Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Sheldon]

Maybe that was what God wanted people to do back when the Qur'an was written, but that does not mean it holds true for all time. Revelations from God change over time.

Suggesting a pretty unavoidable inference, from the changing and anachronistic nature of that, alongside claims it is the perfect message, of an infallible omniscient omnipotent deity.

 

[Sheldon]

It's Ockham. And there's nothing to violate, it's a philosophical principle, not a law.

It is often spelled Occam, as is explained HERE from the encyclopaedia Britannica, and I never claimed it was a law. Also one can violate a principle of course, which is precisely what I had indicated had happened.

 

[Trailblazer]

The issue was with their claim to know god exists.

Why does a believer's claim to know bother you?

 

[Trailblazer]

We've been through this before. You did not "independently verify evidence". You read an article by another Baha'i who merely made claims and assertions. You agreed with it because it supports your existing position.

No, that is a straw man because that IS NOT what I have done.

Have you followed me around since I became a Baha'i in 1970 such that you know what I have done to investigate the Baha'i Faith?

 

[Trailblazer]

You have posted no "evidence". The only thing I can remember is some vague and unconvincing "prophesies" which I dealt with at the time. If you have something more, please present it

I posted the claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah on this thread and I have posted it over and over and over and over again since that time.

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

 

[ppp]

Why does a believer's claim to know bother you?

Probably something to do with the fact that the belief systems of so many believers are about World Domination.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you know it's god's revelation if you don't know what it contains? Presumably because someone has told you it is, and you believed them without checking for yourself. Which is the initial problem.

I believe it is because Baha'u'llah wrote that it is.
If I checked it out for myself what good would that do? I am not a Messenger of God so I cannot know what Baha'u'llah knew. I would simply have a personal opinion but my personal opinion is worth jack squat.

That principle contradicts the explicit message in the Quran.

No, you only believe that it contradicts because you do not understand the principle of progressive revelation.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are constantly quoting Bahaulla.

That is not an 'opinion of other people.' It is the Word of God through Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

You don't seem to understand what "independently verifiable" means.

Independently verifiable means objective evidence that can be verified by independent investigation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Incorrect. Science does not support your beliefs because you can demonstrate no evidence for your beliefs.

Incorrect. Science does not support any religious beliefs because religion is not within the purview of science.

 

[Trailblazer]

Probably something to do with the fact that the belief systems of so many believers are about World Domination.

No, I do not think it is that at all.
It bothers atheists when believers say "I know God exists" because they do not think that a believer can know that God exists, but we can know, and that bugs the hell out of some atheists.

 

[ppp]

No, I do not think it is that at all.
It bothers atheists when believers say "I know God exists" because they do not think that a believer can know that God exists, but we can know, and that bugs the hell out of some atheists.

Most of the most terrifying and effective regimes of world domination have been by people who claimed that they knew [ insert God doctrine here]. You're just illustrating my point.

 

[ppp]

Incorrect. Science does not support any religious beliefs because religion is not within the purview of science.

You are sadly mistaken. If your religion claims that there is an event that happens in the natural world, that event is within the realm of methodological naturalism. You are just denying out of habit and truculence, not comprehension.

 

[Trailblazer]

Most of the most terrifying and effective regimes of world domination have been by people who claimed that they knew [ insert God doctrine here]. You're just illustrating my point.

How is that related to knowing that God exists?

 

[Trailblazer]

You are sadly mistaken. If your religion claims that there is an event that happens in the natural world, that event is within the realm of methodological naturalism. You are just denying out of habit and truculence, not comprehension.

I was not referring to claims of events that happen in the natural world. I was referring to beliefs that cannot ever be proven, such as that God exists and sends Messengers

 

[ppp]

How is that related to knowing that God exists?

People certainly think they know and then do things based on that rationally unjustified belief. Like world domination.

 

[ppp]

I was not referring to claims of events that happen in the natural world. I was referring to beliefs that cannot ever be proven, such as that God exists and sends Messengers

Messengers don't exist in the natural world? Interesting. Tell me more.

 

[Trailblazer]

Messengers don't exist in the natural world? Interesting. Tell me more.

They did exist in the natural world but nobody can prove that they were 'Messengers of God.'
That is why it is considered a religious belief and is not within the purview of science.

 

[CG Didymus]

So just to be clear, you don't claim to know god exists. You simply believe god exists and accept that he may not actually exist.

Just to be clear? That would be great to get a clear answer. But it's almost like the answers contradict themselves sometimes.

 

[Sheldon]

religion is not within the purview of science.

Neither are unicorns, mermaids, wizardry, or Santa Claus, The inference is manifest.