If God incarnation, how do you know it is really Him ?

[Trailblazer]

That doesn't follow.

Why doesn't it follow?

Yet this God provides no objective evidence for us to use our brains and reason on, that would reasonably lead us to believe He even exists.

The objective evidence for God is the Messengers of God.

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.https://askinglot.com/what-does-objective-evidence-mean

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are facts surrounding the person, life, and mission of Baha'u'llah, so in that sense we have objective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Evidence-based faith is knowledge. Degrees of confidence vary, of course, depending on the quality of evidence.

True

"Faith" is unevidenced or poorly evidenced belief.

Faith is what we need to believe the evidence came from God, since that can never be proven.

Objective, empirical evidence is recognizable as such. It's generally observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. It's there for anyone to examine.

True.

So, till there is, deferral of belief is the rational position, no?

It might be rational for you to defer belief on those grounds but it is not rational for me because owing to the nature of God I know that God is not observable, measurable, or testable, repeatable or falsifiable.

 

[Valjean]

First off, I do not know that God wants everyone to believe so that was an assumption on my part.
I do not know if God wants everyone's belief but I do know from scripture that God does not need everyone's belief, since God has no needs.

OK, but if you're going to rely on scripture you need to justify the authority of the scripture.
How is it objectively evidenced or tested?

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 166

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

I do not consider it reasonable to expect perceptible, empirically based evidence for God since there can never be any such evidence.
If that is what your require to believe that is what you require, but that means you will never believe in God.

We have shown you what we believe is the evidence, and these are not claims.
Baha'u'llah made many claims, and I believe those claims.

God does not want us to guess. God wants us to believe on the evidence and know what we believe is true.

You cite a religious text. The world is full of religious texts, making all sorts of contradictory claims. We need some sort of verification tool to sort these out. Till then, they're just stories; no better evidenced than The Chronicles of Narnia.
Suggestions?

 

[Valjean]

Why doesn't it follow?

False dichotomy and unsupported premise, for starters.

The objective evidence for God is the Messengers of God.

How is it established that a particular person is a Messenger of God?
How does a Messenger of God evidence God, apart from the claim?

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.https://askinglot.com/what-does-objective-evidence-mean

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are facts surrounding the person, life, and mission of Baha'u'llah, so in that sense we have objective evidence.

I'm not contesting his existence.
Do we have objective evidence of his claimed status?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

But noöne claims magic poofing out of nothing; not scientists, not atheists. That's a straw man that christian apologists keep claiming.

As a matter of fact, it's the theists who claim God magically spoke the universe into existence, and routinely creates, ex nihilo, by His finger, His hand or His word.

We claim physics or chemistry. Christians claim magic.

We don't claim to understand the Big Bang. It's mechanism is, as yet, unknown. Christians claim "Goddidit!" and seem to think that attribution is an explanation. They posit no mechanism.

So how does the creation of the universe evidence God? What do you base this claim on?

Since science cannot explain what created the elements that caused the Big Bang doesn’t science dictate that all options are a possibility including that of a creator?

Therefore you cannot rule out God.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, but if you're going to rely on scripture you need to justify the authority of the scripture.
How is it objectively evidenced or tested?

Scripture cannot be objectively evidenced or tested, it can only be believed.

You cite a religious text. The world is full of religious texts, making all sorts of contradictory claims. We need some sort of verification tool to sort these out. Till then, they're just stories; no better evidenced than The Chronicles of Narnia.
Suggestions?

All you can do is try to verify the source of the scripture for yourself.... It all goes back to believing that the one who wrote it was inspired by God.

 

[Valjean]

Faith is what we need to believe the evidence came from God, since that can never be proven.

Nobody's asking for proof. What real evidence is there that this faith-giving God exists?

It might be rational for you to defer belief on those grounds but it is not rational for me because owing to the nature of God I know that God is not observable, measurable, or testable, repeatable or falsifiable.

A thing is either rational or not. Logic is not subjective.

I understand that you do honestly believe, that it's convincing to you, but so far I've seen no evidence that that belief is rational, ie: objectively evidenced and well reasoned.
It is faith, not knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

False dichotomy and unsupported premise, for starters.

The assumption is that God is omnipotent so God could provide proof if He wanted to.
If God did not want us to have faith why wouldn't God provide proof?

How is it established that a particular person is a Messenger of God?

That can never be established as a fact, it can only be established as a belief in your own mind.
It either makes sense to you or it doesn't.

How does a Messenger of God evidence God, apart from the claim?

The claim is not evidence of any kind. The evidence is what supports the claims.
See the claims and how they are not the evidence in the following post.

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

I'm not contesting his existence.
Do we have objective evidence of his claimed status?

Whether or not we believe His claimed status is subjective. It is not objective since it is not subject to being proven as a fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nobody's asking for proof. What real evidence is there that this faith-giving God exists?

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

A thing is either rational or not. Logic is not subjective.

What you or I think is rational or logical is highly subjective.
You cannot prove that the reasons that I believe in God are irrational or illogical, that is only your personal opinion. We all have those.

I understand that you do honestly believe, that it's convincing to you, but so far I've seen no evidence that that belief is rational, ie: objectively evidenced and well reasoned.
It is faith, not knowledge.

How do you determine what is rational? That is a subjective determination.
What is rational to me is not rational to you...

What I believe is evidenced and well reasoned.
It is not knowledge in a factual sense because there can be no such knowledge of God or Messengers of God.

 

[Valjean]

Since science cannot explain what created the elements that caused the Big Bang doesn’t science dictate that all options are a possibility including that of a creator?

Not really. In the absence of evidence science dictates nothing. It just says "I don't know."
Hopefully it has some possible, speculative explanations it can research, otherwise it's dead in the water till more evidence comes to light.

Theoretical physics is an active area of research. We learn more every week. but the BB remains on the cutting edge of physics.
Be patient, and try to avoid making up stories.

Therefore you cannot rule out God.

True, nor can we rule out trans-dimensional constructor mice or pixies. But we can assign levels of probability based on evidence and need.

When objective evidence or a need for an intentional magician turns up, science will jump on the God question like a starving lion on an antelope. Till then, without evidence to examine, the subject must be shelved. Science has nothing to work with.

 

[Valjean]

Scripture cannot be objectively evidenced or tested, it can only be believed.

So the reliability of scripture sounds poor, and the truth-value of the myriad different accounts pretty much equal.

On what, then, should we base belief, and our choice?
Why should we choose a scriptural option at all?

All you can do is try to verify the source of the scripture for yourself.... It all goes back to believing that the one who wrote it was inspired by God.

So it must be taken on faith. It's not a rational conclusion.
OK, then. Be happy.

 

[Valjean]

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

What you or I think is rational or logical is highly subjective.
You cannot prove that the reasons that I believe in God are irrational or illogical, that is only your personal opinion. We all have those.

How do you determine what is rational? That is a subjective determination.
What is rational to me is not rational to you...

What I believe is evidenced and well reasoned.
It is not knowledge in a factual sense because there can be no such knowledge of God or Messengers of God.

No. Logic is an algebra. Mathematics is objective. Truth values can be calculated. Evidence can be objectively assessed.

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/boolean/bool_7.html

 

[Trailblazer]

So the reliability of scripture sounds poor, and the truth-value of the myriad different accounts pretty much equal.

No, not really. The truth-value of the myriad different scriptures are not equal at all.
Scriptures that were written by unknown authors are not reliable at all, for obvious logical reasons. That makes the Bible unreliable.

The Baha'i Faith has the only scriptures that were written in the pens of Messengers of God. Whether or not you believe the Bab and Baha'u'llah were actually Messengers of God is another matter. My point is that the biblical authors did not even claim to be Messengers of God. These unnamed authors were only men so why should we believe that they were inspired by God - where is the evidence? We do not even know anything about these men. The Bible according to Matthew? How far removed from Jesus is that, and what do we really know about Jesus? Lol. Contrast that with what we know about the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Yet 2.4 billion people in the world believe that the Bible is is the Word of God. No, the Bible is not the Word of God, it is the words of men who did not even know Jesus or the Prophets of the OT.

What logical reason do we have to believe that these men were inspired by God? Is there something I am missing?

On what, then, should we base belief, and our choice?
Why should we choose a scriptural option at all?

You should base your belief on anything you choose to base it on.
If you don't use any scriptural option I don't know what else you would have.
Creation is hardly proof that God exists.

So it must be taken on faith. It's not a rational conclusion.

It is very rational to base a belief in God on faith coupled with evidence -- if one wants to believe in God -- since there is no other way to believe in God.

OK, then. Be happy.

Who said I was happy? Belief in God does not guarantee happiness, but it is certainly better than the alternative, because at least I have hope.
Back in the days when I relied only upon myself life was much more difficult and I made many more mistakes. There is a definite correlation.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. Logic is an algebra. Mathematics is objective. Truth values can be calculated. Evidence can be objectively assessed.

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/boolean/bool_7.html

Please explain how truth values can be calculated and evidence can be objectively assessed.
Remember, we are talking about God.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Not really. In the absence of evidence science dictates nothing. It just says "I don't know."
Hopefully it has some possible, speculative explanations it can research, otherwise it's dead in the water till more evidence comes to light.

Theoretical physics is an active area of research. We learn more every week. but the BB remains on the cutting edge of physics.
Be patient, and try to avoid making up stories.

True, nor can we rule out trans-dimensional constructor mice or pixies. But we can assign levels of probability based on evidence and need.

When objective evidence or a need for an intentional magician turns up, science will jump on the God question like a starving lion on an antelope. Till then, without evidence to examine, the subject must be shelved. Science has nothing to work with.

Let us know when those trans-dimensional mice write a Bible….I can’t wait to read it.

 

[danieldemol]

Let us know when those trans-dimensional mice write a Bible….I can’t wait to read it.

Let us know when God writes a Bible lol

 

[chinu]

How should I know what His objectives might be? I don't even know that He exists.

When I mentioned objective evidence, I was talking about observable, repeatable, measurable, testable, falsifiable evidence; not the objectives of God.

IF God exist then what is your GUESS that what objective God have ?

 

[chinu]

If a god is omni everything then that god would know precisely what evidence is required .

Different people have different point of view. Hence, the required evidence can be different from person to person ? or there can be some common evidence ?

 

[ChristineM]

Different people have different point of view. Hence, the required evidence can be different from person to person ? or there can be some common evidence ?

And an omni god would know this and account for it.

 

[chinu]

And an omni god would know this and account for it.

And already provided this.