• 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!

Alien826

No religious beliefs
The reason it could never be evidence for God is because it could never happen unless God took over everyone's minds, in case we would all be robots, not humans. That was my point.

I'm pretty sure nothing I suggested involved mind control. It was all demonstration of power in one form or another. Perhaps you can quote something I said that contradicts that?

My other point is that even if it did happen it would not be evidence that God exists to everyone.
There isn't anything that is going to be evidence for everyone, since everyone thinks differently.

There would always be some people that refuse to believe the obvious. You'd have to be extremely stubborn or deluded though. We can probably live with a few of those!

I never claimed that "some old writings" are evidence for God.

Well, OK. But you do believe the Baha'i writings don't you? Are they not considered evidence for God?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
All that you have done is to claim that evidence exists. You have not shown that any actually exists. And you have it backwards. In a court the prosecution has to prove that a person is guilty using evidence.

You are accusing the universe of having a "god". You need to provide evidence that your god is real and all that you have done is to claim that evidence exists. People have looked at your supposed evidence and are not impressed.

It would help if you define what you mean by evidence. And then you should quote specific examples that fit that definition of evidence. Until you do so you have not accomplished what you set off to do in the OP. You only provided claims of evidence, No evidence itself was provided.

This is not about providing proofs and facts from the evidence.

The OP was clear, it is just to determine what is valid Evidence that can be provided.

No man will see ever see God who is outside of creation, all knowledge of the Essence of God is unattainable. Consider Science does not know the essence of our own selves, not the essence of any created thing. We get to know things by their attributes, science discovers the attributes of reality, but falls short of finding the ultimate essence of reality.

So God can only be known by

The Person known as the Messenger
The Revelation given (Claim)
The resulting Word/Messages

All 3 are combined as the founding evidence given by God and all facts and proofs of God are drawn from this evidence.

Now facts and proofs is not the purpose of this OP.

Ug we can overcome the hurdle of what is Evidence, then it may be fruitful to discuss facts and proofs obtained from that evidence.

If we can not agree on a source of evidence used to prove God, then no conversation can really start, it becomes forever cyclic.

Regards Tony
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
What .. just for your benefit, you mean?
You can just as easily choose to believe like we do..
..but no, we are apparently gullible fools. ;)
Now, there, you are very, very wrong. Think about it just for a moment -- if I said "you can just as easily choose to believe that the Pope in Rome is God's Vicar on earth, as hundreds of millions of Catholics do."

Can you do it?

You cannot, you see, simply choose to believe something that you actually don't believe. It doesn't matter in the least why you may not believe something -- the only thing that matters is that you have given it some attention and have looked at whatever evidence was offered to you for why you might believe it. Once you've gotten that far, the only thing that is going to change your mind is better evidence for believing something else and rejecting your former belief.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Actually, if he can prove that Bahaullah is God (and I'm not sure how he can do that), he can then point to the Baha'i writings and say that they're evidence of God. Where I disagreed with people, was I thought Tony was saving the "proving Bahaullah is God" stuff for a much later time.

There's also one additional subject that would need addressed to convince some of the posters here. It's:

Is there even a God at all?
These posts of yours are six pages back, so I'd imagine these questions have been answered. But just in case they weren't. Baha'is don't believe Baha'u'llah is God but a manifestation of God... a perfect reflection of God.

Then "is there even a God" is asked all the time of Baha'is. That's where they go circular. Baha'u'llah says there is a God, and he should know because God sent him.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is not about providing proofs and facts from the evidence.

The OP was clear, it is just to determine what is valid Evidence that can be provided.

And you never did that. You only made claims. You never supported those claims.

No man will see ever see God who is outside of creation, all knowledge of the Essence of God is unattainable. Consider Science does not know the essence of our own selves, not the essence of any created thing. We get to know things by their attributes, science discovers the attributes of reality, but falls short of finding the ultimate essence of reality.

And those are more claims that you need to support. Until you do that you have nothing.

So God can only be known by

The Person known as the Messenger
The Revelation given (Claim)
The resulting Word/Messages

All 3 are combined as the founding evidence given by God and all facts and proofs of God are drawn from this evidence.
No, right now that is only an unjustified conclusion. You are not reasoning properly here. This does not automatically make you wrong, but it does tell us that you failed.

Now facts and proofs is not the purpose of this OP.

Ug we can overcome the hurdle of what is Evidence, then it may be fruitful to discuss facts and proofs obtained from that evidence.

If we can not agree on a source of evidence used to prove God, then no conversation can really start, it becomes forever cyclic.

Regards Tony

Are you then admitting that this whole thread is pointless? It seems that way. Please try to make a coherent argument and then see if you can support it. Right now you have only made claims and have not supported your OP at all.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Use the word Educators then.

They proved they are the greatest Educators of Humanity.

Regards Tony
Nope, once again I cannot agree. It may seem to you, since you appear to only want religious "education," that these are great educators, but the fact is that both Christianity and Islam militate against some knowledge. Go to any of the multitudes of science v. religion threads on these forums -- especially on creation, evolution -- and see what many Christians and Muslims have to say.

Great educators open minds, not close them.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Once again, you cannot demonstrate in any possible way that what you say has anything at all to do with reality.
No, I cannot demonstrate it but that does not mean it is not reality. Spiritual realities cannot be demonstrated.
First, why is God not available for a demonstration? How do you know that? God is, so I'm told, omnipotent.
How do I know that? By simple logic. Has God ever showed up on Earth and demonstrated Himself?
Simply put, God is not available because God does not make Himself available.
God walked with Abraham, and wrestled with Jacob, so I'm told. God must be responsible for miracles -- if they occur -- and if that is the case, that is a demonstration of God, is it not? So you just made that part up out of whole cloth because it "fits your religious belief."
All that is is scripture, it is not a demonstration of God. I do not believe that scripture is literally true. God does not walk and wrestle, only humans do such things. God is not a human but the OT anthropomorphizes God. It is completely absurd.
How do you know "Messengers...are both divine and human?" What part of them looks divine to you. Do they have a little mark on their left heel? An aura that only you can see? And why would they need to be anyway?
No, that is not how we know they are divine. The way we know is by looking at their Person, their Deeds and Words.

The Messengers of God have always appeared among men destitute of all earthly dominion. They appeared just like an ordinary man. If a Messenger manifested all that is latent within Him and were He to shine in all His glory, nobody would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. That defeats God’s Purpose, which is to test humans, not to make it easy to recognize the Messengers.
I repeat, God is omnipotent, and could, at His pleasure, cause anyone to know anything He wished them to know. You just made that part up out of whole cloth because it helps to fill in the storyline details.
I have covered this before, dozens if not hundreds of times.

"God is omnipotent, and could, at His pleasure, cause anyone to know anything He wished them to know."
So what? Obviously that is not God's pleasure, so that is why God does not do it, because He could do it if He wanted to.
When are atheists going to understand what is so simple and logical?

Obviously, God does not want to cause anyone to know anything, God wants them to discover truth by themselves. That is why humans evolved with a brain to think and analyze things.
If knowledge of God, "cannot come to us any other way," then admit it now -- God is NOT omnipotent. In fact, it would appear He's rather weak. Hell, even an idiot like Donald Trump can get his message out to his lackies, using nothing but a phone and his thumbs.
The simple reason why knowledge of God cannot come to us in any other way (except via Messengers) is because God does not choose to convey that knowledge in any other way.

God is not weak because God does not do what humans think He should do. That is completely illogical.
When are atheists going to finally realize that an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, NOT what humans think He should do? Please explain why an omnipotent God would ever do what He did not choose to do.

Omnipotent God 101. An Omnipotent God only does what He pleases and what He chooses to do.

“God witnesseth that there is no God but Him, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. All grace and bounty are His. To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish. He, verily, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.”
Gleanings, p. 73


“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings, p. 209

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings, p, 284
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
That's the catch. If evidence for God was easily seen or experienced everyone would choose to believe, and that would be too easy. God does not want to be easily believed. God wants us to prove our worthiness by making some effort. If it were too easy to believe then God would not be able to separate out people who are really willing to make an effort to believe from those who aren't.

Please read the paragraph you responded to again.

However, the fact that most people in the world are believers means that it cannot be as hard as you make it seem. ;)

That would only make sense if all believers believed the same things. Yes, believing something seems to be all too easy to a lot of people. If believing correctly (from the evidence we have) were so easy, we would see something very different.

That's true, but as I said above, if evidence for God was easily seen or experienced everyone would choose to believe.

This is what puzzles me. What is so wrong with that? If something is so wonderful and important, wouldn't it be good to make sure everyone knew about it? If you had a cure for cancer, would you keep it a secret? Is "salvation" a quiz game?

I'd sure like to see the big answer, someday. ;)
The small answer is that most people believe in God because of a Messenger, Holy man, Prophet, or whatever you choose to call him. Atheists reject these individuals as evidence for God, which is why they don't believe in God.

There's lots more, but I agree as far as you go.

He never reveals the intrinsic nature of God. He only reveals some attributes of God and what God wants of us.

Kind of a child's version? OK.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
the only thing that is going to change your mind is better evidence for believing something else and rejecting your former belief.
No, it's not necessarily about "better evidence" .. something might happen in life to make us change our attitude, and become more humble.

That is more likely to enable us to find God. A person cannot find God while they take religion as a sport/pastime , claiming people need comfort and are somehow inadequate, and being independent and cocky.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Yes, so apparently they are thus in a position to state definitely that Buddha had been a Manifestation of God.

"Blessed souls—whether Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha..."

Buddhism denies the existence of a soul.

"Among the holy, divine Manifestations of God were Moses, Buddha, etc."

"The holy Manifestations Who have been the Sources or Founders of the various religious systems were united and agreed in purpose and teaching. Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muḥammad, the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh are one in spirit and reality."

All taken from the source offered. I have read on this forum plenty of times the falsehoods from Bahais about Buddhism.
Just because Baha'u'llah didn't mention Buddha, the Baha'i Faith needed to somehow work Buddhism into the mix of true religions. But then also say that it no longer is teaching the true, original message of the Buddha.
Baha’is believe that Buddha was a Manifestation of God, like Christ, but that his followers do not possess His authentic writings. This problem of authenticity plagues many Faiths, including Judaism, Christianity and (to a lesser extent) Islam. But despite that problem, and the parallel problem of the gradual corruption of the authentic and original teachings of each of the Prophets over time, the core teachings of these great religions have a remarkable consistency and congruity:

The real teaching of Buddha is the same as the teaching of Jesus Christ. The teachings of all the Prophets are the same in character. Now men have changed the teaching. If you look at the present practice of the Buddhist religion, you will see that there is little of the Reality left. Many worship idols although their teaching forbids it. – Abdu’l-Baha, Abdu’l-Baha in London, p. 63.

Of course some forms of Buddhism are not focused on idols, but Buddhism, like all religions, is in need of renewal.
This "problem of authenticity" allows the Baha'is to say whatever they want about another relgion and say, "Originally, their teachings were compatible with the Baha'i teachings." Of course they are. The Baha'is made them up and there are no "original" teachings to verify if what they say is true or not.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
..the fact is that both Christianity and Islam militate against some knowledge..
That is no fact..
People who claim to be a Christian or Muslim might not have a good academic education, or might believe something that is mistaken or illogical .. but that does not mean that the Messengers taught falsehood.
They did not.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
That says nothing about why those marriages ended in divorce. It does not logically follow that most marriages end in divorce because couples did not have sex before marriage, since most couples do have sex before marriage.

I'm inclined to think that both things (the high rate of divorce and extramarital sex) are related to a decline in people's respect for the "sanctity" of marriage, rather than any causative factor related to those things. We can add (for the sex) the availability of reliable contraception.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
How do you know "Messengers...are both divine and human?"
Yes, I ask them constantly... How do Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses fit the Baha'is definition of a manifestation? Someone who is part human, part divine and is a perfect reflection of an invisible God? And a manifestation is supposed to bring a book and a new religion. All these people are Bible characters. They are from the same religion. Do they have "evidence" to support their claim? That is other than their prophet saying that these people were manifestations?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The testimony of a Messenger of God is not evidence, it is only His claim.
A claim is not evidence. Evidence is required to support the claim.
And that is precisely what many of us having been saying, over and over. That the "evidence to support the claim" is either non-existent or doesn't look at all as if it confirms what others think it does.

I think about things like special prayers and rituals of ancient cultures to encourage rain, for example. The fact is, eventually, it will rain. The problem is that if they do the ceremony and prayers and it doesn't rain, they as often as not will assume that they made a mistake in the performance or wording, and when it does rain, they then assume that they finally got it right.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Is deluded synonymous with mistaken but sincere to you? If so, he was deluded by your definition. If not, you left out a possibility, a very likely one, leaving you two options - the one you chose, or simply mistaken.
Baha’u’llah could have been mistaken but sincere. That is a possibility. You get to choose whether to believe that was the case because you have free will to choose. I choose that He heard from God because it is obvious to me that was the case. In my logical mind, I cannot believe that any man could make so much stuff up about God or why He would do so. It makes no sense at all so I could never believe it.

Moreover, what He wrote about God is essentially what the Bible and the Qur’an say, with a few additions and embellishments, so that would mean the other scriptures were also mistaken. You are free to believe that if you want to, but count me out. It makes no logical sense to me that 55% of the world population who are Christians and Muslims and believe in God are mistaken about God.
But your method of evaluating evidence is flawed. Just because you looked at evidence and hold an opinion of what it signifies does not mean you are correct.
I can say the same thing about you: But your method of evaluating evidence is flawed. Just because you looked at evidence and hold an opinion of what it signifies does not mean you are correct.
Trailblazer said: The message is that we know that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be because of the evidence that supports His claims.

Trailblazer said: There is no objective evidence for God, and any logical person would understand why.


You don't think those last two comments contradict one another? Incidentally, I'll bet that you have eliminated the likeliest reason for there being no evidence of God without cause.
My two statements above do not contradict themselves in any way. The evidence that supports Baha’u’llah’s claims has NOTHING to do with the fact that there is no objective evidence for God.

There is evidence for God, you just don’t like the evidence.

I know what you are getting at and I have covered this before. Since there is evidence but no proof that God exists, there are three logical possibilities:

1. God exists and sends Messengers as evidence (theist)
2. God exists and does not communicate with humans at all (deist)
3. God does not exist (atheist)
Trailblazer said: if evidence for God was easily seen or experienced everyone would choose to believe.

And you don't see that as an argument against the existence of a tri-omni deity that wants to be known, loved, believed, obeyed, and worshiped? It is.
No, I do not see it as evidence against such a God. Below I will explain why.

God does want to be known, and the evidence that God provides, Messengers, are how we can know God.

Since God doesn't prove that He exists, but rather provides evidence that He exists, then all doubts about God's existence are on the people who reject the evidence that God provided.

The reason that God does not prove He exists is noted below.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71


In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people means that God could have made all people believers, but if God has pleased implies that God did not please to make all people into believers, which is why all men are not believers.

The passage goes on to say why God didn’t please to make all men believers... In short, God wants ll men to make a sincere effort and become believers by their own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers). God wants to separate those people from the others who are unwilling to put forth any effort.

If God proved to everyone that He exists then nobody would have to put forth any effort and it would be impossible to know how much effort people are willing to put forth, thus demonstrating how much they really care about believing in Him.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
That is because the secular idea of marriage is not "the law" according to Bible or Qur'an.
That is because secular societies value freedom and individual choice, not select religious rules. The Bible and Quran are irrelevant to those who prefer different options. the religious are protected if they want to follow their religious preferences. Theocracies tend to have very narrow religious freedoms, as we see in Islamic theocracies. You can't have a Christian wedding. You can't have a Wiccan wedding. Only in a secular society do you have any such freedoms.

A man has his property, and a woman has hers. Their property does not automatically belong to both in a marriage contract.
The dowry [a sum of money] must be paid "upfront" to the bride.
This is obsolete.

Marriage contracts are between two peolpe and the state, and the agreements can include any number of things as long as a judge agrees, like prenuptual agreements.

It is up to the individuals how they manage their wealth.
A man is expected to spend out of his wealth for his wife's welfare, but if the relationship ends for some reason, there is nothing owed to either party. If they decided to have any property in joint names, then they need to sort it.
That's it !
Where do you live, the 18th century?
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Baha’u’llah could have been mistaken but sincere. That is a possibility. You get to choose whether to believe that was the case because you have free will to choose. I choose that He heard from God because it is obvious to me that was the case. In my logical mind, I cannot believe that any man could make so much stuff up about God or why He would do so. It makes no sense at all so I could never believe it.

Moreover, what He wrote about God is essentially what the Bible and the Qur’an say, with a few additions and embellishments, so that would mean the other scriptures were also mistaken. You are free to believe that if you want to, but count me out. It makes no logical sense to me that 55% of the world population who are Christians and Muslims and believe in God are mistaken about God.

I can say the same thing about you: But your method of evaluating evidence is flawed. Just because you looked at evidence and hold an opinion of what it signifies does not mean you are correct.

My two statements above do not contradict themselves in any way. The evidence that supports Baha’u’llah’s claims has NOTHING to do with the fact that there is no objective evidence for God.

There is evidence for God, you just don’t like the evidence.

I know what you are getting at and I have covered this before. Since there is evidence but no proof that God exists, there are three logical possibilities:

1. God exists and sends Messengers as evidence (theist)
2. God exists and does not communicate with humans at all (deist)
3. God does not exist (atheist)

No, I do not see it as evidence against such a God. Below I will explain why.

God does want to be known, and the evidence that God provides, Messengers, are how we can know God.

Since God doesn't prove that He exists, but rather provides evidence that He exists, then all doubts about God's existence are on the people who reject the evidence that God provided.

The reason that God does not prove He exists is noted below.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71


In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people means that God could have made all people believers, but if God has pleased implies that God did not please to make all people into believers, which is why all men are not believers.

The passage goes on to say why God didn’t please to make all men believers... In short, God wants ll men to make a sincere effort and become believers by their own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers). God wants to separate those people from the others who are unwilling to put forth any effort.

If God proved to everyone that He exists then nobody would have to put forth any effort and it would be impossible to know how much effort people are willing to put forth, thus demonstrating how much they really care about believing in Him.

I am on my phone and am having difficulty editing the quote, but I’m primarily focusing on the last couple of paragraphs.

Why should someone care about believing in God when there is no proof? Someone can be moral without God, someone can live a fulfilling life without God. What is the benefit to exploring this so called evidence?

And what of those who have studied this “evidence” but came out a non believer in the end because they were not convinced? They had put effort into looking into these books but nothing resulted.
 
Top