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

[samtonga43]

That is all you do on this forum...

Just because you feel someone is ‘out to get you’ doesn’t make you correct.

Everyone can see it because the evidence is plastered all over this forum and in your Profile

.
Plastered? Evidence please, of this ‘plastering’. I post on a couple of threads in this forum. Why do you describe this as ‘plastering’? It couldn’t be the logical fallacy of Appeal to Extremes, could it? What do you think?
Appeal to Extremes
Tb, I do not have the amount of time at my disposal that you have. I have a busy life away from my computer. In my spare time I post on several other forums and on a couple of threads here.

The hundred-dollar question is why you have been obsessed with me and my beliefs for almost a year now

.
Obsessed?? Do you have a persecution complex, Tb? How many times do I have to tell you that I am interested in what you have to say, and how you say it. You are the very last person I would ever obsess over. Now, that wasn’t really worth a hundred dollars, was it?

But it is not illogical just because you believe it is illogical.

Well, of course not. Duh! A 5-year-old could have worked that one out.

It is not illogical unless you can prove I committed logical fallacies. You have not done so

Yes, I have. You are like a child who puts his hand over his eyes and says, “Ha! I can’t see!”

Yet you cannot EXPLAIN why my conclusion is not based on logical thinking. It should be easy peasy for you to explain if you have an explanation..

I have explained, as have others. It is not difficult.

And you believe that my thinking is illogical, but that does not mean it is illogical

.
You are absolutely correct, Tb.
Actually, I’m not the only one who believes that your thinking is illogical.

Why would it matter what a few other people believe? What would that prove?

.
It would prove nothing. But it would probably indicate that I’m not a lone voice in this wilderness. If I saw that I was ‘a lone voice’ I would hopefully think again about the content of my posts. Yes, I think this would be the intelligent thing to do.

All the Baha'is would believe that my thinking is logical. Does that prove it is logical?

.
Of course not.
(Can I ask about “All the Baha'is”…. Do you mean every Baha'I in the world? If not, who do you mean?)

No, what many people believe does not prove anything at all, so why do you keep bringing up what a few atheists believe?

I am not trying to prove anything.

Now, let's look at your beliefs, and you tell me why they are logical.
This is the Tu Quoque fallacy. Your suggestion that we look at the logical aspects of my beliefs has no value in establishing the truth or falsehood of your beliefs. This is really very basic, Tb.
If you wish to discuss the Trinity, start a new thread

The atheists on this thread don't know what you believe, but I do. You are a Trinitarian Christian.

This looks like a claim to me. How do you know that the atheists on this thread (all atheists on this thread?) don’t know what I believe?

 

[Trailblazer]

Just because you feel someone is ‘out to get you’ doesn’t make you correct.
.
Plastered? Evidence please, of this ‘plastering’. I post on a couple of threads in this forum. Why do you describe this as ‘plastering’? It couldn’t be the logical fallacy of Appeal to Extremes, could it? What do you think?
Appeal to Extremes
Tb, I do not have the amount of time at my disposal that you have. I have a busy life away from my computer. In my spare time I post on several other forums and on a couple of threads here.
.
Obsessed?? Do you have a persecution complex, Tb? How many times do I have to tell you that I am interested in what you have to say, and how you say it. You are the very last person I would ever obsess over. Now, that wasn’t really worth a hundred dollars, was it?

Well, of course not. Duh! A 5-year-old could have worked that one out.

Yes, I have. You are like a child who puts his hand over his eyes and says, “Ha! I can’t see!”

I have explained, as have others. It is not difficult.
.
You are absolutely correct, Tb.
Actually, I’m not the only one who believes that your thinking is illogical.
.
It would prove nothing. But it would probably indicate that I’m not a lone voice in this wilderness. If I saw that I was ‘a lone voice’ I would hopefully think again about the content of my posts. Yes, I think this would be the intelligent thing to do.
.
Of course not.
(Can I ask about “All the Baha'is”…. Do you mean every Baha'I in the world? If not, who do you mean?)

I am not trying to prove anything.

For your own sake I suggest that you stop chasing me around from thread to thread and criticizing me.
You only make yourself look foolish and childish to the good people on this forum, would you but know it.

I don't even waste my time reading these posts anymore.

I don't ever wonder why people like you act this way, because Baha'u'lalh explained it well enough.

44. O Companion of My Throne!
Hear no evil, and see no evil, abase not thyself, neither sigh and weep. Speak no evil, that thou mayest not hear it spoken unto thee, and magnify not the faults of others that thine own faults may not appear great; and wish not the abasement of anyone, that thine own abasement be not exposed. Live then the days of thy life, that are less than a fleeting moment, with thy mind stainless, thy heart unsullied, thy thoughts pure, and thy nature sanctified, so that, free and content, thou mayest put away this mortal frame, and repair unto the mystic paradise and abide in the eternal kingdom forevermore.

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh

 

[samtonga43]

For your own sake I suggest that you stop chasing me around from thread to thread and criticizing me

.
Please show me which threads I am following you from and to. If you cannot do this, please stop with the lies.
I am criticizing your many logical errors, Tb. You are not your logical errors.
Therefore I am not criticizing you.

You only make yourself look foolish and childish to the good people on this forum, would you but know it

.
Another fallacy! This one is known as ‘ad ignorantiam’.
I hear from several of the good people on this forum that I am looking far from foolish and childish.

I don't even waste my time reading these posts anymore

That’s OK. I don’t mind at all. And I do understand why it may be easier for you to ignore my opinions. However, I will continue to respond to your posts. I may just help someone else to develop her/his logical reasoning skills!

Have you started that Trinity Thread yet?

 

[Trailblazer]

However, I will continue to respond to your posts. I may just help someone else to develop her/his logical reasoning skills!

I know, because you cannot give up your obsession with me and what I believe.
Since you are not saying anything logical, THAT cannot be the reason.

 

[samtonga43]

I know, because you cannot give up your obsession with me and what I believe.
Since you are not saying anything logical, THAT cannot be the reason.

You misunderstand. By pointing out the logical errors I see in your posts, I will hopefully help someone else.
Once again, I am not interested in you and what you believe. I am interested in how you express your belief.

 

[Tiberius]

Only if you think that answered prayers are the only way to distinguish between God and no God.

It doesn't have to be the only way. But if praying when God exists and praying when God doesn't exist both yield the same results, then there's not really any point praying, is there? You could pray to your toaster and get the exact same results.

On second thought I am changing my answer to no, since removing personal biases of one individual so they do not influence the results of a study is not the purpose of peer review according to all the articles I read. Can you find anything that says that is the purpose of peer review?

Peer review has several different purposes.

One of them is to determine the validity of a study. If a researcher conducting a study is biased, they may decide to discount results that are particularly unfavorable. Peer review will lead to the peers saying, "Hey, you had no good reason to excluded these data, and when they are included, your conclusion shows something different." That is how peer review eliminates bias.

You really don't understand science.

 

[Tiberius]

It happened because many religious leaders aspired to power and control and people had free will to choose to make it happen.

Ah, so religion has been used to perform horrific acts because the leaders saw religion as a tool they could use to control others, and the people were too lazy to do a thorough investigation and just believed the first religion that had any kind of weak justification, is that it?

You said yes, you are asking why anyone should believe the Baha’i Faith is true if the claim of Baha’u’llah to have received a message from God cannot be proven to be true.

I cannot say what other people ‘should believe.’ That is their own choice. I can only offer my opinion of what I consider reasonable. I think it is reasonable to believe the Baha’i Faith is true even if the claim of Baha’u’llah to have received a message from God cannot be proven to be true. I think it is reasonable because the evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was making a true claim. I think it is unreasonable to expect to be able to prove (verify) His claim to have received a message from God since the nature of the claim is unverifiable. Try to think about why such a claim can never be verified.

Yeah, people of all different beliefs say the same thing about their faith. Once again, your religion is just the same as all the others.

The nature of the claim makes it unverifiable and as such it can never be proven as a fact. It can only be believed to be true.

So would you stop saying you have PROVED it to yourself? Because what you said here proves you CAN'T prove it to yourself. You haven't proved it to yourself, you just convinced yourself that it's true.

That is all I have, my own interpretation of the evidence, and what my interpretation of the evidence means to me is that it is true. I never said I am infallible, no human is infallible.

Then, you haven't PROVED it to yourself, because proof requires that all doubt be removed, and since you admit you are infallible and since you also admit that you can't share your so-called "proof" with anyone else, your "proof" to yourself that Baha'i is correct could be fallible, and you have no way at all to tell!

Why would I need an excuse for choosing not comparing Baha’i to other religions before I became a Baha’i?

Well, you tell me. How do I tell the difference between a person who looked at no religions other than Baha'i and decided it was true because it really was true, and someone who looked at no religions other than Baha'i and decided it was true because they figured, "Meh, this one's good enough."

I already explained the reason why I did not compare Baha’i to other religions. I was not looking for a religion at that time, I just stumbled upon it. If I did not even want a religion, why would I compare Baha’i to other religions?

It doesn't matter what you want. The instant you started to BELIEVE, you should have checked other religions. Since you did not, your views were biased dramatically.

I could have compared Baha’i to Christianity but it would not have made any difference because I would have picked Baha’i.

But since you didn't make such a comparison, we'll never actually KNOW that you would have chosen Bahai anyway.

That analogy works. Let’s say that I was not looking for a car but I just happened to see a For Sale sign on a really cool car and I wanted to buy that car even though I did not need a car at that time. That is what happened to me. I was not looking for a religion and I did not need a religion but I just happened to hear about the Baha’i Faith and I thought it was a really cool religion so I wanted to join it, after I did my due diligence and read all about it.

Perhaps, and that's fine.

But don't expect to be able to go around and say, "My car is the best car ever made," and not expect people to say, "How the hell would you know?"

I think they would be gullible to believe in something with no actual real world evidence for that thing.

And what about if there are different explanations for something, and they all have the same amount of realm world evidence. If you believe that some of those explanations are wrong, shouldn't you believe that any explanation with an equivalent amount of real world evidence is also wrong? Or at the very least, that we can't say that any of these explanations is true?

It might, but it depends upon the test.

I fail to see how this is the best answer you can provide, since they are your tests.

It could have happened by itself but I don’t think it is a mere coincidence that every time I pray for posts to subside they do, and when I don’t pray for that I get 20 or more posts overnight!

Have you kept records of this? Or are you just going by memory?

God does answer prayers but only at His discretion.

My toaster does the same thing!

Often people are healed of diseases and injuries after they said prayers for healing. There are many instances of a disease that was cured or an injury nobody ever thought would heal, but it did, against all odds.

Given that such miraculous recoveries happen far more rarely than people pray for them, I don't see how you can attribute it to prayer. And what about all those people who pray to regrow limbs that have been cut off? That NEVER happens.

I think it is you who does not understand how peer review works. Its purpose is not to remove personal biases. Find me one article that says that is what peer review is used for.

Types of Peer Review | Wiley

Double blind review
In this type of peer review the reviewers don't know the identity of authors, and vice versa. This is the most common form of peer review amongst social science and humanities journals.

Pros

Research is judged fairly, keeping bias out of the equation​

That reminds me of what happened to me about six years ago. I always used a desktop computer and I had never used a laptop. In fact, I had purchased a new laptop when we moved but I never even took it out of the box for five years! Then push came to shove when my desktop got a bad virus so I had to use the laptop, and after that I never wanted to go back to using the desktop, even though it was all rebuilt and has a larger monitor and more RAM and disk space. I also fought going from Windows 98 to Windows 7 but after I got Windows 7 I liked it a lot better than Windows 98.

Recently I was reluctant to switch to Windows 10 but I got another laptop because my old one was on the blink and the laptop I found had Windows 10, and that made more sense since Windows 7 is no longer supported by Microsoft. I was already familiar with Windows 10 since that is what I use for my job so it was not that bad switching over. I type so much that most of the keys on both my older laptops were worn off so I had to put labels on them, but this new used laptop has a lighted keyboard and that is a great feature. I cannot believe I kept using that old laptop until one day I could not even get on the internet because Firefox was not working. I keep it for backup because it works off and on but the computer technician said there is something wrong with it. No kidding! Now that I have another laptop I know it is not normal for a laptop to make a cycling noise constantly and heat up like a stove! It is funny how we often put up with things until we can no longer tolerate them!

I feel that way about my house but it makes more sense to fix what is wrong rather than sell and buy another house. I have three houses so I could move into one of the others if there were no tenants there but finally after many years of bad tenants I have good long-term tenants in both houses so it makes sense to keep them.

So you were reluctant to switch to a laptop and found you preferred it, you were reluctant to switch to using Windows 7 after using Windows 98 and found you preferred it, you were reluctant to switch to Windows 10 after using Windows 7 but found you preferred it...

Can you imagine what you could find if you weren't so reluctant to hold onto your religious beliefs? One day, you might be saying, "I was reluctant to let go of Baha'i and switch to <<insert different belief here>>, but now I find I prefer it!"

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't have to be the only way. But if praying when God exists and praying when God doesn't exist both yield the same results, then there's not really any point praying, is there? You could pray to your toaster and get the exact same results.

But since you do not know (a) that God does not exist or (b) that God will not answer a prayer, it cannot hurt to pray. You know that praying to a toaster won't yield any results so that would be dumber than dumb.

Peer review has several different purposes.

One of them is to determine the validity of a study. If a researcher conducting a study is biased, they may decide to discount results that are particularly unfavorable. Peer review will lead to the peers saying, "Hey, you had no good reason to excluded these data, and when they are included, your conclusion shows something different." That is how peer review eliminates bias.

You really don't understand science.

No, I do not know a lot about science although I know some basic things and I can look up things on the internet.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah, so religion has been used to perform horrific acts because the leaders saw religion as a tool they could use to control others, and the people were too lazy to do a thorough investigation and just believed the first religion that had any kind of weak justification, is that it?

It happened because many religious leaders aspired to power and control and some religious leaders saw religion as a tool they could use to control others, and the most people just stayed with the religion they were raised in and believed it was the true religion.

Yeah, people of all different beliefs say the same thing about their faith. Once again, your religion is just the same as all the others.

No, people of other faiths do not say what I just said about their faith.

You are free to believe it is the same as all the others even though it is markedly different.

So would you stop saying you have PROVED it to yourself? Because what you said here proves you CAN'T prove it to yourself. You haven't proved it to yourself, you just convinced yourself that it's true.

I have proven to myself that it is true by looking at the evidence.
I can prove it to myself but I cannot prove it to anyone else and I cannot prove it as a fact everyone will accept as true.

I did not convince myself, I became convinced that it was true by looking at the evidence.

Then, you haven't PROVED it to yourself, because proof requires that all doubt be removed, and since you admit you are infallible and since you also admit that you can't share your so-called "proof" with anyone else, your "proof" to yourself that Baha'i is correct could be fallible, and you have no way at all to tell!

All doubt was removed because I looked under every rock. I can share the evidence but I cannot make other people see the evidence the way I see it.

I do have a way to tell, but I cannot explain that to you since you do not see the evidence the same way I see it.

Well, you tell me. How do I tell the difference between a person who looked at no religions other than Baha'i and decided it was true because it really was true, and someone who looked at no religions other than Baha'i and decided it was true because they figured, "Meh, this one's good enough."

You seem to think that the fact that I did not look at other religions means that I could have been mistaken about Baha'i, because if I had looked at other religions I might have believed in another religion.

The way I came to be a Baha'i, whether I looked at other religions or did not look at other religions, has NO BEARING upon whether the Baha'i Faith is true or not. As I said before, other Baha'is looked at other religions and still came to the conclusion that the Baha'i Faith was true. The demonstrates that how one goes about determining that the Baha'i Faith is true is unrelated to how many 'other' religions they looked at.

It doesn't matter what you want. The instant you started to BELIEVE, you should have checked other religions. Since you did not, your views were biased dramatically.

Give me one good reason what I 'should have' checked out other religions, when I had zero interest in religion.

You need a course in logic if you think that makes my views biased. Were my views biased towards the house I bought simply because I did not look at any other houses before I bought it?

I am just one Baha'i. Other Baha'is looked at other religions before they chose the Baha'i Faith.

But whatever we did has NO BEARING upon whether the Baha'i Faith is true or not. This is what you do not seem to understand. If the Baha'i Faith is true it does not matter if we never looked at any other religions or if we looked at every religion in the world.

But since you didn't make such a comparison, we'll never actually KNOW that you would have chosen Baha'i anyway.

I do know I would not have picked Christianity over Baha'i because I could never have believed what Christianity teaches.

Perhaps, and that's fine.

But don't expect to be able to go around and say, "My car is the best car ever made," and not expect people to say, "How the hell would you know?"

I do not go around saying that the Baha'i Faith is the best religion ever made. I only ever say I believe it is the religion that God revealed for this age and I believe the religion is true because of the evidence.

How I would know that the Baha'i Faith is true would not be by comparing it with other religions. That is not how independent investigation of a religion works. If I have no reason to look at a religion I am not going to look at it just so I can say I looked at it. If a religion makes no logical sense to me I am not going to waste my time looking at it, and it makes no sense to me to look at a religion that does not have the teachings that humanity need in this age. That eliminates all religions except the Baha'i Faith right off the bat.

And what about if there are different explanations for something, and they all have the same amount of realm world evidence. If you believe that some of those explanations are wrong, shouldn't you believe that any explanation with an equivalent amount of real world evidence is also wrong? Or at the very least, that we can't say that any of these explanations is true?

I would have to know what the 'something' is that I am looking at evidence for in order to answer that question.

I fail to see how this is the best answer you can provide, since they are your tests.

No, they would not be my tests, they would be your tests.

I said: The only tests I know about are the tests of a Prophet I told you about before, but maybe you can devise a test of your own.
You said: And would those tests eliminate a person who is NOT a prophet?
I said: It might, but it depends upon the test.

Have you kept records of this? Or are you just going by memory?

I am going by memory but I have a very good memory.

My toaster does the same thing!

No, your toaster does not answer any prayers, it only makes toast.
By contrast, my God answers prayers at His own discretion.

Given that such miraculous recoveries happen far more rarely than people pray for them, I don't see how you can attribute it to prayer. And what about all those people who pray to regrow limbs that have been cut off? That NEVER happens.

They do happen more rarely than people pray, but that is because God does not answer many of them. People always hope for a miracle but I think that is pretty dumb, given God's track record.

God never answers prayers to regrow limbs and I am not His press secretary so I don't know why. It is probably because that goes against what science can accomplish.

Types of Peer Review | Wiley

Double blind review
In this type of peer review the reviewers don't know the identity of authors, and vice versa. This is the most common form of peer review amongst social science and humanities journals.

Pros

Research is judged fairly, keeping bias out of the equation​

Okay.

So you were reluctant to switch to a laptop and found you preferred it, you were reluctant to switch to using Windows 7 after using Windows 98 and found you preferred it, you were reluctant to switch to Windows 10 after using Windows 7 but found you preferred it...

Can you imagine what you could find if you weren't so reluctant to hold onto your religious beliefs? One day, you might be saying, "I was reluctant to let go of Baha'i and switch to <<insert different belief here>>, but now I find I prefer it!"

No, that will never happen. Please note that those computer changes were upgrades to a new OS but there are no upgrades to Baha'i since it is God's latest OS. Why would I want to go backwards and embrace an ancient religion that was revealed for an ancient time? I would have to be a fool.

 

[Tiberius]

But since you do not know (a) that God does not exist or (b) that God will not answer a prayer, it cannot hurt to pray. You know that praying to a toaster won't yield any results so that would be dumber than dumb.

You don't know that Zeus doesn't exist, so why don't you pray to Zeus?

In any case, my toaster responds to prayers in a way that is completely indistinguishable to the way God responds to prayers. So how is it dumb to pray to my toaster and yet it's not dumb to pray to God when the results are exactly the same?

No, I do not know a lot about science although I know some basic things and I can look up things on the internet.

Then maybe you should stop saying you understand what peer review is for when you clearly don't.

 

[Trailblazer]

You don't know that Zeus doesn't exist, so why don't you pray to Zeus?

I do not believe that Zeus exists, so why would I pray to Zeus?
I believe that God exists so I pray to God.

In any case, my toaster responds to prayers in a way that is completely indistinguishable to the way God responds to prayers. So how is it dumb to pray to my toaster and yet it's not dumb to pray to God when the results are exactly the same?

You do not KNOW that the results are exactly the same because you cannot prove that they are.
In other words, you do not KNOW there are no results from praying to God.
There is no chance that a toaster will respond whereas there is a chance that God will respond.
That is a big difference between God and the toaster.

Then maybe you should stop saying you understand what peer review is for when you clearly don't.

I know only what I read that it says it is for. I did not read everything on the internet.

 

[Tiberius]

It happened because many religious leaders aspired to power and control and some religious leaders saw religion as a tool they could use to control others, and the most people just stayed with the religion they were raised in and believed it was the true religion.

And the religious leaders had a vested interest in gathering as many followers to their religion as possible, didn't they?

No, people of other faiths do not say what I just said about their faith.

You are free to believe it is the same as all the others even though it is markedly different.

Absolute garbage.

People of EVERY SINGLE FAITH say, "I think it is reasonable to believe that my faith is the correct faith because I have seen evidence that indicates to me that the faith I hold is the correct one."

EVERY.

SINGLE.

FAITH.

Like I said, what you have is nothing special.

I have proven to myself that it is true by looking at the evidence.
I can prove it to myself but I cannot prove it to anyone else and I cannot prove it as a fact everyone will accept as true.

I did not convince myself, I became convinced that it was true by looking at the evidence.

Once again, what you did is not proof.

All doubt was removed because I looked under every rock. I can share the evidence but I cannot make other people see the evidence the way I see it.

You can't know that for sure. You may THINK you looked under every rock, but since you are fallible, you could easily have missed something and you'd never know.

I do have a way to tell, but I cannot explain that to you since you do not see the evidence the same way I see it.

You do not have a way to tell for sure.

All you have is a way that satisfies your needs. The fact that I am not satisfied by the reasoning that satisfies you does not mean that I look at the evidence incorrectly.

You seem to think that the fact that I did not look at other religions means that I could have been mistaken about Baha'i, because if I had looked at other religions I might have believed in another religion.

The way I came to be a Baha'i, whether I looked at other religions or did not look at other religions, has NO BEARING upon whether the Baha'i Faith is true or not. As I said before, other Baha'is looked at other religions and still came to the conclusion that the Baha'i Faith was true. The demonstrates that how one goes about determining that the Baha'i Faith is true is unrelated to how many 'other' religions they looked at.

So what?

Lots of people of all different faiths have become followers of the first religion they were seriously exposed to. Why should your story, being virtually identical to literally billions of others, be considered any different?

Give me one good reason what I 'should have' checked out other religions, when I had zero interest in religion.

Because once you decided to become a follower, you no longer had zero interest in religion.

You need a course in logic if you think that makes my views biased. Were my views biased towards the house I bought simply because I did not look at any other houses before I bought it?

Yes.

The instant you say, "Oh, I like the view from the kitchen windows," or "The skirting in the living room is nice," or, "I like that when you turn the hot tap on, it's only a few seconds before the water actually is hot," you have got something that creates some attachment between you and the house, however slight. That attachment will bias you.

I am just one Baha'i. Other Baha'is looked at other religions before they chose the Baha'i Faith.

And how many looked at Baha'i and chose something else?

You are resorting to argument from popularity AGAIN.

But whatever we did has NO BEARING upon whether the Baha'i Faith is true or not. This is what you do not seem to understand. If the Baha'i Faith is true it does not matter if we never looked at any other religions or if we looked at every religion in the world.

And since you are utterly convinced that the Baha'i faith is true, what is there to lose by giving other religious beliefs just as detailed an examination as the one you gave Baha'i? What's the matter, afraid that you'll find something that challenges your beliefs?

I do know I would not have picked Christianity over Baha'i because I could never have believed what Christianity teaches.

And how many Christians out there would say, "Christianity is TRUE, it doesn't matter if it's hard for you to believe."

I do not go around saying that the Baha'i Faith is the best religion ever made. I only ever say I believe it is the religion that God revealed for this age and I believe the religion is true because of the evidence.

Same diff. The question still remains, that you are saying all these things about Baha'i when by your own admission you are almost totally ignorant of any other religion. So when you say that you KNOW for a fact that Bahai is the religion God wants us to follow, I ask you the same question: "How the hell would you know?"

How I would know that the Baha'i Faith is true would not be by comparing it with other religions. That is not how independent investigation of a religion works. If I have no reason to look at a religion I am not going to look at it just so I can say I looked at it. If a religion makes no logical sense to me I am not going to waste my time looking at it, and it makes no sense to me to look at a religion that does not have the teachings that humanity need in this age. That eliminates all religions except the Baha'i Faith right off the bat.

How do you know that no other religion has the teachings that Humanity needs now if you haven't looked at them?

I would have to know what the 'something' is that I am looking at evidence for in order to answer that question.

No you don't.

If people believe A, B, or C, and you believe D, you can't dismiss A, B, and C by saying, "I don't accept A, B, and C because the evidence for them is insufficient for me," when the evidence for D is just as insufficient. That's called having a double standard.

No, they would not be my tests, they would be your tests.

No, they are YOUR tests. You said in post 5262, "The only tests I know about are the tests of a Prophet I told you about before, but maybe you can devise a test of your own."

YOUR tests, TB. Stop trying to avoid responsibility for what you've said.

I said: The only tests I know about are the tests of a Prophet I told you about before, but maybe you can devise a test of your own.
You said: And would those tests eliminate a person who is NOT a prophet?
I said: It might, but it depends upon the test.

See? The tests YOU told me about. The tests YOU proposed.

So where in the world do you get the idea that they are my tests?

I am going by memory but I have a very good memory.

I can almost guarantee that it's not as good as you think.

No, your toaster does not answer any prayers, it only makes toast.
By contrast, my God answers prayers at His own discretion.

My toaster also answers prayers at its own discretion. If you disagree, prove that it doesn't.

They do happen more rarely than people pray, but that is because God does not answer many of them. People always hope for a miracle but I think that is pretty dumb, given God's track record.

Of course, a far more rational explanation is that it's sheer luck.

God never answers prayers to regrow limbs and I am not His press secretary so I don't know why. It is probably because that goes against what science can accomplish.

Because there is no God.

Okay.

Does that mean you'll drop this ridiculous claim that peer review doesn't serve to eliminate bias?

No, that will never happen. Please note that those computer changes were upgrades to a new OS but there are no upgrades to Baha'i since it is God's latest OS. Why would I want to go backwards and embrace an ancient religion that was revealed for an ancient time? I would have to be a fool.

"No, I don't need to upgrade to Windows 10! If there was an update I needed, it would be an update to Windows 7! The fact that Microsoft is not updating Windows 7 any more is proof that it's perfect the way it is!"

 

[CG Didymus]

Please show me which threads I am following you from and to.

I like most all threads started by Baha'is. They always attract interesting people. Which includes you.

 

[Trailblazer]

And the religious leaders had a vested interest in gathering as many followers to their religion as possible, didn't they?

Yes.

Absolute garbage.

People of EVERY SINGLE FAITH say, "I think it is reasonable to believe that my faith is the correct faith because I have seen evidence that indicates to me that the faith I hold is the correct one."

EVERY.

SINGLE.

FAITH.

Like I said, what you have is nothing special.

The Baha'i Faith is very special because it is the religion that God has revealed for the present age.The divine ordering of the affairs of the world is through the latest Messenger of God and that Messenger is Baha'u'llah. No other religion can SAY that because all their religions are old.

Once again, what you did is not proof.

It is to me. Why would I care if it is proof to anyone else?

You can't know that for sure. You may THINK you looked under every rock, but since you are fallible, you could easily have missed something and you'd never know.

I am not worried about that because I know there cannot be anything I missed that is so big that it would disprove the Baha'i Faith.

You do not have a way to tell for sure.

I do have a way to know for sure because that certitude was conferred by God.

"Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognize His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognizing the truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation."

(Baha'u'llah, quoted in Shoghi Effendi, The Dawn-Breakers, p. 586)
The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586

All you have is a way that satisfies your needs. The fact that I am not satisfied by the reasoning that satisfies you does not mean that I look at the evidence incorrectly.

It is not about my needs. I can only reason as the person who I am, just as you can only reason as the person you are. I never suggested you should or could reason as I have. That would be impossible because you are not me.

So what?

Lots of people of all different faiths have become followers of the first religion they were seriously exposed to. Why should your story, being virtually identical to literally billions of others, be considered any different?

I did not say that my story is different. I said it does not MATTER if I chose the first religion I was exposed to. Just because I was attracted to the first religion I encountered that does not mean it is not true. How I chose my religion has absolutely no bearing on whether it is true or not, which is the ONLY thing that matters.

Because once you decided to become a follower, you no longer had zero interest in religion.

You are so biased and that is why you cannot think logically. You are obsessed with the idea that I needed to compare Baha'i to other religions just in case one of them might have been better.

Give me one good reason what I 'should have' checked out other religions, other than because you think that is necessary? There was and still is not any reason for me to compare the Baha'i Faith to other religions because the other religions are OLD. Do you know the world OLD means? In terms of religion it means it does not have what is NEW that humanity needs in this age.

Yes.

The instant you say, "Oh, I like the view from the kitchen windows," or "The skirting in the living room is nice," or, "I like that when you turn the hot tap on, it's only a few seconds before the water actually is hot," you have got something that creates some attachment between you and the house, however slight. That attachment will bias you.

But that is not what happened. I picked my vacation house because it was the ONLY house that fit the bill, and if I had taken time to 'shop around' that house would have gotten away from me. I had no attachment, I just had good judgment, and as a result I got a real deal. I got it on a foreclosure and paid a third of what the house was worth and it is now worth a third more. I am sitting pretty because I knew what I as looking at, a unique house that is one of a kind. The same applies to my religion.

And how many looked at Baha'i and chose something else?

You are resorting to argument from popularity AGAIN.

I don't know you will have to ask those Baha'is. However, I think you should be asking yourself why you are so obsessed with this idea that one must compare all the religions before picking one.

No, that is not the argument form popularity, not by a long shot.

And since you are utterly convinced that the Baha'i faith is true, what is there to lose by giving other religious beliefs just as detailed an examination as the one you gave Baha'i? What's the matter, afraid that you'll find something that challenges your beliefs?

I am not afraid of ancient outdated religions that all have false beliefs since they have been corrupted by man over time.

I have already examined them and I know enough to know I have no interest in them. All I need to know is that no other religion except the Baha'i Faith teaches that all the other religions were true (before they were corrupted by man). I do not want an older religion that is outdated and has been corrupted by man. I do not want a religion that is not suited for this age.

And how many Christians out there would say, "Christianity is TRUE, it doesn't matter if it's hard for you to believe."

Why would it MATTER what Christians say? Please give me a logical reason why that would matter. Christianity is what it is.

Same diff. The question still remains, that you are saying all these things about Baha'i when by your own admission you are almost totally ignorant of any other religion. So when you say that you KNOW for a fact that Bahai is the religion God wants us to follow, I ask you the same question: "How the hell would you know?"

How would I know? Because that is what Baha'u'llah wrote, and once I accepted Baha'u'llah as a Messenger of God I believed everything He wrote.

How do you know that no other religion has the teachings that Humanity needs now if you haven't looked at them?

I have looked enough to know they do not have what the Baha'i Faith has and you cannot make them have what they simply do not have. They do not have the remedy for the pills that humanity is facing in this age. Logic also tells us that they cannot have what humanity needs in this age since they were revealed thousands of years ago, long before we have the problems humanity is now facing.

No you don't.

If people believe A, B, or C, and you believe D, you can't dismiss A, B, and C by saying, "I don't accept A, B, and C because the evidence for them is insufficient for me," when the evidence for D is just as insufficient. That's called having a double standard.

But I can say "I don't accept A, B, and C because the evidence for them is insufficient but I accept D because the evidence for D is sufficient."

No, they are YOUR tests. You said in post 5262, "The only tests I know about are the tests of a Prophet I told you about before, but maybe you can devise a test of your own."

YOUR tests, TB. Stop trying to avoid responsibility for what you've said.

The tests I was referring to would eliminate someone who was not a Prophet.

"Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men. The tests He proposed are the same as those laid down by His great predecessors. Moses said:—

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.

Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:—
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20.” Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9

I can almost guarantee that it's not as good as you think.

How would you know that?

My toaster also answers prayers at its own discretion. If you disagree, prove that it doesn't.

Believe whatever you want to believe. It is no skin off my nose.

Of course, a far more rational explanation is that it's sheer luck.

Possibly, or maybe it was God.

Because there is no God.

There is no God because God never answers prayers to regrow limbs?

Does that mean you'll drop this ridiculous claim that peer review doesn't serve to eliminate bias?

I do not care if it eliminates bias in science because we are not discussing science.

"No, I don't need to upgrade to Windows 10! If there was an update I needed, it would be an update to Windows 7! The fact that Microsoft is not updating Windows 7 any more is proof that it's perfect the way it is!"

No, I don't need to upgrade from Baha'i to Christianity! If there was an update I needed, it would be an update from Christianity to Baha'i! The fact that God updated from Christianity to Baha'i is proof that Christianity needed an update.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

How about Spinoza's God? Can any atheist exhume for us, what would be satisfactory evidence towards that rendition of the Monad?

My evidence are things such as Mathematics, the Fibonacci sequence, Evolution theory, Pythagorean's theorem, the Higgs Field etc. etc... Also, that there was a time before the Big Bang when time did not exist, a time when literally nothing could happen 'before' it because time had to begin for 'past tense' to even exist.

A God that does not need to interact with the creation, for the creation is what it was intended to be. All of the glorious light as well as the terrific dark that permeates throughout the universe.

 

[Sheldon]

You know that praying to a toaster won't yield any results so that would be dumber than dumb.

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that praying to a deity, produces anything more than praying to a toaster? As far as I can see neither type of prayer produces any discernible results, and it would be very easy to test them and see if that was not the case, so given these claims have existed for millennia, again one can draw a fairly obvious inference from the subjective excuses religions use for not successfully testing prayer, in place of any objective results.

 

[Sheldon]

I can prove it to myself but I cannot prove it to anyone else and I cannot prove it as a fact everyone will accept as true.

That is the very definition of a subjective belief.

 

[samtonga43]

No, I don't need to upgrade from Baha'i to Christianity! If there was an update I needed, it would be an update from Christianity to Baha'i! The fact that God updated from Christianity to Baha'i is proof that Christianity needed an update.

See my emphasis.
Not a fact, therefore no proof.

 

[Tiberius]

Seems I missed this post of yours...

I do not believe that Zeus exists, so why would I pray to Zeus?
I believe that God exists so I pray to God.

Right, now since you originally said, "But since you do not know (a) that God does not exist or (b) that God will not answer a prayer, it cannot hurt to pray," I shall respond to that in the same way. I do not believe that God exists, so why should I pray to God?

If you're going to suggest that I pray to a God I don't believe in because maybe, just maybe, that God is real, then I'll suggest you pray to Zeus for exactly the same reason.

You do not KNOW that the results are exactly the same because you cannot prove that they are.
In other words, you do not KNOW there are no results from praying to God.
There is no chance that a toaster will respond whereas there is a chance that God will respond.
That is a big difference between God and the toaster.

By this logic, there could be a different God answering prayers each and every day, and once the day is done, that particular God never answers any prayers ever again. There is, after all, no way for you to show that this is wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes.

Including the leaders of Baha'i.

The Baha'i Faith is very special because it is the religion that God has revealed for the present age.The divine ordering of the affairs of the world is through the latest Messenger of God and that Messenger is Baha'u'llah. No other religion can SAY that because all their religions are old.

And they say that their message is the only message Humanity needs, so it still applies today. Once again, Bahai is no different from any other religion in saying it has the message that Humanity needs in the modern age.

It is to me. Why would I care if it is proof to anyone else?

No, it's not proof, despite your claims to the contrary.

I am not worried about that because I know there cannot be anything I missed that is so big that it would disprove the Baha'i Faith.

People of all faiths say that. You believe that they are wrong about their faith, so why can't I believe that you are wrong about yours?

I do have a way to know for sure because that certitude was conferred by God.

You believe that. You don't know it.

<<needless quote snipped>>

It is not about my needs. I can only reason as the person who I am, just as you can only reason as the person you are. I never suggested you should or could reason as I have. That would be impossible because you are not me.

Of course, we could follow the laws of logic, which are objective, and thus we can both use those to reason in an identical way.

I did not say that my story is different. I said it does not MATTER if I chose the first religion I was exposed to. Just because I was attracted to the first religion I encountered that does not mean it is not true. How I chose my religion has absolutely no bearing on whether it is true or not, which is the ONLY thing that matters.

Of course not.

But you can not be justified in saying that it is definitely true if it's the only religion you have properly examined.

You are so biased and that is why you cannot think logically. You are obsessed with the idea that I needed to compare Baha'i to other religions just in case one of them might have been better.

Give me one good reason what I 'should have' checked out other religions, other than because you think that is necessary? There was and still is not any reason for me to compare the Baha'i Faith to other religions because the other religions are OLD. Do you know the world OLD means? In terms of religion it means it does not have what is NEW that humanity needs in this age.

Do you think God is incapable of creating an OLD religion that would be forever applicable to humans?

You are so obsessed with the idea that OLD equals BAD that it sends you fleeing in terror to a religion that is not old.

By the way, have you heard about scientology? That's even newer!

But that is not what happened. I picked my vacation house because it was the ONLY house that fit the bill, and if I had taken time to 'shop around' that house would have gotten away from me. I had no attachment, I just had good judgment, and as a result I got a real deal. I got it on a foreclosure and paid a third of what the house was worth and it is now worth a third more. I am sitting pretty because I knew what I as looking at, a unique house that is one of a kind. The same applies to my religion.

And what if you did not have to jump on it when you had the opportunity? What if you could have looked at as many houses as you wanted, knowing that you could ALWAYS come back to this particular house? Would you have gone looking at other houses in that case?

I don't know you will have to ask those Baha'is. However, I think you should be asking yourself why you are so obsessed with this idea that one must compare all the religions before picking one.

because I think that deciding on a religious belief is something that should be done with a little thing called the FULL PICTURE.

No, that is not the argument form popularity, not by a long shot.

"Lots of followers of the Bahai faith looked at a bunch of religions and they still chose to follow the Bahai faith. They can't all be wrong!"

Sure sounds like argument from popularity to me!

I am not afraid of ancient outdated religions that all have false beliefs since they have been corrupted by man over time.

I have already examined them and I know enough to know I have no interest in them. All I need to know is that no other religion except the Baha'i Faith teaches that all the other religions were true (before they were corrupted by man). I do not want an older religion that is outdated and has been corrupted by man. I do not want a religion that is not suited for this age.

AH! So now you HAVE examined the other religions!

So, earlier when you said you hadn't examined them, was that a lie? Or are you lying now?

Why would it MATTER what Christians say? Please give me a logical reason why that would matter. Christianity is what it is.

Well, why does it matter what you say to me? When you have the answer to that question, you'll have the answer to yours.

How would I know? Because that is what Baha'u'llah wrote, and once I accepted Baha'u'llah as a Messenger of God I believed everything He wrote.

Why do you accept Mr B as a Messenger of God? Because you believe everything he has to say. Why do you believe everything he has to say? Because you accept him as a Messenger of God. Why do you accept Mr B as a Messenger of God? Because you believe everything he has to say. Why do you believe everything he has to say? Because you accept him as a Messenger of God. Why do you accept Mr B as a Messenger of God? Because you believe everything he has to say. Why do you believe everything he has to say? Because you accept him as a Messenger of God. Why do you accept Mr B as a Messenger of God? Because you believe everything he has to say. Why do you believe everything he has to say? Because you accept him as a Messenger of God.

Repeat ad nauseum.

It's called circular logic, and it's a logical fallacy.

I have looked enough to know they do not have what the Baha'i Faith has and you cannot make them have what they simply do not have. They do not have the remedy for the pills that humanity is facing in this age. Logic also tells us that they cannot have what humanity needs in this age since they were revealed thousands of years ago, long before we have the problems humanity is now facing.

Logic would say that since history has shown that Human nature doesn't really change, what worked thousands of years ago would work just about the same now.

Of course, you could always tell me what problems Humanity is facing now that Bahai has the answers to. Because when I gave you some examples of modern problems (such as the moral and ethical ramifications of genetic engineering) you were TOTALLY INCAPABLE of telling me what remedy Bahai provides.

But I can say "I don't accept A, B, and C because the evidence for them is insufficient but I accept D because the evidence for D is sufficient."

Yet all you have ever presented as your evidence for D is your opinion and belief, the same thing that you reject as evidence for A, B, and C.

The tests I was referring to would eliminate someone who was not a Prophet.

<<more needless quotes snipped>>

So, would you now answer the question I originally asked you? Would those tests eliminate someone who is NOT a prophet?

How would you know that?

Because there's a wealth of scientific evidence that memory is a very poor way of knowing things. And I trust science a helluvalot more than I trust your say-so.

Believe whatever you want to believe. It is no skin off my nose.

If it was no skin off your nose, you wouldn't keep coming back to respond to my posts.

Possibly, or maybe it was God.

Or maybe it was Leprechauns!

There is no God because God never answers prayers to regrow limbs?

\

I never presented this one fact as proof there is no God. I merely present it as one part of the evidence that there is no God.

Because if God can do anything, why would he always refuse to do that while he is perfectly happy to do things like curing an illness after doctors say it's terminal?

I do not care if it eliminates bias in science because we are not discussing science.

Typical. Once you are finally forced to drop your "Peer review doesn't eliminate bias" you immediately scramble to find a way to avoid talking about the topic at all, while ignoring the fact that peer review can work just as well for ANYTHING as it does for science.

No, I don't need to upgrade from Baha'i to Christianity! If there was an update I needed, it would be an update from Christianity to Baha'i! The fact that God updated from Christianity to Baha'i is proof that Christianity needed an update.

If you really insist on this ridiculous "newer = better" nonsense, then why don't you become a Scientologist?