Evidence

[rational experiences]

You say in theory as a human. When no human existed so no human language explanations existed either.

What would be said?

A real questioner a human would state no discernable human answer as I'm not a God.

As honest as a human can be knowing themself is as a or the human. One self a twin of any other human. Yet a sacrificed human twin looking at a sacrificed human twin.

As men can be looked at and seem the same looking human as a woman said natural genetic history. Human.

So you'd ask that human. If your conscious awareness is higher isn't it by birth first the baby human?

All humans should say yes. You are correct. It is the teaching actually.

So teaching said not humans sex but by heavenly mass body changes. Gave my health so I become more aware from my birth.

The same yes you are correct in self presence. Just self aware.

So where is your message?

Given owned by my own self a human in my owned mind a human owning my own body.

As a lot of humans own and use the same claim. In lots of countries.

They gain a following by what they said. As the human.

If you lived by yourself. Told stories. No one but your own self to talk to is the relativity of one human self in life's reality.

A human says I am proof that a God exists before my life by my conscious ability. Dominion.

As a human expressed dominion over all things is including space suns stars planets heavens. If you took a good look at your human behaviours.

Why?

If a type of God existed it would mean you left its body to only be a human who dies.

As we do all die. As death is known as no conscious ability and decomposition.

The term human death isn't arguable as the terms are exact science.

Yet humans not using exact science preach false science theisms. When evidence is witnessed as human death exact in natural laws.

Now when the bible is read it says two testimonials about temple practiced science. Before. Case studies.

A legal precedence. On a shut book the bible is an oath to speak the truth and is sworn. And only evidence in life is used.

As the book is shut.

Therefore saying I quote out of a book in the now life isn't legal. The oath plus evidence is now with the living humans.

Evidence now says human.animal nature's life is being attacked destroyed by man's technological science practiced now.

If legal says I use case evidence of past history. Then the case to argue was the testimony of before a case to argue now.

The terms god is only a human told story. I was created. Reasoned as everything I see is not a human reasoned by the human.

If a human is seeking God as a science then it's not what they infer. As they seek a power source to convert it in their human built machine.

Very obvious it's not the same topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, and we get that perfect season-creating angle, and a large moon (double planet) to stabilize that angle.
Kinda neat - the coincidences keep stacking up.

That may or may not be true. I have heard the claim, but I have never seen papers supporting it.

You need to learn how to support your claims properly. Have you forgotten your failure with the asteroid strike already?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my opinion, there isn't any absolute, verifiable evidence for the existence of God, and I can't genuinely believe anyone who claims there is. I also don't believe any religious writings, ancient or modern, that claim to speak for God or any person who claims to be a divinely appointed messenger of God. Assuming that the biblical God exists, I don't believe that he is deserving of love, worship, and reverence, and he certainly isn't deserving of mine. But he is worthy of scorn. As I said in another post (read it here), I think that the biblical God is like a narcissistic and abusive parent who only loves their children when they obey and do exactly what they're told to do, but if their children disobey or make them angry, then there'll be hell to pay. It isn't a relationship based on unconditional love.

No evidence is "absolute" but it appears that the theists here have a whole lot of nothing.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It seems a very convoluted way of doing things. God decides he wants some play things so he starts a universe and sets in action this 14 billion year chain of events. Maybe I'm lazy but I would have gone with one planet and started with the conditions we need.

I remember when I was a kid, I had met some Christians who had a hard time accepting that before we were here, there were dinosaurs, saying that it wasn't "part of God's plan". They then tried to reason that "Maybe the dinosaurs were Satan's animals or hidden there by Satan."

I don't see that reasoning too much any more, not even by Christians. So maybe things have advanced since then in some ways - I don't know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's dodging the question. We are talking about the universe, the sum total of all we know. You can't explain things outside of time and space because we can't comprehend such existance.

So what? Neither can you. An inability to explain fully is not a good excuse to invoke a God. If one cannot explain one just says "We do not know yet".

 

[ChristineM]

I don't know about these "fine tuned arguments" - there was a ton of violence to create this 'tuning.'
And time is required to create us. You need time for the expansion of the universe, time for the first generaton of hydrogen stars to create 'metals' and time for generations of metal stars to build up to the point they can create rocky planets.

When a star starts producing iron it's the beginning of that stars death throw. All heavier elements are the product of the death of stars.

Time seriously passes in the universe, in that passage of time the earth (and the other planets in our solar system) formed in messily 5 million years (approximately)

It seems once conditions were right (less than a billion years) life formed extremely quickly from a bunch of chemicals to life in the blink of an eye.

From that point it's taken 3.7 (approximately) billion years of genetic failure and success to evolve into what you see today.

 

[joelr]

Much lesser quality writing only in your opinion. I do not consider the OT to be high quality writing, nor do I consider it in any way comparable to the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

That says little because many many scholars appreciate the OT as great writing. There is even a master class for sale and it goes into detail about why the writing is high level.

You are probably not aware of it.

The Bahai writing has nothing of substance that makes the OT great literature. No chiasm, ring structure or any literary devices that are obvious. Just flowery praise and generic advice.

Please link to a section you consider high level and why.

Even if God did speak to the early Israelites back in those days that is a moot point because that does not mean God is going to do that again. The past is history, why can't people let go of it and move on?

Right except the post I was responding to said God doesn't speak like a human and that is an anthropomorphism. If the past is history why don't you forget the Bahai scripture and move on?

That is a weird thing to say. Most religious people find Bahai to be a man falsely claiming to be talking to God. So they go back to a religion that they believe.
Convince them it's not true then, telling them to move on is not really going to help.

The point is that there is no way to verify that any of the OT was inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was not even written by any prophets! It was written by men and we don't even know all the authors, and even if we did know the authors, we could not verify that they wrote the texts. We also cannot verify that the Writings of Baha'u'llah were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but the fact that we have those original Writings penned in his own hand. We have no writings from Moses or Jesus or any other Messengers of God. All we have is he said that God said. It is not good enough for me, not when I can read the original Writings of Baha'u'llah. Moreover, I do not care what God said thousands of years ago, even if He said it, since I have the current Revelation from God. God is unchanging, but what God reveals to humans changes over time.

Right, in the 1800s God decided to give really generic advice, all dead and wrong science, skip out on philosophy, no miracles, no indication that it's an actual deity ...

Why read 2nd hand false claims of revelations when you can read the actual person who is claiming God contacted him?

But in the 2020s he is in Austrailia giving revelations as Jesus.
I have a feeling he did some work in the 1900s as well. I know he did the Cargo Cults after WW2. When did he do the JW?

3. Mírza Abú'l-Fadl

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl was praised and recommended by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and has been justifiably called the most learned and erudite Bahá'í scholar[16]

Regarding the Old Testament, Fadl said that it contained two types of teaching: a) revelation from God, such as the 10 commandments of Moses, the Psalms of David and the books of the Prophets, and b) historical information, such as the books Joshua, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles "...which contain no statement, sign or hint of being divine speech and therefore should not be considered as revelation."[17]

Well that is clear evidence he's a fraud. The 10 commandments are super-generic laws that are a direct copy of the Egyptian code. Laws given on stone from a God is also an ancient myth pre-dating Moses.
Also Yahweh is a God taken from the Canaanites who even had a wife Ashera for many centuries. There was no revelations here. In 6BC they became monotheistic because they saw the PErsians has a supreme uncreated deity and that nation just invaded them and defeated their enemy. So they quickly realized this was the way to go. In scripture they say Yahweh was sleeping because they didn't only focus on him.
Such obvious mythology. God is not real. Myths are real

 

[joelr]

Concerning the Book of Christ, he wrote that "The Holy Gospels alone contain teachings which can be regarded as the true Words of God; and these teachings do not exceed the contents of a few pages."[18]

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl's contributions are original and lucid, and appear to me to be in harmony with the understanding of the Bible which is argued for in the present paper.

118. Mírza Abú'l-Fadl in The Bahá'í Proofs, Bahá'í Publishing Trust, Wilmette, Illinios, 1983, p.220.

More evidence. The NT is 100% Persian and Hellenistic theology. It's all syncretic mythology and the golden rule stuff is Hillelite Judaism, taught before Jesus.

BTW Miracles and Metaphors is full of misinformation. Right away -
"As for the Buddhist, Hindu, and Zoroastrian histories, they contain no mention of Adam and Eve, or of Seth, Noah, or the others. Neither do they mention their stories or the events associated with their lives. Not even similar names occur in them. Only the Hebrew history mentions these names, and from there they were transmitted to the Christians and Muslims."

Yes because when it was written people thought the Bible was original and the first of it's kind. It isn't.

The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.
Myths

Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages.

The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim—properly griffins rather than angels—was known to the Canaanites. In the Bible, however, this mythical garden of the gods becomes the scene of man’s fall and the background of a story designed to account for the natural limitations of human life. Similarly, the Babylonians told of the formation of humankind from clay. But, whereas in the pagan tale the first man’s function is to serve as an earthly menial of the gods, in the scriptural version his role is to rule over all other creatures. The story of the Deluge, including the elements of the ark and the dispatch of the raven and dove, appears already in the Babylonian myths of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. There, however, the hero is eventually made immortal, whereas in the Bible this detail is omitted because, to the Israelite mind, no child of woman could achieve that status. Lastly, while the story of the Tower of Babel was told originally to account for the stepped temples (ziggurats) of Babylonia, to the Hebrew writer its purpose is simply to inculcate the moral lesson that humans should not aspire beyond their assigned station.


Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.

HE also called Noah's flood "a reality". Even the Catholic church no longer says that and modern science has shown it's impossible. Also it's the Epic of Gilamesh.
That guy is plain wrong. He thinks the Quran and OT are history books.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

https://bahai-library.com/dibdin_bahai_view_bible

Nice of you to read scholarship from 1900 and think it's current. (hint, it's the past, move on)

No, my religion does not say there IS A HUMAN VOICE OF GOD. God speaks through the Holy Spirit, not with a human voice.

Abraham was a Messenger of God, and that is why Abraham heard the Voice of God. All Messengers of God hear God's Voice, through the Holy Spirit, not through God's mouth, since God does not have a mouth with a human voice. Only humans have a mouth with a voice.

In the OT Yahweh has body parts and words. He was originally written in Hebrew in the same style as all other Gods of the time and location. This demonstrates there were no revelations, just mythology.
I can source a Hebrew Bible professor saying this over and over.

The "holy spirit" is a fiction of Christianity and implies God isn't just God but is all split up.

Sourcing old writings from people who had zero knowledge of modern critical historical methods and information is absurd. These are Bahai apologists looking to justify their religion.
I am tempted to continue reading all these and destroying them but it serves no purpose. This is all a fancy way of saying "my revelations are the real revelations", just as Islamic theologians say, just as JW and Mormon theologians say. They have papers as well, full of outdated apologetics just like this.

There is NO evidence of any theistic Gods. These revelations are clearly written by a person and no good evidence exists for revelations.

Instead of ancient papers feel fee to post revelations and show why you feel a God wrote this rather than a person. A suspicious lack of direct proof here?

Although that book of proofs is not exactly what it claims....

When the Sun of Guidance was set and the rustle of the Sadrat-i-Muntahá1 hushed, then the Orb of the Covenant dawned and the “Moon” of the Testament appeared with the utmost brilliancy and effulgence. The glorious “Branch extended from the Ancient Root” arose to promote the Word of the King of the Day of Judgement, and now He is crying and heralding throughout all regions:
After the breezes of the Testament had blown and the Fragrances of the Covenant wafted, the pure writings rapidly circulated and were spread throughout all regions; just as the petals of roses are scattered in spring-time and light diffuses its effulgence; souls were revived and breasts dilated; “thousand thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand ministered unto Him”, and all in the graves arose...


I don't think they know what "proofs" mean.

 

[PruePhillip]

When a star starts producing iron it's the beginning of that stars death throw. All heavier elements are the product of the death of stars.

Time seriously passes in the universe, in that passage of time the earth (and the other planets in our solar system) formed in messily 5 million years (approximately)

It seems once conditions were right (less than a billion years) life formed extremely quickly from a bunch of chemicals to life in the blink of an eye.

From that point it's taken 3.7 (approximately) billion years of genetic failure and success to evolve into what you see today.

Takes far far longer than 5 million years to create the earth from 'nothing.' You need generations of stars to form the elements - and there's a few BILLION years there. But once under way the universe can create trillions of earths. But some things just don't happen by physical laws but by weird chances - such as our moon/season tilt example.

 

[ChristineM]

Takes far far longer than 5 million years to create the earth from 'nothing.' You need generations of stars to form the elements - and there's a few BILLION years there. But once under way the universe can create trillions of earths. But some things just don't happen by physical laws but by weird chances - such as our moon/season tilt example.

Of course our sun is at least 3rd generation. It formed from cosmic dust. Earth and other planets formed of the remaining dust over a period of around 5 million years

Gravity needs thinking about, it is not weird chance that mass exerts gravimetric pull

 

[Subduction Zone]

Takes far far longer than 5 million years to create the earth from 'nothing.' You need generations of stars to form the elements - and there's a few BILLION years there. But once under way the universe can create trillions of earths. But some things just don't happen by physical laws but by weird chances - such as our moon/season tilt example.

And the universe is 13.787 billion years old. Also more massive stars, especially the kind that go supernova, "burn" much faster than smaller stars, such as Earth's Sun do. In fact up to orders of magnitude faster. Their lives may be as short as a few million years. There has been more than enough time for our solar system to be a third generation one:

How Long Do Stars Last?

 

[Revoltingest]

...it makes no sense for people to "swear on the Bible" in a courtroom.

I agree.
It fails as a lie detector, or enforcer.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Oh, don't you know that atheists believe their stuff since there is no evidence for God?

I see that there IS evidence for God.
If there was no evidence, I would not know what I do know.
It is not as if I have just made it all up.

No. It is just that human beings DENY that messengers were sent .. DENY that messengers were given revelation.

They claim that it's all fraud and delusion.
That is "their" nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree.
It fails as a lie detector, or enforcer.

So we need to swear on Abby?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that there IS evidence for God.
If there was no evidence, I would not know what I do know.
It is not as if I have just made it all up.

No. It is just that human beings DENY that messengers were sent .. DENY that messengers were given revelation.

They claim that it's all fraud and delusion.
That is "their" nonsense.

It seems much more likely that people desperate to believe would believe fake messengers. More than once have such messengers led their cults to death. An inability to produce reliable evidence should be a huge red flag.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I think that the biblical God is like a narcissistic and abusive parent who only loves their children when they obey and do exactly what they're told to do, but if their children disobey or make them angry, then there'll be hell to pay. It isn't a relationship based on unconditional love.

It's OK to understand that our actions bear consequences, but as soon as God is mentioned, then that "reality" becomes unloving?

It would be unloving if we were not warned about it .. but we are.

 

[muhammad_isa]

NO!! That is not the way that it works at all. You are the one claiming to have evidence. Right now it is rather clear that you don't. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is the same as saying "I don't have any evidence".

What is the point of showing a person evidence, when they merely turn around and say that it is not evidence?

..usually, these type of exchanges end up as "you cannot prove that God exists, so no evidence".
..which is pointless rhetoric.
It is NOT shifting any burden of proof to ask what sort of evidence is acceptable.

Naturally, it is quite obvious why you would rather not answer that question.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's the thing about evidence....it's not proof.
There's evidence for a flat earth.
Just look around you...it looks flat.
Go to a big lake...it looks flat.
But there's also evidence the earthy isn't flat,
eg, ships at see being only partially visible
at the horizon.

Evidence is useful only when considered in a
cogent argument that addresses all evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I agree.
It fails as a lie detector, or enforcer.

Not always .. some people have a conscience.

It makes no sense to ask an atheist to swear on the Bible, quite obviously.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..An inability to produce reliable evidence should be a huge red flag.

..and it is..
..but you can carry on claiming that everything shown to you is not reliable evidence, and then when asked what, in your opinion, is reliable evidence, you avoid the issue.

This only confirms to me that you take religion as a sport, and are merely amusing yourself.
..and that is your prerogative.
Some people have reason to take it more seriously.
They see that they have to die, and believe that they have to answer to a higher authority.
..and that life is NOT just a bit of fun.