In fact I already did that in post #190, but I can go through it in more detail if you like:
Here's a link to the relevant page in SAQ
Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 87-88
And here's the entire argument (in blue) with my comments in black and in square parentheses
The materialists believe that there must be marriage, and say that a living body cannot be created from a lifeless body, and without male and female there cannot be fecundation.[Yes, they do]
And they think that not only with man, but also with animals and plants, it is impossible. For this union of the male and female exists in all living beings and plants. [No - that is untrue some living things reproduce asexually]
This pairing of things is even shown forth in the Qur’án: “Glory be to Him Who has created all the pairs: of such things as the earth produceth, and of themselves; and of things which they know not” 2 —that is to say, men, animals and plants are all in pairs—“and of everything have We created two kinds”—that is to say, We have created all the beings through pairing.[OK]
Briefly, they say a man without a human father cannot be imagined. In answer, the theologians say: “This thing is not impossible and unachievable, but it has not been seen; and there is a great difference between a thing which is impossible and one which is unknown. For example, in former times the telegraph, which causes the East and the West to communicate, was unknown but not impossible; photography and phonography were unknown but not impossible.”[Hmmm. Flimsy argument - none of these things depend on any circumvention of natural processes and all of them were - even by ABs time, demonstrated over and over again]
The materialists insist upon this belief, and the theologians reply: “Is this globe eternal or phenomenal?” The materialists answer that, according to science and important discoveries, it is established that it is phenomenal; in the beginning it was a flaming globe, and gradually it became temperate; a crust was formed around it, and upon this crust plants came into existence, then animals, and finally man.
The theologians say: “Then from your statement it has become evident and clear that mankind is phenomenal upon the globe, and not eternal. Then surely the first man had neither father nor mother, for the existence of man is phenomenal. [But that simply doesn't follow - it is a non-sequitur - a logical fallacy - the globe had precedent - a swirling cloud of stellar debris that condensed to form the solar system including the earth - likewise the first man - perhaps his father and mother were not fully human but he still had parents - and in the case of man, biological parents...and even if you go back to the very beginning - even before the phenomenal globe existed, the precursors for biological reproduction - i.e. atoms and quarks etc. - were already in existence - and before that we simply do not know - in fact the universe that gave birth to both the phenomenal globe and the phenomenon of human life might very well be eternal for all we know].
Is not the creation of man without father and mother, even though gradually, more difficult than if he had simply come into existence without a father? [No - it isn't - it is the entire point of evolution].
As you admit that the first man came into existence without father or mother [No we have not admitted that]
—whether it be gradually or at once—there can remain no doubt that a man without a human father is also possible and admissible [No - it isn't, this conclusion is based on misrepresenting the materialist position and science]
; you cannot consider this impossible [yes I can, and I do];
otherwise, you are illogical [No Mr Baha - you are illogical - you have set up a straw man, and then via a non sequitur jumped to an entirely indefensible conclusion].
For example, if you say that this lamp has once been lighted without wick and oil, and then say that it is impossible to light it without the wick, this is illogical. [But you cannot light that kind of lamp without wick or oil can you? - Did Abdu'l Baha demonstrate how to light an oil lamp with no oil? - No? I didn't think so. Can you have a fire without fuel? No you can't - and simply saying if you could it would be possible is absolutely meaningless].
Christ had a mother; the first man, as the materialists believe, had neither father nor mother. [No they do not believe this - this is just repeating the straw man that AB set up in the first place. No materialist would ever argue that the first man "had neither father nor mother".]
At least you did not say this time that Abdulbaha is saying just because God created men out of nothing, He can also create them without father as you had said in your previous post. This was your previous understanding.
What Abdulbaha is referring here is how conversations between a believer and a non-believer would go with this regard generally, and specially in His own time. All non-believers agree that human existence originated without father and mother, since there was a time that no one existed on earth, and though this was a gradual process, it does not change this fact. We are not talking about Birth of a first human. We are talking about whether it was phenominal or eternal.
Basically, the possibility of virgin birth can be discussed from 3 perspectives:
1. Divine power: this would result in an illogical fallacy. When someone says, since God created first human without father and mother, He can also create man without father, then it would be said, therefore God caused the Sun to stand still as well, which we know scientifically is impossible. We note that, this is not the argument Abdulbaha is giving. He does not even bring God, into this discussion.
2. From current science: the current science has nothing to say about the virgin birth. It just cannot prove or disprove the possibility of a virgin birth. But with regards to Sun being stand still, the science can disprove such a thing, since, scientists know exactly the forces envolved, and if such a thing would happened, it means the Laws of physics were to break. But with regards to virgin birth, it cannot prove for such a thing to happen, the Laws of physics would have to break. Therefore science cannot give a definit result to us.
3. From a purely logical approach. Now, if you are familiar with logic in math, if we say event A is possible without B and C, then we can conclude, event A is not impossible with B, but with C. Therefore, if we apply same logic, it follows that, if human could come to existence with Father and Mother, it is false to say, it is impossible for a human to come to existence without father but with mother.
And the example that Abdulbaha gives for the lamp without oil and wick is just to teach this logic. Now, a lamp purpose is to give light, and regardless if it is electrical or not, it is a lamp. So, a lamp can be lit without oil and wick in case of electrical, thus lighting a lamp is possible without wick if an electrical is used.
The problem people have is, they bring science into this logical argument, when the fact is, science simply cannot disprove it. For example, science does not know the conditions that first caused living species to appear on earth, and it may never be able to know, but that does not mean it can disprove it. In my opinion, acceptance of a virgin birth possibility requires open mindness to things that we just do not know for sure.
