Do religious people get it backwards?

[Trailblazer]

I feel we have touched on this topic before Trailblazer

If I understood you correct, you have the writings and the word of Baha'u'llah right?

Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible is God's greatest testimony to His creatures, but I believe that the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is the greatest proof of God's existence.

There is much more than the Writings of Baha'u'llah and the word of Baha'u'llah.

I just posted the claims of Baha'u'llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah on this thread:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

 

[thomas t]

Well if it weren't the case, I think we would see a lot more people jumping off buildings yelling "I believe, I can fly", before smashing into the ground.

this is not evidence. Evidence are facts. You thinking it is plausible does not mean it's evidence for your claim. Scientists would need to prepare a study first to discover the relationship between evidence and belief. These would be facts you could base your belief on...
You didn't provide any facts. It's all declaration.

So you first believed here and later thought about evidence to back up your claim that, for pretty much all people, the method as outlined in the OP is the method used when they arrive at a belief.
It's an irony that you ascribe this sort of behavior to religious people opening up a whole thread on the matter instead of questioning your belief yourself.

So I don't think it is a wrong assertion, how often do you hear a person saying "I believe in ghosts" or something similar, and when asked why... they answer "Why not?". Normally people do not take on believes like that.

this isn't evidence for your assertion either...

and the rest of your quote isn't either.

 

[Nimos]

Try reading it and understand how it is, that it says this:
Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts.

That it appears, that you haven't studied philosophy of science and aren't aware that science is based on a set of unprovable assumptions, is not my problem.

What reality is as independent of your mind is unknown and unprovable. It goes back to Rene Descartes and the problem of whether the world is fair or tricking you. You can't know, which is the case, but apparently you believe the world is natural and real.
I believe the world is from God and not natural. Real I leave to God.

But scientists will put forward an hypothesis, which might be based on an assumption to start with. However if that doesn't turn out to hold water, when the evidence doesn't support it and therefore an conclusion that it is in fact reality. Seems contradictory in regard to logic and reason.

Whether the world is fair or tricking us, we can't know, I don't disagree with that.
But regardless of which it is, it is the reality in which we find ourselves. So why would it be beneficial to assume that the world is indeed playing tricks on us, rather than assume that it doesn't and therefore work based on that assumption until proven otherwise?

 

[Nimos]

Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible is God's greatest testimony to His creatures, but I believe that the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is the greatest proof of God's existence.

There is much more than the Writings of Baha'u'llah and the word of Baha'u'llah.

I just posted the claims of Baha'u'llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah on this thread:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

So how do you know that Baha'u'llah were right? I know you have your list of predictions, which you are convinced are so spot on correct, that there can be no doubt, right, are these the primary reason for you to believe him?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What is spiritual evidence and how is what you described different from making excuses?

Spiritual capacity has been given to humans, that is what can define us and make us more than our animal nature. This spiritual fact has been given by God to us.

God sends Messengers to deliver to us the advice and laws we need to live by and it is the Messengers Person, Life and then Message that tells us about God and that is all we can know about God.

Free will is the gift that enables that choice.

Big topic, life changing choices available to all.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Whether the world is fair or tricking us, we can't know, I don't disagree with that.
But regardless of which it is, it is the reality in which we find ourselves. So why would it be beneficial to assume that the world is indeed playing tricks on us, rather than assume that it doesn't and therefore work based on that assumption until proven otherwise?

I don't assume that the world is playing tricks on us. I assume God is fair and that is how I solve it. You assume the world is natural and real. That is how you solve it.

The problem is that you are asking for evidence about something neither you or I have. So your rule of evidence don't apply, because it assumes that the world is natural and real. You can only ask for the evidence your rule allows as evidence and you don't care that it is your rule, because you claim your rule applies to us all. It doesn't.
The deeper problem is then whether we should agree among us two to treat the world as neutral. Neither natural nor from God and see where that leads.
But if you insist on that I must accept your rule, I won't. I don't have to. I have been doing this for over 20+ years now and I am still here and have a good enough life. That is all I need to know. It appears to work, though I don't use your rule of what the world really is.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, but can you verify them as being true?

Sure can, but it is a personal choice to do so.

Truth is relative to both our material and spiritual reality.

We have to come to know what we really are and God does provide proof, it depends how material we choose to be as to what we accept as logical spiritual evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[Nimos]

You thinking it is plausible does not mean it's evidence for your claim.

I didn't say that it was evidence, merely that I would expect to see it.

So you first believed here and later thought about evidence to back up your claim that, for pretty much all people, the method as outlined in the OP is the method used when they arrive at a belief.
It's an irony that you ascribe this sort of behavior to religious people opening up a whole thread on the matter instead of questioning your belief yourself.

So let me ask you what proves you have for God?

And let me make a prediction here as well, since you have marked yourself as a Christian. That ultimately this "prove" leads to something like this "...in the bible".

 

[Nimos]

I don't assume that the world is playing tricks on us. I assume God is fair and that is how I solve it. You assume the world is natural and real. That is how you solve it.

It's not about solving anything, it's about what is most likely to be true. You either directly or indirectly make a claim that a God exist, yet you do not feel any obligation to back up such claim with evidence, but is perfectly fine with other people having to just accept it, as if it was true.

I see no evidence being presented to me for these so called Gods, so see no reason for why I should consider them part of reality?

The problem is that you are asking for evidence about something neither you or I have.

But im not the one making the claim. If I told you that a mighty Smurf ruled the Universe and he have demanded that all religious people should burn all religious text. Clearly you would no do that and demand me to provide you with evidence. Why are atheists not allowed to demand the same?

because it assumes that the world is natural and real.

I don't claim that it is natural, I see no evidence to suggest that it is not. But im more than willing to consider it, if such were presented to me, but they ain't!!

But if you insist on that I must accept your rule, I won't. I don't have to.

I don't insist on you doing anything. But just as I would not demand you to simply take my word for anything I claimed. Neither do I think anyone should simply accept your claims either.

 

[Nimos]

Sure can, but it is a personal choice to do so.

Truth is relative to both our material and spiritual reality.

We have to come to know what we really are and God does provide proof, it depends how material we choose to be as to what we accept as logical spiritual evidence.

So just wondering, what would a spiritual truth look like? Because a Christian might express a feeling of being close to God or Jesus. However a Muslim might do the same with Allah, and Hindus with theirs. So are all of these spiritual truth from different Gods, depending on what people believe, how do you know that they are not from the same God, from different Gods or from no God at all, if that makes sense?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I don't claim that it is natural, I see no evidence to suggest that it is not. But im more than willing to consider it, if such were presented to me, but they ain't!!
...

What is natural? If you can't see any evidence for it not being natural, you must know, what natural is. So what is natural?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So just wondering, what would a spiritual truth look like? Because a Christian might express a feeling of being close to God or Jesus. However a Muslim might do the same with Allah, and Hindus with theirs. So are all of these spiritual truth from different Gods, depending on what people believe, how do you know that they are not from the same God, from different Gods or from no God at all, if that makes sense?

Because the spiritual in a neutral view is personal and subjective. And it works in a personal and subjective way.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So just wondering, what would a spiritual truth look like? Because a Christian might express a feeling of being close to God or Jesus. However a Muslim might do the same with Allah, and Hindus with theirs. So are all of these spiritual truth from different Gods, depending on what people believe, how do you know that they are not from the same God, from different Gods or from no God at all, if that makes sense?

Spiritual truths do not look like anything. The spirit is not material senses.

There is only One God, and that is the greatest spiritual truth there is.

Science, to me, is more in tune to that truth than multipul creation points.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And let me make a prediction here as well, since you have marked yourself as a Christian. That ultimately this "prove" leads to something like this "...in the bible".

That is because the Bible is a Proof. In fact it is the greatest proof of Jesus the Christ, a testimony to Jesus Christ's person and Life.

The Messenger is the first to live the word that becomes the book they leave.

It is a proof to those searching for God, searching for true Love.

Regards Tony

 

[Nimos]

That is because the Bible is a Proof. In fact it is the greatest proof of Jesus the Christ, a testimony to Jesus Christ's person and Life.

The Messenger is the first to live the word that becomes the book they leave.

It is a proof to those searching for God, searching for true Love.

Regards Tony

No, the bible is prove of someone writing about God, Jesus etc. The bible itself does nothing to prove God. The closest we can get is trying to verify the stories and miracles in the bible and see if they are true or false, as that would at least give us something to go by, and let's be honest, that hasn't turned out to good so far.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But scientists will put forward an hypothesis, which might be based on an assumption to start with. However if that doesn't turn out to hold water, when the evidence doesn't support it and therefore an conclusion that it is in fact reality. Seems contradictory in regard to logic and reason.

Whether the world is fair or tricking us, we can't know, I don't disagree with that.
But regardless of which it is, it is the reality in which we find ourselves. So why would it be beneficial to assume that the world is indeed playing tricks on us, rather than assume that it doesn't and therefore work based on that assumption until proven otherwise?

In the sciences if the evidence does not support a hypothesis it is either discarded or corrected. That is why science is self correcting To even have evidence in the sciences one must have reasonable test that could possibly refuted one's hypothesis. Without that all one has is speculation. So what reasonable test would refute your version of God? It must be based upon the merits of your beliefs and not the failures of some other beliefs. Objective evidence needs to meet that standard.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, the bible is prove of someone writing about God, Jesus etc. The bible itself does nothing to prove God. The closest we can get is trying to verify the stories and miracles in the bible and see if they are true or false, as that would at least give us something to go by, and let's be honest, that hasn't turned out to good so far.

I see it does, plain and simple and proven.

The spirit is in what is offered, within the word contained in the Bible. After all what else are you looking for?

History shows the spirit behind the word changes people lives and knits them together as one people in moral and virtue suited to the age.

One will never see the spirit behind the word, if they are not looking for it, so blindness to the spirit is a choice. Not a wise choice, but a choice none the less.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

You say that and I'm sure you believe it truelly.

But in my experience, when I start digging into your belief and reasoning of belief, I find the opposite is true.

We all view things differently so that is to be expected.

 

[epronovost]

Spiritual capacity has been given to humans, that is what can define us and make us more than our animal nature.

What are these and how do you know that. That's my question you are simply reformulating the assertion without adding any substance to it.

 

[Trailblazer]

So how do you know that Baha'u'llah were right? I know you have your list of predictions, which you are convinced are so spot on correct, that there can be no doubt, right, are these the primary reason for you to believe him?

No, the predictions that Baha’u’llah made are not the not the most important part of the evidence, and Baha'u'llah did not make those predictions with the intention of them being used as evidence to support His claims. Most of His predictions were simply warnings to the kings and rulers and the religious leaders of what would happen as the result of them not recognizing Him and heeding His call.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about evidence that establishes the truth of His claims. More specifically, Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106