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:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nor does the evidence you offer make either more likely.a logical argument cannot be used to 'prove' that God exists or that Messengers are from God.
If any of it is faith, it all is. I don't know what you're doing with what you call evidence, but if it doesn't support your conclusions, and you believe them any, what you have there is unjustified belief - religious-type faith.my knowledge is built on faith coupled with the evidence for Baha'u'llah.
Are you offering that in place of rebuttal? That's not even a contradiction. If you think the comment is wrong, is that because you have identified a part of it that you can demonstrate is incorrect, or because it contradicts what you prefer to believe? Only the first is of value to a critical thinker.that is purely an assumption.
She asked for your evidence. It sounds like you're the one not interested. Do you have any to present?You know what I've got, but you are not interested.
Why do you think that? Insufficiently evidenced claims don't need rebutting. If you care to offer your evidence, that can be addressed.You have to show us that there is no evidence for God
How much of the Christian beliefs about God, that supposedly came from the Jewish Bible and the Christian NT, do Baha'is believe? Especially this Baha'i?I tested Christianity for a decade. I concluded that that god didn't exist, that faith was a terrible way to think, and gods can't be believed in without it, so, there is no value in thinking about that any further.
After examining what was said about God in the Bible and the NT, what do we know about God that was claimed to be said by Krishna and Buddha? I don't see the consistency. God can be and is different in most all of the different religions. And if we add the religions of the Egyptians, Greeks and others, then what do Baha'is do with them? They'd have to call those Gods false. And, probably, for very similar reasons some people call the Christian God and the Baha'i God false.Then all you have is an insufficiently evidenced claim that this god exists.
Let’s say there are natives who live deep in the jungles of Africa and they have never seen or heard anything from the outside world. Let’s say that an airplane crashed in that jungle and some men went to investigate the crash site. For the sake of argument let’s say that these natives can speak and understand English. So, the investigators ask the natives if they have seen any ‘evidence’ of the airplane that crashed in the jungle. The natives say they have no idea what the investigators are talking about since they have no idea what an airplane is. How would the natives know if there was any evidence for that airplane crash if they don’t even know what an airplane is or what it looks like? Airplane is only a word to them.
Likewise, since Atheists do not believe in the God of theism, they are only left with only a word, God. How can they say there is no evidence for God if they don’t even know what God is? How can they know what kind of evidence to look for if they don’t know what God is? How can they say the evidence would be verifiable if they don’t know what God is? How can they know that God would be verifiable if God existed? Do you understand the problem? It is not logical to say what that evidence should consist of or what it should not consist of if you don’t know anything about the entity you are looking for.
And he has Muhammad. What is the "evidence" that Muhammad was speaking the truth? Does it contradict what was said in the other major religions? Then add the Baha'i Faith... What do they believe about Jesus, Muhammad and the other "messengers/manifestations" that they claim are real?Yes, you have Jesus. But how do I know that you are right?
You seem to be saying that there is no evidence for God, but I don't think you believe that.If there IS no evidence, then there is nothing to address.
So, the claims about the gods can be correct if we allow the words to mean what we choose? Any claim is correct if we take latitude in that area. There's a 100-carat diamond in a crater on the moon is certainly correct if by 100-carat diamond we mean an old-timey red toaster, and by a crater on the moon we mean my kitchen.only if you take scripture literally word-for-word .. which I don't.
I have no idea what you think is nonsense. This is the rest of what I said...That's nonsense.
They do not believe in the trinity. That goes for ~50% of believers in Abrahamic religion.
But you only quoted this part of it.... "..a religion like the Baha'i Faith rejects most all of those other definitions of who and what God is.."As if each religion defines their Gods and Goddesses the same... no, they are all different. And a religion like the Baha'i Faith rejects most all of those other definitions of who and what God is, especially the one believed by some Christians that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
No. It depends who is doing the "choosing" [interpretation], and the underlying intentions of them.So, the claims about the gods can be correct if we allow the words to mean what we choose?
What are you on about?Does the Baha'i Faith accept or rejects the Trinity? Rejects? Do they accept or reject the multiple Gods found in some religions? Reject.
I said: My basis for saying I have evidence is my belief in who God is, and that determines what kind of evidence we could have for God.And your belief in who God is is based on the same evidence. That's circular reasoning.
No, as usual the atheists are completely illogical.Look: I know a lot about Superman, and I can easily transmit his message to you. For I am his messenger. Ergo, Superman has also evidence. Right?
Is that really so easy?
Therefore, the claims of the atheists are not well justified. There is evidence of God.Therefore, the claims of the atheists is well justified. There is zero evidence of God. Just some hearsay that everyone can make up.
That is the all-or-nothing fallacy.If any of it is faith, it all is.
My evidence supports my conclusions. What I have here is justified belief - religious-type faith backed by evidence.I don't know what you're doing with what you call evidence, but if it doesn't support your conclusions, and you believe them any, what you have there is unjustified belief - religious-type faith.