Evidence

[joelr]

And of course, Baha'u'llah says it was Ishmael...

According to the text of Genesis, Isaac was the one to be sacrificed. This statement has caused much confusion because it was impossible for Isaac to be Abraham’s only son. There was just one child who could have been the only, and that would have been Ishmael in the years before Isaac was born...

Muhammad, as quoted in the Qur’an, strongly hinted that Ishmael was the sacrificial son, and implied that the incident took place before the birth of Isaac, during the period of time when Ishmael truly was “the only son.” Baha’u’llah later confirmed Muhammad’s hint by directly identifying Ishmael as the one who was to be offered up:

That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men. – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, pp. 75-76.

The corrections given by Muhammad and Baha’u’llah to the account in Genesis make it clear that, for whatever reason, the version of the sacrifice given in Genesis is not perfect.
​

To me, this is the Baha'i Faith making a Bible story fit their beliefs. As if the story was real and not just a myth and legend.

Yes of course the Bahai writer is doing that. The Quran does it as well.
But this is interesting for another conversation I'm having so thanks!

 

[joelr]

Thank you for explaining what is meant as evidence. I have some objections though.

1. His own Self. - A good person can also be self-deluded and sincerely believe something that is false.

2. His Revelation. - OK. He was devouted to his mission and wrote a lot. So what?

3. The words He hath revealed. - The words are his claims. As you said what he claimed is not evidence. It's not true only because he claimed so.

4. Baha'u'llah fulfilled the Bible prophecies. - The prophecies are not enough concrete and specific to determine this. Too open for different interpretations... For example there should be peace in the world but there isn't. This means no Messiah so far.

5. Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass. - OK. I have to check this... That would make him a someone who can see future but not necessarily a Messenger of God.

The prophecies are all vague or works. Like predicting a war in a very tense pre-war political climate. Or the big thread we had about the garden on a hill prophecy which was originally a prophecy about the 2nd coming of Christ and the world being renewed and a paradise and "garden" was a metaphor. They called the prophecy passed because a Bahai foundation built a big garden on a hill. For real.

Also he spoke about future and present science. It was either science of the time (like the ether) which ended up being wrong in actual science to huge errors about evolution, biology, homo sapien classification and other mistakes.
Epicurus predicted in De Rerum Natura many modern scientific ideas like the atom, molecule, law of inertia, rain cycle, sound as a pressure wave in air, light is particles, smell is molecules, lightning is friction between fronts and is particles, earthquakes are slipping fault lines, evolution/natural selection, matter is mostly empty space and much more.
Didn't claim any Gods told him.

So even if the science was correct it would have to be really amazing like a cure for cancer, aging, a number in pi we cannot yet calculate (but soon), he could have predicted relativity, quantum mechanics. If he just said all particles were a wave and particle depending on how they were measured that would have been amazing. Just one thing that was concrete and a human couldn't possibly yet know. But no, its wrong or very abstract and takes a lot of twisting to make fit after the fact. People took statements and later when the science was discovered they said "oh he was talking about this" and forced it to fit.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They also fail to mention that all 93% don't believe in their God,.

That's not true..
We all believe in the "God of Abraham", who created and maintains the universe..
What differs, is the finer details of belief.

..such as is God a bloke and what not

 

[RestlessSoul]

Actually the world coalesced quite quickly, very soon after the sun in universe time scales.

And chaos refutes a fine tuned argument

Actually the issue of fine tuning is, like the Cosmic Coincidence of the universe's homogeneity and critical density, something which cosmologists and astronomers do take seriously enough to address in various ways.

The short period of rapid inflation immediately after the Big Bang is taken to resolve the cosmic coincidence of our universe's proximity to critical density. The universe is sometimes described as smooth; we know it looks pretty much the same from all points and in all directions. CMBR confirms this uniformity, leading us to conclude that the seeds of galaxies and stars grew out of tiny fluctuations in density and temperature. But the scale of the universe is such, that there is no way for the most distant regions of it to have influenced each other in the ~13.8 billion years since its inception; no heat, no light, no information, could have been exchanged across its entirety. Special Relativity, which has never failed us yet, dictates this. So why is it uniform in all directions? Inflation solves this problem, and a few others - like the missing monopole problem. Inflation, the theory goes, spread out the energy of the early universe in all directions, and thus the density of energy is the same everywhere.

But critical density is not the only cosmic coincidence known to trouble physicists. The triple alpha process, and the precise values of energy levels in carbon nuclei, have been cited elsewhere. Stephen Hawking, in his Brief History of Time, referred to the apparent "fine-tuning" of values emerging from fundamental numbers in the laws of physics. I don't know if Hawking was the first to use the term "fine tuned", but it appears physicists find this concept somewhat unpalatable. Hawking cited the anthropic principle as a possible answer to the insignificant statistical probability of our existence - "We see the universe the way it is, because we exist to see it". The anthropic principle strikes me as something of a tautology, but it is logically consistent. Maybe we just got lucky.

Multiverse theories, some from cosmology and some from quantum theory, have also been proposed as solutions to the fine-tuning problem - given an infinity of options, the statistical improbability of a particular set of precise values emerging together, becomes a statistical inevitability. And if the nature of existence is fundamentally probabilistic, as quantum mechanics suggests it (probably) is, then given enough time and space for emergent properties to evolve in the macroscopic world, anything that can happen, will happen. Of course we're well into the realms of speculation here, and some of these musings are perhaps more proper to philosophy than astronomy; but that wouldn't have troubled the likes of Aniximander or Kepler.

 

[ChristineM]

no heat, no light, no information, could have been exchanged across its entirety.

The universe was much smaller in the past and was originally terrifically hot. Of course no light existed then nor did it exist until the first sun's were born.

So why is it uniform in all directions

Uniform(ish), there are clusters and areas void of stars/galaxies (small in universe terms but they exist)

The temperature of the CMB varies over its expanse also indicating a lack of uniformity.

apparent "fine-tuning

Enough said on that.

Hawking cited the anthropic principle as a possible answer to the insignificant statistical probability of our existence

There are different hypothesis, i favour entropy as the answer to why conditions are correct at the moment for life to exist.



My problems with the fine tuning argument are..

That it is often used to imply a tuner. There is no evidence of this but there is evidence of precise values in some aspects.
And
The long term chaotic nature of everything from quanta to the universe itself denies the fine tuning argument.

 

[F1fan]

Again - there's 'fine tuning' and there's 'weird co-incidences.'

And so far your criterion is a lose definition of cause and effect that allows you to decide when a supernatural event has occurred. You offer no manner to discern a supernatural event versus a natural event, so we reject your beliefs on this matter.

And the Biggest Question of all - how did the universe create itself when it didn't exist, and why.

What do you mean "it didn't exist"? There was a time you didn't exist (even though all the material that makes you up existed) but somehow the universe had a natural way to assemble you.

You do realize that the material of the universe can easily assemble via the four forces and the natural laws of physics, yes? If not then you lack adequate knowledge to form a more rational answer for yourself.

There is a reason why scientists do not share your views (which are heavily influenced by religion) and why we defer to the exvertise of scientists to describe how the universe works, and ignore religious beliefs.

'That is normal' - really? The earth just flops onto its side to help form seasons? WHY ???

Obviously it's so God can cause many people to freeze to death through this divine plan to have earth rotate on a wobbly axis.

You seem to be thinking the seasons was a gaol, and that God created them by making the earth tilt? Is that it? What do you have against natural (and true) answers?

Sure, you need chaos to create a stable world, and you need HUGE amounts of TIME as well.

Why not just read what experts report? If you prefer a religious view why not ask why many children devlop cancers in this God's plan of yours.

 

[F1fan]

That's not true..
We all believe in the "God of Abraham", who created and maintains the universe..
What differs, is the finer details of belief.

Hindus don't. Native American siritual practices don't refer to Yahweh. Jains on't either. Shinto doesn't. The gods of the Hawaiian Islands have nothing to do with Yahweh. There are over 200 creator gods in human history, and only one of them is claimed to be what Yahweh evolved into. Let's note that Yahweh was part of the polytheistic system of the Caananites, which included Baal and El and Yahweh's wife Asherah. All thes eother gods were eliminated or rolled into what yahweh became for the Hebrew system. Yahweh then evolved further for the Christians, changed again for the Muslims, and then went onto into more versions for the Baha'i, Mormons, JW's, the Urantia Book, and others. The religious traditions of the East had different roots all together.

..such as is God a bloke and what not

The Hebrews were certainly a patriarchy and their God followed that mould. Christians and Muslims followed that tradition. We see a lot of abuse in Muslim nations where women have few rights and limited freedom. Women can be put to death for minor infractions. Would a female God allow that? Doubtful.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Hindus don't. Native American siritual practices don't refer to Yahweh..

So what?
That has nothing to do with the OP..

 

[F1fan]

So what?
That has nothing to do with the OP..

It has EVERYTHING to do with your post that I was responding to. You were clearly wrong. It was an a huge error of your part to say what you did. I set the record straight. That's what.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It seems a bit odd to me that the evidence for God's existence, most of which comes by way of religion, is compelling to 93% of the world population, yet it is not compelling for atheists. The atheist claim that atheists are just more intelligent than believers, critical thinkers, etc, just does not cut the mustard, and it is very arrogant. It makes no logical sense that all those people who have recognized the evidence for God are stupid idiots who cannot think their way out of a paper bag. Please bear in mind that these "stupid people" are the people, who are running the world. It is not the mere 7% of atheists who are running the world, that would not be logically possible.

So when you say there is no compelling evidence for God's existence, what you are really saying is that "there is no evidence that is compelling for me to believe in God."

Moreover, since it is the believers who have found the evidence it might be wise for the theists to listen to the believers instead of poo-pooing all their evidence. If most believers believe in God because of a religion, it makes logical sense that what is found in religion IS the evidence and there is not some other kind of evidence that you refer to as "evidence."

Hardly odd at all, actually. So many people believe in God for the same reason they speak their native language and usual not some other, or that their cultural values are the same as the people around them. They do not do these things out of careful consideration -- they do them because they were indoctrinated into them as children, by the people they are born pre-disposed to trust. Nothing could be simpler.

 

[Alien826]

I'm sorry to hear that you've had such a rough time in your life, and I sincerely hope that you're okay now.

I haven't had the best of luck with marriage, but that's just one thing in my life. There have been lots of good things too. Anyway, it's all down to my own bad decisions, so I shouldn't moan about it. It's nothing compared to your early life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So should God send a personal message to all of the 8 billion people in the world?

Yes, if it cares about all 8 billion people.

 

[Alien826]

What immediately comes to mind is that we can only investigate what is less powerful than us, so humans can investigate all the orders of creation beneath them - minerals, plants, and animals - but humans cannot investigate or understand God, who is so far above us, and that is why there needs to be an intermediary between God and man. The Messenger of God is that intermediary since He can understand both God and man, since He has a twofold nature, human and divine.

It is only logical that if God is all-powerful God is the one who controls whether or not He can be found, so if God doesn't want to be found He won't be found.

That's pretty much what I said, apart from the Messenger part. It's not the end of the discussion though.

First, God can choose to communicate with us, as he has the power to do so. We can't fully understand God, but it seems to me that a simplified version should be possible. A somewhat flawed analogy would be an adult explaining things to a child. We communicate with children at a level that they can understand.

Despite not being able to put God on a microscope slide, there remains one alternative. We can ask God to tell us things.

So, adding these things together, we have a God that could give us ordinary mortals a lot more information, or the same information in a more understandable form, yet doesn't choose to do so. Instead, according to you, he occasionally creates these superhumans that can understand him, and leaves it to them to tell the rest of us.

I find this difficult to make sense of. If it's possible for a human to exist that can understand God, why not install that software in all of us? If, as we agreed above, humans can't understand God, then it should follow that the Messengers can't either. Yes, they are supposed to be some kind of human/god hybrid, but that opens up the idea that the substance of God is not so different after all if they can be merged like that.

No need to go through it all again, I'm just giving my mind free rein.

 

[Alien826]

Almighty God always gets "what He wants".

If you decide to disbelieve in God, then He know why.
If you decide to believe, then He knows why.

All you are doing is making it all about external evidence, as to whether He exists or not.

If you think that it is reasonable to believe that this universe has no author, and everything is one gigantic coincidence, then you do not have to look any further, do you.

Sounds like you are saying that God wants what would happen anyway. A very easy going God.

And it's not "all about" the existence or non-existence of God. But that is an essential starting point to all discussion, don't you think?

 

[Truthseeker]

I am well aware what Baha'i consultation is but it is not relevant to posting on a forum. In an Assembly or a marital situation people consult with each other but on a debate forum people debate each other. On a discussion forum two people have a discussion with each other.

I know you don't like debating, but as my mother always said "if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen."

The part about persistence and stubborness in one's views and not belittling the views of another are relevant everywhere. I strive to be detached in my own opinion. How many people do that? Looking at this, there is nothing wrong with honestly expressing to each other different opinions. The word "debate" has always implied to me trying to win an argument. It's not about winning to have a discussion where you disagree. Why should I talk to people who only care about winning? What's the point? There are those who are like that here that I have identified over time. But I have sometimes done that anyway. Sometimes I am attached to my opinion and am intent on winning, but not always.

noun
debate : a contention by words or arguments
a regulated discussion of a proposition

verb: to argue about
to engage (an opponent) in debate
to turn over in one's mind : to think about (something, such as different options) in order to decide

In debate clubs in school, the purpose of having a debate it apppears to me is to win over the other point of view in the minds of the observers. The two debaters are not supposed to change course and agree with the other's point of view. But sometimes, there are not just two possible stances. That's what the Greeks did, that's what happens in a court of law, each side trying to win at all costs. This hurts us.

The last definition is good for us, but what else is?

 

[Alien826]

I agree. God does want us to know that He exists, but God also wants us to know about His attributes, His teachings and laws, and His message for the age we live in. What good does it do to 'only know' that God exists? Big deal.

Indeed.

So the fist step is knowing that God exists, and then we need to know about God, including the ordinances that God wants us to obey.

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5

Exactly. That's my point. If the first step is so important, why make it so hard (for many people) to know the answer? It's going to be hard enough to do what he wants (probably). Isn't that enough? (If it's important that things be difficult).

 

[John53]

That's not true..
We all believe in the "God of Abraham", who created and maintains the universe..
What differs, is the finer details of belief.

..such as is God a bloke and what not

OK so Brahma and Vishnu and Jesus Christ and the Emperor of Japan and the thousand other Gods are all the same as Yahweh? That's very interesting.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It has EVERYTHING to do with your post that I was responding to. You were clearly wrong. It was an a huge error of your part to say what you did. I set the record straight. That's what.

Don't be so dramatic..

I was replying to @John53 post which said that 93% of people don't believe in "their god".

I said "We all believe in the "God of Abraham", who created and maintains the universe.." [as per OP .. messengers of God]

..and then you butt in and say that "Hindus don't believe in YHWH"..

You don't say?

 

[Alien826]

God is awfully busy fielding calls from disgruntled customers so I suggest you try again later. God loves persistence.

As a short diversion into humor, thank goodness God doesn't use a recorded "phone tree". Imagine.

<ring ring>

"God is now busy helping other customers. The current waiting time is seven weeks, three days, four hours. To help direct your call, please supply some information. If you are a Christian, press 1. If you are a Muslim, press 2 ... <long list follows>".

<Caller notes that Baha'i is not on the list. Presses 0.>

"I'm sorry, I don't understand that. If you are a Christian press 1 ....".

<Caller shouts "Baha'i Baha'i Baha'i".>

"I'm sorry, I don't understand that. If you are a Christian, press 1 ...".

Caller says "Look, I'm a Messenger of God, I'm supposed to get through quicker than this!"

<Clicking noises, whirr, ring ring>

"Please specify which messenger you are. If you are Moses, press 1, if you are Jesus, press 2 ...".

Baha'u'llah slams the phone down, curses loudly and pours himself a drink.

 

[John53]

Don't be so dramatic..

I was replying to @John53 post which said that 93% of people don't believe in "their god".

I said "We all believe in the "God of Abraham", who created and maintains the universe.." [as per OP .. messengers of God]

..and then you butt in and say that "Hindus don't believe in YHWH"..

You don't say?

And he was correct. The supposed 93% includes millions that don't believe in Yahweh so it's not the compelling evidence it's portrayed as.