Atheist, Christian, and Baha'i Cosmologies

[Trailblazer]

This seems to acknowledge that no God exists.

No, it s not acknowledging that since science could never prove that God exists even if God exists.

1. why not? 2. Is there any other type of world known to exist where a God can exist? 3. Then when mere mortals refer to their God existing how can they have any means to know IF the God exists in a realm not accessable to humans?

1. Because God does not exist here, although God's spirit is omnipresent so in that sense it is everywhere.
2. Yes, according to Baha'u'llah there are many worlds of God and the worlds of God are countless in their number and infinite in their range.
3. The way we know that God exists is through the Messengers/Manifestations of God who are sent by God to earth to represent and reveal God.

You're stating a fact. So you know that a God won't be detected in the future? Are you clarvoyant?

No, I do not know what the future holds, so it is possible that God might be detected in the distant future, but not during our lifetimes.

Many years ago, I read that in the future the veil between this material world and the spiritual world will be lifted but I cannot remember the source. That would mean that in the future there will no longer be a question as to whether there is life after death. Every new age brings many changes in both science and religion.

More clarvoyance. Honestly all we can do is make assessments and conclusions in the moment. We don't know what could be discovered a century from now. What's funny is that you are a believer and you are dismissing any possibility for your God and guru to be verified.

I was talking about the present time, not the future. Because of the very nature of God, God's existence cannot be verified by humans, but that doesn't mean that God cannot prove to us that He exists and it doesn't mean that God cannot prove to everyone that Baha'u'llah was His Messenger. I believe that is exactly what will happen in the future, since it is in the Bible and in the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

According to the Bible and the Baha'i Writings in the future everyone will believe in God. People are free to believe or disbelieve anything they want to now but the future will be wholly different. Everyone will know that God exists and everyone will choose to believe in God because God has never forced anyone to believe against their will.

Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

“The Day is approaching when God will render the hosts of Truth victorious, and He will purge the whole earth in such wise that within the compass of His knowledge not a single soul shall remain unless he truly believeth in God, worshippeth none other God but Him, boweth down by day and by night in His adoration, and is reckoned among such as are well assured.”
Selections From the Writings of the Báb, pp. 153-154

According to this quote there is a reason for me to believe that in the future everyone in the world will know about Baha'u'llah and who He was.

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248

 

[F1fan]

No, it s not acknowledging that since science could never prove that God exists even if God exists.

That is the past and present, how can you assert a God will never be detected?

1. Because God does not exist here, although God's spirit is omnipresent so in that sense it is everywhere.

How do you know?

2. Yes, according to Baha'u'llah there are many worlds of God and the worlds of God are countless in their number and infinite in their range.

So no credible evidence of there being anything other than the material world.

3. The way we know that God exists is through the Messengers/Manifestations of God who are sent by God to earth to represent and reveal God.

No no credible evidence at all. You're left being uncertain, so why decide it's true?

No, I do not know what the future holds, so it is possible that God might be detected in the distant future, but not during our lifetimes.

There you go, another lesson to be humble to uncertainty. Will it sink in? Doubtful.

Many years ago, I read that in the future the veil between this material world and the spiritual world will be lifted but I cannot remember the source. That would mean that in the future there will no longer be a question as to whether there is life after death. Every new age brings many changes in both science and religion.

The "spiritual world" is quite a broad phrase with no definitive definition. And it is an odd claim, 1. that it suggests there's a separation at the moment which is a bad thing, and 2. that it will rely on science in some way to gain credibility because it can't do it on its own. Eastern religions already have a vastly better way of approaching spiritual matters as consistent with reality (science) than the Western religions, so perhaps the prediction is a move towards more Eastern religion.

I was talking about the present time, not the future. Because of the very nature of God, God's existence cannot be verified by humans, but that doesn't mean that God cannot prove to us that He exists and it doesn't mean that God cannot prove to everyone that Baha'u'llah was His Messenger. I believe that is exactly what will happen in the future, since it is in the Bible and in the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

So no credible evidence. These two sources are very weak and rely way too much on the assumptions readers make.

According to the Bible and the Baha'i Writings in the future everyone will believe in God.

Yet belief is declining.

People are free to believe or disbelieve anything they want to now but the future will be wholly different. Everyone will know that God exists and everyone will choose to believe in God because God has never forced anyone to believe against their will.

Doubtful. These texts are rampant with flaws and Baha'u'llah was a bigot, so not exactly sound sources there. Anything else that is reliable?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

@Truthseeker

Thank you for your replies. I read everything you replied to me. I would just like to say that I may be wrong about The Bab. I don’t know Persian or Arabic and I never read the Bayan completely or any of his other works. I know during his lifetime The Bab and Baha’u’llah knew each other very well. The fact that Baha’u’llah even gave The Bab eight years of divine control is rather remarkable.

@Trailblazer

I agree with you that whether there is a God or not is an opinion, but whether something exists or not isn’t. As I learned from @ppp . You know, I don’t take an agnostic approach to the divine. I know God from knowledge and faith I have for it. In fact, I would say all people experience a little bit of God every day, and that God and reality at this point should be self-evident. Your assumption is that there is something outside ultimate nature, Baha, that created and controls it. I would argue that beings, while all coming from something else, have the ability to control and shape themselves, so I would argue that the creator of ultimate nature is itself. And that, in fact, that is what makes it God. While you do not agree with that presumption, does this help you understand my point of view?

 

[Truthseeker]

He did, but his brilliance and fame as a physicist doesn't automatically mean he was right about that opinion.

Yes, I know.

No. Science is an abstract concept and doesn't need anything. It is merely a tool to reach conclusions and whether that is done ethically or not doesn't make the slightest difference to science.

Society needs ethics to survive (in very simplistic terms), regardless of whether what that society is doing is based on science or not (or a bit of both, as is typically the situation). We don't need religion to provide those ethics though, nor does the presence of religion necessarily lead to positive ethical structures.

Yes, I slightly phrased that wrong. Society needs ethics so that their increased capabilities in science doesn't cause great damage to the world. Ethics are urgently needed today more than any other time in history because of the capability that science gives us, which can be used either for good and bad ends.

Anyway, I conclude from the rest of your answer which I am not showing now, that you don't believe that religion is an answer to supply ethics to the world, and there's is nothing I can do to demonstrate to you now to change your mind. I completely understand why you think this way, given how religion is misused today, and as the Baha'i Faith can't demonstrate to you at this time that it will be any different, why should you see this any differently?

 

[Trailblazer]

That is the past and present, how can you assert a God will never be detected?

I don't know, I only have an opinion. God might be able to be detected in some way but how could anyone ever prove it was God?
As Baha'u'llah said, God is the most manifest of the manifest and the most hidden of the hidden.

How do you know?

Scriptures.

So no credible evidence of there being anything other than the material world.

No evidence that is credible to you.

No no credible evidence at all. You're left being uncertain, so why decide it's true?

No evidence that is credible to you. I am not uncertain, I am certain.

The "spiritual world" is quite a broad phrase with no definitive definition.

The spiritual world cannot be described in any way such that we could understand since it is beyond our comprehension.

So no credible evidence. These two sources are very weak and rely way too much on the assumptions readers make.

No evidence that is credible to you. The sources are not weak for me, they are strong.

Yet belief is declining.

Actually, belief is not really declining, it is increasing.

Since the year 2000, religion has made resurgence whereas atheism and agnosticism are on the decline.

The growth rates of the Abrahamic religions from 1910-2010 were as follows: Judaism .11%, Christianity 1.32%, Islam 1.97%, and Baha’i Faith 3.54%.

Atheism was growing at a rate of 6.54% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.05% from 2000-2010. Agnosticism was growing at a rate of 5.45% from 1910-2010 but dropped to a growth rate of 0.32% from 2000-2010. That demonstrates that both atheism and agnosticism are on the decline but also that there are many more agnostics than atheists.

Statistics from: Growth of religion - Wikipedia

Doubtful. Anything else that is reliable?

Hopeful. Nothing more reliable than the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Truthseeker]

Thank you for your replies. I read everything you replied to me. I would just like to say that I may be wrong about The Bab. I don’t know Persian or Arabic and I never read the Bayan completely or any of his other works. I know during his lifetime The Bab and Baha’u’llah knew each other very well. The fact that Baha’u’llah even gave The Bab eight years of divine control is rather remarkable.

Well, thank you.

 

[Truthseeker]

As much as I respect Einstein I would have used the word ethics where Einstein used "religion".

The word religion has baggage associated with it that Einstein doesn’t seem to have meant since he seems to have regarded what he knew of the Abrahamic religions as childish in my view.

Religion as practiced today is not a good model for what ethics should be today, I agree.

 

[Truthseeker]

This seems to acknowledge that no God exists.

Did you think about that answer? Is this your honest reply?

1. whay not? 2. Is there any other type of world known to exist where a God can exist? 3. Then when mere mortals refer to their God existing how can they have any means to know IF the God exists in a realm not accessable to humans?

Yes, you are a materialist. Nothing but the material exists for you. Why do you think that?

So no credible evidence of there being anything other than the material world.

Okay, so that's the reason that you think there is nothing but the material world. I can't convince you otherwise, so why try? Hear that @Trailblazer ?

 

[danieldemol]

Religion as practiced today is not a good model for what ethics should be today, I agree.

I feel that "divine command" is not a good model for ethics altogether because there is no room to question and dismiss bad ethics if they are alleged to come from God. You are stuck with acceptance of it all or leaving the Baha'i or other Abrahamic religion altogether which some people find difficult.

In my view a better system of ethics is one where individual ethics stand or fall on their own merits.

 

[Truthseeker]

In my view a better system of ethics is one where individual ethics stand or fall on their own merits.

Some people's ethics that come up on their own are pretty bad, don't you think?

I feel that "divine command" is not a good model for ethics altogether because there is no room to question and dismiss bad ethics if they are alleged to come from God. You are stuck with acceptance of it all or leaving the Baha'i or other Abrahamic religion altogether which some people find difficult.

Yes, it is obvious you think that. I'm thinking that may be why you left the Baha'i faith, because you couldn't accept what you thought was bad ethics. There may have been other reasons. That may not be the reason. Are you better now ethically or character wise since you left in you estimation? I would have no way to know one way or the other. Just asking. You don't have to answer that, but I'm curious.

 

[F1fan]

Did you think about that answer? Is this your honest reply?

Of course. Thanks for checking.

Yes, you are a materialist. Nothing but the material exists for you. Why do you think that?

Oh no, not a materialist!!! Not someone who doesn't assume non-material whatever can't be assumed to exist!!! What are we going to do? Might as well burn me at the stake for not accepting a lot of non-factual religious concepts as you do, right? But I'm a truth seeker, so why would I?

How about you, do you assume non-material whatever exists? If so, based on what? Old religious texts? Just mimicking other religious people without question? If you are going to be critical of others you had better have facts to back up your position, not just arrogance.

Okay, so that's the reason that you think there is nothing but the material world. I can't convince you otherwise, so why try? Hear that @Trailblazer ?

Well if you don;t have evidence to convince me, how did you come to a conclusion that a non-material exists? You are correct, without any evidence you have no argument, yet you believe nonetheless. You should be questioning your own beliefs, not why others follow facts.

 

[F1fan]

I feel that "divine command" is not a good model for ethics altogether because there is no room to question and dismiss bad ethics if they are alleged to come from God. You are stuck with acceptance of it all or leaving the Baha'i or other Abrahamic religion altogether which some people find difficult.

In my view a better system of ethics is one where individual ethics stand or fall on their own merits.

Right. The history of executing people for witchcraft, including burning people alive, was a moral duty by Christians of the 17th century. About 30,000 people were killed in Europe for witchcraft, which adjusted for tooday would be about 420,000 people. Eventually the condemnation of the Christian authorities by more and more citizens for mudering family members resulted in the elimination of the practice.

 

[ppp]

I feel that "divine command" is not a good model for ethics altogether because there is no room to question and dismiss bad ethics if they are alleged to come from God. You are stuck with acceptance of it all or leaving the Baha'i or other Abrahamic religion altogether which some people find difficult.

In my view a better system of ethics is one where individual ethics stand or fall on their own merits.

Yep. The Baha'i literally and explicitly seek World Domination. One more in the queue after Sharia law and Christian Nationalism.

Will we ever be quit of Self-Righteous Overlords?

 

[Truthseeker]

You are correct, without any evidence you have no argument, yet you believe nonetheless. You should be questioning your own beliefs, not why others follow facts.

I cannot convince you, but I've convinced myself with what I consider good evidence, but I recognize you won't be convinced by anything I would say. You would have to convince yourself that the non-material exists by probing reality more than you have.

 

[Truthseeker]

Right. The history of executing people for witchcraft, including burning people alive, was a moral duty by Christians of the 17th century. About 30,000 people were killed in Europe for witchcraft, which adjusted for tooday would be about 420,000 people. Eventually the condemnation of the Christian authorities by more and more citizens for mudering family members resulted in the elimination of the practice.

Remember also the great number of people who died unnecessarily under the Communists of the Soviet Union and Communist China, not to mention Cambodia. And how about he Holocaust under the Nazis? There are atrocities by both religious and non-religious.

 

[ppp]

Remember also the great number of people who died unnecessarily under the Communists of the Soviet Union and Communist China, not to mention Cambodia. And how about he Holocaust under the Nazis? There are atrocities by both religious and non-religious.

And the people who died under the religious governments that preceded them? The words pogrom and ghetto and massacre and slavery and genocide are the products of religious regimes.

I cannot think of a single rebellion rejecting religion that was not in response to the depredations of religion.

 

[danieldemol]

Some people's ethics that come up on their own are pretty bad, don't you think?

Yes, human society is like a bell curve with some wiser, some more foolish and most somewhere in the middle. That is the value of secular justice systems, it safely isolates the foolish outliers at the lower end of the bell curve once they demonstrate they are a source of harm to others.

Yes, it is obvious you think that. I'm thinking that may be why you left the Baha'i faith, because you couldn't accept what you thought was bad ethics. There may have been other reasons. That may not be the reason. Are you better now ethically or character wise since you left in you estimation? I would have no way to know one way or the other. Just asking. You don't have to answer that, but I'm curious.

I'm mostly the same with the exception of no longer being homophobic or opposed to the results of human methods of scientific enquiry. Thanks for asking.

 

[ppp]

but I've convinced myself with what I consider good evidence

that is true of most of he religious. Including the all the other religious people who sau your religion is wrong. Clearly convincing yourself is not evidence they you have a clue as to what you are talking aboute.

 

[F1fan]

Remember also the great number of people who died unnecessarily under the Communists of the Soviet Union and Communist China, not to mention Cambodia. And how about he Holocaust under the Nazis? There are atrocities by both religious and non-religious.

My point is if religions are everything they claims about themselves why are there ANY murders under their rule and authority? Baha'i have their own moral problems with prejudice against gays. Who knows what Baha'i would do to gays if they had total control over society. I read Baha'i insist they wouldn't harm them if they had total power, but frankly we see too many examples of religious people acting as if they have the mandate and authority of God and no test in reality. This is why secular government has been fantastic for human rights over religious authorities.

Rational thinkers can't see much practical use of religion in regards to national and global governing.

I cannot convince you, but I've convinced myself with what I consider good evidence, but I recognize you won't be convinced by anything I would say.

This is the same dilemma for any religious believer, the evidence doesn't convince them, they convince THEMSELVES. Critical thinkers don't convince themselves, they follow evidence to sound conclusions.

You would have to convince yourself that the non-material exists by probing reality more than you have.

Why would I want to fool myself that a non-material exists? Notice you offer no method to "probe reality" so that we mortals can detect an immaterial something. Total nonsese.

To convince myself suggests self-deception, and I have no interest in that. My question to you is why you would rather hold an illusion of truth rather than having an accurate and factual understanding of what is true about how things are?

Is "seeking truth" as your handle suggests really about a dogmatic illusion, which is totally hypocritical? How is fooling the self truth seeking?

 

[CG Didymus]

No no credible evidence at all. You're left being uncertain, so why decide it's true?

How credible are those people from the past that Baha'is claim were manifestations? How many were real, historical people? Even if real, how reliable are the stories about them, what they did and what they said? The Baha'i Faith doesn't even stand by the Scripture stories of those people. And the Baha'is don't support many of the beliefs supposedly taught by those people.

All Baha'is can be certain about is what their prophet said. Which, to me, is like saying, "All these prophets and founders of the past religions were true and real... but many of the things about them and about the things they taught were not real and true."

This is the same dilemma for any religious believer, the evidence doesn't convince them, they convince THEMSELVES. Critical thinkers don't convince themselves, they follow evidence to sound conclusions.

I can see how the "evidence" can be convincing. And I can see how the spiritual and religious teachings can be convincing. Plus, there is becoming a part of a religion community. But, if the Baha'is are correct, that their prophet has brought new teachings, all those other religions are believing and teaching a lot of wrong things. Yet, people become convinced that those things are true.

But then, how do we know that the teachings of the Baha'i Faith are true? The Baha'is might not like how some of us are "investigating" their religion, but that is exactly what we are doing. We are not taking what the Baha'is say or what their writings say as being true without question. But what we are faced with is that it seems like they, the Baha'is, have stopped questioning. They believe and accept all of it. At least they act like they do. So, how unbiased and unprejudiced can their answers be? They have to fall in-line with what their religion teaches.

As with the Baha'i law against gays having sex. It doesn't matter that most in society are okay with them making love to each other. Baha'is, and some people in other religions, have to reject that. Because it goes against "God's" law. A God they can't see or hear or prove. But they "know" this God is real, because a guy claiming to be a manifestation of God said so. How can they know that as an absolute fact? I don't know if they can, but, in a way, they have to convince themselves that it is an absolute fact... that God is real and their prophet was sent by that God, making everything he said the absolute truth.