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

[Tiberius]

Trailblazer said: I know, without a doubt, that what I believe about Baha'u'llah is true.
I do not claim that what I believe about Baha'u'llah is true.

I know, without a doubt, that what I believe about Baha'u'llah is true -- is not a claim. Clearly, it is only about what I know and believe. I did not say that what I know and believe is true or is a fact. That would be a claim.

As I've said before, if you believe something is without a doubt true, you believe it to be a fact.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.”

A notable case in point is the treatment of the subject of the evolution of species, which is taken up explicitly in Part 4, and which must be understood in light of several Bahá’í teachings, especially the principle of the harmony of science and religion. Religious belief should not contradict science and reason. A certain reading of some of the passages found in Chapters 46–51 may lead some believers to personal conclusions that contradict modern science. Yet the Universal House of Justice has explained that Bahá’ís strive to reconcile their understanding of the statements of ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá with established scientific perspectives, and therefore it is not necessary to conclude that these passages describe conceptions rejected by science, for example, a kind of “parallel” evolution that proposes a separate line of biological evolution for the human species parallel to the animal kingdom since the beginning of life on earth.

1 in these talks He emphasizes another capacity, a capacity for rational consciousness, that distinguishes man from the animal and that is not found in the animal kingdom or in nature itself. This unique capacity, an expression of the human spirit, is not a product of the evolutionary process, but exists potentially in creation. As ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá explains, “…since man was produced ten or a hundred thousand years ago from the same earthly elements, with the same measures and quantities, the same manner of composition and combination, and the same interactions with other beings—it follows that man was exactly the same then as exists now”. “And if a thousand million years hence,” He goes on to say, “the component elements of man are brought together, measured out in the same proportion, combined in the same manner, and subjected to the same interaction with other beings, exactly the same man will come into existence.”2 His essential argument, then, is not directed towards scientific findings but towards the materialist assertions that are built upon them. For Bahá’ís, the science of evolution is accepted, but the conclusion that humanity is merely an accidental branch of the animal kingdom—with all its attendant social implications—is not.
(Some Answered Questions)
www.bahai.org/r/552304545

The Master’s statements on evolution are subtle and complex and must be understood within the context of the entirety of the Bahá’í teachings, because His statements are both predicated upon and coherent with those teachings. In the passages found in Some Answered Questions, as well as in numerous other Tablets and talks, ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá elaborates upon the principle of the harmony of science and religion, observes that human beings and animals have in common the same physical nature, emphasizes that it is the mind and the soul that distinguish humanity, and rejects the idea that human beings are merely animals, a haphazard accident, and captives of nature trapped in the struggle for existence. In light of all such statements, it is possible for a Bahá’í to conclude that one can disagree with the materialistic philosophical interpretation of scientific findings—that man is merely an animal and a random expression of nature—without contesting the scientific findings themselves, such as those in genetics which are incompatible with a concept of “parallel” evolution.
(21 February 2016 – [To an individual])
www.bahai.org/r/537870506

That's just one I realize. I and others will address others. I disagree and most Baha'i disagree with what Trailblazer has said about 'Abdu'l-Baha and religion. There are also statements by Baha'u'llah that you state are incompatible with science, and we will address as best we can. I don't expect you to accept any of this, but I answer for the benefit for the others here. An attack must be answered.


WARN, O Salmán, the beloved of the one true God, not to view with too critical an eye the sayings and writings of men. Let them rather approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and loving sympathy. Those men, however, who, in this Day, have been led to assail, in their inflammatory writings, the tenets of the Cause of God, are to be treated differently. It is incumbent upon all men, each according to his ability, to refute the arguments of those that have attacked the Faith of God.
(Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh)
www.bahai.org/r/900581933

 

[Trailblazer]

So you've said:

And you've said:

Do you not see the contradiction there?

No, because I believe and I know what I believe is true.
I said I only say "I believe" because people are all over me for saying I know.

I think it's quite clear that I was using the word in terms of sense 2. Can you please answer the questions, yes or no.

Do you think your beliefs are right? Yes.
Is there anything that could convince you otherwise? Yes.

Somehow, I don't think so. Since you've already admitted several times that you have no testable evidence to support your claims, it is clear that your position is one that you did not come to through any rational means. Since you didn't reason yourself into that position, I don't see how you can say that you'll reason yourself out of it.

I absolutely reasoned my way into that position with evidence the showed that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be so I could reason my way out if I found evidence that showed the Baha'u'llah was not who He claimed to be.

Everyone is not like you, requiring testable evidence. Rational people know there can never be any such evidence for Messengers of God so they accept the only evidence that exists. There is nothing more absurd then expecting to have testable evidence in order to prove that a man was a Messenger of God.

And that's exactly what we'd expect if God doesn't exist.

Who is "we"?
No, no rational person would expect to have objective evidence for God since nobody can locate God with a GPS tracker and examine God in order to objectively verify that God exists. You want to make God in your own image but you have that backwards. God is not what you want God to be, you are what God created you to be.

Any God that could be located would not be God. God is not an objective reality, God is a Spirit, as is revealed in the Scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. Nobody can locate a Spirit but that does not mean God does not exist.

Deciding that your opinion based on untestable evidence is true does not count as "verification."

It certainly does count as verification since I have verified the evidence.

And if we accept that God does not exist, we get a much easier explanation why our tests for God all fail. And we can also see that what is viewed as God testing us is nothing more than random events that benefit or disadvantage us without any external motivation.

And if we accept that God exists, we get a much easier explanation why our tests for God all fail. It is because God cannot be tested; rather, God tests humans by not giving them everything they want. In that way God separates the wheat from the chaff. The wheat accept the evidence that God provides and believe in Him, the chaff want some other special evidence just for them so they don't believe in God.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

It's interesting that in those days ether was considered to be a sensible thing by scientists but 'Abdu'l-Baha contradicted that said it was was not sensible. That is quite true if ether exists. A sensible ether was disproven. That's all I'll say right now. It's late here. 1:57 in the morning. Bed time for me.

 

[joelr]

What is that bad science? Feel free to quote Baha’u’llah.

Regards Tony

I have forgotten many of them at this point. A few we discussed yesterday:




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.

 

[joelr]

I assume that you are talking about Richard Carrier? Which support the mystics view of Jesus and the bible. Just want to say that a lot of biblical scholars disagree with his views, so Carrier is probably in the minority of what people working in this field believe.

In a recent interview Carrier listed several scholars who have switched to his side and a few others who said they couldn't admit it publicly. This is just a minor historical debate. Historicity vs mythicism. Historicity (Bart Ehrman supports) means there was a human man who was teaching a more modern Judaism (like Rabbi Hillell) who was later mythicized in a Jewish version of a Hellenistic savior demigod myth. None of the historians think the gospel narratives are anything but myth. So it doesn't really matter. Carrier just thinks the character was invented wholecloth rather than being based on a person.
Either way Greek savior demigods are all equally fiction.

 

[Trailblazer]

As I've said before, if you believe something is without a doubt true, you believe it to be a fact.

It is a fact to me but it cannot be considered a fact since it is not something that is widely known to exist or to have happened.

What is the best definition of a fact?

noun. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

Fact Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

 

[joelr]

No, Abdu'l-Baha never claimed to be a Messenger of God who spoke for God. That is why he was sometimes wrong. His science was not from God since he never received a revelation from God.

As I said before, Abdu'l-Baha took it upon himself to expound on scientific subjects, he was not given authority by Baha'u'llah to speak on them.

It is not the stated theology of the religion that Abdu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah were supposed to produce new science through revelations Abdu'l-Baha did not even get a revelation form God, only Baha'u'llah got a Revelation from God.

A revelation from God

Science and religion are considered to be like two wings of the bird and both are necessary for humanity to progress, but science is under a different purview than religion.

No many of those mistakes are from Bahaullah. All of his works are supposed revelation, all topics.

"All of his works are considered by Baháʼís to be revelation, even those that were written before his announcement of his prophetic claim."


The books and letters written by Baháʼu'lláh cover religious doctrine, the proclamation of his claims, social and moral teachings as well as Baháʼí laws; he also wrote many prayers.[76] Jináb-i-Fádil-i-Mázindarání, analyzing Baháʼu'lláh's writings, states that he wrote in the different styles or categories including the interpretation of religious scripture, the enunciation of laws and ordinances, mystical writings, writings about government and world order, including letters to the kings and rulers of the world, writings about knowledge, philosophy, medicine, and alchemy, writings calling for education, good character and virtues, and writing about social teachings.

but science is under a different purview than religion.

You are making claims but not backing them up.

"The harmony of science and religion is a central tenet of the Baháʼí teachings.[39] The principle states that that truth is one, and therefore true science and true religion must be in harmony, thus rejecting the view that science and religion are in conflict

 

[rational experiences]

Gods status as told by theist science the man.

Just a human.

Human man says God O was once alight burning. God cooled so God owned light. God was with light only.

Reason gases are from an alighted cooled history.

The man said God is spirit. Gases in science is spirit.

As a human teacher.

God said the sun as compared to God the man's earth theme......earth unlike God rebelling as a sun in its hell it never consumed light.

So it wasn't a God the sun it was a hell of Satan.

So Satan the body illuminated ended as blackness cooling of no light that disintegrates falls into a great big heap into Infinity the deep pit.

Hence evil Satan owned the space pit.

Lucifer owned the sun.

What God the man said as I live with holy God who baptised me over my head with water and gave me the garden tree oxygen that gives me life.

I taught the God teachings myself for life holiness not for scientific satanisms actually.

 

[Tiberius]

I absolutely reasoned my way into that position with evidence the showed that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be so I could reason my way out if I found evidence that showed the Baha'u'llah was not who He claimed to be.

How can you reason yourself into a position if you freely admit there is no verifiable evidence for it?

Everyone is not like you, requiring testable evidence. Rational people know there can never be any such evidence for Messengers of God so they accept the only evidence that exists. There is nothing more absurd then expecting to have testable evidence in order to prove that a man was a Messenger of God.

And that's why believing in God is not rational.

Who is "we"?

People.

No, no rational person would expect to have objective evidence for God since nobody can locate God with a GPS tracker and examine God in order to objectively verify that God exists. You want to make God in your own image but you have that backwards. God is not what you want God to be, you are what God created you to be.

Any God that could be located would not be God. God is not an objective reality, God is a Spirit, as is revealed in the Scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. Nobody can locate a Spirit but that does not mean God does not exist.

No, it doesn't prove that God exists, but it doesn't provide any reason to think he DOES exist either.

It certainly does count as verification since I have verified the evidence.

No you haven't. You've just decided that you are correct. You could have missed something and without any external way to check, you'd never know.

And if we accept that God exists, we get a much easier explanation why our tests for God all fail. It is because God cannot be tested; rather, God tests humans by not giving them everything they want. In that way God separates the wheat from the chaff. The wheat accept the evidence that God provides and believe in Him, the chaff want some other special evidence just for them so they don't believe in God.

And if we accept that magic, such as my ability to transform into an eagle, exists, we get a much easier explanation why our tests for magic all fail. It is because magic cannot be tested; rather, magic tests humans by not giving them everything they want. In that way Magic separates the wheat from the chaff. The wheat accept the evidence that magic provides and believe in it, the chaff want some other special evidence just for them so they don't believe in the magical ability for me to turn into an eagle.

 

[Tiberius]

It is a fact to me but it cannot be considered a fact since it is not something that is widely known to exist or to have happened.

What is the best definition of a fact?

noun. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

Fact Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

It is a fact that you hold an opinion, yes.

But holding an opinion doesn't make that opinion factual.

Please don't confuse the two.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If God had pleased ..

You believe in Bahaollah, I do not. For me, it is snake-oil selling, since he provides no evidence of either existence of Allah nor of his being a messenger.

I did not say that what I know and believe is true or is a fact.

Alhamdulillah, why should I believe something which even you cannot certify as true or fact?

A notable .. Faith of God.

That is a long post, some one who has that kind of patience will read it. Long posts are a potent weapon of theists. Atheists generally write short to-the-point posts.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have forgotten many of them at this point. A few we discussed yesterday:




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.

I have read all those online quite a few times.

So you have nothing but internet cut and paste opinions, more than likely have not even studied in detail what has been offered, with what modern science actually knows.

Pick one subject and address it one at time.

If you wish let's say evolution and explore what is false, or if it is still unknown.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

But holding an opinion doesn't make that opinion factual.

Of course not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's interesting that in those days ether was considered to be a sensible thing by scientists but 'Abdu'l-Baha contradicted that said it was was not sensible.

That is not what jeolr posted. He said Abdul Baha believed in existence of Aether. When you can't answer, scoot.

but science is under a different purview than religion.

"The harmony of science and religion is a central tenet of the Baháʼí teachings. The principle states that that truth is one, and therefore true science and true religion must be in harmony, thus rejecting the view that science and religion are in conflict

^^^
Make up whatever you want. Great improvisation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And you'll notice that the things that science doesn't do, according to that page, are all things that are SUBJECTIVE.

But when it comes to learning OBJECTIVE truths about the world, then science is the best tool we have. I'd even say it is the ONLY tool we have.



I don't see any contradiction in those definitions. Could you point the contradiction out to me?

I am wrong intellectually is not the same as wrong in moral sense.
It is that same for say: Show me a cat versus show me that 1+1=11.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, Abdu'l-Baha never claimed to be a Messenger of God who spoke for God. That is why he was sometimes wrong. His science was not from God since he never received a revelation from God.

As I said before, Abdu'l-Baha took it upon himself to expound on scientific subjects, he was not given authority by Baha'u'llah to speak on them.

It is important to point out trailblazer that this is not correct under the Covenant given by Baha'u'llah.

Everything Abdul'baha wrote, that explained the Writings of Baha’u’llah, is authorised scripture and under the guidance of Baha’u’llah. That is very clear.

There is not One official writing published from Abdul'baha that is in error, and It is important to know they all have a context applicable to the capacity of the audience they were delivered to.

More than happy to discuss this.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Subjective? Like expecting others to go by your standards instead of their own?

Yeah, that is subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I SAID I need logic and evidence in order to believe. I never CLAIMED that.

So you need that. Okay, but that doesn't mean that you can do it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Trailblazer: That is why he was sometimes wrong. His science was not from God since he never received a revelation from God.
TransmutingSoul: It is important to point out trailblazer that this is not correct under the Covenant given by Baha'u'llah.
Funny.