Examining the evidence there is of God

[CG Didymus]

Sorry, but Free Wil is not a Get Out of Jail Free Card for your God. He still has to follow moral rules to be moral. And you seem to be implying that he is not moral.

Until recently, how many people had no choice but were born into a culture that had a religion and had their own God or Gods and everybody in that society had to believe it? And go back a few hundred years, and there were still people being forced to stop believing in their religion and adopt the religion of the people that conquered them. Where was "free will" then? I think free will is important to Baha'is, because they want people to question their old religious beliefs and accept the Baha'i Faith.

 

[CG Didymus]

I've already asked about Adam and the other Bible characters that the Baha'is claim are manifestations of God, but what about Muhammad? How do Baha'is explain his military exploits?
The military career of Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632), the Islamic prophet, encompasses several expeditions and battles throughout the Hejaz region in the western Arabian Peninsula which took place in the final ten years of his life, from 622 to 632. His primary campaign was against his own tribe in Mecca, the Quraysh. Muhammad proclaimed prophethood around 610 and later migrated to Medina after being persecuted by the Quraysh in 622. After several battles against the Quraysh, Muhammad conquered Mecca in 629, ending his campaign against the tribe.

Alongside his campaign against the Quraysh, Muhammad led campaigns against several other tribes of Arabia, most notably the three Arabian Jewish tribes of Medina and the Jewish fortress at Khaybar. He expelled the Banu Qaynuqa tribe for violating the Constitution of Medina in 624, followed by the Banu Nadir who were expelled in May 625 after being accused of plotting to assassinate him. Finally, in 628, he besieged and invaded the Jewish fortress of Khaybar, which hosted more than 10,000 Jews, which Muslim sources say was retaliation for planning to ally themselves with the local Arab pagan tribes.

In the final years of his life, Muhammad sent several armies against the Byzantine Empire and the Ghassanids in northern Arabia and the Levant, before conquering Mecca in 630 and leading a campaign against some Arab pagan tribes close to Mecca, most notably in Ta'if. The last army led by Muhammad before his death was in the Battle of Tabuk in October 630. By his death in 632, Muhammad had managed to unite most of the Arabian Peninsula, laying the foundation for the subsequent Islamic expansion under the caliphates and defining Islamic military jurisprudence.

That would be for you to research CG. We have discussed this in the past.

When have we ever discussed Muhammad? The quote I linked to says Muhammad participated in military battles. That's from researching things about the life of Muhammad. Unless fighting and killing are attributes of God, then Muhammad isn't reflecting God very well. How do Baha'is explain that? You are a Baha'i how do you explain that? If you don't have an answer, just say so. You do realize it sounds like you're just dodging some of these questions. Which makes Baha'is look like all talk and no substance.

Did I miss your answer to this? Or you haven't answered yet? Tony? Or any Baha'i out there? Did Muhammad really participate in these battles? If so, how do Baha'is justify calling him a manifestation of God, a "perfect" reflection of God?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What are you on about?

My comment was, "I stated what the default paradigm would be were [the falsification of evolution] to happen - a deceptive intelligent designer that went to great pains to fool man but left a clue that it had that falsified the theory." What the comment means is that if evolution is disproved, a trickster intelligent designer becomes the only possible explanation left for why we find what we do. It was an illustration of my claim that I have not eliminated any logically possible alternative.

i don't think that I need to explain why my mind finds it hard to believe that something like intelligence and awareness can evolve from something non-intelligent and unaware.

No, you don't if all you want to do is tell people what you believe.

It implies that that there is no real purpose for our existence, and that intelligence is incidental in a rudderless universe.

OK. I don't have a problem with that if it's the case. I don't need for the universe to have a purpose, nor for it to have any purpose for me. And if it did, I wouldn't know what that purpose it had for me would be, so there is no duty on my part to think or behave otherwise. I also don't believe anybody else can know those things, so I'm not interested in their opinions there, just as I'm not really interested in what you find comfortable to believe if you can't back it up with a sound argument.

I do not believe that G-d can be offended.

Then you are in the minority among Abrahamic believers. Most believe that their god is offended by sin and unbelief so much so that it can't stand to be in the presence of either and banishes such souls to perdition so offended is it. They also learn that their god demands belief by faith, that faith is a virtue and doubt a moral failure. The result is that one can't get them to even consider the possibility that their god doesn't exist. I just saw that this week, when a believer was explaining to me why we need God to explain why there was a universe. I asked him to go one more step and explain why there was a god to make a universe, and the discussion stalled there. He refused to discuss the idea. Why? He must have been afraid either of his god or his own mind.

all I am doing is suggesting 1 topic at the time

Fine, but what I wrote still stands. Please address the points with which you disagree at the time you read them. I told you that there is no topic I wish to discuss. My interest is in debate in general.

 

[Pete in Panama]

... If Baha'u'llah is the manifestation for today and has the newest message from God, then most believers in the world today have chosen to believe in something outdated and wrong...

That's not what my experience is.

What I see is that the religions of the world agree is a truth not because the religions of the world are wrong, it's because they're right. In my area virtually all the Baha'i activities are done by people who are members of other religions. It's a non-issue. The fact that I'm an enrolled Baha'i and many are not means nothing to the activities, in fact I envy their talents and effectiveness in what they're able to bring about.

Of course I may be missing something, and I'm open for discussion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't need for the universe to have a purpose, nor for it to have any purpose for me..

What has "what you need" got to do with anything?
Isn't it more to do with what we ALL need?

I just cannot believe that all that I see serves no purpose .. other than obtaining what we need to satisfy our worldly desires .. survival of the fittest and all that.

I asked him to go one more step and explain why there was a god to make a universe, and the discussion stalled there. He refused to discuss the idea. Why? He must have been afraid either of his god or his own mind..

What's to discuss?
The universe exists, as do we.
Can you explain why we exist? No.
..and neither can a believer.
..yet we have more idea than you .. i.e. survival of the fittest

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What has "what you need" got to do with anything?

I defines what I am able to think. Since I don't need for the universe to have a purpose, I can accept the possibility that it doesn't.

I just cannot believe that all that I see serves no purpose .. other than obtaining what we need to satisfy our worldly desires .. survival of the fittest and all that.

Yes, I know, but I can. I can also believe what you believe. The universe might have an intelligent designer who built it and created man for a purpose or not.

What's to discuss?

The fallacy in his argument, a special pleading fallacy. It's the one that says that the universe needs a cause to account for its existence, and then proposes a god to fill that need. It's very easy for me to see that if a universe needs explaining, then so does a god, and if we can accept a god existing without any explanation, then we can say the same for the universe, but most believers simply dismiss the problem out of hand with a pronouncement that his rules don't apply to gods. Fine. Then they don't apply to universes, either. No special pleading. No double standards for existence. But he just can't hold these thoughts. He needs this god to exist and sees the universe as contingent, and so he commits a special pleading fallacy.

What we're seeing here in the difference between my positions and both of yours is the difference between belief by faith and belief by reason. In both cases, the critical thinker can conceive of both the godless and godded alternatives, whereas the faith-based thinker has closed that door to meet psychological needs. Look at your second comment above and my reply to it again. Ask yourself why you can't believe the universe has no intelligent designer or purpose.

Notice, I am not asking you to believe that. I haven't concluded that it's true myself - just possible and a reasonable idea. I'm commenting on your inability to accept the possibility and attributing that to believing by faith. By changing how we think, we change what we think and what we can think.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Since I don't need for the universe to have a purpose, I can accept the possibility that it doesn't..

That is just a statement that implies that a person who believes that the universe has a reason for existing, only believes it out of some need to believe that.
It has nothing to do with a need .. it has everything to do with common sense.
Common sense informs us that a universe doesn't just poof into existence without a reason.

The fallacy in his argument, a special pleading fallacy. It's the one that says that the universe needs a cause to account for its existence, and then proposes a god to fill that need..

"a god" being some kind of phenomena, that cannot be compared to something material, yes.

It's very easy for me to see that if a universe needs explaining, then so does a god, and if we can accept a god existing without any explanation, then we can say the same for the universe, but most believers simply dismiss the problem out of hand with a pronouncement that his rules don't apply to gods..

You can say the same for the universe, if you like .. that the universe has always existed etc.
..that doesn't change anything. It doesn't answer WHY it exists, any more than WHY G-d exists.

In both cases, the critical thinker can conceive of both the godless and godded alternatives, whereas the faith-based thinker has closed that door to meet psychological needs..

We are all in need .. not many people can live their lives as a hermit.
I "close the door" to a rudderless universe because it makes no sense. I have found that faith in God makes a lot of sense.
I cannot claim to know what your experiences are in life. They are your own.

Ask yourself why you can't believe the universe has no intelligent designer or purpose.

..because it goes against common sense. A universe, that contains aware life forms, cannot exist due to "cosmic accident".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is just a statement that implies that a person who believes that the universe has a reason for existing, only believes it out of some need to believe that.

It's a statement that somebody who rejects the possibility that the universe has no purpose has no logical basis for so doing, therefore, must have a different incentive for eliminating that logical possibility. Your mind tells you that that notion is absurd, when it is no less absurd than for the existence of a creator god with a purpose. Your reason for choosing one and rejecting the other must be psychological. As we've discussed before, there is no sound argument that ends "therefore god" or "therefore the universe has a purpose." It's a guess I don't feel any need to make, but you do. You have. What accounts for that difference between us if not that one of us is willing to let his feelings and intuitions make the choice for him?

Common sense informs us that a universe doesn't just poof into existence without a reason.

Common sense is unreliable in areas beyond the mundane decisions of daily life such as that if you put your finger into a flame, you will feel the pain of fire. Common sense tells you that if you keep milk too long, it sours. These are learned from experience, and should more properly be called common knowledge. People also commonly believe very wrong things, especially when integrating evidence into a cohesive narrative. More than half simply can't do it. Look at the numbers of eligible people whose "common sense" told them not to take the Covid vaccine and they didn't. They made up the majority of the death-from-covid pool once vaccines were available.

"a god" being some kind of phenomena, that cannot be compared to something material, yes.

This is the special pleading. You and he give no reason for a god being exempt from needing a reason to exist, but not a universe. You claim that they are different kinds of things, but give no reason why that matters. Furthermore, believers continually compare their god to nature, like when they say it lives outside of it.

You can say the same for the universe, if you like .. that the universe has always existed etc...that doesn't change anything. It doesn't answer WHY it exists, any more than WHY G-d exists.

It changes the need for a god. If the universe has always existed, what does it need with a creator?

But yes, I agree that we don't know why there is anything at all in existence (including gods if they do exist). But that's not the special pleading aspect of this. It's the opposite - a single standard for gods and universes.

because it goes against common sense. A universe, that contains aware life forms, cannot exist due to "cosmic accident".

You probably know my answer to that already.

In your opinion, what kind of cosmic accident could result in a god existing, and why is that easier for you to accept? If common sense is what most people believe, common sense is to not consider the matter and to fail to see the special pleading involved in so doing. Uncommon sense is needed instead, and that's what critical thinking is.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your mind tells you that that notion is absurd, when it is no less absurd than for the existence of a creator god with a purpose. Your reason for choosing one and rejecting the other must be psychological..

Of course it is psychological, it is my mind.

It's a guess I don't feel any need to make..

I made the "guess", as I deleted the "gigantic cosmic accident" theory as practically impossible.
I then found that my reasoning led me on a spiritual journey, and that belief in God makes complete sense .. righteousness is never lost, even if persecuted in this life.

Common sense is unreliable in areas beyond the mundane decisions of daily life..

Of course it is, but that is not all we have to go on. It is only part of the equation .. or reasoning.

This is the special pleading. You and he give no reason for a god being exempt from needing a reason to exist, but not a universe. You claim that they are different kinds of things, but give no reason why that matters. Furthermore, believers continually compare their god to nature, like when they say it lives outside of it.

False. I do not make a "special plead".
You talk about "a god" as if it is some material person. It is not.

It changes the need for a god. If the universe has always existed, what does it need with a creator?

Bad argument. You say that claiming God created the universe, is "special pleading", due to the concept of a non-material phenomena being eternal.
..but when you think you can say that the universe is eternal, then it suddenly needs no explanation.
I call that hypocrisy.

In your opinion, what kind of cosmic accident could result in a god existing, and why is that easier for you to accept?

I don't find either hard to accept.
i.e. an eternal universe, or an eternal phenomena called God

In fact, I see that God exists, and is not dependent on whether the universe is eternal or not.
The thing is .. it is clearly finite, and all life on earth must die.
I do believe that the universe has a beginning and an end.
IT IS FINITE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it is psychological, it is my mind.


I made the "guess", as I deleted the "gigantic cosmic accident" theory as practically impossible.
I then found that my reasoning led me on a spiritual journey, and that belief in God makes complete sense .. righteousness is never lost, even if persecuted in this life.


Of course it is, but that is not all we have to go on. It is only part of the equation .. or reasoning.


False. I do not make a "special plead".
You talk about "a god" as if it is some material person. It is not.


Bad argument. You say that claiming God created the universe, is "special pleading", due to the concept of a non-material phenomena being eternal.
..but when you think you can say that the universe is eternal, then it suddenly needs no explanation.
I call that hypocrisy.


I don't find either hard to accept.
i.e. an eternal universe, or an eternal phenomena called God

In fact, I see that God exists, and is not dependent on whether the universe is eternal or not.
The thing is .. it is clearly finite, and all life on earth must die.
I do believe that the universe has a beginning and an end.
IT IS FINITE.

I see. It appears that all you have are arguments from ignorance and special pleading fallacies.

For example, what makes you think the universe starting itself would be " by accident "? I don't know of any scientists that believe that. It appears to be a creationist strawman since they cannot deal with the actual arguments.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

My comment was, "I stated what the default paradigm would be were [the falsification of evolution] to happen - a deceptive intelligent designer that went to great pains to fool man but left a clue that it had that falsified the theory." What the comment means is that if evolution is disproved, a trickster intelligent designer becomes the only possible explanation left for why we find what we do.

The other option Is that evolution proves the intelligent design.

The evolutionary process of the human species was part of that design and the evolutionary process has not stopped. Evolution is not a mutation, nor an accident, but full of purpose.

This is why God provides humanity with progressive Revelations. As we evolve, we need to embrace the progressive wisdom, as only God knows our capacity and provides us with the required guidance.

Regards Tony

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The other option Is that evolution proves the intelligent design.

But it doesn't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Most of the people you debate are very qualified to decide when an argument confirms its conclusion, and nothing has been proven to them about intelligent design.

Of course it is psychological, it is my mind.

OK, then. Let's say emotional as opposed to intellectual.

I made the "guess", as I deleted the "gigantic cosmic accident" theory as practically impossible.

And you did so on gut feeling, or what you called common sense.

False. I do not make a "special plead".

You do when you have unjustified double standards.

You say that claiming God created the universe, is "special pleading", due to the concept of a non-material phenomena being eternal...but when you think you can say that the universe is eternal, then it suddenly needs no explanation. I call that hypocrisy.

Then you misunderstood my claim. Simply declaring gods to be exempt from reason doesn't make it so. That's the special pleading part.

Hypocrisy is another example of an unjustified double standard. Look at Trump and how he excuses Pence for his sloppiness but not Biden. That's an unjustified double standard. He also wants Biden to be treated the same as he is, but won't get that, because that double standard is justified. What justified treating Pence and Biden differently? Nothing at this point. What justifies treating Trump differently than both? His alleged crimes beyond merely being in possession of classified documents, which suggests criminal intent in his case.

I don't find either hard to accept. i.e. an eternal universe, or an eternal phenomena called God

I wrote, "what kind of cosmic accident could result in a god existing, and why is that easier for you to accept?" You've moved the goalpost. My comment wasn't about whether you could believe that both could be eternal. You referred to cosmic accidents. You didn't believe that intelligent life could be an accident in nature, but seem to think that it can be with gods. That's more special pleading - an unjustified double standard.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then you misunderstood my claim. Simply declaring gods to be exempt from reason doesn't make it so. That's the special pleading part..

Nothing is exempt from reason!
You seem to think that an eternal universe needs no explanation, whereas a universe that is created does.
Why is that?

You've moved the goalpost. My comment wasn't about whether you could believe that both could be eternal..

You mean that I refuse to play your game, about it being one or the other?
Correct.
The non-material concept of God is eternal .. it really does not matter whether the universe is eternal or not .. it does not require "special pleading" any more than an eternal universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing is exempt from reason!
You seem to think that an eternal universe needs no explanation, whereas a universe that is created does.
Why is that?

He does not appear to be doing that. He is merely pointing out your logical fallacies. There are some questions that we do not have all of the answers for. That is not an excuse to stick a god in there. It is not evidence for a god. You keep using the logical fallacy of special pleading when it comes to your god. You don't get to do that.

You mean that I refuse to play your game, about it being one or the other?
Correct.
The non-material concept of God is eternal .. it really does not matter whether the universe is eternal or not .. it does not require "special pleading" any more than an eternal universe.

No,the non-material concept of God is unsupported. You don't get to make that claim until you find some rational evidence for your god. Until you do that you are using a special pleading fallacy.

In fact the situation is worse for you than it is for him. We know that the universe exists. You can't seem to provide any evidence or rational reasoning that supports the existence of your god.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There are some questions that we do not have all of the answers for.

Yes, and that includes the existence of an eternal God.
It is either a reality, or it is not.

No,the non-material concept of God is unsupported. You don't get to make that claim until you find some rational evidence for your god. Until you do that you are using a special pleading fallacy.

That's absurd. You claim that one cannot discuss a non-material concept, unless one can demonstrate it empirically.

That is a childish attitude.
You either believe it, or you don't.
God cannot be empirically proved, and you know it.
..but neither can a eternal universe be empirically proved.
..so what?

In fact the situation is worse for you than it is for him. We know that the universe exists..

It depends what you mean by "worse"..
We do not know that the universe is eternal .. it is only a hypothesis.

You are free to believe what you like, as am I.
..and I know that my belief is rational.
I do not think that either believer or disbeliever is "irrational".
God [the cosmos] knows why we say what we say.

It is not far-fetched. There are people listening in on mobile phone calls, and "brain waves" are not so personal as we might think. I do not need to prove it. We are all free to believe what we like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and that includes the existence of an eternal God.
It is either a reality, or it is not.


That's absurd. You claim that one cannot discuss a non-material concept, unless one can demonstrate it empirically.

That is a childish attitude.
You either believe it, or you don't.
God cannot be empirically proved, and you know it.
..but neither can a eternal universe be empirically proved.
..so what?


It depends what you mean by "worse"..
We do not know that the universe is eternal .. it is only a hypothesis.

You are free to believe what you like, as am I.
..and I know that my belief is rational.
I do not think that either believer or disbeliever is "irrational".
God [the cosmos] knows why we say what we say.

It is not far-fetched. There are people listening in on mobile phone calls, and "brain waves" are not so personal as we might think. I do not need to prove it. We are all free to believe what we like.

Sorry, but you do not get to assume the existence of a god. You need a rational argument for one first, and so far you lack that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sorry, but you do not get to assume the existence of a god. You need a rational argument for one first, and so far you lack that.

In your opinion.
Basically, what you are saying is that until I can prove to you that there exists something superior to human beings, responsible for the existence of the universe .. you will assume there is not.

It's your choice.
My choice is to live my life, believing that the Qur'an is true.

That's it really .. I have nothing to prove.
If you feel that you "have won the argument", then you have.
I am looking for something more importamt to "win".

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your opinion.
Basically, what you are saying is that until I can prove to you that there exists something superior to human beings, responsible for the existence of the universe .. you will assume there is not.

It's your choice.
My choice is to live my life, believing that the Qur'an is true.

That's it really .. I have nothing to prove.
If you feel that you "have won the argument", then you have.
I am looking for something more importamt to "win".

I am so glad that you immediately acknowledged your failure.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But it doesn't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Most of the people you debate are very qualified to decide when an argument confirms its conclusion, and nothing has been proven to them about intelligent design.

The observation is we have more to learn.

As per the OP, the Messenger of God is the evidence of intelligent design, they possess Innate knowledge, and become the proof when they display the Innate knowledge, even from the youngest years.

If the knowledge was not learned, where did it come from?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sorry, but you do not get to assume the existence of a god. You need a rational argument for one first, and so far you lack that.

The observation is we have more to learn.

As per the OP, the Messenger of God is the evidence of intelligent design, they possess Innate knowledge, and become the proof when they display the Innate knowledge, even from the youngest years.

If the knowledge was not learned, where did it come from?

Regards Tony

I use that reply.

Regards Tony