Evidence

[CG Didymus]

Yes indeed. It's an interesting debate tactic... I'm right and won't discuss it unless you agree with me. It's also the height of arrogance.

Very similar to born-again Christians... They know they are right, because the word of God, the Bible, says so. Ironically, Christians and Baha'is both prove they are right by using the Bible. And the Jews reject them both by using the Hebrew Bible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are abusing the word "knowledge". Knowledge is demonstrable and the OP and all of his supporters have failed at that..

Total nonsense.

Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No .. you claimed that God did not exist.

Where did I do that? Please quote and link.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Total nonsense.

Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

No, that goes along with what I said. If one has all of that then they can demonstrate their knowledge. So far no one on your side has. By your own definition you do not have knowledge.

Your error appears that you conflated the results of having knowledge with the definition of knowledge. The result of having knowledge is that one can support their claims. I never claimed that I was giving the definition of knowledge and my usage should have been obvious from context. But now that you have been informed you should be able to see how not being able to supports one's claims is indicative of a lack of knowledge.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Where did I do that? Please quote and link.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Reading this thread gives me a little bit of a headache. I think everyone's seeing a slightly different side of the same coin. But here is how I make sense of it:

Scriptures and speak from religious leaders is evidence to a religious person, but not to a non-religious as well as some from different religious denominations. When presenting evidence in a Debate, it make sense to word your posts for a larger audience, in a way, I think, and that includes atheist and non-theist participants. In such a case, if someone talks like they have evidence, but doesn't follow an approach to critical thinking, it can come off as a fib or a "getting one's hopes up" situation to some of the participants, particularly the non-religious ones.

This is also why I say that the statements are "weak evidence" - basically the kind of evidence that may be considered evidence, but is weak enough to possibly be tossed out in court in a formal setting.

Yet, the teachings are still useful to some religious people. But a waste of time to a lot of other people if one can't prove that the teachings are correct without "using the teachings to try and prove the teachings".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Where did I do that? Please quote and link.

"One cannot reject that which does not exist". post #308

The above implies that God does not exist, because you claim that the Bible And Qur'an do not exist (as evidence)

 

[loverofhumanity]

Certainly not through messengers. That can't work unless the messages simply couldn't have been written by a human being. Imagine how spectacular a message would be if it authored by a deity who created the universe. Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by a human being, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. So what does that say when anyone can improve any holy book, but very few can improve on a book by Newton or Hawking? It says the latter are smarter than the authors of the former.



You still don't seem to understand that atheists don't believe in gods, and want and expect nothing from them. What we want and expect is coherent arguments for gods before believing in them. The faithful simply don't have them as this thread attests.



You must be using a different definition of wise than I do. If one wants to be honored and revered, or even believed, he should make himself known.



Would you like to hear the results of the test? I'm with the majority on this one. And are you sure that you're fair-minded and not biased in favor of belief? An honest appraisal of the evidence offered finds it not evidence of a deity.



Not necessary. I can't prove it false, either, but I still reject it as truth because it hasn't been demonstrated to be correct, either.



Humanity's principal reaction to Baha'u'llah - skepticism - doesn't surprise me a bit. Most people simply don't consider great what you call great. More surprising is why people think that his life or words aren't ordinary.

There is nothing exemplary to me about a life lived spreading religious ideas. I consider it a life lived unwisely if one could have actually been of service to others instead. What did you do for a living? Did you help people? Maybe you were a furniture maker. If so, you gave humanity more than itinerant preachers. We have a few animals rescue and neutering groups around where I live that reduce suffering. Everybody volunteering there is leading a more exemplary life than such people. In the meantime, the local priests do nothing equivalent. Almost everybody I know (not know of, but continue to socialize with) has lived a more productive life than they would have as professional religionists.

I realize that that comment is offensive to some, but refute it if it's wrong. If it's correct, isn't it worth knowing? Isn't one doing a service pointing it out to those who simply assume that those who say God and love a lot are really living exemplary lives so much so that we should recognize them as messengers of a god? That's what's being by many here including you. If it's correct, then you can show why. If it's wrong, then you can't.



Are you sure that you want to propose that as the test of Baha'u'llah's message? Have you seen what Iran is like? They're still decadent and living in a failed state.



We are to recognize God by assuming God sent us a message? More of circular argumentation. Are not interested in reaching those who know that this argument is flawed and its conclusion unsound? Are you not interested in being correct yourself? This is not the way to do that.



And more circularity.

Skepticism is a normal reaction to a new Manifestation of God. People only want to be sure it is in their best interests and that’s understandable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's funny because I reject both the Bible and Qur'an and do believe God exists.

How so?

 

[Trailblazer]

I suppose that could be true, but why would he want that? It seems that he prefers credulity to intelligent inquiry. To me it sounds more like a tortured explanation as to why god isn't a lot more obvious than one would expect.

Why would God not want belief to be a choice? If God did not want that then God could override free will and make everyone into believers in one split second. The fact that everyone is not a believer means that belief is a choice.

God is very obvious to the 93% of people in the world who believe in Him. How do you explain that? Why is it that the small percentage of people who are atheists cannot see what everyone else sees?

In that case one has to ask why he wanted to create us in the first place.

Good question.... God created us out of His love for us, and He made us in His image.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

God is all-knowing so God knew that everyone would not believe in Him until a certain time in history, but God can see into the future so God knows that in the future everyone will believe in Him. That is in the Bible and in the Baha'i Writings.

Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

“The Day is approaching when God will render the hosts of Truth victorious, and He will purge the whole earth in such wise that within the compass of His knowledge not a single soul shall remain unless he truly believeth in God, worshippeth none other God but Him, boweth down by day and by night in His adoration, and is reckoned among such as are well assured.”
Selections From the Writings of the Báb, pp. 153-154

I have to add though that trying to understand the thoughts and wishes of a being so totally different from us is probably a fools errand. It would be like an ant trying to understand why you do things. It would probably try to interpret everything you do in terms of building ant hills. And the ant is at least part of the same ecosystem as you.

That is a very astute observation, as it is a fool's errand to try to understand God. It is the acme of human understanding to realize that we can never fathom the mystery of God.

“Wert thou to ponder in thine heart, from now until the end that hath no end, and with all the concentrated intelligence and understanding which the greatest minds have attained in the past or will attain in the future, this divinely ordained and subtle Reality, this sign of the revelation of the All-Abiding, All-Glorious God, thou wilt fail to comprehend its mystery or to appraise its virtue. Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery of the Living God, the Day Star of unfading glory, the Ancient of everlasting days. This confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmination of man’s development.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 165-166

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 70005

That is not what that word means.

 

[CG Didymus]

Bahai get to CHOOSE the criteria by which he is judged?????? Since he was - nice guy, compassionate, wrote a lot, the things that he WAS in life? They take those normal person things and say that is the evidence?????? This is made up whole-cloth?

And they interpret the other religions in a way to make them fit into the Baha'i beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"One cannot reject that which does not exist". post #308

The above implies that God does not exist, because you claim that the Bible And Qur'an do not exist (as evidence)

No. it doesn't. That is an example of poor reading comprehension. The post that I was responding to was a claim to have posted evidence. There has been no evidence posted. That is what does not exist. There was no implication about the non-existence of God in that post.

 

[John53]

Very similar to born-again Christians... They know they are right, because the word of God, the Bible, says so. Ironically, Christians and Baha'is both prove they are right by using the Bible. And the Jews reject them both by using the Hebrew Bible.

Then throw in all the Muslim and Christian sects that disagree with their fellow Muslims and Christians. I don't know much about Baha'i but I wouldn't be surprised if there are various sects of it.

The word of God is easily manipulated.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I never claimed that I was giving the definition of knowledge..

You don't have to.
Knowledge is knowledge ..
..just becauee you want it to mean "scientifally provable knowledge" is neither here nor there.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The "evidence" is empty of fact, and only works to reinforce the belief of those who already believe for non-rational reasons.

So now we have evidence, but you see it is empty of facts.

At least now we agree it is evidence and that is what the OP was about.

Regards Tony

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Then throw in all the Muslim and Christian sects that disagree with their fellow Muslims and Christians. I don't know much about Baha'i but I wouldn't be surprised if there are various sects of it.

The word of God is easily manipulated.

And is also a misrepresentation of authority.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No. it doesn't. That is an example of poor reading comprehension. The post that I was responding to was a claim to have posted evidence. There has been no evidence posted. That is what does not exist. There was no implication about the non-existence of God in that post.

Are "we" just playing with words now?

"God" with a capital "G" is used in the English language as the God of Abraham.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Fascinating. This is very close to the Buddhist concept of enlightenment, I think. It's something I have glimpsed briefly in meditation, and I can testify that it gives a sense of total certainty that needs no proof or evidence. The nearest I can come is that it cut through all the clutter and gibberish that goes on in our minds to a state of .... peace? Simplicity? See, I can't describe it.

There's one big problem though that emerges once you try to explain it to others. That experience cannot be demonstrated to others. What the Buddha did was to teach a methodology that would, he claimed, allow others to experience it. And that's it. Believe it or don't. Try it or don't. It can't be explained.

you said:

it gives a sense of total certainty that needs no proof or evidence.

Exactly but it can’t be explained to to those who haven’t experienced it.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Are "we" just playing with words now?

"God" with a capital "G" is used in the English language as the God of Abraham.

Yahweh. Adonai. Allah. That is the Abrahamic God model. One can believe in a God that is not of that model. "God" is more ubiquitous of a term than to only relate to Christians and Muslims.