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

[Sheldon]

Rational people know there can never be any such evidence for Messengers of God so they accept the only evidence that exists.

Sorry but that seems like a no true Scotsman fallacy to me. You have worded it in a way that claims anyone who doesn't share your standard for belief as irrational.

Firstly I am an atheist, so I don't share your belief in a deity, in fact I don't believe in any deities, so by extension I don't believe that there can be messengers from deities. Now you say the evidence for these "messengers of god" is not testable. However evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Since you claim to have evidence, then it is a contradiction to say it can't be tested.

Now according to you I am being irrational, Could you explain to me where I have violated a principle of logic?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

many scientific statements have been debunked. The "new" philosophy is not new. The prophecies are terribly vague and no better than OT prophecies.

He says science should always be respected but about evolution - “ʻAbdu'l-Bahá states that humans are a distinct species, and not an animal, and that in every stage of evolution through which humans progressed, they were potentially humans.”

Which is not correct.


ʻAbdu'l-Bahá suggested that a missing link between human and apes would not be found.

Several intermediate species have since been found. Actually dozens have now been found, H. Heidlebergensis is the last link before H. Sapien.



Abdu'l-Bahá made statements about biology that were later proved wrong,

The chapter in ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's Some Answered Questions which mentions aether differentiates between things that are "perceptible to the senses" and those which are "realities of the intellect" and not perceptible to the senses.

Since that time the aether has been proven wrong many times in physics.


Baháʼu'lláh wrote:

Strange and astonishing things exist in the earth but they are hidden from the minds and the understanding of men. These things are capable of changing the whole atmosphere of the earth and their contamination would prove lethal."


Later his followers tried to claim this was radioactive materials. Plutonium doesn’t change the atmosphere, sounds like an attempt to make the statement fit. He forgot to mention we would make bombs and power plants from this.The God decided to give science advice but leave it super cryptic so it could fit many things. Instead of demonstrating it's actually a God and just saying heavy atoms will release high energy photons when they decay. But you can use it for energy because mass and energy are equivalent.

Bahá'u'lláh in the early 1860s, claimed that Copper can be turned into Gold and that its secret lies hidden in his knowledge. He also claimed that changing of one element into other (transmutation of elements) would become reality.

This never happened and never will. However in the mid 1800's science did believe this would be a possibility. They did not yet understand atomic structure. Clearly this is the words of a man with only knowledge of the time.


‘Abdu’l-Bahá claimed that “bodily diseases like consumption and cancer are contagious” and that “safe and healthy persons” must guard against it


Nope not contagious. Again, this reflects thoughts by doctors at this time. Clearly not speaking for a God.

In the thread where some scientific writings were linked to a year or 2 ago there were several other mistakes in attempts to produce some science and medical concepts. They were outlined in a thread, I would have to search for it.
This is just like the Islam scripture where the science is no greater than what is already known (actually this attempts predictions which all are incorrect). This man is a poet and a prolific writer of praise literature. Nothing more.



"One Baháʼí commentator acknowledged that the comments by ʻAbdu'l-Bahá are not in line with current scientific understanding, but that ʻAbdu'l-Bahá should not be regarded as infallible in scientific matters."

Because he's a man and not a God.

My take on those, is, some of them are translation inaccuracies, and some of them, we just read more than what He says actually.
Besides that, Abdulbaha would have only talked to them with the scientific terminologies current at the time. So, for example Ether, was a terminology at the time. Now, a new term used for a better scientific explanation called the black matter or similar words as I remember. Abdulbaha used the term ether, because in those days new terminologies such as black matter did not exist. So, He explained things with words and terms available, but gave them a different meanings that if we read carefully we see they are compatible with today's science.
Beside all these, where did Abdulbaha study or learn such scientific terms and knowledge, even if one believes He had them wrong? Bahais believe His knowledge was intuitive, because He did not go to school or study any scientific subjects.

 

[Truthseeker]

No, I only mirror the people that I an arguing with when it comes to that. I am less arrogant than you are since I am willing to argue rationally.

To you it is not rational if you disagree with what we have said. You don't consider if what we say has any merit, it doesn't appear. At any rate, I shouldn't be debating you. Debating doesn't usually enlighten anyone.

 

[Truthseeker]

Beside all these, where did Abdulbaha study or learn such scientific terms and knowledge, even if one believes He had them wrong? Bahais believe His knowledge was intuitive, because He did not go to school or study any scientific subjects.

I never pointed that out. There is so much knowledge that 'Abdu'l-Baha displayed that since He had maybe one year of school and with all His activities He didn't have time to read about, He appears to have gotten them directly through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Trailblazer]

If your claims are true

These are not facts. Do you believe everything people say go and look at facts for yourself?
Baha'u'llah did not live in mansions 'all his life,' only for a short period of time towards the end of His life.

For an 'accurate' photographic narrative of His life: The Life of Baha'u'llah

 

[Sheldon]

What is missing is a unity of purpose in science and faith.

Scientific conclusions are based on testable evidence and falsifiable premises, they also have to remain tentative no matter how well established, so it's method is the antithesis of faith based religious beliefs.

if a global catastrophe destroyed every scientific record, and science had to start again from scratch, all those scientific facts would emerge exactly as we know understand them, we wouldn’t live in a geocentric universe, humans would have evolved as have all living things, from common ancestors etc etc.

The same claim cannot be made for religions, as they are not based on strict adherence to objective evidence, and a method of relentless scrutiny that constantly eliminates bad or weak ideas and beliefs when the evidence demands it. Scientific facts do NOT vary from culture to culture, are not anachronistic, and never demand they are absolute truths even when established with a weight of evidence that puts them beyond any reasonable doubt. Science doesn’t vary according to ethnicity, nationality, skin colour, or era, and it has no use for blind faith, and never demands or needs worship. It never makes claims contrary to all the objective evidence, and never clings to errancy as if that is somehow a virtue. It’s successes in just a few hundred years are demonstrable and astonishing, even before we measure it against thousands of years of religious superstition that has taught us nothing that we couldn’t have derived from a secular world view.

Science doesn’t preach, it doesn’t make vague statements about truth, it’s claims when made are the very definition of humility, as the entire method is based not on a grandiloquent assertion to possess absolute truth, but on the obvious axiom that we are ignorant, and therefore want to learn by trying to understand reality. What is hidden is not revered or worshipped but doubted and scrutinised, what is found is not feared or rejected, even if it overturned everything we thought we knew.

To compare science in any way to religion, is the most dishonest absurdity imaginable.

 

[Truthseeker]

Now you say the evidence for these "messengers of god" is not testable. However evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Since you claim to have evidence, then it is a contradiction to say it can't be tested.

Some of it is not testable. Not all. Actually a lot of "evidence" in any religion is inner evidence. Some of it is subjective. Some of it is objective. If a person insists on objective evidence only, it is just a reality that it's not likely that person will probably not believe in that religion or Messenger. I have never found that logical arguments are accepted for the existence of God by atheists. There are always at least one premise or assumption in these arguments. In these skeptical days, inner evidence is not accepted by a lot of people, and it is insisted that objective evidence or proof has to be used as in Mathematics or science. Scientists are at the forefront in many cases because they have been trained in this way to trust only objective evidence.

I don't believe that a religion or Messenger should be believed solely on inner evidence, or just looking at it to see if it is "right for you". Inner inspiration by itself alone is unreliable.

The Baha'i Faith should be investigated to see if the Writings hang together with each other, whether after careful examination with other religious scriptures if they are compatible with Baha'i scriptures since we believe in a lot of Messengers besides Baha'u'llah. Also do we believe from Baha'u'llah's life as well as we can ascertain whether he was deluded, crazy, or lying as far as we are able. Also do the Writings resonate with you in an inner sense. A part of investigation is to be as independent in the investigation as possible from other people. A part people don't usually consider is your own life a reflection of good principles, because that helps you to evaluate whether what the Writings say are good, and increases your possibility of experiencing inner confirmations if they are there.

 

[Trailblazer]

However evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Since you claim to have evidence, then it is a contradiction to say it can't be tested.

Now according to you I am being irrational, Could you explain to me where I have violated a principle of logic?

What is illogical is to say that there is only ONE kind of evidence, testable evidence, because there are many OTHER kinds of evidence. Not all kinds of evidence can be tested, but it is still evidence.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations

It would not be expected that you believe in God first, before you believe that there are Messengers of God, becaue there would be no way to know that God exists were it not for the Messengers of God. In other words, the Messengers of God are the evidence of God's existence.

 

[Truthseeker]

And Doggedness is yours in spite of having no evidence for what you believe.

There is both objective evidence if you accept it investigating independently, and also inner evidence.

See what I said here:

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

These are not facts. Do you believe everything people say go and look at facts for yourself?
Baha'u'llah did not live in mansions 'all his life,' only for a short period of time towards the end of His life.

For an 'accurate' photographic narrative of His life: The Life of Baha'u'llah

Sorry, I asked for a reliable source. A Baha'i source has to be rejected as being very possibly biased. A Muslim source would have to be rejected for the same reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is both objective evidence if you accept it investigating independently, and also inner evidence.

See what I said here:

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

Citing yourself never works. I have a feeling that you do not understand the concept of the evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Rational people know there can never be any such evidence for Messengers of God so they accept the only evidence that exists.

And the rational evidence is what he sings in his own praise!

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, I asked for a reliable source. A Baha'i source has to be rejected as being very possibly biased. A Muslim source would have to be rejected for the same reasoning.

Why would other sources be more reliable?
Do you have any reason to think other sources would not be biased AGAINST the Baha'i Faith?

A Muslim source would not be reliable because Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last and final Prophet.
A Christian source would not be reliable because Christians believe that Jesus is the only way and that Jesus is going to return.

It is the Baha'is who have chronicled history of the Baha'i Faith and that makes sense because they were the one who were closest to it as the history unfolded. Why would anyone else take the time to write about a religion which was at the time very insignificant? In the future as more people become Baha'is there will be more interest and historians will write about

Edward Granville Browne took a personal interest in Persian history so he wrote about the Baha'i Faith and He even met with Baha'u'llah. He was not a Baha'i.

Browne, Edward Granville

 

[Trailblazer]

And the rational evidence is what he sings in his own praise!

Of course that is not rational evidence because it is not even evidence at all!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would other sources be more reliable?
Do you have any reason to think other sources would not be biased AGAINST the Baha'i Faith?

A Muslim source would not be reliable because Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last and final Prophet.
A Christian source would not be reliable because Christians believe that Jesus is the only way and that Jesus is going to return.

It is the Baha'is who have chronicled history of the Baha'i Faith and that makes sense because they were the one who were closest to it as the history unfolded. Why would anyone else take the time to write about a religion which was at the time very insignificant? In the future as more people become Baha'is there will be more interest and historians will write about

Edward Granville Browne took a personal interest in Persian history so he wrote about the Baha'i Faith and He even met with Baha'u'llah. He was not a Baha'i.

Browne, Edward Granville

Really? You have to ask? Seriously would you trust a Muslim source that tore him down?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Bahais believe His knowledge was intuitive, because He did not go to school or study any scientific subjects.

Rather than intuitive, I will term it as hear-say. So Bahaollah and Abdul Baha were illiterates, and even Shoghi's reports were not satisfactory in school.

Debating doesn't usually enlighten anyone.

That is right. Atheist try it with Bahais with 'zero' result.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have not been refuted one single time, except in your mind.

That's why these threads go on endlessly, year after year. You don't think you're wrong. You don't stop putting out the same beliefs, claims, proofs, evidence that gets people to challenge most everything you post. And I'm sure you will find a way to deny what I've said in this post.

 

[Trailblazer]

Really? You have to ask? Seriously would you trust a Muslim source that tore him down?

Of course I wouldn't. That is why I said "A Muslim source would not be reliable because Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last and final Prophet."

 

[CG Didymus]

Oh my! Like I said. You are the last person that should ever accuse another of being arrogant.

Your prophecies were refuted. So badly that you would not even discuss the reasons why. That tells us that you know that you were shown to be wrong.

How true. What was weird was how she supported the writer of the gospel of Matthew for taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context. Then she included verses 15 and 16 to be about Jesus too? No explanation, no reasoning, she just can't be wrong. Because the Baha'i Faith says Jesus was born of a virgin, so it must be true... no matter what anybody thinks or says. And once she's said something, that's it... It's settled. And she expects the subject to be dropped.

So no more questioning. There is proof and evidence. She believes the claims of Baha'u'llah, but she claims nothing. Baha'u'llah, she says, has fulfilled all of the prophecies of every major religion. So don't keep bringing up things about those old, abrogated, past religions. God is real. Baha'u'llah is the proof of that. And he is proof of himself. Why keep asking?

Accept, I still keep asking her one more question... How is the Baha'i Faith different than any other proselytizing religion, and how is she different than any fundamentalist believer in any of those other religions? They all have their beliefs that they think are true and can't, no matter what anybody thinks, be wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's why these threads go on endlessly, year after year. You don't think you're wrong. You don't stop putting out the same beliefs, claims, proofs, evidence that gets people to challenge most everything you post. And I'm sure you will find a way to deny what I've said in this post.

This is not about ME being wrong, it is about the Baha'i Faith being wrong. Why do you make it about ME?
The threads go on endlessly because OTHER PEOPLE think the Baha'i Faith is not true.

I could not care less what other people believe about the Baha'i Faith. I am sick of talking about it. The only reason I talk about it is out of a sense of duty.