Funny - I never pegged you for an ignostic.I cannot define God. God is indefinable.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Funny - I never pegged you for an ignostic.I cannot define God. God is indefinable.
No one would know that, including you. And there is no way you could. Not now, and not then. What happens beyond your cognitive reach remains beyond your cognitive reach. And blindly insisting that you do know doesn't transcend that limitation, ... any more than blindly proclaiming to know that God(s) exists means that God(s) must exists.So what? They would still continue to exist...
Logic, reason, and common sense are all speculative tools. They do not magically transcend the realm of speculation into the realm of certainty, as you seem be insisting they must.We can use logic, reason and common sense.
I cannot define God. God is indefinable.
So you are actually claiming that this video could be wrong? And if you claim it's wrong, can you provide a video of your own showing your alternative scenario?No one would know that, including you. And there is no way you could. Not now, and not then. What happens beyond your cognitive reach remains beyond your cognitive reach. And blindly insisting that you do know doesn't transcend that limitation, ... any more than blindly proclaiming to know that God(s) exists means that God(s) must exists.
Logic, reason, and common sense are all speculative tools. They do not magically transcend the realm of speculation into the realm of certainty, as you seem be insisting they must.
You are correct. There is no reason to think that God could be proven to exist, but that does not mean God does not exist. It just means God does not want us to be able to prove He exists.
There is evidence that God exists, but there is no proof. If we believe in the evidence strongly enough, then that becomes proof to us.
Hypothetically speaking, an omnipotent God could prove He exists to us if He wanted to, and since He doesn’t we can conclude that God does not want to provide proof of His existence.
That is not going to happen. We need religion, and Baha’u’llah explained why:Why couldn't we all live in peace and harmony without any religions including yours? All the troubles your various religious beliefs cause would end... you're not the solution you're part of the problem!
Yes, we can know what was revealed from God’s Mind to the Mind of Muhammad.Can we also know what God revealed from His Mind to the Mind of Muhammad? For example that Muhammad was the last prophet? "The Holy Prophet Muhammad (S) is the last of the divine prophets. After His Eminence, no other prophet is going to be sent by God." Muhammad, the Last Prophet
You are right, belief is based on evidence. Blind faith is belief without evidence but all faith is not blind. Faith that is based upon good evidence is reason-based faith, not blind faith.No. Belief is based on evidence. Faith is belief without evidence or contrary to the evidence.
That is not proof of anything. It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because other religions make claims that might not be true, my religion makes claims that are false. Moreover, the Baha’i Faith recognizes all the major religions of the past as legitimate; they are just not pertinent to this age in history.Almost every religion on the planet makes the exact same claims about their prophets/adherents/prophecies/practices, and many of them claim exclusive rights to being the one true religion while all the rest are false.
By reading this book: Thief in the Night by William SearsHow have you confirmed that these beliefs in the fulfillment of prophecy, etc, are accurate?
I was not looking for anything at all. I had no interest in religion or God. It is true however that the spiritual and social teachings of the Baha’i Faith resonated with me, and that is the primary reason I became a Baha’i, I saw truth in it. At that time, and up till about six years ago, I had no interest in God. I believed that God existed but it had no real significance to my life.That doesn't mean you didn't have confirmation bias. It could be that you were looking for a specific form of belief or doctrine to believe in, and Baha'i simply provided that kind of justification, so you accepted it.
I think my evidence sets my religion apart from theirs for many reason, not only the evidence for Bahaullah being a Manifestation of God (Messenger) but the underpinning theology of the Baha’i Faith Progressive Revelation, sets it apart from all the other religions. It just makes sense to me that not only one religion is the truth from God but that only one religion is pertinent to every age in history.There are countless people who claim the exact same thing about their religion, and would call your religion either delusional, evil or outright fraudulent. What evidence do you have that sets your beliefs apart from theirs?
It is not impossible for me to be wrong, but until someone produces some evidence that refutes my religion I see no reason to admit I am wrong about it. It does not mean I have a closed mind just because I have certitude about my religion, as there are many other beliefs and truths that can be accommodated by Baha’i beliefs, and are congruent with them, given Reality is One.Also, I believe it is unhealthy and troubling to believe that it is "impossible" to be wrong about something. That indicates an extremely closed mind. If you understand anything about the human mind - or simply accept basic human fallibility - you should not believe that it is impossible to be wrong about anything.
There is nothing stopping you from saying you know I am wrong, but if you are asserting that you would need to prove it. Otherwise you can just have an opinion that you think I am wrong.Trailblazer said: No, I cannot prove it came from the Mind of God but that does not mean I cannot know. Proof is not the only way of knowing.
That’s very much a matter of opinion – what’s to stop me saying I know you’re wrong? Regardless, you started this thread asking about proof so it’s somewhat questionable for you to dismiss the concept now it isn’t working out for you.
There is nothing blind about my faith because I went into it eyes wide open, since I read ever book I could lay my hands on that had been published back then, long before there was an internet. Since then I have done a lot more research, and the ore research do on the Baha’i Faith the more my belief is confirmed... Hardly blind faith.Trailblazer said: I believe what I believe. Anything that contradicts it cannot be true if what I believe is true.
Nobody is doubting your blind faith, only the suggestion that you have anything more than that. Just like everyone else, you don’t actually know anything for certain, you’re just not ready to accept that yet.
I appreciate your point of view, but it is not indistinguishable once one distinguishes it.... It did not take long for some of us to know it came from a real Messenger of God.But it is all in how we perceive what we read, and that will be different for everyone, even people who are Baha’is.Trailblazer said: What is irrational about it? Why aren’t scriptures one way to know that the religion was from God?
Because anyone can write scriptures that claim to be from a god which would be indistinguishable from any scripture that was inspired by a real god.
That’s fine by me. I was just pointing it out.Trailblazer said: Please note what this thread was started for, the questions I was asking in the OP. Hardly anyone answered those questions. Instead they veered off and started talking about evidence and proof of God.
I appreciate that though if you specifically ask about a god providing proof the discussion is inevitably going to drift to the nature of proof (especially when you subsequently demonstrate an unconventional view of the necessity of proof). It really is the fundamental core of all of these kinds of questions.
Because Baha’u’llah wrote that in many of His Tablets. Below is my favorite passage on the subject because it says that even the Prophets and Messengers cannot apprehend the Essence of God, so how much less could an ordinary human apprehend it?Trailblazer said: What is unknowable is the Essence (intrinsic nature) of God.
How do you know it’s unknowable?
No, because faith can become knowledge once we have proven a belief to ourselves. It is not factual knowledge, it is acquired knowledge.Trailblazer said: Yes, faith is personal because it cannot be demonstrated to anyone else. Faith is something we each have to acquire, which is why Baha’u’llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself.
And that distinguishes faith from knowledge. A god would not need to provide proof for its existence but if it doesn’t, that gods existence is unproven (either way) by definition. Bottom line; we don’t know.
Messengers of God are the only real evidence there is for a God.In no way is evidence, it s somewhat circular. 'I say it is because i say it is because i...'
Noun. ignosticism (uncountable) The philosophical position that existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.Funny - I never pegged you for an ignostic.
I did not say I have no knowledge of God. I said God cannot be defined, which means God is above and beyond definition. We can know some Attributes of God that describe God but we can never know God’s Essence (intrinsic nature).Then it is irrational to believe in something if you do not even know what it is you are believing in. You cannot believe in a thing you have no knowledge of.
I agree that whether or not there is evidence of God depends on the definition of evidence that we are using, what we mean by evidence.I disagree with you as well. First of all, evidence is subjective. Whether or not there is evidence of God depends on the definition of evidence that we are using. Secondly, evidence never becomes "proof" just by believing in it strongly. I can believe as strongly as I want in something, and that does not transform so-called "evidence" into proof. I'm afraid you're just as confused as the atheist you quoted.
I pretty much agree with you both. I think in order to hurt others, people have to turn off a piece of their consciousness, but I think that is returned or reunited to them after the death of the physical body... and then they hurt and feel the guilt and shame and the "OMG what did I do?" and the only option they have left is to learn by it.
Certainly a murderer requires justice served up. How does one love the criminals of the world that shoot up Wal-Mart????
If i understand you correctly, they create their own punishment.
Someone has to provide reasonable law though. If not God, then who?
Love must be tempered by justice. There is no reason to think heinous murderers get off scot free. That would not be justice.Certainly a murderer requires justice served up. How does one love the criminals of the world that shoot up Wal-Mart????
If i understand you correctly, they create their own punishment.
Someone has to provide reasonable law though. If not God, then who?
I hope we can agree to disagree. I believe that Justice is as important as love, maybe even more important. Without justice, there can be no love.
2: O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 3-4
Being kind to a liar, deceiver or thief does him no favors because he will only make him think his acts are acceptable and he will just continue in his way. This is not love.
I do not hate anyone just because I think that punishment is sometimes necessary. I believe that the structure of world stability and order hath been reared upon, and will continue to be sustained by, the twin pillars of reward and punishment, as Baha'u'llah said, and I believe it because it makes sense, not just because He said it.
Unfortunately love and kindness does not work on everyone. Some people are pure evil, as I am finding out the hard way after I rented my house to a two time Level II sex offender only later to find out he is going to try to sue me for damages which are based on bogus claims. Still this is how our justice system works, he has the right to do this if he has money to pay an attorney.
I think you are living in a dream world if you think that tenant will learn any lessons from what he is doing. The evidence shows that people like him are repeat offenders.
I cannot agree that God is All-Loving all the time. God has wrath when it is deserved, as that is in accordance with justice. Mercy must be tempered by justice.
God does have wrath when it is warranted. This we know because it is revealed in various scriptures. Some humans deserve the wrath of God. It is not our job to judge other people, only God can judge.What could create wrath in God? Wrath is created in mankind when mankind can not control. God has no control issues.
Brains win in the end. Forget payback. Determine the real causes then solve the problem.
Controlling the actions of others through pain which is what your justice is all about, can never be right simply because you are teaching others it is right to do. At the Higher Level there are much better ways.
When you hate even for your idea of justice, you will discover when it returns that the price for hate is always too high.
Remember, Unconditional Love always does what is Best for the other. In all your dealings with people, question yourself first. Are your actions really what is Best for the other? If your actions are Unconditional Love, you will change people and the world, while teaching them to Love Unconditionally rather than teaching them all the wrong lessons.
As for renters, there are people who are very good at this. Perhaps your adversity will push you in a direction to Learn more. Talk with landlords. If you ask enough people, you will find someone who has the same problem. They might carry your answers.
Brains win. Do not get angry ,hateful or vengeful. Get Smart. Solve the problem.
Allow Reason to Lead rather than all those feelings of judging and hating.
Not to me. The words love and worship have distinct meanings. One I do gladly, the other not.
Sorry to read that.
That path is off limits for me. I've already explained why I reject faith as a path to truth. Any method that lets one believe a wrong idea as easily as a correct one is not a good method for deciding what is true about the world. If faith is the only path to theism, then I will never be a theist. I am a died in the wool rational skeptic. I need a substantial reason to believe anything.
I don't consider any words written by men to be evidence for a god. It is evidence of a god belief, not a god.
I need more than such assurances. People are happy to make promises that cannot be verified and need not be kept. I've already gone down that true seeker path, and was disappointed.
The evidence is consistent with a godless universe. I believe that I've given you the restricted choice argument before. It argues that in a universe ruled by an omnipotent, omnisicient god, there might be a holy book so impressive that no man could have written it, or not, but in a godless universe, only the latter is possible. There are dozens of these, and in every case, what we see is what we would see in a godless universe.
The argument is similar to concluding that a coin is loaded if it flips to tails every time. With a fair coin, the result could have been heads or tails, but with the loaded coin, only tails comes up. After awhile, it is safe to assume that the coin is loaded even if there is a minute possibility that the coin is a fair coin. That's about where I am with the god issue. My world is best understood without needlessly injecting gods into it.
I'm generally referring to a sentient, volitional agent capable of creating universes, but the word can also be used to refer to less, as with the Greek and Viking pantheons..
I know very little about it.
Proof is that which convinces. For me, that is evidence that can only be reasonably interpreted in one way. The evidence offered for gods in venues like this is feelings, feelings I've also experienced, and have also formerly misinterpreted as something more than my own mind.
The agnostic atheist does not assume that gods don't exist. He simply requires sufficient evidence before believing that they do. I believe that there is a sun the sky, but not a god. Why? One reveals itself through the evidence of its heat and light, the other doesn't. It's really that simple.
But I'm not looking to understand what I am not equipped to understand. My point was that the component - cells in this this case comprising a multicellular organism - can be reached to the limit of its ability to interpret and respond to stimuli. For a leukocyte, that is the ability to recognize a foreign antigen and generate a defense against it. Human beings have much more ability, but nobody is reaching out even to the level we are equipped to experience and understand. I don't accept the notion that human beings could not directly experience a god if there was one to experience.
I'm not looking for a god's-eye view of gods, just a human being's view. Those that tell me that I'm getting nothing because the whole is too great to grasp in its entirety aren't convincing. Then, this view will be called treating God like a short-order cook or wanting things served on a silver platter, as if it is expecting too much to be given what can be understood.