firedragon
Veteran Member
Something that exists.
Right. So what do you think is a "creator being"? It was I think you who first spoke these words "creator being". So what did you mean by that?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Something that exists.
I meant that it's a problem for the approach that you suggested: establishing that God exists by establishing that "Messengers of God" really were sent by God.It is no problem for me because I have already demonstrated to myself that "Messengers" establish the existence of God.
What I meant is that I cannot demonstrate it to other people.
I think what confuses people, is that you seem to argue both for an against yourself at the same time Meaning you present some arguments that seem contradictive and will try to elaborate on that based on what you have answered, so will jump a bit around in your reply.I am going to answer this one first and hopefully I will have time to answer the other one later.
This is a circular and contradictive statement, based on what we agreed on above.God cannot ever be demonstrated to be real without the Messenger since the Messenger is the only proof that God is real. Do you see the problem? First we have to verify that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger and then if we believe that then we know whatever He said about God is true. No, we should not assume that God is real just because Baha’u’llah said so, first we have to confirm that He was a Messenger of God.
This can't be the case, its impossible given the statement we agreed on, "That no one can ever proof God", because then he won't be able to establish any truth or it would contradict that statement. You might have faith in it being so, but it is not truth, because it can never be a proof, its simply impossible.I believe that He did establish the truth of His claim, but of course everyone won’t agree with he.
Yes, but the keyword in what you write is "The way I see it if He was a Messenger of God..." and that is what we want to verify. But we can't, as I explained above. So its irrelevant of whether everything he said is true or not, IF he was in fact a messenger of God or not, because we can't establish that to begin with, because again, we are going to end up in circular reasoning.I do not see it that way. The way I see it if He was a Messenger of God every claim He made is automatically true, and one reason I say that is because I believe that Messengers of God are also Manifestations of God and Manifestations of God are infallible.
But these evidence are weak ones at best and again requires you to start out by accepting something without proof. And that is basically from what I can see, exactly how you "break" the circular reasoning as I pointed out above, you accept that God exist based on faith. But you seek to strengthen this, by focusing on claims that Baha'u'llah made. Sort of in the same way as in my example with the aliens, that you seem to shift to focusing on the color and purpose of them, which is then used to further feed the validity of these aliens being true, because obviously them having color and purpose, are "evidence" for them being true, but there is no foundation for this in the first place, its only because you have faith in the aliens being true.In the sense that nobody can “know” that God exists as a fact some faith is required to believe in God, but it can be an evidence-based faith.
This is what faith is, that is what this verse calls for, blind faith in God. Of course you are going to believe in my aliens, if you approach it having faith in it being true. The moment you don't have faith in my claim, you won't find the aliens.Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.
Then your God does not want us to believe in him. We don't choose what we believe in.I did not say that God didn't care. I said that God does not need our belief, but that does not mean that God does not want us to believe in Him. God wants us to believe in Him but only if it is by choice, not because He convinced us to believe in Him.
And since those are bot evidence........The evidence I am always referring to, the Messengers of God.
And there's your answer, there is no evidence.The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence.
And there's no way of knowing that those are messengers of God since there's no evidence of God's existence.While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.
So what is the evidence for the existence of the dementors from Harry Potter?God is Spirit, not a physical entity, so God cannot be observed or measured; so how could evidence for God ever be like evidence for the Moon or anything else in the physical world?
It is so sad when one tries to use a dictionary and fails.I know what I know and you cannot do anything about it but keep saying I don't know and then coming down on me with the usual criticisms, saying I am a failure and calling me illogical.
This is not my first rodeo. I have heard the same things from atheists for nine years and that is why I know how to respond to them so easily. I can respond to an atheist in my sleep. After a while it gets really boring but it is just like water off a duck's back. I wonder why it bothers some atheists when I say I know and why it is so important for them to try to prove that I don't know. They get so bent out of shape and meanwhile I am as cool as a cucumber.
All knowledge is not demonstrable, you are wrong about that.
Definition of knowledge
1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something
(2) : the range of one's information or understanding
c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition
d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
2 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
b arc hair : a branch of learning
Definition of KNOWLEDGE
The concept of Brahman itself is the Hindu part. The other part is 'dharma' (duties, that is karma too). Are we fulfilling our duties? Righteous action is a duty. I strongly stand for that. 'Dharma' (fulfillment of our duties in all circumstances) is the base of Hinduism.Interesting, thanks for that.
So what does the Hindu part add then, is that the karma part or what? I couldn't really figure that out from that link?
Alhumdulillah, he does not wear a crown of thorns.Great! This guy is called Inri Cristo:
He claims to be Jesus Christ reincarnated.
What evidence do you have he is a con man?
I know what I know and you cannot do anything about it but keep saying I don't know and then coming down on me with the usual criticisms, saying I am a failure and calling me illogical.
This is not my first rodeo. I have heard the same things from atheists for nine years and that is why I know how to respond to them so easily. I can respond to an atheist in my sleep. After a while it gets really boring but it is just like water off a duck's back. I wonder why it bothers some atheists when I say I know and why it is so important for them to try to prove that I don't know. They get so bent out of shape and meanwhile I am as cool as a cucumber.
All knowledge is not demonstrable, you are wrong about that.
Definition of knowledge
1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something
(2) : the range of one's information or understanding
c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition
d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
2 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
b archaic : a branch of learning
Definition of KNOWLEDGE
Not Tuberculosis. @Trailblazer
It's mostly you tuberculosis that brings up the Baha'i Faith and sometimes some people ask you about the Baha'i Faith.
That would be weird. But no. That's not what I asked.
What did you mean by TB in "this" context?
(Context is everything)
I don't think she got it.. You might have to break it down further for her.Wrong person mate.
Wrong person mate.
He was not the one that quoted you. There was a post where quite a few people were quoted. Including me and you. They were all responding to @Trailblazer , or "TB". He only explained who " TB" was. He was not the person that made that quote.You didn't mean to quoted me?
He was not the one that quoted you. There was a post where quite a few people were quoted. Including me and you. They were all responding to @Trailblazer , or "TB". He only explained who " TB" was. He was not the person that made that quote.
It is not about God's abilities. How can humans verify God if God does not want to be verified?
It's the 'logic' of a philosophical materialist paradigm. A failed philosophical paradigm. But you can't see this because you are looking out from within that failed paradigm and seeking only to defend it.This has absolutely nothing to do with science.
It has nothing to do with philosophical materialism either - it's just basic logic.
It's the 'logic' of a philosophical materialist paradigm.
It's the 'logic' of a philosophical materialist paradigm. A failed philosophical paradigm. But you can't see this because you are looking out from within that failed paradigm and seeking only to defend it.
I don't think she got it.. You might have to break it down further for her.
Practically every minute of every hour of every day, but like @firedragon I think that atheists are illogical and I cannot work with illogic, it drives me nuts.
That's not illogical. What's illogical is saying that God can't be verify, then say that there is evidence for God. It's illogical because evidence verifies that something exist. So you're contradicting yourself when you say that God can't be verify but then say that you have evidence for God's existence.I was not implying that atheists are illogical because they don't believe in God. I was only referring to the evidence for God's existence. I think that atheists are illogical because they expect to have verifiable evidence that God exists. How could God ever be verified to exist? Or they want empirical evidence, but nobody has ever seen God. Do you see the problem?