No, not unless you have evidence to back up your claim. Do you?
Da dah.
Precisely
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, not unless you have evidence to back up your claim. Do you?
The truth is that if no humans exist in a specified time and place, then no humans can know what happens in that time and place. And all any humans existing in any other time and place can do, then, is speculate about what might have happened, is happening, or will happen in that times and places that they do not inhabit. Speculation about the truth is not the truth. Speculations about things that we can't experience is not knowledge. The video is all speculation. And speculation is not truth, nor is it certain.What is illogical and untruthful about the video? What evidence do you have backing up your claim that the video is not logical and doesn't show the truth? Back up your claim that the video is just "speculation".
God does have wrath when it is warranted. This we know because it is revealed in various scriptures. Some humans deserve the wrath of God. It is not our job to judge other people, only God can judge.
What is best for the others is not always unconditional love, because evil people take that as weakness and use it to their advantage, and then they just continue in their evil ways. That is not doing them any favors.
No, we should not be angry hateful or vengeful. We should try to live in peace and solve our problems.
Romans 12:17-19 New King James Version (NKJV)
17 Repay no one evil for evil. Havea]">[a] regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.
Have you read these books?
Michael Newton
I don't remember any previous lifetimes but I'm sure there must have been lots during my previous 13.8 billion years or more. No wonder I feel very very tired sometimes...
We know what happens to an unattended car left to rust. We know the truth about what happens to an unattended car left to rust. The definition of speculation is "the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain"The truth is that if no humans exist in a specified time and place, then no humans can know what happens in that time and place. And all any humans existing in any other time and place can do, then, is speculate about what might have happened, is happening, or will happen in that times and places that they do not inhabit. Speculation about the truth is not the truth. Speculations about things that we can't experience is not knowledge. The video is all speculation. And speculation is not truth, nor is it certain.
Then you really should.No, I have not read anything by Michael Newton.
I never said anything about hoping. I said I have knowledge of it.
No, we don't. It's as simple as that. WE DON'T KNOW.We know what happens to an unattended car left to rust. We know the truth about what happens to an unattended car left to rust.
So you are NOT certain then, after all? You are just speculating and falsely labeling your speculations, certainty.
No, we don't.But the makers of the video aren't guessing. We know what happens to unattended cars.
That doesn't mean that what happened to car X while unobserved is what did or will happen to car Z while unobserved. In fact, it's logically impossible that the same things would happen to both, as they do not both inhabit the same place in space and time.No guessing involved. We do have enough information to be certain. We can simply look at pictures of unattended cars or go and look at them ourselves.
It's logically impossible that if you leave two cars out in the desert unattended they both would decay? If one decays and it's logically impossible for the other to decay too what do you think would happen to it? Will it sprout wings and fly away? Will it vanish into thin air? Will it turn into a petunia?That doesn't mean that what happened to car X while unobserved is what did or will happen to car Z while unobserved. In fact, it's logically impossible that the same things would happen to both, as they do not both inhabit the same place in space and time.
Maybe they would, and maybe they wouldn't, we wouldn't know unless we were there to observe.It's logically impossible that if you leave two cars out in the desert unattended they both would decay?
Aliens from space could come and took one away. Maybe one was just built a lot better than the other one. Maybe some teenagers found them and decided to use one of them for their "love nest". Maybe clever squirrels made one their home and then made little tiny brooms to sweep out the dirt. Maybe the weather buries one in sand but not the other. Who knows? Not us, because we aren't going to be there to observe whatever happens to them. So we aren't going to know what happens to them. And all the speculation you can muster, and all the certainty we can feign is not going to change that fact.If one decays and it's logically impossible for the other to decay too what do you think would happen to it?
Then it wouldn't be unattended and would also be observed.Aliens from space could come and took one away.
Then it wouldn't be unattended and would also be observed.Maybe one was just built a lot better than the other one. Maybe some teenagers found them and decided to use one of them for their "love nest".
Then it wouldn't be unattended and would also be observed.Maybe clever squirrels made one their home and then made little tiny brooms to sweep out the dirt.
It still would decay. Do you still maintain that it's logically impossible for two cars left unattended and unobserved in the desert to both decay?Maybe the weather buries one in sand but not the other.
No, it is not the same. No religion is above any other religion, some are just newer.Same thing.
Name some religions that make that claim.I said "other religions make similar claims" i.e progressive revelation, etc.
I trust Baha’u’llah because of the evidence that indicates that He was a Manifestation of God.The question is: why?
Because they can be verified by my own research.And why do you trust the book's accounts of the prophecies and the events that supposedly fulfilled them?
I never said it is impossible that I am wrong, I said it seems like it would be impossible.So you've gone from claiming that it was impossible for you to be wrong, to saying that you could be wrong. That is an improvement.
Also, it should be your job to demonstrate your beliefs are true - it is not the job of others to disprove a proposition before you have provided sufficient reason to accept it.
I verified it by reading books and websites. How else could I know?And how do you know any of this?
The various religions that have been revealed at different times in history.History WOULD be independent verification. So what supports it?
I wasn’t addressing whether they are true, I was addressing whether they are progressive.Thought progresses over time. That doesn't make any specific claims by any religion more likely to be true.
That’s not true, I already told you if you could discredit Baha’u’llah that would prove the Baha’i Faith is wrong.Since it's impossible to prove a proposition, especially an unfalisfiable one, wrong, what you are suggesting is impossible, so it is impossible for you to change your mind.
You could discredit Baha’u’llah that would prove the Baha’i Faith is false. Prove He was a liar or a con-man or deluded but use accurate sources, not calumny.How? Please give me a hypothetical example of something I could demonstrate that would prove Baha'i false.
I could, if he could not perform as a genie. Baha’u’llah came in recent history. If Baha’u’llah was a liar or a con-man or deluded you could prove it.Again, how? What could I show you that would convince you of that?
Also, my cousin says he is a genie. Can you prove he is a liar?
If others are claiming it is false, it is incumbent upon others to demonstrate it is false.You got that right up until the second half. It is not incumbent upon others to demonstrate a proposition is false. The burden is always on you to demonstrate that it is true - including to yourself. If you do not have sufficient justification for a belief, nobody need demonstrate it to be false.
That is where I am at in this moment in time, but I also said that if you could prove it is false I would admit it is false and walk away.No, Trailblazer, it's not a strawman and that is a lie. You clearly stated only a few posts ago:
Post 163:
"In my mind, it is impossible that what I believe about Baha’u’llah is not true, because there is too much evidence that shows that He was who He claimed to be."
I told you I believe because of the evidence and I listed the categories of evidence. That is a sufficient reason for me to believe.You've yet to provide a single good reason for why you believe what you believe. You have insufficient reason to accept it. It is not incumbent upon others to demonstrate it false, you have to demonstrate it to be true.
I gave you the reason, evidence. This will be the last post I answer because I have determined you are just playing games. I do not have time for games, only for sincere people.And yet you cannot provide sufficient reason to accept it.
You are misrepresenting me again. I never said it was impossible for me to be wrong. I said I could be wrong if I was proven wrong.I know that anyone who claims that it is impossible for them to be wrong about something is clearly not a rational person, and thus far you have given me no reason to believe that you have critically and honestly evaluated your beliefs. You've presented nothing.
I am under no obligation to provide evidence for you. The evidence is available for everyone to look at for themselves.This is all irrelevant to whether or not your beliefs are true and how you determined it. You have provided no evidence of either.
There is nothing irrational about God choosing to use a Messenger as proof of His existence.You only need to justify God's existence if you want your belief in God to be rational.
Irrational beliefs need no justification at all.
The existence of God cannot ever be established as a fact.But without establishing God, you have no way of establishing that someone is a Messenger of God.
I do not see it that way because I know that the existence of God cannot ever be established as a fact, so we look at the evidence that God provides as proof of His existence, Messengers, and if we believe them we have certitude that God exists.Right. And I'm saying that you can't determine that a purported Messenger represented God if you haven't even established that God exists in the first place.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - WikipediaYour argument is circular.
The world wouldn't be in a state of turmoil if we had one religion that had everything humanity needs.The world wouldn't be in a state of turmoil if we didn't have 4,200 religions including yours and everybody lived according to the Golden Rule and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The world is full of religious people and look at the state it's in. And your solution is more religious people? List of religious populations - Wikipedia
My solution to the problem is to have a holy book that reveals everything we need to know and explains the other holy books.Your solution to the problem of having conflicting holy books is to introduce another conflicting holy book? A book that even disagrees with the Bible about what faith is? How could any rational person read the Internet Sacred Text Archive at Internet Sacred Text Archive Home and then manage to come up with the idea that what the world needs is yet another religion? As if there aren't enough of them already?
Do you want a reason why God exists? Here it is:Why does God just exist? So there is no purpose to God's existence? He exists for no purpose? And why would God have this function to begin with? And why is it that God just is? There is nothing here explaining the existence of and purpose of and reason for and meaning of the existence of God in the first place... let me give you a hint... if you are going to make up a god at least make up a good reason for why he would exist in the first place...
My religion does not teach me to hate, quite the opposite.I can see religion has corrupted your view. As I see it, they are teaching you to hate.
Whatever God does is warranted because God is the Ruler of the Universe. God is not answerable to anyone. God is wrathful when human behavior warrants His wrath.Ask yourself. When is it warranted for God to have wrath? Further, what is the reason God is feeling wrathful?
Unconditional love is not always warranted. Should I love the evil tenant who us trying to sue me? I think not.Unconditional Love is the answer for all actions regardless of how others take it. How can doing what is best for another be bad? Now if you just give others everything they want, this is not Unconditional Love. Further, acting out of hate or revenge is not Unconditional Love either.
Holy books are revealed by God to Manifestations of God and they reflect God's Will for humanity.Holy books are written by mankind. That is who they really reflect. It is mankind who gets wrathful when they can not control the actions of another. Look closely. It stares you in the face. Will you have Blind faith or will you see what actually exists?
No, that is not what I said.You said you had knowledge of it by believing in it strongly, which is impossible.
Like show up at a blackboard and chart it all out, it doesn't really seem like God is all that interested in doing that. Whatever God or Gods there might be, clearly the interest is in testing the faith in lesser subjects. It probably makes the whole situation more interesting for the god when you think about it, and would force the humans to think more, as the humming of our brains is found to be amusingIf God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? I
The world wouldn't be in a state of turmoil if we didn't have 4,200 religions and everybody believes that their religion is the correct one for humanity. You are just one of them. There is nothing special separating you from a Christian saying that his religion is the correct one for humanity and has everything humanity needs.The world wouldn't be in a state of turmoil if we had one religion that had everything humanity needs.
I believe that religion is the Baha'i Faith.