Evidence

[PoetPhilosopher]

The Messengers all appear to be failed when investigated. Why believe them?

It's a good question, though I think it's difficult for some religious people to step outside their circle and take a look at that question.

The sense I get is that it may not so much be about the cold hard facts (all of the time), but that sometimes, one's heart has a way of directing one down a certain path. Then they tend to agree with things from there.

Though I'm speaking in general, and not on @Trailblazer 's behalf.

 

[Trailblazer]

God has defined what is Evidence. That is the bounty of being omnipotent.

This was worth my continuing to try to finish reading on this thread!
But of course it is God who decides what evidence is for His existence.
It is laughable that atheists want to define what would be evidence for God's existence, laughable.
It has been a long day but you just made my entire day Tony!

 

[Trailblazer]

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

@muhammad_isa said: You reject them, if you reject the existence of God.
He did not say you have to accept the the Bible and Qur'an in order to believe in the existence of God.

 

[F1fan]

That is not what I said. Some of us know that God exists.

Who would that be? And why can't they show others that they know any God exists? Knowledge is easily shared. So what is the problem?

A better question is why God should perform miracles just to prove to a few atheists that He exists?

So you don't think kids are worthy of being saved from defects and cancers? I was thinking of the kids, which is more than you and your God, apparently. Are you sure you are on the moral side?

God is not powerless just because God does not do what you want Him to do. That is completely illogical.

If your God can save children, but doesn't, then it is both powerful and immoral. I'm not asking for kids to be saved for myself, don't you understand morality?

Why should God use His power to do what you want Him to do? Any God that took marching orders from humans would not be omnipotent. The omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, period.

Is there something wrong with me wanting God to save children? I guess you are OK that children die of cancer and are born with defects. I asked nothing for myself, did you even notice?

God claims have good evidence,

Too bad God isn't part of this debate, at least someone would have good evidence. As it is no believer has any eevidence that is compelling. So we reject all cl;aims of a God existing by default.

the ONLY evidence that God has EVER provided, the Messengers.

That is a Baha'i claim, and it has no evidence thsat is compelling, so we reject it by default.

The fact that atheists do not recognize the Messengers as evidence does not make them non-evidence.

It is the lack of credible evidence that makes critical thinkers, and even Christians and Muslims, reject Baha'i claims. Notice the Christians and Muslims are not recognizing Baha'u'llah as a messenger either. They keep quiet because thgey have their own versions of messengers, but they certainly don't agree with you.

If Jesus Christ was not evidence for God, there will never be evidence.

There is debate whether a Jesus existed. There were many similar type teachers in that era. The myth of Christ is most likley Egyptian lore that was recycled.

 

[Trailblazer]

People believe what they want to believe...

and since you are a person the same applies to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just because one has an irrational belief does not make them stupid.

The same applies to atheists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Total nonsense.

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

and we believers have that knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same applies to atheists.

What irrational beliefs do you think that atheists have?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What irrational beliefs do you think that atheists have?

Can I answer too? I'll try to keep it civilized.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can I answer too? I'll try to keep it civilized.

Sure/

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Sure/

My main disagreement with atheists at this time is just that I don't see atheism as the default position on faith, but rather agnosticism.

One argument I have heard is that atheism is the default position because babies are born atheist. But to me, then you'd have to actually prove that babies think "I don't believe in a God.", before calling them atheist.

That being said, the large gap between me and the atheist posters here in our ideas, seems to be getting smaller every week.

 

[Trailblazer]

Once again, knowledge is demonstrable. How would you prove that a God exists?

There is no proof that God exists, only evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is only what agnostics believe, but that does not mean that the existence of God is unknowable, or that the the claims of any "messenger" or scripture about God are necessarily all baseless crap.

God is not entirely unknowable.

"God communicates his will and purpose to humanity through intermediaries, known as Manifestations of God, who are the prophets and messengers that have founded religions from prehistoric times up to the present day.[5]

While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.

The Baháʼí teachings state that God is too great for humans to create an accurate conception of. In the Baháʼí understanding, the attributes attributed to God, such as All-Powerful and All-Loving are derived from limited human experiences of power and love. Baháʼu'lláh taught that the knowledge of God is limited to those attributes and qualities which are perceptible to us, and thus direct knowledge of God is not possible. Furthermore, Baháʼu'lláh states that knowledge of the attributes of God is revealed to humanity through his messengers.[12] "

From: God in the Baháʼí Faith

It seems that you've forgotten what started us on this tangent.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Messengers all appear to be failed when investigated. Why believe them?

appear to you to be failed.

 

[Trailblazer]

What irrational beliefs do you think that atheists have?

That there would be objective evidence for God if God existed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My main disagreement with atheists at this time is just that I don't see atheism as the default position on faith, but rather agnosticism.

I don't think agnosticism can be a default position. It's based on an affirmative claim: that the existence of God or deities is unknowable.

Atheism, OTOH... all you need to be an atheist is to be unconvinced of any deities.

One argument I have heard is that atheism is the default position because babies are born atheist. But to me, then you'd have to actually prove that babies think "I don't believe in a God.", before calling them atheist.

To me, it stands to reason that a baby so young that it can't even recognize its limbs as its own probably doesn't have the capacity for abstract concepts like "God."

However, it seems that we aren't born as blank slates. Once babies are old enough for us to investigate their beliefs, it seems that they have an innate rudimentary sort of animism.

IMO, the idea of a default is more about a hypothetical fictional "blank slate", not any actual person.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That there would be objective evidence for God if God existed.

You think all atheists believe that?

 

[Trailblazer]

Who would that be? And why can't they show others that they know any God exists? Knowledge is easily shared. So what is the problem?

We do share the knowledge but we cannot make you believe it because you have your own minds and you think differently about the same knowledge.

A better question is why God should perform miracles just to prove to a few atheists that He exists?

So you don't think kids are worthy of being saved from defects and cancers? I was thinking of the kids, which is more than you and your God, apparently. Are you sure you are on the moral side?

Off topic. Adults are just as worthy as children. Why didn’t God save my husband from cancer?

If your God can save children, but doesn't, then it is both powerful and immoral. I'm not asking for kids to be saved for myself, don't you understand morality?

If my God could have saved my husband why didn’t He?

Why are kids more important to you than adults? We are all humans.

God is not subject to morality because God does not have behavior. Only humans are subject to morality.

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Is there something wrong with me wanting God to save children? I guess you are OK that children die of cancer and are born with defects. I asked nothing for myself, did you even notice?

Was there something wrong with me wanting to save my husband? I was not asking for myself. I guess you are okay with adults who suffer from cancer and die horrible deaths.

Too bad God isn't part of this debate, at least someone would have good evidence. As it is no believer has any evidence that is compelling. So we reject all claims of a God existing by default.

That is a Baha'i claim, and it has no evidence that is compelling, so we reject it by default.

You can reject whatever you want. God does not need your belief because God has no needs.
Those who accept and believe will receive their reward, the others will forfeit the reward.

It is the lack of credible evidence that makes critical thinkers, and even Christians and Muslims, reject Baha'i claims. Notice the Christians and Muslims are not recognizing Baha'u'llah as a messenger either. They keep quiet because they have their own versions of messengers, but they certainly don't agree with you.

Please spare me the illogical. Christians and Muslims, reject Baha'i claims because they are Christians and Muslims. The same applies to the followers of all the other religions. They all have a religion that they are convinced is true. Why would they become Bahais, if they were not searching for a religion?

There is debate whether a Jesus existed. There were many similar type teachers in that era. The myth of Christ is most likely Egyptian lore that was recycled.

That is not supported my any religious scholars, and I don’t mean Christians.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, although interpretations of a number of the events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles and resurrection) vary and are a subject of debate.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

You think all atheists believe that?

I did not say that all atheists believe that there would be objective evidence if God existed, but all atheists believe that if God exists there would have to be evidence other than what theists offer as evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My main disagreement with atheists at this time is just that I don't see atheism as the default position on faith, but rather agnosticism.

One argument I have heard is that atheism is the default position because babies are born atheist. But to me, then you'd have to actually prove that babies think "I don't believe in a God.", before calling them atheist.

That being said, the large gap between me and the atheist posters here in our ideas, seems to be getting smaller every week.

Most agnostics are atheists. Atheism is a big tent. You would not assume that all theists were Christians. Most atheists were "I do not believe in a God because those claiming one exists have failed in their burden of proof". That is not a belief that God's do not exist. It is a lack of belief. Babies do not believe in a God because they do not have the concept. It takes some experience to believe anything. So babies would be a "what is God?" sort of atheist.