joelr
Well-Known Member
No I meant the future of this universe. We make predictions based on evidence and probabilities.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can we change our mind about what we believe?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
joelr
Well-Known Member
You are mistaking frontier science with established science. The conservation of energy will never be wrong, we may learn more details about it on a smaller scale. None of this has to do with the fact that a deity could have given people information that WOULDN'T CHANGE because it was correct. Like GERMS ARE REAL, wash your hands.
I don't know what this means in terms of science and information that could help humanity? If the Bible has issues with copying and transmission how do you know anything you are reading is actually what it's supposed to mean? That would bring every passage into question.
What you believe isn't important. You could believe in Zeus, it doesn't matter, you need to provide evidence to support your beliefs.
There is no evidence that any God exists or enabled life. That is a natural process.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Isaiah is the first book that shows influence from their Persian captors. One of the big Persian myths was a world savior was coming to save humanity and he would be born of a virgin. They came in 600 BC and after a few centuries these ideas were taking root in Jewish theology as well. Isaiah has the first mention of hell, bodily resurrection, angels with names and some other influences.
joelr
Well-Known Member
That, is odd. I didn't even......what???
This tautology would be appropriate in some settings, here it isn't. You are misrepresenting my reply as if I'm saying he's all wrong about everything.
And, I'm not. I'm commenting on one line where he said:
"In the Book of Isaiah it is written: “Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of His majesty.” No man that meditateth upon this verse can fail to recognize the greatness of this Cause, or doubt the exalted character of this Day—the Day of God Himself. ”"
Well, I meditateth upon this verse and do not recognize what he claims I should. So he is wrong.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
There were admonitions put to use only much later, such as not touching dead bodies. And keeping clean. Although ridiculed until his death, Dr. Semmelweis changed the course of medical procedures, and this was in line with the Bible's admonition to keep clear of dead bodies. For a nice discussion of this, you might want to go to www.jw.org and look up Semmelweis.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Ok, we have a new tactic here. Now it's because I don't think right, then a silly maxim (obviously everyone does not think like me, I think like me?), which contains a hidden ad-populum fallacy and finally a rude and incorrect assessment of my point of view. Basically ad-hom.
so first:
1) Yes it's according to how I think but not for the reason you imply. It's because I hold a rational, skeptical, empirical methodology to all of my beliefs.
2)I actually DO understand that many people do not have such a methodology and often believe things on poor evidence and purely for emotional reasons. If they even entertain doubt they may use confirmation bias and apologetics to disregard them.
3) The reason I argue with you is because you have consistently presented the same claims without good evidence over and over. I'm not even arguing as much as standing up for an assessment of the facts that involves a higher standard of skepticism and critical thinking.
4) I did not say "my way or the highway" and I resent that comment. If someone was trying to convince you the government has crashed alien ships at Area 51 from the Roswell ufo crash and you continued to stick to rational explanations for the evidence and continued to point out that Matt Brazle found "rubber, sticks, eyebeams and scotch tape"....and they said "meh, it's your way or the highway....." would you not be annoyed?
At ANY point you are free to provide reasonable evidence. It doesn't speak to my "way" that you don't have a reasonable foundation to base truth and facts on with these claims. That is your responsibility. You have a claim, you demonstrate it's true.
And you said it's "ridiculous". Can you please provide a methodology on how to tell what claims from a God are real and what claims are made up?
Because........why again? What limitations do you find having infinite power puts on speech?
No I think "infinite" pretty much covers everything. (Except Aleph-1.)
If a being is infinite he takes a mortal form. He telepathically says words to anyone he wants to speak to. I'm sure he figures it out.
Yet when I stated it makes sense that a God was going to reveal himself then he would give verification and knowledge you said "I don't know what God would do, only God knows God." But now that it supports your narrative to make the OT a metaphor, suddenly you feel you know what God would do?
That is confirmation bias.
It makes more sense the OT is anthropomorphic in order to make a narrative work that has NO evidence. So the whole OT, all the stories about Israel's first contact with God, all metaphor, just so Bahai can be true. Yet he provides no evidence at all?
That seems worse, you didn't investigate? You took the word of apologists?
No, it isn't an opinion. The evidence sucks. It's basically the same level of evidence for Mormonism, Islam, Christianity, yet you are not at all compelled by them. If the evidence was good first I would see that it was good and people would be joining. Everyone would convert.
There actually is no evidence. He just claims they are revelations. That's it. A persons life, their work, that isn't evidence of revelations?
Anecdotal claims of magic exist in every cult and religion. Not evidence.
Vague prophecies, not evidence.
Warping Revelation is certainly not evidence. Picking 4 events (while discarding hundreds of others like a 7 headed dragon because it must be a "metaphor") and finding them in history, despite the fact that they happen all the time and it's easy to find 4 in the proper order, somewhere in the world. That isn't evidence. It's conspiracy theory level nonsense.
It isn't hard to explain (I just did) the evidence is terrible and not compelling. Again, I believe there are emotional reasons more than logical.
But what happened to the lecture on ad-populum??? Where is that? Now it's just MY opinion, and it's ONLY my opinion. Stressing it's just me.
wow, that's a shift from posting ad-populum definitions.
Again, you tap dance all over. grasping at straws. If I cite people it's a fallacy, if it's just me you use that against me. This is confirmation bias. Make me wrong at all cost. Rather than look honestly at the evidence and try and explain why it's sufficient, or consider it might not be.
That is false. And confirmation bias. You probably don't actually believe that. There is no such thing as bad evidence to you and good to me.
Do you think the sun will come up tomorrow? Do you think the U.S. President is Biden? You do, because you have evidence, many lines of evidence. Both could stop but there is little doubt these are likely possibilities to be real tomorrow. We both agree.
Everyone can agree on good evidence.
Do you believe the Jesus in AU, who has a ministry and is the 2nd coming of Jesus, is really the Biblical 2nd coming of Jesus?
Do you believe Angel Moroni came down to give revelations, golden plates and true updates on Jesus and Christianity to Joseph Smith?
No and no. Because the evidence, which many people (millions) buy into. But is there actual proof? No. You also don't buy it.
Bahai, does not have good evidence either. He made a claim. He could not present any knowledge beyond what was possible. The science he spoke on was not correct.
Other forms of evidence from desperate apologists is not good evidence. People believe this because they want to believe in a movement, to feel special, to feel as if there is a spirit, an afterlife, and so on. Enough to overlook really bad evidence.
Good evidence is always good evidence.
Bad evidence is always bad and always requires apologetics. Bahai has them, as does many other religions.
A man writing long books in a peculiar style and claiming God is telling him messages is not good evidence. It's EXACTLY the same as Jesus in AU, he also claims he is divine. Same thing. Just because you bought into one doesn't mean it has good evidence.
When you care about what is actually true you may see that your evidence is non-evidence.
You have yet to explain anything that is even close to evidence. What you are now doing is trying to make it MY fault.
Ok. Did you read apologetics designed to be convincing?
Than explain what progressive means, how is this progressive?
Why do I have to ask? Why is your answer "in your opinion" ....... NO KIDDING!?!?! it's my opinion?????
But they look like facts. Progressive has meanings.
The knowledge isn't progressive. Theology isn't, literary style, keeping up with the times isn't? It was a scientific and industrial revolution, as well as a philosophy revolution. All sorts of Western philosophers were writing, it was time for a religion to add in something. A God, for sure, help humanity with medical and science.
We entered an age of science, scientific proof was essential, a God would 100% speak on mathematics, just to verify, something we couldn't confirm without a supercomputer.
You say progressive then I ask for anything progressive and it's "not progressive like that" or "I don't know what God would do", then why did he say PROGRESSIVE?
Sounds like one big scam.
It's not my opinion, I'm letting the facts speak.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
..but that is not the topic..
The topic we were discussing, was about a future life in an "alternative universe" .
You said: "Neil DeGrass Tyson did a short lecture on this:
Among elite scientists religious belief is down at 7%"
What has this universe got to do with believing in an afterlife?
i.e. a future not in this physical reality
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
And what you are saying in a nutshell is, "it's true because it says so". He said he had revelations, you believe him. That's it?
If you have a methodology where supernatural claims need no evidence, they are just true if they sound nice to you, then fine. But you don't care about what is really true.
And you don't have a good method to know what is true.
The Thor comic book could be true. And it would still be true with no evidence at all. Look, I can say that about anything.
Doesn't make it true. Things that are true can be demonstrated as true. You miss all of this.
There is no evidence? The only evidence is he said he had revelations. We have been over this. You haven't presented anything that demonstrates revelations.
It doesn't matter, you don't have anything to explain, you haven't for most of this exchange. The evidence (if you call it that) is terrible.
The only thing that points to revelations is the fact that he claimed to be having messages from God. That is it.
"His life, his work...." that is ridiculous. If I said "hey Jesus in AU is really THE Jesus, because his life and his work" and anything on that list, you would laugh and never consider it again.
The one evidence is , he said he was a messenger.
Which comes down to "it's true because the book says so".
ALSO, you constantly say something and then post the scripture that says the same thing. THAT MEANS, you are saying things are true BECAUSE THE BOOK SAYS SO.
Whatever you claim, he said it, his life, he preaches Jesus, vague prophecies, silly Mt Carmel prophecies, whatever............it's all equally not evidence.
His writings. Not evidence.
First, please get past this point. Why you find it so compelling you have to re-state it over and over I don't know. It isn't meaningful.
The Spider Man movie may be true, without evidence, if it's true it's true. Don't care.
Nothing demonstrated he was more than a man. NOt his claim, not his writing, not that list, not vague prophecies, not predicting safer sea travel, or anecdotal reports. Just like Joseph Smith, who said he communicated with an angel, had witnesses of the golden plates, wrote a Bible, has millions of followers, that evidence is not good evidence.
But millions of people still keep the faith.
I will stick to a strong epistemological foundation for belief. Feel free to enter any evidence to support your claims.
No, logic, skepticism and an empirical methodology is not just a trivial opinion. It's our best method to find truth.
You are ignoring it.
Why are you not a Mormon? An angel came down and gave JS golden plates, he has 12 witnesses, he wrote a Bible and lived the life.
He had updated messages from God.
Oh because the evidence isn't great and doesn't hold up?
Yet we can agree on the periodic table. Gravity. We can test it as well.
I'm not speaking for what you care about, I'm speaking about what is true and how it can be demonstrated.
I'm sure you agree when you fly a plane, have surgery, take a medicine, drive, you want established methodologies to have been done to ensure the safest possible experience.
This is no different, things that are true can be demonstrated. If they cannot that is the time to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is presented.
Which would NOT allow Jesus in AU to create a giant ministry hanging on his every command.
But the standard still applies to all claims. People like to make things up. 1/2 of the Epistles was fake. There were 36 other gospels that were made up (they all were but 36 are known heretical by the church). Pretty sure Muhammad was not visited by any angels and those are fictional beings.
As is Judaism and Christianity. Evidence demonstrates this. So Bahai first has to prove all that and then prove he hears this deity.
I know the evidence, it isn't an opinion. You would not buy that evidence for Mormonism or for Jesus in AU. Why you buy it here I do not know.
But you have not presented any evidence even as equal to the Mormon claims. Even if we call it equal, it's more faith based.
It is not simple, if people buy into theology on feeling good and anecdotal stories we will never break out of religious wars and persecution and people will not understand how to use a method to find truth. Voter fraud, vaccine issues, conspiracy theories. Critical thinking is a skill that has to be learnt and even then confirmation bias will creep in.
OMG.
You just explained why you find it arrogant to speak for someone elses mind. I try to elaborate and walk right into this? Where you tell me what I'm thinking. Ridiculous and hypocritical.
Maybe you cannot fathom it so there is a mental block?
The "no evidence" isn't in my mind. There literally is no evidence. Everything you explained could be any person, nothing you said means someone is speaking to a God. NOTHING.
The only thing is he claimed he was a messenger. This is the origin of "it's true because the book says so". And it's the only evidence AT ALL.
I have written about every single evidence you put forth. Anecdotal, some was pure nonsense.......his life, his work......he predicted safe sea travel????????? I would love to be wrong. I would love to see evidence for an afterlife.
This man couldn't even get the science he spoke on correct, never mind giving us a look at the future from God. Like I said, the 10 digits at the one trillion spot of pi. Something like that for a start.
It's a complete fail. I'm speaking up for rational, skeptical thought. When there is actual evidence I will say so.
This isn't opinion, I explain each thing you post and give reasons and feedback. You also deny evidence from other religions with equal or better evidence, but none of it is good.
There is ZERO evidence for a theistic deity. Zero. You have to start there.
Again, you don't have to care about truth.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
No, no, no, no.
It was a response to this:
"Well, believers are not in a minority, so you must be above average intelligence to
"know" it is improbable.
"It was a jab from you, directed at me, saying sarcastically "you must be so smart to know better than the majority about God".
So I posted Neil, at a lecture showing that my beliefs are not in the minority.
Among elite scientists religious belief is down at 7%
Among PhD philosophers it's at less than 1%
So among intelligent folks it isn't uncommon to be atheist.
That's it, it was just at that comment.
The afterlife stuff is just part of the mythology. We see Gods are made up stories, afterlife came into Christianity from Graeco-Roman theology, theism is not supported by evidence and not believed by most in science and philosophy.
It has nothing to do with the fact that an afterlife is in a different dimension. That is just part of an evolving mythology. In the OT the afterlife was the grave and at the end of time it was on Earth after the end times. Everyone resurrects in a better body on Earth. Yahweh lives in heaven which is up in space.
With Hellenism heaven became the afterlife destination of the soul which was still in outer space.
As astronomers became a thing they noticed no heaven or 7 celestial realms where they were supposed to be so they were moved to another dimension. Which was borrowed from Greek thinking. Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels I think both have a book on Heaven and how it developed.
If you are saying we cannot know about another dimension, right we cannot, but it started out as in space, the blue sky was the cosmic water above heaven. They were wrong. Moving it to another dimension was because they had to, science revealed facts. But it's from a myth. That holds nothing more than any other ancient tale. Saying we have a soul that returns to a heaven is a Hellenistic speculation based in pure fantasy.
That is pure guesswork and meaningless. It was originally in spsace, below the cosmic waters, above the stars and planets and celestial temples in space. The underworld was also level 3 in outer space, 7 heavens.
Last edited:
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
I was trained as a Scientist; ChemE, and I would go on to become a development engineer. I was well versed in the box of science, but I also liked to go outside the box and look around. Development work was ideal for me. As a development engineer my science managers expected me to be outside the box, bringing home new things I found.
One of my personal projects, I did on the side, at home, was connected to exploring the collective unconscious. This was first isolated by the late psychologists Carl Jung. After I had learned about it, I started to perform unconscious mind experiments on myself. The goal was to apply the principles of science investigation, but from the inside, This was outside the box of psychology, but it was comfortable for me as a development engineer.
During the early investigations, the research was objective, from the inside, and generated a lot of good data. I began by recording me dreams and writing them down the next morning, to analyze. It was no different from me observing the output from a device, I was developing. Rather than use my eyes, I would use the mind's eye; inner vision, intuition and sensations. This was outside the box of science, but I was following the same science procedures, but with different tools. Developers cannot be inhibited by group think or else you will never leave the box, our of fear of exile and loss of security.
The research went on for a few years and it had reached a point of self dissociation, where all the parts had been isolated at the expands of losing the natural integration of these parts. I now needed to change direction and attempt to reassemble all the isolated parts. I had taken apart the alien device, and now I had to reassemble, without any blue print. Disassemble was not very orderly. I had to take what I got as it happened, which had no apparent sequence. Luckily, the inner self or the center of the unconscious mind took over the reassembly. This was a pivotal crossroads, where the very idea the allowing the unconscious mind to lead, my reassembly, became unsettling, due to the fear of going insane. But I could not stay in this dissociated state, either.
The unconscious seemed to understand my dilemma and gave me a very disturbing dream; nightmare. In the dream, I saw a horizontally rotating ring of light and fire appear. Nearby was a man and a woman dressed in old fashion Middles Ages clothing like a prince and princess. They both jump into the ring of light and fire and merge into it. Then I heard a booming voice, of a shadowy presence say, "when you have entered the ring it shall be complete." This caused me to panic; ego may dissolve, so I woke myself out the dream only to see the walls of my bedroom breathing.
Part of me was trying to be calm, like a scientist, observing, anticipating. While another part of me was in shear terror. The terror seemed to make the situation worse and cloud my reason. It was at that time, I had an intuition to use prayer to help the terrorized part of me. I said a few Our Fathers and a few Hail Marys, as I had been taught as a boy. This calmed my heart and the presence left. I had reached a point in the research where reason was on enough. I also need faith and prayer.
I then I understood I now had a sword; reason and a shield; faith. With the fear gone, my mental clarity returned and I also was able to understand that the dream was the procedure, that the inner self would employ, to reintegrate me. It would bring all the parts together; me and the archetypes. It was not a won time event but more like what the Alchemist called the 1000-fold distillation, which took several months, night and day to complete. To this day, based on direct data experiences and need, I am both spiritual and scientific, using both tool boxes.
I tend to believe that in ancient times the unconscious mind and collective unconscious was much closer to the surface. My research had got past the barriers that are common to the modern mind. Religion appears to have been about the IT of the brain's operating system, which was far more conscious in ancient times, similar to the state of mind I had induced with the research. The inner self appear to be the inner man spoken of by people like Buddha and Jesus, to name a few that I am familiar with. The same natural healing process that helped reintegrate me, I now use to reintegrate science and other data into a new wholes. But to make it work, it takes the paradox of using both science and religion; reason and faith.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
..and are you implying that believers are not intelligent?
Don't be absurd..
We all die, and our physical bodies perish.
An afterlife implies an alternative dimension to one of physical reality.
Err .. no. It is a recurring theme in a whole heap of cultures.
..so human beings in general understand the concept .. as do you..
..but you 'poo poo' it, as you feel superior to others?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Much of scripture are not meant to be interpreted literally. Isaiah was not saying that we should literally enter into the rock, and hide in the dust.
That is one of those passages that is not meant to be interpreted literally, just like when Baha'ullah said that no man that meditates upon this verse in Isaiah can fail to recognize the greatness of this Cause of God. He just said that for effect, just like when Jesus said that faith can move mountains. Jesus did not mean that faith can literally move mountains.
Some things can change.
en.wikipedia.org
Narrative psychology - Wikipedia
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is not what I said. I did not say anything about you not thinking "right" but you immediately got defensive.
I said: "Only in YOUR mind, according to how you think, and that is what you do not understand. Everyone does not think like YOU."
I also hold a rational and skeptical methodology to all of my beliefs, but I don't hold a empirical methodology to all of my beliefs because I God can never be observed or experienced and a Messenger of God can never be proven empirically.
Empirically means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. I believe in Baha'u'llah on logic, not empirically.
What is not good evidence to you is good evidence to other people. That is why I said it is your way or the highway.
That is why I said: "Only in YOUR mind, according to how you think, and that is what you do not understand. Everyone does not think like YOU."
You do not have to SAY "my way or the highway", your attitude says it all.
What is not good evidence to you is good evidence to other people. That is why I said it is your way or the highway.
What is reasonable evidence and a reasonable foundation? I have what I consider to be reasonable evidence and a reasonable foundation to base my beliefs on. You just don't consider it reasonable, but what you think about it does not make it so. It is not unreasonable because YOU think it is unreasonable, not any more than it is reasonable because I think it is reasonable. The evidence is what it is, and people have different opinions about it.
No, it is not my responsibility. It was Baha'u'llah's responsibility because He is the one who made the claims. I make no claims, I only have beliefs.
I did not say it is ridiculous., I said it "sounds ridiculous." Whether of not it sounds ridiculous is a matter of personal opinion.
I believe that the only claims from a God that are real are the claims reveled by a Messenger of God. That eliminates the OT and NT claims straightaway since neither the OT or the NT were written by a Messenger of God. I believe that some truth came through since the writers were inspired by God, but I would not bank on everything they wrote.
It is not the infinite power that puts a limit on speech, it is not having a mouth that precludes speech.
Infinite means limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
That does not cover what God could or would do.
No, that is not true. There is no logical connection between being infinite and taking on a mortal form.
I think God can do that but there is no way for anyone to know that those words came from God. They can only believe it.
I do not have confirmation bias, but I do have bias against the OT. I don't know what God would do, I only believe I know what God has actually done and what God has not done. I don't believe that God did anything that is written in the OT since I have no reason to believe it. I believe it is anthropomorphism of humans.
The Baha'i Faith doesn't need the OT stories about Israel's first contact with God the to be a metaphor in order to be true. It would not make any difference to the Baha'i Faith if God had made contact with the Israelites. Baha'u'llah did not weigh in on the OT and whether God made contact with the Israelites, so Baha'is we are free to believe whatever they want to about that. But what difference would it make anyway? Even if God did make contact with the Israelites that does not mean God is ever going to do that again.
I do not represent the Baha'i position on the Bible, I just have my own personal opinion. Some Baha'is might believe that the Israelites had contact with God.
Baha'i views of the Bible vary widely. My views lie in the middle area.
Introduction
Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.
Conclusion
The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.
A Baháí View of the Bible
I did not take the word of any apologists, I investigated the Baha'i Faith for myself. I read what other people wrote about the Baha'i Faith and I read some Writings of Abdu'l-Baha. Later I read what Baha'u'llah wrote and it just confirmed by belief that Baha'u'llah was speaking for God.
That the evidence sucks is ONLY your opinion. In my opinion the evidence is excellent and that is why I believe in the Baha'i Faith.
It isn't hard for you to explain why YOU THINK the evidence is terrible and not compelling TO YOU.
The evidence is terrible and not compelling TO YOU. What you have is only a personal opinion, yet you state it as a fact. That is really sad.
The reasons I believe are logical, not emotional. I don't even like God or the Baha'i Faith!
I said "I became convinced because of the evidence." Now you are saying it is false just because YOU don't think anyone could believe on the evidence, so that is as much as calling me a liar.
That is true. There is just evidence. In your opinion it is bad and in my opinion it is good.
Why not just admit that all you have is a personal opinion?
Everyone can agree on empirical things that they have observed, or things that they know because they are facts, common knowledge.
They don't need evidence for those because they have proof, so those are facts.
Religion does not fit into that category, for obvious logical reasons.
Only in your opinion. You have such a bias that you will never admit that all you have is a personal opinion.
You act as if a personal opinion is a fact, but it isn't.
You have no facts. All you have is an opinion about the facts.
Carry on. It won't make any difference. All you have is a personal opinion and that will never change.
People are free to believe everything you say instead of investigating for themselves and they will get what they deserve.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, that is not it. I do not believe He had revelations from God "because he said so." I believe because of the evidence.
I have a good method and I used it.
Some things that are true can never be universally demonstrated to be true. God and Messengers of God fall into that category.
You miss all of this since you cannot think logically owing to your bias.
There is no way to demonstrate that for obvious logical reasons.
Such is the nature of religion. If you don't like it then you don't have to believe it.
Not evidence.
Go back and look at your own posts. You are the only one who is stating it over and over again. It isn't meaningful.
Maybe you have a reason for repeating yourself, I don't know.
You cannot demonstrate that anything is true or false about God or Messengers, and that is the subject of this discussion.
No, religious truths cannot be demonstrated like material world truths. It is really sad that you cannot understand why.
But just because something cannot be proven true that doesn't mean it is not true. What you have is an argument from ignorance.
Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
- true
- false
- unknown between true or false
- being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
All you have is an opinion about the evidence.
All you have is a personal opinion about the evidence. Repeating yourself over and over again will not change that.
Another personal opinion. We all have those, but at least some of us are willing to admit that is all we have.
You state that as if it is a fact, but it is only a personal opinion.
In my opinion, the Messengers of God are the evidence for a theistic deity.
You don't have to care about truth. You only have to care about your personal opinions that you believe are the truth.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
The great evidence is because his writings, his character, and his mission and whatever else Baha'is throw in there, make the man who took the grand title of "The Glory of God"... someone that is dependable to be truthful. Therefore, when he "says so", it is the truth. But it's not truth because he said so. It is the truth because whatever he is says is the truth. Or something like that?
I think Baha'is should just stick with that they can prove it, but they believe it. No, that doesn't help, because as soon as someone asks what evidence do they have that their prophet is the true one from The One and Only God, they will say that it's his writings, his character, his mission, therefore what he says is true. And because they believe he speaks the truth... they believe everything he said is the truth.
But not because he said so? Wait, somethings screwy here.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I think you meant to say that they can't prove it, but they believe it. That is what I have been posting day and night.
joelr
Well-Known Member
..and are you implying that believers are not intelligent?
No by intelligent people I was talking about a sub-set, scientists 7%, and philosophers .01% are religious.
By a certain type of intelligence scientists usually rate high and philosophers rate the highest.
Wait, I'm absurd? Hey Dude, the religion you believe, the OT, those people said heaven was above Earth, in space. They had a cosmology of 7 levels, heaven was only for God and was at top. Above that was the cosmic ocean. The stars and planets were below heaven. There was a perfect heavenly copy of the temples on one of the lower levels.
There was no "other dimension" until 3rd century and onwards theologians began hearing from astronomers who now were inventing telescopes, that space was empty.
So they pulled out the Greek Platonic ideas and heaven had to be moved to "another dimension".
There is no evidence of any such other dimension or any soul or spirit that would go there. I wish there were.
There is an afterlife in other cultutres, like the kingdom of the dead, but a soul that starts out and returns to heaven through a redemption is a Hellenistic myth.
In the OT the only afterlife was Sheol. Sinners, not sinners, everyone went, it's a place of darkness and it appears permanent.
It was during the 2nd Temple Period things began to change and then Greek thought created Christianity.
"
While the Hebrew Bible appears to describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BC – 70 AD) a more diverse set of ideas developed. In some texts, Sheol is considered to be the home of both the righteous and the wicked, separated into respective compartments; in others, it was considered a place of punishment, meant for the wicked dead alone.[31] When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BC, the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol. This is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of the evil it represents.[31][32]
"
Yes, like dragons, humans made from clay, axis mundi, witches, spells, giants, magic, ghosts, and many more very common myths that span through all cultures.
So when people don't share beliefs with you and they spend ample amounts of time explaining why and discussing it and the best you can muster is "you don't believe because you feel superior to others", there is a problem.
Could be with your knowledge, attention span, you could be angry, I don't know. It's also hate speech. And it's troll behavior. Or worse you could be part of some narrative that actively mocks and tries to shut down beliefs that do not agree with yours. I don't know?
Again, I don't see evidence for souls or afterlifes, I do see that they come from stories which are also made up and these afterlifes are as real as any other. Land of the dead, heaven, all things from fiction.
In neuroscience there is no evidence for any soul whatsoever as well.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Great, show me where he says he doesn't really mean if anyone meditates on that verse they will recognize the greatness of God.
Show me where he says it's just a metaphor.
And if you are going to make that claim without evidence then any part of the scripture can be taken as a metaphor. Including when he says he communicates with God. That could just be a metaphor as in he is in contact with the same things we all are, our own mind, which is where God is from.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, that is absurd, but @muhammad_isa is not a Christian or a Jew, he is a Muslim, so the OT is not his scripture.