Default position

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Why we 'need' Messengers of God to receive communication from God is just simple logic, it is sooooooooooo simple.

Yeah, it is sooooooooooo simple. Bahaollah is saying that in his age God spoke only through him (though he did not give any evidence for God or his being God's manifestation, there were other messengers in earlier ages too, who also did not give any evidence, but their message has been corrupted or is insufficient). So, be a Bahai. God is wrathful to those who deny the claimants of being messengership.
But Mirza Ghulam Ahmad spoiled his game in Bahaollah's own life and claimed to be a Mahdi. There are more Ahmadiyyas than Bahais in the world, more people have believed in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani of Qadian, Punjab, India, than in Bahaollah . Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also did not give any evidence of God or himself being a Mahdi. All these games are being played since the days of Akhenaten, Zoroaster and Moses without any evidence.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

Thought-free circular assertions, or unjustified, blind faith belief, if you prefer.

Either we have free will or we don't. That is the simple logic of the situation.

Okay, then define 'free will' in such a way as to be logically self-consistent and have significance from the point of view of an omniscient and omnipotent creator. I've never seen a valid answer to this question, so here is a chance to impress.

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

In this case, logic.

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.

Excuses. Sorry, but if your saying that 'spiritual reality' cannot provide evidence to the standard of science, then there is no reason to accept it as (provisionally) factual. If the methods of science don't work, fine, but there needs to be something else that is just as robust. Is the last sentence a joke? What single fact has religion ever uncovered, over all of its long, miserable existence?

As I said, the reasons to think that God is real are are subjective.

Not actually reasons at all, then.

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?

You are very good at deflecting when you cannot answer my questions....

It isn't a question of deflection, it really isn't my problem. If somebody makes a claim, it is their burden of proof, it really isn't up to me to do their job for them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
It isn't a question of deflection, it really isn't my problem. If somebody makes a claim, it is their burden of proof, it really isn't up to me to do their job for them.

As a claim: There is a methodology for all of the universe including humans, which is objective, rational and with evidence.
I have tried to do that and came up which the answer, that I can't do that.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

I cannot say what God can do, only God knows that. I can only say what God does and doesn't do.
Do you see God communicating by any other means? I don't.

 

[sayak83]

I cannot say what God can do, only God knows that. I can only say what God does and doesn't do.
Do you see God communicating by any other means? I don't.

Of course I see it. God/Absolute/Divine Ground can be directly experienced by everyone is the key and validated claim by mystics of all religions.

 

[ratiocinator]

I can only say what God does and doesn't do.

No, you can only say what you believe about what your unevidenced god does and doesn't do.

Do you see God communicating by any other means? I don't.

I don't see any god communicating at all, in any way at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, it is sooooooooooo simple. Bahaollah is saying that in his age God spoke only through him (though he did not give any evidence for God or his being God's manifestation, there were other messengers in earlier ages too, who also did not give any evidence,

All the Messengers gave evidence for being God's manifestation. The evidence is who they were, what they did on their missions from God, and what they wrote, or what was written on their behalf.

but their message has been corrupted or is insufficient). So, be a Bahai. God is wrathful to those who deny the claimants of being messengership.
But Mirza Ghulam Ahmad spoiled his game in Bahaollah's own life and claimed to be a Mahdi. There are more Ahmadiyyas than Bahais in the world, more people have believed in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani of Qadian, Punjab, India, than in Bahaollah . Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also did not give any evidence of God or himself being a Mahdi. All these games are being played since the days of Akhenaten, Zoroaster and Moses without any evidence.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not spoil Baha'u'llah's claims or His religion. Ahmad might believe he is who he claims to be, and people might believe his claims, but he is a false prophet.
The fact that there are more Ahmadiyyas than Baha'is in the world has no bearing upon what is true and it does not mean Ahmad is a true prophet.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, voxpopuli,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

The Narrow Way

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

 

[F1fan]

It seems to me that an atheist's default position is, in fact, atheism.

Atheism = non-theism, or no religion.

Absent of proof for a god, they don't believe in one.

Just one? There are thousands in human history, including over 200 creator gods.

I have no proof of god, but I think that is because I haven't diligently searched long enough yet.

Look around the house, in the bushes, maybe you will find an old Easter egg. Evidence of God?

The irony is the "search for God" is fruitless because if a person doesn't "have" God, and doesn't know what God is, how do you know where to look, or know when you find the missing God? It's a doomed search, one that could lead a lost soul into more isolation and fear. This could drive a person to seek any of the many processed Gods that are ready for consumption, and available at any local church. Trap.

I am sort of young. For me, absent of proof, I believe in a higher power.

How is this useful?

It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

Did anyone prove to you that Santa Claus doesn't exist, or did you just let it go because adults said so?

So you believe that a God exists due to otehrs saying so, but ignore that since they are committed that that's good enough for you to conform? What makes them correct? Why not use your own authority of mind and agency and think for yourself?

Perhaps, after some years of searching, I will become an athesist if I find no experiences which reinforce my faith. But I've already have had experiences which reinforce my faith, so I just have to see if living a religious life will lead to more of those.

But if you approach this as a believer what protects you from the mistake of committing to the idea of a God and it becoming part of your ego, and then being trapped by the attachment to that image of self?

This is why it makes more sense to approach rational inquiry looking FOR evidence to believe. THEN you can beleive.

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

Then magical thinking is what you will fall back on, and it isn't reliable.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course I see it. God/Absolute/Divine Ground can be directly experienced by everyone is the key and validated claim by mystics of all religions.

God is not experienced directly by everyone so it is not a validated claim.
In fact, there is absolutely no proof that anyone has ever experienced God so it is not a validated claim.
It is only a belief, no different than my belief that Messengers heard from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, you can only say what you believe about what your unevidenced god does and doesn't do.

I can only say what I believe about what my evidenced God does and doesn't do.

I don't see any god communicating at all, in any way at all.

And you won't, not unless you look at the Messengers, since that is the only way that God communicates.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, then define 'free will' in such a way as to be logically self-consistent and have significance from the point of view of an omniscient and omnipotent creator. I've never seen a valid answer to this question, so here is a chance to impress.

I already told you what my definition of free will is.

Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these can be considered causes or reasons why we choose one thing or another.​

​

How free our choices are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints such as ability and opportunity but we have volition as otherwise we could not choose anything.​

This in no way contradicts the belief in an omniscient and omnipotent creator. If you think it does give me the logical reasons why you think free will cannot exist alongside an omniscient/omnipotent creator, since you are the one who is making the claim that they cannot coexist.

In this case, logic.

Sorry, but that does not fly. Logic does not tell us humans have no free will, it tells us the exact opposite.
I know I have free will because I am 'aware' when I am choosing one thing over another.

Excuses. Sorry, but if your saying that 'spiritual reality' cannot provide evidence to the standard of science, then there is no reason to accept it as (provisionally) factual.

When did I ever say that spiritual reality or God's existence is factual? It is a belief so that means means it is not factual.
There are no facts about God, although there are facts about Messengers of God. That's as close as you are going to get to 'knowing' about God.

If the methods of science don't work, fine, but there needs to be something else that is just as robust. Is the last sentence a joke? What single fact has religion ever uncovered, over all of its long, miserable existence?

I never said that religion is factual. I said it is the way to know the truth about God.

It isn't a question of deflection, it really isn't my problem. If somebody makes a claim, it is their burden of proof, it really isn't up to me to do their job for them.

I make no claims, I only state my beliefs. Baha'u'llah made the claims and He backed them up with evidence so He met His burden.

 

[ratiocinator]

Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these can be considered causes or reasons why we choose one thing or another.

Yes, and the point is exactly that. We don't get to choose our desires and preferences, they come from all the factors you mention. Now, either all those factors, and the exact circumstances in which we make our choice make one choice inevitable or they don't. In the first case we are treating the mind as a deterministic system, in the second, it is not deterministic. If you look at the definition again, if it's not deterministic, then, by definition, in involves randomness. This is why I say that minds are deterministic or involve randomness. Randomness cannot make us more free or responsible and if we are deterministic then everything we do is fixed and we have no freedom at all any way that would make sense from the POV of a god.

I know I have free will because I am 'aware' when I am choosing one thing over another.

How does awareness indicate free will?

When did I ever say that spiritual reality or God's existence is factual? It is a belief so that means means it is not factual.

Non-factual is, err... fiction.

Baha'u'llah made the claims and He backed them up with evidence so He met His burden.

So why are you finding so hard to post his evidence? All you've posted is some rather silly quotes from him, that suggest he didn't have a clue what the word 'evidence' means.

 

[Aupmanyav]

All the Messengers gave evidence for being God's manifestation.
Ahmad might believe he is who he claims to be, and people might believe his claims, but he is a false prophet.
The fact that there are more Ahmadiyyas than Baha'is in the world has no bearing upon what is true and it does not mean Ahmad is a true prophet.
The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

What they said or wrote is not evidence. If I write or say that I am a messenger of a God, it does not establish existence of that God or my claim. You yourself have said many a times that existence of God or someone being a messenger cannot be proved. It is a matter of faith.
Why do you say that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a false prophet. Did Bahaollah give any better evidence than him?
Well, there are just 7 million (as reported, 0.087% of the world population) people who believe in the mission of Bahaollah, and 8025 million people do not believe in Bahaollah. You sure have a long way to go.

 

[sayak83]

God is not experienced directly by everyone so it is not a validated claim.
In fact, there is absolutely no proof that anyone has ever experienced God so it is not a validated claim.
It is only a belief, no different than my belief that Messengers heard from God.

Tiger is not seen by everyone. So existence of tiger is not validated?
You have to visit the forest and wait patiently to see the tiger. But if you do not go, you will not see. That is certain. What fraction of the people have tried the path laid down by the mystics of their religious tradition? Have you? Unfortunately some people have been taken in by false claims by some self appointed messengers that they, and their organization is the only true conduit to God! What arrogance of these messengers! To restrict God in this manner! It is one of the fundamental flaws of human being...they wish to own and sell other things that are given freely as gifts from nature and the reality behind it. Owning lands, creating borders, owning water and selling water, owning animals, even humans in the recent past. And they wish to own and sell copyrights to God as well! Buy into my tradition and get access to God! The absurdity!

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, and the point is exactly that. We don't get to choose our desires and preferences, they come from all the factors you mention. Now, either all those factors, and the exact circumstances in which we make our choice make one choice inevitable or they don't.

Those factors me one choice more likely than another but they don't make our choices inevitable. Many things happen to us in life that can change our desires and preferences, just ask people and they will tell you that. I have done a 180 on some of my desires and preferences because of things that happened to me in life that changed me.

In the first case we are treating the mind as a deterministic system, in the second, it is not deterministic. If you look at the definition again, if it's not deterministic, then, by definition, in involves randomness. This is why I say that minds are deterministic or involve randomness. Randomness cannot make us more free or responsible and if we are deterministic then everything we do is fixed and we have no freedom at all any way that would make sense from the POV of a god.

I do not believe that we are deterministic or that things happen randomly. I believe we have free will to choose but that free will is constrained by many factors such as opportunity and capability. Life circumstances often constrain what we can choose.

It makes no sense from the POV of a God that 'everything' we do is fixed and we have no freedom at all any way because in that case God would not expect us to make moral choices, choosing between good and evil. The Baha'i Faith does not teach that humans are free to do 'anything' they want to do. Many things we are compelled to do, and I consider those to be our fate, since we did not choose them. For example, a person does not choose to get in an auto accident that was caused by another driver, and a person does not choose to get a disease such as cancer.

Below is a definition of free will according to the Baha'i Faith.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.”​

Some Answered Questions, p. 248​

How does awareness indicate free will?

It does not prove free will but it indicates we have it when we are aware of choosing between option a and b. We migt be compelled to choose option a because of our desires and preferences but we still choose a instead of b.

Non-factual is, err... fiction.

No, everything that is not factual is not fictional. That is the fallacy of black and white thinking. There are things that cannot be proven as a fact but that does not mean they are fictional.

So why are you finding so hard to post his evidence? All you've posted is some rather silly quotes from him, that suggest he didn't have a clue what the word 'evidence' means.

I have posted the link to the post that explains the claims and evidence. Is there any reason for me to post it again?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I have also given you the opportunity to tell me what would be evidence since you do not think that what I posted is evidence.
The other choice you have is to say that there can never be any evidence for Messengers of God, in which case we don't have to discuss it anymore.

If you claim that Messengers of God are not evidence for God because I cannot prove that they are that is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

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​

 

[Trailblazer]

What they said or wrote is not evidence.

I never said that was evidence. What they did was the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Tiger is not seen by everyone. So existence of tiger is not validated?

That argument absolutely won't work because we have proof of the existence of tigers, so it is a fact that tigers exist.
By contrast, there is absolutely no proof that any mystic actually heard from God.

You have to visit the forest and wait patiently to see the tiger. But if you do not go, you will not see. That is certain.

Anyone who wants to see a tiger only has to go to a zoo.

What fraction of the people have tried the path laid down by the mystics of their religious tradition? Have you? Unfortunately some people have been taken in by false claims by some self appointed messengers that they, and their organization is the only true conduit to God! What arrogance of these messengers!

Excuse me? What arrogance is it for mystics to claim they have heard from God with absolutely no proof other than their personal experience.
You can believe they have a conduit to God if you want to but you have absolutely no evidence. The Messengers by contrast provided evidence to support their claims.

And what good does a mystic connection to God do for humanity, what purpose does it serve? It serves no purpose, so it is completely selfish.

To restrict God in this manner! It is one of the fundamental flaws of human being...

Nobody restricts God. God does whatsoever He wills. People just believe different things about what that is.

 

[an anarchist]

Excuse me? What arrogance is it for mystics to claim they have heard from God with absolutely no proof other than their personal experience.
You can believe they have a conduit to God if you want to but you have absolutely no evidence. The Messengers by contrast provided evidence to support their claims.

Excuse me? What arrogance is it for "messengers" to claim they have heard from God with absolutely no proof other than their personal experience. You can believe they have a conduit to God if you want to but you have absolutely no evidence...

 

[ratiocinator]

Those factors me one choice more likely than another but they don't make our choices inevitable.

Okay, so what are the other factors that finally resolve it?

Many things happen to us in life that can change our desires and preferences, just ask people and they will tell you that. I have done a 180 on some of my desires and preferences because of things that happened to me in life that changed me.

That they change over time is not an issue. That can be deterministic or not too.

It makes no sense from the POV of a God that 'everything' we do is fixed and we have no freedom at all any way because in that case God would not expect us to make moral choices, choosing between good and evil.

Sorry but this is a logical argument, a god that you can't back up is not relevant.

Okay. Thought experiment: If we could rewind time to the point at which you made a choice in your life, is it possible that you could make a different choice? Bear in mind that literally everything will be exactly the same. You will have no memory of the last time, all your internal thoughts, feelings, and everything else about your state of mind will be exactly the same, as well as all the external circumstances.

If you say 'no' (you couldn't make a different choice), then you are effectively saying you are deterministic. Your choice was entirely fixed by the state of the world and your mind at the time.

If you say 'yes', then you are admitting to randomness. Why? Because there can be no difference that causes the choice to be different (everything is exactly the same), and something with no cause, must be random.

The same argument can be equally applied to every event in the universe and everything that has happened in your life. There is simply no 'room' for something called 'free will'.

No, everything that is not factual is not fictional. That is the fallacy of black and white thinking. There are things that cannot be proven as a fact but that does not mean they are fictional.

I do wish you'd keep track of what you've said. You said: "When did I ever say that spiritual reality or God's existence is factual?" Not the evidence, not whether it's provable or not, but "God's existence" itself.

Yes there are things that cannot be proved that are factual, that wasn't what you said though. A god might be a fact and we might not be able to prove it, or, more to the point (since nothing about reality can be proved) find any evidence, but that doesn't stop them from being factual.

It there is no factual evidence, there is no evidence.

I have posted the link to the post that explains the claims and evidence. Is there any reason for me to post it again?

No. If you don't have anything better, then you have no evidence. You have no objective facts that support the idea that your god is real.

I have also given you the opportunity to tell me what would be evidence since you do not think that what I posted is evidence.

Still not my problem.

If you claim that Messengers of God are not evidence for God because I cannot prove that they are that is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

You're descending into nonsense here. Evidence consists of facts that either support a given hypothesis or falsify it. Nothing you have posted about the 'messengers' fits the bill. All of it is equally well explained by them just being humans who held religious convictions Hence it cannot support the hypothesis that a real god exists, so it is not evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Excuse me? What arrogance is it for "messengers" to claim they have heard from God with absolutely no proof other than their personal experience. You can believe they have a conduit to God if you want to but you have absolutely no evidence...

Sorry, but there is evidence for Messengers of God.