Default position

[Audie]

No, it is based upon knowledge of what the Messengers revealed.

Humans are fallible so no matter how God communicated the same issue would arise.
Besides, you have never presented a *better way* for God to communicate to humans, a way that would actually work.

Of course humans are fallible. It would make no sense for God to create infallible humans. If humans could not makes mistakes and learn from them there would be no purpose for this earthly existence, which is to learn and grow spiritually.

No, it would only rely upon reasoning.

The facts about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith are the facts. Those facts constitute evidence.
What you make of them, whether or not you think they indicate nonexistence of God, is entirely up to you.

You can try to be objective about the facts but subjectivity will always enter in since people have personal opinions about the facts.
There is no way around that.

It is obvious to anyone with a logical mind that the standards of evidence for a Messenger of God can never be the same standards of evidence used in science and law because religion is not science and religion is not law.

I have given you reasons, you just don't accept the reasons since you view the evidence differently. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Beliefs are not automatically false simply because they are based upon circular reasoning.
That is a fact, not an opinion. You just don't like it.

This is not brain science, it is simple logic.

If Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, then God exists.

Any logical person could figure out that what needs to be determined is if Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or not, and that is determined by looking at claims and the evidence that supports His claims.

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

If Batboy has a secret moon lab he is the greatest
scientist ever.
Simple logic.

 

[Willamena]

It's interesting to me when religious people say that you can choose your beliefs. I certainly can't choose what I believe. Belief is a consequence of apprehension or misapprehension, not choice.

I can choose to suspend my disbelief in something that I know isn't really true, though, like when playing a role-playing game or immersing myself in a Star Trek episode. When you "choose" to believe something, this is what you're doing. You don't actually believe it; you're just pretending that it's true.

So any time someone says that being an atheist is a choice it often makes me think that person is probably only pretending to believe in God and are actually atheists themselves.

Which makes sense. There is a lot of social pressure to pretend to believe from a young age and I imagine many believers would feel incredibly guilty if they didn't believe in God, so they choose to ignore when their cognitive dissonance slips out like this to continue suspending disbelief in the religion they're emotionally invested in.

It's a terrible argument against atheism but unintentionally reveals a lot about the mentality of those who say it.

I wouldn't know about the religious people, but choosing to believe is a figure of speech, not a philosophical argument. It implies volition, that's all.

 

[Trailblazer]

And the "revelation" contained no facts?

The revelation contained some things that are now known to be facts.

 

[Audie]

The revelation contained some things that are now known to be facts.

That don't take much.
I can reveal facts like.crazy.

But good. It had facts.

Anything special, that any old faker would not know?]

Like something that only a god could reveal?

 

[lukethethird]

That don't take much.
I can reveal facts like.crazy.

But good. It had facts.

Anything special, that any old faker would not know?]

Like something that only a god could reveal?

Yes, that marriage is to be between a man and a woman.

 

[Trailblazer]

But good. It had facts.

Anything special, that any old faker would not know?]

Like something that only a god could reveal?

Yes, Baha'u'llah knew things that were not facts at the time of revelation.
They only later became known facts.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, that marriage is to be between a man and a woman.

That is not a fact, it is a Law of God.

 

[lukethethird]

That is not a fact, it is a Law of God.

True, what good would a law from God be that was based on fact?

 

[Trailblazer]

True, what good would a law from God be that was based on fact?

I did not say it was not 'based on facts.' I said it was not a fact.

 

[lukethethird]

I did not say it was not 'based on facts.' I said it was not a fact.

Same thing.

 

[lukethethird]

We wouldn't want facts to interfere with a law from God that a messenger revealed to us now would we.

 

[Trailblazer]

We wouldn't want facts to interfere with a law from God that a messenger revealed to us now would we.

They don't.

 

[lukethethird]

They don't.

Exactly.

 

[Audie]

Yes, Baha'u'llah knew things that were not facts at the time of revelation.
They only later became known facts.

Things that could only have been
revealed by god?

( second time asking )

 

[Trailblazer]

Things that could only have been
revealed by god?

( second time asking )

Things that could only have been known by God at the time of revelation since only God can see into the future.

 

[lukethethird]

Things that could only have been
revealed by god?

( second time asking )

Good luck with that.

 

[Audie]

Things that could only have been known by God at the time of revelation since only God can see into the future.

So essentially then, proof of god.

 

[Trailblazer]

So essentially then, proof of god.

No.

 

[Trailblazer]

Form where? Take Christianity, are you saying you have direct evidence that the message of Jesus was distorted later (and I don't mean the unverifiable claims of Baha'u'llah, or anybody else, for that matter), I mean actual evidence?

The way we know that the message of Jesus was distorted later is by looking at the original message (the gospels, which is as close as we can get to what Jesus said) and comparing that with the Christian doctrines and seeing the discrepancies between them.

In your view, who created humans and determined their abilities?

In my view, humans evolved. God set that process in motion but God did not create humans. Different humans have differnt potentials but those can only be realized as a result of their own efforts.

Untrue. #447.

I don't consider it better since it would not even work as I explained in #449.

All looks like another utterly pointless and rather cruel game to me.

I won't say that it is not cruel but it is not pointless. Unfortunately we won't actually realize the point of this life until we get to the next life.

Where is this (non-circular) reasoning?

When we use our rational minds to evaluate the evidence we are using reasoning.

So, be specific. Name some objective facts that are consistent with the hypothesis that Baha'u'llah was a genuine messenger of a real God, and inconsistent with him being just another sincere but mistaken religious leader, delusional, or lying.

The facts surrounding His life and His mission on earth. There is an entire history associated with the Baha'i Faith.
It cannot be 'proven' that He was a genuine Messenger of God, we have already covered this.

All we can do is look at the facts and decide what they indicate to us. Given the preponderance of evidence I cannot see how he could have been mistaken, and there is no evidence that would indicate he was delusional, and he would have no motive for lying.

If they are open to interpretation, then they can't be good evidence. They can be evidence that isn't strong enough, in somebody's view, but if it's possible to say that they simple don't even indicate the truth of your hypothesis, then they are not evidence at all.

ALL evidence is open to interpretation and people will interpret the evidence in their own way, since every human being has a different mind that contains everything they have learned in life to date with which they evaluate the evidence. Thus it is logically impossible for everyone to interpret the same evidence in the same way.

Non sequitur. I can, for example, apply the legal concept of 'proof' to science and, for example, say the some theory is proved (legal sense) beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities. Being a different subject area is not a reason to dismiss ideas of evidence from others.

There are different kinds of evidence, and some of the evidence used in courts of law can be used to assess a religious claim.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them

So, you didn't even bother to read what I said about this. What's the point of this if you aren't going to read what I post? Please pay attention:

I agree. Beliefs are not automatically false simply because they are based upon circular reasoning (or any other fallacy).​

Has that sunk in now?

A fallacious argument (such as circular reasoning) tells us nothing at all about the truth or otherwise of its conclusion. However, if fallacious reasoning is all that is offered to support a conclusion, then there is no reason to accept it. Not accepting a proposition is not the same as claiming its negation is true. I do not accept your claims about God but I cannot say that they are definitely false.

I already covered this in previous posts. A formal logical argument CANNOT BE USED to determine if a claimant is a Messenger of God

The ONLY WAY to approach this is to determine if Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God and we do that by looking at what He offered as evidence to support His claim as well as looking at other evidence that supports His claim. The final determination is based upon reasoning, and there is nothing circular about it.

 

[ratiocinator]

The way we know that the message of Jesus was distorted later is by looking at the original message (the gospels, which is as close as we can get to what Jesus said) and comparing that with the Christian doctrines and seeing the discrepancies between them.

Far be it from me to defend the consistency of the gospels but it's easy to see how some passages could easily be read as saying that Jesus was God, so they don't really help.

In my view, humans evolved. God set that process in motion but God did not create humans. Different humans have differnt potentials but those can only be realized as a result of their own efforts.

The method of creation doesn't really matter. An omni type God would know the outcome from the moment it kicked off the process. It could have done so in a different way, so my point remains.

I don't consider it better since it would not even work as I explained in #449.

Your objections were that my suggestions might not convince everybody. Since the method you believe God is using isn't doing that either, it hardly matters. My methods are better because they would at least convince people that there was something with far greater power and knowledge than any human and that wanted to send us a message. An omni God could no doubt do better than my suggestions, but either doesn't exist, doesn't want to do very well, or is stupid and/or incompetent.

When we use our rational minds to evaluate the evidence we are using reasoning.

And I'm still waiting for some sound reasoning.

The facts surrounding His life and His mission on earth. There is an entire history associated with the Baha'i Faith.

Why is any of that inconsistent with him being just another sincere but mistaken religious leader, delusional, or lying?

ALL evidence is open to interpretation and people will interpret the evidence in their own way, since every human being has a different mind that contains everything they have learned in life to date with which they evaluate the evidence. Thus it is logically impossible for everyone to interpret the same evidence in the same way.

This is just a flawed view of evidence. People may put more weight on different evidence but if it doesn't consist of facts that support one hypothesis and go against the alternatives, then it can't be called evidence.

I already covered this in previous posts.

No you haven't. You accused me (and other atheists) twice of thinking that a flawed argument (like circular reasoning) meant that the conclusion was false. The second time after I'd explicitly corrected you.

A formal logical argument CANNOT BE USED to determine if a claimant is a Messenger of God

Then why keep on bringing up circular deductions?