Evidence for God

[muhammad_isa]

..a religion like the Baha'i Faith rejects most all of those other definitions of who and what God is..

That's nonsense.

They do not believe in the trinity. That goes for ~50% of believers in Abrahamic religion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

a logical argument cannot be used to 'prove' that God exists or that Messengers are from God.

Nor does the evidence you offer make either more likely.

my knowledge is built on faith coupled with the evidence for Baha'u'llah.

If any of it is faith, it all is. I don't know what you're doing with what you call evidence, but if it doesn't support your conclusions, and you believe them any, what you have there is unjustified belief - religious-type faith.

that is purely an assumption.

Are you offering that in place of rebuttal? That's not even a contradiction. If you think the comment is wrong, is that because you have identified a part of it that you can demonstrate is incorrect, or because it contradicts what you prefer to believe? Only the first is of value to a critical thinker.

You know what I've got, but you are not interested.

She asked for your evidence. It sounds like you're the one not interested. Do you have any to present?

You have to show us that there is no evidence for God

Why do you think that? Insufficiently evidenced claims don't need rebutting. If you care to offer your evidence, that can be addressed.

If you referring to the god of the Genesis creation myth, science has already ruled that story out, and with that, its god as well. That's not an argument against gods in general, just those about whom things have been written which could not have happened. That's the problem with making claims that can be tested. You can rule out the existence of the demon Beetlejuice empirically by saying his name thrice, and when he doesn't appear, he is ruled out. But you can't rule out the existence of the demon Pazuzu, because nothing specific has been said about it, so there is no test. Thus, Yahweh can be ruled out by an analogous argument - he flunked the Genesis test; there are no "kinds" - but not Zeus, because there has been no falsifiable claim about Zeus to my knowledge.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you care to offer your evidence, that can be addressed..

If there IS no evidence, then there is nothing to address..

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yahweh can be ruled out by an analogous argument - he flunked the Genesis test..

..only if you take scripture literally word-for-word .. which I don't.
Yahweh, Allah, God .. all the same thing.
The Creator and Sustainer of the universe.

 

[CG Didymus]

I tested Christianity for a decade. I concluded that that god didn't exist, that faith was a terrible way to think, and gods can't be believed in without it, so, there is no value in thinking about that any further.

How much of the Christian beliefs about God, that supposedly came from the Jewish Bible and the Christian NT, do Baha'is believe? Especially this Baha'i?

Then all you have is an insufficiently evidenced claim that this god exists.

After examining what was said about God in the Bible and the NT, what do we know about God that was claimed to be said by Krishna and Buddha? I don't see the consistency. God can be and is different in most all of the different religions. And if we add the religions of the Egyptians, Greeks and others, then what do Baha'is do with them? They'd have to call those Gods false. And, probably, for very similar reasons some people call the Christian God and the Baha'i God false.

But what does she say about her God? That he is...

Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, and Immaterial, Sovereign, Eternal, Holy, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, All-Good, All-Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient.

How does she know? The Baha'i writings told her so. And she believes them, because she believes Baha'u'llah was sent by that God and God told him that he was real and told Baha'u'llah to write those attributes that described what he was like.

I noticed that "all-loving" was in there. I think she did a thread about that where even she questioned if that was true. Hmmm? If she did... I wonder what was the "evidence" that she was looking at that made her question that God is all-loving? But does it matter? Like other made-up Gods, people can believe all sorts of things about them.

 

[Nakosis]

Let’s say there are natives who live deep in the jungles of Africa and they have never seen or heard anything from the outside world. Let’s say that an airplane crashed in that jungle and some men went to investigate the crash site. For the sake of argument let’s say that these natives can speak and understand English. So, the investigators ask the natives if they have seen any ‘evidence’ of the airplane that crashed in the jungle. The natives say they have no idea what the investigators are talking about since they have no idea what an airplane is. How would the natives know if there was any evidence for that airplane crash if they don’t even know what an airplane is or what it looks like? Airplane is only a word to them.

Likewise, since Atheists do not believe in the God of theism, they are only left with only a word, God. How can they say there is no evidence for God if they don’t even know what God is? How can they know what kind of evidence to look for if they don’t know what God is? How can they say the evidence would be verifiable if they don’t know what God is? How can they know that God would be verifiable if God existed? Do you understand the problem? It is not logical to say what that evidence should consist of or what it should not consist of if you don’t know anything about the entity you are looking for.

I would say the investigators would be better off, assuming the natives were familiar with with the idea of God, telling them they are looking for a God and then describing the attributes of the God they are looking for.

Using objects they understand, like the length of 10 to 15 elephants. Flies through the air, makes a loud roar when it flies overhead. You communicate in words and concepts the natives would understand.

Then the natives tell you, "No, we haven't seen anything like that."

The problem you have is the existence of the Bible and the writings of those you accept as messengers. The problem is your evidence exists and anyone can examine your evidence. It describes God and God's attributes.

The atheists looks at the evidence offered by these messengers and say "No, sorry I haven't seen anything like that", a being with the power and attributes described by your messengers.

So then what will you tell the "natives"?
What the messengers described in their writings were wrong. That they should be looking for something else?

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, you have Jesus. But how do I know that you are right?

Ciao

- viole

And he has Muhammad. What is the "evidence" that Muhammad was speaking the truth? Does it contradict what was said in the other major religions? Then add the Baha'i Faith... What do they believe about Jesus, Muhammad and the other "messengers/manifestations" that they claim are real?

Even if we start just the Abrahamic religions... Christians have to tweak Judaism to make it fit into their beliefs about God and his purpose. Then Islam does it to Christianity and Judaism. Then the Baha'i Faith does it to all of them and adds Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism to it.

Each believes that their "tweaks" are what is really true. But that's a lot of tweaking.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If there IS no evidence, then there is nothing to address.

You seem to be saying that there is no evidence for God, but I don't think you believe that.

She said, "You make the positive claim. You have to show us what evidence that claim has. That is particularly important for claimers holding to a particular kind of God. Like the Christian God. Or the Muslim God. So, what have you got?" You replied, "You know what I've got, but you are not interested" to which I answered, "She asked for your evidence. It sounds like you're the one not interested. Do you have any to present?"

So which is it? You have no evidence to present, or you have but she wouldn't be interested?

only if you take scripture literally word-for-word .. which I don't.

So, the claims about the gods can be correct if we allow the words to mean what we choose? Any claim is correct if we take latitude in that area. There's a 100-carat diamond in a crater on the moon is certainly correct if by 100-carat diamond we mean an old-timey red toaster, and by a crater on the moon we mean my kitchen.

By this reasoning, no the Abrahamic god cannot be ruled out, which might be why the exercise is so popular with religious apologists. A day isn't actually a day, so the Genesis myth is correct. Meek isn't really meek - it really means humble - so the meek are actually blessed rather than cursed. Turn the other cheek doesn't mean to literally offer the other cheek, a foolish choice, but some other more sensible advice.

 

[CG Didymus]

That's nonsense.

They do not believe in the trinity. That goes for ~50% of believers in Abrahamic religion.

I have no idea what you think is nonsense. This is the rest of what I said...

As if each religion defines their Gods and Goddesses the same... no, they are all different. And a religion like the Baha'i Faith rejects most all of those other definitions of who and what God is, especially the one believed by some Christians that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But you only quoted this part of it.... "..a religion like the Baha'i Faith rejects most all of those other definitions of who and what God is.."

Does the Baha'i Faith accept or rejects the Trinity? Rejects? Do they accept or reject the multiple Gods found in some religions? Reject.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, the claims about the gods can be correct if we allow the words to mean what we choose?

No. It depends who is doing the "choosing" [interpretation], and the underlying intentions of them.

Incidentally, your interpretation is invalid, as your intention appears to be insincere.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Does the Baha'i Faith accept or rejects the Trinity? Rejects? Do they accept or reject the multiple Gods found in some religions? Reject.

What are you on about?
Do you expect all the different religions and creeds to be in agreement with each other?
I don't, for various reasons.

As time goes by, creeds get corrupted etc.

The most recent [as far as most people are concerned], are Christianity and Islam.
They have more in common, than differences.
..but the devil, and many others, seek to divide and rule.
There IS only One God .. you cannot divide God.

 

[Trailblazer]

And your belief in who God is is based on the same evidence. That's circular reasoning.

I said: My basis for saying I have evidence is my belief in who God is, and that determines what kind of evidence we could have for God.

My belief in who God is is based upon what is contained in the Bible about who God is. The Bible says that God is spirit, and that determines the kind of evidence we could have for God.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you call that evidence? You've got nothing, I am afraid.

Yes, I call that evidence and I have got everything I need, so I'm not afraid.

 

[Trailblazer]

Look: I know a lot about Superman, and I can easily transmit his message to you. For I am his messenger. Ergo, Superman has also evidence. Right?

Is that really so easy?

No, as usual the atheists are completely illogical.

The fact that some messengers are false does not prove that there are no true Messengers of God.
That is the fallacy of hasty generalization, unless and until one has actually considered all the variables, which means looking at all the evidence.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

1. messenger a was not a true messenger of God
2. messenger b was not a true messenger of God
3. messenger c was not a true messenger of God
4. messenger d was not a true messenger of God

Therefore, true Messengers of God do not exist.

It is true that the world is full of men who claimed to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there were not one or more Messengers who did speak for God.

Therefore, the claims of the atheists is well justified. There is zero evidence of God. Just some hearsay that everyone can make up.

Therefore, the claims of the atheists are not well justified. There is evidence of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

..and that is purely an assumption.

..... and an illogical one at that. Atheists get the grand prize for illogical thinking.

Everyone can make up hearsay.
Therefore the Messengers of God made up hearsay.

That is so illogical!

 

[Trailblazer]

No, there is no evidence of a certain type. Of another type, that is all you like as you like it. Yet then I can do it differently as I like it.
The former is objective and the latter is subjective.

*WINNER*

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you do..
You have to show us that there is no evidence for God .. never mind the kind of evidence.

*WINNER*

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you have Jesus. But how do I know that you are right?

By looking at the evidence for Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

This "messenger" thing is a Baha'i belief.

No, Muslims also believe in messengers of God and they believe that Jesus and Muhammad were both messengers of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

If any of it is faith, it all is.

That is the all-or-nothing fallacy.

I don't know what you're doing with what you call evidence, but if it doesn't support your conclusions, and you believe them any, what you have there is unjustified belief - religious-type faith.

My evidence supports my conclusions. What I have here is justified belief - religious-type faith backed by evidence.