How to prove God.

[Bear Wild]

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists).

You forgot to include the Hindus, Buddhists, pagans and Aboriginal religious people within your numbers. Oh and there are those rational Baha'i, Christians, Muslims, and Jewish people that are rational too. Your number is clearly off unless you are saying that 93% of the world blindly ignores anything that is not specifically stated in the bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except a God doesn't;t reveal anything. By your claims it is God's messengers.

That is the only way God ever reveals anything, through His Messengers.

And since humans are these messengers, and humans are fallible and prone to error, we other humans can't just believe those who claim to be messengers. So no one has any basis for credible belief.

You would be correct if the Messengers of God were ordinary humans because if that was the case there would be no reason to believe they knew any more than any other human, but the Messengers of God are not ordinary humans as God has conferred upon them a spiritual nature that other humans do not possess. In their first station that are just ordinary humans but in their second station they are the Voice of God and thus they are infallible.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

If an actual God comes forth then your point is credible. But Gods never come forward except in the minds of some folks, who may be mistaken.

And God never will come forth because God is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Yet the irony is that God is as manifest as the noonday sun in Arizona in His Messengers, as Baha'u'llah said at the end of this prayer:

“O Thou Who art the most manifest of the manifest and the most hidden of the hidden!”
Prayers and Meditations by Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248

 

[F1fan]

That is the only way God ever reveals anything, through His Messengers.

Or a way for self-proclaimed messengers to claim they are Messengers of God, and offer no way for anyone to be certain about it. Essentially we are expected to just take your word for it?

You would be correct if the Messengers of God were ordinary humans because if that was the case there would be no reason to believe they knew any more than any other human, but the Messengers of God are not ordinary humans as God has conferred upon them a spiritual nature that other humans do not possess. In their first station that are just ordinary humans but in their second station they are the Voice of God and thus they are infallible.

OK, three questions:
1) How does a mortal discern whether they are an actual Messenger of God and not just deluded about this status? Explain the test in reality that assures the self they aren't living in an illusion.

2) How does an authentic Messenger of God demonstrate to others that they are authentic and not just some delusional person? Offer that test in reality. Surely a God would offer guidance to a Messenger how to do this in a way that isn't disputable.

3) Do you think you are a Messenger of God, thus infallible? If you answer that you are, how do you explain the may mistakes you make in your posts?

And God never will come forth because God is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men.

Almost as if it doesn't exist and the Messengers are duping people.

Yet the irony is that God is as manifest as the noonday sun in Arizona in His Messengers, as Baha'u'llah said at the end of this prayer:

Well this isn't apparent to any objective thinker, so perhaps you're mistaken in your bold claim.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Interesting, and how old where you when you decided to reject theism? What happened?

I was around 40 (79 now). Reading of Upanishads, experimenting with meditation and analysis, which made me accept non-duality and atheism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In no way can this mean that god doesn't exist. That is not an option in his mind.

Apologists galore.

So 93% of the people on the Earth are irrational but you are rational?

If they accept things without proof, then they are sure irrational. Fallacy by numbers, majority view or whatever it is called.

“.. Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. .. I am He, Himself, and He is I, .."
“O Thou Who art the most manifest of the manifest and the most hidden of the hidden!”

Now, here comes the self-proclaimed uneducated 19th Century Iranian manifestation spouting silly things. "most manifest of the manifest and the most hidden of the hidden!" What does it me another than contradction. Mystrious, ethereal, how is that manifested? "My voice is the voice of Allah" Provide proof or vamoosh. "I am he", he is Allah.

OK, three questions:

Did not he have a vision of the 'heavenly maiden'. What more proof do you require?

 

[Trailblazer]

Or a way for self-proclaimed messengers to claim they are Messengers of God, and offer no way for anyone to be certain about it. Essentially we are expected to just take your word for it?

“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.

At the very end of a longer tablet, Baha’u’llah also wrote: “For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings, p. 143

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves rather than relying upon what other people say or do.

OK, three questions:
1) How does a mortal discern whether they are an actual Messenger of God and not just deluded about this status? Explain the test in reality that assures the self they aren't living in an illusion.

There 2) How does an authentic Messenger of God demonstrate to others that they are authentic and not just some delusional person? Offer that test in reality. Surely a God would offer guidance to a Messenger how to do this in a way that isn't disputable.

There is no test that will assure that everyone will recognize the Messenger because God did not want it to be easy. Nevertheless it will be easier for some people than for others because we are all have different capacities and backgrounds so we are all coming from a different starting point.

God does offer guidance to the Messenger who thereby offered guidance to seekers, but it will always be disputable because not everyone will see the same thing in the Messenger. God purposefully made it difficult although not impossible to recognize the Messenger. Baha’u’llah explained why they appear as ordinary men.

“That the Manifestations of Divine justice, the Day Springs of heavenly grace, have when they appeared amongst men always been destitute of all earthly dominion and shorn of the means of worldly ascendancy, should be attributed to this same principle of separation and distinction which animateth the Divine Purpose. Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72

3) Do you think you are a Messenger of God, thus infallible? If you answer that you are, how do you explain the many mistakes you make in your posts?

Of course I am not a Messenger if God, I am just a fallible human being, and that is why I make mistakes.

Almost as if it doesn't exist and the Messengers are duping people.

No true Messenger of God would have any reason to dupe anyone, only a false messenger would have a motive for such. All true Messengers of God suffered for the sake of God in order to deliver their message to humanity. That is “one way” we know they are true Messengers, we look at the history of their Cause.

“Who can ever believe that this Servant of God hath at any time cherished in His heart a desire for any earthly honor or benefit? The Cause associated with His Name is far above the transitory things of this world. Behold Him, an exile, a victim of tyranny, in this Most Great Prison. His enemies have assailed Him on every side, and will continue to do so till the end of His life. Whatever, therefore, He saith unto you is wholly for the sake of God, that haply the peoples of the earth may cleanse their hearts from the stain of evil desire, may rend its veil asunder, and attain unto the knowledge of the one true God—the most exalted station to which any man can aspire. Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 85

Well this isn't apparent to any objective thinker, so perhaps you're mistaken in your bold claim.

It is readily apparent to Baha’is who think objectively, as they fully understand what it means and why God is the most manifest of the manifest yet the most hidden of the hidden. It only makes sense when you understand why that is the case. That requires study.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you just essentially said that belief in God is irrational.

And it is.

Belief on "faith" isn't rational.
Belief on evidence, is.

Faith isn't rational. Faith is gullibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well form what I have observed, it seems to me that your are not even interested in understanding the arguments

That's always your conclusion about any argument that people don't agree with.
Whenever people don't agree with your nonsense, then it "must" be because they "don't want to understand".

In most of the cases you are not even capable of spotting your points of disagreement. When atheist make a positive case at least I have the courtesy of explaining my specific points of disagreement

Just stop with the peeing contest dude. You're being extremely juvenile.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No one comes to an objective conclusion a God exists via facts and reasoning

And how do you know this? You don't, you just made it up.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And it is.

Belief on "faith" isn't rational.
Belief on evidence, is.

Faith isn't rational. Faith is gullibility.

That's your opinion. Most of the population knows otherwise. Ever think maybe you are the irrational one?

 

[leroy]

So you made its sound like you were only arguing against just random mutations when your real agenda was to slip in a god. It is true that Odin helped form the earth but I have not ever heard you reference him yet.

But that is an independent argument,

I have good reasons to reject Darwinism and I have other (independent) good reasons to believe in God…………I don’t say Darwinism is wrong therefore God.

You accusation is analogous to “hey you support an old earth because you have an agenda, you what to snick in evolution” would this accusation be fare?

If you are slipping Odin into the picture or some other god you have to explain some question. If you have the answers or evidence you then have an argument otherwise you position fails.

1. How often does a god intervene with the genetic material. Is it once every 7 days, every 100 days, or everyday all of the time? What is your evidence?

2. Does god manipulate every organism or only the few god wants to work on and what is your evidence?

3. If god has control why in the world would a god be so malicious to not correct genetic disorders. A god in control of evolution has to take responsibility for all of the good and the bad that occurs. Why would that god allow for cancers to form if that god is so powerful and in control?

My answer to those question is “I don’t know” my personal guess is that God finely tuned the universe and the laws such that say humans would evolve 200,000 years ago,

But is it just my best guess, I don’t claim to have evidence for it, which is why I am not presenting arguments related to that in this forum.

4. Do you have any example were an organism where we have enough understanding of their genetic material changed so much that it is unexplainable by natural means?. Genetic sequence in an organism that is totally novel and could not have occured by epigenetics, transposons, natural engineering or mutations?

I belive that those nonrandom mechanisms are part of a wider picture (there is a deeper mechanism) , but no I am not aware of any genetic sequence that could have not evolved by random mutations or any of those mechanisms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's your opinion.

No.

Believing something for which you don't have sound, valid evidence, is not rational. It's pretty much what "rational" means.

Most of the population knows otherwise.

Believes otherwise. Believe and know are very different things.

Ever think maybe you are the irrational one?

I'm sure I'm irrational about lots of things. I'm human after all.
However, not believing something for the reason that there isn't sufficient evidence to justify belief, is not one of them.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Believing something for which you don't have sound, valid evidence, is not rational. It's pretty much what "rational" means.

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. 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.

 

[F1fan]

And how do you know this? You don't, you just made it up.

No, I observe theists being given the opportunity to demonstrate their god exists via facts and g, and none have. Not in the history of theist has any demonstrated any gods exist outside of human imagination. Many have tried to present arguments for a god's existence but they are all fatally flawed and rely on assumptions that aren't warranted.

So I offer you the opportunity to show everyone that a flawed mortal can come to a rational conclusion that a God exists.

 

[F1fan]

Did not he have a vision of the 'heavenly maiden'. What more proof do you require?

Well dang, if I knew that ....

 

[F1fan]

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.

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.

At the very end of a longer tablet, Baha’u’llah also wrote: “For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings, p. 143

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves rather than relying upon what other people say or do.

I don't care what your guru says. I'm asking for facts and reason, not belief and claims based on belief.

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?

There is no test that will assure that everyone will recognize the Messenger because God did not want it to be easy. Nevertheless it will be easier for some people than for others because we are all have different capacities and backgrounds so we are all coming from a different starting point.

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. It doesn't;t. And the more you make claims the God and its messengers exist, and do so without credible evidence, the more doubt is created.

God does offer guidance to the Messenger who thereby offered guidance to seekers, but it will always be disputable because not everyone will see the same thing in the Messenger. God purposefully made it difficult although not impossible to recognize the Messenger. Baha’u’llah explained why they appear as ordinary men.]/quote]
Almost as if it's all a scheme. How do objective thinkers discern a sham from authentic Messengers? The messages are not all that impressive. It's just advice and claims that can't be verified as true. Asking for faith is a very, very poor way to convince the world you are a Messenger of God.



[quote[Of course I am not a Messenger if God, I am just a fallible human being, and that is why I make mistakes.

So you could be mistaken about what you believe?

No true Messenger of God would have any reason to dupe anyone, only a false messenger would have a motive for such. All true Messengers of God suffered for the sake of God in order to deliver their message to humanity. That is “one way” we know they are true Messengers, we look at the history of their Cause.

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?

It is readily apparent to Baha’is who think objectively, as they fully understand what it means and why God is the most manifest of the manifest yet the most hidden of the hidden. It only makes sense when you understand why that is the case. That requires study.

Objectivity would include accepting the possibility your beliefs are mistaken.

Can you acknowledge that you, as a fallible being, could be mistaken in your religious beliefs?

 

[Trailblazer]

And it is.

Belief on "faith" isn't rational.
Belief on evidence, is.

Faith isn't rational. Faith is gullibility.

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.

 

[tas8831]

No, it is better for adults who have good math abilities.

But child-like logic abilities.

 

[Trailblazer]

But child-like logic abilities.

But why?

Don't waste your time with Argumentum ad populum because it is a fallacy I am very familiar with.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

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.

 

[tas8831]

But why?

Don't waste your time with Argumentum ad populum because it is a fallacy I am very familiar with.

Yes, clearly you are!

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Yes, exactly the type of fallacy that was being used.

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.

Oh, I see - TOTALLY different.

That reason is because there is good evidence that God exists

There is? Like what?

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.

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.)