Do We Need Faith?

[Trailblazer]

May I ask what your point of view was before you became a Baha’i, and at what point in your life you “converted” to the Baha’i Faith?

What was the reason to believe?
Was there evidence involved?

Surely you may ask me. As I said before, I never even thought about God before I became a Baha’i. The reason for that is because I was not raised in a religious home because both my parents dropped out of Christianity back in the 1940s, before their three children were born. I became a Baha'i during my first year of college, having heard about the Faith from my older brother, who had been investigating all the religions and had become a Baha'i two years earlier.

It is difficult to remember back that far, almost 52 years ago, but once I responded to a thread on this forum stating how and why I became a Baha'i. Briefly, it was because of the factual evidence surrounding the Person of Baha'u'llah and His Revelation.

How important are facts within your religious beliefs?

In my opinion, evidence sufficiently justifying beyond a reasonable doubt in an objective manner.
I consider the claim “a god exists” in the real sense of actually existing, and not just as a construct of a human mind, to be an extraordinary claim since there has never been any objective evidence to indicate any merit to it and all the objective evidence suggests none is necessary in reality as we know it.
So, in my opinion it would require extraordinary evidence, or at the very least evidence that conforms to the rigorous standards that any claim of it’s consequence should require.

I do not believe that God can be proven to exist as an objective fact since God cannot be located with a GPS tracking device. That is my little joke for atheists but it is also true.

Since God is not a material being God is not an objective reality, so Imo it would be illogical to expect to be able to obtain objective evidence for God's existence. According to my beliefs, the only real evidence for God is the Messengers that God sends, and they are objective evidence, since they were real people who walked the earth.

I believe that God sends the Messengers as evidence of His existence because that is what God wants us to have for evidence, which makes sense given we cannot have any evidence other than what God actually provides us with, since God is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. The other reason that God sends Messengers is to reveal a message to humans.

I do not adhere to the belief that creation itself is evidence that God exists since creation is explainable by means other than God.

Obviously….thus my original observation that where we are likely to disagree is what evidence is sufficient.

I am sure we are likely to disagree because not one atheist has ever agreed with me as to what would constitute good evidence for God and I have been discussing this with atheists for almost 10 years now, on various forums. I have posted many threads about evidence for God on this forum, although I have not started any such threads lately. You can find those threads on my Profile. Most of the threads I gave started were to have discussions with atheists since I like talking to atheists.

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

I have posted two more threads about evidence for God since then as you can see on my Profile.

How would the arrival of a religious leader or two usher in a new age of science?

Briefly, by releasing the Holy Spirit into the world, the Messenger of God stimulates human progress. Baha'u'llah wrote how Jesus, the Son of Man, stimulated progress in the world so back in His day.

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

How much greater was the expansion of human knowledge followed by the coming of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, since humanity and science had evolved to a point where much more expansion was possible.

Are you suggesting that science is dependent on religion to expand it’s knowledge?
Are you suggesting that science is dependent on religion to expand it’s knowledge?

No, I am not suggesting that at all. Science is a separate domain of knowledge from religion and science expands its knowledge by different means, by the scientific method.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yea of course, and as humans we’ve gotten decent at making these judgements about everyday items.

Whichever way you slice it, it’s a gamble and humans do it all the time.

it turns out faith in religion also has many recurring good things which trains us to trust it, just as each time we show up to get Sally it works great. No?

What "recurring good things" are you talking about? I'd say that no religion has had the sort of repeated confirmation that we have of the everyday things you described.

If someone ever had actual confirmation that, say, Heaven existed, that would be major news.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Briefly, it was because of the factual evidence surrounding the Person of Baha'u'llah and His Revelation.

It seems those who adhere to Azali Babism disagree.
Could you share what you believe to be the most convincing factual evidence that led you to believe that his revelation was valid?

When I said: (post# 331)

Granted there has been evolution within each of these religions through the years, but non which served to coalesce towards a better understanding, but rather schisms and splintering into differing sects and denominations thus seemingly diluting understanding to more and more selective individual understandings many of which are ardently opposed to the understandings in other sects

You responded: (post# 351)

I agree with that if you are referring to the older religions. However, I believe the Baha’i Faith is the exception since it was revealed during the modern age of science.

And yet it seems in a mere 20 years Babism followed the same splintering into different sects as I outlined as being typical of religions with granted, Baha’i’ being the more popular offshoot.
Former-Baha'i and scholar of the Bábi faith, Denis MacEoin says:
”On the whole, the texts published by the Azalís are of much greater value than the Bahá’í productions, in that they represent complete works rather than selections made to present the Báb’s teachings from a partisan viewpoint.”

it would be illogical to expect to be able to obtain objective evidence for God's existence. According to my beliefs, the only real evidence for God is the Messengers that God sends, and they are objective evidence, since they were real people who walked the earth.

So if it is illogical to expect to obtain objective evidence for the existence of God, how did the
“messengers” determine that theirs was in fact a message from God and not a construct of their mind?
There have been (and currently are) many people who claim to be “messengers of God”, how might one determine if …..
A.) There is a god at all?
B.) That God needs a messenger?
C.) That any particular person claiming to be
“the messenger of God”
IS in FACT the messenger of that God?
D.) That any of the other persons claiming to be
“a messenger of God” are in fact NOT
the actual messenger of that God, since they
were/are also real people who
walked/walk the earth?

You said in post #351:

I agree with that if you are referring to the older religions. However, I believe the Baha’i Faith is the exception since it was revealed during the modern age of science.

There are several religions that date from the late 1800’s:
Ahmadiyya
Church of Divine Science
Fraternitas Rosae Crucis
Indian Shaker Church
Konkokyo
National Spiritualists Association of Churches
Oaspe Faithists
Oomoto
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
and others, all of which were founded by real people who walked the earth and claimed to be “messengers of a god”.
It doesn’t appear that the Baha’i Faith is an exception.
If your brother had settled on any of these other faiths (are you aware if he investigated any of them?) and introduced you to that faith instead;
is it possible you would be advocating for that faith instead of Baha’i?

Those are just a sampling of religions founded in the late 1800’s.
There have been many more founded at later dates leading up to the present, which were founded by real people some of whom still walk the earth and claim to be “messengers of God”.
Might one of these be legit and usher in a new age of science and human progress?


When I asked how the arrival of a religious leader usher in a new age of science, you say:

Briefly, by releasing the Holy Spirit into the world, the Messenger of God stimulates human progress.

It sounds to me, that you are claiming that the
Holy Spirit (is there reliable evidence of this spirit?)
was at least a catalyst for human progress…
Yet when I asked:

Are you suggesting that science is dependent on religion to expand it’s knowledge?

You responded:

No, I am not suggesting that at all. Science is a separate domain of knowledge from religion and science expands its knowledge by different means, by the scientific method.

That sounds like a contradiction to the idea that the Holy Spirit works as a catalyst for human progress.
Would you not agree that human progress is to a large extent dependent on the expansion of scientific knowledge and the technology that it enables?

How much greater was the expansion of human knowledge followed by the coming of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, since humanity and science had evolved to a point where much more expansion was possible.

I would suggest that you answered your own question….

since humanity and science had evolved to a point where much more expansion was possible.

How much greater is the current expansion of human knowledge following (or even concurring) with perhaps one of these self proclaimed
“messenger of God”?
Or is it simply because humanity and science has evolved to a point where much more expansion is possible?

 

[gnostic]

I am sure we are likely to disagree because not one atheist has ever agreed with me as to what would constitute good evidence for God and I have been discussing this with atheists for almost 10 years now, on various forums.

The problem is that some believers (of whatever religions they follow) don't understand what constitute as evidence.

These people think they can make claims of something and think that would suffice as "evidence".

That's not even close to being true.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is that some believers (of whatever religions they follow) don't understand what constitute as evidence.

These people think they can make claims of something and think that would suffice as "evidence".

That's not even close to being true.

No, a claim is not evidence of anything. Evidence is what is required to support a claim.

So what would be evidence of God, if God existed?
That was the topic of this thread I posted last year.
Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I
Then he will go on to mention all the "good science has done"... leaving out all the bad, of course.

Religion hasn't done any good right? It's good for nothing, right?

Several points....

The first is the seemingly most obvious: there is NOTHING good that came out of religion that can't be accomplished without religion. And in fact, in many cases when people give actual examples of the "good" things religion has done... they usually come with a poisoneous stain put on it by the religion. To the point that it would have been even better without the religion.

As the old joke says: When an atheist helps to feed the hungry, he just hands over the food instead of holding it ransom while making the hungry sit through a sermon first.


On the flip side.... The good that came out of science could not have been accomplished in any other way then through science.

You won't, for example, figure out the relativity of time without the scientific method to guide you on your quest.

Secondly... science is neither "good" or "bad". Science is a method of inquiry. Not some doctrine that tries to dictate how you should live your life. So the comparison by itself is already fundamentally invalid.

 

[cladking]

Several points....

The first is the seemingly most obvious: there is NOTHING good that came out of religion that can't be accomplished without religion. And in fact, in many cases when people give actual examples of the "good" things religion has done... they usually come with a poisoneous stain put on it by the religion. To the point that it would have been even better without the religion.

As the old joke says: When an atheist helps to feed the hungry, he just hands over the food instead of holding it ransom while making the hungry sit through a sermon first.


On the flip side.... The good that came out of science could not have been accomplished in any other way then through science.

You won't, for example, figure out the relativity of time without the scientific method to guide you on your quest.

Secondly... science is neither "good" or "bad". Science is a method of inquiry. Not some doctrine that tries to dictate how you should live your life. So the comparison by itself is already fundamentally invalid.

The question isn't whether or not any individual needs faith; we do not. The question is whether our species need some people who have faith. We obviously do. The problem is most people must have faith and faith in a Creator is far less destructive to (most) individuals and the species than faith in Peers or that we truly do finally know everything. It is far better for most individuals to have faith in a code of behavior than to believe anything goes.

And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe one perspective is any more accurate or correct than the other.

 

[Trailblazer]

It seems those who adhere to Azali Babism disagree.

The Azalis are making whatever specious charges and claims they can to discredit Baha'u'llah.

The Azalis believe that the next Manifestation will come more than 1000 years from now, which is an interpretation they have presented to a passage by the Bab which is clearly contradicted from these passages quoted by Shoghi Effendi the great-grandson of Baha'u'llah:

"The Bayan," the Báb in that Book, referring to the Promised One, affirms, "is, from beginning to end, the repository of all of His attributes, and the treasury of both His fire and His light." "If thou attainest unto His Revelation," He, in another connection declares, "and obeyest Him, thou wilt have revealed the fruit of the Bayan; if not, thou art unworthy of mention before God." "O people of the Bayan!" He, in that same Book, thus warns the entire company of His followers, "act not as the people of the Qur'án have acted, for if ye do so, the fruits of your night will come to naught." "Suffer not the Bayan," is His emphatic injunction, "and all that hath been revealed therein to withhold you from that Essence of Being and Lord of the visible and invisible." "Beware, beware," is His significant warning addressed to Vahid, "lest in the days of His Revelation the Vahid of the Bayan (eighteen Letters of the Living and the Bab) shut thee out as by a veil from Him, inasmuch as this Vahid is but a creature in His sight." And again: "O congregation of the Bayan, and all who are therein! Recognize ye the limits imposed upon you, for such a One as the Point of the Bayan Himself hath believed in Him Whom God shall make manifest before all things were created. Therein, verily, do I glory before all who are in the kingdom of heaven and earth."

"In the year nine," He, referring to the date of the advent of the promised Revelation, has explicitly written, "ye shall attain unto all good." "In the year nine, ye will attain unto the presence of God." And again: "After Hin (68) a Cause shall be given unto you which ye shall come to know." "Ere nine will have elapsed from the inception of this Cause," He more particularly has stated, "the realities of the created things will not be made manifest. All that thou hast as yet seen is but the stage from the moist germ until We clothed it with flesh. Be patient, until thou beholdest a new creation. Say: 'Blessed, therefore, be God, the most excellent of Makers!'" "Wait thou," is His statement to Azim, "until nine will have elapsed from the time of the Bayan. Then exclaim: 'Blessed, therefore, be God, the most excellent of Makers!'" "Be attentive," He, referring in a remarkable passage to the year nineteen, has admonished, "from the inception of the Revelation till the number of Vahid (19)." "The Lord of the Day of Reckoning," He, even more explicitly, has stated, "will be manifested at the end of Vahid (19) and the beginning of eighty (1280 A.H.)." "Were He to appear this very moment," He, in His eagerness to insure that the proximity of the promised Revelation should not withhold men from the Promised One, has revealed, "I would be the first to adore Him, and the first to bow down before Him."
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 28)

Baha'u'llah's revelation started in the year 9 of the Babi calendar. Baha'u'llah waited to declare Himself until the year 19 of the Babi calendar or 1280 of the Islamic calendar.

Could you share what you believe to be the most convincing factual evidence that led you to believe that his revelation was valid?

I would say that the history of the Baha’i Faith is the most convincing factual evidence for me. That can be read about in these books:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

And yet it seems in a mere 20 years Babism followed the same splintering into different sects as I outlined as being typical of religions with granted, Baha’i’ being the more popular offshoot.
Former-Baha'i and scholar of the Bábi faith, Denis MacEoin says:
”On the whole, the texts published by the Azalís are of much greater value than the Bahá’í productions, in that they represent complete works rather than selections made to present the Báb’s teachings from a partisan viewpoint.”

The Baha’i Faith has no sects. Anything that splintered off was the result of Covenant-breakers.

Definition
Covenant-breaking does not refer to attacks from non-Bahá'ís or former Baha'is. Rather, it is in reference to internal campaigns of opposition where the Covenant-breaker is seen as challenging the unity of the Bahá'í Faith, causing internal division, or by claiming or supporting an alternate succession of authority or administrative structure. The central purpose of the covenant is to prevent schism and dissension.[1] In a letter to an individual dated 23 March 1975, the Universal House of Justice wrote:

When a person declares his acceptance of Bahá'u'lláh as a Manifestation of God he becomes a party to the Covenant and accepts the totality of His Revelation. If he then turns round and attacks Bahá'u'lláh or the Central Institution of the Faith he violates the Covenant. If this happens every effort is made to help that person to see the illogicality and error of his actions, but if he persists he must, in accordance with the instructions of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, be shunned as a Covenant-breaker.
Covenant-breaker - Wikipedia

So if it is illogical to expect to obtain objective evidence for the existence of God, how did the
“messengers” determine that theirs was in fact a message from God and not a construct of their mind?

That is a good question and a legitimate one, and the answer is related to the belief that the Messengers of God have a twofold nature, one nature divine and the other human. It is becaue they have a divine nature that they have a divine mind and thus they can hear God speaking to them through the Holy Spirit. No ordinary human has that capacity.

There have been (and currently are) many people who claim to be “messengers of God”, how might one determine if …..
A.) There is a god at all?
B.) That God needs a messenger?
C.) That any particular person claiming to be
“the messenger of God”
IS in FACT the messenger of that God?
D.) That any of the other persons claiming to be
“a messenger of God” are in fact NOT
the actual messenger of that God, since they
were/are also real people who
walked/walk the earth?

According to my beliefs the Messengers of God are the only way to know if there is a God, since they are the evidence of God’s existence that God provides. Obviously, if God sends Messengers, God must need Messengers to communicate in His behalf. The reason I believe God needs Messengers to communicate to humans is because no ordinary human could ever understand God if God spoke to them directly since no ordinary human has a divine mind.

I have made my own set if criteria that I believe a Messenger of God would have to meet, (according to who I believe were actual Messengers). If a person claimed to be a Messenger they would have to meet all these criteria.

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

There are several religions that date from the late 1800’s:
Ahmadiyya
Church of Divine Science
Fraternitas Rosae Crucis
Indian Shaker Church
Konkokyo
National Spiritualists Association of Churches
Oaspe Faithists
Oomoto
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
and others, all of which were founded by real people who walked the earth and claimed to be “messengers of a god”.
It doesn’t appear that the Baha’i Faith is an exception.

I do not believe any of those so-called religions are true religions of God. According to my beliefs, all true religions were revealed by a Messenger of God who received a Divine Revelation from God.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the nature of religion. Know thou that they who are truly wise have likened the world unto the human temple. As the body of man needeth a garment to clothe it, so the body of mankind must needs be adorned with the mantle of justice and wisdom. Its robe is the Revelation vouchsafed unto it by God. Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 81

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

If your brother had settled on any of these other faiths (are you aware if he investigated any of them?) and introduced you to that faith instead;
is it possible you would be advocating for that faith instead of Baha’i?

My brother investigated all the major religions before he came to believe that the Baha’i Faith was true. He read the Bible five times cover to cover. As I recall, the Baha’i Faith was the last religion he investigated after he had thoroughly researched all the other religions.

I did not become a Baha’i because my brother convinced me it was true. He had all the books that had been published at that time (1970) and I read all those books and made my own decision. We are all enjoined to investigate for ourselves and that is called the independent investigation of truth.
Independent Investigation of Truth

Those are just a sampling of religions founded in the late 1800’s.
There have been many more founded at later dates leading up to the present, which were founded by real people some of whom still walk the earth and claim to be “messengers of God”.
Might one of these be legit and usher in a new age of science and human progress?

Anyone can claim to be a Messenger of God. Providing evidence to prove it is another matter.

There have been many Prophets but not all Prophets receive a revelation from God. I believe there have only been a handful of Messengers of God, who are also referred to as universal Manifestations of God.
The Three Kinds of Prophets

It sounds to me, that you are claiming that the
Holy Spirit (is there reliable evidence of this spirit?)
was at least a catalyst for human progress…

The Holy Spirit that is released by the Messenger of God is the catalyst for human progress. Unlike Christians, Baha’is do not believe the Holy Spirit is an entity that floats around in mid-air, unattached to a person. We believe that God sends the Holy Spirit when He sends a Messenger and the Messenger brings the Holy Spirit to the world.

“One who does not know God’s Messengers, however, is like a plant growing in the shade. Although it knows not the sun, it is, nevertheless, absolutely dependent on it. The great Prophets are spirits suns, and Bahá’u’lláh is the sun of this “day” in which we live. The suns of former days have warmed and vivified the world, and had those suns not shone, the earth would not be cold and dead, but it is the sunshine of today that alone can ripen the fruits which the suns of former days have kissed into life.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 72

That sounds like a contradiction to the idea that the Holy Spirit works as a catalyst for human progress.
Would you not agree that human progress is to a large extent dependent on the expansion of scientific knowledge and the technology that it enables?

The Holy Spirit is the catalyst because of the profound effect it has upon humans, which stimulates the progress (see quote above).

How much greater is the current expansion of human knowledge following (or even concurring) with perhaps one of these self proclaimed “messenger of God”?
Or is it simply because humanity and science has evolved to a point where much more expansion is possible?

It is both of the above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The question isn't whether or not any individual needs faith; we do not. The question is whether our species need some people who have faith. We obviously do.

"obviously"?
Then you should have no problem actually supporting that statement with clear evidence.

The problem is most people must have faith and faith in a Creator is far less destructive to (most) individuals and the species than faith in Peers or that we truly do finally know everything.

You are going to have to define what you mean by "faith" here in all 3 examples.

It is far better for most individuals to have faith in a code of behavior than to believe anything goes.

So sneaky and dishonest.
As if codes of conduct are exclusive to faith based beliefs in a creator
As if the only other possible alternative is "anything goes".

And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe one perspective is any more accurate or correct than the other.

How about "evidence"?
That's always a good reason to believe something.
You might have missed it while focusing so much on "faith" and false dichotomies.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The Baha’i Faith has no sects. Anything that splintered off was the result of Covenant-breakers.

The Azalis believe that the next Manifestation will come more than 1000 years from now, which is an interpretation they have presented to a passage by the Bab which is clearly contradicted from these passages quoted by Shoghi Effendi the great-grandson of Baha'u'llah:

As I said:

And yet it seems in a mere 20 years Babism followed the same splintering into different sects as I outlined as being typical of religions with granted, Baha’i’ being the more popular offshoot.

As per Wikipedia:
“Azalis do not accept any of those who have advanced claims to be the Báb's promised one (known as "He whom God shall make manifest"). The most bitterly contested claim is that of Baháʼu'lláh in 1863. Azalis rejected his claim of divinity as premature, arguing that the world must first accept the laws of the Báb before "He Whom God Shall Make Manifest" can appear.”
“The Baháʼí/Bábí split occurred when most Bábís accepted Baháʼu'lláh as the promised one of the Báb's writings, leading them to become Baháʼís, and leaving a remnant of Bábís who became known as Azalis. The split occurred after Baháʼí founder Baháʼu'lláh made his public claim in 1863, leading to expressions of support from the majority of the Bábí community, and opposition from Subh-i-Azal, who became the leader of the remaining group.”

Does that not qualify as a schism?
(A formal division within, or separation from, a church or religious body over some doctrinal difference.)
So, the Baha’i Faith was born of a schism within the Bábis.
This, as I said previously, tends to be the M.O.
of religions, with the opposite being true of science.

When I asked:

So if it is illogical to expect to obtain objective evidence for the existence of God, how did the
“messengers” determine that theirs was in fact a message from God and not a construct of their mind?

You replied:

That is a good question and a legitimate one, and the answer is related to the belief that the Messengers of God have a twofold nature, one nature divine and the other human. It is becaue they have a divine nature that they have a divine mind and thus they can hear God speaking to them through the Holy Spirit. No ordinary human has that capacity.

I agree….no ordinary human has that capacity;
due to the fact there’s been no demonstration that God or the Holy Spirit exists or that a messenger would have a divine nature.
So, again; how does one determine if the claimed “messenger’s” message was not merely a construct of their mind?
Especially considering the presumption of an undemonstrated “devine nature” would tend to bias one towards that assumption.

According to my beliefs the Messengers of God are the only way to know if there is a God, since they are the evidence of God’s existence that God provides. Obviously, if God sends Messengers, God must need Messengers to communicate in His behalf. The reason I believe God needs Messengers to communicate to humans is because no ordinary human could ever understand God if God spoke to them directly since no ordinary human has a divine mind.

So if there is no objective way to determine the veracity of the “messenger” or his message, without presuming that he has a devine nature…which depends on the existence of a god that that same “messenger’s” message is the proof that the god exists,….(do you not recognize that as circular reasoning?) how does one rule out the more reasonable conclusion that it was a construct of their mind?

I have made my own set if criteria that I believe a Messenger of God would have to meet, (according to who I believe were actual Messengers).

In other words rather than come up with criteria that one must meet to be considered a “Messenger of God”, you came to a belief of who was an “actual Messenger” and then set criteria that matched them?
Have you ever heard of the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy”?

Let’s see how they hold up.
Let’s take Ahmadiyya, the first on the list of the contemporaneous religions that I cited, that were founded by “real people who walked the earth”, who also claimed to be messengers of God; that you dismissed saying;

I do not believe any of those so-called religions are true religions of God. According to my beliefs, all true religions were revealed by a Messenger of God who received a Divine Revelation from God.

Ahmadiyya was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
“a real person who walked the earth”.

From the other thread you linked:

The criteria would be met more like this:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.
3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.
4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.
5. Indeed, his followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

Let’s go by the numbers:

1. He had good qualities…..

He had his close followers join him in a oath that
included:
Control one's passions and avoid falsehood, fornication, adultery, trespasses of the eye debauchery, dissipation, cruelty, dishonesty, mischief, and rebellion. Cause no harm to others. Give up pride and vanity and be in humble, cheerful, forbearing, and meek.
So, #1

2. He believed he had been given a mission from
God and did all he could to see it carried out…

He took a pledge of allegiance from forty of his supporters at Ludhiana and formed a community of followers upon what he claimed was divine instruction. The mission of the movement, according to him, was the reinstatement of the absolute oneness of God.
He traveled extensively across the Punjab preaching his religious ideas and rallied support by combining a reformist programme with his personal revelations which he claimed to receive from God, attracting thereby substantial following within his lifetime. He is known to have engaged in numerous public debates and dialogues with Christian missionaries, Muslim scholars and Hindu revivalists.
So #2

3. He wrote much about God and God’s purpose..

Ghulam Ahmad was a prolific author and wrote more than ninety books on various religious, theological and moral subjects between the publication of the first volume of Barahin-i-Ahmadiyya (The Proofs of Ahmadiyya, his first major work) in 1880 and his death in May 1908.
In one of his most well-known and praised[47] works, Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya, a voluminous work, he claimed to be the Messiah of Islam.
So, #3

4. He had many followers in his life and millions
of followers still follow his religion….,

By the time of his death, he had gathered an estimated 400,000 followers, especially within the United Provinces, the Punjab and Sindh[24][25] and had built a dynamic religious organisation with an executive body and its own printing press.
By 2017 it had spread to 210 countries and territories of the world.
The Ahmadis have a strong missionary tradition, having formed the first Muslim missionary organization to arrive in Britain and other Western countries.
So #4

5. His followers have grown more numerous….

Currently, the community is led by its caliph, Mirza Masroor Ahmad, and is estimated to number between 10 and 20 million worldwide.
(This appears to be over twice the number of Baha’i.)
So, #5

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - Wikipedia

Now then, it appears that Mizra Ghulam Ahmad meets your criteria…..
he claims to be a messenger of God who received devine revelation from God which proves there is a god which would then give him the revelation.
Why is he not legit according to you,
while Baháʼu'lláh is?

How might a reasonable person determine how one claim is true while the other is false (or that either one is valid) assuming they weren’t looking at it with a bias of belonging to either religion or a presupposition that a god exists?

Pertaining to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:
In 1900, on the occasion of the festival of Eid ul-Adha, he is said to have delivered an hour-long sermon extempore in Arabic expounding the meaning and philosophy of sacrifice. This episode is celebrated as one of the important events of the history of Ahmadiyya. The sermon was simultaneously written down by two of his companions and came to be known as the Khutba Ilhamiyya, the revealed or inspired sermon. Ahmadiyya literature states that during this sermon, there was a change in his voice, he appeared as if in a trance, in the grip of an unseen hand, and as if a voice from the unknown had made him its mouthpiece. After the sermon ended, Ahmad fell into prostration, followed by the rest of the congregation, as a sign of gratitude towards God.[63]

Ahmad wrote later:

It was like a hidden fountain gushing forth and I did not know whether it was I who was speaking or an angel was speaking through my tongue. The sentences were just being uttered and every sentence was a sign of God for me.

— Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Haqeeqatul-Wahi[64]

Was this a construct of his mind or
revelation from God……
His followers (millions of them) believe it is the latter….why do you not?

 

[Truthseeker]

As per Wikipedia:
“Azalis do not accept any of those who have advanced claims to be the Báb's promised one (known as "He whom God shall make manifest"). The most bitterly contested claim is that of Baháʼu'lláh in 1863. Azalis rejected his claim of divinity as premature, arguing that the world must first accept the laws of the Báb before "He Whom God Shall Make Manifest" can appear.”
“The Baháʼí/Bábí split occurred when most Bábís accepted Baháʼu'lláh as the promised one of the Báb's writings, leading them to become Baháʼís, and leaving a remnant of Bábís who became known as Azalis. The split occurred after Baháʼí founder Baháʼu'lláh made his public claim in 1863, leading to expressions of support from the majority of the Bábí community, and opposition from Subh-i-Azal, who became the leader of the remaining group.”

That's not a split within a religion. The Baha'i Faith was a new religion, just like Islam ws a new religion, or Christianity was separate religion from Judaism. A split within religion is when for instance the Orthodox sect split off from the Catholic sect, and in the early 16th century numerous "protestant" sects split from the Catholic Church. There was no new revelation as with Baha'u'llah, just different interpretations of the religion created by Jesus. Baha'u'llah had a revelation from God, we believe, He was not interpreting the Babi religion only. The Babis were left behind, failed to recognize the new revelation, just like before then the Christians failed to recognize the revelation that came to Muhammad or the Muslims failed to recognize the Bab. It is unusual, granted, that Baha'u'llah revelation came so soon afterr the Bab, but then the Bab predicted the revelation would come soon as @Trailblazer quoted to you.

How could the revelation be premature when the Bab prophesized it would happen at the time Baha'u'llah actually had a revelation, or is it you think what Shoghi Effendi quoted was false information? Do you believe he might have lied? If so, it would hard within these brief posts to prove that he was not lying. You would have to dig for your self to see the truth for yourself.

Now then, it appears that Mizra Ghulam Ahmad meets your criteria…..
he claims to be a messenger of God who received devine revelation from God which proves there is a god which would then give him the revelation.
Why is he not legit according to you,
while Baháʼu'lláh is?

Baha'u'llah and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad can't both be Messengers of God, because Baha'u'llah explicitly stipulated that for at least one thousand years there would not be any one with a direct revelation from God, and Ghulam Ahmad first made a claim after Baha'u'llah made a claim to be a Messenger of God.

Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 345)

One or Another could be Messengers of God logically from this passge or neither are. If I establish for myself as @Trailblazer also has that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God conclusively, then there is no need to investigate the claim of Ghulam Ahmad it follows logically.

Ahmadiyya I do believe does have good teachings I stipulate. He seemed to be good peaceful person.

Look at a better answer to this in another later post I made. I don't think this guy is a lying imposter from what limited information I have.

 

[cladking]

"obviously"?
Then you should have no problem actually supporting that statement with clear evidence.



You are going to have to define what you mean by "faith" here in all 3 examples.




So sneaky and dishonest.
As if codes of conduct are exclusive to faith based beliefs in a creator
As if the only other possible alternative is "anything goes".





How about "evidence"?
That's always a good reason to believe something.
You might have missed it while focusing so much on "faith" and false dichotomies.

Remarkable. You've abandoned semantical arguments and created a straw army instead. Where is your evidence every single human must believe in science and abandon traditional faith? Where is your evidence that no Creator can exist or even that "evidence" has much meaning for a species whose every individual sees what he believes? Who in the hell said that believers in science or even those who practice science properly have no code of conduct or are immoral? Where is your evidence that there is only one way for our species to perceive reality?

Rather than addressing anything I said you ignored it and created a straw army to come after it. You switch back and forth from one kind of illogic to another so fast you think I can't keep up with it.

Science can not provide a good means to live one's life. Belief in science is very harmful. Science can provide tools like reason and knowledge to make decisions and improve the odds of having good outcomes but it is still necessary for every individual to use common sense and to try to remember the great depth of his ignorance. It's when homo omnisciencis sallies forth with all the answers that great evil arise. It doesn't matter if these answers are provided by a Ouija board, science, or religion it is having all the answers that results in the most death and always has. Ignorance kills men one at a time, omniscience kills us many at once.

Next you'll ask for evidence that people are conscious and the sky is blue.

 

[gnostic]

No, a claim is not evidence of anything. Evidence is what is required to support a claim.

So what would be evidence of God, if God existed?
That was the topic of this thread I posted last year.
Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

In sciences (particularly in Physical Sciences & Natural Sciences), evidence are observations of the phenomena that support and verify models of new hypotheses or existing scientific theories.

If you have evidence for God, then anyone could observe or detect God, quantify or measure God, or test and analyze God, etc, thereby verifying God exist in reality.

But no such evidence exist.

In sciences, a hypothesis is collection of explanations, logics (eg numbers, constants, mathematical equations, etc) & predictions.

If the hypothesis is testable, then it is falsifiable.

People, who don’t understand sciences that well, really don’t understand what Falsifiability or Falsification is.

Falsifiability is about the ability to “test” any statement, premise or model, not only true...MORE IMPORTANTLY, falsifiability is the ability to “test” the hypothesis being false...hence the ability to refute a hypothesis.

When scientists are looking for evidence or about to perform experiments, the tests, the evidence and the observations are all used to test hypothesis, and to determine if the hypothesis is probable or improbable.

The tests & evidence (and data) are what verify or refute the hypothesis, not the opinions or preference of the scientists.

Negative evidence would mean the hypothesis have failed, hence the hypothesis have been refuted or debunked.

What you don’t understand is that even if tests are all negative, the hypothesis is still falsifiable, it just mean the hypothesis is testable (falsifiable), but it has been refuted by the evidence gathered.

But “negative evidence” are lot better than concepts with “no evidence”.

Here is the part what all creationists failed to comprehend: “no evidence” isn’t the same thing as “negative evidence”.

“No evidence” means “ZERO EVIDENCE”, so for example, zero evidence means are no evidence “for or against” a concept or a model.

No evidence or zero evidence would mean that the hypothesis is untestable and unfalsifiable.

Since there are zero evidence to support the existence of god, the concepts of theism and creationism are unfalsifiable.

Intelligent Design is another concept being unfalsifiable. There are zero evidence to support the existence of Designer. There are no evidence to verify or to support the Designer and there are no evidence to refute the Designer...hence zero evidence, and hence ID is unfalsifiable.

Even Michael Behe, the so-called expert witness for Intelligent Design, in the Kitzmiller vs Dover civil case (2005), had admitted there are no original experiments and data to support Intelligent Design.

There are no physical evidence to support God or the Creator, because God is not something you or anyone else can observe or test.

 

[cladking]

In sciences (particularly in Physical Sciences & Natural Sciences), evidence are observations of the phenomena that support and verify models of new hypotheses or existing scientific theories.

Most of your post is well written and accurate but this statement is wholly untrue. We see what supports our beliefs typically but "observation" is all evidence, everything we can sense or find and especially what does not support what we believe or our models of experiment. "Anomalies" are far more important than knowing everything (since we see what we believe).

“No evidence” means “ZERO EVIDENCE”, so for example, zero evidence means are no evidence “for or against” a concept or a model.

No evidence or zero evidence would mean that the hypothesis is untestable and unfalsifiable.

Every hypothesis has supporting data, observation, and experiment. Some hypotheses are very poorly supported and some are well supported.

Extrapolation of experiment makes us believe we know far more than we do. Observation makes us believe we know far more than we do. The way we think makes us think we know far more than we do.

 

[Trailblazer]

In sciences (particularly in Physical Sciences & Natural Sciences), evidence are observations of the phenomena that support and verify models of new hypotheses or existing scientific theories.

If you have evidence for God, then anyone could observe or detect God, quantify or measure God, or test and analyze God, etc, thereby verifying God exist in reality.

But no such evidence exist.

That's true. No such evidence for God exists, and there is a reason for that.

God can never be 'proven' to exist because God is not verifiable. God id not verifiable because God is not a physical entity that can be observed. For all intents and purposes God is a mystery. The only way we can ever know anything about God from the Messengers of God who reveal some of God’s attributes and God’s will for humans.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Proof is a kind of evidence (verifiable evidence) that establishes something as a fact.
Therefore verifiable evidence is proof.

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

Something that's verifiable can be proven. In a courtroom, verifiable evidence is backed up with specific proof. If you have a birth certificate, your exact time and place of birth is verifiable — in other words, you can prove where and when you were born.
Verifiable - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com

Other kinds of evidence that are NOT verifiable do not establish anything as a fact.
They only indicate whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Since there are zero evidence to support the existence of god, the concepts of theism and creationism are unfalsifiable.

There is evidence to support the existence of God, but there is no verifiable evidence, as noted above. The only evidence for God are the Messengers of God that God sends as evidence and to reveal His will for humans in any given age.

There are no physical evidence to support God or the Creator, because God is not something you or anyone else can observe or test.

That is absolutely true, as I noted above.

 

[Truthseeker]

Now then, it appears that Mizra Ghulam Ahmad meets your criteria…..
he claims to be a messenger of God who received devine revelation from God which proves there is a god which would then give him the revelation.
Why is he not legit according to you,
while Baháʼu'lláh is?

I've given this more thought and I have a different slant on Ghulam Ahmad now. Both he and the Bab claimed to be the same Mahdi, and the Bab sacrificed Himself completely by proclaiming who He was. Ghulam Ahamd does not have as strong of a case in one sense because he did not have to sacrifice like the Bab had to sacrifice Himself. The 1000 year limit I think is meant to be directed to people among the Baha'i community, which Ghulam Ahmad was not, so he is not to be characterized as strongly as lying imposter, I don't think. He was probably just mistaken, though my knowledge of him and his character is limited. At any rate, what he taught didn't bring about holy war as another person who claimed to be the Mahdi in the Sudan did. Instead, he taught a peaceful religion. That this religion attracted as many people as it did means it has something going for it. I wouldn't draw any conclusions that he has a better claim from the apparent fact that he has more followers than Baha'u'llah. The better claim is not decided by how many followers you have alone.

The Ahmadiyyas generally consider themselves to still be Muslims, and that Muhammad is the last Prophet acccording to most of them. It is more of a reform movement within Islam than a new religion like the Babi Faith or the Baha'i Faith. It seems that they believe that Ghalum Ahmad to be inspired by God, but not a new Prophet. The concept of the Mahdi is thought of by most Muslims in the first place as thought of being something short of a Prophet. They believe the term in the Qur'an "Seal of the Prophets" settles that question.

 

[gnostic]

Most of your post is well written and accurate but this statement is wholly untrue. We see what supports our beliefs typically but "observation" is all evidence, everything we can sense or find and especially what does not support what we believe or our models of experiment.

But when I speak of observations, I don’t just mean human sensory perceptions.

There are lots of devices and instruments that can detect, quantify, measure or test and analyze all of the above that cannot be achieved through our sight, hearing, touch and smell.

We also used computers as tools for observations, or tools for analyzing observations.

People with experiences can identify if there are problems or anomalies with observations.

Do you really think I am only talking about relying on eyesight alone for observations?

Is this why you disagree with me so often, because you thought I was only referring observations as just human “sight”?

There are more to observations in sciences than just relying on what scientists can seem hear, feel and smell.

What do you think telescopes and microscopes are for? Observations. These observations can also be analyzed with computers and other devices.

What do you think multimeters, oscilloscopes and function generators are used for? Observations. They can quantify and measure electrical current, voltage, power, resistance, types of electrical signals (eg sine waves, square wave (digital signals), and other waveforms), etc. They are often used to diagnose faults in circuitry, appliance, etc, and check for anomalies.

What do you think X-ray machines, MRI, CAT scan, EEG, ultrasound, digital sphygmomanometer, etc, are used for? They are all observation tools used in medicine.

Do you understand what I am getting at, now, about observations?

Now, I am not saying these devices - used to detect or to measure or to diagnose - are perfect, but they all have roles in observations.

 

[gnostic]

That's true. No such evidence for God exists, and there is a reason for that.

God can never be 'proven' to exist because God is not verifiable. God id not verifiable because God is not a physical entity that can be observed. For all intents and purposes God is a mystery. The only way we can ever know anything about God from the Messengers of God who reveal some of God’s attributes and God’s will for humans.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Proof is a kind of evidence (verifiable evidence) that establishes something as a fact.
Therefore verifiable evidence is proof.

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

Something that's verifiable can be proven. In a courtroom, verifiable evidence is backed up with specific proof. If you have a birth certificate, your exact time and place of birth is verifiable — in other words, you can prove where and when you were born.
Verifiable - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com

Other kinds of evidence that are NOT verifiable do not establish anything as a fact.
They only indicate whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

There is evidence to support the existence of God, but there is no verifiable evidence, as noted above. The only evidence for God are the Messengers of God that God sends as evidence and to reveal His will for humans in any given age.

That is absolutely true, as I noted above.

You say you understand about evidence, and you admitted there are no evidence to verify god because god is physical.

And yet. You continued to talk of there being “evidence to support the existence of God”.

You are contradicting yourself. Either there are evidence to verify the existence of god, or there are none. You cannot have it both ways.

And btw, proofs and evidence are not the same things in sciences and mathematics.

Proofs are logical statements or logical models, often expressed in mathematical forms, like equations, formulas, variables, constants, numbers, etc.

Like, I said, proofs are logics, and you often seen proofs in physics, like Newton’s second law, an equation in regarding to forces, F = m a

This equation is proof, not evidence. Proofs are not physical, they are abstracts, like any equations.

Evidence are something observed that are physical, and these observations would include quantities, measurements, etc. So when you record these observations, the information you would acquire through observations (eg quantity, measurement, etc) they provide are known as data.

Evidence and data are what will “verify” or “refute” a hypothesis or theory; they are not verified or refuted by proofs.

Evidence are what determine are “science” and what are pseudoscience rubbish.

PS Please do not rely on dictionaries. Ask a mathematician or a scientist for definitions.

PS Sciences are not courtrooms. Lawyers and judges are not scientists. They confuse evidence & proof, treating these terms as synonymous, but evidence & proof are not synonymous in the science world & mathematics world.

 

[cladking]

People with experiences can identify if there are problems or anomalies with observations.

"Anomaly" has several definitions and you seem to be wholly unexperienced with one of them.

An "anomaly" is data, observation, or experiment that does NOT conform to expectations. There is a high correlation between the degree of belief in science and the inability to see anomalies.

There is no "proof" in science. F = m x A is an observation set in mathematical terms.