Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Trailblazer]

Muslims say Mohammed was the prophet, Mormons say Joseph Smith was the prophet, and you say Baha'u'llah was the prophet, so which one is the true one?..

Muhammad and Baha'u'llah were true Prophets. Smith was a seer but not a Prophet.

 

[CG Didymus]

As Tony said, we have already covered all that before and the Bible is now history, since we now have a new Revelation from God through Baha'u'llah.

No, we don't know that. That is why we question those of you that believe the claims of Baha'u'llah. Was the Jewish Messiah supposed to appear in Persia? We can check and see. But that means we have to look into the Bible. And, it would be nice, to actually listen to what Jews believe about their Messiah. But, if you want to bypass most of that, then I don't see how Baha'is can feel like they've made a thorough investigation of truth.

If what Baha'is say doesn't fully answer a question, or Baha'is have to go through a lot of twists and turns to make something like a prophecy seem fulfilled, then Baha'is can't just say, "they covered it" and move on. When you first brought up Micah 7:14, it sounded rock solid. But it wasn't. Did Baha'is check to see what the other translations said? Or, were they satisfied with KJV? You know we could ask a Jew and get a little more knowledge of what the Hebrews words mean. But no. If a person wants to "teach" people about their religion, there's going to be questions they can't answer and questions they don't want to answer and question that might challenge their beliefs. All the major religions are all around us. They are not in the past.

 

[CG Didymus]

Smith was a seer but not a Prophet.

And why would you believe that? Is it something stated in the Baha'i Faith? If so, what do Baha'is think he saw? The Golden Plates that became the Book of Mormon? If he was a seer, then are his teachings true?

 

[Trailblazer]

According to their followers today and their scriptures, they did - and that is all the actual evidence we have.

According to their followers the Messengers contradicted each other but the followers only believe that because they have misinterpreted their scriptures. You will not find any contradictions in the scriptures although you will find differences. Why would God send a NEW Messenger if He did not have something NEW to say?

All religions were revealed by one God through different Messengers. The reason religions differ is because every age has different requirements. The world we live in today is a much different world than the world that existed back when the Bible was written so humanity needed a new message and new teachings and laws to accommodate the needs of the times, politically, socially and economically. Referring to religions as mighty systems, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings, pp. 287-288

Your evidence for this is... missing.

No, the evidence is not missing because we can well see that the older religions have been corrupted by man, if we look. This is what happens to religions over the course of time, and that is one reason why God reveals a new religion in every age, aside from the fact that humanity needs a new message in every age.

“All that lives, and this includes the religions, have springtime, a time of maturity, of harvest and wintertime. Then religion becomes barren, a lifeless adherence to the letter uninformed by the spirit, and man’s spiritual life declines. When we look at religious history, we see that God has spoken to men precisely at times when they have reached the nadir of their degradation and cultural decadence. Moses came to Israel when it was languishing under the Pharaoh’s yoke, Christ appeared at a time when the Jewish Faith had lost its power and culture of antiquity was in its death those. Muhammad came to a people who lived in barbaric ignorance at the lowest level of culture and into a world in which the former religions had strayed far away from their origins and nearly lost their identity. The Bab addressed Himself to a people who had irretrievably lost their former grandeur and who found themselves in a state of hopeless decadence. Baha’u’llah came to a humanity which was approaching the most critical phase of its history.” (Udo Schaefer, The Light Shineth in Darkness, p. 24)

Again, this is circular, it is not a rational thing to do at all unless I first accept most of your conclusions: that there is a god, there are messengers, and that the old religions have been corrupted. It is not rational at all to somebody who sees no reason to take any religion seriously in the first place.

No, the rational thing to do is not to first accept my conclusions: that there is a God, there are Messengers, and that the old religions have been corrupted. The rational thing to do is investigate for yourself before you accept anything.

And in all that, you totally ignored my question. Here it is again: In what way are they evidence? Where is the objective path from these people (who contradicted each other) to a real god?

Words mean different things to different people. You need to explain what you mean by ‘objective path’ before I can answer your question.

Yes you did, you said "God cannot provide direct objective evidence of His Being..." Look, this isn't difficult, so I've no idea why you keep contradicting yourself. An omnipotent god obviously could provide objective evidence that it was real (by some manipulation of the world or direct communication into our brains, or whatever, the details don't matter).

Again, words mean different things to different people. You need to explain what you mean by ‘objective evidence.’ If what you are referring to is proof of His existence, I already told you that God could provide evidence that would constitute proof to everyone, and I explained why God did not do that. Did you understand what I said in that post?
#3580 Trailblazer, Thursday at 6:31 PM

So god wants us to be irrational because there is no prima facie case that there is any god to search for. I already know this about your version of god.

No, God does not want us to be irrational. It is not irrational to search for evidence that would indicate that God exists. How else are you ever going to know if you do not search?

As I already explained, it's got nothing to do with what I want. I couldn't care less what a god that is hiding does. It's your own description of what it wants, that makes it an evil, trickster, unjust, uncaring monster.

That is just your personal opinion which is derived from to what you think God would do if God was not an evil, trickster, unjust, uncaring monster. That is so obvious. However if you state a personal opinion as an assertion then you need to prove your assertion as otherwise it is a bald assertion.

Basically what it amounts to is if God does not do what I think God should do then God is an evil, trickster, unjust, uncaring monster. In other words, the omnipotent/omniscient God had better hop to and do what I think He should do because know what God should do, provide the KIND of evidence that I expect Him to provide.

Actually people are more complicated than that. Perhaps what I should have said is that your god wants only people who take a superstitious and overly credulous approach to the existence of god. They may be perfectly rational in other respects. Some atheists, of course, may be completely irrational. Lack of belief could be for rational or irrational reasons, or for no reason at all.

There is nothing superstitious about Messengers of God being evidence for God’s existence and in fact it is completely logical, since only a man could communicate to humans and since the Messengers also have a divine nature they can understand communication from God. It is drop dead logical why God sends Messengers who have a twofold nature, both human and divine, to communicate with humans.

What is irrational is to expect an all-knowing and all-wise God to do what you think He should do. Since you could never know more or be wiser than God that is an illogical proposition, but it is the typical atheist proposition – I know what God should have done differently, if God exists.

I have yet, however, in all my experience, to hear a rational reason to take any god seriously (apart from versions of god that are a rather pointless relabelling of something that exists), let alone the bizarre monster you are describing here.

I know psychology as that is my field. You say that God is a bizarre monster because God does not do what you expect Him to do. That is like a small child who says that mommy is a monster because mommy won't give me ice cream.

I was talking about those who have already suffered and died because of people believing what you claim are corrupted messages and persecuting and killing other people for having the 'wrong god'. This would all be the direct result of your god's silly and cruel game of hide-and-seek.

The reason that people have suffered and died is because they did not even follow the scriptures they had. Another reason they have suffered is because they misinterpreted their scriptures, so they have never recognized the Messenger who came after their Messenger of their religion, which has led to division and strife among the religious believers. Believers cling to the Messengers of the past and reject all the Messengers except the one they believe in and that is why they have not recognized Baha’u’llah, who is the Messenger for this new age.

There is no hide-and-seek because God is not hiding. God has clearly revealed Himself in the Peron of the Messengers. It is 100% the fault of humans for not recognizing the Messengers. God is not blameworthy in any way.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, we don't know that. That is why we question those of you that believe the claims of Baha'u'llah. Was the Jewish Messiah supposed to appear in Persia? We can check and see. But that means we have to look into the Bible. And, it would be nice, to actually listen to what Jews believe about their Messiah. But, if you want to bypass most of that, then I don't see how Baha'is can feel like they've made a thorough investigation of truth.

I did not say that "we" know that. However, Baha'is do know that. Why should Bahais consider what Jews believe about their Messiah? It is not THEIR Messiah, they just believe it is. Logic alone tells us that it cannot be THEIR Messiah, since the prophecies on other religions that predict the coming of a Messiah do not say that the Messiah is coming to vindicate the Jews but rather the Messiah is going to be a World Redeemer.

Baha'is have made a thorough investigation of the truth, but that does not require looking at every other religion that was ever revealed. It requires that we look at the Baha'i Faith and determine if it is the truth.

If what Baha'is say doesn't fully answer a question, or Baha'is have to go through a lot of twists and turns to make something like a prophecy seem fulfilled, then Baha'is can't just say, "they covered it" and move on. When you first brought up Micah 7:14, it sounded rock solid. But it wasn't. Did Baha'is check to see what the other translations said? Or, were they satisfied with KJV? You know we could ask a Jew and get a little more knowledge of what the Hebrews words mean. But no. If a person wants to "teach" people about their religion, there's going to be questions they can't answer and questions they don't want to answer and question that might challenge their beliefs.

It does not challenge us in any way because we know what the evidence is that proves that Baha'u'lah was who He claimed to be and it is not Bible prophecies that can be interpreted in so many ways. You want that to be the evidence but it is NOT the evidence.

If you want to waste the rest of your life looking at Bible prophecies because you think that is the WAY to determine if Baha'u'llah as who He claimed to be go right ahead and do that, but this is a completely illogical way to search for truth because it is the road to nowhere since the prophecies can be interpreted in so many ways. It is because there are so many different translations of the same verses and because the verses can be interpreted in so many different ways that they are useless as evidence for Baha'u'llah. The prophecies can only be used as confirmatory evidence after we have looked at all the other evidence....

But you are going to do what you want to do and nobody can stop you. Just don't expect the Baha'is to go along for the ride because that is not a job that Baha'u'llah gave us to do so we are not responsible for it. Our ONLY responsibility is to share the message of Baha'u'llah, period, not to help you figure out if Baha'u'llah fulfilled the Bible prophecies.

All the major religions are all around us. They are not in the past.

They are all around us but their dispensations have been unconditionally abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. According to Baha'i beliefs those older religions will not be around us forever because eventually they will unite, since that is what God has ordained.

“That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician. This, verily, is the truth, and all else naught but error.”
The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 91

 

[CG Didymus]

According to their followers the Messengers contradicted each other but the followers only believe that because they have misinterpreted their scriptures. You will not find any contradictions in the scriptures although you will find differences.

And this is a belief and not a claim I suppose? But still you say things that can be checked out. So let's take a look. Which Hindu Scriptures do you believe have been misinterpreted that Hindus use to support the belief in reincarnation?

 

[Trailblazer]

And why would you believe that? Is it something stated in the Baha'i Faith? If so, what do Baha'is think he saw? The Golden Plates that became the Book of Mormon? If he was a seer, then are his teachings true?

I believe it because of what Shoghi Effendi wrote.

Bahá’í Views of Mormonism

Joseph Smith is not considered by Bahá’ís to be a Manifestation of God or Lesser Prophet:

Regarding your question concerning Joseph Smith and the ‘Book of Mormon’; as the Bahá’í Teachings quite clearly outline the succession of Prophets from the day of Christ as being Muhammad. the Báb, and finally Bahá’u’lláh, it is obvious that Joseph Smith is not a Manifestation of God. (Bahá'í News416 [Nov. 1965]: 15)

Regarding your questions: we cannot possibly add names of people we (or anyone else) think might be Lesser Prophets to those found in the Qur’án, the Bible and our own Scriptures. For only these can we consider authentic Books. Therefore, Joseph Smith is not in our eyes a Prophet. (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to individual, 13 March 1950)

Joseph Smith we do not consider a Prophet, minor or otherwise. Certainly no reference he made could have foretold the Coming of this Revelation in his capacity as a Prophet. (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual, 21 Feb. 1942)

Smith may, however, have been a “seer”—someone of unusual spiritual insight—who was attuned to the spiritual currents of the time. Ramona Brown records in her notes that Shoghi Effendi remarked, “Joseph Smith was a seer, not a Prophet of God, neither major nor minor Prophet.” The Universal House of Justice writes of Joseph Smith that “he was a religious teacher sensitive to the spiritual currents flowing in the early 19th century” (from a letter written on its behalf, 7 Feb. 1977).

The Book of Mormon is not considered an authentic revealed scripture. Its supposed historicity is, according to Shoghi Effendi, “a matter for historians to pass upon” (High Endeavours 71).

Mormonism and the Bahá’í Faith

 

[Trailblazer]

And this is a belief and not a claim I suppose? But still you say things that can be checked out. So let's take a look. Which Hindu Scriptures do you believe have been misinterpreted that Hindus use to support the belief in reincarnation?

It is your job to check that out if you care to know about it. Hinduism is not my religion and I don't know any of the Hindu Scriptures.

 

[CG Didymus]

I did not say that "we" know that. However, Baha'is do know that. Why should Bahais consider what Jews believe about their Messiah? It is not THEIR Messiah, they just believe it is. Logic alone tells us that it cannot be THEIR Messiah, since the prophecies on other religions that predict the coming of a Messiah do not say that the Messiah is coming to vindicate the Jews but rather the Messiah is going to be a World Redeemer.

Baha'is have made a thorough investigation of the truth, but that does not require looking at every other religion that was ever revealed. It requires that we look at the Baha'i Faith and determine if it is the truth.

It does not challenge us in any way because we know what the evidence is that proves that Baha'u'lah was who He claimed to be and it is not Bible prophecies that can be interpreted in so many ways. You want that to be the evidence but it is NOT the evidence.

If you want to waste the rest of your life looking at Bible prophecies because you think that is the WAY to determine if Baha'u'llah as who He claimed to be go right ahead and do that, but this is a completely illogical way to search for truth because it is the road to nowhere since the prophecies can be interpreted in so many ways. It is because there are so many different translations of the same verses and because the verses can be interpreted in so many different ways that they are useless as evidence for Baha'u'llah. The prophecies can only be used as confirmatory evidence after we have looked at all the other evidence....

But you are going to do what you want to do and nobody can stop you. Just don't expect the Baha'is to go along for the ride because that is not a job that Baha'u'llah gave us to do so we are not responsible for it. Our ONLY responsibility is to share the message of Baha'u'llah, period, not to help you figure out if Baha'u'llah fulfilled the Bible prophecies.

They are all around us but their dispensations have been unconditionally abrogated by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. According to Baha'i beliefs those older religions will not be around us forever because eventually they will unite, since that is what God has ordained.

“That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician. This, verily, is the truth, and all else naught but error.”
The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 91

Strange attitude. You say all the prophecies have been fulfilled. You say that each religion was part of a progression. You say that all religions had a messenger that was sent by the one true God. So how would we verify all of that without looking to see what the different religions believed and taught?

They all believed and taught very different things. Baha'is wiggle out of that by saying that the followers added things in and misinterpreted things. Well, we can check and see if that's true. And, unless you know different, it seems like the followers of all the old religions did more then add things in, it looks like they made up everything about the religion. But I can see why some Baha'is, you especially, don't want to talk about the past religions, because they don't support your beliefs. They are all different. Some have very different concepts of God and the after life.

So you're right to just ignore them as much as possible. But then don't go around saying/claiming that Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions. That's another thing you can never prove... Along with God, and that Baha'u'llah was a manifestation of God. Why not try his writings on how to make the world better? What's the plan? And how are Baha'is going to put it into action?

 

[CG Didymus]

we now have a new Revelation from God through Baha'u'llah.

Do we "know" that we have a new revelation from God? I don't. So I said...

No, we don't know that. That is why we question those of you that believe the claims of Baha'u'llah.

I did not say that "we" know that. However, Baha'is do know that.

Yes, Baha'is believe that, so that means they "know" it as a fact? Or as a "belief" that they think is true? Either way, some of us expect some answers and reasons why you believe that. No, and not because people said he had a great character and that he completed some mission from God. And definitely not some vague prophecies that he supposedly fulfilled. So what's left? Oh yes, his predictions. But then you add in predictions by his son and grand son. Are there predictions of what's happening now. Radical Islam, the rise and fall of Communism. Climate change would be a good one. What about computers and cell phones and the internet. Or, space travel? Or, when the lessor peace would happen? And why Shoghi was wrong when he told a pilgrim by the year 2000? And when is "entry by troops" supposed to happen? At least predictions about the world becoming worse are dead on. But then what's supposed to happen? The world will turn to the Baha'i Faith. Yeah, that would be interesting to hear a little more about. What's that prediction?

 

[Trailblazer]

Strange attitude. You say all the prophecies have been fulfilled. You say that each religion was part of a progression. You say that all religions had a messenger that was sent by the one true God. So how would we verify all of that without looking to see what the different religions believed and taught?

If it is important for you to verify that go ahead and verify it but it is not a necessary to verify that to believe in Baha'u'llah, it just isn't. Baha'u'llah told us what the evidence is.........

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

....... and that is what we are supposed to look at and verify. Baha'u'llah never mentioned verifying any prophecies or trying to figure out how religion progresses. It is because you spend so much time looking at prophecies and looking at other religions that you will never look at the real evidence that establishes the truth of who Baha'u'llah was.

But I can see why some Baha'is, you especially, don't want to talk about the past religions, because they don't support your beliefs. They are all different. Some have very different concepts of God and the after life.

That is not why at all. the reason we don't talk about them is because we have no need to talk about them because we have a NEW religion. We do not need the older religions to support our beliefs, not anymore than any of the older religions need other religions to support their beliefs. All true religions stand on their own merit

So you're right to just ignore them as much as possible. But then don't go around saying/claiming that Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions. That's another thing you can never prove... Along with God, and that Baha'u'llah was a manifestation of God. Why not try his writings on how to make the world better? What's the plan? And how are Baha'is going to put it into action?

I do not need to prove any of that to anyone except myself, and I have already done so.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, Baha'is believe that, so that means they "know" it as a fact? Or as a "belief" that they think is true?

It is a belief that some of us know is true.

Either way, some of us expect some answers and reasons why you believe that.

And I have posted those answers and reasons hundreds of times.

 

[CG Didymus]

the old religions have been corrupted.

Okay, at what point did they get corrupted? Before that they taught the real truth?

According to their followers the Messengers contradicted each other but the followers only believe that because they have misinterpreted their scriptures. You will not find any contradictions in the scriptures although you will find differences.

Okay, which Scriptures of theirs did they misinterpret?

If you want to waste the rest of your life looking at Bible prophecies because you think that is the WAY to determine if Baha'u'llah as who He claimed to be

Why do you keep saying I'm wasting my time or my life? That's a dumb %$& thing to say when it is you that keeps saying that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions. Stop saying that or let's check them out. But, then I can see why you don't want anything to do with prophecies, because every time we do check, the Baha'i interpretation isn't all that good. You got any prophecies that are better than Micah's that you might want to look at? How about the ones for Kalki or Maitreya?

And this is a belief and not a claim I suppose? But still you say things that can be checked out. So let's take a look. Which Hindu Scriptures do you believe have been misinterpreted that Hindus use to support the belief in reincarnation?

It is your job to check that out if you care to know about it. Hinduism is not my religion and I don't know any of the Hindu Scriptures.

It's you that says the people in the religion have misinterpreted their own Scriptures which is the cause of the contradictions between the religions. So you show me. I'm okay with the religions being different and contradictory.

A major contradiction between Hinduism and Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions is reincarnation. What are the Scriptures they use to support their belief in reincarnation? Then, how do you think they are misinterpreting those Scriptures?

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, at what point did they get corrupted? Before that they taught the real truth?

I would not know exactly when they got corrupted and I think it would be different for different religions.

Okay, which Scriptures of theirs did they misinterpret?

Pointing that out would require a book.

Why do you keep saying I'm wasting my time or my life? That's a dumb %$& thing to say when it is you that keeps saying that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions. Stop saying that or let's check them out. But, then I can see why you don't want anything to do with prophecies, because every time we do check, the Baha'i interpretation isn't all that good. You got any prophecies that are better than Micah's that you might want to look at? How about the ones for Kalki or Maitreya?

I am not the one who keeps saying it, you are the one who keeps saying I keep saying it.
I have said it but I don’t keep saying it.

Do you care if Baha’u’llah is who He claimed to be or not? I have been telling you that looking at Bible prophecies is a road that leads nowhere but maybe you think that maybe there is just one prophecy that will do it for you. But then you say that every time we do check, the Baha'i interpretation isn't all that good. So don’t you see how futile this endeavor is?

It's you that says the people in the religion have misinterpreted their own Scriptures which is the cause of the contradictions between the religions. So you show me. I'm okay with the religions being different and contradictory.

Why is it my job to show you just because I believe something? I have explained this to you before but I can show you in a post.

A major contradiction between Hinduism and Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions is reincarnation. What are the Scriptures they use to support their belief in reincarnation? Then, how do you think they are misinterpreting those Scriptures?

I do not know what those scriptures are but I believe that reincarnation is a false belief because it is not supported by the Bible, the Qur’an or the Writings of Baha’u’llah. Not only that, but belief in reincarnation is not supported by logic and common sense because if God is a just and loving God would never expect us to go through life in this world again. We have this one chance to get it right and we are given what we need to get it right. Why should we have another chance?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then the point stands that they can't both be right, and my point also stands that science and religion contradict each other when it comes to why the universe is here. The difference here is that science can be tested by anyone in principle, and results between people can be checked. If I conduct some scientific study, you can point out where I made a mistake, for example. But when it comes to religion, that can't be done.

Maybe science and religion cannot both be right about the creation of the universe since religion involves a God and science does not involve a God but maybe they do not have to be as contradictory as you think. Please bear in mind that the way Baha’u’llah explains the process of creation is not the same as the explanation in Genesis. A theory such as the Big Bang is not entirely ruled out by what Baha’u’llah wrote, becaue it could be part of the process of creation.

“As regards thine assertions about the beginning of creation, this is a matter on which conceptions vary by reason of the divergences in men’s thoughts and opinions. Wert thou to assert that it hath ever existed and shall continue to exist, it would be true; or wert thou to affirm the same concept as is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, no doubt would there be about it, for it hath been revealed by God, the Lord of the worlds. Indeed He was a hidden treasure. This is a station that can never be described nor even alluded to. And in the station of ‘I did wish to make Myself known’, God was, and His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning.

That which hath been in existence had existed before, but not in the form thou seest today. The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet they are different. Thus doth the Great Announcement inform thee about this glorious structure. Such as communicate the generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the irresistible Word of God which is the Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects thereof. Verily thy Lord is the Expounder, the All-Wise.” Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

I agree that the difference here is that science can be tested by anyone in principle, and results between people can be checked but when it comes to religion, that can't be done. Such is the difference between religion and science.

So when we have two contradictory explanations and one of the (religion) is unfalsifiable and the other one (science) is open for all to check, which one do you think is going to come closest to getting it right?

It depends upon what you are checking and whether it is verifiable. How can you check the creation of the universe? All science has is theories and they cannot be proven true anymore than religious beliefs can be proven true.

How could it have any measurable effect on reality if it is, by definition, it cannot be shown to exist.

If I show that X has some measurable effect, then that measurable effect is showing that X exists.

Sure, the measureable effect of X shows that X exists but just because X (souls in the spiritual world) cannot be shown to exist that does not mean they are not having an effect on this world. It is a belief but it could be true or false.

True. but our ability to detect exoplanets is growing better every day.

True, but there are still planets that might exist that have not yet been detected. Do you understand what I am getting at?

And of course, I must point out that if there is some exoplanet that we can't show exists, then that planet has absolutely no affect on us here on Earth at all. It is only by measuring the effect that it has (such as how it affects the light from its home star) that we can determine it exists.

If you are going to claim that the same applies to God, then you are saying that God can't have any effect on us here on Earth. Or anywhere in the observable universe. And the instant God DOES have some measurable effect, then we can show he exists.

No, I do not buy that line of reasoning because science and religion are not the same. All bets are off when it comes to being able to show the effects God us having on Earth because God’s effects are not detectable by any instruments. If God did have a measureable effect and we could prove that God was the cause then we could prove God exists, but since we can never prove that God is the cause of anything we cannot go about proving God exists that way.

So far, there has been nothing that can be shown to be only explainable by God.

I can agree on that because it is logical.

Oh my, are you going to be surprised when you die and realise that there's actually nothing. Oh wait, no you won't, because you won't exist to realise anything.

I would not be so sure. You are free to believe that if you want to but you might just be the one who is caught with your pants down and then what are you going to say? Oops. If there is nothing then I have nothing to lose by believing there is something becauwe I will never know the difference, but the same cannot be said for you.

I am 100% certain there is something even though I cannot prove it, nobody can. It is not that I want there to be something because I have mixed feelings about continuing to exist forever, but it makes sense to be prepared since that is what is what I believe is going to be happen, whether I like it or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you simply believing in spiritual things is not enough to prove that spiritual things exist.

Of course not.

You are welcome to believe that they do, of course, but for this discussion, your mere belief is not sufficient. If you want people to accept that there is a spiritual reality, you must demonstrate it in a way that can be verified by the people you are discussing it with.

I have no vested interest in people accepting that there is a spiritual reality, not unless people are keen on knowing, in which case I might discuss it, but please bear in mind it is not demonstrable by objective means.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is the correct moral decision regarding the use of genetic modification to unborn babies, according the the Baha'i faith based on the writings of Mr B?

The authoritative Baha'i position is represented by this statement from the Universal House of Justice (UHJ). You can read more about it on the link below.

Nothing specific has been found in the Bahá’í writings on genetic engineering. This is therefore a matter on which the House of Justice may have to legislate but the time has not yet come for that. The subject is quite complex, and an informed opinion can be offered only when the scientific understanding is much further advanced than at present and the social implications are clearer. With the emergence of adequate understanding, it will also be opportune to deal with the ethical issues involved. In the meantime, Bahá’ís faced with questions about genetic engineering are free to come to their own conclusions based on their knowledge of the Bahá’í teachings on nature and the purpose of life. However, they should be careful not to make dogmatic statements or offer their own understanding as the teaching of the Faith.

Universal House of Justice, Reproduction and other Biological Subjects, 20 April 1997, to an individual

The House of Justice has not found anything specific in the Bahá’í writings concerning the ethics of genetic engineering on human tissue, including foetal tissue, and on possible means of biologically creating replacement limbs and organs for human beings. It regards it as premature to give consideration to these matters and to their spiritual consequences. For the present, believers confronted with such issues are free to come to their own conclusions, based on their knowledge of the pertinent Bahá’í teachings.

Universal House of Justice, Genetic Engineering, 2000

Genetic Engineering | Bahá’í Quotes

 

[Trailblazer]

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

I love that fallacy but it cuts both ways.
I mean we cannot assert that God exists is true just because it has not been proven false, but we also cannot assert that God exists is false just because it has not been proven that God exists is true.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[firedragon]

Muslims say Mohammed was the prophet, Mormons say Joseph Smith was the prophet, and you say Baha'u'llah was the prophet, so which one is the true one?..

You have to analyse all and see whats reasonable. Without doing anything, if everything is unreasonable to you, that means you are being just bias and dismissive.

 

[firedragon]

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

So whats your argument that there is no Divinity or God? Argument from ignorance or do you have any evidence? Or are you agnostic which means your constancy should be based upon "I dont know"?

Which one?