?
You've made a series of claims above. You referring to a God as if it's real, and as if you had direct, factual knowledge about it, are all claims. And since you cannot explain how you have this special knowledge, nor offer evidence for them, they are bad claims.
I make no claims. If I speak as if God is real that is because I believe God is real. I don’t have any direct knowledge about God, it all comes through Baha’u’llah.

I have not only explained how I have this special knowledge, I have told you where to find it about 100 times.
So you are a mindless agent, and you have no responsibility for what you post here?
I have gone above and beyond fulfilling my responsibility by explaining what I believe and why I believe it and pointing to the evidence. Do you see any other Baha’is taking this kind of time to explain all of this?
So you've decided you are correct despite a lack of credible evidence? That's called confirmation bias.
There is no lack of evidence. What you are doing is called projection. You don’t see any evidence so you assume nobody else does.
The evidence e you've given us is your best, yes? And objective thinkers consistently point out how exceptionally weak and subjective it is.
Objective thinkers. :rolleyes:
Since you're not a Messenger yourself you must be deficient in some way, so maybe you're being duped. How would you know an actual messenger from a fraud since you don't have to tools to know differently?
I have the tools because God created me with innate intelligence. All I have to do is apply it to the evidence, it’s not that difficult.
You are certain without objectivity, and that is a dangerous mix. That's what every toxic dogma does through history.
Who said I don’t have objectivity? You are you to judge who is objective and not? Have you followed me around for the last 50 years? No, you just make assumptions based upon confirmation bias that extends to all believers. Believers cannot be objective because they are believers. I have never heard anything that biased and illogical.
Your beliefs are benign and don't seem to pose any threat. But i always worry about what people can do if they believe they have truth, and conflate personal belief to absolute knowledge.
Only God’s knowledge is absolute. I just believe the latest message that was revealed by God. My personal belief is either true or false. If true then there are certain implications for everyone, not just me.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You still missed the point.
That being the number of people believing a thing has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the thing.
Being theist or atheist is completely irrelevant of the point.
I do not see that point being made in your first response. #363 Mestemia, Today at 5:02 PM
I already know that the number of people believing a thing has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the thing. You were not telling me anything I had not already stated:

Trailblazer said: I am not saying that God exists because many or most people believe in God. I am saying that if that many people believe in God there must be a reason. That reason is because there is good evidence that God exists, evidence atheists are unwilling to accept because they expect God to show up in person even though God is not a person... talk about illogical.

I am saying that if that many people believe in God there must be a reason. No atheists seem to be able to address that point in any logical way.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
When we explain our investigation doesn't back your claims you insist your evidence was good enough for a believer. That's why it fails. It needs to be good enough for objective thinkers.
What? You think she was a believer before she investigated? I assure you that's not true. I know her.

Does an objective thinker really exist?
 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I do not see that point being made in your first response. #363 Mestemia, Today at 5:02 PM
Nor did you ask for clarification.
Instead you ran off into left field.
And then you run further into left field.
Now that it has been clarified....

I already know that the number of people believing a thing has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the thing.
Yet missed that very point not once but twice....

You were not telling me anything I had not already stated:

Trailblazer said: I am not saying that God exists because many or most people believe in God. I am saying that if that many people believe in God there must be a reason. That reason is because there is good evidence that God exists, evidence atheists are unwilling to accept because they expect God to show up in person even though God is not a person... talk about illogical.

I am saying that if that many people believe in God there must be a reason.
I disagree.
As I have already stated numerous times right here on religiosforums.com, there are at least as many reasons as there are theists.
Are you claiming there is a single reason?
If so, stop beating around the bush and say so.

No atheists seem to be able to address that point in any logical way.
What point?
That there are lots of people who believe in some sort of god?
So what?
It is not as though the number of people who believe in god has any bearing on the existence of any god.
No matter how much you try to imply otherwise.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The same could be said for most of what we believe is real. You didn't do all the science experiments that tell you that you live on a certain type of planet, in a certain type of universe. I believe in all kinds of things I don't have direct evidence for. I believe Venus is a real planet. I've never seen it in person. I cannot confirm that it really exists. I have to go by what I read or pictures someone shows me, which could easily be faked. I believe in air, but I can't prove it's real. I believe that George Washington and General Custer were real people, although I have no real evidence, just words on a paper or screen and drawings. So, when I look at the night sky and believe in a creator, I actually have more evidence than I have for hundreds of other things I believe in.

Science is evidence based. And very results based.
You can trust atomic theory is pretty accurate, because nukes explode.
You can trust relativity is pretty accurate, because gps works.

Next to that, you CAN check it for yourself if you really wanted to. Nothing stops you from enrolling in a university and learn it for yourself.

Because I'm here and the sun rises each morning and the moon is still moving the tides and this earth supports life.... And like 93 percent of people on the earth, I see that as irrefutable evidence that someone made this place.

Beliefs and bare claims aren't evidence.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Belief based upon the ONLY evidence God provides and having faith in the evidence is rational, since nobody can ever prove that God exists as a fact.
What is IRRational is to expect to prove "God exists" as a fact. :rolleyes:

I didn't even speak about "proof". I spoke about evidence.
And there is none.

Bare unverifiable claims aren't evidence.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Yet missed that very point not once but twice....
I never missed that point. I was the first one to mention ad populum to another atheist.
I disagree.
As I have already stated numerous times right here on religiosforums.com, there are at least as many reasons as there are theists.
Are you claiming there is a single reason?
If so, stop beating around the bush and say so.
I am not claiming there is a single reason. Maybe I should have said reasons, because that is what I meant when I said there must be a reason that people believe in God. I meant that collectively.
What point?
That there are lots of people who believe in some sort of god?
So what?
It is not as though the number of people who believe in god has any bearing on the existence of any god.
No matter how much you try to imply otherwise.
I never said belief in God proves there is a God, but it makes no sense to me that 93% of the world population are all deluded and only 7% of the world population who are atheists are right that there is no God. Sorry, that does not fly for many logical reasons, not the least of which is that it is the 93% who are running the world, and if they are all deluded how would that be possible? This inane atheist idea that God owes it to them to prove He exists or they are not going to believe in Him is like a little kid who wants his lollipop or else he is going to be mad at daddy. It is like a petulant child.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
II am saying that if that many people believe in God there must be a reason. No atheists seem to be able to address that point in any logical way.

It's easy to address, and it has been.
Here it is again:

Argumentum ad populum, is a fallacy.


Sure, there must be a reason why many people believe in a god or other supernatural stuff.
You seem to assume that the answer here must be "because god / the supernatural actually exists".

This is off course false.
The actual reason is human psychological weaknesses. The tendency of cognition errors. The tendency of trying to see patterns and if there aren't any, inventing them. The tendency of seeing agency in otherwise random events.

The psychology of belief is actually quite well understood in the neurological / psychological sciences.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Why do keep trying to address that issue to them, then?
This is the first time I have brought it up and it is about time.
Why would 93% of the world population believe in a God that does not exist? There is no logical reason except that God does exist. It is so drop dead obvious to everyone except atheists and that is because they won't look at religion as evidence for God, yet they cannot come up with any other explanation for religion and civilization. If there were never any Messengers of God how did all these great religions get established?

Atheists want some kind of evidence for God that does not exist, and no matter how many times I tell them that it does no good. If God does not provide evidence how could we ever have any evidence? God sends Messengers and that is the evidence that God exists. It is just too bad that atheists don't like it but they cannot make God do anything else, and then they get angry at me as if I am responsible to provide evidence that does not exist.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I didn't even speak about "proof". I spoke about evidence.
And there is none.

Bare unverifiable claims aren't evidence.
Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists. Sorry you don't like it but you'll have to take it up with God since it is God who sends them.
God has never been and will never be verifiable, for obvious logical reasons.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It's easy to address, and it has been.
Here it is again:

Argumentum ad populum, is a fallacy.


Sure, there must be a reason why many people believe in a god or other supernatural stuff.
You seem to assume that the answer here must be "because god / the supernatural actually exists".

This is off course false.
The actual reason is human psychological weaknesses. The tendency of cognition errors. The tendency of trying to see patterns and if there aren't any, inventing them. The tendency of seeing agency in otherwise random events.

The psychology of belief is actually quite well understood in the neurological / psychological sciences.
I said that if 93% of people in the world people believe in God there must be a reason. (I did not mean just one reason, I meant reason collectively). No atheists seem to be able to address that point in any logical way.

You have given NO logical reason. lol, a million times lol.
93% of the people in the world are believers and they are running the world. All those people do not have psychological weaknesses or cognition errors.

The 7% of atheists are the ones with cognition errors, because they believe that if God existed God would be provable. The 93% know better.

Try again.
 
Top