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

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't see where anyone has claimed that any documented event of Mr B's life did not happen.

That comment is not applicable to what was being answered with my reply.

Regards Tony

 

[joelr]

So you are seeing the issue is the science that is not yet known, but has been stated in Faith that it will be known, that man is.more than the animal.

No way. You didn't just pull that old apologetic out? The infamous "any OT prophecy that didn't come true just hasn't happened YET" Man WILL BE more than animal. LOL.
There will be new science. Man will always be an animal. Does religion continually have to make people
say such ridiculous things?

Personally I see Abdul'baha has supported evolution, however science finds it has unfolded, what he has offered that science is yet to confirm, is that the spirit behind that evolution has a purpose, that the mind of man develops apart from the animal nature.

The understanding of this topic also requires us to consider the topic of the 5 levels spirit that are the animating force or energy behind creation.

https://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/abdul-baha/some-answered-questions/8#394598598

Regards Tony

5 levels of fiction is not going to make him correct. He said a bunch of incorrect stuff including a missing link would not be found. He said that because at the time many people thought that was true. He doesn't have super power insight, he's just a guy.
A God would simply say humans evolved from a long line of hominids plus one million new scientific facts and then explained some spiritual mumbo jumbo. This ridiculous tapdance of apologetics is insulting. Yahweh gets away with it because they have that apologetic that says Yahweh wants you to work through disbelief a bit and he doesn't have to prove himself. Well, except he destroyed a city. And floated above the desert on a pillar of smoke. And killed a sea monster.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. to trust in God, .. the Manifestations of God .. have been the chief influence in the civilizing of human character.

Science has validated neither the existence of any God nor the claims of so-called prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis of God or Allah. As for human character, it has remained the same all through their history, mostly selfish. Religions, Gods or his self-proclaimed messengers have never been able to change human character.

 

[Tiberius]

Reason tells me that I need to check out the Messenger of God to determine if He was really sent by God, IF I ever want to know if God exists, since that is the only way I can ever know.

By what you've already said, they would be incapable of providing sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other.

That is correct.

So your claim that we must seek other kinds of evidence to find God is irrational.

The reason we reject the others is because they fail to meet even the minimum criteria for a Messenger of God.
A claim is no reason to believe that a person is a Messenger because anyone can make a claim. It is the evidence that supports the claim that gives us a reason to believe someone is a Messenger.

Lots of people have concluded that these messengers have sufficient evidence, even though you discount them. Seems to me that it's just a subjective decision, and not down to anything objective or meaningful in the real world.

That's right because that is how God set it up since God wants everyone to verify the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions rather than believing something just because someone else verified it to be true.
Religion is not like science where consensus matters, it is the exact opposite.

Before you start inventing new methods to measure things that are hidden from the methods already proven reliable, you must first demonstrate that there is something there to measure.

If you don't, then I see no reason to conclude that you are doing anything more than measuring your own desires and conclude that which you wish to be true.

The wheat are logical because they know that God is all-powerful so God is the one who will decide what evidence humans will get. The chaff are illogical so they think they can tell an all-powerful God what evidence He should provide.

The wheat are logical because they know that magic is all-powerful so magic is the one who will decide what evidence humans will get. The chaff are illogical so they think they can tell an all-powerful magic what evidence it should provide.

 

[joelr]

I have to answer this one out of your diatribe.

Well at least you read it. So here is what a diatribe isn't:

1) my post
2) attempts to promote rational and logical thinking
3) attempts to help people out of falling for supernatural crank fiction
4) attempts to get people to use critical thinking so next time a president tries to convince people he's a savior and he lost an election because of voter fraud they will have actual skills to think it through

I
In one of my selections it specifically said that genetics showed there was no "parallel" evolution. Yes, we share 99% genetic material, there is no denial of that. I think you missed that, perhaps.

I'm not clear on this point. However, while we share 99% of DNA with an ancestor we have 100% animal DNA. 0% of our DNA or anything else demonstrable is spiritual.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When and where were they hearing these? In those days, they didn't have TV's, and did not attend talks on scientific matters.

They interacted with their devotees. The devotees were gullible but not all of them were illiterate like Bahaollah and Abdul Baha. If the devotees were not gullible, they would not have believed the yarn that was spun.

Then there were Persian newspapers. Bahaollah might be reading these. Then, the newspapers of the Ottoman empire must have been available in places where Bahaollah lived in exile. Then there are two factors. One that these newspapers must be reporting science incorrectly (just like many of the newpapers do these days). And secondly that the information understood by a person depends on his prior knowledge of the subject and capacity to understand. Bahaollah who had not studied any science and did not have any prior knowledge of it.

"The first Iranian newspapers appeared in the mid-19th century during the reign of Nasir al Din Shah. More specifically, the first newspaper in Iran, Kaghaz-e Akhbar (The Newspaper), was launched for the government by Mirza Saleh Shirazi in 1837. By 1907 (the era of the Persian Constitutional Revolution), there were 90 newspapers circulating in Iran."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Iran

"In 1828, Khedive of Egypt Muhammad Ali ordered, as part of the drastic reforms he was implementing in the province, the local establishment of the gazette Vekayi-i Misriye (Egyptian Affairs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takvim-i_Vekayi), written in Ottoman Turkish in one column with an Arabic translation in a second column (Ottoman Turkish text was in the right one and Arabic text in the left one). It was later edited in Arabic only, under the Arabic title "al-Waqa'i` al-Misriyya" (The Egyptian Affairs).

The first official gazette of the Ottoman State was published in 1831, on the order of Mahmud II. It was entitled "Moniteur ottoman" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moniteur_ottoman), perhaps referring to the French newspaper Le Moniteur universel. Its weekly issues were written in French and edited by Alexandre Blacque at the expense of the Porte. A few months later, a firman of the sultan ordered that a Turkish gazette be published under the named "Takvim-i Vekayi" (Calendar of Affairs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takvim-i_Vekayi), which would be effectively translating the Moniteur ottoman, and issued irregularly until November 4, 1922. Laws and decrees of the sultan were published in it, as well as descriptions of court festivities.

The first non-official Turkish newspaper, Ceride-i Havadis (Register of Events), was published by an Englishman, William Churchill, in 1840. The first private newspaper to be published by Turkish journalists, Tercüman-ı Ahvâl (Interpreter of Events), was founded by İbrahim Şinasi and Agah Efendi and issued in October 1860; the owners stated that "freedom of expression is a part of human nature", thereby initiating an era of free press as inspired by the ideals of 18th century French Enlightenment. In the meantime, the first private newspaper written solely in Arabic, Mir'at al-ahwal, had been founded by a Syrian poet, Rizqallah Hassun, in 1855, .. Subsequently, several newspapers flourished in the provinces."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

 

[Trailblazer]

Science has validated neither the existence of any God nor the claims of so-called prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis of God or Allah.

and science never will.

 

[Tiberius]

There is no contest between science and religion as to which one is better because both are vitally necessary.

Science can only produce results for what it is designed to do, and religion can only produce results for what it is designed to do, Religion and science are not designed to do the same things but what they each do are vitally necessary for human existence and continual progress.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed..........

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...”

Paris Talks, pp. 141-143

From: FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Except it doesn't work that way in reality, does it? Science can produce consistent results. But religion has produced a huge variety of results, leading to disagreement and warfare and death and suffering.

So unless you are saying that religion was designed to cause suffering, then religion isn't doing whatever it is that it's meant to be doing.

 

[Tiberius]

If belief is a subset of opinion, what are the other kinds of opinions in the set?

Non-religious opinions.

Religious beliefs come from religions and opinions about religions are personal opinions.

And non-religious belief and opinion (as you have defined it) are the same thing.

So, in short, we have a whole bunch of opinions. Some of those opinions are religious in nature, and some are not. But the religious ones are still opinions.

That is true, not all beliefs are religious beliefs.

Would you care to tell me the difference between a non-religious belief and an opinion?

 

[Tiberius]

That comment is not applicable to what was being answered with my reply.

Regards Tony

You said that people would, "go with the misinformation and not with the reliable recorded history about the life of Baha'u'llah."

I pointed out that no one was disputing the reliable recorded history about the life of Baha'u'llah.

How is that not applicable?

 

[Trailblazer]

By what you've already said, they would be incapable of providing sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other.

There is sufficient evidence to decide one way or another but people need to look at that evidence in order to decide.

So your claim that we must seek other kinds of evidence to find God is irrational.

No. I said that rational people look at the evidence and base the conclusions on that.

Lots of people have concluded that these messengers have sufficient evidence, even though you discount them. Seems to me that it's just a subjective decision, and not down to anything objective or meaningful in the real world.

It does not matter if lots of people have concluded that certain alleged Messengers have sufficient evidence does not make it true. It is not subjective if you understand and follow the minimum criteria.

Before you start inventing new methods to measure things that are hidden from the methods already proven reliable, you must first demonstrate that there is something there to measure.

What there is to measure cannot be demonstrated until you use the proper method to demonstrate them.
So you have to use the method not knowing if there is anything to measure until you discover it by the method.

If you don't, then I see no reason to conclude that you are doing anything more than measuring your own desires and conclude that which you wish to be true.

I am not suggesting that you conclude anything until you have used the method to determine if there is something measurable.

The wheat are logical because they know that magic is all-powerful so magic is the one who will decide what evidence humans will get. The chaff are illogical so they think they can tell an all-powerful magic what evidence it should provide.

If God is nonexistent you would be right, but if God exists.....
The wheat are logical because they know that God is all-powerful so God is the one who will decide what evidence humans will get. The chaff are illogical so they think they can tell an all-powerful God what evidence it should provide.

 

[joelr]

The passage I was thinking about is this:

The other kind of human knowledge is that of intelligible things; that is, it consists of intelligible realities which have no outward form or place and which are not sensible. For example, the power of the mind is not sensible, nor are any of the human attributes: These are intelligible realities. Love, likewise, is an intelligible and not a sensible reality. For the ear does not hear these realities, the eye does not see them, the smell does not sense them, the taste does not detect them, the touch does not perceive them. Even the ether, the forces of which are said in natural philosophy to be heat, light, electricity, and magnetism, is an intelligible and not a sensible reality. Likewise, nature itself is an intelligible and not a sensible reality; the human spirit is an intelligible and not a sensible reality.
(Some Answered Questions)
www.bahai.org/r/898497121

http://www.bahai.org/r/898497121


"Even the ether, the forces of which are said in natural philosophy to be heat, light, electricity, and magnetism,"

Yes at this time science thought light, heat, electricity and so on were moving in the ether. Clearly he thought this as well. He was wrong. These are not God messages. They are writings of a person using the science of the day.
The rest is just saying there is a spiritual realm? So what? Jane Roberts said all this literally 10x more impressive. She was also making stuff up.

There's more:

If we were to deny all that is not accessible to the senses, then we would be forced to deny realities which undoubtedly exist. For example, the ether is not sensible, although its reality can be proven. The power of gravity is not sensible, although its existence is likewise undeniable. Whence do we affirm their existence? From their signs. For instance, this light consists in the vibrations of the ether, and from these vibrations we infer its existence.
(Some Answered Questions)
www.bahai.org/r/731006642

http://www.bahai.org/r/731006642


"his light consists in the vibrations of the ether, and from these vibrations"

Wow, seriously this is worse than I thought? why can't you see this? He 100% thinks the actual ether is real. Scientists also thought that at that time. He is 100% using his knowledge of current science. Bothe science and him were wrong.

I found this one also just now:

Similarly in the world of being there exist forces unseen of the eye, such as the force of ether previously mentioned, that cannot be sensed, that cannot be seen. However, from the effects it produceth, that is from its waves and vibrations, light, heat, electricity appear and are made evident. In like manner is the power of growth, of feeling, of understanding, of thought, of memory, of imagination and of discernment; all these inner faculties are unseen of the eye and cannot be sensed, yet all are evident by the effects they produce.
(Tablet to Dr. Auguste Forel)
www.bahai.org/r/283751965

http://www.bahai.org/r/283751965


Yes, again, he thinks the ether is real. He's riffing off science but he doesn't know it's wrong because no one knew at that time. This is so clear here?

Here's one:

With reference to your question about the “ether,” the various definitions of this word as given in the Oxford English Dictionary all refer to a physical reality, for instance, “an element,” “a substance,” “a medium,” all of which imply a physical and objective reality and, as you say, this was the concept posited by nineteenth century scientists to explain the propagation of light waves. It would have been understood in this sense by the audiences whom ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá was addressing. However, in Chapter XVI of Some Answered Questions, ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá devotes a whole chapter to explaining the difference between things which are “perceptible to the senses” which He calls “objective or sensible,” and realities of the “intellect” which have “no outward form and no place,” and are “not perceptible to the senses.” He gives examples of both “kinds” of “human knowledge.” The first kind is obvious and does not need elaboration. To illustrate the second kind the examples He gives are: love, grief, happiness, the power of the intellect, the human spirit and “ethereal matter.” (In the original Persian the word “ethereal” is the same as “etheric.”) He states clearly that “Even ethereal matter, the forces of which are said in physics to be heat, light, electricity and magnetism, is an intellectual reality, and is not sensible.” In other words, the “ether” is a concept arrived at intellectually to explain certain phenomena. In due course, when scientists failed to confirm the physical existence of the “ether” by delicate experiments, they constructed other intellectual concepts to explain the same phenomena.
(3 June 1982 – [To individuals])
www.bahai.org/r/317882456

http://www.bahai.org/r/317882456

Total contradiction. Are you understanding this? This isn't him, it's an apologist trying to make sense of his mistakes. Except he claims ether is "realities of the “intellect” which have “no outward form and no place,” and are “not perceptible to the senses.”
BUT, then he says "Even ethereal matter, the forces of which are said in physics to be heat, light, electricity and magnetism, is an intellectual reality, and is not sensible"

So now ether is in the same group as electricity, heat, light....? Those are all 100% sensible?

Also this apologist is twisting what he said in the above quotes. In the first 2 quotes he clearly thinks the scientific ether is real. Clearly. Then in the apologetics the writer tries to deny that but ends up making no sense?
Also you should read some Jane Roberts. She is so much better at this spiritual dimensions stuff.

As to not disclosing the Physics you described, there was no reason for 'Abdu'l-Baha to talk about them, these references to ether were analogies to explain philosophical or spiritual subjects. The Baha'i Faith is not the domain of science. He may even have been using the understanding of the audience to explicate these subjects, whether they were right or wrong. The same is true in general in the Writings.

You are wrong. The Bahai faith considers science as important as spiritual and it's in the mission statement. YOu cannot backtrack and now claim the science can be wrong because it's not about science. If it wasn't about science why did he riff so much about science?

It may well be that we shall find some statement is couched in terms familiar to the audience to which it was first addressed, but is strange now to us. For example, in answer to a question about Bahá’u’lláh’s reference to the “fourth heaven” in the Kitáb-i-Íqán, the Guardian’s secretary wrote on his behalf:

I just dealt with this and now I have to hear this again. Every OT prophecy that didn't come true just "hasn't happened yet". Really? So he couldn't give one single iota of new science and it's been over 100 years. But.....he did give one future science term that will make sense in 100 years? Uh huh.

As to the ascent of Christ to the fourth heaven, as revealed in the glorious “Book of Íqán,” he [the Guardian] stated that the “fourth heaven” is a term used and a belief held by the early astronomers. The followers of the Shí‘ih sect likewise held this belief. As the Kitáb-i-Íqán was revealed for the guidance of that sect, this term was used in conformity with the concepts of its followers.
(Translated from the Arabic)
(3 June 1982 – [To individuals])
www.bahai.org/r/068001439

http://www.bahai.org/r/068001439
The 7 heavens are from Mesopotamian myths. I don't know what you are talking about with early astronomers? Maybe you should fact check that one?

This all looks like baseless apologetics to you, but there are many evidences of the Baha'i Faith of which these seeming contradictions are a drop in the bucket. The evidence in favor of the Baha'i Faith, in my opinion, is overwhelming.

Cool, could you give one evidence. One actual evidence that stands up to some reasonable standard? He gave a ton of bad science, any correct science was already known at the time, no new philosophy and a ton of poetry. Plus we know for a fact that smart prolific writers often enjoy telling people they are messengers of God. Islam, 40 Christian gospels (only 4 actually used), Joe Smith, every religion.....JAne Roberts, Abraham, Bashar, Conversations With God,,,,,,

 

[Tiberius]

There is sufficient evidence to decide one way or another but people need to look at that evidence in order to decide.

The fact that people look at the evidence and reach many different conclusions seems to show that this claim is wrong.

Or did you mean to say, "I believe there is sufficient evidence to decide one way or another but people need to look at that evidence in order to decide."? In which case you believe incorrectly.

No. I said that rational people look at the evidence and base the conclusions on that.

No you didn't. You said, "Rational people know there can never be testable evidence for Messengers of God so they seek other kinds of evidence."

You are clearly saying that people will look for whatever they can find to justify the beliefs they have decided are true. Once again you are contradicting yourself.

It does not matter if lots of people have concluded that certain alleged Messengers have sufficient evidence does not make it true. It is not subjective if you understand and follow the minimum criteria.

The subjective criteria your faith promotes as correct?

What there is to measure cannot be demonstrated until you use the proper method to demonstrate them.
So you have to use the method not knowing if there is anything to measure until you discover it by the method.

Yes, because no one could feel the wind until we invented wind measuring tools. No one could see light until we invented light measuring tools.

I am not suggesting that you conclude anything until you have used the method to determine if there is something measurable.

I have done. There was nothing there.

[/quote]If God is nonexistent you would be right, but if God exists.....
The wheat are logical because they know that God is all-powerful so God is the one who will decide what evidence humans will get. The chaff are illogical so they think they can tell an all-powerful God what evidence it should provide.[/QUOTE]

That's a huge IF you have there.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except it doesn't work that way in reality, does it? Science can produce consistent results. But religion has produced a huge variety of results, leading to disagreement and warfare and death and suffering.

That is very true about science vs. religion. The past is gone so we cannot undo all the damage done in the name of religion, but if everyone recognized Baha'u'llah and became Baha'is all that warfare and death and suffering would end. Of course we all know that is not going to happen any time soon and the reason it won't happen for a long time is because religious people cling tenaciously to the older religions and that is the primary reason the Bahai Faith has not grown larger, yet.

So unless you are saying that religion was designed to cause suffering, then religion isn't doing whatever it is that it's meant to be doing.

You are right, religion is not doing what it is designed to do because the older religions no longer have what it takes to do what religion was designed to do. The older religions are like old cars that have seen their day and can no longer get people where they need to go. That is one reason that God sent a new Messenger to establish a new religion, to renew religion so it can accomplish God's purpose for religion.

“The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure. Our hope is that the world’s religious leaders and the rulers thereof will unitedly arise for the reformation of this age and the rehabilitation of its fortunes. Let them, after meditating on its needs, take counsel together and, through anxious and full deliberation, administer to a diseased and sorely-afflicted world the remedy it requireth….” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 215-216

“How long will humanity persist in its waywardness? How long will injustice continue? How long is chaos and confusion to reign amongst men? How long will discord agitate the face of society?… The winds of despair are, alas, blowing from every direction, and the strife that divideth and afflicteth the human race is daily increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appeareth to be lamentably defective. I beseech God, exalted be His glory, that He may graciously awaken the peoples of the earth, may grant that the end of their conduct may be profitable unto them, and aid them to accomplish that which beseemeth their station.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 216-217

 

[joelr]

When a atomic bomb explodes it contaminates the atmosphere with radioactive materials. Why would he have to mention that bombs and power plants could be made from this? It doesn't prove anything, but it's your task to determine the truth about His revelation, and that means not just cherry-picking things that you think make Him look bad. Independent investigation of truth is called for, not just looking at it from a negative perspective.

Yeah God forbid he actually be specific? A God decides to speak through someone and he has to be all cryptic and vague?
It doesn't change the atmosphere and plutonium is synthetically produced.

They are just elements. An actual God could have said the energy in mass would be used in a bomb or any number of things. I'm not cherry picking, I'm looking at ALL of the science he gave. It's either already known or wrong. That is not a revelation. Reading from a science book is not a revelation. Making up science is not a revelation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

and science never will.

You are right. Science will not validate God, Allah or prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis unless there is evidence for them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Non-religious opinions.

Okay, I will try to remember that.

And non-religious belief and opinion (as you have defined it) are the same thing.

So, in short, we have a whole bunch of opinions. Some of those opinions are religious in nature, and some are not. But the religious ones are still opinions.

That's true, and they are all personal opinions since they are held by people. Some opinions might be based upon facts and some might not be.

Would you care to tell me the difference between a non-religious belief and an opinion?

It really amounts to the same thing.

 

[joelr]

What are you talking about? Elements can be changed into other elements through nuclear processes. This is also a metaphor for transforming human character, this part about changing copper into gold.

Artificial transmutation may occur in machinery that has enough energy to cause changes in the nuclear structure of the elements. Such machines include particle accelerators and tokamak reactors. Conventional fission power reactors also cause artificial transmutation, not from the power of the machine, but by exposing elements to neutrons produced by fission from an artificially produced nuclear chain reaction. For instance, when a uranium atom is bombarded with slow neutrons, fission takes place. This releases, on average, 3 neutrons and a large amount of energy. The released neutrons then cause fission of other uranium atoms, until all of the available uranium is exhausted. This is called a chain reaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation

It's like you want to be fooled?

I am familiar with fission. This is called a chain reaction...LOL...yeah it's a chain reaction, as in it's out of control? Uranium becomes radon, then something then lead. That's it. It takes billions of years or a giant explosion. All elements over 84 decay. That isn't turning copper into gold. That was not a metaphor.

Show me where they take copper and put it in a particle accelerator and get gold???

Transmutation of elements was a thing in his day. They actually thought it was going to happen. Newton was also obsessed with it. He clearly once again was riffing off current science.

 

[joelr]

Couldn't find this in 'Abdu'l-Baha's Writings officially translated.

Found this statement in the Challenge of Baha'u'llah:

‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote that 'bodily diseases like consumption and cancer are contagious'* in the same manner as other infections against which 'safe and healthy persons' must guard themselves.158 This was obviously true of consumption (tuberculosis) - but what of cancer?
Gary L. Matthews, "The Challenge of Bahá’u’lláh"

He goes on to say:

*The Persian word for 'contagious' embraces all the shades of meaning represented by the English words 'contagious', 'infectious' and 'communicable'. It can therefore connote mild, infrequent infectivity as well as dramatic and obvious contagion. +105 relevance loomed larger after researchers found similar tumours in rabbits (1932), frogs (1934) and mice (1936).'60 These infectious cancers had long been overlooked because they tend to spread in ways that mask their true nature. They may, for example, be transmitted through a virus in the mother's milk or placenta, appearing to be hereditary. Many such viruses cease to display infective activity as soon as they have induced cancer, making their role extremely difficult to recognize. These findings fanned suspicion that similar tumour-producing viruses might be able to spread from túmán being to human being.

No responsible authority has ever suggested that all, or even most, forms of cancer are communicable, much less that they spread through casual contact. Most malignant tumours clearly are induced by exposure to chemicals, radiation or similar environmental agents; by hereditary and genetic factors; or by combinations of such causes. Nevertheless, the infectious origin of some human cancers now is considered 'almost certain"6'; and 'the evidence grows stronger with each passing month'.'62 Cervical cancer, for example, is linked in clinical studies to human papilloma virus. On the basis of such studies, many authorities now believe that if a man is sexually involved with multiple women, one of whom has cervical cancer, he can become a carrier for the virus and thus transmit the disease from the infected partner to the healthy ones.
Gary L. Matthews, "The Challenge of Bahá’u’lláh"

Don't know where Gary Matthews got this statement or translation of what 'Abdu'l-Baha said. Nevertheless, he got some kind of answer, which doesn't appear certain as of when this was written.

edit: I am not called truthseeker for nothing. Found this online:

Although cancer itself is not contagious, there are some germs that can play a role in the development of certain types of cancer. This may lead some people to wrongly think that “cancer is catching.” Infections that have been linked to cancer include viruses, bacteria and parasites.

Is Cancer Contagious?

Technically, this says cancer is not contagious. Just that certain stuff is linked to cancer.

Yeah so cancer is not contagious. Like I said. He even backed it up with - healthy people have to be careful (because it's so contagious).

 

[joelr]

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.

Yes ether was a term that was debunked. Black matter is not a thing. You might mean dark matter but that is not the new ether. That is a type of matter. He used science terms of the day (even when wrong) because he was a man pretending to be a God messenger.

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.

And yet he used dozens of scientific terms? He used them very accurate. They just turned out to be wrong. He made several literal statements like copper will be turned into gold. Or a missing link will not be found. He was wrong, not a big deal.