1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Trailblazer, Oct 1, 2021.

  1. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,827
    Ratings:
    +8,939
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    As I told you before, Baha'u'llah referred to them as Prophets, not as Manifestations of God. What Baha'is say does not matter because it carries no authority.

    I do not care what the Bible says. I believe that they were who Baha'u'llah says they were because the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is more accurate than the Bible.

    All of them are part of God's ever-unfolding Revelation to man. They might have been written about by the Jews but they are not property of the Jews, they are God's Prophets.
     
  2. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,827
    Ratings:
    +8,939
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I never said that I have proof in the sense that it can be established as a fact, I only ever said that I have evidence.

    Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘
    Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
    I never claimed to have proof. I am not calling it proof, I am calling it evidence..
    I do not agree. I can establish that it is true for myself, but I cannot establish it as a fact that everyone else will accept as true.
    It has not been proven to anyone else but I have proven it to myself.
    I do not need other people to verify the evidence because there is no reason to think that their opinion of the evidence would be any more accurate than my opinion. Millions of people could look at the same evidence and conclude that the evidence means nothing at all but that does not prove anything since they could also be just as wrong as I could be. People are all responsible to God for their own beliefs so they have to verify the evidence for themselves, not go by what other people think.
    Proof is just a word, why get all hung up on a word? I could also say I know it is true and then atheists say I don't know, but I do know, according to the definition of know (2a). The definition says 'truth or factuality of' so I can be aware of a truth that cannot be proven as a fact.

    Definition of know

    1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

    b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

    2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

    b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

    Definition of KNOW
    It is a belief that I believe is true. I never said that I could prove it to anyone except myself. I am not making a claim that it is true so I have no burden of proof.
    That is right, we do not know, so we can only believe.
    I believe that Baha'u'llah established the truth of His claims, but that doesn't mean everyone will believe that.

    “Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106
    I do not think that anyone should ever assume God exists, I think people should look at the evidence and then decide what to believe.
    The thing is that I am NOT making a claim that God sends Messengers, I have only ever said that I believe that is true.
    However, I suggest you read this.

    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!

    Let’s 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.

    Let’s see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:

    If 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.

    http://www.timvanderzee.com/circular-arguments/

    Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

    So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

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

    Of course, since I can never prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists. The same applies to the Bible, it can never be proven to be true, so it cannot be used to assert that God exists.

    And that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.
     
    #1222 Trailblazer, Oct 13, 2021
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2021
  3. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,336
    Ratings:
    +2,135
    Because it create confusion.

    Imagine I said, I have proven that God is not real, the first thing anyone would ask me, is what that proof is? And to that I answer, well I have proven it to my self, but no one else, because they won't understand or believe my proof.

    Its an extremely confusing way of communication, which is probably also why so many react to what you have said in this topic (haven't read them all), but even in the same post to me, you say that you never claimed to have proof, to then later say that you have proven it to yourself. Trailblazer, it is not possible!! its a contradictive statement in regards to what the word proof means. :D

    In order to claim that we know something we still have to demonstrate it to have any meaning to other people. So when you say that you know it is true, anyone would ask how do you know? How did you rule out that he weren't mistaken or simply thought he was messenger of God?

    If you can't convince people of that, the chance is that your evidence are not as strong as you think they are, or they would be convinced as well. How do you think Einstein convince pretty much everyone that he was correct, because his evidence were extremely good, so it was nearly impossible for anyone to prove him wrong and as far as I know, it hasn't happened yet either.

    Religion doesn't have this capability, at least not so far, because hardly anything ever claimed by them, especially when its the supernatural have ever been demonstrated to be true.

    Completely agree.

    I tried to look up this article and I just get an error? I tried searching for it on Google and can't find it anywhere.

    I have no clue who this guy is, but it is simply not true what he is saying that this is a sound argument.

    Once he rephrase his statement, it is no longer a claim, but rather an open question or a statement with assumptions thrown into it, which completely change things.

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

    Until you answer the IF's, this statement is pointless.

    We don't know if the bible is true, and we don't know if God exists. But surely if we assume that both or one of these are true, surely the statement make sense. But that assumption is invalid, so who cares? which is why it is pointless unless it is demonstrated.

    Besides that you can throw any religious text into that statement.

    If the old norse texts are true, Thor and Odin exists, and, if Thor and Odin exists the old norse texts are true.

    Again, I have no clue who this guy is, but its simply not true what he is saying.

    If it were you would be able to answer this question:

    Which of these statements are true? The one with the bible or the one with the norse texts? There is absolutely no way for you to answer this, as long as you don't demonstrate the IF's first.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,546
    Ratings:
    +2,128
    Hi TrailBlazer, Are you trying to say that you read what The Messengers say, and then proceed to match that with the reality you live, experience, and see, and read about?

    Is that how you verify for yourself that it is true?

    So to know God exists you first start with a revelation that you try to verify?

    So you have a totally different reference point then nature alone?
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  5. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,827
    Ratings:
    +8,939
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    It creates confusion because people do not listen to what I say. Baha'ullah said that there is proof so that is what I go by.

    “He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
    Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49


    And again.....

    “Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with 106 the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
    Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106


    I say I believe that God exists and the first thing atheists ask me is what that proof is. And to that I answer, well I have looked at the evidence which is proof to me that God exists. I say I cannot prove it to anyone else because the have to look at the evidence and prove it to themselves. But they don't look at the evidence, they say "that's not evidence" so they can never prove it to themselves.
    I do not claim that I know, I say that I know. Since I do not claim to know I don't have to demonstrate it to anyone.
    If people ask me how I know, I explain how I know. Part of the reason I know is because God guided me to be able to recognize Baha'u'llah for who He was. Of course that is a belief because nothing God does can ever be proven.

    I already ruled out that He was mistaken and only thought He was a Messenger of God by doing my research. I ruled it out in my own mind but I cannot take doubt out of other's minds.
    Sorry to say that is untrue because it makes a false assumption that if the evidence was only good enough everyone would be convinced, but it has never worked that way with religious beliefs. Hardly anyone sees the evidence for the "new Messenger" for a long time after He appears, and even many centuries later not everyone recognizes Him as a Messenger of God. For example, after over 2000 years still only about one third of the world are Christians, but that does not mean that Jesus was not who He claimed to be. To those of us who recognize Jesus it is obvious that He was sent by God.

    Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

    When Jesus said that, Christianity was the narrow gate that led to life. It was narrow because there were very few Christians in the first centuries, but Christianity is no longer the narrow road. It is now a wide road because many people have entered through it.

    I believe that in every new age, the religion at the narrow gate is the new religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

    Jesus told us to enter through the narrow gate, the gate that leads to eternal life, and Jesus said few people would find that gate... It is narrow, so it is difficult to get through... It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

    I believe that the Baha'i Faith is now the narrow gate and the narrow road that leads to eternal life in this age. The Baha’i Faith and is the narrow gate because only a few people recognize God’s new religion in the beginning and enter through that gate.
    Einstein convinced people about scientific facts but science is much different than religion so the evidence for religious beliefs is much different and it is always rejected by most people, as I explained above.m To compare science and religion as if they are the same is the fallacy of false equivalence.
    I completely agree. Religion is not science. One can prove what is natural but one can never prove what is supernatural.
    Sorry about that. I have it saved in a Word document so I can post it in a separate post if you want me to.
    He did not say the argument for the Bible was sound, he said a circular argument could be valid, but not necessarily. He said:

    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.
    I agree that there is absolutely no way for you to know which of the statements are true, or if either one is true because it is not possible to prove that the IF's are true, and that is why I said that this kind of argument can never be used for God or religious beliefs. Since the premise 'the Bible is true' cannot be proven to be true there is no reason to believe that the conclusion 'God exists' is true. Moreover, God might exist even if the Bible is not true.;)
     
    #1225 Trailblazer, Oct 13, 2021
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2021
  6. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,827
    Ratings:
    +8,939
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    No, that is not how I verify that what The Messengers say is true. Rather, I look at all the evidence that indicates that they were actually Messengers of God.

    For example, below is a list of the primary categories of evidence that indicates that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

    1. His character (His qualities).

    That can be determined by reading about Him in books such as the following:
    The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

    2. His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth, i,e., the history of the Baha'i Faith).

    That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
    God Passes By (1844-1944)
    The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

    3. His Writings which can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

    4. Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies which is like icing on the cake. That proves to me He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book:
    William Sears, Thief in the Night

    5. Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is more icing on
    the cake. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah.
    No, that is not what I do. I first have to look at the Messenger, including His Revelation (see list above), but I also have to look at the character of the Messenger and His Writings. No, I do not use nature as a reference point.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  7. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    8,721
    Ratings:
    +3,521
    Religion:
    undecided
    "Bahá’u’lláh referred to several historical figures as Manifestations. They include Adam, Noah, Zoroaster, Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. The Báb, as well as Himself..."
     
  8. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    8,721
    Ratings:
    +3,521
    Religion:
    undecided
    If the Bible is filled with fictional, metaphorical stories, is God a fictional, metaphorical character in those stories? Yes, I believe that is possible and have proven it to myself that it is possible with all sorts of evidence.
     
  9. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,546
    Ratings:
    +2,128
    The Bible is myth that was written to be believed literally. And Jesus was supposed to return himself according to the Bible. Jesus also referred to the days of Noah as an actual historical fact instead of a myth.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,336
    Ratings:
    +2,135
    I obviously can't speak for other atheists, but I do listen to what you say.

    "He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”

    “Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with 106 the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”

    So in your opinion, in regards to proving to yourself that what he is saying is true, what can you use these statement to? And for me as a skeptic what can I use them for when it comes to establish whether its true or not?

    No you are not forced to demonstrate anything, but if you want anyone to take the statement "I know" seriously you have to. Personally, I don't understand this way of thinking, it is very foreign to me, sort of like a person putting a finger in each ear and just going "lalalala" whenever someone tries to talk to them. :)

    I honestly don't know how to explain it. :)

    Maybe the problems is with the religious beliefs and how they fail to make use of evidence and not everyone else?

    Yes, that is part of what it means to believe in these things, if they weren't convincing to religious people they would be atheists. :)

    I would disagree with that, evidence are evidence. Either they confirm something or they don't, there are varies degrees of evidence, meaning weak or strong. Religious evidence can be just as strong as scientific evidence. Lets say we found the Ark on the mountain? or the original tablets that Moses got from God or some other evidence removing any doubt that this weren't true. The problem is we haven't found any such thing.

    We don't know that, first we have to even demonstrate that the supernatural exists to begin with.

    Its simply not true, its completely meaningless way of arguing.

    Like me saying something like this:

    "If a car could drive 2000 miles per hour, then surely it could drive that fast."

    That is basically what his example is staying, which is completely meaningless, if we imagine that a car could drive that fast, then surely it could drive 2000 miles, because we just imagined that it could do it.

    So there is no need to include anything other than the first part to his statement:

    If the bible is true God exists


    The other part of his statement is not needed, it doesn't add anything at all.

    It doesn't matter if its religious or not assuming that its using the same setup, if the "IF's" can't be proven it nothing but speculations. Exactly as when scientists talk about multiverses, they have no clue what happened before the big bang. But if we assume that multiverses are true, then that could explain how our universe could come into existing. But again, it completely depends on the "IF".

    The biggest difference between religion and science, is that science have no problem saying that they don't know, because the evidence simply aint there or they are not good enough. Which is in complete contrast to religious claims, like when you say that you know that it is true, yet are unable or see no need to demonstrate it.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  11. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,827
    Ratings:
    +8,939
    Religion:
    Baha'i
  12. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,827
    Ratings:
    +8,939
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    The Bible is filled with fictional, metaphorical stories about God, but just because fictional stories were written about God that does not mean God is fictional. What it means is that the writers made stuff up . Baha'u'llah never had to make stuff up since He had knowledge of God.
     
  13. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,827
    Ratings:
    +8,939
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I believe that Noah was a real Prophet who existed back in history.
    Where in the New Testament did Jesus ever say He was going to return Himself? What do you make of these verses?

    John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

    John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

    John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

     
  14. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4,546
    Ratings:
    +2,128
    The context was that he was in the world to save the world. His return is to judge the world.
     
  15. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,827
    Ratings:
    +8,939
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I agree that Jesus came to save the world but where did Jesus ever say that HE was going to return to judge the world?
    I believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ and this is Judgment Day.

    "In the Bahá’í interpretation, the coming of each Manifestation of God is a Day of Judgment, but the coming of the supreme Manifestation of Bahá’u’lláh is the great Day of Judgment for the world cycle in which we are living."

    That is a quote from this short chapter which explains why how Baha'is interpret what Jesus said about the judgment.

    The Day of Judgment
     
  16. NewGuyOnTheBlock

    NewGuyOnTheBlock Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,802
    Ratings:
    +1,155
    Religion:
    atheist
    -- BLIND POST --

    Follow that line of thought to its conclusion and you will be atheist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,827
    Ratings:
    +8,939
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I already concluded that (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him.
     
  18. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    8,721
    Ratings:
    +3,521
    Religion:
    undecided
    Click on "Baha'u'llah" to go to the link. The quote is from Bahaipedia. What ever that is.
     
  19. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    8,721
    Ratings:
    +3,521
    Religion:
    undecided
    And I always ask... Why don't we believe the Egyptian Gods or the Greek Gods? Same kind of stories. We call those myth or false, but we call the Bible "scripture"? Born-again Christians say it is literally true. Baha'is say it is metaphorically true. And some people read those stories and see made up myths. There's just way too much in the Bible that would have to be made metaphorical. It's much more likely to me that the writers told of legends, myths and traditions about their God and expected people to believe all of it was true.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    30,827
    Ratings:
    +8,939
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    On that website it says:
    "Bahá’u’lláh referred to several historical figures as Manifestations. They include Adam, Noah, Zoroaster, Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. The Báb, as well as Himself, were included in this definition. Thus religious history is interpreted as a series of dispensations, where each Manifestation brings a somewhat broader and more advanced revelation, suited for the time and place in which it was expressed."

    Unless you have actual Writings of Baha'u'llah in which He referred to these Prophets as Manifestations you cannot say that Baha'u'llah actually referred to them as Manifestations. https://bahaipedia.org is not even an official Baha'i website.

    To my knowledge, Baha'u'llah never even referred to Buddha or Krishna at all, I am not sure about Zoroaster..
     
Loading...