What would be evidence that God exists?

[CG Didymus]

For example, when Columbus arrived in the Americas and met with the local folk there... Supposed that these people actually knew all about Jesus and even had their own (matching) copy of the bible, with the same creation story and everything.... Now THAT would be something. One would need something to tie both people, that never met, together through this shared religious belief.

But the fact is that we NEVER encounter such things.
Instead, every isolated tribe / society / civilization ALWAYS has its own creation myth, its own deity entity (or entities), etc. And they never match with those from other tribes / societies / civilizations. Ever.


That tells me that it's all made up and that humans simply have a tendency to invent religions.
It in no way tells me, or even only hints, that one of these hundreds, thousands, of religions is "the correct one".

Ironically, Baha'is say that no people were left without guidance. I ask them about the Aztecs. Was there religion real and from God? Or, was it made up by Aztec religious leaders? It was a great empire until a people with false beliefs about an evil spirit being and a dying and rising God/man conquered them and forced their religion on the people.

All the great civilizations originated from a Messenger who established a religion and these civilizations have endured. Man-made philosophies come and go but nothing else has endured like religion.

Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, Roman, etc... Who was their messenger? And which civilizations have endured? We are greatly influenced by the Greeks and Romans and others. And influenced by many sects of Christianity that you don't believe have the truth. Maybe Islam? The religion that Baha'i say that the religious leaders are the evil beasts and dragons in Revelation.

The logical conclusion is that humans tend to create and make up religions. And we actually KNOW for a fact that humans do that, as we have witnessed it in recent times - some of us within their lifetime. Like Scientology, to give just one example. There are many more.

Yes, people make up religious beliefs and rework their religious beliefs and come up with all kinds of variations.

Scientology is not a religion because it was not revealed by God. All the true religions were revealed by God to a Messenger.

Well, Baha'is say Adam, Noah, and Abraham were messengers. What religion did they bring? Did God speak to the Buddha? Did God speak to Krishna? Or was Krishna God? Did God send an angel to speak to Muhammad? Did God speak directly to Muhammad? Did God send an angel to speak to Joseph Smith? Did the angel tell him where to find and translate the Book of Mormon from some golden plates? Is there a chance all these stories are fully or partially made up by people?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

It doesn't take many steps.

You look around. No God.
But lots of delusion prone humans claiming to know enough about God to make sweeping truth claims about God.
You draw the most plausible conclusion.

And you're done. No more steps necessary.
Tom

Not very scientific but good to know you at least tried.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is evidence of God if it came from God.

That makes absolutely no sense.
It coming from god, is exactly what the evidence is supposed to show.

What you are doing here is akin to drawing the bullseye around the arrow.

The fact that for some people it is indistinguishable from a lie has nothing to do with it

It has everything to do with it. Because if it is indistinguishable from falsehoods, then it isn't evidence at all.
Evidence is supposed to provide independent verifiability.

There is no reason to think that everyone in the world would recognize it as the truth.

Then it's not evidence. Not good evidence anyway.

The message cannot be confirmed to have come from God, as I said in the OP, but as I said in the OP we can prove it to ourselves, and then we know.

That makes no sense.

How we know is not something other people can understand because they have not gone through the process of proving it to themselves.

Again, then it's not evidence. Evidence is supposed to be independently verifiable. "personal evidence" is indistinguishable from makebelief and delusion. And not just for other people - for yourself as well.

Perhaps I was just lucky, because I never got caught up in all the other religions.

You call it "lucky". I call it "ignorance" and "badly informed".

I just stumbled upon the Baha'i Faith and I knew it was the truth from God

No. You believed. Knowledge is demonstrable and shareable.

Now, 50 years later I still know, in spite of all the opposition I have met with from other religious believers (mostly Christians) and atheists. I have wished I could refute it because many times I have not wanted to believe in God, but I cannot refute it because if the evidence that proves to me that it is the truth.

It's not evidence if it's not shareable / independently verifiable.

Scientology is not a religion because it was not revealed by God. All the true religions were revealed by God to a Messenger.

That's just your religious belief. Off course it is a religion.

Even if I was not a Baha'i, and I was looking at this from a purely logical perspective, I could not see the great religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam as "made up by man" because it does not hold up to scrutiny

Off course it does and I just explained to you how it does. You dismissed it with a handwave. It's still there though, and remains unchallenged and unaddressed.

I repeat: every single isolated tribe / society / civilization, has its own unique and incompatible myths, legends and religions. They can't all be right. At best, one is correct. But they CAN all be wrong.

A human tendency for superstitious beliefs, explains perfectly why there are so many different religions.
One religion being the "true one", does not explain at all why there are so many different religions.

So right out the gates, the "humans tend to invent religions" explanation matches the actual observations in the world MUCH better.

On top of that, it is scientifically proven that humans have a tendency for superstition (as do most animals btw), as a result of humans being very prone to engaging in cognition errors, like false positives, as well as being very prone to infusing agency in random events... and as far as I can see, that makes it pretty much check mate.

There is nothing even remotely close to such explanatory power from the perspective of any religion actually being correct.

and it completely discounts the course of history.

It absolutely doesn't.

All the great civilizations originated from a Messenger who established a religion and these civilizations have endured.

That is simply flat out false.

Man-made philosophies come and go but nothing else has endured like religion.

So? The religions that endured over the millenia are still mutually incompatible. So by definition most of them are necessarily wrong. Clearly then, "enduring" doesn't mean "correct".

 

[Trailblazer]

Not my problem.

I gave a reasonable standard. If the evidence for your God doesn't meet a reasonable standard, then belief in your God is unreasonable, IMO.

If it seems unreasonable to you then you do not have to believe on God.
God does not operate according to your standards of evidence, God has His own standards.
It is only logical that an omnipotent/omniscient God would set the standards for evidence, a human would not set them.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Please don't embarrass yourself by making assumptions about my thought processes. We've already established that your assumptions aren't exactly rational.

But back to that first assumption of yours: did you decide that "a flower, a sunrise, a newborn baby" couldn't be caused by anything other than God because you couldn't think of any other causes?

I am certainly not embarrassed by your thought processes, or lack thereof. Since you do not care to discuss them, perhaps they are not very rational either. And I am not sure if you have established anything except your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to have.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it seems unreasonable to you then you do not have to believe on God.
God does not operate according to your standards of evidence, God has His own standards.
It is only logical that an omnipotent/omniscient God would set the standards for evidence, a human would not set them.

If you can't establish that your God even exists, then I can't take your pronouncements of his "standards" seriously.

 

[columbus]

Not very scientific but good to know you at least tried.

Not very scientific?
What does that mean?
Tom

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it seems unreasonable to you then you do not have to believe on God.
God does not operate according to your standards of evidence, God has His own standards.
It is only logical that an omnipotent/omniscient God would set the standards for evidence, a human would not set them.

Replace "god" with "undetectable extra-dimensional unicorn" and the merrit of the "argument" remains completely intact. That's how awefull the logic is.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Not very scientific?
What does that mean?
Tom

I guess you have to figure it out.

 

[columbus]

I guess you have to figure it out.

I already have.
You don't understand science.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am certainly not embarrassed by your thought processes, or lack thereof. Since you do not care to discuss them, perhaps they are not very rational either.

I just recognize your tactic.

And I am not sure if you have established anything except your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to have.

Right now, the subject is YOUR claims, even though you keep on trying to distract from this.

Last chance: do you have anything to back up that "a flower, a sunrise, a newborn baby" can't be caused by anything but God?

 

[columbus]

It is only logical that an omnipotent/omniscient God would set the standards for evidence, a human would not set them.

Let me know when God sets such standards. Telling me that you believe that some other human has explained them isn't at all the same.
Tom

 

[CG Didymus]

all the proof that Christians have for Jesus, the Baha'is themselves say is false and didn't happen... except the "virgin" birth. Did that guy heal the sick, cast out demons and bring back Lazarus from the dead? Well then, maybe he's for real. No wait, Baha'is say that is all untrue. So that takes the credibility of the "proofs" in the NT and Bible away.

um...
This precedent is rather problematic.

Is the Earth round? maybe it is. No wait, Flat Earthers say that the Earth is flat like a pancake. So that takes the credibility of the "proofs" of the Round Earthers away.

Baha'u'llah is speaking for God, supposedly. So anything he says is the truth. Christians say Jesus did all sorts of things, the big one being rising from the dead. Baha'is, having the real truth from God, say those things didn't happen. If that is so, then everything that Christians say is true, and is from God, is negated by what Baha'i believe is true and say that it came from God.

Yet, Baha'is say they believe in Jesus, the Bible and that Christianity is a true religion from God. So yes, there is a weird precedent being set. It is that what is true about Jesus and the Bible is what Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith says is true.

So great proofs from the NT... Jesus got up out of a tomb. No. God spoke from heaven and many people heard it. No. Many people got up out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem. No. These phony stories were used to convince people that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God. They were told the apostles and others were witnesses of these events. But now, Baha'is say "no", didn't happen. To me, that's saying the gospel stories are lies. But wait, Baha'is have one more wrinkle to throw in there... the stories were not literally true... but symbolically true. But what you're saying is correct. Both say the other is wrong. And if you believe the Christians, it negates what the Baha'is say and vis a versa.

 

[Trailblazer]

I said that I felt this paragraph in the OP didn't hold up well to logical scrutiny, and you asked why:

your point (a): This seems like both quite an arrogant claim by you. It's also quite an extraordinary claim, and you provide zero evidence to back it up.

My evidence is what was revealed on the Writings of Baha’u’llah who carefully explained why nobody except Messengers can understand direct communication from God.

(b): This is clearly untrue. Whatever "revealed" religion you might want to mention, only a fraction of humans ever get the message of that particular religion. I would say that gods would be much more convincing if in fact they DID speak to everyone.

It is certainly not only a small fraction of people that believe in God because of a religion. According to these statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. The point is that with no Messengers, very few people would believe in God.

How could you ever know that God wants to be more convincing than He has been?

Logically speaking, if God wanted to be convincing to everyone, God could have chosen a method other than Messengers. That God did not choose another method is proof that God did not want to be convincing to everyone.

later in (b): Who is the "Him" you would like us to check out? The god or the messenger? I've checked out several popular gods and their messengers, perhaps as much or more than you have, and I have found the evidence to be missing, and/or self-conflicting, and/or extremely weak.

The “Him” that you need to check out is the Messenger, since you cannot get to where God resides and check Him out.

Just because you checked out a bunch of cars and found all of them did not run properly, that does not mean there is no car that would run properly.

Let me share with you part of a conversation I had with an atheist to whom I posted almost every day for six years. I wrote most of my posts in Microsoft Word, and I have saved many of the documents.

Atheist said: Also, every imaginary god ever believed in did as well as to have at least one alleged messenger. These messengers also had their gullible followers who thought their messenger was the real deal, and also fantasized that they had evidence of their messenger being the real deal. So a god having a messenger thought to be the real deal doesn't mean ####.

I said: A God having a Messenger thought to be the real deal does mean something if He was really a Messenger of God, but you will never know that because you assume without even looking at the Messenger that He cannot represent a real God.

Here, let’s go over this again:

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

There are two logical possibilities: A = true Messenger; B = false Messenger.

There have been many false messengers, (a) ones who thought they got a message from God (psychotics) or (b) ones that were lying (con-men), but logically speaking that does not mean that there were never any true Messengers of God.

It is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization to assume that just because many or most messengers were false all messengers were false.

The only reason anyone should believe that any man was a true Messenger of God is because of the evidence that indicates that. It is completely irrelevant how many false messengers there have been.

So let me ask you this: Why would your god create humans with the ability to use logic and reason, and then set things up so that we need to suspend these critical thinking capabilities due to a lack of good evidence?

God did not do that. God created humans with the ability to use logic and reason, and God then set things up so that we would use these critical thinking capabilities and apply them to the evidence He presented.

Atheists imagine that if God existed there would be some kind of evidence other than the Messengers of God, but if you really took the time and removed your biases it would become as clear as the noonday sun that the Messengers of God are the best way for God to communicate and that they are also the best evidence that God exists.

 

[McBell]

Baha'u'llah is speaking for God, supposedly. So anything he says is the truth. Christians say Jesus did all sorts of things, the big one being rising from the dead. Baha'is, having the real truth from God, say those things didn't happen. If that is so, then everything that Christians say is true, and is from God, is negated by what Baha'i believe is true and say that it came from God.

Yet, Baha'is say they believe in Jesus, the Bible and that Christianity is a true religion from God. So yes, there is a weird precedent being set. It is that what is true about Jesus and the Bible is what Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith says is true.

So great proofs from the NT... Jesus got up out of a tomb. No. God spoke from heaven and many people heard it. No. Many people got up out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem. No. These phony stories were used to convince people that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God. They were told the apostles and others were witnesses of these events. But now, Baha'is say "no", didn't happen. To me, that's saying the gospel stories are lies. But wait, Baha'is have one more wrinkle to throw in there... the stories were not literally true... but symbolically true. But what you're saying is correct. Both say the other is wrong. And if you believe the Christians, it negates what the Baha'is say and vis a versa.

like I said: Problematic.

 

[Trailblazer]

The most disappointing thing here is that you didn't give any of the evidence that convinces you or explain why it convinces you. Rather than spin our wheels talking about hypotheticals, let's get to brass tax. What's the evidence for any of Baha'i's "messengers" actually being messengers?

That was not the purpose of this thread so that would have to be the topic of another thread. As I recall we discussed having such a thread some time ago, but as I recall you said something that indicated you had lost interest, so I never posted the thread.

I can still start such a thread but I would have to know that there is an interest and I would have to know that it would not be considered proselytizing by staff. I would also have to wait until I get caught up on posts from this thread which are coming at me left and right.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I already have.
You don't understand science.
Tom

I guess you don't understand religion, so we are even. But actually I have taken many science classes in college. How many religion classes have you taken?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I just recognize your tactic.


Right now, the subject is YOUR claims, even though you keep on trying to distract from this.

Last chance: do you have anything to back up that "a flower, a sunrise, a newborn baby" can't be caused by anything but God?

I think you have all the proof you can handle. Anything I say will be used against me in a court of law.

 

[columbus]

I guess you don't understand religion, so we are even. But actually I have taken many science classes in college. How many religion classes have you taken?

I went to 12 years of Christian school.

But that's not even my point. I cannot escape religious people and their claims, they're all over the place in southern Indiana. I know about religious claims, far better than you know about science.
Tom

 

[McBell]

I think you have all the proof you can handle. Anything I say will be used against me in a court of law.

all that to say "no"?
you looking into getting into politics?