Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The proposition is not being made at all, its hypothetical.

Evolution is the evidence being used (erroneously in this hypothetical case) to indicate the truth of the proposition. Evolution does NOT, in fact, support the erroneous and false proposition and in fact demonstrates that the proposition is false.

Which means that regardless of how terribly the hypothetical proposition is using the evidence, it is still evidence and in this hypothetical example in fact it is (as defined) evidence to the contrary.

What this demonstrates, as I've stated repeatedly is that evidence need not indicate that the proposition is actually true in order to count as evidence and instead needs only to indicate what the truth of the proposition is (up to and including that the proposition is false).

Thus, my statement that the Bible is evidence stands. If someone states they believe X and uses the Bible as evidence as to why they believe it, the Bible is obviously fulfilling the dictionary definition of 'a body of information indicating the truth of a proposition'. It does NOT follow that the proposition is literally true simply because it has been evidenced, and neither does the invalidity of the proposition somehow transform the evidence used into non-evidence (as it is so often treated). Instead, it is merely evidence of something else and in many cases evidence to the contrary.

I think I'm beginning to see the problem in our communication, and it seems to revolve around this word "evidence." You seem to claim, for example, that words from the Bible can be called "evidence" if the person citing them believes them (and the Bible) to be true. Thus, I think we could agree that few Muslims, and even fewer Hindus, Buddhists and atheists, would accept the Gospel of John as "evidence" of anything at all, while quite a few Christians might.

For me, evidence is what I can show, and you can find out for yourself. Let's say that I look at Galileo's work on trying to figure out the dynamics of falling bodies (and remember, he had no theory of gravitation). His experiments led him to think that bodies dropped on earth, anywhere on earth, accelerated towards the centre of the earth at a rate of 16 feet per second per second. And here's the key: anybody on earth, anywhere on earth, each and every one of us, over 7 billion, can repeat the experiment and it will always turn out the same way (adjusting for units of measure, of course). That's evidence. The Book of Revelation is NOT evidence, in any way, shape or form, because nobody alive can reproduce a single thing out of it (except possibly in their dreams, and even then you would still be required to just believe them).

In my etymology, "evidence" is that which can be demonstrated to anyone willing to observe.

 

[Sir Doom]

I think I'm beginning to see the problem in our communication, and it seems to revolve around this word "evidence." You seem to claim, for example, that words from the Bible can be called "evidence" if the person citing them believes them (and the Bible) to be true. Thus, I think we could agree that few Muslims, and even fewer Hindus, Buddhists and atheists, would accept the Gospel of John as "evidence" of anything at all, while quite a few Christians might.

I've seen lots of posts from people of different religious persuasions using the Bible to evidence all sorts of things. For example, a Muslim used a passage from the story of Jonah in the Bible (I do not remember the verses) where God states, "I am not a man..." (I am paraphrasing, of course) and he used it to indicate that God would never have appeared as human and thus Jesus was not God.

I've also seen uncountable examples of secularly identified people use passages from the Bible to demonstrate that self-proclaimed Christians were not 'acting Christian'. Atheists are quite good at this, typically. Though their opponemts opponents do make it easy.

For me, evidence is what I can show, and you can find out for yourself. Let's say that I look at Galileo's work on trying to figure out the dynamics of falling bodies (and remember, he had no theory of gravitation). His experiments led him to think that bodies dropped on earth, anywhere on earth, accelerated towards the centre of the earth at a rate of 16 feet per second per second. And here's the key: anybody on earth, anywhere on earth, each and every one of us, over 7 billion, can repeat the experiment and it will always turn out the same way (adjusting for units of measure, of course). That's evidence. The Book of Revelation is NOT evidence, in any way, shape or form, because nobody alive can reproduce a single thing outl of it (except possibly in their dreams, and even then you would still be required to just believe them).

I would never suggest the Bible be used as scientific evidence of anything beyond anthropology, sociology, history (but only because its old and culturally significant not because its true). In this group though is philosophy in a broad sense. Surely, detached from spiritual baggage one can still glean some half-decent one liners of wisdom from time to time. It hasn't been around as long as it has on trickery alone. That, of course, is merely my opinion.

In my etymology, "evidence" is that which can be demonstrated to anyone willing to observe.

I agree, and believe the Bible counts. I just don't believe it indicates what a lot of people think it indicates. I don't think it speaks about a true, existent deity in any way. But it is evidence of what a lot of people on this planet believe and I'm happy to know as much as I do. I often wish I had the same experience with other holy texts in order to better argue my own thoughts within the framework of a different unbelievable universe. Again, that's just me.

The bottom line is that everything you present to demonstrate your proposition is going to demonstrate something that indicates the truth of that proposition. Even if it turns out to be a false proposition.

Let me try a less charged example. Again, hypothetical.

The prosecution in a murder trial evidences the fact that the murder weapon was found in the defendants home to indicate that the defendant possessed both the means and opportunity to commit the murder. Then the defense uses the fact that defendant could not have been at his home between the time of the murder and the recovery of the murder weapon at his home (this by further evidence omitted for expedience). This means that the fact of the murder weapons location actually demonstrates that the prosecution's proposition (that the defendant possessed the means and opportunity) is false. Which is, of course 'the truth of' that proposition.

 

[viole]

So your answer is that this is the only way that you would believe that God exists?
What about all the people (93% of the world population) who already believe in God?

Well, that is one of the main reasons why He should talk to everyone. Not becaue of the atheists, but because the believes look terribly confused.

You know, He should say something like “Guys, I do not look like an elephant and I abhor castes”, or “I look like an elephant, i love dividing humans in castes and I never gave my life for any sin”, or “I never dispatched a winged horse to pick up a prophet in Jerusalem”, or.....etc.

From our point of view, the fact that 90% of people believe in so many different and mutually contradicting gods, is just clear evidence that their belief is unreliable to start with. It is the variety that undercuts the conclusion and therefore the epistemolgy used to come to it.

And if a huge amount of people believe X, that does not increase the probability of X existing in any way. I would say, it is actually the contrary. Many people believe in homeopathy which is obvious scientific nonsense. Not to speak of astrology or other weird stuff.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

I think it describes much of American evangelicalism. It does not describe the progressive movement, because the progressive movement harbors no such absurd fantasies as Heinlein mentions here.

Where is this progressive movement? Which denominations?

 

[sojourner]

Where is this progressive movement? Which denominations?

Most notably UCC, ELCA, ECUSA, Disciples of Christ, Presbyterian USA, United Church of Canada. Mind, not all congregations in these denominations are progressive. But this is where the movement is centered, and the denominational structures are supportive.

 

[ecco]

ecco previously...

Any god(s) that people believe in are imaginary gods because they do not exist in reality​

Can you prove that, or is it just a personal opinion?

Do you believe Shiva is a real god? Can you prove that, or is it just a personal opinion?

As I said above, God claims cannot be proven, for obvious logical reasons, but they can be supported by evidence.

I cannot list all of the evidence here, but I can list the “categories” of evidence and I can point you to where you can research these categories.

You expect me to research your categories of evidence? Have you researched the categories of evidence supporting Mormonism or Scientology or Hinduism?

The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger from God is as follows:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote;
• What others have written about Him;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now.

None of that is evidence that he got information from "the real god".

Most of those things can be said for Ganhdi. Some can be said of L. Ron Hubbard. Phony psychics make predictions that sometimes come to pass.

Give one absolute, incontrovertible, specific prediction that he made that could not have been based on general contemporaneous knowledge.

 

[ecco]

I do not consider it logical that God has 3 personalities.

So, your personal opinion, based on your personal concepts of logic, cause you to dismiss a basic tenet of Christianity.


Did your Messenger state this?

I believe that if God exists, God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, so #2 and # 3 cannot be logical possibilities.
Thus there are only two “logical” possibilities:

1. There is One God, or
2. There is no god

Did your Messenger make any statements regarding the omniscience and omnipotence of god? If so, what?

Did your Messenger make any statements confirming or denying the literal truth of Genesis? Is so, what?

 

[ecco]

Thus, my statement that the Bible is evidence stands.

Doesn't one have to specify "evidence of what"?

 

[Sir Doom]

Doesn't one have to specify "evidence of what"?

Yes, of course.
Here is the abridged version of how it went down (please forgive my paraphrasing and feel free to correct it if you feel I am misrepresenting anyone's opinion):

Thread Question: Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?
Faithofchristian answers: He already did 2000 years ago (Jesus) [Proposition 1 evidenced by opinion thereof]
Shunyadragon responds: There is no evidence of that. [Proposition 1 evidenced by counter opinion thereof]
Faithofchristian responds: Jesus sent his disciples worldwide [Proposition 1 evidenced by opinion] People didn't listen [Proposition 2 evidenced by interpretation of John 3:12]
Shunyadragon responds: There is no evidence of that. [Proposition 1 evidenced by counter opinion thereof][no taking of bait on Proposition 2]
Faithofchristian responds: Jesus sent his disciples worldwide [Proposition 1 evidenced by Matthew 28:19-20]
Shunyadragon responds: That's not evidence. [Proposition 1 evidenced by counter opinion]

This is where I came in.

The truth is, that if the Bible doesn't count as evidence, neither does saying "The Bible doesn't count as evidence" count as evidence. Its opinion no matter how you cut it, but opinion is actually evidence no matter how much validation you personally give it. The only evidence being given by either side of the above exchange is their opinion! So why does it count for one side and not the other? Just because you deny its evidence doesn't make it so. It just demonstrates your ignorance (read as: willfully ignoring something obvious just to win an argument without having it).

To me, Matthew 28:19-20 demonstrates that Jesus told all of his disciples to spread the religion which proves that he didn't communicate directly. He sent disciples. Gee, how's that work. I just used the very same evidence to provide evidence to the contrary. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN IF THE BIBLE DOESN'T COUNT AS EVIDENCE?!?!?!?!!??!?!

If I need to further explain the point I'm making then I honestly feel incredibly sad at how unintelligent some people on here intend to appear for no other purpose than to 'feel right' without actually 'being right'. It makes me nuts.

 

[Segev Moran]

I was asking something more specific and I did not clarify it well enough in the OP, so I might do so later... I was asking of God should reveal messages to everyone in the world -- every one of 7.44 billion people -- in the same way as God has revealed messages to Messengers, which are normally referred to as revelations.

But you are absolutely right about the electricity, if you are referring to God's Love. there needs to be a connection. that is a great analogy.

5: O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4​

It really depends what kind of messages you speak of.
You mean that like in a sense that suddenly everyone in the world will start hearing "internal voices" speaking to them?
Hope not.... sounds like trouble.
If you mean that in a way that sending "subconscious messages"? I think it does happen all the time, but not literally in a way that the "entity" god feeds my brain info or something, more in a shape of feeling sorry about someone you fought with, or realizing that the person you want to slam dunk is in reality the best teacher you had. It can be a song that played in the radio and made you remember something very important or the decision you made to talk to someone you will never talk but something just "felt right".

To me it is more like looking at things with a different eye. kind of slowly, very very slowly solving a great puzzle called life. every now and then, it seems "luck" shoves another opportunity to solve another part of the puzzle. here and there because i found solution to previous parts i can solve others.

It seems (to me) that the more i learn about god, the easier it gets to solve more pieces of this amazing (and thankfully overall happy) puzzle.

So i think that Yes. anyone should have the ability to "hear" god.
And No, god should not "speak" to anyone, only to those who genuinely want to "listen". otherwise we get people who think god asked them to do some crazy s#it

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, of course.
Here is the abridged version of how it went down (please forgive my paraphrasing and feel free to correct it if you feel I am misrepresenting anyone's opinion):

Thread Question: Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?
Faithofchristian answers: He already did 2000 years ago (Jesus) [Proposition 1 evidenced by opinion thereof]
Shunyadragon responds: There is no evidence of that. [Proposition 1 evidenced by counter opinion thereof]
Faithofchristian responds: Jesus sent his disciples worldwide [Proposition 1 evidenced by opinion] People didn't listen [Proposition 2 evidenced by interpretation of John 3:12]
Shunyadragon responds: There is no evidence of that. [Proposition 1 evidenced by counter opinion thereof][no taking of bait on Proposition 2]
Faithofchristian responds: Jesus sent his disciples worldwide [Proposition 1 evidenced by Matthew 28:19-20]
Shunyadragon responds: That's not evidence. [Proposition 1 evidenced by counter opinion]

This is where I came in.

The truth is, that if the Bible doesn't count as evidence, neither does saying "The Bible doesn't count as evidence" count as evidence. Its opinion no matter how you cut it, but opinion is actually evidence no matter how much validation you personally give it. The only evidence being given by either side of the above exchange is their opinion! So why does it count for one side and not the other? Just because you deny its evidence doesn't make it so. It just demonstrates your ignorance (read as: willfully ignoring something obvious just to win an argument without having it).

To me, Matthew 28:19-20 demonstrates that Jesus told all of his disciples to spread the religion which proves that he didn't communicate directly. He sent disciples. Gee, how's that work. I just used the very same evidence to provide evidence to the contrary. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN IF THE BIBLE DOESN'T COUNT AS EVIDENCE?!?!?!?!!??!?!

If I need to further explain the point I'm making then I honestly feel incredibly sad at how unintelligent some people on here intend to appear for no other purpose than to 'feel right' without actually 'being right'. It makes me nuts.

It ought to be seen as a truism that beliefs count as evidence of nothing whatsoever, except the existence of someone (or ones) who hold said beliefs.

How many humans have claimed to have received "messages from God?" Worse yet, how many do we believe heard messages from God only because somebody else, unrelated to the event, said they did? How would you test that? For what reason would you believe it, if this was the first time you'd ever heard it, and it hadn't been force-fed into you from childhood?

This is the dilemma that atheists like myself face. And we try to reason it out thus:

1. There is supposed to be a "God," all powerful, all knowing, yadda yadda
2. There's only one "God"
3. God wants everybody to know what God wants from everybody
4. Presumably, God has the power, one way or another, to accomplish this
5. God is not limited, so whether to speak to 1 person, 12 people or billions does not seem to have any bearing
6. We are told (whether we choose to believe it or not) that this God has indeed spoken to some (number as yet not completely decided) so-called "Messengers"

So now, all we have to do is ask ourselves, "does it appear to have worked?"

1. Did this one "God" give the same, or substantially the same, message to all of the alleged "Messengers?"
2. Does a substantial majority of humanity understand what God wants from everybody, in the same way?
3. Is there any fighting about it, any disagreement?
4. Did this one, omnipotent "God" achieve what we are told in 3 above that it wants?
5. If not, why not?

And to 5 just above, the only incorrect answer, when dealing with omniscience, omnipotence and infallibility, is "it's our fault."

 

[Sir Doom]

It ought to be seen as a truism that beliefs count as evidence of nothing whatsoever, except the existence of someone (or ones) who hold said beliefs.

No, it should be a truism (because it is) that evidence is what you use to support whatever you're saying.Your belief (stated above) is being evidenced by nothing but opinion, and yet you seem to have no issue with that despite how easily it defeats itself being that the opinion is that opinions aren't evidence. I've given examples of people using the bible to evidence all sort of things. I've given example of people using evidence in a way consistent with the way it was used here. I've given examples of evidence being used to defeat the proposition that was in fact supplied by the one making it. And you respond by giving me an opinion on what you think ought to be true. Literally proving my case for me while pretending to make some grand point to the contrary.

How many humans have claimed to have received "messages from God?"

Tons.

Worse yet, how many do we believe heard messages from God only because somebody else, unrelated to the event, said they did?

Even more, but that's identical to the first as far as evidence goes.

How would you test that?

Ask them rhetorical questions, I suppose. Attack their evidence. It should hold up if its true. If not, poof. That's how debate works.

For what reason would you believe it, if this was the first time you'd ever heard it, and it hadn't been force-fed into you from childhood?

Whatever reason I found convincing. I haven't found one yet.

This is the dilemma that atheists like myself face. And we try to reason it out thus:

1. There is supposed to be a "God," all powerful, all knowing, yadda yadda
2. There's only one "God"
3. God wants everybody to know what God wants from everybody
4. Presumably, God has the power, one way or another, to accomplish this
5. God is not limited, so whether to speak to 1 person, 12 people or billions does not seem to have any bearing
6. We are told (whether we choose to believe it or not) that this God has indeed spoken to some (number as yet not completely decided) so-called "Messengers"

This sounds an awful lot like a theist's dilemma, not an atheist's dilemma. Why would any atheist be worried about the above in any way?

So now, all we have to do is ask ourselves, "does it appear to have worked?"

1. Did this one "God" give the same, or substantially the same, message to all of the alleged "Messengers?"
2. Does a substantial majority of humanity understand what God wants from everybody, in the same way?
3. Is there any fighting about it, any disagreement?
4. Did this one, omnipotent "God" achieve what we are told in 3 above that it wants?
5. If not, why not?

And to 5 just above, the only incorrect answer, when dealing with omniscience, omnipotence and infallibility, is "it's our fault."

And somehow you believe that the above highly subjective opinion counts as evidence but the Bible's highly subjective opinion doesn't. OK. Let me know when you publish.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, that is one of the main reasons why He should talk to everyone. Not becaue of the atheists, but because the believes look terribly confused.

You know, He should say something like “Guys, I do not look like an elephant and I abhor castes”, or “I look like an elephant, i love dividing humans in castes and I never gave my life for any sin”, or “I never dispatched a winged horse to pick up a prophet in Jerusalem”, or.....etc.

Baha’u’llah already did that. He communicated to everyone and explained who God was. People can go and read that if they want to know.

From our point of view, the fact that 90% of people believe in so many different and mutually contradicting gods, is just clear evidence that their belief is unreliable to start with. It is the variety that undercuts the conclusion and therefore the epistemolgy used to come to it.

No, it does not prove that belief is unreliable; it just proves that everyone is confused. Baha’u’llah explained why so many people are so confused about God.

“What “oppression” is greater than that which hath been recounted? What “oppression” is more grievous than that a soul seeking the truth, and wishing to attain unto the knowledge of God, should know not where to go for it and from whom to seek it? For opinions have sorely differed, and the ways unto the attainment of God have multiplied. This “oppression” is the essential feature of every Revelation. Unless it cometh to pass, the Sun of Truth will not be made manifest. For the break of the morn of divine guidance must needs follow the darkness of the night of error. For this reason, in all chronicles and traditions reference hath been made unto these things, namely that iniquity shall cover the surface of the earth and darkness shall envelop mankind. As the traditions referred to are well known, and as the purpose of this servant is to be brief, He will refrain from quoting the text of these traditions.” The Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 31-32​

Many people do not seem to understand His Writings so I will explain what that means.

It is because Baha’u’llah has brought a “new” Revelation from God that people are oppressed (confused about God). What happens is that when a “new” Messenger of God comes and releases the Holy Spirit into the world, it revitalizes everything and it causes people to embark upon a search for God. But first they will make a lot of mistakes (the darkness of the night of error) before they finally realize what the Truth is. They will learn from their mistakes and that is how they will be led to the Truth. There are many people doing that right now... The RF forum is proof of that.

And if a huge amount of people believe X, that does not increase the probability of X existing in any way. I would say, it is actually the contrary. Many people believe in homeopathy which is obvious scientific nonsense. Not to speak of astrology or other weird stuff.

I agree that just because a huge amount of people believe in something that does not make it true; that would be the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, appeal to the masses to determine if something is true. The masses are not all that bright.

Actually when it comes to religion, at least when the religion is new, very few people believe in it. But that does not mean it is not true.

Homeopathy is not a good example, because it is still relatively obscure compared to conventional medicine. Not many people use homeopathy but that means nothing, because what people “believe in” is no indication of what is actually true or valuable. Homeopathy saved my life after I landed in the ditch and almost died from conventional psychotropic drugs. After that I got a degree in homeopathy to complement my counseling psychology degree. For personal reasons, my plans to start a practice never got off the ground, but I would swear by homeopathy, at least for what it is able to do for mental-emotional problems... I never used it for physical diseases because I never had any.

As for astrology, I think that there is something to it; it is not just superstition as some people think. My brother is an astrologer so I know something about it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you believe Shiva is a real god? Can you prove that, or is it just a personal opinion?

No, I don’t believe that and I do not assert it, so it is not my personal opinion.

ecco said: Any god(s) that people believe in are imaginary gods because they do not exist in reality

That is an assertion that no god(s) exist, so I asked you to prove it. If you cannot prove it, it is just a personal opinion, a bald assertion.

You expect me to research your categories of evidence? Have you researched the categories of evidence supporting Mormonism or Scientology or Hinduism?

I do not expect you to do anything. You asked about evidence and I answered. A person would only embark upon an investigation of the Baha’i Faith if they were interested in it and wanted to know if it was the Truth.

I do not need to research the categories of evidence supporting Mormonism or Scientology or Hinduism because I am not interested in those religions. I have no need to “compare” other religions with the Baha’i Faith because I already know the Baha’i Faith is true based upon my investigation. I know “enough” about other religions to know I would never believe in them. There is no other religion comparable to the Baha’i Faith. If there was noBaha’i Faith I would be an agnostic or a deist.

None of that is evidence that he got information from "the real god".

They are not proof but they are evidence:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

Nobody can “prove” that a Messenger actually received a message from God. Even those who witnessed his revelation streaming in as He wrote it down cannot prove it was coming from God. For obvious reasons, only Baha’u’llah and God knew what happened for certain. If we want to know, we do all the investigation that we can (as noted in the categories above) and then we decide if we are going to believe that Baha’u’llah was telling the Truth about what happened to Him.

Most of those things can be said for Ganhdi. Some can be said of L. Ron Hubbard. Phony psychics make predictions that sometimes come to pass.

That just demonstrates how much you don’t know.

Gandhi had a good character and a mission, but he did not have scriptures and he did not fulfill any Bible prophecies or prophecies from other religions, and he did not make predictions that came to pass, and he did not establish a world religion that has followers all over the world in almost as any locations as Christianity.

Ron L. Hubbard did not have a good character. Even if he had a mission, he did what he did for money; he had a net worth of 600 million when he died. No Messenger of God cares about money! Scientology is not even a religion; it is a movement. I do not know what Hubbard wrote, but he certainly did not write 15,000 Tablets like Baha’u’llah did. Moving right along, Hubbard did not fulfill any Bible prophecies or prophecies from other religions, and he did not make predictions that came to pass. He established what some people consider a religion, but he does not have followers all over the world in almost as any locations as Christianity, as does the Baha’i Faith.

Phony psychics cannot predict anything because if they were actually successful in predicting something significant as Baha’u’llah predicted, they would not be phony.

But the biggest thing I guess you missed is that Gandhi and Hubbard did not even “claim” to be Messengers of God so they are already out of the running. Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet but he did not claim to be the Messiah or the return of Christ, as Baha’u’llah claimed to be. So if you are going to compare Bahaullah to others you wouldhave to compare apples to apples; you would have tocompare Baha’u’llah to other claimants to be the Messiah and the return of Christ. That would be a fun project but it would not last long, for the mere reason that only Bahaullah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies, OT and NT. The other claimants cannot claim that so they are out of the running before they even get out of the door.

Simply put, the “evidence” that supports Baha’u’llah as being a Messenger of God, the return of Christ and the messiah is incontrovertible, if people actually take the time to look at it, and it is the preponderance of evidence that clinches the deal. I became a Baha’i based solely upon the teachings of the Baha’i Faith because at that time, I did not care about God or Messengers of God. Only later did I go back to verify that everything I am saying is true. I have been verifying and re-verifying the evidence t24/7 for over five years. I do not consider belief in God and dedicating my whole life to this Cause to be child’s play. I certainly would not be doing it if I had any question as to whether it is true.

Most people are not as willing to put in this kind of work because they have other things in their lives they consider more important, but to me it is only logical that there can be nothing more important than God and God’s Truth,since it not only affects my life in this world but in the world to come, which is eternal.I already did those other things; went to college for over 15 years, had a career, traveled, got married and had a good sex life, etc. We never had children but that was a choice we made for personal reasons.

Give one absolute, incontrovertible, specific prediction that he made that could not have been based on general contemporaneous knowledge.

I can give you one of my favorite predictions but I can already predict you will say it is “too general” because that is the usual response I get. Baha’u’llah predicted both WWI and WWII circa 1870, and it certainly was not based upon general contemporaneous knowledge, since there was no inkling at that time that Germany would fall, since Germany was at the height of its glory at that time.Below is the Tablet to Kaiser Wilhelm I.

O KING of Berlin! Give ear unto the Voice calling from this manifest Temple: Verily, there is none other God but Me, the Everlasting, the Peerless, the Ancient of Days. Take heed lest pride debar thee from recognizing the Dayspring of Divine Revelation, lest earthly desires shut thee out, as by a veil, from the Lord of the Throne above and of the earth below. Thus counselleth thee the Pen of the Most High. He, verily, is the Most Gracious, the All-Bountiful. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III), and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves.Be warned, be of them who reflect… O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 39​

In the Tablet above, Baha’u’llah was referring to another Tablet He wrote to Napoleon III.

Below is an excerpt from a longer Tablet to Napoleon III, written in 1869.

“For what thou hast done, thy kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine empire shall pass from thine hands, as a punishment for that which thou hast wrought. Then wilt thou know how thou hast plainly erred. Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou arisest to help this Cause, and followest Him Who is the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) in this, the Straight Path. Hath thy pomp made thee proud? By My Life! It shall not endure; nay, it shall soon pass away, unless thou holdest fast by this firm Cord.”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 20-21​

In July 1870, Napoleon entered the Franco-Prussian War without allies and with inferior military forces. The French army was rapidly defeated and Napoleon III was captured at the Battle of Sedan.
Napoleon III - Wikipedia

Baha'u'llah predicted the fall of all the kings and rulers of the world who had rejected Him, and they all fell from power shortly thereafter. Excerpts from the Tablets he sent to the kings and rulers, clergy and ecclesiastics and the actual history of what transpired after that is well-documented in The Promised Day Is Come, and I am sure the history can be verified by other sources.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: I do not consider it logical that God has 3 personalities.

ecco said: So, your personal opinion, based on your personal concepts of logic, cause you to dismiss a basic tenet of Christianity.

Nope. What Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha wrote about God and the Trinity caused me to dismiss a basic tenet of Christianity. However, even if there had never been a Baha’i Faith I would not believe in the Christian version of the Trinity because it makes no sense to me.

Did your Messenger state this?

Trailblazer said: I believe that if God exists, God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, so #2 and # 3 cannot be logical possibilities.
Thus there are only two “logical” possibilities:

1. There is One God, or
2. There is no god

Yes, Baha’u’llah stated that #1 is the Truth, and He added that God is One and cannot be divided up, which means that #2 and # 3 cannot be true, since they are logically contradictory to #1.

Did your Messenger make any statements regarding the omniscience and omnipotence of god? If so, what?

Yes, Baha’u’llah made many statements regarding the omniscience and omnipotence of God. To read those statements, all you would have to do is go to Gleaningsand put omnipotent or omniscient into the Search box, keeping in mind that is just one book of many that contain His Tablets.

Did your Messenger make any statements confirming or denying the literal truth of Genesis? Is so, what?

What part of Genesis are you referring to? Baha’u’llah did not write a lot about the Bible, except to mention who the Major Prophets of the Bible were. Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’u’llah’s son and the Centre of His Covenant, was His appointed interpreter, and he wrote a lot about Christian subjects in Some Answered Questions. One of the most important chapters to read is the chapter on 30: ADAM AND EVE. Needless to say, Baha’is do not believe in original sin, and that is explained in that chapter.

 

[Falvlun]

There’s a lot to digest here. I’m afraid I’ll only disappoint since I ultimately disagree with your basic premise that God cannot make himself understood directly to humans. That seems like such an odd and unnecessary curtailment of God’s abilities.

You are correct; there is no way to confirm it. But there is much information that can be uncovered that indicates it. Depending upon what is meaningful to you, there is all kinds of evidence. But if people want verifiable proof there is none of that. The caveat is that once we know, we know, and we do not need verifiable proof.

That is the whole ball of wax isn’t it? The thing is that we can never verify such a thing for obvious reasons, but once we have done the adequate research and investigation, if we come out believing it we have proven it to ourselves.

This simply leaves too much room for error and confusion. People can convince themselves of some pretty awful things. Not to mention, the vast array of different religious beliefs have caused so much strife. And we are still no closer to knowing whether our beliefs are true or not.

If we were all born with the level of education of a PhD then there would be no “hard work for some, no work for others.” We would just all be the same. Why should “acquiring” knowledge of God be any different than any other endeavor in life?

God does not owe everyone a free ride just so they won’t have to do anything. Everyone has free will so it is a level playing field and everyone can look at the Messenger if they choose to do so... However, that requires some effort, just like anything in life...

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82​

They have to find the school they want to attend before they attend. Likewise, if someone is searching for God they have to decide where to look, which religion to attend. The difference is that you may or may not “find God” in that religion.

That is true, but that won’t help you determine if God exists, if that is your objective. Why would you worship something you do not know exists?

Again, not asking for a free ride. Not looking to put in zero effort. God telling us that he exists doesn’t prevent us from putting forth effort towards other aspects that could be so much more useful. I am saying that there is still room for effort even if God tells us that he exists— eg, we all know God exists, but some may be more devout in worship, or some may rebel, or some may work to do God’s will.

It seems arbitrary that knowledge of God’s existence be the thing we must put all this effort towards.

If effort is so important, why not start us out in a blank dark void where we have to imagine the existence of light before we can even see? And then so on, until through our tireless effort, we come to the conclusion that God exists? That would require much more effort than our current situation.

Apparently maximum effort isn’t required. Why should the line be on one side of God’s existence and not the other? Go back to the school analogy. You say that we must discover which school we want to attend. Ok. But my point is that we don’t even know that schools exist.

And no, free will does not grant a level playing field. People born in predominantly theistic societies have a huge leg up on those born in atheistic ones. From
Childhood, they are already primed to believe that God exists. Why should an accident of birth reduce the amount of effort required for the most important quest we have in life?

I fully agree. Like I said, sincerity and effort is what matters most. There is a huge difference between an atheist who thumbed his nose at God and His Messenger and one who made a sincere effort to look at Him. It might be nice if that search landed you a belief in God but if it doesn’t that does not mean you are punished. Sincere effort as it is shown in deeds is very important. As I said, a lot of it is about attitude. One with a hard heart and a closed mind is a lot different from one who has an open heart and an open mind. I post to many, many people and I intuited that you are the latter. Of course, there are shades of gray in between, may people just don’t give it much thought.

I would hope that god appreciates effort— that’s the sort of God I hope exists.

That is a good point and God’s communication to humans would be the same. Hypothetically, God could desperately try to communicate to you but nothing would be communicated because you do not understand it. That does not mean that people cannot sense God’s presence but they cannot hear the Voice of God the way a Messenger does because they do not have a divine mind that can receive God communication.

And that is what would happen if God communicated to you directly.

No, what I meant is that God would have to start all over, from scratch, because the human brain evolved. God cannot just wave a magic wand now and make mankind all different.

I think most nonbelievers have this dreamy idea of God being omnipotent, so God can do anything, but in reality what omnipotent means is that God is All-Powerful, not necessarily that God can do anything... God cannot become a man for example, because God is an immaterial Being. God would not be God anymore if God became a man. God cannot show up in a material world so we can see Him because God is not a material being.

But hypothetically, let’s just say God could change us and make it like that’s how it’s always been. If God did that God would be admitting He made a mistake, and an Infallible God cannot make a mistake He has to correct later.

Well, I think it would be an incredible mistake to make beings you can’t communicate with if your goal is to have a relationship with them.

I’m not sure I understand your distinction between All-Powerful and “able to do anything”. I think the only exemption I’d make for an All-Powerful being is that it can’t do illogical things (like make a rock so heavy it can’t lift). Everything else is fair game.

Since communicating with humans isn’t illogical or even particularly hard, I don’t see why an all-powerful God couldn’t do it. I don’t think he’d even have to change us.

I still think the better argument for you is that God could do it but for whatever reason, he chooses not to. Otherwise, I don’t think I’d consider your God to be omnipotent.

I am so grateful that you can understand that. Of course we cannot comprehend a Being that is so, so far above us. For some reason, most nonbelievers cannot grasp that idea, and some believers cannot even grasp it. I can see that you operate on logic. Unfortunately, most people don’t. Rather, they operate on emotions, what they want. There is not much one can do with that. If a person cannot use reason they cannot get past their feelings, what they want.

For example, this atheist who I have been posting to for over three years insists that god should communicate directly with everyone in the world rather than use Messengers and he thinks that is logical. He insists that everyone would believe in god if god did that, and that is the only reason he can give as to why god should do that... However, there is no reason to think that God requires everyone to believe in Him; if God did require that, God could make sure everyone believed in Him by some means, since God is Omnipotent (has all power).

This atheist refuses to look at the reasons it won’t work for God to communicate directly to everyone. He just calls my reasons excuses and says that God needs excuses. How could an Omniscient God need any excuses? He is the one who needs excuses because he is a human. But there is no way to break through that wall because he has decided that god would/should communicate directly with everyone if god existed. He won’t even entertain the possibility that god could use Messengers.

If an Omniscient God exists, that God has to know more than he does about how to communicate, so if that God did not communicate directly to everyone that means (1) that is not the best way to communicate, or (2) God does not communicate at all, or (3) God does not exist. Option # 4, that God exists and made a mistake to send Messengers because God is stupid is not a logical possibility.

I agree that, if God existed, AND he wants to communicate with us, AND he is omnipotent and omniscient, then (1) would be the only possible explanation as to why he doesn’t talk to us directly. But that’s a lot of if’s.

Personally, I’m closer to your atheist friend: it makes no sense for God not to just speak to us directly. In order for me to accept something that doesn’t make sense, I’d need evidence that this omni-God exists, because then I’d believe that there’s a good reason behind it.

There is a (4) option that’s a little less harsh than yours: God is either not omnipotent or not omniscient, or neither. That means he can’t do it, even if he wanted to.

You are really smart. Of course there is no reason to think we have to know everything about God in order to know God exists; and once we know God exists, we do not have to know everything about God. How could we know everything about a Being that much greater than we are? Why would we need to know everything? It is a Baha’i belief that we can know the Attributes of God that are reflected in the Messengers and revealed in the scriptures and we can know the Will of God that is revealed to the Messengers in every age in history. However, we can never know the Essence (intrinsic nature) of God.

Baha’is do not believe that God ever became a man. In other words, God did not become Jesus so Jesus was not God. God manifested Himself in Jesus so Jesus was a perfect mirror image of God and had the Attributes of God but Jesus was not God. Jesus also imparted information from God because Jesus had the knowledge of God and knew the Will of God for that age in history. God has now manifested Himself in Baha’u’llah who had the knowledge of God, knew the Will of God, and had new information to impart for this new age.

Thank you for this explanation of the Baha’i faith.

I am not saying that God couldn’t do that. I am only saying that if God did, we could not understand that communication.

I still think you are making a contradiction here. If God can’t make us understand, then God can’t communicate with us.

 

[Vinayaka]

Gandhi had a good character and a mission, but he did not have scriptures

Of course Gandhi had scriptures ... the Vedas, the Gita,. the Upanishads. Maybe not scriptures to you, but scriptures to all Hindus, and most likely many more open minded people.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course Ganhi had scriptures ... the Vedas, the Gita,. the Upanishads. Maybe not scriptures to you, but scriptures to all Hindus, and most likely many more open minded people.

I was defining scriptures as writings that originate from God. I did not know that Gandhi considered himself holy.

"Scripture or the scriptures refers to writings that are regarded as holy in a particular religion, for example, the Bible in Christianity." Scripture definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

I know that the Vedas, the Gita, and the Upanishads are scriptures, but they were written thousands of years ago, weren't they? That was long before Gandhi walked the earth.

 

[Vinayaka]

I know that the Vedas, the Gita, and the Upanishads are scriptures, but they were written thousands of years ago, weren't they? That was long before Gandhi walked the earth.

What difference does that make?

 

[Trailblazer]

What difference does that make?

It makes no difference how old the scriptures are.
I just meant that Gandhi could not have written those scriptures you noted because he was not alive thousands of years ago.