Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Why?
-
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!
Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
"Well, the B. man said that he was a manifestation of God. I have read much of what you call 'the evidence', and I don't believe for one second that he was who he said he was."
I question the claims of fulfilled prophecy and the Baha'i concept of progressive revelation. What is it that you've found that you're questioning?
I question the claims of fulfilled prophecy and the Baha'i concept of progressive revelation. What is it that you've found that you're questioning?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Why am I not surprised? Not very many people believe that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God.
Not very many people believed that Jesus was who He claimed to be either, not for many years after He walked the earth, but that does not mean that Jesus was not who He claimed to be. There is no more proof that Jesus was who He claimed to be than that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be. The only difference between Jesus and Baha'u'llah is that the Gospel message has had over 2000 years to spread whereas the message of Baha'u'llah has had only about 150 years to spread.
How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.
What was true in Jesus' day when only a few people believed in Jesus is also true in this day, as only a few people believe in Baha'u'llah. History repeats itself.
Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him. No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion. These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 183
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That’s right, they should not take my word for it.
There is no proof, only evidence.
I did not say we cannot trust the older religions at all. I said: ..we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic.
Apparently, there is nothing that would convince an Atheist.
I never said an Atheist should believe that. Atheists would have no reason to believe it unless they believed that Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God, in which case they would not be Atheists, they would be Baha’is.
That’s right. Why someone believes it is not proof as to why someone else should believe it.
It leaves you still questioning, or believing what can never be proven, based upon the evidence.
A religion/God exists can never be universally proven to be true. We can only prove it to ourselves, or not.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not know if you are being facetious or you are serious. I hope you are not serious.
I said that parents are responsible for their children, not God.
I did not say that other people should not care about children just because they are not their parents. If I even see a dog or cat run into the road I will stop traffic for that animal, so of course I would do the same for any child.
My point was that God is not responsible for intervening on earth and doing what humans are responsible for.
NOTHING in the world could be more idiotic than to expect that, NOTHING.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
NO, I was not having a dialogue with you so I was not representing you at all. I just posted what I found on a website.
Strawman Fallacy. Naughty naughty, go sit in the corner, and there'll be no desert for you.
What is objective truth?
Answer
If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called “truth.”
Objective is the opposite of subjective. If a person says, “The 1966 Ford Mustang is the coolest car ever made,” he is making a subjective statement. It is simply the opinion of one person. There is no way to measure that statement against reality; it cannot be evaluated apart from the opinions of other people. Others will either support or oppose the statement depending solely on their own, equally subjective opinions. It’s really impossible to say that a subjective statement is true in any meaningful sense; however, in modern parlance, someone might say, “It is MY truth,” which introduces a brand-new spin on subjectivism. At one time “my truth” would have been more accurately labeled “my opinion.”
An objective statement is factual; it has a definite correspondence to reality, independent of anyone’s feelings or biases. If a person says, “I own a 1966 Ford Mustang,” he is making an objective statement. If that person owns such a car, then the statement is true. If a person does not own such a car, then the statement is false. The truth or falsehood of the claim does not depend upon subjective opinion.
In recent years there has been an attack upon the very concept of objective truth. Things that were once deemed to be objective have been labeled subjective. For instance, the simple statement “God exists” was, in the past, recognized as an objective statement. People might agree or disagree, but everyone considered it an objective statement regarding external reality. Most people agreed with the statement, but even atheists who disagreed treated it objectively—the statement was either true or false.
Within the past thirty years or so, a new response has become popular. Instead of treating the statement “God exists” as an objective statement, many began to treat it as subjective. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing, the response might be something like “That is your truth. God may exist for you, but He doesn’t exist for me.” The focus has changed from objectivity (which seeks correspondence to objects in the real world) to subjectivity (which depends upon the subject who is making the statement). Today it is popular to view all statements regarding religion or theology as simply subjective statements of opinion—and, of course, everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
In more recent years, we have seen subjective opinion elevated to the level of objective truth. If a person embraces “his truth” or “her truth,” then everyone else is supposed to embrace that as “truth” as well—at least in certain “politically correct” matters. We see this in recent developments in transgender issues. For millennia, gender was considered an objective issue—a person was male or female based on a set of external, objective, and verifiable criteria. Now, certain cultural forces are attempting to make gender subjective. A male who decides to be female is simply embracing “his truth” or as the cultural forces would have us say, “her truth.” And even though the transgender person’s gender is “subjective,” his or her subjective truth must be treated as objective, as if it fully conformed to reality. If a person hints that the chosen gender of a transgender person is merely “their truth,” then he has committed an almost unforgiveable sin. The subjective has been elevated to the level of the objective, and the objective has been denigrated to the level of the subjective. The world has been flipped upside down.
But reality has a way of encroaching on people’s opinions. Try as they might, it is impossible for people to get away from the concept of objective truth. A person who says that a person can choose his own gender is, in fact, making an objective statement. That statement is either true or false. The person who makes the statement will not be satisfied if you agree that this is only “their truth.” They will insist that this is an objective statement that is true for everyone. Even the statement “objective truth does not exist” is an objective statement. Those who make it will often try to argue that it corresponds to reality and is therefore objectively true, thus defeating their own argument.
Postmodernism is a philosophical movement that does not deny the existence of objective truth, but it denies that we can ever know it for sure, because we are all swayed by various cultural forces that cloud our judgment. In postmodern thinking, it is only ignorance and pride that allows one to say, “I know this is true.” However, when postmodernists say, “It is impossible to know anything for sure,” they are making an objective statement. If it is impossible to know anything for sure, then it is impossible for them to know that it is impossible.
In short, facts and opinions are different. Objective truth is the opposite of (subjective) opinion. People may argue over whether a particular statement is objective or subjective. If it is objective, they may argue over whether or not it is true. But no matter what, it is impossible to escape the fact that objective truth does exist. At one time, the job of the Christian was to demonstrate the truthfulness of the biblical claims. Now, his job has been made more difficult because, before talking about the truth of the Bible, the Christian must often convince the listener that truth actually exists, especially touching religious claims.
What is objective truth? | GotQuestions.org
Please note that the article does not say anything about proof.
If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called “truth.”
So I believe that God exists and Baha'ullah was a Messenger of God are objective truths because they have correspondence with reality and they are true for everyone, whether they agree with these statements or not.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I never said there was no evidence for my religion, I said there is evidence. I only ever said that there can never be any proof that God communicated to Baha’u’llah (or any other Messenger of God).
It can be an objective truth without it being an objective fact (see my previous post)
No, it is not argument from popularity if they have verifiable evidence that it is true, in which case it is not a belief, it is a fact. Is there any verifiable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?
No, it gives you the results that are based upon the facts about that religion, if you look at those facts in an unbiased manner. Nobody should expect anything until they have completed their due diligence.
In many posts I you gave a reasonable explanation for why testable evidence isn't a method whereby you can find religious truth because religions cannot be tested the way you want to test them, as one tests scientific theories. Religion is different from science because religion is not the same as science. It seems to me that everyone knows that except you, including most of the atheists I have ever posted to.
I do not care if people point out things that are unfavorable to my religious point of view and I do not handwave them away because I do not need to, since I am firm in my beliefs..
There can never be any verifiable evidence for God or religion that is universally accepted as true, but that does not men that individuals cannot verify for themselves that the religion is true and God exists.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
By doing your own research and investigation.
They are methods to finding out the truth, but they are looking for very different KINDS of truths. Scientific truth pertains to the physical world and all that is therein; religious truth pertains to God and spiritual things such as the soul and the afterlife, although it also applies to moral behavior. When looking for different kinds of truths we have to use different methods.
So, you are on a mission to convince people that religion is not necessary for society? How do you think you are going to accomplish that?
I don’t think you will ever have to worry about living in a theocracy, any possibility of that came to an end when Baha’u’llah came and ushered in a completely new religious dispensation.
You sure do not talk as if you understand that they are not the same.
The best way of checking your results is by doing more research and checking those results against other results you have come up with and if you want to check your results with other people who have done similar research you can do that too because Baha’is are more than happy to explain what they have determined and why. You can also read the arguments against the Baha’i Faith and see how much sense they make to you. I was doing that just last night because I wanted to determine if a certain Bible prophecy referred to the return of Christ.
Well, that bothered me because I want to know the truth, I don’t want to hold a false belief, so I went on the internet to try to determine if Baha’u’llah had ever stood on the Mount of Olives and then when I could not find anything that said he had I asked @Truthseeker9 if he knew of any references to that, and he sent me the following which demonstrates that Zechariah 14:4 is about the first coming of the Messiah, Jesus, it does not refer to the second coming. There is nothing in the Bible that says that verse refers to the second coming, that is just what some Christians try to use to say that Baha’u’llah cannot be the return of Christ, and it is a vain attempt.
“In Zechariah (14:4) we read: "14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south." Not surprisingly, Christian commentators through the centuries have identified Jesus as the “branch of the Lord” (also referred to in the book of Jeremiah 2:5-6), as “the Lord…the messenger of the covenant” and John the Baptist as the “messenger” of the Lord, who “shall prepare the way before me”, and have noted that the feet of Jesus did indeed stand “upon the mount of Olives” and that an earthquake occurred upon His crucifixion.
This was in:
Essays on Jesus and the New Testament
by Peter Terry
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I do not speak for God, Baha'u'llah speaks for God. I am just the messenger for the Messenger.
“Attract the hearts of men, through the call of Him, the one alone Beloved. Say: This is the Voice of God, if ye do but hearken. This is the Day Spring of the Revelation of God, did ye but know it. This is the Dawning-Place of the Cause of God, were ye to recognize it. This is the Source of the commandment of God, did ye but judge it fairly. This is the manifest and hidden Secret; would that ye might perceive it.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 34
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Something is objective if it is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Think of objectivity as a scale, with bare subjective opinion at one end, your favourite colour for example, and facts supported by all the objective evidence at the other, like species evolution for example.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
No, I'm still here.
It is quite obvious that you are bluffing and have no idea what you are talking about.
In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.
- Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia -
Are you asking me to show you the maths of something that is common knowledge for physicists? What is the point of that?
However, the information from one can not travel to the other faster than the speed of light. So God would still be prevented from knowing the future before it had actually happened from my point of view.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Hidingfromyou
Member
For me to believe in your deity would require the same evidence that it would take for me to believe in Thor.
Hidingfromyou
Member
Because make-believe has no power.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
"I was not having a dialogue with you," she says AS SHE QUOTES MY POST TO RESPOND TO ME.
You most certainly were engaged in dialogue with me.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
And there's evidence that Star Trek is real too, by that logic.
Please show me something that is objectively true without being objectively factual.
No, there is not. And I never claimed there was such evidence, and I have never claimed that Jesus ever rose from the dead at all. In fact, I hold serious doubts that he ever even existed.
Now tell me, is there any verifiable evidence that Mr B was sent by God?
Ah, then of course, all people should get the same conclusion about each religion, yes?
I know religion is different from science.
One is based on reality, the other is not.
My point is that if something claims to be real, then it must correspond with reality. Religion completely abandons any attempt to show that it does so.
Yes, you do handwave them away.
A lack of verifiable evidence that is accepted as true is not something we see in anything that is actually objectively true. The fact that you can't get agreement about religion is strong evidence that it is not objectively true.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
And what if I make a mistake without realising it?
God, afterlife, morality...
You can't show that there's any objective truth to those at all.
I don't need to.
There's a huge amount of evidence that the happiest places to live are the least religious. https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...orld-are-among-the-least-religious/127465.htm
So there are no theocracies left anywhere in the world, is that what you are saying?
They are not the same, as one is based in reality and the other is not.
But if they both claim to be accurate descriptors of reality, then they both need to be judged by the same merits. Yet every time I do so, you cry foul and demand that I hold religion to a different standard.
So let's try it.
I determine what the speed of light is. I check my results against other results reached by other people and... Look! All our results agree!
I determine what the average distance to the moon is. I check my results against other results reached by other people and... Look! All our results agree!
I determine what the mass of my car is. I check my results against other results reached by other people and... Look! All our results agree!
I determine what the true religion is. I check my results against other results reached by other people and... Look! Absolute chaos! Widespread disagreement! Oh no!
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
"I'm not here to speak on behalf of God," says the woman who just said what God does and does not want to do.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I have some comic books and some movies that clearly show him.
There also might have been an actual religion or something ages ago, I dunno.