Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[ppp]

You seem determined to illustrate my point, regarding unhappy westerners. What is the cause of your apparently permanent outrage? Why do you keep erupting in violent emotional upheaval?

KWED is neither proving or illustrating your point, nor erupting in violent emotional upheaval.

But your attempt at gaslighting is adorable.

 

[KWED]

Muslim scholars teach that we have free-will.

Oh, FFS! Of course they do, they have to, because without free will Allah is unjust and unfair, and heaven and hell make no sense.

The point you keep avoiding is that under conditions clearly and unequivocally stated by Allah in the Quran - free will is not possible. It is a problematic contradiction in the Quran. And rather than try and resolve that contradiction by explanation you simply deny there is one.

You insist that atheists are not free to choose, which is the wrong interpretation.

Allah says that he misguides some people so they cannot be guided, sets a seal on their hearts so they cannot believe, and creates some people for hell. That is not my claim - it is what Allah says in the Quran!

Why do you keep repeating one verse continually, while ignoring others?

It is several verses (and also the principle of Qadr). And the point is to show the contradiction. I don't deny that there are verses that imply free will. However, there are also verses that remove free will.
That is the issue you keep avoiding.

How do you explain an atheist who changes their mind?

Allah had not misguided them. Or he had, and then he removed the seal. It's really not a difficult concept.

Simply, it is what you claim it means, and makes no sense.

Don't know what you are referring to here.

You can change your mind if you want to, but while you don't want to "Allah is misguiding you"

*sigh*
Allah does the misguiding first (as stated in the Quran) Then it is impossible to change your mind.

Important question:
Do you think Allah is correct when he states in the Quran that he misguides some people so none can guide them, that sets a seal on some people's hearts so they cannot believe, that he creates some people for hell?
Simple yes or no.

 

[KWED]

You seem determined to illustrate my point, regarding unhappy westerners.

I am perfectly happy. One of my hobbies is engaging in religious debate online. I am enjoying myself here.

What is the cause of your apparently permanent outrage?

You don't seem a very good judge of other people. I am rarely outraged, never mind permanently. I am sometimes perplexed by the stupidity of people. I am not even outraged when people try to defend things like slavery and torture here, because I can understand why they are doing it.

Why do you keep erupting in violent emotional upheaval?

You're just salty because I have a low opinion of your debating abilities - which ironically, you have just illustrated!

 

[muhammad_isa]

Important question:
Do you think Allah is correct..
..
Simple yes or no.

Yes.
G-d is right, and you are wrong.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I am perfectly happy. One of my hobbies is engaging in religious debate online. I am enjoying myself here.

You don't seem a very good judge of other people. I am rarely outraged, never mind permanently. I am sometimes perplexed by the stupidity of people. I am not even outraged when people try to defend things like slavery and torture here, because I can understand why they are doing it.


You're just salty because I have a low opinion of your debating abilities - which ironically, you have just illustrated!

Hurling insults, however much you claim to enjoy doing it, does not constitute debate. Neither does endlessly repeating the same carefully rehearsed arguments. That’s not communication, that’s just yelling.

 

[Trailblazer]

The question is what your Allah would do to people who reject Bahaollah?

I really don't know what God will do, but I guess it will depend upon the reason for the rejection. God alone knows what is in our minds and hearts.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because when that happens, the false message sounds like the truth to them. You could be believing the false message; if you were you just wouldn’t know it.

Hypothetically speaking that's true.

So you now admit it isn’t always their fault?

When did I ever say it was always their fault? One cannot reject something they don't know about.

Then perhaps you should quit making excuses for him about why he refuses to come out of hiding and communicate with each of us in a way that we can recognize and understand.

God does whatever He chooses to do. God is not your short order cook.

 

[CG Didymus]

You want a black and white answer? Wrong.
..in as much as those two are not messengers of G-d.

G-d knows best why they claimed to be.
Lots of people do.

Most of what this thread and most other threads started by Baha'is are about is that they believe God has sent a new messenger. And not just any messenger, Baha'u'llah has ushered in a new cycle of "fulfillment". It would be nice if it is true, but some of us seem to doubt it.

The Baha’i Faith teaches that a new cycle or era began in the middle of the last century. The previous cycle was referred to as the Prophetic Cycle. During this cycle the various religions of the world taught of a time in the future that would see the coming of the day of God when His Kingdom would be ushered in. The new cycle is referred to as the Cycle of Fulfillment or the Cycle of Light. It is a time when the prophecies of old, particularly with regard to the coming of this great new age are to be fulfilled.​

 

[CG Didymus]

This diagram is faulty. Adam and Noah are missed out. Were they not manifesations of your Allah?

And why include Krishna and not the other incarnations of Vishnu? They include Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses from Judaism, so why only Krishna?

 

[Trailblazer]

There is absolutely nothing in that video that substantiates any of his claims to be a messenger of a god, or that any such god exists. It is merely the story of a person's life.

I never said there was any proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. Such a claim cannot be proven as a fact. All we have is the evidence that indicates that He was who He claimed to be, and by looking at that evidence we can all decide whether to believe or disbelieve the claims.

 

[CG Didymus]

I’m sorry if that was your experience. But don’t assume it’s universal. Some people love and respect their parents, and are grateful for the guidance and support they received growing up.

I like Louis Armstrong as much as my granddad did btw. And my son likes Led Zeppelin and The Doors as much as I do. That’s not indoctrination; that’s an inheritance worth more than gold.

Did your Granddad like Led Zeppelin and The Doors? And what did you and your Granddad think of Disco? And do you like your kid's music? Or if you have Grandkids, do you like their music? Especially if it's Rap. Or maybe Black or Death Metal where the singer screams or growls?

But when it comes to religions. Some of us grew up where the religion wasn't lived. It was like a duty or obligation to go through the motions of looking as if they believed. Church on Sunday or even less than that... Maybe only on Christmas and Easter. Some of us then set out to find a spiritual path, rather than follow some "organized" religion.

 

[Tiberius]

I have objective facts about Baha'u'llah, that is what I have. I just posted this video to an atheist on another forum when he said I have no facts. It is only 10 minutes long.

And I don't know how many times I've pointed out to you, no one is disputing the facts about Mr B. He was born in this year. He went to that place. He did those things. He wrote these words. I am not saying that never happened. I am saying that those things are not sufficient evidence that he was a messenger for God.

By posting stuff like this, you are arguing for something that no one has a problem with, while completely ignoring the things that people do have a problem.

You're getting close to a strawman here.

In religion, peer review is an anathema, something that God vehemently dislikes.
Baha'u'llah explained why.

“every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

I have posted this passage to you more than once. Did you even read it and try to understand it?
If you do not read what I post what is the point of having a discussion?
If you read and disagreed with it why can't you respond with a reasoned argument against it?

Religion is against peer review? Of course. Because religion is just subjective opinion and can't withstand peer review.

Anything that is objectively true has nothing to fear from peer review.

But God does not want to remove personal biases, that is what YOU want.
See above passage for what God wants.

So now God thinks that personal biases are GOOD things?

Independent investigation of truth is the method that is used to discover the objective truth of religion.

But since you can never eliminate your personal biases from your opinions if you just go with your own ideas, then you can't claim that your answer is objective, can you?

I do not care about what happens in science because science is different from religion. ANY logical person knows that.

You just ignored my question and changed the subject. That won't work.
You suggested that others should check our work.

AGAIN, should your classmates ‘check your work’ before you hand it in to the teacher?

Yes.

Me: "Excuse me, classmates, I have completed my classwork and wish to hand it in to the teacher. I would appreciate it if you checked it first to make sure that I haven't made any mistakes."

Students: *Checking my work*

Students: "You have made an error here, and you have written the wrong result for this calculation."

Me: "I'm not sure why you think it is wrong. Allow me to show you how I solved it." *Shows my working*

Student: "I think I understand your problem. You have performed the order of operations incorrectly, and so you have achieved an incorrect result. The correct order is like this." *Demonstrates*

Me: "Ah yes, I see where the error was. And when I use the order of operations correctly, I do indeed get the same result as you. Thank you for pointing out the mistake that I made."

You are not going to verify that it is the truth by 'checking' with other people since there is no reason to think that they are any better equipped to determine whether Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God than you would be.

But since they are not likely to share the same biases as you, they are better equipped than you to spot where you might be unintentionally applying those biases.

But that is not the point. The point is that we are all responsible to God for our own beliefs and that means that have to be OUR BELIEFS, not what someone else believes. God tests us to see who will pass the test and recognize Baha'u'llah. The test is ours alone. God will not accept anyone else's answers. That is what the passage above is saying.

".... if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

Your argument relies on me already accepting tat text as legitimately the word of God. I do not. Using it to try to convince me is about as effective as using comic books to prove the existence of Spider-man.

Just what I said.
Tiberius said: And stop with your patronizing, "I'm sorry you can't understand this" attitude. The entire scientific community says you are wrong. What is Peer Review? | Wiley

Trailblazer said: The scientific community does not SAY anything about religion or how to identify a true Messenger of God.

So now you say you know that the scientific community does not SAY anything about religion or how to identify a true Messenger of God.

If the scientific community does not say anything how can the scientific community say I am wrong?

Because the scientific community has, over many years, developed a systematic method of finding truth in a way that can be checked by anyone and which has protocols in place for the elimination of any personal bias that could skew the results.

Your beliefs do not. They invite skewed results. Your beliefs are incapable of producing any reliable results.

I am not mired because I am not stuck. I choose to believe what I believe every day. Every day I meet with new challenges, tests of my faith, and I have to choose whether to keep believing.

Reminds me of the alcoholic who said, "I don't have a problem, I can stop drinking any time I want to."

I never said that the claims of the previous Messengers were wrong, I said that the followers of those religions misinterpreted what those Messengers revealed in scriptures so the followers are wrong.

I wasn't talking about the previous messengers according to Baha'i faith.

I was talking about all the people who have claimed to be prophets.

I am not going to argue over semantics. Special is just a word and it has more than one meaning.

Special: better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=special+means

The Baha'i Faith is indeed different from the usual and it is different than the older religions but that does not mean it is better or greater.

Avoidance.

Only I know what was implied. It was not implied.

Hiding behind wordplay.

Why doesn't my belief that different religions were designed for different ages hold water.
Why would one religion be applicable for all ages and if it was which religion would it be?

Are you telling me that God could not provide one religion that covered everything? Isn't he meant to be the Almighty?

I can provide a list of which religions were relevant for which time periods. Here it is in a diagram.

View attachment 58898

So what are your thoughts about Shintoism? Sikhism? And where's Confucius?

And also, why is there one age that lasted for just 19 years? Why did that age end so quickly when others lasted for millennia?

 

[CG Didymus]

I am not suggesting that people should be persecuted for their beliefs, unless they are breaking the law.

Modern society has already made laws to protect minority religions. But what about religions that have laws, supposedly God's laws, and then punish people for breaking those laws? And some religions had some pretty bad laws. Or laws that lots of people break, like a law about permissible sexual behavior, but they try and keep their behavior a secret?

If society makes those behaviors okay, then what do those religions do? I know there's been a lot of Christian preachers out there condemning modern society and their lack of morality. And then some of those preachers get caught fooling around.

 

[CG Didymus]

So what are your thoughts about Shintoism? Sikhism? And where's Confucius?

And also, why is there one age that lasted for just 19 years? Why did that age end so quickly when others lasted for millennia?

As if the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Incas, the Aztecs etc. didn't have a religion. And most of us call those religions and their Gods myth or false.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I don't know how many times I've pointed out to you, no one is disputing the facts about Mr B. He was born in this year. He went to that place. He did those things. He wrote these words. I am not saying that never happened. I am saying that those things are not sufficient evidence that he was a messenger for God.

Those things are not sufficient evidence for you that He was a Messenger of God, but they are sufficient evidence for those of us who understand the significance of those things and have thus concluded that He was a Messenger of God.

By posting stuff like this, you are arguing for something that no one has a problem with, while completely ignoring the things that people do have a problem.

You're getting close to a strawman here.

No, I posted the video only to demonstrate that I have objective facts about Baha'u'llah. I know what you and others have a problem with; you want some other kind of evidence, verifiable evidence, which would constitute proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger if God. However there is no such evidence.

Religion is against peer review? Of course. Because religion is just subjective opinion and can't withstand peer review.

Anything that is objectively true has nothing to fear from peer review.

You still did not answer my question. I have posted this passage to you more than once. Did you even read it and try to understand it? Instead, you keep insisting on your own agenda of peer review. The quote explains why our belief has to be our own subjective opinion, because we alone are responsible to God for our beliefs.

No, there would be nothing to be feared from peer review but nothing would be gained by peer review. Clearly, peer review does not apply to religion. You are trying to apply something that does not apply. Also, the purpose of peer review is NOT to remove personal biases.

What is the purpose of peer review?

Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.
What is Peer Review? | Wiley
https://authorservices.wiley.com › journal-reviewers › wh...

What is meant by peer review and why is this important?

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. ... The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Oct 24, 2014
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC4975196

Why is it important to have peers review your work?

Managers can use peer reviews as part of a formal review to give them a better picture of an employee's true strengths and weaknesses. ... Peer reviews can also help managers discover hidden talent — the quiet performers who routinely produce exceptional work without recognition.May 26, 2016
Pros and Cons of Peer Review in the Workplace - CAEL
https://www.cael.org › news-and-resources › pros-and-co...

What is one purpose for the peer review process in scientific research?

The purpose of peer review is for other scientists to provide feedback on an article and tell the editor of the publication whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.
Science Test 1 Flashcards | Quizlet

So now God thinks that personal biases are GOOD things?

Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bias+means

No, God does not want our personal biases, but God wants our personal opinions.

Peer review would not remove any personal biases we might have, it would only introduce the biases of other people.

But since you can never eliminate your personal biases from your opinions if you just go with your own ideas, then you can't claim that your answer is objective, can you?

We will all have our own subjective opinions of the objective evidence. That cannot be removed by asking other people for their subjective opinions, all that would accomplish would be to introduce more subjective opinions.

Yes.

Me: "Excuse me, classmates, I have completed my classwork and wish to hand it in to the teacher. I would appreciate it if you checked it first to make sure that I haven't made any mistakes."

Students: *Checking my work*

Students: "You have made an error here, and you have written the wrong result for this calculation."

Me: "I'm not sure why you think it is wrong. Allow me to show you how I solved it." *Shows my working*

Student: "I think I understand your problem. You have performed the order of operations incorrectly, and so you have achieved an incorrect result. The correct order is like this." *Demonstrates*

Me: "Ah yes, I see where the error was. And when I use the order of operations correctly, I do indeed get the same result as you. Thank you for pointing out the mistake that I made."

That would never work in the real world and you know it. I have you backed into a corner and now is the time to admit you are wrong. No college or university would ever operate that way and you know it. Every student is responsible to the teacher for their own homework and test answers, just as every person is responsible for what they decide to believe about the Messenger of God. That is why it is called Independent Investigation of Truth.

You are not going to verify that it is the truth by 'checking' with other people since there is no reason to think that they are any better equipped to determine whether Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God than you would be. At most all they would do is introduce their own biases so nobody would be any closer to discovering the truth.

Your argument relies on me already accepting tat text as legitimately the word of God. I do not. Using it to try to convince me is about as effective as using comic books to prove the existence of Spider-man.

No, my argument does not rely upon accepting what Baha’u’llah wrote as the Word of God, it relies upon logic and common sense. It only makes sense that people would be responsible for their own beliefs because we all have free will to choose what to believe, and we are all accountable to God for our beliefs, so if we tell God that Joe did not believe x so I did not believe x that will not be acceptable to God. God does not want us to have Joe’s belief, God only wants OUR belief.

Because the scientific community has, over many years, developed a systematic method of finding truth in a way that can be checked by anyone and which has protocols in place for the elimination of any personal bias that could skew the results.

Your beliefs do not. They invite skewed results. Your beliefs are incapable of producing any reliable results.

This idea of peer review to decide if a religious belief is true is so absurd that not even atheists would agree with you.

AGAIN, religion is not science and it is the fallacy of false equivalence to try to use the same methods of determining the scientific truth and religious truth. Science can be proven as a fact but religion can never be proven as a fact. Religious truth can only be believed.

I wasn't talking about the previous messengers according to Baha'i faith.

I was talking about all the people who have claimed to be prophets.

Do you mean all the people who have claimed to be Prophets that the Bahai Faith does not recognize as Prophets?

Avoidance.

I have nothing to avoid, you are the one who is avoiding by not responding to what I said.

Hiding behind wordplay.

There is no wordplay. Only I know what was implied because I was the one who thought it and wrote it.

That flew right over your head. It is only because of your ego that you think you know what I implied.

Are you telling me that God could not provide one religion that covered everything? Isn't he meant to be the Almighty?

This has nothing to do with God being Almighty. This has to do with humans and what they need and are able to understand. God reveals religious truth as humans need it and as they are able to understand it, not before.

That is why Jesus said:
John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Humans and the world they live in change over time, and that is one reason God sends a new Messenger in every new age.

So what are your thoughts about Shintoism? Sikhism? And where's Confucius?

And also, why is there one age that lasted for just 19 years? Why did that age end so quickly when others lasted for millennia?

Shintoism and Sikhism were not established by a Messenger of God. Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues but He was not a Messenger of God.

The Bab and Baha’u’llah were the Twin Messengers who were both part of the same age (the same religious cycle). The Bab was the forerunner who came to announce the coming of Bahaullah. The Bab had His own religion (the Babi Faith) for about nine years but His purpose was to bridge the gap between Islam and the Baha’i Faith and to prepare the way for Baha’u’llah.

 

[Kfox]

When did I ever say it was always their fault? One cannot reject something they don't know about.

Post 4948 you said:
Many people have chosen to believe false messages. So what? Whose fault is that?
It is their fault because they choose to believe in the false messages instead of the true messages.

God does whatever He chooses to do. God is not your short order cook.

From my view, what he chooses to do does not sound wise, fair, or just.

 

[Trailblazer]

Post 4948 you said:
Many people have chosen to believe false messages. So what? Whose fault is that?
It is their fault because they choose to believe in the false messages instead of the true messages.

However, I did not say it was always their fault. One cannot reject something they don't know about.

From my view, what he chooses to do does not sound wise, fair, or just.

Do you think that you can know more or be wiser than an all-knowing and all-wise God? That would be logically impossible.

 

[Kfox]

However, I did not say it was always their fault. One cannot reject something they don't know about.

Since most have not heard of your Baha religion, would it be fair to say it is rarely their fault?

Do you think that you can know more or be wiser than an all-knowing and all-wise God?

All knowing, all wise? What makes you think such a being exist?

 

[Trailblazer]

Since most have not heard of your Baha religion, would it be fair to say it is rarely their fault?

That is probably fair to say and it is also fair to say that it is the Baha'i's fault that more people do not know.

"There is so much suffering, such a great and desperate need for a true remedy and the Bahá’ís should realize their sacred obligation is to deliver the Message to their fellowmen at once, and on as large a scale as possible. If they fail to do so, they are really partly responsible for prolonging the agony of humanity."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 18, 1943)

Look at when this letter was written, and here we are in the United States where most people have never even heard of the Baha'i Faith. This is the information age so I don't understand why.

All knowing, all wise? What makes you think such a being exist?

The Writings of Baha'u'llah.

 

[lukethethird]

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?
Magic, obviously.