Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?

Trailblazer said:

That's certainly on the table until you give a good reason to exclude it, which you haven't done yet.

Click to expand...

It is on the table. Given the empirical evidence there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities:

Trailblazer said:

Replace "everyone" with "anyone" and I might be inclined to agree with you.

Click to expand...

It is not that God does not speak to anyone. God spoke to each one of the Messengers.

Milton Platt said:

If, as you state, there is no way to detect whether a god interacts with the world, and virtually no way to detect the existence of the god, then it is absolutely NOT logical to presume the god exists or that there are any messengers who speak for the god.

Click to expand...

It is not logical to you, but it is logical to me. It makes perfect sense that God is unknowable directly, so He sends a Messenger to make Himself known, revealing what he wants us to know about Him, which are His Attributes and His Will for any given age in history.

It makes sense to me that if an unknowable God exists, we could never know HOW it interacts with the world, but that does not mean that God does not interact with the world. We just cannot know how, when, what or where because God’s actions are unknowable.

Milton Platt said:

If, as you stated, the god does not interact with nature in any measurable way, then the god would be irrelevant, anyway.

Click to expand...

However, according to my beliefs God sustains everything, so God has to be interacting with nature. How God does that is unknowable, since God’s actions are unknowable.

Milton Platt said:

The messenger is not proof of anything but your own belief in the messenger. That is all.

Click to expand...

The Messenger is proof that God exists because He was sent by God; so that means God has to exist. That is how I reason it out.

Milton Platt said:

I challenge you to demonstrate by use of your messenger that actual presence of the god.

Click to expand...

All we can see are God’s Attributes as they are revealed in the Messenger. They are in effect the Presence of God on earth.


Nobody can demonstrate the presence of God’s Essence; not even the Messengers have been able to apprehend God’s Essence. It is forever hidden.

Trailblazer said:

It is on the table. Given the empirical evidence there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities:

1. God exists and communicates via Messengers, or
2. God exists and does not communicate, or
3. God does not exist​

Click to expand...

If you’re trying to cover all bases, there’s a fourth possibility: God exists and communicates, but not by messengers.

Sir Doom said:

This is not a court of law nor are we debating law or it's application.

Click to expand...

We are debating what is the nature of the claim of what is 'evidence,' and the different overlapping categories, such as science, law and academic historical evidence, of what is evidence how it is accepted is relevant. Nothing in the Bible represents evidence in and of itself. Because of the lack of provenance (no original authored documents), and the history editing, redacting, and compilation of more ancient sources it alone is not accepted as evidence. Now, archaeological, other historical sources may be used as evidence to confirm and support individual events and people referred to in the Bible

However, I assure you based on historical record of false convictions that meaningfulness and conviction remain subjective despite our best efforts to mitigate that with rules. 12 subjective opinions do not result in an objective opinion, even if it is more objective. Do you honestly believe that everything entered into evidence must be treated as absolute truth by virtue of it's classification as evidence? Do you think there is some way to even suggest a jury can or should do that?

Click to expand...

Your throwing a turd IED when adding the question of 'absolute truth. Need to reword this to make it relevant.

That's your right as a free thinking individual and I wouldn't have it any other way. Of course, what does or does not count as evidence does not hinge on you, only whether you find it meaningful, convincing, compelling, or otherwise worth your time. As scripture demonstrably fits the dictionary definition you so eagerly provided, I can't image why you'd continue to argue the point.

Click to expand...

This is passing the buck for a view on evidence you cannot defend. I never claimed above foolishness.

So you do not consider scripture to be "a body of information indicating the truth of a proposition." As the definition you supplied states? It certainly is a 'body of information' and it certainly 'indicates the truth of a proposition' even if that proposition happens to be false.

Click to expand...

Those who believe in the Bible claim that "a body of information indicating the truth of a proposition." As the definition you supplied states," but this proposition is based on faith in a belief, and is not accepted as evidence from a more objective perspective to support that the claim has any truth value or not.

Consider for example that evolution has been used to erroneously indicate that 'we came from monkeys'.

'We came from monkeys' is the proposition.

Evolution is the body of information indicating the proposition is true.

The proposition happens to be false despite the presented evidence.

Does that mean evolution is not evidence? No, it means evolution is a body of information that indicates something else entirely and whoever interpretted the evidence to propose that 'we came from monkeys' made an erroneous conclusion.

Click to expand...

No it means your example is hilariously foolish and not relevant.

Actually, all I have to do is show that the Bible has been entered into evidence more than once in more than one legal system to demonstrate it has been used as legal evidence before. Since that's all I proposed, that's all I need to indicate as true.

Click to expand...

The Bible can and has been submitted in court to justify what one believes and why, and witnesses may swear on the Holy Book of their choice that their testimony true to the best of their knowledge, but beyond that . . .

No, you cannot . . .

Still waiting . . .

Trailblazer said:

It is not logical to you, but it is logical to me. It makes perfect sense that God is unknowable directly, so He sends a Messenger to make Himself known, revealing what he wants us to know about Him, which are His Attributes and His Will for any given age in history.

It makes sense to me that if an unknowable God exists, we could never know HOW it interacts with the world, but that does not mean that God does not interact with the world. We just cannot know how, when, what or where because God’s actions are unknowable.

However, according to my beliefs God sustains everything, so God has to be interacting with nature. How God does that is unknowable, since God’s actions are unknowable.

The Messenger is proof that God exists because He was sent by God; so that means God has to exist. That is how I reason it out.

All we can see are God’s Attributes as they are revealed in the Messenger. They are in effect the Presence of God on earth.

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world....... in moments in which these Essences of Being were deep immersed beneath the oceans of ancient and everlasting holiness, or when they soared to the loftiest summits of Divine mysteries, they claimed their utterances to be the Voice of Divinity, the Call of God Himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 54-55​

Nobody can demonstrate the presence of God’s Essence; not even the Messengers have been able to apprehend God’s Essence. It is forever hidden.

“The conceptions of the devoutest of mystics, the attainments of the most accomplished amongst men, the highest praise which human tongue or pen can render are all the product of man’s finite mind and are conditioned by its limitations. Ten thousand Prophets, each a Moses, are thunderstruck upon the Sinai of their search at His forbidding voice, “Thou shalt never behold Me!”; whilst a myriad Messengers, each as great as Jesus, stand dismayed upon their heavenly thrones by the interdiction, “Mine Essence thou shalt never apprehend!” From time immemorial He hath been veiled in the ineffable sanctity of His exalted Self, and will everlastingly continue to be wrapt in the impenetrable mystery of His unknowable Essence. Every attempt to attain to an understanding of His inaccessible Reality hath ended in complete bewilderment, and every effort to approach His exalted Self and envisage His Essence hath resulted in hopelessness and failure.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 62-63​

Click to expand...

You continue to talk in circles. Just because you THINK someone was a messenger from a god does not mean that the person WAS a messenger from a god. Period. You cannot claim a god is sending messengers if you cannot even know that the god actually exists. It is as simple as that. Anyone can claim they are a messenger of a god, or that someone else is a messenger of a god, but the claim must be demonstrated to be true before it should be believed. I know you choose to believe this without evidence, but that is an irrational belief. You are free to believe anything you wish.

Something occurred to me: @Trailblazer - let’s assume that God exists, wants to communicate with humans, and decides to use a “messenger” to do it; why would the “messenger” necessarily be human?

For instance, why wouldn’t God use angels? Abrahamic scriptures are full of stories of angels appearing before people to give them messages from God. From what I understand, Baha’is believe in angels too, right?

... so why are you assuming that God’s “messengers” are necessarily human?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Something occurred to me: @Trailblazer - let’s assume that God exists, wants to communicate with humans, and decides to use a “messenger” to do it; why would the “messenger” necessarily be human?

For instance, why wouldn’t God use angels? Abrahamic scriptures are full of stories of angels appearing before people to give them messages from God. From what I understand, Baha’is believe in angels too, right?

... so why are you assuming that God’s “messengers” are necessarily human?

Click to expand...

Or ravens, or snakes, or coyotes, or timing?

Vinayaka said:

Or ravens, or snakes, or coyotes, or timing?

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "timing," but sure: I see no reason to exclude animal messengers either.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Not sure what you mean by "timing," but sure: I see no reason to exclude animal messengers either.

Click to expand...

By timing I meant what many would term coincidence. You have a thought, and at that moment a light-bulb pops, or some other somewhat peculiar event happens. Some folks consider that type of thing a method that God uses to communicate directly. But yes, if there is a God, surely she's smart enough to use a variety of methods beside messengers. The 'messenger only' idea sure is limiting of a supposedly omnipresent God.

Milton Platt said:

Well, we’ll just have to disagree on what constitutes sound evidence. My bar is much higher than yours.

Click to expand...

Couldn't find the place in the thread, but you said you could not find research on the efficacy of prayer. I think the issue is I stated the particular study I was referencing was from the Pew Research folks. It was actually the Templeton Foundation, so my bad. But lots of studies have been done. Here are some links to that one as well as others:

Templeton Prayer Study FAIL!

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certai... - PubMed - NCBI

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer

Studies on intercessory prayer - Wikipedia

It is clear from these studies that if a god exists, answering prayers is not a component of said god.

Milton Platt said:

Couldn't find the place in the thread, but you said you could not find research on the efficacy of prayer. I think the issue is I stated the particular study I was referencing was from the Pew Research folks. It was actually the Templeton Foundation, so my bad. But lots of studies have been done. Here are some links to that one as well as others:

Templeton Prayer Study FAIL!

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certai... - PubMed - NCBI

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer

Studies on intercessory prayer - Wikipedia

It is clear from these studies that if a god exists, answering prayers is not a component of said god.

Click to expand...

In athletic contests, both sides pray to win, but I guess God only answers one side. So he's 50-50.

Vinayaka said:

By timing I meant what many would term coincidence. You have a thought, and at that moment a light-bulb pops, or some other somewhat peculiar event happens. Some folks consider that type of thing a method that God uses to communicate directly.

Click to expand...

Sounds more to me like confirmation bias on parade.

... combined with a fair bit of hubris (solipsism?): “because this random event is significant to me, it must have been about me.”

But yes, if there is a God, surely she's smart enough to use a variety of methods beside messengers. The 'messenger only' idea sure is limiting of a supposedly omnipresent God.

Click to expand...

I find it suspicious when anyone claims that the best or only evidence for their god(s) comes by methods that have significant reliability problems, whether it’s trustworthiness problems on the part of a human “messenger” or issues with human cognitive biases.

Vinayaka said:

In athletic contests, both sides pray to win, but I guess God only answers one side. So he's 50-50.

Click to expand...

It depends on which team he placed a bet with his bookie.

Trailblazer said:

It is on the table. Given the empirical evidence there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities:

1. God exists and communicates via Messengers, or
2. God exists and does not communicate, or
3. God does not exist​

It is not that God does not speak to anyone. God spoke to each one of the Messengers.

Click to expand...

I don't know what empirical evidence you are trying to reference......

But how about"
4. God exists but communicates in a manner we are unaware of cognitively.
5. God exists but communicates directly to individuals instead of through messengers.
6. God is a dick and communicates false things through a messenger.
7. God communicates through a messenger but the messenger is a dick and changes the message.
Or the Christian version:
8. God communicates to individuals and has them pass around the messages orally for hundreds or thousands of years before finally writing them down in a language that later becomes a dead language so they can be copied, translated, copied, translated again, and then have some of them collected into a book while excluding the others.

shunyadragon said:

We are debating what is the nature of the claim of what is 'evidence,' and the different overlapping categories, such as science, law and academic historical evidence, of what is evidence how it is accepted is relevant. Nothing in the Bible represents evidence in and of itself. Because of the lack of provenance (no original authored documents), and the history editing, redacting, and compilation of more ancient sources it alone is not accepted as evidence. Now, archaeological, other historical sources may be used as evidence to confirm and support individual events and people referred to in the Bible

Click to expand...

Actually, what we are debating is the nature of God, specifically how God should communicate. Which is why the Bible actually gets as much of a say as everyone else. That is, not to say much at all. However, given the weight of numerous shared opinions on the matter, it becomes a bit more than irrelevant no matter what you personally think about it. As it is, this thread is NOT a discussion of legal matters such that legal strictures on evidence should be imposed, nor is it a scientific matter such that scientific strictures should be imposed, nor is it even a historical matter such that provenance and authorship need be provided to validate the contents as factual. Its a purely hypothetical question with a few generally acceptable assumptions. Thus, the evidence of opinion is literally ALL THERE IS. So, yes. the Bible counts in THAT sense. Because THAT is the sense we are currently employing 'evidence'. I originally brought legal evidence into the equation specifically to show that the Bible has been used as evidence EVEN UNDER THOSE STRICTURES thus, it should be more than enough to qualify as evidence for the context of this debate.

Your throwing a turd IED when adding the question of 'absolute truth. Need to reword this to make it relevant.

Click to expand...

I need do no such thing. It was rhetorical intended to demonstrate very clearly that evidence does not have to be true to be evidence. Which you seem to have a tough time understanding. This further demonstrates my point that WHATEVER YOU USE TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR POINT IS CALLED EVIDENCE. That is true regardless of what you actually think of that evidence, and regardless of whether the point is actually true.

This is passing the buck for a view on evidence you cannot defend. I never claimed above foolishness.

Click to expand...

You said (Which I directly responded to):

I will rest on science to when considering the reliability and provenance of ancient scripture as a witness of the reality of our history based the archaeological and historical evidence.

Click to expand...

My response literally agrees with you. Why you call it foolishness is beyond me.

Those who believe in the Bible claim that "a body of information indicating the truth of a proposition." As the definition you supplied states," but this proposition is based on faith in a belief, and is not accepted as evidence from a more objective perspective to support that the claim has any truth value or not.

Click to expand...

More objective evidence exists, yes. What's your point? I don't believe in the Bible. Or did you somehow miss that part? Just because better evidence exists does not mean lesser evidence is irrelevant or somehow 'not evidence' as you claimed.

it means your example is hilariously foolish and not relevant.

Click to expand...

It was meant to be absurd. It is relevant because it is a hypothetical example of someone using something true to evidence something false. Again, demonstrating that the actual truth of a matter has no bearing on what is or is not evidence. Evidence demonstrates 'the truth of' not 'that it is true' though it is often (and properly) used that way. It is often (and properly) used to demonstrate the falseness of a proposition, as well. Please understand what I am telling you.

The Bible can and has been submitted in court to justify what one believes and why, and witnesses may swear on the Holy Book of their choice that their testimony true to the best of their knowledge, but beyond that . . .

No, you cannot . . .

Still waiting . . .

Click to expand...

Oh I must go beyond that now? I never claimed anything beyond that. I claimed the Bible had been entered into evidence in legal courts. You've just admitted that you already knew that. Which is why I didn't want to bother with the research. I knew you knew that. You keep trying to move the goal posts, but I'm not going to let you.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

If you’re trying to cover all bases, there’s a fourth possibility: God exists and communicates, but not by messengers.

Click to expand...

That is a good point. The reason I did not list it is because there is no "evidence" that God has ever communicated a full revelation that could be written down to anyone else except the Messengers who have established the major religions. God might have also communicated so some of the minor prophets in the Bible, but God does not communicate specific information that can be written down to ordinary people.

That said, I think that God has communicated in some way to some people, as I know two former atheists now beleivers who received a "sign" from God. I do not doubt them because what they said happened is not at all incongruous with what any major religion teaches. Moreover, after they got their sign from God, both of those new beleivers went straightaway to find out more about God by researching the Bible and the Baha'i Faith.

What happened to them is much different from what some people report. For example, if someone says that God communicated with them and God said He was a machine (there was a guy like that on another forum) then I know that was not God communicating with them, but rather a delusion, because I know that God is not a machine. Likewise, if someone says that God is not the Ruler of the Universe, I know that they did not get that information from God, because that is incongruous with what the major religions teach about God. For people to say they know more about God than what the major religions teach is quite haughty to say the least, but they are free to believe that if they want to because we all have free will.

I hope that makes sense to you.

Trailblazer said:

Likewise, if someone says that God is not the Ruler of the Universe, I know that they did not get that information from God, because that is incongruous with what the major religions teach about God.

Click to expand...

My God isn't the Ruler of the universe, but then Hinduism isn't a major religion. Oh well.

Milton Platt said:

You continue to talk in circles. Just because you THINK someone was a messenger from a god does not mean that the person WAS a messenger from a god. Period.

Click to expand...

Never ever did I say that just because I THINK someone was Messenger from God that makes them a Messenger from God. I only ever said that the evidence that backs up Baha’u’llah’s claim to BE a Messenger from God indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger from God. I never said I could prove that as a fact; I just said I believe it.

You cannot claim a god is sending messengers if you cannot even know that the god actually exists. It is as simple as that.

You are wrong about that. I know God exists because of Baha’u’llah. I can claim that God exists because of Baha’u’llah if I want to. I know God exists because Baha’u’llah represents God. It is as simple as that. There is no other way to know that God exists because God does not reveal Himself in any other fashion. What about that is so difficult to understand?

Milton Platt said:

Anyone can claim they are a messenger of a god, or that someone else is a messenger of a god, but the claim must be demonstrated to be true before it should be believed.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with that. Anyone can make a claim, but that does not make them a Messenger of God. That claim must be demonstrated by actions.

Milton Platt said:

I know you choose to believe this without evidence, but that is an irrational belief. You are free to believe anything you wish.

Click to expand...

I have enough evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God to sink a ship, the fact that you and all the other atheists do not consider it evidence notwithstanding.

What is irrational is for atheists to expect any evidence that God exists, other than the evidence God provides. The evidence God provides are the Messengers God sends to represent Him, period. You either accept the evidence God provides or not. You cannot make God hop to and provide something God does not want to provide. It is a take it or leave it situation.

What is irrational is for atheists to expect to have objective proof of God.

You want objective proof, not evidence, but for obvious reasons there can never be any objective proof of an immaterial God, thus we continue to go around in circles.

Vinayaka said:

My God isn't the Ruler of the universe, but then Hinduism isn't a major religion. Oh well.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is a major religion.
So what do you think happened?

Trailblazer said:

Yeah, it is a major religion.
So what do you think happened?

Click to expand...

I don't understand your question. Happened to who? Where?