• 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?

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The Baha'i Faith or any religion is not about providing science to the world. It is intended to improve the character of people, spiritualize people and unite people in a universal fellowship.
.. and on the other that deny religion's original function of civilizing the world and reform morals and ethics. Without ethics, how will the science and technology be guided for good? Without science and reason how will we avoid falling into superstition? This is part of the perspective of the Baha'i Faith.
The Abrahmic religions have never done that. The have only caused schism and conflict. The world was always in a sad state (if you consider it so), and your God, Allah and his messengers have not been able to make even an iota of change. Ethics and morals existed before religions came up. Actually, if there is a God, he would do us a great favor not to send any more messangers and messages. We have had enough of them. If the attempt of Bahai faith is to avoid superstition, it should first give some evidence for existence of God and for his sending messages and messengers.
I am spending too much time with your efforts to tear down. You will never believe anyway, and others who see this this will see your how misguided you are only interested in tearing down, and will never try to see my point of view.
That is sort of mutual. You do not see the atheists' view point. We are only asking you to provide evidence for what you say - and you have none.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I guess you didn't notice that despite 'Abdu'l-Baha having so little education He knew quite a lot. He also was very busy serving His Father and serving His fellow men that He didn't have time to read. Where did He get His knowledge, then?
That is even worse. one that he was uneducated and the other that he did not have time to read about what is happening around his time. Like his father, what did Abdul Baha know other than Abrahamic superstitious stories?
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
Please note that the Aether theory was doubted even in 18th Century, and had been completely discarded by Abdul Baha's time (1844 – 1921), but he did not know that. Not surprising, we cannot blame him because he was uneducated. By his time, even the Quantum Mechanics had appeared on the horizon.

"All of those results required the full application of the Lorentz transformation by Lorentz and Joseph Larmor in 1904. Summarizing the results of Michelson, Rayleigh and others, Hermann Weyl would later write that the aether had "betaken itself to the land of the shades in a final effort to elude the inquisitive search of the physicist". In addition to possessing more conceptual clarity, Albert Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity could explain all of the experimental results without referring to an aether at all. This eventually led most physicists to conclude that the earlier notion of a luminiferous aether was not a useful concept."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Luminiferous_aether

"Quantum mechanics arose gradually from theories to explain observations which could not be reconciled with classical physics, such as Max Planck's solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem, and the correspondence between energy and frequency in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper which explained the photoelectric effect. These early attempts to understand microscopic phenomena, now known as the "old quantum theory" .."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
See this:

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

After this, I'm through. You also all need to see all the posts in this thread. I can't be defending the same things over and over and over again. All of you will never believe anyway. I am wasting my time. I can't forever be defending and never be connecting in a positive way. I need to be talking to others and ignore you mean-hearted atheists who only want to tear down. I need a constructive conversation.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
The Abrahmic religions have never done that. The have only caused schism and conflict.
That is how they degenerated. I will say no more. Show me where the Baha'i Faith has caused schism and conflict in the world. And I don't mean going out of your way to appear to show that like you tend to do.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
That is even worse. one that he was uneducated and the other that he did not have time to read about what is happening around his time. Like his father, what did Abdul Baha know other than Abrahamic superstitious stories?
Obviously you have never read 'Abdu'l-Baha at any length at all! You poor man, how deluded you are.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Wait...

Do you think reality and truth are two different things?

Reality is true. Truth is real.

If something is real, then it is true. If the elephant in my living room is real, then it is true that there is an elephant in my living room.

Truth is literally defined as what is real.

I don't know what idea you are going on about, but makes no sense at all to me.

Let us test that: Reality is true. Truth is real.
I answer no. That is false and thus not in reality and not real as it is not true.

So if you choose to answer, how did you read something false, which is not real and not in reality?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I need to be talking to others and ignore you mean-hearted atheists who only want to tear down. I need a constructive conversation.
Then start with something with verifiable evidence and the mean-hearted atheists will connect.
They thought this ether was physical. for 'Abdu'l-Baha it was not physical. I took a course in electricity and magnetism in college, and there is a vibration that produces electricity and magnetism.
Abdul Baha was totally wrong here and resorting to special pleading. His aether was not physical, and if it was not physical then there can be no evidence, like in case of God or Bahaollah being the messenger of Allah. You took a course in electricity and magnetism in college. I do not know which college teaches that electricity and magnetism are due to vibrations. You know that electricity and magnetism is because of interaction of fundamental forces. Vibrations of electrons due to electricity is only a layman's way of expressing this interaction.
That is how they degenerated. I will say no more. Show me where the Baha'i Faith has caused schism and conflict in the world. And I don't mean going out of your way to appear to show that like you tend to do.
Bahais caused schism in Iran among the Shias and that is the cause of their suffering there and in various other Islamic countries.
Obviously you have never read 'Abdu'l-Baha at any length at all!
OK, tell me what Abdul Baha knew other than Abrahamic mythological stories or the yarn spun by his father.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
The Bible is not a book of facts and information. One either believes it was revealed by God through the Holy Spirit or they believe it is just a book men wrote. Unless you believe the former there is no point referring to the Bible to support that God exists.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, since I cannot ever prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I cannnot ever assert the conclusion that God exists. And that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

That is also why I am not making any claims, because I cannot prove that what I believe is true to anyone except myself.

-- I have provided evidence.
-- I have not 'asserted' that my beliefs are true, I have only ever said I believe they are true.

But if it floats your boat to believe I am making claims go on ahead and believe it. Personally, I think people should ask themselves why they keep asserting that I am making claims, why it is so important for them to believe that. Clearly it is a psychological phenomenon I won't get into here.
"Personally, I think people should ask themselves why they keep asserting that I am making claims, why it is so important for them to believe that."


Or perhaps you should ask yourself why it is that practically every other person besides yourself on this thread is convinced you are making claims.
I mean, if I had ten people telling me my hair was green, I might take a look in a mirror.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
What you may not have considered is that the Baha'i have a different argument, based in science and reason.

No offence but I don't care, I only care what objective evidence can be demonstrated for their claims, so far I've not seen any. And as I have said, the scientific method functions just as well without any religion or deity. It is a secular method.

So what happened to Galileo was not what Jesus the Christ would have done,

I'm sorry but that is pure speculation. I am also not convinced Jesus was an historical person, though even were this properly evidenced, it would not of course lend any credence to any of the supernatural claims associated to him, for which there is no objective evidence.

it is what men that had forgotten Jesus teachings did that to Galileo.

Again this is just speculation on your part, so I can lend it no credence.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Buty you said that it is "markedly different" from the Christian position. In what way/s is it markedly different?
Baha'is believe in the harmony of science and religion, that each one is as as necessary as the other.

Science and Religion

Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion, a notion that became prevalent in intellectual discourse at a time when the very conception of each system of knowledge was far from adequate. The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith, which teaches that religion, without science, soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism. “Religion,” according to the Bahá’í writings, “is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive.”1Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created things embody the potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific acquisition is a higher virtue specialized to man alone. Other beings and organisms are deprived of this potentiality and attainment.2

So far as earthly existence is concerned, many of the greatest achievements of religion have been moral in character. Through its teachings and through the examples of human lives illumined by these teachings, masses of people in all ages and lands have developed the capacity to love, to give generously, to serve others, to forgive, to trust in God, and to sacrifice for the common good. Social structures and institutional systems have been devised that translate these moral advances into the norms of social life on a vast scale. In the final analysis, the spiritual impulses set in motion by the Founders of the world’s religions—the Manifestations of God—have been the chief influence in the civilizing of human character.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá has described science as the “most noble” of all human virtues and “the discoverer of all things”.3 Science has enabled society to separate fact from conjecture. Further, scientific capabilities—of observing, of measuring, of rigorously testing ideas—have allowed humanity to construct a coherent understanding of the laws and processes governing physical reality, as well as to gain insights into human conduct and the life of society.

Taken together, science and religion provide the fundamental organizing principles by which individuals, communities, and institutions function and evolve.

https://www.bahai.org/beliefs/god-his-creation/ever-advancing-civilization/science-religion
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
They interacted with their devotees. The devotees were gullible but not all of them were illiterate like Bahaollah and Abdul Baha. If the devotees were not gullible, they would not have believed the yarn that was spun.

Then there were Persian newspapers. Bahaollah might be reading these. Then, the newspapers of the Ottoman empire must have been available in places where Bahaollah lived in exile. Then there are two factors. One that these newspapers must be reporting science incorrectly (just like many of the newpapers do these days). And secondly that the information understood by a person depends on his prior knowledge of the subject and capacity to understand. Bahaollah who had not studied any science and did not have any prior knowledge of it.

"The first Iranian newspapers appeared in the mid-19th century during the reign of Nasir al Din Shah. More specifically, the first newspaper in Iran, Kaghaz-e Akhbar (The Newspaper), was launched for the government by Mirza Saleh Shirazi in 1837. By 1907 (the era of the Persian Constitutional Revolution), there were 90 newspapers circulating in Iran."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Iran

"In 1828, Khedive of Egypt Muhammad Ali ordered, as part of the drastic reforms he was implementing in the province, the local establishment of the gazette Vekayi-i Misriye (Egyptian Affairs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takvim-i_Vekayi), written in Ottoman Turkish in one column with an Arabic translation in a second column (Ottoman Turkish text was in the right one and Arabic text in the left one). It was later edited in Arabic only, under the Arabic title "al-Waqa'i` al-Misriyya" (The Egyptian Affairs).

The first official gazette of the Ottoman State was published in 1831, on the order of Mahmud II. It was entitled "Moniteur ottoman" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moniteur_ottoman), perhaps referring to the French newspaper Le Moniteur universel. Its weekly issues were written in French and edited by Alexandre Blacque at the expense of the Porte. A few months later, a firman of the sultan ordered that a Turkish gazette be published under the named "Takvim-i Vekayi" (Calendar of Affairs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takvim-i_Vekayi), which would be effectively translating the Moniteur ottoman, and issued irregularly until November 4, 1922. Laws and decrees of the sultan were published in it, as well as descriptions of court festivities.

The first non-official Turkish newspaper, Ceride-i Havadis (Register of Events), was published by an Englishman, William Churchill, in 1840. The first private newspaper to be published by Turkish journalists, Tercüman-ı Ahvâl (Interpreter of Events), was founded by İbrahim Şinasi and Agah Efendi and issued in October 1860; the owners stated that "freedom of expression is a part of human nature", thereby initiating an era of free press as inspired by the ideals of 18th century French Enlightenment. In the meantime, the first private newspaper written solely in Arabic, Mir'at al-ahwal, had been founded by a Syrian poet, Rizqallah Hassun, in 1855, .. Subsequently, several newspapers flourished in the provinces."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_the_Ottoman_Empire
So how do we know these early newsletters included such articles about scientific subject such as Eather?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Yeah so cancer is not contagious. Like I said. He even backed it up with - healthy people have to be careful (because it's so contagious).
To me, He means Contagious in a sense that cancer gets spread throughout the body. For example someone who has thyroid cancer, can get brain cancer or other types of cancer, because the cancer cells move through the blood stream to other locations of body. You are reading Abdu'l-Baha statements in a different way.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
The world has forgotten justice, but Baha'u'llah has foretold that will happen.

The first part is a vague and unsubstantiated claim, the second claim is just unevidenced hearsay.

However lets say an accurate and unambiguous prediction is made for the future, and it comes true in a way that is unequivocal. This does not in any way evidence prophesy, at best you have an occurrence you can't explain.

People all over the world predict exactly which numbers will be drawn in lotteries, every day of each week, week in week out, and against astronomical odds.

Do they have the "gift of prophesy"?

Do you know what a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is? Most claims for prophesy, and prayers being answered involve this kind of fallacy.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
There is sufficient evidence to decide one way or another but people need to look at that evidence in order to decide.

No. I said that rational people look at the evidence and base the conclusions on that.
If there isn't sufficient evidence "to decide one way or another" then a person really has no business deciding or concluding anything, if they are trying to be rational.

It does not matter if lots of people have concluded that certain alleged Messengers have sufficient evidence does not make it true. It is not subjective if you understand and follow the minimum criteria.

What there is to measure cannot be demonstrated until you use the proper method to demonstrate them.
So you have to use the method not knowing if there is anything to measure until you discover it by the method.

I am not suggesting that you conclude anything until you have used the method to determine if there is something measurable.

If God is nonexistent you would be right, but if God exists.....
The wheat are logical because they know that God is all-powerful so God is the one who will decide what evidence humans will get. The chaff are illogical so they think they can tell an all-powerful God what evidence it should provide.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
What there is to measure cannot be demonstrated until you use the proper method to demonstrate them.

That sounds a lot like a special pleading fallacy to me?

So you have to use the method not knowing if there is anything to measure until you discover it by the method.

Can you demsonrate an accurate and specific version of this method? Only if it is simply putting oneself into a suggestible and biased state, then we could use that method to believe just about anything.

Does the method involve any objective evidence, is that evidence testable and falsifiable? Does the method involve any kind of disinterested peer review of the data and the conclusions?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Bahais caused schism in Iran among the Shias and that is the cause of their suffering there and in various other Islamic countries.

That is how God gives the Message. That has never changed and all the Holy books tell that same story

The cause of the suffering is the rejection of the Message given, as acceptance would have brought about the Most Great Peace, men working together as one human family, on one planet, for the good of all.

"O Lord, Thou hast said in Thy manifest Book and in Thy great Glad Tidings with explicit statement: "God does not change that which a people have, until they change what is within themselves." "And when they forgot God, He made them forget themselves."

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í Scriptures, p. 407

That is what happens when people forget what God has asked of us.

Another if one chooses to read.

"It is evident therefore that counterfeit and spurious religious teaching, antiquated forms of belief and ancestral imitations which are at variance with the foundation of divine reality must also pass away and be reformed. They must be abandoned and new conditions be recognized. The morals of humanity must undergo change. New remedy and solution for human problems must be adopted. Human intellects themselves must change and be subject to the universal reformation. Just as the thoughts and hypotheses of past ages are fruitless today, likewise dogmas and codes of human invention are obsolete and barren of product in religion. Nay, it is true that they are the cause of enmity and conducive to strife in the world of humanity; war and bloodshed proceed from them and the oneness of mankind finds no recognition in their observance. Therefore it is our duty in this radiant century to investigate the essentials of divine religion, seek the realities underlying the oneness of the world of humanity and discover the source of fellowship and agreement which will unite mankind in the heavenly bond of love. This unity is the radiance of eternity, the divine spirituality, the effulgence of God and the bounty of the Kingdom. We must investigate the divine source of these heavenly bestowals and adhere unto them steadfastly. For if we remain fettered and restricted by human inventions and dogmas, day by day the world of mankind will be degraded, day by day warfare and strife will increase and satanic forces converge toward the destruction of the human race.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Faith, p. 228

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No offence but I don't care, I only care what objective evidence can be demonstrated for their claims, so far I've not seen any. And as I have said, the scientific method functions just as well without any religion or deity. It is a secular method.

I'm sorry but that is pure speculation. I am also not convinced Jesus was an historical person, though even were this properly evidenced, it would not of course lend any credence to any of the supernatural claims associated to him, for which there is no objective evidence.

Again this is just speculation on your part, so I can lend it no credence.

All the best Sheldon, as we have no need to talk, except to worldly things. So have a great life, stay well, stay happy and catch you around.

P/S Actually I do care the godless mentality, as it is that mentality that is currently driving a discintegrating old world order.

Maybe that could use that in scientific measurements,

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The first part is a vague and unsubstantiated claim, the second claim is just unevidenced hearsay.

However lets say an accurate and unambiguous prediction is made for the future, and it comes true in a way that is unequivocal. This does not in any way evidence prophesy, at best you have an occurrence you can't explain.

People all over the world predict exactly which numbers will be drawn in lotteries, every day of each week, week in week out, and against astronomical odds.

Do they have the "gift of prophesy"?

Do you know what a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is? Most claims for prophesy, and prayers being answered involve this kind of fallacy.

You are free to live by your own thoughts. Personally I see prophecies are just one tool of many to show us we are more than flesh, more than this material world.

So I prefer to take guidance from what I have found is flawless guidance.

That sometimes, or maybe often, we get that guidance wrong, is for our own self to rectify.

Regards Tony
 
Top