What would be evidence that God exists?

[CG Didymus]

Submission to an Authority is the only way we can and will find peace. The Authority must be just and be elected by a fair and just process.

A family does not work without the authority of parents. Nor does a tribe, or city or country work in anarchy. All must submit to the laws, or society break down.

But the laws and policies must be just and policed in justice.

Regards Tony

Hmmm? So parents used to whip there kids for disobeying. Tribes sent people out if they didn't follow the chief. Yeah, so cities can't have anarchy, but some people can't live by the rules of the society. So they get thrown in jail. But sometimes the rules of the society aren't fair and just, so people rebel. So how are Baha'is going to enforce their rules on their people? Take their voting rights away? People disobeyed when the penalty was stoning. Are Baha'is planning on having stricter disciplinary measures?

 

[CG Didymus]

It also allows for the Government of humanity outside of Faith.

And who gets to decide what constitutes 'fair and just'?

Yeah, like the outside government is going to get along with what the Baha'i government does?

 

[ppp]

Yeah, like the outside government is going to get along with what the Baha'i government does?

I'm already forming a resistance underground to overthrow to horror of a Baha'i government.

 

[ppp]

What could go wrong with a religion that forbids alcohol, homosexuality and, until a person marries, all sex. In fact, I think there is a law about how long a man can have his hair.

And a religion that teaches its adherents that they are morally superior with a divine right to rule. Pretty much everything that could go wrong, would go wrong. Poster children for a theocratic fascist hegemony.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is irrelevant.

Let's imagine a person is being trialed for a murder, and make the statement "I didn't murder anyone", would you trust such statement? Ignore anything else about the person, simply look at the statement and the fact that the person being accused is the one making it.

Similar you can look at Baha'u'llah making a similar statement, that his word is proof... if you buy that and you want to be consistent, you would have to trust the murderer as well.

So looking at this claim isolated, any statement made by a person that is being accused and claim that they are to be trusted, is useless. Don't confuse this with that meaning that they are not telling the truth, it is not what this is about. Its about whether the statement have any credentials.

You lifted that right out of context. What did Baha’u’llah mean by words?

“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.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 105

Within the context of the passage I cited, the words He hath revealed refers to His scriptures, not His claim that He was a Messenger of God. Baha’u’llah never said that that his word is proof:

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

Yes, but as above we can consider these evidence useless or as close to useless as possible, to the point where you might as well not mentioning them, because they are so weak that they ought to not convince anyone.

How do you KNOW they are weak, have you done any investigation of them? There is other evidence such as the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled and the predictions He made that came to pass, but these are what Bahaullah enjoined us to look at, so it is the best evidence.

Again, you don't take the murders word for it either.

Baha’u’llah never asked you to take Him on His word, he asked us to do a full investigation of Him, His words and works, as noted in the quote above.

Yes, they could or they could choose to investigate one of the other 1000s of people claiming similar things. Since you make claims on behalf of Baha'u'llah, wouldn't it be more fair that you present convincing evidence than everyone else having to do it? It's not being unfair here, it would be exactly the same for you, if a Christian came to you with a similar claim and the moment you disagreed, you were told to go read the bible so you could see they were telling the truth.

In that case, you have two options, completely ignore the Christian person making the claim, or tell them that if they are so certain about it, then they should provide the necessary evidence to convince you.

I would not ask that Christian to post the whole Bible as evidence on a public forum, I would ask them where in the Bible I should look so I can go and read for myself. It is unreasonable for atheists on this forum to ask me to post all the evidence for Baha’u’llah on this forum because there is so much evidence. Many, many times I have posted the ‘categories’ of evidence on this forum that people can research and I even posted links to where they could find the information to read.

Agree, but it is about how you present the facts or the case.

If I made the statement... "God doesn't exist", anyone reading that, would understand it as me knowing this to be true, meaning I don't present my argument in a trustworthy manner, but instead as a fact. Therefore it would be reasonable for any religious or nonreligious person for that matter, to require me to proof what im claiming. And if I refuse, they ought to simply dismiss my claim.

If the moment someone raises a finger, at my claim, I back off and say "Just because I can't prove he doesn't exist, doesn't mean that im not right" is to be dishonest and irrational, because then clearly my claim is not backed up by anything.

I never made a claim, I stated a premise, which afterwards I wished I had stated as a belief and not a premise; but no matter, because I never claimed I could prove my belief was true. Go back and read my OP.

But it is true that just because I cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God that does not mean that He was not a Messenger of God, because proof is not what made Baha’u’llah a Messenger of God, God made Him a Messenger.

It is just like proof did not make a man murder his wife, He either murdered his wife or not. Sure, the courts need proof to convict the man or murder, but even if there is no proof and he gets off scot-free, the FACT is that he still murdered his wife. Si even if there is no proof that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, if He was a Messenger of God, He was a Messenger of God. Likewise, even if there is no proof that God exists, if God exists, God exists.

Do you understand what I am getting at? Reality simply exists regardless of our ability to prove it.

You see the difference, when atheists say "Im not convinced that a God exist" and "God doesn't exist", and some atheists will actually make the latter claim, and in that case you should demand them to prove it as well. And in most cases what they will argue, is that we can't know anything for certain, but they are as convinced as they can be that God doesn't exist as humanly possible. And again to me, that is just not a trustworthy position. Therefore stating that one is not convince that a God exist or simply that one does not know, is far more honest.

If an atheist claims that God does not exist I will ask him for proof. What I say is that I am convinced (or I believe) that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God; I do not say Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God as if it was a fact, because then I would be making a claim I cannot prove.

I think we had a long discussion about that in one of the earlier posts

What makes good evidence, again as with the example above with the murderer, claiming his own innocent, is just not good evidence. The same goes with Baha'u'llah claiming his word is proof. It just isn't good evidence.

But as I said above, Baha’u’llah was not saying that his word (what He claimed) is proof. By word He meant His scriptures.

If you go through each evidence, without mixing them all together, I think you would agree.

a) Claiming to be something, is not good evidence. Agree?
b) Appearing as a good and friendly person, does not automatically make whatever you say true. Agree?
c) Having lived a hard life, does not make what you say true. Agree?
d) Having written a lot of books, does not make them true. Agree?
e) Because other people follow a person, does not make them more trustworthy. Agree?

And the list go on. You have to look at each evidence individually and how strong they are. And if you look at all the ones above, these are all useless evidence.

That’s right, a-e are not evidence that a man was a Messenger of God.

Take this example, from the bible:

Let's assume that the Jews were kept as slaves by the egyptians as the bible say. And that we have verified this with other sources, like pottery, texts, tools etc. So we are now 99.9% sure that this is true... Does this give any credentials to whether or not God created 10 plagues on the egyptians?

These are separate claims, so to confirm whether or not the plagues happens as the bible say they did, it doesn't really matter much, if the Jews were slaves there or not. Obviously it is a good start to actually being able to confirm that they were even there. But it doesn't tells us anything about whether the plagues were real or not.

I agree, and I would not consider that evidence that God created the plagues because how could you ever prove that? I would say that the Bible as a whole is evidence that God exists but not the individual stories in the Bible. I believe that because I am a Baha’i and Baha’u’llah wrote that the Bible is God’s greatest testimony to His creatures, but if I was not a Baha’i I might believe it anyway because I would not have any other explanation for the Bible since I cannot see how all that could have been written without inspiration for God.

You surely can't expect anyone, atheist or non atheist to take you word for it? That is not to be reasonable Trailblazer. That is to demand people to blindly trust you for no apparent reason.

You wouldn't even do this yourself, if some Christian priest came to you and told you to just accept what he were telling you.

No, I do not expect anyone to take my word for this; all they have to do is look at the evidence! Do you see God telling anyone anything? Granted, you could argue that God did not speak to anyone, not even Moses or Jesus or Muhammad, but then I would say “give me a break!” I can understand why people do not believe God spoke to Baha’u’llah because He is the new Messenger on the block, but the others have a lot of history and scriptures and followers standing behind them….

No, and there is no evidence that a God exists either. At least, we know that life can exists in the Universe, which makes it far more likely than that of God.

Oh please…. The Bible alone is evidence. What is wrong with you atheists? How do you explain the Bible? Is there any other book like it in the world? You talk about evidence and you cannot even see the evidence staring you in the face. Sure, the Bible has problems as it was not written by Messengers of God, but it was the closest to the Word of God that we had until the the Writings of Baha’u’llah came along.

Exactly, as I just said above, you clearly wouldn't just accept it either as you demonstrate here. So you expecting others to just accept what you are saying is not consistent.

No, because Baha’u’llah was not an alien and there is a lot of evidence that indicates that He spoke for God, not the least of which is the fact that He fulfilled the Bible prophecies for the return of Christ and the Messiah.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

You have said it yourself, that you do not see God in this world, besides through the messengers, if im not mistaken?. So what have God done to earn your trust? What credentials does he have? He apparently is so scared to interact with us, that he has to do it through humans, which we can't verify whether is telling the truth or not. So why does God earn your trust and not aliens, none of them can be verified?

We were talking about the Messengers, but God is another matter altogether. Given God is remote and unreachable; it is a lot more difficult for me to trust God. However, according to Baha’i belief I am supposed to trust God through Baha’u’llah just like Christians trust God through Jesus, given they are the mediators between God and man.

God is not scared to interact with us, that is silly. God cannot interact with us directly because God is Spirit, so that is one reason God sends Messengers to speak to us. They are the Voice of God Himself.

“Attract the hearts of men, through the call of Him, the one alone Beloved. Say: This is the Voice of God, if ye do but hearken. This is the Day Spring of the Revelation of God, did ye but know it. This is the Dawning-Place of the Cause of God, were ye to recognize it. This is the Source of the commandment of God, did ye but judge it fairly. This is the manifest and hidden Secret; would that ye might perceive it.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 33

Fair enough, but then let's start from the very beginning then.

How do we get to believe that the Messenger really got a message from God?

So first thing we need to figure out, is if God exist, if he doesn't then clearly this whole thing is wrong. So that would be the first requirement, right? Let's be honest that is probably enough to keep us stuck forever

But anyway let's assume we did verify that God exist. Next we would have to demonstrate that Baha'u'llah is really a messenger, because if he isn't, clearly he is lying and we won't get the true message from God, which would be really bad, so how do we figure that out, if God only speak to a messenger?

I really have no clue, how you would demonstrate any of this?

We cannot determine if God exists without the Messenger since the Messenger is the evidence that God exists, as I said in my OP:

My premise is that Messengers of God are the only real evidence that God exists because they are the evidence that God provides and wants us to look at in order to determine that He exists.

Since there is no way to know if God exists without a Messenger, we cannot verify that God exists FIRST and then demonstrate that Baha'u'llah is really a Messenger; we have to verify that Baha’u’llah is a Messenger FIRST, and then we know God exists.

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

This is why the focus is on demonstrating that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God.

So the first order of business is to determine if the claims of Baha’u’llah are true.

But you agree that you are making the case on behalf of the Bahai faith right? So couldn't any religious person do the same, "I didn't make the claim about Jesus, the apostle did, so ask them", if that is the argument that religious people want to make, then we should ban all religion for promoting and teaching ignorance.

A Christian would point a prospective believer to the Bible to read what the apostles wrote on behalf of Jesus because the Bible is the source of their beliefs.

It is simply not how it works... It is not to be reasonable to just shift the burden of proof.

You have that wrong Nimos, I have no burden of proof unless I am trying to prove something. I am not trying to prove anything to you, I am telling you that YOU have to prove it to yourself by doing the necessary investigation, because if I was ever able to prove it to you, then it would not be your belief YOU acquired, it would be a belief I proved to you. You are forcing me to bring out the big guns now.

What Baha’u’llah wrote in The Kitáb-i-Íqán (The Book of Certitude) on the very first pages is vitally important. The following is part of the last sentence of a longer paragraph, the part I want to point out and explain.

“…… inasmuch as 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 determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say or do.

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves.

How to Independently Investigate the Truth

It doesn't matter if you brother did this or not. It is about what can be expected. Imagine scientists doing this as well, "The universe exists of dark matter and energy." and you as a normal person, asked "What do you mean, do you have any evidence?", "Don't be silly, do your own experiments or just take my word for it. Im not going to show you anything!!", that is not how you should do things. If both religion and science worked like that, people couldn't do anything else.

That is why it makes rather good sense, to not allow people to shift the burden of proof. If scientists believe that there are dark matter and energy, they need to provide the proof, and luckily for us, they are all perfectly on board with that idea

Science and religion are not the same because for scientific truth we can take the words of other people who published journals, etc, as true. The evidence that the universe exists of dark matter and energy is in the journals. Scientists can show us through what they publish, but we still have to read those journals, as the scientist is not going to explain all that to us. With religion we also have to read but we need to evaluate what we read for ourselves in order to determine if it is believable to us because it cannot be proven true as scientific subjects can be proven through experimentation, etc.

The upshot is that I can tell you WHAT and WHERE the evidence is but you have ti evaluate the evidence for yourself and make the determination if the evidence I point you to indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. In other words, your belief has to be a personal decision because you alone are responsible for what you choose to believe. I hope that makes sense.

And that is perfectly fine, if you believe that. I question that you have done this investigation good enough, and therefore im not convinced by you stating what you believe to be facts or you telling me to go read 1000s of pages. If the evidence and I would go as far as to say proof, is so compelling, then it should be possible to put together a case, with undeniable proofs fairly easy.

Everyone has a different threshold of evidence. Some people need little evidence and some people need a lot of evidence, so some people need to do a more thorough investigation. I did my thorough investigation long after I became a Baha’i because initially, it did not take much to convince me that it as the truth.

With all that I have learned in the last seven years, I could probably put together a case, with undeniable proofs fairly easy, if I ever had time.

If you want to know how one man came to believe, you can read this book online: Gary Matthews, The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

Again, let me remind you why im sceptical, which is because, there are so many religions claiming the same as you are. So why I should believe you over them? its all about providing compelling evidence and proof.

Well, from my point of view it makes sense to believe in the religion that is the most recent and modern, a religion that is pertinent to the age we live in as opposed to some former age that is long gone. it also it makes most sense to believe in the religion that ahs the most compelling evidence and proof. Of course I believe that is the Baha’i Faith.

That would be a whole lot more interesting, than simply reading it as if it is a fact. So please do.

I will but I cannot do it in this post because it is already too long and I am too tired today.

I don't agree with that, first of all as with all other religions, Christianity, Islam, Hindu and Bahai, you claim that God exist, yet I don't see the Bahai having provided any proof either.

No religion can prove that God exists, but the existence of the religion is proof to be that God exists, along with the Messenger of God.

So the general doctrine in Bahai faith might be different, I don't think atheists would disagree with that. But the overall claim about an almighty God is the same, right? Baha'u'llah is basically just another messenger like the type of Jesus, whether or not we believe he was the son of God or not, doesn't really matter. So even that seems to be same idea. So how are atheists making fallacies in that regard?

I never said that atheists are making fallacies. So I was right that atheists have a problem with Messengers who make claims to know God but I do not see any atheists presenting a better way for us to know about God

It really does not matter, I have also read some of Baha'u'llah text and some of Islams and honestly there is not a big difference. Its claims upon claims with nothing to back them up.

The very one you made in this post that "Baha'u'llah word is proof" is very similar or no different from what Jesus claimed, just phrased differently.

I really don't think im being unfair here.

What would you expect them to have to back up their claims? That is the hundred-dollar question. Answer that and I will tell you if I think you are being unfair.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm already forming a resistance underground to overthrow to horror of a Baha'i government.

The Baha'i Faith has its own system of governance, and only the Baha'is can serve on the Baha'i institutions.
FYI, there is no such thing as a 'Baha'i government' that is going to take over secular government because Baha'is are disallowed from being involved in politics or running for public office. All we can do is vote.

“The Faith which this order serves, safeguards and promotes is … essentially supernatural, supranational, entirely non-political, non-partisan, and diametrically opposed to any policy or school of thought that seeks to exalt any particular race, class or nation. It is free from any form of ecclesiasticism, has neither priesthood nor rituals, and is supported exclusively by voluntary contributions made by its avowed adherents. Though loyal to their respective governments, though imbued with the love of their own country, and anxious to promote at all times, its best interests, the followers of the Bahá’í Faith, nevertheless, viewing mankind as one entity, and profoundly attached to its vital interests, will not hesitate to subordinate every particular interest, be it personal, regional or national, to the over-riding interests of the generality of mankind, knowing full well that in a world of interdependent peoples and nations the advantage of the part is best to be reached by the advantage of the whole, and that no lasting result can be achieved by any of the component parts if the general interests of the entity itself are neglected….”
The Promised Day Is Come, vi - vii

 

[Trailblazer]

And a religion that teaches its adherents that they are morally superior with a divine right to rule. Pretty much everything that could go wrong, would go wrong. Poster children for a theocratic fascist hegemony.

The Baha'i Faith does not teach its adherents that they are 'morally superior' to anyone else.

The Baha'i Faith teaches the Unity of Mankind which means that we are all part of one human family, that we all proceed from the same Source, One God.

“The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Who knoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 288

Unity of Mankind does not mean that all people agree about everything or that all people are all equal in the sight of God, be they good or evil. A person can become morally inferior by their own behavior.

 

[Trailblazer]

What could go wrong with a religion that forbids alcohol, homosexuality and, until a person marries, all sex.

A lot less than goes wrong in modern-day society.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: That said, I can explain to you the reason why "Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God" since Baha’u’llah explained it.

Nimos said: That would be a whole lot more interesting, than simply reading it as if it is a fact. So please do.

A Messenger of God (what Baha’is normally refer to as a Manifestation of God) is not an ordinary man... If He was, there would be absolutely no reason to 'believe' Him at all. As a Manifestation of God, Baha’u’llah possessed two stations: one was the physical station pertaining to the world of matter, and the other was the spiritual station, born of the substance of God. In other words, one station is that of a human being, and one, of the Divine Reality. It is because Baha’u’llah had both a human and a divine station that He could act as mediator between God and man.

Baha’u’llah had a 'universal divine mind' that is different than ours, and that is why God was able to speak to Him through the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that God speaks to ordinary human beings because they would not have the 'capacity' to understand communication from God. Ordinary humans do not have a universal divine mind so we cannot understand communication from God

An atheist I posted to for six years nearly every day on several Delphi forums insisted that if God existed, God would communicate directly to everyone.

Here are some of my responses:

I believe that one reason God does not communicate to EVERYONE is because everyone does not deserve to know that God exists. If everyone got direct communication, then some people who do not deserve to know that God exists would find out. That is one reason there is no direct communication. The other reason is that nobody (except the Messengers) can understand communication from God, because only the Messengers of God have a divine mind so they can hear God speak through the Holy Spirit.

It seems logical to me that if God exists, God does not want to provide that proof because if God is omnipotent, God could easily provide that proof. And indeed, that is what the scriptures say.

In the Qur’an it says that If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people, meaning that God could have made all people believers, but if God has pleased, implies that God did not want to make all people into believers, and this verified by the fact that not all men are believers. According to Baha’u’llah, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort.

Interestingly, this correlates with a Bible verse:

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

I think that verse means is that we need faith that is possible to find God if we earnestly seek Him. It does not mean that we should believe that God exists on faith alone and it does not mean that we must believe God exists before we find the evidence that we find by seeking Him.

This is related to free will. Everyone has free will so everyone can look at Baha’u’llah if they choose to do so... However, that requires willingness and effort, just like anything in life... God wants us to make a sincere effort, and thereby prove our sincerity; not to Him, because God already knows who is sincere and not.

If God communicated directly to everyone we would all just be automatons believing in God because God foisted Himself on us. And what about people who do not want to hear from God? If God communicated directly to everyone we would not have a choice.

If God communicated directly to someone, how could they choose not to believe? I suppose one could argue they could still choose not to believe but that would make it too easy. God does not want it to be that easy, God wants us to make a sincere effort to determine if He exists, and thereby prove our worthiness and sincerity.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think if we are truly unbiased, we would not have discounted Faith as a viable path in understanding the basic spiritual concepts of Morality.

By thinking science, or anything in this material world, can fulfil our spiritual needs, is far from being unbiased and will never bring peace to the world. In fact in times of disaster, it is Faith based actions that compel us to work together as one humanity. We are strange creatures, because after we help each other in disaster, we go back to the science of killing each other, instead of the science of healing.

The fact that a world without Faith can not bring peace, then to me, it is becoming obvious that a harmony between faith and science must be found.

The immediate future will be great turmoil as that balance is found.

Well I have explained elsewhere how my lack of belief came about and it didn't rely on science (more on the bigger picture) but did take into account how morality is more natural and evolved, so no necessity for such coming from elsewhere (and seemingly imposed by various authorities that are not necessarily in agreement). Bias is built into religions by their nature, not so with science, which aims to reflect reality. I suspect one is biased when one accepts any spirituality as existing rather than not, which then sets so many on their paths to search for something to attest to such a belief. Many of us just fail to see any evidence for such - so no search.

I see the fight is with one's own self, as we have a choice that either God does offer us a way, or does not. If there is no God, maybe science will offer a solution for a lasting peace, but do not hold your breath in that one. If there is a God, then the path has already been given, as God never leaves us without guidance.

Too many paths unfortunately - can't all be right - and many are pulling in the wrong directions.

Mostly I see non structures civil right movements as putting on band aid solutions, that do not offer long term solutions or a vision. Mostly they are based in an unbridled self based liberty and liberty is dangerous if not controlled.

Shame it is more the religions not allowing liberty though - for the LGTBQ for example - than any 'unbridled' liberty being asserted.

I see God has told us what are our destructive actions are and given us the solutions to overcome those actions.

All around the world being offered right now are community building programs based in virtues, morals and service to each other.

Predudices, Equality of women, Poverty, Disunity and Materialistic tenancies are some of the important issues being addressed at community level, what else do you see needs to be addressed?

Regards Tony

That is not so for all religions though, and of course the basic one of not having children indoctrinated with religious beliefs until they are of an age to question such, and to choose their own, will hardly get anywhere when many see it as their right to pass on their particular beliefs to their children. And Islam has no fundamental belief as to males and females being equal and having the same rights, from what I understand, if one was to cite one religion out of step with reality.

It seems to me that the only sensible way forward is for secular societies that do allow as much religious expression as possible without any one of these having any particular influence that disrupts or impedes the lives of all others. Plenty of countries and religious beliefs that will never allow this though - from what seems likely. And partly because as you seem to believe too, that God has some plan for us, and that no matter what we do our future is laid out. How can one do much when some have such beliefs rather than those of us who do see our futures as being entirely in our hands? In such a case, the religious are actually the ones holding us back. To me, it is just as much a gamble for the religious to believe in their particular versions of reality as it is for those without such beliefs, but it is more dangerous since it is likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy if the religions are not aiding the work required but simply impeding it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Talk is cheap. Show me the contradictions.
Remember, additions are not contradictions.

contradiction
the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very different from something else, so that one of them must be wrong:

CONTRADICTION | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Book of mormon VS bible VS quran

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never intended for my premise to be turned into a claim as I was not making a claim, I was stating a belief.

A belief, is the accepting of a claim as true.
It is impossible to express a belief, without making the claim that is being believed.

I cannot prove that my premises are actually true, so I cannot make a sound argument. I was never trying to make an argument because I know I cannot prove that what I believe is true. Read my OP and you will see that:

Allow me to preface this by saying that nobody can prove that a Messenger received communication from God, since nobody can prove that God exists. As I have been saying in this forum for years, all we have is evidence, and evidence is not the same as proof.

I was presenting what “I believe is true.” As such, my OP should have not have been stated as a premise, since I am not making a claim; it should have been stated as a belief. I should have said:

My belief is that Messengers of God are the only real evidence that God exists because they are the evidence that God provides and wants us to look at in order to determine that He exists.

This doesn't change the fact that a belief is the acceptance of a claim as true.
This doesn't change the fact that expressing a belief can only be done by making the claim that is being believed.

In the last part of this quote, everything that comes after "my belief is that...", is the claim that is being believed.

Claims have a burden of proof. No matter if you aren't trying to convince someone. No matter if you don't care about supporting it. Claims still have a burden of proof. You not wanting or not being able to meet that burden, doesn't change that.

That is a straw man. I never said all I have is a faith based claim

You JUST did exactly that: I cannot prove that my premises are actually true, so I cannot make a sound argument.

Meaning that you have no rational / reasonable justification for your beliefs, since by your own acknowledgement you are unable to meet the burden of proof of the claim being believed.

This results in your belief being faith based.
Because "faith" is what you need to accept something as true which can't be reasonably supported as true.

and I never said there is no evidence and I never said it can only be believed at face value.

Not literally, but it is the inevitable outcome.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Give it up for lost. A belief is not a claim and a claim is not a belief.

A belief, is the acceptance of a claim as true.
Thus belief includes a claim.

If there is no claim, then there is nothing to be believed (or disbelieved).

I can have a belief without making a claim.

You can not.

I never made a claim.

You make a claim every time you express a belief. A belief, by definition, is the acceptance of a claim as being true.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it:
CLAIM | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Belief: to accept something as true or fact.

The "something" in all these defintions = the claim being made or believed.
When you express this belief, you will necessarily have to make the claim.

"Messi is the best player of all time".
"I believe that Messi is the best player of all time"

These are exactly the same statements. The only difference is that the first statement ommits the "i believe that" part. But it's still there... it is implied. Because why would someone make that statement if they don't also believe it?

In both cases, "messi is the best player of all time" is a statement that requires justification.

In my OP I said:
Allow me to preface this by saying that nobody can prove that a Messenger received communication from God, since nobody can prove that God exists. As I have been saying in this forum for years, all we have is evidence, and evidence is not the same as proof.

What I have is a belief, according to the definitions below, but I never claimed it is true, because I cannot prove it is true.

Belief:

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

And the statement = the claim.

As I said, you can't have a belief without a claim. Because without claim, there is nothing there to believed (or disbelieved).

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What were the world leaders supposed to do? Relinquish their position and let Baha'u'llah reign as leader of the world? Then for ordinary people the choice is no more sex until you're married, no alcohol or drugs. Gays, trans, lesbians are not "normal" and that behavior is forbidden. So I don't think a lot of people are ready to stop doing the things they do and live by Baha'i laws... until it gets so bad we have no choice.

That is their and your choice CG.

Regards Tony

 

[Muffled]

I believe I am evidence that God exists. True messengers are also but the B man isn't one of them.

 

[Muffled]

A flower, a sunrise, a newborn baby. These are the only evidence I need because none of these things could exist without God.

I believe that is supporting evidence but not conclusive evidence since it is possible for things to exist on their own. After all God does.

 

[Muffled]

Your premise makes no allowance for the fact that humans can lie and claim that they are "messengers," and at the same time ignores the fact that if all the presumed "messengers" that we have so far been presented with are real, then God is an incredibly malleable thing -- changing from continuously so that it becomes impossible to figure out what the heck he is. And that, it seems to me, is a particularly bad way to make yourself known.

In other words, for me, this whole "messenger" thesis makes absolutely zero sense. Or else speaks of not "God" but all sorts of contrary gods trying to gain supremacy.

I propose that it serves no purpose to lie about God. I believe that a lie is unsupportable. If I tell you God can change your life then He has to be able to change your life. A falsified God can't do that. That is why Christianity is replete with testimonials of God changing peoples lives.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I believe that is supporting evidence but not conclusive evidence since it is possible for things to exist on their own. After all God does.

Thank you but I believe nothing would exist if God did not create it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Book of mormon VS bible VS quran

The Book of Mormon is not a scripture.
What are the contradictions between the Bible and the Qur'an?