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

[Sheldon]

Completely random question for anyone who doesn't believe in God. What WOULD it take for you to believe in his existence? Just a thought I had today.

A demonstration of sufficient objective evidence.

 

[CG Didymus]

So what? Why does it matter what we call it? I do not believe it is BS, I believe it is metaphors.

So what? As if it is of little importance? If Jesus "transfigured" and then Moses and Elijah appeared... and a voice, presumably God's... spoke, then that's pretty important. Jesus could appear, like the way he appeared to Paul, and God's voice could speak out, and that would be at least some evidence. But no, Baha'is destroy this "evidence". If the transfiguration, the voice of God, the casting out of a demon and being able to move real mountains are all metaphors, then we have nothing. It might as well be BS. And I still think all of it, except the moving a mountain, if not true, is BS, and not metaphorical.

I'm good with moving the mountain being symbolic, but the rest? No, the writer is reporting an event that supposedly really happened. I agree... It's very unlikely that such things really did happen. But in those days. Heck ya, things like that were probably believed. And people today even believe it... especially casting out demons. There's just too many things in the gospel stories that Baha'is have to make "metaphorical". I don' think so. Made up fiction? Sure, I'll go with that. But, since I believe they told the stories as if they truly happened, then that makes it BS.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you're saying you know a thing then you're claiming that thing is a fact.

Everything people know is not known by everyone else, so it cannot be considered a fact.
A person can be aware of the truth of something, be convinced or certain that it is true.
There are different ways of knowing.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

 

[CG Didymus]

J Warner Wallace makes very compelling arguments if you want to see for yourself. He is a primary source for me at the moment, not the only one, but a primary because he was atheist till 35 then converted because the evidence led him to the inference that the Bible was true.

Well, that doesn't help with debating Baha'is. Lots of things in the Bible become symbolic. The creation story and the flood are easy ones. But then they do it with Jesus. The main one there is that he didn't physically rise from the dead... he "symbolically" rose from the dead. Then if a Christian believes in the Trinity, then that's even further away from what the Baha'i Faith claims is true. So Baha'is have their own set of "inferences" that build their case that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ.

 

[CG Didymus]

Metaphor is often a word people use not to refer to an actual metaphor, a symbolic substitution, but for errors that they don't want to call that.

Baha'is can sort of pick and choose what they take as metaphor. If I was as Baha'i, I'd pretty much have to make every miraculous thing in the Bible metaphorical. Did Samson's strength come from him having long hair? Did Jonah get swallowed by a big fish? Did Moses' cane turn into a snake? Did Jesus walk on water? But I'm not a Baha'i. I don't have to make those stories metaphors. To me, calling them fictional, mythical is good enough. But I think the meaning and the impact of taking the Bible stories as literally true is lost.

But, by making the stories metaphorical, the Baha'is accomplish the same thing. The literal meaning is lost, but for them, a more important symbolic, spiritual meaning is gained. Plus, the added bonus of not having to call the Bible stories as being errors, but, instead, as being "symbolically" true, just not "literally" true.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what? As if it is of little importance? If Jesus "transfigured" and then Moses and Elijah appeared... and a voice, presumably God's... spoke, then that's pretty important. Jesus could appear, like the way he appeared to Paul, and God's voice could speak out, and that would be at least some evidence. But no, Baha'is destroy this "evidence". If the transfiguration, the voice of God, the casting out of a demon and being able to move real mountains are all metaphors, then we have nothing. It might as well be BS. And I still think all of it, except the moving a mountain, if not true, is BS, and not metaphorical.

Baha'is destroy the evidence? How do we do that? If you want to believe that Jesus could appear, like the way he appeared to Paul, and God's voice could speak out you are free to choose to believe that but I would not consider it to be evidence of God because those Bible stories are just stories that men wrote and they can never be verified to be true.

I'm good with moving the mountain being symbolic, but the rest? No, the writer is reporting an event that supposedly really happened. I agree... It's very unlikely that such things really did happen. But in those days. Heck ya, things like that were probably believed. And people today even believe it... especially casting out demons. There's just too many things in the gospel stories that Baha'is have to make "metaphorical". I don' think so. Made up fiction? Sure, I'll go with that. But, since I believe they told the stories as if they truly happened, then that makes it BS.

I do not know why you think that Baha's MAKE everything metaphorical just because we believe that some stories in the Bible such as Adam and Eve and the resurrection stories are metaphorical. The rest of the stories are up for grabs and some Baha'is might believe that things like the transfiguration really happened.

It might be considered BS if the writers knew they were telling fictional stories but we cannot know that was the case. Moreover, they were written for an audience that lived thousands of years ago, so maybe that is why they were written as if they really happened, since people living back them needed to believe they really happened in order to have faith in God and Jesus.

Now in this modern age the stories seem ridiculous to many people but that is one reason God sent a new Messenger, to clear things like that up. Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha did not explain everything in the Bible, they left it up for people to use their own minds to figure it out, if it was something that mattered to them. God did not send Baha'u'llah to explain the Bible, He sent Him to bring a NEW Revelation and Baha'u'llah made it clear that God wants us to look at the NEW Revelation, not what was revealed in the past.

“Our purpose is to show that should the loved ones of God sanctify their hearts and their ears from the vain sayings that were uttered aforetime, and turn with their inmost souls to Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation, and to whatsoever things He hath manifested, such behavior would be regarded as highly meritorious in the sight of God…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 172

 

[David Weaver]

Well, that doesn't help with debating Baha'is. Lots of things in the Bible become symbolic. The creation story and the flood are easy ones. But then they do it with Jesus. The main one there is that he didn't physically rise from the dead... he "symbolically" rose from the dead. Then if a Christian believes in the Trinity, then that's even further away from what the Baha'i Faith claims is true. So Baha'is have their own set of "inferences" that build their case that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ.

They can present anything they like. Based on what I've seen much of their debates are based on the gleanings. What I think is going to make what I'm trying to do a stronger argument is that I'm going to present the foundation of my case (once I'm done with the research) without using the bible as a reference. I will present my findings and people can take it or not, their belief or disbelief doesn't affect mine. I have confidence in my convictions...even if I don't have all the answers

 

[Tiberius]

No, I do not think that.

So you DON'T think that it would be damaging to the validity of Christianity if the line was meant literally? Given that you've insisted very loudly many times that the line MUST be meant metaphorically only, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Either that or you do not actually understand what I'm trying to say here.

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not know why you think that Baha's MAKE everything metaphorical just because we believe that some stories in the Bible such as Adam and Eve and the resurrection stories are metaphorical. The rest of the stories are up for grabs and some Baha'is might believe that things like the transfiguration really happened.

Do they? Parting of the seas? Manna from heaven? The plagues against Egypt? Jesus turning water into wine? Healing people with leprosy? Raising people from the dead? Walking on water and having Peter join him? To me, great religious stories. But, if the stories are based on a real event, then I'd say that the writers, who we both agree were not the manifestation and, in many cases not eyewitnesses, embellished the story with some supernatural thing to make it seem like God had been involved.

 

[CG Didymus]

They can present anything they like. Based on what I've seen much of their debates are based on the gleanings. What I think is going to make what I'm trying to do a stronger argument is that I'm going to present the foundation of my case (once I'm done with the research) without using the bible as a reference. I will present my findings and people can take it or not, their belief or disbelief doesn't affect mine. I have confidence in my convictions...even if I don't have all the answers

Sounds great.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do they? Parting of the seas? Manna from heaven? The plagues against Egypt? Jesus turning water into wine? Healing people with leprosy? Raising people from the dead? Walking on water and having Peter join him? To me, great religious stories. But, if the stories are based on a real event, then I'd say that the writers, who we both agree were not the manifestation and, in many cases not eyewitnesses, embellished the story with some supernatural thing to make it seem like God had been involved.

There is no way to know why the writers wrote the stories as they did.

 

[samtonga43]

It is fundamentally impossible to have objective evidence for a God that is not an objective reality.

I've been looking through past posts in this thread, and my eye fell upon this.
Your faith doesn't teach that God is an objective reality?

 

[Trailblazer]

I've been looking through past posts in this thread, and my eye fell upon this.
Your faith doesn't teach that God is an objective reality?

Good catch....
I changed my mind after reading this definition of objective. God is an objective reality because God actually exists in reality.
Objective evidence of God would be the Messengers of God since they actually existed in reality.

 

[David Weaver]

Great, and so how do you think we can objectively verify God's existence?

Cosmology
Biology
Physics to start

 

[Trailblazer]

Cosmology
Biology
Physics to start

Can you explain how we can objectively verify God's existence by these means?

 

[David Weaver]

Can you explain how we can objectively verify God's existence by these means?

Only a very small part at the moment but I'm working on it. I have to put the whole picture together

 

[David Weaver]

Can you explain how we can objectively verify God's existence by these means?

It's a process much like building a court case. Present the evidence with the very laws they hold to but show that together their collective beliefs actually point back to an intelligent creator...God...as the most likely suspect

 

[David Weaver]

I thought about posting as I went, but it would feel broken. The information begins to make more sense together but it's a TON of research. There's a lot of days that I get home from work and do research till I go to bed

 

[David Weaver]

And I will admit up until probably a year ago maybe 2 I was the Christian that made all of you atheists think we were a joke because I did not live a Christian life. It was when this information came across my path that that changed because I saw the bible with a different perspective

 

[SkepticThinker]

Everything people know is not known by everyone else, so it cannot be considered a fact.
A person can be aware of the truth of something, be convinced or certain that it is true.
There are different ways of knowing.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

I'm tired of the semantic games.

If you say you know something, you are saying you know it to be true and you are making a knowledge claim.
Otherwise, why say you "know" a thing, if you're not claiming it to be true and part of reality?