Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[ChristineM]

There are facts and there is information that indicate that my belief is true.

To your standards, fair enough

Deductive reasoning.... Do you see any God convincing atheists? They would not be atheists of God had convinced them.

Lol

If they could not care less why are 'some atheists' always asking me about evidence for God?
I have no need or desire for atheists to be anything but atheists.

Because they know you cannot provide valid falsifiable evidence
Than i repeat, why the op?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You might like the idea but that does not mean it is possible for God to speak to people directly and be understood. I don't believe it works that way.

I'm not a believer. That would be my take if I were. Mostly talking with ancestors and nature as means to experience God as an animist. But the god thing flies over my head.

Are you able to entertain the idea?

 

[Trailblazer]

You spend 9 years in discussion with Atheists and you have had no need or desire to see atheists believe what you do So you discuss only to discuss your belief This Dude don't not understand that

Why would anyone think that I talk to atheists because I have a need or desire for them to believe what I do?
I have no need or desire for anyone to believe what I do, certainly not for my own sake.
.
Admittedly, Baha'is have a responsibility to carry the message of Baha'u'llah but after that has been done our work is done, unless people have questions.

I talk to them because they talk to me and I am not God so I can never know where it might lead. But also, I answer posts because I consider that courteous.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God is not limited in His communications but God only speaks to the Messengers because they are the only ones who can hear the Voice of God. That is my belief FWIW.

Well, what reason do you have to suppose that an omnipotent deity can only manage to be heard by a miniscule number of humans? Why would it not be more reasonable to suppose that such an omnipotent deity could make it/him/herself understood with perfect clarity by everybody?

That, in my mind, would certainly fall within the capabilities of "omnipotence."

 

[Trailblazer]

Because they know you cannot provide valid falsifiable evidence
Than i repeat, why the op?

The OP was not about me providing evidence, it was about the atheists telling me what the evidence would be.

I asked:
So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

 

[ChristineM]

The OP was not about me providing evidence, it was about the atheists telling me what the evidence would be.

I asked:
So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

and i have given my reply which boils down to you worship a god that cannot provide evidence of its own existence. Don't put it on atheism to provide evidence for your god.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why would anyone think that I talk to atheists because I have a need or desire for them to believe what I do?
I have no need or desire for anyone to believe what I do, certainly not for my own sake.
.
Admittedly, Baha'is have a responsibility to carry the message of Baha'u'llah but after that has been done our work is done, unless people have questions.

I talk to them because they talk to me and I am not God so I can never know where it might lead. But also, I answer posts because I consider that courteous.

What have you learned about atheists and atheism in the 9 years? And have they learned about your belief?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, what reason do you have to suppose that an omnipotent deity can only manage to be heard by a miniscule number of humans? Why would it not be more reasonable to suppose that such an omnipotent deity could make it/him/herself understood with perfect clarity by everybody?

That, in my mind, would certainly fall within the capabilities of "omnipotence."

It is not about what God can do, it is about what humans can do.
God cannot make people understand what they are incapable of understanding. The brains of humans were not designed to understand direct communication from God.

What reason would there be for God to speak to everyone directly when God can speak to one Messenger who has a divine mind and is capable of hearing God after which time He can relay that information to all humans?

 

[Trailblazer]

and i have given my reply which boils down to you worship a god that cannot provide evidence of its own existence. Don't put it on atheism to provide evidence for your god.

and I have given my reply which boils down to I worship a God that provided evidence of His existence.
I have no need to put anything on atheism. I just wanted to see it from their perspective. If what I have is not evidence what would be evidence? That is a legitimate question.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not a believer. That would be my take if I were. Mostly talking with ancestors and nature as means to experience God as an animist. But the god thing flies over my head.

Are you able to entertain the idea?

Yes, I can entertain the idea.

 

[ChristineM]

God cannot make people understand what they are incapable of understanding.

Ehm, god...not omni everything then.

The brains of humans were not designed to understand direct communication from God.

Again, a god should be capable of anything,

What reason would there be for God to speak to everyone directly

Would save a great deal of skepticism for one

He can relay that information to all humans?

Or he can rely his own ideas and say "god told me to say"

 

[Trailblazer]

What have you learned about atheists and atheism in the 9 years? And have they learned about your belief?

I have learned that the evidence God provides is not good enough for them.
I don't know what they have learned. They have learned something, even if they don't believe it.

 

[ChristineM]

and I have given my reply which boils down to I worship a God that provided evidence of His existence.

In your opinion,

I have no need to put anything on atheism

Yet you do, this thread is evidence of that

If what I have is not evidence what would be evidence?

Again, a god would know, why are you putting it on atheists

And now this atheist needs to sleep, goodnight

 

[Trailblazer]

Ehm, god...not omni everything then.

Again, a god should be capable of anything,

Again it is not about capability. God is under no obligation to do everything He is capable of.

Would save a great deal of skepticism for one

Why would God care about skepticism?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, I can entertain the idea.

Do you learn about other views-something that sparks your interest to know more?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is not about what God can do, it is about what humans can do.
God cannot make people understand what they are incapable of understanding. The brains of humans were not designed to understand direct communication from God.

What reason would there be for God to speak to everyone directly when God can speak to one Messenger who has a divine mind and is capable of hearing God after which time He can relay that information to all humans?

Well, just for one thing -- that is a perfect recipe for failure in getting the message across. And I would have little to no confidence in a deity who sets things up for that kind of failure.

And here is a fact that you should consider while you try to digest what I've just said: the very fact that there are literally thousands of different religious sects around the world testifies to that failure.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, a god would know, why are you putting it on atheists

God does know and God does what was best for all of humanity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you learn about other views-something that sparks your interest to know more?

Yes.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, just for one thing -- that is a perfect recipe for failure in getting the message across. And I would have little to no confidence in a deity who sets things up for that kind of failure.

God did not fail because 93% of the world population are believers. The reason they all have different beliefs is because Messengers of God reveal different messages in every age.

And here is a fact that you should consider while you try to digest what I've just said: the very fact that there are literally thousands of different religious sects around the world testifies to that failure.

No, that does not testify to any failure on the part of God, it only testifies to the failure on the part of humans. Who created those religious sects?

 

[Trailblazer]

You've omitted part of the question, which should read "If God exists and interacts/affects the world, where would we get the evidence?"

And that's simple, any such interaction/effect would leave a trace, and that trace would be evidence.

I believe that the evidence is the Messengers that God sends and what they leave in their wake, including the great civilizations they are responsible for.

RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION

Okay then, what is the evidence? You claim that it is in the existence of "Messengers of God." But how do you know who they are, when there have been so very many claimants? Most of the religions of the world exist because they have each accepted some -- but not other -- such claimants.

I made a list of the minimum criteria that a Messenger of God would mage to meet.

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God. That would be a dead giveaway that he was trying to promote his religion as being the only true one, which would lead to suspicion right off the bat because none of the true Messengers of God have talked down other Messengers who preceded them. It is the followers of these religions that talk down the other religions, not the Messengers. There are reasons for that but I do not want to get off the subject at hand.