Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[TransmutingSoul]

And if you are mistaken in your belief that the evidence is true? Wouldn't that mean that you have not 'proved to yourself' that the evidence is true?

Not when Truth is relative. That is how this life is set up.

Much the same way that some people offer that science proves there is not a God. That is a truth to them, they have based that on perceived truths relative to that reality.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes he did. You have repeated those claims and stated that you believing those claims to be true claims. By doing so, you have taken the burden of proof upon yourself.

That is a yes and a no. Yes it is a proof for one's self.

The only obligation given by a Messenger of God is to pass the Message on and live it in one's own life. The burden of finding it is a viable proof, is passed on to the receiver, unless they ask for more clarification.

Proselytism is the key here.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

And if you are mistaken in your belief that the evidence is true? Wouldn't that mean that you have not 'proved to yourself' that the evidence is true?

If I was mistaken it would mean that my belief is not true.

God, says Anselm, is “that than which a greater cannot be thought.” If your god is not all-loving, all-knowing (in fact, if He is not all of the 'omnis'), then he is not God.

You mean He is not the Abrahamic God. How do you think you know that God has all these attributes?

It doesn't feel to me that He is not there and does not care.

We all interpret what we feel differently. Some believe that what they feel is God being there and caring, some people don't feel anything coming from God. I surmise it is our beliefs that lead us to think that God is there and cares.

No, we can't be sure that MrB's writings came from God.

You and others can't be sure but I am sure and other Baha'is are sure.

Until you realize that it is possible that you are mistaken

It is possible for any human being to be mistaken because humans are fallible, but that does not mean I AM mistaken.

I am one who has looked at the evidence and thereby determined that MrB was not a Manifestation of God.

I did not say that everyone would look at the evidence and thereby determine that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God...
I said:
One does not believe what Baha'u'llah wrote about God UNTIL they have looked at the evidence and they thereby determined that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God. This is the logical sequence of events.

I meant that until people have looked at the evidence they cannot make any determinations.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you even think this is relevant? As I said I was talking in principle, not that it was practical to know.

Okay, fair enough.

If something called 'fate' exists and can influence choices, the it's part of all the things that could possibly determine or influence choices.

That's true, because we would have to choose what we are fated to choose.

I believe that everything that happens is determined by something, but I do not believe everything that happens is determined by God, although our fate is determined by God.

 

[CG Didymus]

No, being a nice guy is not proof, but there is evidence. All you can do is look at the evidence and prove to yourself it is true or false. Nobody can prove it to you.

And if you are mistaken in your belief that the evidence is true? Wouldn't that mean that you have not 'proved to yourself' that the evidence is true?

Exactly, people have changed their minds about lots of different religions being "The Truth", including the Baha'i Faith. Of course the things in the Baha'i Faith seem true to a believer. So we ask, What did you use to "prove" it to yourself? And it's very subjective. Does it make sense to you? Great. But it is only your belief that it's true.

I never said that I believe that God is all-loving. That is a faith-based belief and it can never be proven and it is debatable, given all the suffering we see in this world.

God, says Anselm, is “that than which a greater cannot be thought.” If your god is not all-loving, all-knowing (in fact, if He is not all of the 'omnis'), then he is not God.

I think Baha'i do believe in a God that is all-loving. TB, strangely, says this is faith-based and can't be proven? But if Baha'u'llah said it, and he's an infallible messenger of God, then that proves it... God must be all-loving.

That's right, the "corrupted" message is where there are contradictions, there are no contradictions in the "original" messages.

There are no "original" messages. Therefore, what we have is religions that have contradicting messages.

Looking at the older religions is not what God wants me to do, which is one reason i don't do it.

Until you do it...

Exactly, Baha'is can't get away from the other religions, because they evolved from them... They say.

I believe in God, because Baha'u'llah said so,

Yes, and that's your proof. He said so and you believe he has been sent by God.

One does not believe what Baha'u'llah wrote about God UNTIL they have looked at the evidence and they thereby determined that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God.

No, we can't be sure that MrB's writings came from God.

Right, we can't be sure, so we check it out.

Until you realize that it is possible that you are mistaken

Yes, just because TB believes it doesn't make it true. Lots of people believe in other religions, and TB and other Baha'is have no problem pointing out how they are wrong.

I am one who has looked at the evidence and thereby determined that MrB was not a Manifestation of God.

And it goes the other way too. You as a Christian took a look at the "evidence" and weren't convinced. Can you share some of the things you found that convinced you that he wasn't a manifestation? Oh, and outstanding answers and responses. She has her religion, and she believes it... fine. But whether she thinks so or not, whether she says she cares or not, she's pushing her religion and beliefs on others as if they are true. All anybody's expected was some evidence and proof of her claims/beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

Irrelevant. You can't take someone's claim that they are a messenger sent by God as evidence that their claim is true.

I never said that His claim was evidence. In fact, numerous times I have said that His claim is not the evidence because that would be circular reasoning.

I have always said that the Person of Baha'u'llah and what He accomplished on His Mission, including His Writings, is the best evidence of who He was.

We've been over this. I do not find Biblical prophecy to be convincing at all.

That is why I said that prophecies are not the best evidence, and they are not the evidence that Baha'ullah told us to look at as proof of His claims. Bible prophecies are really only confirmatory evidence for people who already believe in Baha'u'llah. It's easy to look back when you know what you're looking for to tell that it was fulfilled, but impossible to know what it is referring to beforehand.

If I was being strictly formal about it, I would tell you what my position on the particular matter was, I would explain why I held that position, and I would show the testable evidence upon which I based that position.

How is a position you hold different from an opinion you hold?

However, when you said you embraced the teachings and principles of the Baha'i faith, that would include the Baha'i position that God is real, wouldn't it? So by deciding that the Baha'i position was true, you put yourself in a position where to NOT come to belief in God would be to reject what you had already decided to accept. Thus, you stacked the deck in favour of you coming to a belief in God. You created a bias in yourself.

I did not care if God existed back in those days because I accepted the Baha'i Faith based upon the teachings and principles. I assumed God existed but I did not really believe that until much later, when I found a reason to believe it. Of course I was more likely to believe in God since that is the pivot point around which the religion revolves.

Because science is the only tool we have that has ever produced anything that we can be even close to certain is accurate information about reality.

Science only offers accurate information about physical reality, not spiritual reality.

When humans invent a different explanation that fails those tests, they have to either conclude their alternative idea is false and then discard it, or they have to come up with a justification for why science doesn't tell them what they believe is the truth. That second option is, in my opinion, the reason why anyone ever uses the "Religion doesn't work the same way as science" argument, as you have done.

Baha'is do not invent another explanation for physical reality.

Science cannot tell anyone anything about God or the spiritual reality because that is not the purpose of science. Science only deals with the physical world. Science can never tell us the truth about God or the spiritual reality

Religion doesn't work the same way as science because religion is not the same as science. it is illogical to expect religion to work the same way as science because religion and science fall under a completely different purview. One cannot test God or spiritual things the same way that physical l things can be tested because the nature of what is being tested is very different.

If the claim is ultimately unprovable, then it's no different to the idea that there is no God at all, isn't it?

No, that is not true, since proof is not what makes God exists. Proof is just what some people want in order to know that God exists, but proof is not what brings God into existence. God could exist and offer no proof of His existence and if God offered no proof of His existence how could anyone ever know that God exists?

But God did offer proof of His existence through the Messengers of God who are also Manifestations of God who are representatives and the Voice of God on earth.

“The Person of the Manifestation hath ever been the representative and mouthpiece of God. He, in truth, is the Day Spring of God’s most excellent Titles, and the Dawning-Place of His exalted Attributes.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

After all, if God is unprovable, then any evidence that can ever be presented for God's existence MUST have an alternative, non-God explanation (since if there was no such alternative explanation, it would be proof of God, which contradicts your claim that God is unprovable). And if there is always going to be a non-God explanation for the evidence for God, then the conclusion "God doesn't exist and all the evidence is explained by the non-God explanations" is just as valid as concluding that it's evidence for God.

Since the Messengers are the proof that God exists you would have to come up with another explanation as to who they were and how they were able to do what they did on their Missions, including the Scriptures that were revealed by them.

Unless you are able to recognize their divine station you will always be able to come up with a non-God explanation, so as I have always said it all boils down to the choice between a and b: Those who claimed to be Messengers of God were either (a) Messengers of God with true claims, or (b) false prophets who had nothing to do with any real God.

So, faced with two possibilities that are equally likely, Occam's Razor would have us take the simplest of the two: namely, that God does not exist.

There is no logical reason to believe that the simplest explanation is the true explanation, and besides that the Messenger of God is not a complicated concept that is multiplied beyond necessity.

Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor, or the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one." Wikipedia

I think you're looking at it backwards.

You said that not everyone believes that the Baha'i faith is true, but the fact that not everyone believes is doesn't mean that the Baha'i faith is wrong.

I agreed. If the Baha'i faith WAS correct, I still wouldn't expect everyone to believe it. However, my point was that having people who do not believe that the Baha'i faith is true is still something we could have if the Baha'i faith was wrong.

That's correct reasoning, and conversely, having people who believe that the Baha'i Faith is true is something we could have if the Baha'i Faith was true. However, how many people believe it is true or false has no bearing on whether it is true or false since beliefs do not determine reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes he did. You have repeated those claims and stated that you believing those claims to be true claims. By doing so, you have taken the burden of proof upon yourself.

No, I have no burden of proof unless I am trying to convince you that those claims I believe are true.

Likewise if I believe and claim that I have a brand new Porsche in my garage I have no burden of proof unless I am trying to convince you that I have a brand new Porsche in my garage.

"Atheists are thus right to say that Christians shoulder the burden of proof when Christians are trying to convince others of their view of God’s existence.

Similarly, Christians are right to say that atheists shoulder the burden of proof when atheists is trying to convince others of their view of God’s existence.

Neither atheists nor Christians are right to say that the other always has the burden of proof.

They don’t.

It depends on who’s trying to do the convincing."
https://strangenotions.com/who-has-the-burden-of-proof-when-discussing-god/

 

[Trailblazer]

She has her religion, and she believes it... fine. But whether she thinks so or not, whether she says she cares or not, she's pushing her religion and beliefs on others as if they are true.

Saying "I believe" my religion is true is not pushing my religion
Show me where I ever pushed my religion or beliefs upon anyone.

All anybody's expected was some evidence and proof of her claims/beliefs.

I have presented the evidence repeatedly. I cannot help it if people expect me to given them something I do not have.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I cannot help it if people expect me to given them something I do not have.

Yeah, empirically verifiable evidence. Self-proclamations, stories in books and beliefs are not that.

 

[Tiberius]

That is a yes and a no. Yes it is a proof for one's self.

The only obligation given by a Messenger of God is to pass the Message on and live it in one's own life. The burden of finding it is a viable proof, is passed on to the receiver, unless they ask for more clarification.

Proselytism is the key here.

Regards Tony

Convincing yourself that your interpretation is correct does not count as proof.

 

[Tiberius]

I never said that His claim was evidence. In fact, numerous times I have said that His claim is not the evidence because that would be circular reasoning.

I have always said that the Person of Baha'u'llah and what He accomplished on His Mission, including His Writings, is the best evidence of who He was.

Let's review our conversation then...

You said, "Baha'u'llah and His Mission is the evidence that God exists. “He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49" Post 3898.

I said, "No, that's the claim, not the evidence." Post 3903.

You said, "That's true, it's the claim, but the Person of Baha'u'llah and what He accomplished on His Mission, including what He wrote, is the evidence of who He was." Post 3946.

I said, "Irrelevant. You can't take someone's claim that they are a messenger sent by God as evidence that their claim is true." Post 3953.

You specifically posted the quote from Mr B's writings to back up your claim made in post 3898.

That is why I said that prophecies are not the best evidence, and they are not the evidence that Baha'ullah told us to look at as proof of His claims. Bible prophecies are really only confirmatory evidence for people who already believe in Baha'u'llah. It's easy to look back when you know what you're looking for to tell that it was fulfilled, but impossible to know what it is referring to beforehand.

I recall you went through quite a long phase where you tried to show that Biblical prophecies were strong evidence for Mr B being a reincarnation of Jesus. Or whatever you say he is.

How is a position you hold different from an opinion you hold?

A position may be based on testable and repeatable evidence. An opinion is usually just something for which there is no concrete evidence.

I hold the position that the speed of light is always the same value, regardless of the frame of reference for the person making the measurement. There is evidence for that claim which will convince any rational person. I hold the position that vaccines are quite safe and the chance of an adverse reaction is very low. Again, there is scientific evidence for this that will convince any rational person.

However, my view that Star Trek is one of the best shows ever made is just an opinion. There is no objective evidence to support that view.

I did not care if God existed back in those days because I accepted the Baha'i Faith based upon the teachings and principles. I assumed God existed but I did not really believe that until much later, when I found a reason to believe it. Of course I was more likely to believe in God since that is the pivot point around which the religion revolves.

In simpler terms, you're saying I was right.

Science only offers accurate information about physical reality, not spiritual reality.

You can't show that spiritual reality even exists.

Anyone can make a claim that some new kind of reality exists and then make up some nonsense and claim that their nonsense is the only way to get information about this new kind of reality, but their nonsense PROVES that the new reality actually exists.

I can claim that there is a Flarbual reality, and say that the only way to get information about Flarbual reality is to use sklemerisation. And if you sklemerise every day, you'll get the evidence that shows that Flarbual reality is real.

Of course, that proves nothing without some way to TEST the results about Flarbual reality that you get from Sklemerising. Likewise, the claim that by using religion you can get accurate information about spiritual reality proves nothing, since by your own agreement, what you find out about spiritual reality can't be tested.

Baha'is do not invent another explanation for physical reality.

Science cannot tell anyone anything about God or the spiritual reality because that is not the purpose of science. Science only deals with the physical world. Science can never tell us the truth about God or the spiritual reality

Religion doesn't work the same way as science because religion is not the same as science. it is illogical to expect religion to work the same way as science because religion and science fall under a completely different purview. One cannot test God or spiritual things the same way that physical l things can be tested because the nature of what is being tested is very different.

So your religion does not in any way whatsoever make any claims about the way the world works, or how it was formed, or anything like that? Not even a vague "God did it"?

No, that is not true, since proof is not what makes God exists. Proof is just what some people want in order to know that God exists, but proof is not what brings God into existence. God could exist and offer no proof of His existence and if God offered no proof of His existence how could anyone ever know that God exists?

No, you misunderstand me.

Proof is not what makes God exist, but it IS what makes it even worthwhile believing that God exists.

But God did offer proof of His existence through the Messengers of God who are also Manifestations of God who are representatives and the Voice of God on earth.

“The Person of the Manifestation hath ever been the representative and mouthpiece of God. He, in truth, is the Day Spring of God’s most excellent Titles, and the Dawning-Place of His exalted Attributes.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

That's not proof. That's someone making a claim. Anyone can do that. It proves nothing.

Since the Messengers are the proof that God exists...

No they're not

...you would have to come up with another explanation as to who they were and how they were able to do what they did on their Missions, including the Scriptures that were revealed by them.

Unless you are able to recognize their divine station you will always be able to come up with a non-God explanation, so as I have always said it all boils down to the choice between a and b: Those who claimed to be Messengers of God were either (a) Messengers of God with true claims, or (b) false prophets who had nothing to do with any real God.

No. Reality doesn't work like that. There have been many cases where someone didn't like an idea yet they accepted it because it was the only thing that fit the evidence.

There is no logical reason to believe that the simplest explanation is the true explanation, and besides that the Messenger of God is not a complicated concept that is multiplied beyond necessity.

It's not always true, but generally speaking it works well.

And I'm not saying that the idea of Messengers of God must be a complicated concept. I'm saying God himself is a complicated explanation, certainly more complex than the non-God explanations.

That's correct reasoning, and conversely, having people who believe that the Baha'i Faith is true is something we could have if the Baha'i Faith was true. However, how many people believe it is true or false has no bearing on whether it is true or false since beliefs do not determine reality.

I never mentioned anything about the number of people who believe it, did I? I'm not the sort of person to use logical fallacies like the argument from popularity.

 

[night912]

That's correct reasoning, and conversely, having people who believe that the Baha'i Faith is true is something we could have if the Baha'i Faith was true. However, how many people believe it is true or false has no bearing on whether it is true or false since beliefs do not determine reality.

I never mentioned anything about the number of people who believe it, did I? I'm not the sort of person to use logical fallacies like the argument from popularity.

I recall someone in here talking about the number of believers as one of the criterion for being a true messenger of God. Perhaps we should inform that person of the what Trailblazer said above. Maybe that person will accept that it's irrational if being told by a fellow Baha'i.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have always said that the Person of Baha'u'llah and what He accomplished on His Mission, including His Writings, is the best evidence of who He was.

The person? He was an honest, good guy. Made a prisoner? So maybe... no one would endure that unless they believed they really were a manifestation? His mission? What tell people he was God's messenger and get thrown in jail for claiming it? His writings? Some great, even awesome, but not all of it. Some things might not be true. And since the claim is that he is infallible, then those things would disqualify him.

That is why I said that prophecies are not the best evidence, and they are not the evidence that Baha'ullah told us to look at as proof of His claims. Bible prophecies are really only confirmatory evidence for people who already believe in Baha'u'llah.

But they should be. The prophecies came from God through prophets. If they aren't accurate, then maybe, Baha'u'llah didn't fulfill them.

But God did offer proof of His existence through the Messengers of God who are also Manifestations of God who are representatives and the Voice of God on earth.

So we can't or can we prove that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation? But Baha'is believe his character, his mission and his writings are proof? So once we see that "proof" and come to believe he is telling the truth, then, because he said God is real, then God is true? But how is his character, his mission, and his writings really proof? It's too much like Christians saying the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God. Sure they can believe that... and it helps them, with some people, become better people. Just like some people become better people following the Baha'i teachings. But some teachings of some religions even Baha'is say are false, yet, when believed, they still work.

Since the Messengers are the proof that God exists you would have to come up with another explanation as to who they were and how they were able to do what they did on their Missions, including the Scriptures that were revealed by them.

Yes the question as to who is a messenger or a manifestation. First off, what scriptures were revealed by them? Then what about their lives and mission? On lots of them, it's just myths and legends, and even you have called them "just stories."

That's not proof. That's someone making a claim. Anyone can do that. It proves nothing.

Totally agree. Joseph Smith, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and Guru Nanak all started religious movements that are as big or bigger than the Baha'i Faith. Are they for real? Are they true? Are they from God? The followers of those religious movements think so. Just like Baha'is believe in theirs. Especially with two of them, I know some Mormons and some Sikhs. Great people. Do I believe what their religion teaches? No. But the religion sure works for them. So, again, is it the "truth" of the claims of a religion that make them work? Not really, it seems to be that the followers believe the claims are true. So fine, Baha'is, you believe. You've "proven" it to yourself but can't prove it to anyone else. Because a person has to take that leap of faith to believe it is true.

 

[CG Didymus]

Saying "I believe" my religion is true is not pushing my religion
Show me where I ever pushed my religion or beliefs upon anyone.

But whether she thinks so or not, whether she says she cares or not, she's pushing her religion and beliefs on others as if they are true.

I said whether you think so or not. Obviously, you don't think you do. But I can't tell the different between what you do and what somebody else, that is pushing, promoting, or claiming that their religion is true, does.

But, I think I've said this before, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you have The Truth, I would hope you would let others know about it. And, aren't Baha'is told to "teach" the Faith?

 

[Tiberius]

I recall someone in here talking about the number of believers as one of the criterion for being a true messenger of God. Perhaps we should inform that person of the what Trailblazer said above. Maybe that person will accept that it's irrational if being told by a fellow Baha'i.

I think you'll find that was Trailblazer herself.

She said, "I said it is highly unlikely that so many people are wrong about Jesus and that only the Jews are right. Part of the reason it is unlikely is because there are only 14.7 million Jews and I explained that a loving God would not prefer a small handful of people to have the one true religion and leave everyone else in the world in the lurch." Post 2405.

 

[Trailblazer]

The person? He was an honest, good guy. Made a prisoner? So maybe... no one would endure that unless they believed they really were a manifestation? His mission? What tell people he was God's messenger and get thrown in jail for claiming it? His writings? Some great, even awesome, but not all of it. Some things might not be true. And since the claim is that he is infallible, then those things would disqualify him.

No, just being a prisoner and getting thrown in jail for claiming He was a Manifestation of God is not enough evidence, nor are the Writings alone evidence. We either believe that everything He wrote was true or not, we don't take part of it that we agree with. Of course that is predicated on the belief that He was a Manifestation of God and was infallible.

But they should be. The prophecies came from God through prophets. If they aren't accurate, then maybe, Baha'u'llah didn't fulfill them.

The prophecies came from God through prophets and got written down by men. They are as accurate as they can be given that they were written by fallible men. Prophecies are not the best evidence because even though they were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah people will find reasons to deny that if they do not want to believe it. That is why I said that prophecies are not the best evidence, they are only confirmatory evidence for people who already believe in Baha'u'llah.

So we can't or can we prove that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation? But Baha'is believe his character, his mission and his writings are proof? So once we see that "proof" and come to believe he is telling the truth, then, because he said God is real, then God is true? But how is his character, his mission, and his writings really proof?

You either see it as proof or you don't see it as proof and you can only prove it to yourself; it will never be a universal truth that everyone will believe, at least not at the present time. In the future i believe it will be universally accepted as the truth but that does not help you now..

Yes the question as to who is a messenger or a manifestation. First off, what scriptures were revealed by them? Then what about their lives and mission? On lots of them, it's just myths and legends, and even you have called them "just stories."

As I always say, I don't know why it matters so much to you who was a Messenger and who was a Manifestation and what they revealed. We cannot know these things from the remote past because there is no way to know them. These are unnecessary details that prevent you from focusing on what matters. The past is gone. It does not matter anymore.

 

[Trailblazer]

I said whether you think so or not. Obviously, you don't think you do. But I can't tell the different between what you do and what somebody else, that is pushing, promoting, or claiming that their religion is true, does.

I either push it or I don't push it, it is not about what I think, it is about what I actually do.

I am sorry you cannot tell the difference between someone who just responds to posts and answers questions from someone who is pushing their religion as some people do. A dead giveaway is when I say I do not have the burden of proof to prove my religion is true, over and over and over and over again. If I was pushing the Baha'i Faith I would try to prove it is true, but I don't. I only respond to posts. There is plenty I could do to try to prove it is true but I know that is not possible and it is not my responsibility so I don't even try.

“It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure? If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

 

[Trailblazer]

Let's review our conversation then...

You said, "Baha'u'llah and His Mission is the evidence that God exists. “He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49" Post 3898.

I said, "No, that's the claim, not the evidence." Post 3903.

You said, "That's true, it's the claim, but the Person of Baha'u'llah and what He accomplished on His Mission, including what He wrote, is the evidence of who He was." Post 3946.

I said, "Irrelevant. You can't take someone's claim that they are a messenger sent by God as evidence that their claim is true." Post 3953.

You specifically posted the quote from Mr B's writings to back up your claim made in post 3898.

No, I did not post that quote to back up His claim. I posted that quote because it referred to the evidence that God exists, which is the Manifestation of God (He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation).

What Baha'u'llah wrote in that quote was not even a claim that HE was a Manifestation of God. It was a statement about God -- “He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation." Baha'u'llah was referring to Manifestations of God, not to Himself. He just happens to be 'one' of the Manifestations of God.

I recall you went through quite a long phase where you tried to show that Biblical prophecies were strong evidence for Mr B being a reincarnation of Jesus. Or whatever you say he is.

I believe they are evidence but not the best evidence since people can and do say that Baha'u'llah did not fulfill them even though he clearly did.

Baha'is do not believe that Baha'u'llah was the reincarnation of Jesus, we believe He was the return of the Christ Spirit in another human body.

A position may be based on testable and repeatable evidence. An opinion is usually just something for which there is no concrete evidence.

I hold the position that the speed of light is always the same value, regardless of the frame of reference for the person making the measurement. There is evidence for that claim which will convince any rational person. I hold the position that vaccines are quite safe and the chance of an adverse reaction is very low. Again, there is scientific evidence for this that will convince any rational person.

However, my view that Star Trek is one of the best shows ever made is just an opinion. There is no objective evidence to support that view.

Okay, but as I have told you numerous times there is no testable evidence for a religious belief so all we can have is an opinion about the belief.

In simpler terms, you're saying I was right.

I said "Of course I was more likely to believe in God since that is the pivot point around which the religion revolves." Do you have a point to make about that?

You can't show that spiritual reality even exists.

Anyone can make a claim that some new kind of reality exists and then make up some nonsense and claim that their nonsense is the only way to get information about this new kind of reality, but their nonsense PROVES that the new reality actually exists.

I can claim that there is a Flarbual reality, and say that the only way to get information about Flarbual reality is to use sklemerisation. And if you sklemerise every day, you'll get the evidence that shows that Flarbual reality is real.

Of course, that proves nothing without some way to TEST the results about Flarbual reality that you get from Sklemerising. Likewise, the claim that by using religion you can get accurate information about spiritual reality proves nothing, since by your own agreement, what you find out about spiritual reality can't be tested.

No, I am not going to be able to show that a spiritual reality exists from this physical realm of existence. You will just have to wait and see it after you die. It is better to know before that but you would have to believe what religion says about it in order to know.

So your religion does not in any way whatsoever make any claims about the way the world works, or how it was formed, or anything like that? Not even a vague "God did it"?

Baha'is believe that God and His creation have always existed, we say nothing about how the earth was formed. Earth is only a small part of creation.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

No, you misunderstand me.

Proof is not what makes God exist, but it IS what makes it even worthwhile believing that God exists.

Rather, I would say that evidence is what makes it possible to believe that God exists. With no evidence there would be no rational reason to really believe that God exists although a person could just assume that God exists as I did before I really believed that.

That's not proof. That's someone making a claim. Anyone can do that. It proves nothing.

That was not a claim that Baha'u'llah was making for Himself. That was me explaining that God offered proof of His existence through the Messengers of God who are also Manifestations of God who are representatives and the Voice of God on earth. In that quote Baha'u'llah was making a statement about Manifestations of God and how they are the representatives and mouthpieces of God.

“The Person of the Manifestation hath ever been the representative and mouthpiece of God. He, in truth, is the Day Spring of God’s most excellent Titles, and the Dawning-Place of His exalted Attributes.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

No they're not.

They might not be proof but they are the evidence. You are not going to get proof because God does not want you to have it.

No. Reality doesn't work like that. There have been many cases where someone didn't like an idea yet they accepted it because it was the only thing that fit the evidence.

I do not know what you are getting at. How do you think it works in reality?

It's not always true, but generally speaking it works well.

And I'm not saying that the idea of Messengers of God must be a complicated concept. I'm saying God himself is a complicated explanation, certainly more complex than the non-God explanations.

Explanation for what? Are you talking about creation?

However there are a lot of other things that are explained better by God than by no God, such as the purpose of our existence.

I never mentioned anything about the number of people who believe it, did I? I'm not the sort of person to use logical fallacies like the argument from popularity.

No you didn't say that and good for you.

 

[Tiberius]

No, I did not post that quote to back up His claim. I posted that quote because it referred to the evidence that God exists, which is the Manifestation of God (He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation).

What Baha'u'llah wrote in that quote was not even a claim that HE was a Manifestation of God. It was a statement about God -- “He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation." Baha'u'llah was referring to Manifestations of God, not to Himself. He just happens to be 'one' of the Manifestations of God.

So at first you say it's a reference to the manifestation of God, which is the real evidence (you claim). And then you change your tune and immediately say that it was not, after all a claim that he was a manifestation of God. Once again your position seems wildly inconsistent, and this is in the very next paragraph!

I believe they are evidence but not the best evidence since people can and do say that Baha'u'llah did not fulfill them even though he clearly did.

Let's not get into this again. You can't just say something is "clearly" evidence if you don't specify HOW it is evidence. You'll find unsupported claims carry little weight, and your attempts before to show that Biblical prophecies count for anything failed completely, at least as far as I am concerned.

Okay, but as I have told you numerous times there is no testable evidence for a religious belief so all we can have is an opinion about the belief.

Yet you have claimed to KNOW FOR A FACT. Doesn't sound like just an opinion to me.

From my point of view, it looks like you are saying your position is fact until the time when you are called out for not being able to "know" it, at which point you change your tune to, "It's just an opinion." And then you go back to presenting it as something you KNOW as soon as that's over.

I said "Of course I was more likely to believe in God since that is the pivot point around which the religion revolves." Do you have a point to make about that?

Yes, and I've made it several times. That fact that you accepted the claims of Mr B biased you towards coming to a belief in God.

No, I am not going to be able to show that a spiritual reality exists from this physical realm of existence. You will just have to wait and see it after you die.

Ah yes. "You'll find out the truth after you die." Believers have been saying that for centuries, and it's never been convincing. Never. I don't even know why you (believers in general, not you specifically) even bother.

It is better to know before that but you would have to believe what religion says about it in order to know.

See? This is what I was talking about before. You claim to KNOW, unless people are saying that you can't know. Then you go to agreeing that it's just an opinion. But as soon as people are no longer saying you can't know it, you go back to treating it as a fact you can know.

Baha'is believe that God and His creation have always existed, we say nothing about how the earth was formed. Earth is only a small part of creation.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

This is in direct contradiction to what the scientific explanation is. Haven't you claimed that Baha'i faith is compatible with science? It doesn't seem like it judging from what you've said here.

Rather, I would say that evidence is what makes it possible to believe that God exists. With no evidence there would be no rational reason to really believe that God exists although a person could just assume that God exists as I did before I really believed that.

Except you've repeatedly agreed that there is no actual evidence to support the claim that God exists. All you've got is a bunch of claims and texts and the opinion that those claims and texts are true.

That was not a claim that Baha'u'llah was making for Himself. That was me explaining that God offered proof of His existence through the Messengers of God who are also Manifestations of God who are representatives and the Voice of God on earth. In that quote Baha'u'llah was making a statement about Manifestations of God and how they are the representatives and mouthpieces of God.

“The Person of the Manifestation hath ever been the representative and mouthpiece of God. He, in truth, is the Day Spring of God’s most excellent Titles, and the Dawning-Place of His exalted Attributes.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

No, that was not you explaining anything, that was you directly quoting Gleanings from the writings of Mr B.

They might not be proof but they are the evidence. You are not going to get proof because God does not want you to have it.

They are not evidence for anything. They are people making claims. Anyone can make claims. It proves NOTHING. It is evidence for NOTHING.

I do not know what you are getting at. How do you think it works in reality?

You seem to think that if someone doesn't want to believe something, they will find a way to reject the evidence. If the evidence is testable then a rational person will accept it, even if they don't like having to admit they were wrong.

Explanation for what? Are you talking about creation?

If you can't read back over our conversation, that's not my problem. The little arrow next to your name when I quote you is a direct link to the post I am replying to. It's not that hard to click on it and refresh yourself. I'm not going to repeatedly hold your hand. I've seen plenty of believers do that as an attempt to make a distraction, hoping the person is just going to give up and stop replying. I'm not going to stop, but I'm not going to allow the distraction. If you want to participate in this conversation, it's on you to keep up to speed with it.

However there are a lot of other things that are explained better by God than by no God, such as the purpose of our existence.

Who says there is a purpose for our existence?

No you didn't say that and good for you.

Then why in the whole wide world did you even bring it up? it almost seems like it was an attempt to suggest that I was trying to use the argument from popularity when I didn't. You wouldn't be trying to use a strawman against me, would you? Because this isn't the first time you have done this kind of thing, making reference to a fallacy I haven't used.

 

[Trailblazer]

So at first you say it's a reference to the manifestation of God, which is the real evidence (you claim). And then you change your tune and immediately say that it was not, after all a claim that he was a manifestation of God. Once again your position seems wildly inconsistent, and this is in the very next paragraph!

The quote is a reference to the Manifestations of God which are the only evidence that God exists. The quote was not Baha'u'llah claiming to be a Manifestation of God. Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God and He claimed that in other passages.

Let's not get into this again. You can't just say something is "clearly" evidence if you don't specify HOW it is evidence.

How is it evidence? For those who believe that the Bible is valid, it is evidence that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ and the Messiah since the biblical prophecies were fulfilled by His coming. Whether you recognize the fulfillment or not is a moot point. It was clearly proven in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears.

Yet you have claimed to KNOW FOR A FACT. Doesn't sound like just an opinion to me.

From my point of view, it looks like you are saying your position is fact until the time when you are called out for not being able to "know" it, at which point you change your tune to, "It's just an opinion." And then you go back to presenting it as something you KNOW as soon as that's over.

I never claimed to know for a fact. You are mistaking a strong belief for a fact. It is my belief which in my opinion is true. I know it is true but not as a fact. A religious belief can never be proven as a fact.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Yes, and I've made it several times. That fact that you accepted the claims of Mr B biased you towards coming to a belief in God.

That fact that I accepted the claims of Baha'u'llah gave me a *reason* to believe in God, since He is the evidence that God exists. No bias was involved because I was not comparing belief in God with atheism and unfairly choosing belief. I chose belief because of the evidence.

bias
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
bias means - Google Search

Ah yes. "You'll find out the truth after you die." Believers have been saying that for centuries, and it's never been convincing. Never. I don't even know why you (believers in general, not you specifically) even bother.

And it will never be convincing to atheists until they die and find out they are not dead.

See? This is what I was talking about before. You claim to KNOW, unless people are saying that you can't know. Then you go to agreeing that it's just an opinion. But as soon as people are no longer saying you can't know it, you go back to treating it as a fact you can know.

I do not claim to know but I believe I know. Nobody can tell me what I can know, only I know what I can know, and God knows because God is all-knowing). Again, it is not a fact just because I know as thee are other ways of knowing that are not factual.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

This is in direct contradiction to what the scientific explanation is. Haven't you claimed that Baha'i faith is compatible with science? It doesn't seem like it judging from what you've said here.

I never said that we accept the scientific theories regarding how the universe came into existence.
Can science prove that creation has not always existed, that it came into being at a specific point in time?

Except you've repeatedly agreed that there is no actual evidence to support the claim that God exists. All you've got is a bunch of claims and texts and the opinion that those claims and texts are true.

I never said there is no evidence, myriad times I have said there is evidence although there is no proof. What I have is texts and a belief that the claims in those texts are true.

No, that was not you explaining anything, that was you directly quoting Gleanings from the writings of Mr B.

And I also explained what the passage means.

They are not evidence for anything. They are people making claims. Anyone can make claims. It proves NOTHING. It is evidence for NOTHING.

I said in post #3971: Since the Messengers are the proof that God exists...
It is true that anyone can make claims and claims are not evidence of anything. The evidence is what the Messengers do to back up their claims. As Jesus said:

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

You seem to think that if someone doesn't want to believe something, they will find a way to reject the evidence. If the evidence is testable then a rational person will accept it, even if they don't like having to admit they were wrong.

We have already been over this. There is no evidence that is testable the way you want it to be testable.
However, we can test the Prophets. The test for Baha'u'llah is whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass, and whether His fruits have been good or evil; in other words, whether His prophecies are being fulfilled and His ordinances established, and whether His lifework has contributed to the education and upliftment of humanity and the betterment of morals, or the contrary.

Proofs of Prophethood​

Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men. The tests He proposed are the same as those laid down by His great predecessors. Moses said:—

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.

Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:—

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. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20

In the chapters that follow, we shall endeavor to show whether Bahá’u’lláh’s claim to Prophethood stands or falls by application of these tests: whether the things that He had spoken have followed and come to pass, and whether His fruits have been good or evil; in other words, whether His prophecies are being fulfilled and His ordinances established, and whether His lifework has contributed to the education and upliftment of humanity and the betterment of morals, or the contrary.”
Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9

If you can't read back over our conversation, that's not my problem. The little arrow next to your name when I quote you is a direct link to the post I am replying to. It's not that hard to click on it and refresh yourself. I'm not going to repeatedly hold your hand. I've seen plenty of believers do that as an attempt to make a distraction, hoping the person is just going to give up and stop replying. I'm not going to stop, but I'm not going to allow the distraction. If you want to participate in this conversation, it's on you to keep up to speed with it.

You have no idea how many posts I get in a day. I do not always have time to go back and look at everything that was said before, so from now on I won't ask, I will just delete that part of the post.

Who says there is a purpose for our existence?

Baha'u'llah.

Then why in the whole wide world did you even bring it up? it almost seems like it was an attempt to suggest that I was trying to use the argument from popularity when I didn't.

I said in post #3971: That's correct reasoning, and conversely, having people who believe that the Baha'i Faith is true is something we could have if the Baha'i Faith was true. However, how many people believe it is true or false has no bearing on whether it is true or false since beliefs do not determine reality.

Where do you see me suggesting that you committed the fallacy? I am a very direct person so if I thought you had committed it I would have said so.