Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

And how can the 'imaginary' be distinguished from the 'not supported by objective evidence'?

They seem to be the same.

There can be no objective evidence for God, but there is objective evidence for Messengers of God. As I just pointed out in my previous post, there are facts about Baha'u'llah and I consider that objective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

In a court of law, hearsay and spectral evidence are inadmissible.

It is illogical to compare evidence that is admissible in a court of law to evidence that is proof of God.

Sorry, there is no forensic evidence for God, because God is a spirit being.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Only much later did I connect the dots and realize that Baha'u'llah was speaking for God.
It is also very compelling to me that He fulfilled all the Bible prophecies.
.. since you do not even believe that God exists.

It is difficult to know when Bahaollah is talking about himself and when he is talking about Allah. And Bahais say it makes no difference to them.
Prophecies are ancient foolishness.
Show us the proof and we will believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is illogical to compare evidence that is admissible in a court of law to evidence that is proof of God.

If that's how you feel, then why did you?

Sorry, there is no forensic evidence for God, because God is a spirit being.

What practical difference is there between "spirit being" and "imaginary being"?

 

[F1fan]

I claim that the Messengers are evidence that God exists.
No, I am not admitting that I don't know that God exists or that I doubt the Messengers.

When I said "give me one good reason why anyone else would know it" I just wanted to know why @Evangelicalhumanist thought that it would be obvious to everyone that God existed if God existed, as he implied.

You would want others to agree with your conclusion that a God exists since you are only convinced by messengers and their texts. That is available to anyone and they should be equally impressed as you are IF you are being rational and objective. Do you agree?

 

[Trailblazer]

And even that low standard has not been met. But this is not a court of law. it is much more important.And so it requires a higher standard of evidence.

I could not agree more. This is much more important than a court case.
Whether a high standard has been met or not is a personal opinion, but we cannot know that unless we have looked at the evidence.

Baha'u'llah is not the only one making claims. There are also those making claims that what Baha'u'llah said is reliable. There are also those making claims that Baha'u'llah was a messenger from God. And not only Baha'u'llah makes those claims.

I am not making claims, I am only sharing my beliefs. If other Baha'is make claims they should be prepared to back them up but you should not listen to our claims because that is one step further from the Source.

What Baha’u’llah wrote in The Kitáb-i-Íqán (The Book of Certitude) on the very first pages is vitally important. The following is part of the last sentence of a longer paragraph, the part I want to point out and explain.

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth about God and His Prophets for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say or do.

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves. Baha'is call that the independent investigation of truth.

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."

Independent Investigation of Truth

OK, so you are not trying to convince me. So what are you trying to do? Are you trying to convince me that this message deserves a hearing? because even that has not been done. I see a bunch of statements that you say you believe. I see others that you say you know. I see no evidence that either are actually correct. You say the messengers are the evidence, but they seem like very flimsy evidence for a very bold position.

I am not trying to convince you that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God but admittedly I am trying to convince you to give it a fair hearing. I am not sure what book would be most convincing, I can only say what was convincing to me, but I am a very different person. I would have to know more about you and your background (and particularly your religious background, if you have any) in order to know what books or articles or which websites to recommend.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is difficult to know when Bahaollah is talking about himself and when he is talking about Allah. And Bahais say it makes no difference to them.

Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference, but we have to look at the passage in context.

 

[Trailblazer]

What practical difference is there between "spirit being" and "imaginary being"?

The former exists and the latter doesn't.

 

[F1fan]

No, it only shows that atheists think that my thinking doesn't follow the rules of logic. That does not mean that my thinking does not follow the rules of logic.

No, this has nothing to do with "atheist thinking". You are being prejudicial as if being an atheist is bad, and implying wee are wrong for being atheists. This is an ad hominem as you are attacking us as atheists, and not disputing our arguments.

I have seen no believers comment on my logic. This is not about logic. It is about atheists disagreeing with my beliefs and they try to use logic as a smokescreen.

This is deflection and accusatory, but we are using logic. It's not dogma against dogma. It has nothing to do with not liking your beliefs.

How many times have I pointed out the logical fallacies atheists commit? That should tell you the same thing you think I should be able to see,

Countless, but you are seldom are correct in what you think fallacies are.

That the evidence is good enough for me does not mean that I think that my personal beliefs are evidence of anything. There is no logical connection whatsoever. WHAT I BELIEVE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING.

Objectivity doesn't care about your personal beliefs. It's about the quality of evidence, period.

You have it backwards and you are projecting. That it is not good enough for you means that it is not evidence. I never said that it is good enough for me and that means it is evidence. This is not about ME. All Baha’is see the same evidence that I see that indicates to them that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and that is why they are Baha’is.

It doesn't matter how many Baha'i you cite, or Catholics, or Muslims, etc., they will all testify as being convinced their dogma is true. It is all poor evidence because popularity of an idea is not valid. It's about the quality of evidence, and yours is not adequate.

I believe that God exists because of the Messengers, but it is not my belief in Messengers that is evidence of God existing. It is the Messengers who are the evidence! What I believe about the Messenger has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether they were actually Messengers of God or not.

Since you rely on your beliefs as evidence for your argument it means a lot. You offer us nothing more than what you believe is true about messengers. It's all YOUR judgment in question.

It was a straw man because you said that I said that my beliefs are evidence. Nothing could be more ridiculous or untrue. My beliefs are not evidence of anything because no beliefs are evidence of anything.

F1fan said: For example that you think your personal beliefs are good evidence is an example of poor critical thinking.

Trailblazer said: That is a straw man because I do not think that my personal beliefs are evidence of anything, and I have said that many times. What you said just shows you do not listen to what I say, or else you misconstrue it.

That is exactly what you did. You made up something that I was not arguing. You said “you think your personal beliefs are good evidence” but I do not think that my personal beliefs are evidence, as I just explained above. I never said my beliefs are evidence of anything. You misrepresented me and therefore it is a straw man.

We observe you relying on your beliefs as evidence. It's a material facts. You don't have to state this as a claims, we all see you do it. The whole basis of what you argue is what you believe. How often you you declare "God does so and so."? You aren't present fact, but your belief, and your belief is based on what you read from messengers, and you beehive messengers for whatever reason.

I will leave you with this analogy. If I believe that my mechanic is an excellent mechanic is that evidence that he is an excellent mechanic? No, the evidence that would show that he was an excellent mechanic would be that he had performed his work to many people's satisfaction and their cars were repaired correctly and were running well, and that he was reliable and trustworthy and honest.

Correct analogy. You failed to explain how it's relevant.

 

[Trailblazer]

You would want others to agree with your conclusion that a God exists since you are only convinced by messengers and their texts.

No, I do not care if others agree with me. Everyone should do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

That is available to anyone and they should be equally impressed as you are IF you are being rational and objective. Do you agree?

I absolutely do not agree. Of course people are not going to see it the way I do. That would be logically impossible because we all think with a different brain, we are not clones.

Two people can both be rational and objective and come to completely different conclusions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The former exists and the latter doesn't.

So no other practical difference?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Two people can both be rational and objective and come to completely different conclusions.

Both cannot be rational and objective at the same time. One certainly is wrong if the conclusion is different. Then it depends on the evidence that one can provide. Provide evidence that God exists. We will talk about snake oil sellers later.

 

[F1fan]

Real.

But you don't have evidence to demonstrate this, so this answer is imaginary.

 

[ppp]

Who did that?
I am not sure what you are referring to.

The orders were God's. The execution, the ancient Hebrew tribes. The apologists are the assorted believers who claim that the actions were necessarily good because God said so.

 

[ppp]

Yes, it is immoral by our present-day standards of human behavior but people living in those days were not ready to hear that yet, because of the societies they lived in and because they had not progressed spiritually, and that is why it was not revealed in the Bible.

There is nothing that you understand about morality today that Bob in Jerusalem was not capable of understanding 2,000 years ago why did Jesus say the following?

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

What does what Jesus said have to do with the immorality of those actions?

 

[Trailblazer]

No, this has nothing to do with "atheist thinking". You are being prejudicial as if being an atheist is bad, and implying wee are wrong for being atheists. This is an ad hominem as you are attacking us as atheists, and not disputing our arguments.

I said: No, it only shows that atheists think that my thinking doesn't follow the rules of logic. That does not mean that my thinking does not follow the rules of logic.

I was only pointing out that atheists think I am illogical because atheists think similarly to each other. I never said that atheist being an atheist is bad and I never implied that you are wrong for being atheists.

Since you rely on your beliefs as evidence for your argument it means a lot. You offer us nothing more than what you believe is true about messengers. It's all YOUR judgment in question.

No, I am not relying upon my beliefs as evidence, I already explained that. I hold my beliefs because of the evidence and I have presented the evidence that led me to my beliefs many times.

Some time ago I posted the claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah on this thread:

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

It does not MATTER what I believe about the Messengers, as what I believe is not evidence. Everyone has to look at the evidence for themselves and decide what to believe. I explained that to Polymath257 in this post: #1446 Trailblazer

We observe you relying on your beliefs as evidence. It's a material facts. You don't have to state this as a claims, we all see you do it. The whole basis of what you argue is what you believe.

Nobody observes any such thing except you, and you are wrong.

My beliefs are not the evidence, I hold my beliefs because of the evidence.

Of course I argue what I believe but I believe what I believe because of the evidence.

I have explained what I believe the evidence is for Baha'u'llah over and over and over again, and i just explained it to @Polymath257 again today: #1395 Trailblazer

Correct analogy. You failed to explain how it's relevant.

I said: I will leave you with this analogy. If I believe that my mechanic is an excellent mechanic is that evidence that he is an excellent mechanic? No, the evidence that would show that he was an excellent mechanic would be that he had performed his work to many people's satisfaction and their cars were repaired correctly and were running well, and that he was reliable and trustworthy and honest.

If I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God is that evidence that He was a Messenger of God? No, the evidence that would show that He was a Messenger of God would be that He had performed his work for God and that He was reliable and trustworthy and honest.

 

[ppp]

I asked you "What does not true mean to you, that it is unknown between true or false?"

In propositional logic, not true means that the statement has not been established to be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

What does what Jesus said have to do with the immorality of those actions?

Sorry, I left the If off my sentence. More correctly:

IF there is nothing that you understand about morality today that Bob in Jerusalem was not capable of understanding 2,000 years ago why did Jesus say the following?

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Jesus said that He had many things to say (what He would liked to have said) but He did not say them back then because people living back then were not ready to hear what Jesus would have said.

 

[ppp]

I was only pointing out that atheists think I am illogical because atheists think similarly to each other. I never said that atheist being an atheist is bad and I never implied that you are wrong for being atheists.

What makes you think this is atheist thinking? The people who first formalized propositional logic.were rather vocal theists

 

[Trailblazer]

The orders were God's. The execution, the ancient Hebrew tribes. The apologists are the assorted believers who claim that the actions were necessarily good because God said so.

Excuse me while I laugh. I do not believe the OT represents any of God's orders.