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

[Trailblazer]

Really? Which ones?

I'm familiar with lots of claims, but none can be verified post hoc. there is no way to verify the stories of such predictions...

I was referring to predictions made by a Messenger of God.

You said: One of those messengers should predict that it will happen on such and such dates...
I said: One of those messengers did predict that certain things would happen on such and such dates...

The name of that Messenger was Baha'u'llah. Baha’u’llah predicted many things that later came to pass. In this book, which can be read online, is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah predicted that later came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

 

[Trailblazer]

I couldn't tell you specifically. All I know is that the evidence would have to be verifiable. I've yet to see any verifiable evidence that any claimed messenger from God is actually a messenger from God. Unless God has come down and verified that yes, he or she is one of My Messengers, how can anyone claim to genuinely know?

God cannot come down to earth to verify that His Messenger is actually a Messenger, and that is why we humans are entrusted with verifying that for ourselves. We can know if we go through the verification process, which involves investigating the claims of the Messenger and looking at the evidence that He provided to back up His claims. Nobody can ever verify that God spoke to a Messenger, only the Messenger can know that, and that is why we have to check out the Messenger and determine if we believe He was telling the truth.

Religious truths cannot be verified the same way we can verify scientific truths because we cannot perform tests on God. We can subject the Messengers to tests, but they are not the same kind of tests that would be used to prove a scientific theory is true.

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

I agree that if there is a God who wants us to believe it exists then you'd expect it to provide verifiable evidence. The fact that no such verifiable evidence appears to exists suggests that either this proposed God doesn't exist or that this God is rather inept and incapable of providing verifiable evidence for its existence.

But why would you expect verifiable evidence of God's existence, just because you want it? That is not a good enough reason for God to provide it, in fact it is not a reason at all. Have you ever considered the possibility that God does not WANT to be verified like a scientific theory? So even if God could provide verifiable evidence in some way we are not privy to that does not mean that God would or should provide it - just because atheists require it.

If you understood what God is you would quickly realize why God can never be verified as per the definition below.

In a courtroom, verifiable evidence is backed up with specific proof. If you have a birth certificate, your exact time and place of birth is verifiable — in other words, you can prove where and when you were born. Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true.

verifiable - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

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?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

You have this backwards. The burden of proof, which means supplying evidence, has to come from the person making the claim that something exists. Atheists simply point out when people fail to support their beliefs properly and without evidence it is very hard to have a rational belief.

You are asking atheists how they would prove that God exists. Is the opposite fair? How would you prove that a God does not exist?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I was referring to predictions made by a Messenger of God.

You said: One of those messengers should predict that it will happen on such and such dates...
I said: One of those messengers did predict that certain things would happen on such and such dates...

The name of that Messenger was Baha'u'llah. Baha’u’llah predicted many things that later came to pass. In this book, which can be read online, is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah predicted that later came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

Thanks for the link, I'll have to take a more detailed look later...and also research whatever other scholarly research has been done on the texts and predictions.

I remain doubtful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was referring to predictions made by a Messenger of God.

You said: One of those messengers should predict that it will happen on such and such dates...
I said: One of those messengers did predict that certain things would happen on such and such dates...

The name of that Messenger was Baha'u'llah. Baha’u’llah predicted many things that later came to pass. In this book, which can be read online, is a list of 30 specific things Baha’u’llah predicted that later came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

That is written so poorly as to be illegible. What you need to do is to find the exact prophecies. Making sure that they are quoted accurately from the original source. Then we can see if they actually came true or not. Too many of them are overly vague. That as you know makes them failed prophecies from the get go if you want to use them as "evidence".

 

[Trailblazer]

So God doesn't care if we believe in him. Fair enough. That explanation generally fits the facts (though so does God's non-existence).

I did not say that God didn't care. I said that God does not need our belief, but that does not mean that God does not want us to believe in Him. God wants us to believe in Him but only if it is by choice, not because He convinced us to believe in Him.

It is? What evidence?

The evidence I am always referring to, the Messengers of God.

I think we might be talking past each other.

When I say that all the evidence for the Moon agrees with itself, I mean that:

- we can observe the Moon in the sky and track its motion
- we can observe the phases of the Moon.
- we can bounce lasers off the reflector the Apollo crew left on the Moon to measure the distance
- we can measure the tides
- we can launch rockets into space and put them in orbit of the Moon.

... and with all of these things, we have complete agreement: we can estimate the distance from the Earth to the Moon based on observations, and that will be the distance we measure directly with the lasers, and both of those things will match up with what we see in the tides.

How all this would translate to God would depend on what this God supposedly does, so if you tell me more about the God you're describing, maybe we can figure out what we should expect to see.

I would say that it depends upon what God IS, not what God DOES.

The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

God is Spirit, not a physical entity, so God cannot be observed or measured; so how could evidence for God ever be like evidence for the Moon or anything else in the physical world?

 

[Trailblazer]

Just to build on this a bit more:

If I understand what I think you're getting at, it seems like you're talking about purported revelation to "messengers." IMO, this sort of thing is useless for establishing that God exists. I wouldn't consider it evidence.

I already know that is what atheists think about Messengers. What I was asking in the OP was what then would be evidence that would establish that God exists?

 

[Windwalker]

Ok, so everyone gets 50 cents who prayed to God. Still pretty convincing.

Nah, they'd just complain he didn't care about them then.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have this backwards. The burden of proof, which means supplying evidence, has to come from the person making the claim that something exists. Atheists simply point out when people fail to support their beliefs properly and without evidence it is very hard to have a rational belief.

You are asking atheists how they would prove that God exists. Is the opposite fair? How would you prove that a God does not exist?

I already presented my evidence but no atheists like my evidence and that is why I said:

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?​

In other words, I wanted to know what atheists would consider to be evidence of God's existence.

I don't see anything unfair about asking a couple of questions.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is written so poorly as to be illegible. What you need to do is to find the exact prophecies. Making sure that they are quoted accurately from the original source. Then we can see if they actually came true or not. Too many of them are overly vague. That as you know makes them failed prophecies from the get go if you want to use them as "evidence".

I do not know the original sources of al 30 predictions that are listed in that book. Please bear in mind that they are not prophecies that were written for the purpose of Baha'u'llah proving He was a Prophet/Messenger of God. Rather, they were predictions that He made during the course of His life. For some people those predictions constitute evidence that Baha'u'llah was a Prophet/Messenger of God, but that is not why they were revealed.

Everything that Baha'u'llah predicted came true because He was inerrant. It is all recorded in history so it can easily be proven. If I posted some of the predictions I am sure you would find fault with them and say they are not specific enough, or that anyone would have known that these things would happen, but that is irrelevant. the salient point is that everything he predicted came to pass, and it is still coming to pass right now. By the way, that is one test of a Prophet.

Proofs of Prophethood​

Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men. The tests He proposed are the same as those laid down by His great predecessors. Moses said:—

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.

Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:—

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20

In the chapters that follow, we shall endeavor to show whether Bahá’u’lláh’s claim to Prophethood stands or falls by application of these tests: whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass, and whether His fruits have been good or evil; in other words, whether His prophecies are being fulfilled and His ordinances established, and whether His lifework has contributed to the education and upliftment of humanity and the betterment of morals, or the contrary.”

Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did not say that God didn't care. I said that God does not need our belief, but that does not mean that God does not want us to believe in Him. God wants us to believe in Him but only if it is by choice, not because He convinced us to believe in Him.

*I* said that God doesn't care based on your description of him.

You described a God who would be perfectly capable of convincing anyone he wanted of his existence. I'm saying that the fact that people exist who don't believe in him is - if we assume your God is real - evidence that God doesn't want to be believed in by these people.

The evidence I am always referring to, the Messengers of God.

And I reject the idea that they're evidence for God at all.

I'm looking for empirical evidence, not hearsay.

I would say that it depends upon what God IS, not what God DOES.

Do you want my opinion or not? I told you what would matter to me for my answer.

The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

God is Spirit, not a physical entity, so God cannot be observed or measured; so how could evidence for God ever be like evidence for the Moon or anything else in the physical world?

Sounds like you've defined for yourself a God that can't be established to be real by evidence. I don't think I can come up with a scenario where I could be convinced of the existence of a God like that.

 

[firedragon]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

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?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

With all due respect TB, an Atheist comes with the presupposition that God does not exist. Some would say I dont know, but generally they have that presupposition. You come with the presupposition that God definitely exists.

Your post above comes with your premise or/and your presupposition. And to that, I would not blame an atheist for saying "that is not evidence".

 

[Trailblazer]

With all due respect TB, an Atheist comes with the presupposition that God does not exist. Some would say I dont know, but generally they have that presupposition. You come with the presupposition that God definitely exists.

Your post above comes with your premise or/and your presupposition. And to that, I would not blame an atheist for saying "that is not evidence".

With all due respect, I do not think that is the issue at hand.

Here is what typically happens:
Atheists ask me for evidence that God exists and I say that Messengers of God are the evidence. Then they say "that's not evidence" because they don't think Messengers are sufficient evidence. That is why I started this thread, to find oy what would constitute evidence of God's existence for atheists.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Why put it on the atheist?

A god would be capable of producing falsifiable evidence that could convince everyone. If he can't do that simple thing then why consider them to be a god.

A god would also be capable of hiding said evidence which is probably wiser because humans would exploit/destroy or use it it for god knows what

 

[Trailblazer]

*I* said that God doesn't care based on your description of him.

You described a God who would be perfectly capable of convincing anyone he wanted of his existence. I'm saying that the fact that people exist who don't believe in him is - if we assume your God is real - evidence that God doesn't want to be believed in by these people.

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. Imo the fact that people exist who don't believe in God even though God who would be perfectly capable of convincing anyone he wanted of his existence does not mean that God doesn't want to be believed in by these people. Imo it means is that God does not want to convince people that He exists. God would rather they don't believe than convince them. God wants people to convince themselves that He exists and choose to believe of their own free will.

And I reject the idea that they're evidence for God at all.

I'm looking for empirical evidence, not hearsay.

I know that is what you and all atheists want.

Sounds like you've defined for yourself a God that can't be established to be real by evidence. I don't think I can come up with a scenario where I could be convinced of the existence of a God like that.

That's right, the God I believe in cannot be established to exist by empirical evidence.

 

[Truthseeker]

With all due respect TB, an Atheist comes with the presupposition that God does not exist. Some would say I dont know, but generally they have that presupposition. You come with the presupposition that God definitely exists.

Your post above comes with your premise or/and your presupposition. And to that, I would not blame an atheist for saying "that is not evidence".

I see where @Trailblazer is coming from, atheists don't ever believe logical proofs of the existence of God. Your own Qur'an says that the Qur'an itself is the greatest proof of the validity of the Message from God. If the Message is recognized as valid, then God is proven.

 

[firedragon]

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. Imo the fact that people exist who don't believe in God even though God who would be perfectly capable of convincing anyone he wanted of his existence does not mean that God doesn't want to be believed in by these people. Imo it means is that God does not want to convince people that He exists. God would rather they don't believe than convince them. God wants people to convince themselves that He exists and choose to believe of their own free will.

I know that is what you and all atheists want.

That's right, the God I believe in cannot be established to exist by empirical evidence.

I understand I understand. I apologise for intruding in your conversation.

 

[firedragon]

I see where @Trailblazer is coming from, atheists don't ever believe logical proofs of the existence of God. Your own Qur'an says that the Qur'an itself is the greatest proof of the validity of the Message from God. If the Message is recognized as valid, then God is proven.

Atheists aim to dismiss logical proofs. In fact I sometimes wonder why they cannot understand logic. Not all, but most of the missionary atheists. They will dismiss anything.

I agree with your statement, but you must understand that a messenger of God has to be a representative of God. After all, he is a messenger of God. If there is no God, there is no messenger of God. Its expecting an electric appliance to exist without electricity being discovered.

Yet I get your point. BTW, which verse in the Quran are you referring to?

 

[Spirit of Light]

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.

Do you ever try to see it from their side?

 

[F1fan]

So thus far there is no evidence for any gods. Theists can't agree on what evidence is adequate for anyone but themselves.