Evidence

[TransmutingSoul]

So, an unknowable, invisible being defined what evidence is? I thought it was his manifestation that defined it? Or is it indirectly? God defined it through his manifestation who told us that God has defined it by the person, revelation and whatever the other thing was that the manifestation did. As pointed out several times, by several people, that is so circular.

Just think of it as one source. We all emanate from God. Manifestations and creation, including humans, all emanates from God, we all return to God.

Is that circular or linear? With no beginning and no end, most likely circular? Smarter maths people could offer many thoughts on this would be my guess!

Thus in my limited capacity, my guess is that it is circular, as all things appear to go through cycles in this creation.

Regards Tony

 

[Alien826]

If you offer there are laws, that would mean there is a lawgiver.

If there is no lawgiver, then one one must logically think that disorder is the instigator of the highest order, or that no intelligence is the instigator of the highest intelligence.

Maybe then we should be aiming to be less smart, we may then be able to create the universes and all that dwells within.

Regards Tony

You are conflating two meanings of the word "law". I thought that one had been put to bed years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I speak for myself, but I'm going to bet I am not alone. The last thing I would ever want is to shake someone's faith, if they are happy with it and it does no harm. This is a debate forum and people will debate on it, but in the end, let's not make it a hill to die on.

I feel the same way. If someone says that they believe in Cthulhu (hah got it right with one go!) I would say that is nice. If he wanted to discuss his belief I would be open to that. But when one claims to have evidence for Cthulhu I would of course like to see it and if they did not provide any and kept claiming to have evidence I would begin to demand to see it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Theists assume the very same thing of atheists. Is their assumption also erroneous and patronising?

Sometimes I’m sure it is, yes. I prefer to avoid assumptions, as far as it’s possible to do so.

 

[Truthseeker]

That is all the defendant will give as proof of God.

Then the defendant has given ZERO proof, since all the defendant has provided are unverifiable claims. Defendant has failed to prove its claim, thus the case is dismissed.

Have you taken the time as best you can what kind of person Baha'u'llah was? It would take some work, believe me, for an independent investigator, as enemies of Baha'u'llah have muddied up the picture. Perhaps you don't believe that has a bearing on the matter. However, you could determine, perhaps whether he has a good probability of being a liar, or a good probability of telling the truth about His claim. Is there evidence he was deluded or crazy? If neither of those that narrows the possibilty that His claim was unfounded. Have you read enough of Baha'u'llah's writings to form an informed opinion about whether they might possibly be the truth? The writings also impinge on the possibility of Him being crazy, if not deluded.

 

[CG Didymus]

Maybe, maybe not? To live and learn is the way, sometimes we are quick learners, sometimes we are slow to learn.

Regards Tony

If it wasn't a debate forum, a Baha'i could say, "This is what we believe and why we believe it." And I'm sure people would still ask, "Why?" And "How can you believe that?" But it's worse here on a debate forum. I could say, "I believe in the evidence that the Book of Mormon is true." People are going to say, "Okay, what is it." No doubt, it would be evident to Mormons that the evidence is true and reliable. But why would anybody else? Even Baha'is? Would you accept it? That an angel spoke to Joseph Smith and told his about some golden plates?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Dogma is not evidence.

I see there would be exceptions to that rule.

Regards Tony

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not al all. "I don't believe in God" only says that one has a lack of belief. That implies that given evidence that a person may change his mind. "I believe there is no God" tells us that that person's mind is already made up. He or she may be close minded to any support for the existence of God. Please note how the OP claimed "evidence" but has not provided any. He only has provided claims. I do not think that he understand the concept of evidence.

If a non believer’s mind is not already made up, he or she is far more likely, in my experience, to describe herself as agnostic rather than atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see there would be exceptions to that rule.

Regards Tony

You should learn what qualifies as evidence and why. I am not the only one that has pointed out that your dogmatic statements are not evidence.

 

[Alien826]

Great observation, you are correct and luckily the evidence contains much advice on what is required when we search for God.

There is testable conditions we need to meet.

I can tell you of two of the most important requirements, they are given in short meditations.

1 O SON OF SPIRIT!
My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting.

2 O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes." Baha'u'llah

There is also the Tablet of a true Seeker.
(Linked)

Regards Tony

I've tried to understand that. If I'm right he's saying, be open to all evidence and be fair (justice) in your conclusions. Sounds good to me. On the other hand, from the tablet, "That seeker must, at all times, put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the earth, must detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who is the Lord of Lords." seems to assume a belief in god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a non believer’s mind is not already made up, he or she is far more likely, in my experience, to describe herself as agnostic rather than atheist.

Really? Most of the atheists that I meat are of the sort that I described. And technically most agnostics are atheists. If you ask them what Gods they believe in most will say "None". There are some agnostic theists too ,but they are a minority. There are quite a few atheists here and most of them are the "I lack a belief in gods' sort of atheist.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Yet, in the Bible God speaks and writes and shows himself to be real constantly. Then, supposedly, God raised Jesus from the dead. Pretty impressive. But Baha'is don't believe those things really happened? Well then good for them, they don't believe things that sounds like nothing but superstitious myth just because it is written in a religious book. That is.... except their stuff.

 

[Alien826]

That is indeed a moral thing to strive for.
What if, as part of that process to make that a reality, it will require us to have laws against sexual immortality and even restrict the production of children between a married man and women?
There are indeed a great deal of lifestyle changes that would be required to fulfil you desire to save children from fatal diseases.
What if the requirements are found in the evidence that was submitted?
Regards Tony

Are you suggesting that "children's fatal diseases" are caused by sexual immorality? I just wanted to check as that seems somewhat unlikely.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

The Baha'i claim is that Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses are all manifestations. I don't know of any other religion that supports that belief, including Judaism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You should learn what qualifies as evidence and why..

..evidence of what?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You are conflating two meanings of the word "law". I thought that one had been put to bed years ago.

That is just avoiding the complexity of the reply given.

Simply put if Nature put together all the laws that govern creation, then nature is smarter than any human, as we are not able to create, only manipulate the natural laws already in place and evolving from the founding laws of nature.

This is a rational and logical proof of an intelligent behind creation.

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

What are you talking about? That is all that the OP has done. In post after post. Have you not been reading them?

I call on you to investigate whether the OP is true. As far as I can see that's what is be determined by their own investigation, not by what is present per se in this OP or thread. I know you will not do this, however. So why are you here? To knock down this OP or thread? Not exactly an independent and unbiased state of mind if true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Baha'i claim is that Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses are all manifestations. I don't know of any other religion that supports that belief, including Judaism.

"Manifestation's origins are in religion and spirituality because if something spiritual becomes real, it is said to be a manifestation."

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Baha'i claim is that Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses are all manifestations. I don't know of any other religion that supports that belief, including Judaism.

I was thinking more along the line of even the more recent ones. They still have outdated beliefs about sexual morality that they cannot support. They amount to "gays are wrong because God said so". And the same goes towards premarital sex. "You can't enjoy yourself because God says so" when mismatched sexual desire is one of the main reasons that marriages fail.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

The evidence given in the given Message, is what we are asked to pursue after they pass on. In that evidence, are reasons we can consider that may enable us to beleive what they offered, does needs to be heeded.

Regards Tony