Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[Muffled]

Stars are not medallions in the sky. They are much larger than Earth and it is ridiculous to say that they fell on Earth.

"While speaking at the American Astronomical Society's 222nd conference, Todd Henry - the Professor of Astronomy at Georgia State University - revealed that a star can be no smaller than 8.7 percent the diameter of our Sun to sustain nuclear fusion."

What's the Smallest Possible Size of a Star (and why isn't Jupiter one)?

Stars come in a diverse range of sizes and characteristics, but what is the smallest possible size for a star? For a long time, we didn't know, but in 2014, astronomers finally received an answer to the nagging question that asks, "where is the line that separates a full-blown, life-giving...

futurism.com

I believe people of the past must have viewed any heavenly body as a star. So it might be justifiable to say that it means asteroids or pieces of an exploded asteroid fell to earth or it could just be ordinary meteorites.

 

[Trailblazer]

"First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:"

You are begging the question. You assume if someone claims to be this messenger it's true. Obviously it isn't. hundreds make these claims of a similar sort, even thousands, you haven't presented evidence as to why the claim is true OR a methodology to determine which versions of this claim are true or false.

Begs the question is a term that comes from formal logic. It's a translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii, and it's used to mean that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. Begging the question - Wikipedia

I do not assume if someone claims to be this messenger it's true. I believe it's true because of the evidence.
It is not begging the question since my premise doesn't lack support. My premise is supported by the evidence.

"Second, He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth."

This is exactly the same thing, slightly different claim. Same fallacy.

This is exactly the same thing, slightly different claim. No fallacy.

Can you imagine how ridiculous you would find someone if they said Mormonism is obviously true because Joseph Smith declared he was God's messenger,

I never said that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger because He declared He was a Messenger so that is big fat straw man.
Why do you keep repeating the same straw man?

Only an idiot would believe a man is a Messenger of God just because he declared it. I am not an idiot.

Please do not claim "it's different because the book doesn't say it but he said it.....",

Another straw man. I do not believe Baha'u'llah is a Messenger because He claimed to be a Messenger.
I believe it because of the evidence that supports His claim.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

Any logical person could see that this is the evidence. You can say that it is not enough evidence for you to believe, but it is the evidence.

If a man was a Messenger of God, what other kind of evidence could there be? I posted a thread asking that question years ago, and nobody could give me a logical answer.

Miracles are not evidence that a man received messages from God, but even if they are evidence of something supernatural, they are only evidence to people who witnessed the miracles when the Messenger was alive. What about everyone else?

You won't answer my questions, you will sidestep, since you cannot provide a logical answer.

And where did you find out about these 2 claims? Did he tell you? No, you read. it in a book.

Did he tell me? Even if he did tell me how would that be any different from me reading what he wrote in a book? I would have to believe what he told me. How do we know anything? Because people tell us, or we read it in books or on the internet. A dead person cannot tell us so all we have is what they wrote.

You don't know what logic is.

You would not know what logic is if it hit you in the face.

All of your arguments are uncogent, weak, inductive arguments. The conclusion never follows and it's complete nonsense.

All of your arguments are uncogent, weak, inductive arguments. The conclusion never follows and it's complete nonsense.

Let's look at more of this gibberish:

No, let's not. I have no need to read your gibberish.

Carry on. All you succeed in doing is providing me with free ad space for the Baha'i Faith.

 

[ppp]

Any logical person could see that [Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106] is the evidence. You can say that it is not enough evidence for you to believe, but it is the evidence.

That is not evidence, at all. It is the claim. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nothing laid out here demonstrates anything beyond normal human behavior and abilities.

Do you read anything I write and understand it? I am starting to doubt that.

I said: I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria.
You said: Nothing laid out here demonstrates anything beyond normal human behavior and abilities.

I said I have my own set of criteria, I did not say I laid out my own set of criteria. I did not lay that out.

You just committed the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

True things can be demonstrated.

You are wrong Some things cannot be demonstrated, but that does not mean they are not true. They could be true, false, unknown to be true or false, or they could be unknowable.

You just committed another fallacy because you are claiming that the proposition 'Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God' is false because it has not yet been proven true.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

God can be demonstrated. He could tell someone in 1844 that light speed is the same to all observers and gravity is bent spacetime.

He could do whatever he wants because God can do anything.

God could be demonstrated to exist, but only if He wanted to be demonstrated. Since God has not demonstrated that He exists, even though He has the power to do so, the only logical conclusions are:

1) God does not want to demonstrate He exists, or
2) God does not exist

The REASON that God does not prove He exists to everyone is explained below.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71​

In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people means that God could have made all people believers, but IF God has pleased, implies that God did not want to make all people into believers, which is why all men are not believers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make everyone into believers... In short, God wants us to make an effort and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).

According to this passage, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort.

If God proved to everyone that He exists then it would be impossible to distinguish between people and how much they really care about believing in Him.

It's funny that you are re-stating the circular argument and saying it's not circular.

Premise: Bahai is true

support: God sent messengers

evidence: messengers are evidence

conclusion: Bahai is true

That is not MY argument. It is your straw man.

You have not demonstrated a man who claims to be a "messenger" is actually a messenger.

I already told you that never plan to demonstrate that so why do you keep asking? Do you just like to hear yourself talk?
Nobody can demonstrate that a man is a Messenger except to themselves, for obvious logical reasons that you simply do not understand.
One cannot make a person think logically if they don't think logically.

If God actually started a religion with evidence that crummy, he doesn't deserve to have followers.

If God actually started a religion with evidence that good, deserves to have more followers.

And once again, God did not check a manual to see if the evidence was good enough. He sent the angel Moroni to Jow Smith, showed him golden plates and wrote a new Bible. If you cannot get past your bias you don't deserve to know the true updates of God.

God did not send the angel Moroni to Joe Smith, show him golden plates or write a new Bible. That is not evidence of anything except that people believe that.

Yup, Joseph Smith also did that. Not evidence. It's a cult. It's similar to Scientology.

Again, you commit another logical fallacy, the fallacy of hasty generalization.

The fact that many religious claims are false does not prove all religious claims are false.
That is the fallacy of hasty generalization, unless and until one has actually considered all the variables.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

• Religious claim a is false
• Religious claim b is false
• Religious claim c is false
• Religious claim d is false
• Religious claim e is false
• Religious claim f is false
• Religious claim g is false

Therefore, Religious claim h is false.

It is true that the world is full of false religious claims, but logically speaking that does not mean that all religious claims are false.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is not evidence, at all. It is the claim. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That is not a claim at all. It is a delineation of the evidence that supports the claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have no evidence. Faith is not a reliable path to truth.

I have evidence-based faith, which is a reliable path to truth.

And not everyone accepts the Mormon proof, Islamic proof, New Testament proof. All are better than BAhai.

Only in your opinion are they better than Baha'i.

So there you go, you read it in a book. Its true because the book says so. God didn't tell you, a book told you.

I never said it is true because the book says so, so that is another straw man. That straw is really piling up.

I said that the Messenger is the evidence for God, but NOT because a book says so. He is evidence because God sent Him as evidence.
God is not going to tell anyone (except a Messenger) but even if God did, how would they know it was actually God?

If God is real he is infinite. Speaking personally in everyones mind would be easy. At any time. An infinite deity needs messengers, and at that he tells him lame stuff everyone knows?

It does not matter what God could do, it only matters what God actually does.

You are asserting it's true. That is called a claim.

I am not claiming it is true, I believe it is true.
IF it is true, it is true because it is true, not because the book says it is true.

It's 200 years later and Bahai is one thousandth percent of all religious people. Which he would know.

Why would it matter to God how many Baha'is there are? God needs nobody's belief.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

There are reasons why few people find it.

If you use logic and reason you would realize that few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through...

It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.

Yeah, you do. How many passages in the book did you just post asserting it was true, because it says so?
Yeah, a lot.

I never said it is true because it says so in a book, NEVER. I said I believe it is true because of the evidence.

Then stop writing if it's a problem? Why would you need permission? All you've done is a massive dissertation on how Bahai has no evidence whatsoever and that you believe anything they say in their books.

All you've done is a massive dissertation on how to present logical fallacies.
If you continue to misrepresent my position I will continue to correct you. It's all in a day's work.

 

[ppp]

That is not a claim at all. It is a delineation of the evidence that supports the claim.

A "delineation of the [alleged] evidence" is still a claim. Whether the evidence exists or not.

The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self.

First and foremost, all we have is some dude writing that his writing can self-substantiate.

Next to this testimony is His Revelation.

Incorrect. What we have are his thoughts. He can call it his revelation all day long, but he is still just some dude writing stuff. His word on the matter is not good enough.

For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth.

Again. Not evidence. Just a claim saying so.

This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God.

A mere claim that this is (verily) evidence. No more.

How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts.

He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.

Promises made with vague language that do not offer a clear, measurable outcome are often referred to as "noncommittal promises" or "vague promises." This tactic can be used strategically to gain support or agreement without committing to a specific course of action. Vague promises allow the promisor a significant amount of flexibility and wiggle room, as they can later interpret or redefine the terms of the promise to suit their needs or the situation.

 

[ppp]

You just committed the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

They simply didn't take your alleged criteria into consideration. There is nothing fallacious about that.

 

[Trailblazer]

A "delineation of the [alleged] evidence" is still a claim. Whether the evidence exists or not.

Yes, it is a claim in the sense that he was claiming there is evidence, but it is also a delineation of the evidence that supports the claim.

First and foremost, all we have is some dude writing that his writing can self-substantiate.

No, Baha'u'llah did not write that. He never said his writing substantiates Him as a Messenger of God. He only said that His Words (meaning His Writings) are evidence for those who fail to recognize His own Self or His Revelation.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

Incorrect. What we have are his thoughts. He can call it his revelation all day long, but he is still just some dude writing stuff. His word on the matter is not good enough.

His Revelation is the history of the Baha'i Faith. It is not His thoughts.

Again. Not evidence. Just a claim saying so.

What is not evidence to you is evidence to others.

A mere claim that this is (verily) evidence. No more.

It is a claim that is either true or false. You have free will so you get to choose.

Promises made with vague language that do not offer a clear, measurable outcome are often referred to as "noncommittal promises" or "vague promises." This tactic can be used strategically to gain support or agreement without committing to a specific course of action. Vague promises allow the promisor a significant amount of flexibility and wiggle room, as they can later interpret or redefine the terms of the promise to suit their needs or the situation.

"He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful."

That is a claim that Baha'u'llah was making about God. No, it does not offer a measurable outcome and I don't necessarily believe it.
The claim is what it is. He cannot come back and redefine it since he no longer resides on earth.

 

[Trailblazer]

They simply didn't take your alleged criteria into consideration. There is nothing fallacious about that.

Trailblazer said: I have my own set of criteria that true Messengers of God have to meet. No non-God messengers could meet these criteria.

@joelr said: Nothing laid out here demonstrates anything beyond normal human behavior and abilities.

I never listed 'my own set of criteria' so he jumped to conclusions when he assumed I was referring to what I have thus far laid out.

 

[ppp]

Yes, it is a claim in the sense that he was claiming there is evidence, but it is also a delineation of the evidence that supports the claim.

No. It is just a claim that there is evidence to be delineated.. Added embellishment does not elevate the claim to something else. Hanging the word delineate does not elevate the claim to something else. You are just hitting the thesaurus and throwing out syllables in hopes that no one notices the lack of substance.

His words will never serve as an existential evidentiary foundation. At least for someone who cares about demonstrable reality.

 

[ppp]

I never listed 'my own set of criteria' so he jumped to conclusions when he assumed I was referring to what I have thus far laid out.

Irrespective of what you were referring to, nothing you laid out demonstrates anything beyond normal human behavior and abilities. That is a fact.

 

[ppp]

No, Baha'u'llah did not write that.

So? Are you just saying random stuff? No one's writings self substantiate. That doesn't change from person to person. That doesn't depend on who is writing.

 

[ppp]

What is not evidence to you is evidence to others.

nah

 

[Trailblazer]

No. It is just a claim that there is evidence to be delineated.. Added embellishment does not elevate the claim to something else. Hanging the word delineate does not elevate the claim to something else. You are just hitting the thesaurus and throwing out syllables in hopes that no one notices the lack of substance.

Evidence is information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. There is evidence for Baha'u'llah because there is information about Baha'u'llah to be delineated.

His words will never serve as an existential evidentiary foundation. At least for someone who cares about demonstrable reality.

Of course His words will never serve as an existential evidentiary foundation. That is why we have to look at the entire history of the Baha'i Faith, including who Baha'u'llah was as a person.

 

[Trailblazer]

Irrespective of what you were referring to, nothing you laid out demonstrates anything beyond normal human behavior and abilities. That is a fact.

I was never trying to demonstrate anything beyond normal human behavior and abilities.

 

[Trailblazer]

So? Are you just saying random stuff? No one's writings self substantiate. That doesn't change from person to person. That doesn't depend on who is writing.

Baha'u'llah did not write that his writings can self-substantiate. No one's writings self substantiate.

 

[Trailblazer]

nah

True, evidence is evidence.

Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the facts surrounding the person, life, and mission of Baha'u'llah, so we have objective evidence.
Whether or not the available body of facts or information convinces people that He was a Messenger of God is another matter.

 

[ppp]

Evidence is information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable.

That is so sloppy that you are either inviting deceit, or trying to smuggle the deceit in yourself. By that shoddy standard, simply writing a statement makes the claim more probable. Pfui.

 

[ppp]

Of course His words will never serve as an existential evidentiary foundation. That is why we have to look at the entire history of the Baha'i Faith, including who Baha'u'llah was as a person.

None of which serve as existential evidentiary foundation for anything beyond Baha'u'llah is the name of some dude, who said some unfounded stuff and that some other people believe some unfounded stuff.