What would be evidence that God exists?

Trailblazer · Sep 12, 2020

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
That prayer has been my rock, my solace.

I was a Baha'i from 1984 to 2014 before I fist said it.

I do not now know why, but then reality hits home, even though we can reach a state where our heart is naught but prayer, this world makes that very difficult.

Regards Tony

I have been a Baha'i since 1970 but I have never said it.

A couple of months ago I told Duane I did not like the parts where we are all sinners but now I am starting to see it in a different light since I have started to see God in a different light. That sure took a hell of a long time, but better late than never.

Nimos · Sep 12, 2020

Trailblazer said:
What makes no sense?

"Guidance has been given by Baha'u'llah. The past is gone. Why do people keep talking about it?"

Trailblazer · Sep 12, 2020

Nimos said:
"Guidance has been given by Baha'u'llah. The past is gone. Why do people keep talking about it?"

Why doesn't that make sense?

Ever since cars replaced the horse and buggy, I do not see anyone talking about the horse and buggy.

Nimos · Sep 12, 2020

Trailblazer said:
Why doesn't that make sense?

Ever since cars replaced the horse and buggy, I do not see anyone talking about the horse and buggy.

What? that makes no sense..

The dinosaurs is not here anymore either, so why on Earth are people still talking about those old lizards?

Nimos · Sep 12, 2020

PureX said:
"Truth" is an absolute state. There are no "half-truths". There are only facts that appear true from one relative perspective, and untrue form another relative perspective. True is still true, always and only. It is an absolute ideal.

What about love, you believe that it exists? yet it is not an absolute truth, it's a truth which is agreed on.

PureX said:
Consensus is not a requirement of truth. This is an important fact that we humans forget and ignore way too often.

I agree, if we don't care about consensus and just want to go with whatever people can think of, then that is perfectly fine. However trying to establish consensus is rather useful when it comes to truth as we can use it to keep enhancing it. That is basically why religions haven't gotten any closer to establishing truth, because they don't really care about consensus. Anyone can pretty much think what they like about the scriptures. Obviously there are some very fundamental consensus within each religion, at least to some degree.

PureX said:
What we believe is not relevant to an attempt at establishing consensus on what is true. Then again, truth does not require consensus. Which is why philosophy has yet been able to determine 'the truth' of anything.

Again if we don't care about figuring out what is actually true and what is not. Sure consensus is not needed. But if you are to create a general agreement between people about what is true and what is not, doesn't it somehow naturally follow that we have to convince each other? And as I said, its not exactly easy to convince people by just stating what you believe, if they don't believe the same thing. Obviously one of them might be telling the truth without knowing it, but if they don't even know themself, then what use is it to even talk about truth? And if they know the truth and why it is the truth, why would they not use such evidence or proof to convince others, so they may know the truth as well?

PureX said:
"Lack of belief", or "belief in", are both quite irrelevant to the question of the truth (truthfulness) of the God proposition. This is where atheists immediately fall off the logic track in nearly every discussion/debate on that question.

I don't get that? I don't claim to know the truth about whether or not God exist. I simply state that, im not convinced or that I don't know, because given the evidence there is to be found or presented to us, that seems to be the most honest position to take.

PureX said:
Having created all that is, why would God care what any of us "believe" or "unbelieve"?

That is something I have be wondering about myself.. so I have no answer to that, and think it is an excellent question to ask those that do believe in God?

The only material, if we are talking Christianity, is that the bible tell us that God cares, because he want to hurt, punish or kill those that don't. But it doesn't, as far as I know, explain why it is important for God that we believe?

PureX said:
That's the agenda of religion. If you want to "disbelieve" in religion, that's a different discussion, and not pertinent to a definition or debate of atheism.

I don't agree that this is a seperate agenda, because it is not up to the religions to decide this, if God exists. Then God does.
If religions are very interested in us believing what they say, which it would actually mean, if God doesn't care at all. Then clearly they are wrong right?
But if God cares about it, then it is not up to the religions to guess why it is important for God, it's their job to follow what God want.

PureX said:
Logically, it would be exactly as reasonable to ACCEPT ALL PHYSICALITY as evidence of God's existence as it would be the "throw it all out" as evidence. Yet I suspect your bias would push you very heavily to one side, and away from the other.

I would, because it is not obvious that this point in the direction of God, again given what is stated in the bible, if that is what we are going for. Then he created us, animals plants completed. But evolution doesn't agree with that and it just happens to be the case, that evolution seem to actually work quite well, given the medicine and food etc. that it give us.

So Im not sure how you will demonstrate that God used evolution as his method, when the bible clearly state that he didn't? yet evolution is still here. So am I being bias or are those that deny evolution?

Honestly, I think im being pretty fair towards what evidence is presented to me.

Trailblazer · Sep 12, 2020

Nimos said:
What? that makes no sense..

The dinosaurs is not here anymore either, so why on Earth are people still talking about those old lizards?

I do not hear a lot of people talking about dinosaurs, not as many people as talk about the Bible.

Nimos · Sep 12, 2020

Trailblazer said:
I do not hear a lot of people talking about dinosaurs, not as many people as talk about the Bible.

Probably not

Also I do think you are in the wrong environment, if you want to talk a lot about dinosaurs

TransmutingSoul · Sep 12, 2020

Nimos said:
This were the law... it weren't just some spiritual thinking about what it could mean kind of thing, you have laws for a lot of things... in fact you can find 613 laws about how and what you should and shouldn't do.

I agree, that today it is more of a spiritual thing, trying to figure out what they could have meant when they wrote "slave forever"?

I am happy to be a slave, that is a willing servant who submits to the Master.

It is a shame, men hanged the meaning of slave, but I see that is what does happen when we forget what God has taught us about virtues and justice.

Regards Tony

TransmutingSoul · Sep 12, 2020

Trailblazer said:
I have been a Baha'i since 1970 but I have never said it.

A couple of months ago I told Duane I did not like the parts where we are all sinners but now I am starting to see it in a different light since I have started to see God in a different light. That sure took a hell of a long time, but better late than never.

I was the Short prayer person all the way up to 2014, skipped the Medium, as busy work days make that a bit more difficult.

That is Faith, little by little, day by day each time we open our heart, a little more wisdom creeps in.

Sometimes it is one step forward and two back, but hopefully we can get to two forward and one back.

.... Maybe!

Regards Tony

Trailblazer · Sep 12, 2020

CG Didymus said:
Are messengers human? Can God interact with them directly? "Yes but..." I know they are "special". So God made them specially able to be able to hear his voice, but every other human, he didn't?

I explained to Nimos the reason why the Messengers can understand God and other humans can't in this post:

#430 Trailblazer, Thursday at 9:13 PM

In the following passage Baha'u'llah explains that God has conferred upon the Messengers of God a twofold nature that other humans do not possess. It is because of their spiritual nature that they can understand God through the Holy Spirit. No other human has that capacity.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

TransmutingSoul · Sep 12, 2020

CG Didymus said:
Are messengers human? Can God interact with them directly? "Yes but..." I know they are "special". So God made them specially able to be able to hear his voice, but every other human, he didn't?

Trailblazer said:
I explained to Nimos the reason why the Messengers can understand God and other humans can't in this post:

#430 Trailblazer, Thursday at 9:13 PM

In the following passage Baha'u'llah explains that God has conferred upon the Messengers of God a twofold nature that other humans do not possess. It is because of their spiritual nature that they can understand God through the Holy Spirit. No other human has that capacity.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

In the Bible I see the Messenger is shown in the teaching of the Virgin Birth, even though born of women, they are actually born of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible tells us we must be born again in that spirit and the Baha'i Writings also confirm that we must be born again by the Spirit of Faith.

Regards Tony

Trailblazer · Sep 12, 2020

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
That is Faith, little by little, day by day each time we open our heart, a little more wisdom creeps in.

And sometimes when we open our mind a little wisdom also creeps in.
I am the analytical type so I had to work some things out in my mind...

I am building something but it is still a work in progress.

The building is still a bit shaky so hopefully when the next storm comes it won't come tumbling down.

“For every one of you his paramount duty is to choose for himself that on which no other may infringe and none usurp from him. Such a thing—and to this the Almighty is My witness—is the love of God, could ye but perceive it.

Build ye for yourselves such houses as the rain and floods can never destroy, which shall protect you from the changes and chances of this life. This is the instruction of Him Whom the world hath wronged and forsaken.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 261

rational experiences · Sep 12, 2020

CG Didymus said:
Sorry, I'm not spiritually advanced enough to understand the things you're telling me.

Simple basics a human has to exist first in the form of self that is bio chemical life consciousness to own the stories. No other form of consciousness is telling this advice in reality and telling of the truth.

Science however tried to convince/coerce everyone that consciousness as a Deity with is self imposed told him. As if consciousness told a scientist how to destroy.

Why he lied to self.

For as we began our human life presence, manifested from out of the eternal, it meant we were rejected by that body, as the highest spiritual unconditional love status without any statement of I am.

I had an unconditional loving spirit communicate to me, it owned no male/female presence, therefore no status, what uncondition means. All that it allowed me to be aware of was a changed body status of a heightened feeling.

Scientists of the Satanist theist status tried to claim that unconditional love, the highest presence could be resourced.

Which then only brings the theist, science human self back to theism. To state, where did these types of thoughts, human emerge? To claim that an eternal body can be a resource. Especially when science, being a thesis, a built machine body from a higher particle mass presence, minerals, built machination inside of his buildings that had gone through melt.

Father told me that science in the past, trans mutation was involved in gold production artificially in a conversion of Earth mass...the melt. How it was associated by the science psyche today. Falsely.

So his past quotes O planet Earth stone energy mass in spatial history ended with the planet mass. For the gases that we live in, were once held inside of STONE.

Stone owning the presence gases as stone then became the Creator. One as stONE.

God he therefore quoted owned the mass of energy in space in its highest form, fused and cold. As space cooled heated mass. As basic a teaching as thought upon, space the highest state was to cool heated mass....and it did it naturally.

What does science as a male thinker own about that history when he theories?

He does not own one condition upon which he thinks. For God the mass of energy was once released from the eternal that became the resource of his greedy lying Satanic science self today.

Why the Bible quotes NO MAN is God.....for he infers and references our life in the heavenly body to be from Jesus and then tries to convince everyone that Jesus is God, a resource.

So as a logical thinker you would ask him how he came about to this belief?

His answer states, because Jesus secretly is named before in Moses documents, so it has to be science and powers of God he quotes.

Yet Moses did not have any other form of beginning status other than being a baby....and all science inferred information, attack on life, life removed is a story about living present humans, and it is written after the fact of observations and life destruction.

And it occurred twice. Science today tried to reason that it was therefore the wisdom of ancient science. Just because humans, as males were the designer of the sciences. Yet natural history, in the cosmos owned the energy and the mass.

A human never created creation. He only imposed his belief about knowing and understanding, which begins from the eternal.

As Jesus is stated to end with the promise of eternal life, it is why science today thinks it can find and then own those contacts, to resource God as if God has not yet been formed and reacted to be a resource. For to quote God quotes for resourcing it imposes that they personally have to invent God.

So then their consciousness tries to infer that speaking and idealising God quotes in sciences meant that they knew how to invent God. Yet all information pre exists in states natural. If natural owns it, and then they try to remove it for science, then obviously we will all be destroyed. For space is the highest cooling condition in natural history.

Why he quotes Holy Mother space owned the presence of cooled mass as one body O God the stone as his science beginnings, for machine from the highest mineral particle...to a melted and then cooled particle is already his machine.

Today he quotes atmospheric natural gases own reactive bodies. His machine history is not the atmosphere, nor is God as a resource the heavenly body.

He quotes he can copy what the atmosphere is doing. Yet its cooled gases only emerged into a cooled form by the spatial vacuum itself. Why Holy Mother of God was taught as science relativity without argument.

If you asked why did 2 times in science use that life become attacked in a similar incident that was in those 2 times written after the fact of its occurrence. For to know acute attack information it has to occur first. Hence attack is first which is destruction of life, not its creation, science wanting Jesus themes in conversion thesis therefore state destruction began life, when you believe in the sacrifice of life.

We were taught not to believe in the sacrifice of life and that God historically was the only body that owned causing the attack. And God hence did not own the reason why the male human self present life was attacked. Seeing the story is about a human baby, and an adult human male. It might own science quotes, but the man/male life is still present in the history and also the conditions.

Being the argument, did a male human live?

Which you then would ask science, do you think you are not alive or present.

The real quote in science relates to was Jesus a real human life or was Jesus just science information? And you would wonder at the humans who ponder and ask such questions. As a human is natural and origin first and science is a secondary choice. So of course a human as a MAN was first. Why it was quoted so that as you read the documents you would not pretend that God was a man first.

Man was a man first. Jesus is just a scientific thesis medical biological quote about sacrificed human life, without the life owning the science information. As life is not living to be sacrificed. Why it was preached to be a one of only special human history so that Satanic science theists would not contemplate it could be achieved again, with their survival.

The very reasons why particular teaching methods were used, as it was always against Satanic theists...those who believed in the hot dense state and not God with the Holy spatial Mother theme.

Nimos · Sep 12, 2020

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
I am happy to be a slave, that is a willing servant who submits to the Master.

What? :O

Definition of slave:
(especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Have you read what the bible say about slavery?

Exodus 21:2-11
2 - When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.
3 - If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 - If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone.
5 - But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’
6 - then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
7 - “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.
8 - If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.
9 - If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter.
10 - If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
11 - And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 - "If a man strikes his male or female servant with a stick and he or she dies as a direct result, the master must be punished.
21 - But if the servant survives a day or two, the master is not to be punished because the servant is his property.

Clearly, we are not talking about willingly servants in all cases are we?

And even if they were, why on Earth would it be allowed to hit and potentially kill them? What is the justification in that?

rational experiences · Sep 12, 2020

Nimos said:
What? :O

Definition of slave:
(especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Have you read what the bible say about slavery?

Exodus 21:2-11
2 - When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.
3 - If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 - If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone.
5 - But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’
6 - then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
7 - “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.
8 - If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.
9 - If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter.
10 - If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
11 - And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 - "If a man strikes his male or female servant with a stick and he or she dies as a direct result, the master must be punished.
21 - But if the servant survives a day or two, the master is not to be punished because the servant is his property.

Clearly, we are not talking about willingly servants in all cases are we?

And even if they were, why on Earth would it be allowed to hit and potentially kill them? What is the justification in that?

When natural existed not named, and no human existed in the history presence of any body of mass, and mass of bodies is natural, then it did.

If a human being natural to self presence and conscious expression as only expressed in living self presence. Owner of the ability to think how they think says I want to think and theory about natural creation, then he did. And made up stories and researched thinking ability with his brothers, to form the first brother hood and named it science.

Yet science did not exist, natural did. So he had to make stories to claim and I impose my thoughts upon conditions in natural form. Without owning natural.

For all he owns is ONE SELF....how he was told he was wrong. He never owned natural history of natural mass. Not in any thesis whatsoever.

To make his claim as a liar did, Mother spatial womb, Mother of God, being the planet on which he stood was the highest body. Meaning in science terms spatial vacuum cooled and made mass remain held.

So then quotes and hence O God the one planet is highest form as a male theme.

Which he is proven to have quoted as ownership thesis, putting his male thinking as one lower thinking status than the female quote, spatial vacuum to which he said maths and ideas for science against mass existing or continuing to exist....for conversion.

Being his scientific thesis, artificial and not natural. Based on his want. So the history of human natural spiritual reasoning says GREED basically will have us all destroyed. For male group coercive lying is involved.

Which means only group agreements as humans for and on behalf of humans agreeing, just as humans is a falsification of self advice.

Why the teaching of greater bodies and natural bodies, and history of greater bodies was a preceding advice....and then after life was harmed was re taught, you are just coercive human beings, for human reasons.

As the reality of having to be taught, science was wrong. Oh wait a minute science, or Satanism as it was once quoted always knew in the male life/group advice that it was wrong.

Therefore rationally his female FAKE quotes, rationally harmed his life. For he lied about who a real female was......his equal life partner and life continuance through sex act, human baby.

Hence, psychological Healer spiritual conscious medical review, also a thesis said, male owns a psychological disorder of a personal hatred about his science thesis and choices, falsified Mother/female information, then blamed and owned a personal hatred and reason to abuse the real female life. Historically did.

Which is a psychological disorder, and just one of many of males making quotes about creation, for his science thesis.

Rationally.

Therefore if anyone cared to do a personal appraisal on any male with a hatred for what his own self said, how his beliefs harmed and sacrificed his life in Satanic causes of scientific radiation occultism, for him to blame the real female, which he is historically proven to have done.....then it is why he owns all false problems and causes today....involving spiritual/religious thesis that tried to teach against him.

But had to use proof, which is not logical at all, science DATA, numbers times and dates etc., just because science, the false Prophet itself preached false preaching against human existence in natural life. Actually.

What was known, it was taught before as being against natural life. They were told only honour the real life for self, a Holy Mother and a little baby male, as a self preaching to a self in Satanic science realisation of cause and effects.

And rationally when a human does a review on human hatred, the history of its motivation of causes, the continued teaching and abusive behaviours that allows it to continue, then humanity supported that inherited living condition their own self.

In modern times a more rational spiritual behaviour human appraisal about patterns of behaviour and abuse was applied, and spiritual healing and book writing then involved a large thesis/study about the behaviour of humanity and how they pass it on from generation to generation.

Therefore modern day spirituality awareness was trying to save life from its ownership of self destructive behaviour, that became innate in all of us, by just reading and believing in literature rather than challenging it.

Hence, throughout human history, when life observed its own self destruction then spiritual leadership quoting the same realised human problem re emerged. For we always sought spiritual leadership knowing that if we failed our own persons to recognize our humanity, then we would choose life destruction again via the sciences.

As simple as that realisation is.

Basic male advice to his science self. You quoted the spatial vacuum to be why mass cooled. You do not and never did own any form control over that vacuum versus machine reactions. What angered you in the realisation about machine/thesis and control want of. Which is irrational behaviour actually. Hence if a male only quoted in science the spatial vacuum as a science reference, the hatred you formed about Mother of God vacuum themes would not exist. And you would have only expressed anger and hatred at an inability to control the vacuum in space.

Why it was important to bring relative aware advice to the MATHS claim of it being female, for that is a fake male statement, why modern day science, psyche evolution no longer quoted male or female inferences in science statements.

Trailblazer · Sep 12, 2020

Nimos said:
Let me try something:

"In the year 2035, mankind will perish and from the ashes will a new and stronger mankind rise, for these are divine. And in them all living beings will find peace." written by Nimos in 2020.

Im now going to tell you that:

"In the year 2035 all living beings will find peace in a new mankind that is divine.", but seriously Trailblazer, don't just believe me because I say so. Instead I want you to examine my scriptures just above as they are the proof for me telling the truth.

You don't see any problems here?

If Baha'u'llah wrote the scriptures, they are his words, whether they are written down or he said them out loud. What difference does it make?

I never said or even implied that His words (scriptures) alone are proof that He was a Messenger of God.

Baha'u'llah never said or even implied that His words (scriptures) alone are proof that He was a Messenger of God. Here is what He wrote:

“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. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities, what He was like as a person, as seen by how He lived His life, from childhood on). That can be researched from various sources.

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)

The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

God Passes By (1844-1944)

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

Nimos said:
You completely missed my point... I specifically said to look at it separately and not to start mixing other things into it.

If I tell you that "Im God" would you consider that good evidence simply, because I say so? And ignore everything else you know about me. Only look at me simply telling you something, and whether you would consider that good evidence?

Again don't mix anything else into this, the answer to the question should obviously be, that it is not good evidence.

I never said that Baha’u’llah’s claim to be a Messenger of God is proof that He was one. How many times do I have to say this, 100, 200?

Nimos said:
Again, didn't he write it, so what is the difference?

I guess you do not have any logical abilities? What difference would it make if your religion teacher or one of your parents told you to investigate Baha’u’llah in order to determine if He was a real Messenger of God? Good advice is good advice and telling someone to do a thorough investigation is good advice. How else could you know anything about Baha’u’llah?

Nimos said:
But there are no other way to do it. You are right that telling people where to go read something is perfectly fine, if certain texts are relevant for what is being discussed.

But that is very different than to call out people for not wanting to investigate anything.

So what do people reply when you post these evidence? Because if im not mistaken you posted some of them to me as well, and how did I react to them?

When I posted the ‘categories of evidence’ that was never good enough because they did not consider that evidence, so maybe that is why they did not even think about investigating further.

Nimos said:
I agree with you on that... simply because you can't prove it, doesn't mean that he weren't a messenger of God. I told you that as well in the last post.

Well, I am glad to hear you say that

and if you said it before I must have missed it.

Nimos said:
But that is not really what we are talking about here, because it's about whether or not other people find the evidence or claims good enough. Therefore it is completely irrelevant, whether we/he believe he were a messenger or not. Because it doesn't bring us closer to an answer, only sufficient and good evidence can lead to anything useful in this regard.

I never disagreed with you on this, I even told you this myself.

The issue here is what people consider to be evidence, and that has always been the issue. What would you consider sufficient and good evidence?

Nimos said:
Which is fine, I actually think our very first conversation was about this very issue... that it was about having faith in Baha'u'llah and God. And have no problem with that.

Well I am glad to hear that.

Nimos said:
But what you are doing here is replacing your rational thinking with irrational thinking....
If I gave you a book about science and I told you (the truth) that according to pretty much all scientists half the stuff in it were either wrong or unconfirmed, then you wouldn't reach a conclusion that it were an amazing book, you would throw it in the garbage bin. A bit later, another person without any credentials whatsoever tells you it's the most amazing science book ever written, why would you believe such person?

What do you mean you can't see how it couldn't have been written without the inspiration of God? Its start off, being catastrophically wrong? It endorse morality that is so inhumane that, if a person wrote something like that today, everyone would look at them as being completely crazy.

Who in their right mind write this?

Exodus 21:3-6
3 - If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 - If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone.
5 - But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’
6 - then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

Exodus 21:17
17 - “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.

You honestly believe that this couldn't have been written without inspiration from God? What does that tell you about God? Don't forget, according to the bible, these are God's word, not mans. So as I see it, you have 3 options:

1. Either God apparently said it.
2. God doesn't care at all, whether these things are being told as if it was him that said it.
3. God had nothing to do with it.

Okay, I understand the point you are making. I think it is 2 and perhaps also 3.

I believe the teachings of Jesus such as the parables and the beatitudes are spiritual truth but I do not believe that the resurrection stories are true at all. I believe the Bible stories such as Jonah being in the belly of the whale are metaphorical and I believe many of the laws in the Old Testament are immoral by any standards we have today. I cannot understand how they ever came to be written, and it is difficult for me to understand how if God would have had any part of them.

But we have to consider when and to whom they were addressed and how long ago that was, and how can we really know how different the world and the people were thousands of years ago. The point I would make is that these laws no longer apply to this age of history yet Jews and Christians are trying to make them fit this age. Do you understand the problem with that, especially if God has sent a New Messenger with a New Revelation? Below is the opening paragraph of one Baha’is perspective on the Bible as universal history. You can read the whole chapter on the link below:

THE BIBLE AS UNIVERSAL HISTORY

The Bible is a study in world-history. It is man's first effort to write a complete history of the human race from its beginning to its climax in the unification of all peoples and the establishment of a universal religion.

Though it was written so long ago, compiled under unfavourable conditions, though as a history it is neither exhaustive nor comprehensive, nor orderly in form nor scholarly in tone and manner; yet in spite of its handicaps it presents to the soul of man the most sublime and magnificent conception of the whole human race as being in reality one family whose history, however complex, is a continuous movement towards a single and all-sufficient consummation. Perhaps nothing will fully satisfy the heart and mind of thoughtful men save this vision of the oneness of the life of the race, and of an Eternal Will guiding all things towards an event in which an ever-advancing civilisation finds at last completeness and fulfilment. Here in this ancient book, come down to us from primitive times and offered through the Authorised Version in befitting language of matchless power and beauty, this conception is set forth with a clearness and a force which has not weakened through the ages and with a fullness of meaning which no' epoch has been so well able to appreciate as ours.

Heart of the Gospel

(Continued on next post)

ppp · Sep 12, 2020

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
I am happy to be a slave, that is a willing servant who submits to the Master.

It is a shame, men hanged the meaning of slave, but I see that is what does happen when we forget what God has taught us about virtues and justice.

Regards Tony

You tout such inimical, immature and immoral beliefs.

TransmutingSoul · Sep 12, 2020

Joe W said:
You tout such inimical, immature and immoral beliefs.

All the best in life Joe.

Regards Tony

Trailblazer · Sep 12, 2020

Nimos said:
It's not evidence.

You can't use the very book that make the claim to begin with, to verify whether or not it is true. That makes no sense. Its like claiming that Lord of the rings is based on a true story and as evidence I give you that very book.

Okay, maybe the Bible is not enough evidence for a skeptic to believe in God, but it is evidence, even from a logical standpoint.

Circular arguments are perfectly valid

18th August 2017 by Tim van der Zee

You have likely heard the claim that circular arguments are wrong or incoherent. In this short post I will outline why this is not the case. Circular arguments are perfectly fine; in fact, they can be quite convincing!

Let’s start with perhaps the most famous bad example of a circular argument:

God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists.

It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. It’s also a bad argument from a logical standpoint, as logical arguments tend to be formulated in “if A than B”, and this formulation is missing here. This emphasizes the other weak aspect of this argumentation: both claims have a rather low prior probability.

Let’s see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:

If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments because they are circular? No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.

Circular arguments are perfectly valid

Nimos said:
The Quran claim to be the exact words of God given to Muhammad, that is even more amazing than what the Christians claim, isn't it?

The Qur’an certainly is more amazing than the Bible and one reason is because it is more authentic than the Bible. The difference is that it does not take us through thousands of years of human history as the Bible does.

Nimos said:
But this is a circular argument as I pointed out in the post... So it doesn't matter where you start in this "circle", if you think it's better to start with Baha'u'llah then lets do that.

It does not matter if it is circular because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

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 - Wikipedia

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument for Baha’u’llah:

If what Baha'u'llah wrote is true, God exists, and, if God exists what Baha'u'llah wrote is true.

Nimos said:
Since he is the only messenger, he is also the only one God talks to, so how do we determine whether he is lying or not?

Fine, we have his texts, but as I pointed out earlier, this is like taking the murders word for not having killed someone as being true, that doesn't work.

It's simply not a rational way to prove anything.

No, Baha’u’llah was not the only Messenger that ever existed, there were many Messengers who preceded Him.

As I keep telling you, we not only have His texts, we also have His works and the fruits of His works:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: FRUIT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Nimos said:
So to prove whether or not he is the messenger and therefore whether or not God exists, as you said that would natural follow, you are completely stuck.
There is no way for you to provide even remotely decent evidence.

And honestly that is the very issue that you run into, because there is no one that can verify anything that Baha'u'llah said, he have forced himself into a corner.
At least the other religions doesn't have this issue, because they don't share this view in regards to God.

I admitted I could never prove that in the 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 view do you think that other religions have in regards to God?

Nimos said:
Then you need to bring some even bigger ones, because it's simply not how you do these things.
$C:\Users\Home\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif$

The moment you make a claim, you have the burden of proof. Doesn't really matter what it is, unless its a "negative" claim. Like if I claim that I don't own a car, that is kind of difficult to demonstrate, right?

But if i claim, I own a red car and I think its very important for others to know this, then you can doubt it and the burden of proof is on me. In most cases, we simply ignore this, because most things are not really worth demanding proof for. Like you claiming to own cats, I wouldn't demand you to prove that, because whether or not you are lying about it, makes no difference to me and since its not especially uncommon for people to have cats, Ill simply trust you.
And most claims we handle like this.

In certain cases like amazing claims and scientific claims, we do actually demand evidence and proofs. And if these are not provided, we are in our good right to simply ignore them.

I did not make the claim, Baha’u’llah made the claim, and He provided the evidence to back up His claim. Sorry you do not like the evidence because it is not good enough for you.

Nimos said:
But would you agree, that this threshold is closely connected to whatever claim we are talking about?

If someone came to you and claim that they had rising from the dead, wouldn't you demand very good evidence for this and not just take their word for it?

Compared to me claiming to own a red car?

That is true, the bigger the claim the more evidence is required, and more should be expected, but that does not change the fact that some claims can never be prove true. Take rising from the dead for instance, that can never be proven even tough it s a very big claim. Unless we were there and witnessed the rising we have to take someone else’s word for it, there is no way around that. It is the same as Baha’u’llah receiving communication for God, that can never be proven. There were people who witnessed Him receiving His revelation from God:

“A certain Muhammad Karím, a native of Shíráz, who had been a witness to the rapidity and the manner in which the Báb had penned the verses with which He was inspired, has left the following testimony to posterity, after attaining, during those days, the presence of Bahá’u’lláh, and beholding with his own eyes what he himself had considered to be the only proof of the mission of the Promised One: “I bear witness that the verses revealed by Bahá’u’lláh were superior, in the rapidity with which they were penned, in the ease with which they flowed, in their lucidity, their profundity and sweetness to those which I, myself saw pour from the pen of the Báb when in His presence. Had Bahá’u’lláh no other claim to greatness, this were sufficient, in the eyes of the world and its people, that He produced such verses as have streamed this day from His pen.” God Passes By, p. 138

But since they were not the ones receiving it, they have to believe that is what was really happening. Moreover, all we have is what they wrote about witnessing it, since we were not the ones who witnessed it, so we either believe the book God Passes By or not. Do you understand?

So that is why the only way we can go about this is to look at Baha’u’llah and try to determine if He was telling the truth. We will always need an element of faith, until our faith is so strong that that we are sure, at which time faith collapses into knowledge. That knowledge is personal since what we believe cannot be proven to anyone else.

Nimos said:
I honestly don't know, because I wouldn't even know where to start with the material you have available to you. And it's not only Bahai, its all religions.

Fair enough, so maybe there is no way for you to ever be a believer.

Nimos said:
So God made Baha'u'llah into an automaton? And "forced" himself on him, but in that case it is fine, because he is a messenger.. But Baha'u'llah had free will right? or did he lose that when God made him a messenger?

Of course Baha’u’llah had free will. No, God did not foist Himself on Baha’u’llah; Baha’u’llah heard the Voice if God and willingly conceded to serve God for the remainder His life. Of course, the All-Knowing God knew that Baha’u’llah would do His bidding; otherwise God would not have chosen Him as His Messenger.

“Say: God is My witness! I have wished nothing whatever for Myself. What I have wished is the victory of God and the triumph of His Cause. He is Himself a sufficient witness between you and Me. Were ye to cleanse your eyes, ye would readily perceive how My deeds testify to the truth of My words, how My words are a guide to My deeds.” Gleanings, pp. 256-257

But aside from that, it is a moot point whether Baha’u’llah had free will or not. 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.

So whether we would have free will to reject God’s message or not is a moot point because we could never even understand communication form God since we do not have a universal divine mind. God did not create us that way because God never intended to communicate directly to us.

Trailblazer · Sep 13, 2020

Nimos said:
Also I do think you are in the wrong environment, if you want to talk a lot about dinosaurs

That's true.

What would be evidence that God exists?

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member