Default position

[Trailblazer]

This is a neutral thing for me, not pointing either way. True, God could be more direct if He wanted to. Good point there. People could argue for a long time of the implications of that.

It does not matter what God could do. This is not about what God can do, it is about what humans are capable of. Humans are not capable of understanding direct communication from God.

According to Baha'u'llah there can never be any direct intercourse between God and humans, and that is why we need an intermediary between God and humans, which is the Messenger of God.

“Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence, and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 318​

​

“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself.....The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.””​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67​

Why we 'need' Messengers of God to receive communication from God is just simple logic, it is sooooooooooo simple.
Why do I believe in the Baha'i Faith? Because it is logical, drop deal logical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does not matter what God could do. This is not about what God can do, it is about what humans are capable of. Humans are not capable of understanding direct communication from God.

That sure sounds like it's about what God can do, since the implication of what you're saying is that God is incapable of communicating with humans directly.

 

[Trailblazer]

That can't possibly be evidence because there is no way at all to tell if they were sent by a god. Do you not get that evidence has be actually something we can check, not somebody's blind faith? This claim is totally absurd.

There is a way to 'tell' if they were sent by God, although there is no way to prove that they were sent by God.

Nonsense. You said: "That is patently absurd. If God decided everything we would be and do we would be programmed robots." but you gave no reason whatsoever to think that we aren't "programmed robots", except, presumably, that you didn't like the idea.

Conversely, you gave no reason whatsoever to think that we are "programmed robots", except, presumably, that you like the idea.

No, it is the very definition of a deterministic system: "In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system" -- Deterministic system.

A deterministic system makes no sense for humans because that would mean that nobody was ever responsible for their own actions.
The entire justice system is predicated on the existence of free will to choose between right and wrong.

determinism
the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

what is determinism - Google Search

www.google.com

You seem to be concentrating on the legal sense of the word, i.e. 'beyond reasonable doubt' (criminal) or 'on the balance of probabilities' (civil). I am talking about the scientific and mathematical sense. Legal 'proof' is not absolute proof, it is just strong evidence. And yes, I want something that is at least as good as 'the balance of probabilities'. That is a minimum standard for good evidence.

Religion is not science or math so it makes no sense to expect the same kind of evidence as one would have in science and math.
Whether or not evidence is as good as 'the balance of probabilities' is a subjective call.

You can repeat this as much as you like, it won't make it true. I see not one shred of evidence.

Just because YOU don't see it as evidence that does not mean it is not evidence.
If you do not think this is evidence for a Messenger of God, what would constitute evidence? In other words, hypothetically speaking, let's say that a man was actually a Messenger of God. What would be the evidence? How would we know that he was a Messenger of God?

The passage you quoted indicates otherwise.

Why?

Baseless assertion.

It is not an assertion at all, it is a belief.

Sorry, but this is just pathetic. There is no evidence here at all. As I said, it doesn't look like either you or Baha'u'llah have/had any grasp of what evidence is.

Put your money where your mouth is. If you don't think it is evidence what would be the evidence?
If a man was actually a Messenger of God do you think there would be a way to know that?
If so, how would we know that a man was a Messenger of God?

Baha'u'llah could be a Messenger of God and you would not know that if you don't know what the evidence would look like.

 

[Trailblazer]

That sure sounds like it's about what God can do, since the implication of what you're saying is that God is incapable of communicating with humans directly.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that humans are incapable of understanding direct communication from God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not what I am saying.

That's right; it's what you implied, not what you said.

I am saying that humans are incapable of understanding direct communication from God.

... which implies that God is incapable of communicating with humans directly in a way that they can understand.

 

[Trailblazer]

... which implies that God is incapable of communicating with humans directly in a way that they can understand.

Correct.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is a way to 'tell' if they were sent by God...

Why do you always tell me that there is evidence without explaining how something is evidence, and now stating that there is a way to tell without explaining what it is? It's utterly pointless. A waste of typing.

Conversely, you gave no reason whatsoever to think that we are "programmed robots", except, presumably, that you like the idea.

It's got nothing to do with what I like. Either we are deterministic or there is some randomness (which doesn't make us any more 'free'). That is the simple logic of the situation.

A deterministic system makes no sense for humans because that would mean that nobody was ever responsible for their own actions.
The entire justice system is predicated on the existence of free will to choose between right and wrong.

So what? How does that relate to the truth of the matter? Clue: it doesn't. Something can be true even if you don't like the consequences and even if some human system is designed on a different assumption. As an aside, Daniel Dennett has argued that determinism does not rule out a kind of freedom and responsibility. I'm not going to get bogged down in that here but see Elbow Room and compatibilism.

Religion is not science or math so it makes no sense to expect the same kind of evidence as one would have in science and math.

Since this is a question about whether something exists in reality or not, I think the scientific idea of evidence is exactly the correct approach.

Whether or not evidence is as good as 'the balance of probabilities' is a subjective call.

So far, you have given nothing at all that would even shift the balance of probability towards a god by one iota. You have provided not the slightest reason to think your god is actually real.

If you do not think this is evidence for a Messenger of God, what would constitute evidence? In other words, hypothetically speaking, let's say that a man was actually a Messenger of God. What would be the evidence? How would we know that he was a Messenger of God?

I've no idea. Not my problem, not my burden of proof.

Nothing you've pointed out so far distinguishes the 'messengers' from anything other than normal humans with religious beliefs (and some are probably entirely fictional).

Why?

Because it was just silly. Here it is:

“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.”​

Just arrogant, nonsensical drivel.

It is not an assertion at all, it is a belief.

It was phrased as an assertion. If it's a belief, you haven't justified it, which amounts to the same thing.

Put your money where your mouth is. If you don't think it is evidence what would be the evidence?
If a man was actually a Messenger of God do you think there would be a way to know that?
If so, how would we know that a man was a Messenger of God?

I still have no idea and it's still not my problem.

Baha'u'llah could be a Messenger of God and you would not know that...

Of course. However I don't take propositions seriously without good reason. Baha'u'llah could have been a lizard alien disguised as a human and I wouldn't know that either.

 

[Truthseeker]

It does not matter what God could do. This is not about what God can do, it is about what humans are capable of. Humans are not capable of understanding direct communication from God.

According to Baha'u'llah there can never be any direct intercourse between God and humans, and that is why we need an intermediary between God and humans, which is the Messenger of God.

“Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence, and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 318​

​

“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself.....The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.””​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67​

Why we 'need' Messengers of God to receive communication from God is just simple logic, it is sooooooooooo simple.
Why do I believe in the Baha'i Faith? Because it is logical, drop deal logical.

You've argued about that for years. I've seen it the uselessness of it, so why argue? I don't want to argue about this.

 

[Trailblazer]

You've argued about that for years. I've seen it the uselessness of it, so why argue? I don't want to argue about this.

I am not arguing Duane, I am only presenting accurate information about Baha'i beliefs. People can do with it what they will.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you always tell me that there is evidence without explaining how something is evidence, and now stating that there is a way to tell without explaining what it is? It's utterly pointless. A waste of typing.

Messengers are evidence because God sent them as evidence, and if God sent them as evidence that means there must be a way to tell if they are Messengers. There is a way to tell but that doesn't mean that 'everyone' is going to be able to tell that they are Messengers.

It's got nothing to do with what I like. Either we are deterministic or there is some randomness (which doesn't make us any more 'free'). That is the simple logic of the situation.

It's got nothing to do with what I like. Either we have free will or we don't. That is the simple logic of the situation.

So what? How does that relate to the truth of the matter? Clue: it doesn't. Something can be true even if you don't like the consequences and even if some human system is designed on a different assumption.

That is correct, but how do you think you can know the truth of the matter?

Since this is a question about whether something exists in reality or not, I think the scientific idea of evidence is exactly the correct approach.

No, absolutely NOT. Since this is a question about whether something exists in spiritual reality or not, the scientific idea of evidence is not even relevant. The scientific approach for evidence is utilized for something that exists in physical reality. God does not exist in physical reality. Religion is the right approach to know what exists in spiritual reality.

So far, you have given nothing at all that would even shift the balance of probability towards a god by one iota. You have provided not the slightest reason to think your god is actually real.

As I said, the reasons to think that God is real are are subjective. That is why your balance hasn't shifted.

I've no idea. Not my problem, not my burden of proof.

Nothing you've pointed out so far distinguishes the 'messengers' from anything other than normal humans with religious beliefs (and some are probably entirely fictional).

It is not my burden of proof either since I did not make the claim.
Don't put it back on me. I already told you what I believe the evidence is.

You are saying I have no evidence, so if a man was actually a Messenger of God what would you 'expect to see' that would distinguish him from a normal human?

Because it was just silly. Here it is:

“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.”​

Just arrogant, nonsensical drivel.

Only in your opinion is it nonsensical drivel and there is nothing arrogant about it.

It was phrased as an assertion. If it's a belief, you haven't justified it, which amounts to the same thing.

I haven't justified it to you.

I still have no idea and it's still not my problem.

You are very good at deflecting when you cannot answer my questions....
It is not my problem either since I already know who the Messenger of God was and why He was a Messenger.

Of course. However I don't take propositions seriously without good reason.

Neither do I.

 

[Alien826]

Just because I thought of it, and because I think it has something to say to religious apologists in general.

Parable of the Invisible Gardener - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[an anarchist]

You are saying I have no evidence, so if a man was actually a Messenger of God what would you 'expect to see' that would distinguish him from a normal human?

Well, I think if Baha'u'llah called out columns of fire from the sky or even just flew around for a bit to show off his god powers that'd be cool. And don't say that'd be impossible because your God is all powerful. Or if he even explained the mysteries of the universe very plainly id be apt to consider his word.

 

[Alien826]

Messengers are evidence because God sent them as evidence, and if God sent them as evidence that means there must be a way to tell if they are Messengers. There is a way to tell but that doesn't mean that 'everyone' is going to be able to tell that they are Messengers.

Here's how I see the problem with this.

Assertions:
God can't talk to all of us in a way that we can understand.
Because of this, God sends Messengers that can miraculously understand God.

Question: If God can "make" Messengers, then that means he can talk to humans using a bit of divine power, So why just Messengers?
Answer: Because he didn't want to.
Question: Why didn't he want to?
Answer: Don't know. You must have missed where I said we can't understand God.
Question: If we can't understand God how can we be sure what you say about Messengers and what God wants to do is true?
Answer: Because our Messenger said so.

Question: There are lots of self styled Messengers, mostly patently false. How do you know yours is a true Messenger?
Answer: There are signs we can use to identify a true Messenger.
Question: Now we're getting somewhere. What are these signs?
Answer: [Lists signs].
Question: I see these signs perfectly describe your Messenger. I would expect a false Messenger to say just that. How can you be sure they are correct?
Answer: Because our Messenger said so.
Question: How can you be sure he is correct?
Answer: Because he is a Messenger of God.
Question: How can you be sure of that?
Answer: Because he said so.

Note that I didn't demand "hard" evidence, just some coherency.

 

[sayak83]

The problem with your logic is that you don't know that God could communicate Himself through other means (direct communication, angels to earth etc). Humans are human, so they can understand other humans, so if God exists it makes sense to expect human founders of religions.

It is also very important to note that the Messengers of God were humans, but they were not like other humans. They were both divine and human, so that is why they alone had the ability to understand communication from God and relay that information to humans, thus acting as intermediaries between God and humans.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

Okay. So you are saying that the omnipotent creator of All is unable to communicate in any other way than through whispering in the ear of allegedly semi divine ears?

 

[Truthseeker]

I am not arguing Duane, I am only presenting accurate information about Baha'i beliefs. People can do with it what they will.

This is confusing! Repeating Baha'i beliefs over and over does nothing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, I think if Baha'u'llah called out columns of fire from the sky or even just flew around for a bit to show off his god powers that'd be cool. And don't say that'd be impossible because your God is all powerful. Or if he even explained the mysteries of the universe very plainly id be apt to consider his word.

I won't say it is impossible as it was possible, but that is not what Baha'u'llah wanted anyone to look at as evidence of His claims.

​

The Holy Manifestations are the sources of miracles and the originators of wonderful signs. For Them, any difficult and impracticable thing is possible and easy. For through a supernatural power wonders appear from Them; and by this power, which is beyond nature, They influence the world of nature. From all the Manifestations marvelous things have appeared.​

​

But in the Holy Books an especial terminology is employed, and for the Manifestations these miracles and wonderful signs have no importance. They do not even wish to mention them. For if we consider miracles a great proof, they are still only proofs and arguments for those who are present when they are performed, and not for those who are absent…….​

​

But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle.........​

​

The meaning is not that the Manifestations are unable to perform miracles, for They have all power. But for Them inner sight, spiritual healing and eternal life are the valuable and important things.​

​

Some Answered Questions, pp. 100-102​

 

[Trailblazer]

Question: How can you be sure he is correct?
Answer: Because he is a Messenger of God.
Question: How can you be sure of that?
Answer: Because he said so.

No, it is not because he said so. It is because of the evidence that backs up his claim to be a Messenger of God.
In other words, it is not what He said, it is because of what he did.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay. So you are saying that the omnipotent creator of All is unable to communicate in any other way than through whispering in the ear of allegedly semi divine ears?

God does not whisper in their ear. He communicates to their mind through the Holy Spirit.
Messengers of God are the only ones who can understand God because they have a divine mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is confusing! Repeating Baha'i beliefs over and over does nothing.

It has been years since I posted that passage from Baha'u'llah where He wrote there can never be any direct intercourse between God and humans and explained why that is the case. I had to post it because it is related to what people are asking and explains why we need an intermediary between God and humans, which is the Messenger of God.

 

[sayak83]

God does not whisper in their ear. He communicates to their mind through the Holy Spirit.
Messengers of God are the only ones who can understand God because they have a divine mind.

So.... the ominipotent creator of the universe is unable to communicate by another other means other than speaking in the mind of some allegedly semidivine humans?