Evidence

[Trailblazer]

This is what puzzles me. What is so wrong with that? If something is so wonderful and important, wouldn't it be good to make sure everyone knew about it? If you had a cure for cancer, would you keep it a secret? Is "salvation" a quiz game?

It does not puzzle me. Why don't all students get an A+? Should the teacher give very student an A+ just because they want one?

God does not want to *make sure* you know about Him, He wants you to work to find out, and since not all students have the same capacities some will have to work harder than others to find out.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

What ever gave you the idea that God wants *everybody* to believe in Him?

Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people."

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

1 Timothy 2:3-6 "3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It does not puzzle me. Why don't all students get an A+? Should the teacher give very student an A+ just because they want one?

God does not want to *make sure* you know about Him, He wants you to work to find out, and since not all students have the same capacities some will have to work harder than others to find out.

What if I do the work and don't come to the conclusion the Abrahamic God is real and Bahaullah is a messenger? Will I still get an A+ for process, like when presenting some essays I presented in college that had a lot to do with ambitions, thoughts, and predictions and was judged on that, or is it more of a "True or False?" test.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why should someone care about believing in God when there is no proof? Someone can be moral without God, someone can live a fulfilling life without God. What is the benefit to exploring this so called evidence?

I did not say that people *should* believe in God. Only if people *want* to believe in God is there any benefit in exploring the evidence.

And what of those who have studied this “evidence” but came out a non believer in the end because they were not convinced? They had put effort into looking into these books but nothing resulted.

I believe that God will give them credit for making a sincere effort, so they will be in a much better position than people who never even bothered to study.

 

[CG Didymus]

ok, so what do you think will happen to those who reject Baha'u'llah as coming from God?

This is the post I was responding to when things went blank. But it was still here.

If he is a false Messiah, then nothing. If he is the true Messiah, then the prediction is the world will fall into times of tribulation. After the "old world" order collapses, those that are left will turn to the Baha'i Faith.

Although the world looks as if it is heading for disaster, does that mean that Baha'u'llah was the true Messiah? I still would question it because I don't see any prophecies that say the Messiah comes, gets rejected, dies and then the world goes into the tribulations. So, if the Messiah comes after the tribulation, then who was Baha'u'llah? Oh, and also, for the Baha'is to be right... Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, along with Jesus all have to be the Jewish Messiah. Are there prophecies of four Messiahs with the main one coming from Persian? And for Christians, does Christ come from Persia, gets sent to the prison city of Akka, but never sets foot in Jerusalem?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point was that what you suggested could never happen unless God took over everyone's minds.

That is how I see going on right now. There will always be some people that refuse to believe the obvious - Messengers.

They are only a small part of the evidence.

No, if what the Messengers say is "obvious" then it should be dead easy to quote them proving that they are messengers of God. Instead what we see are bad excuses for claimed poor behavior of that God.

 

[dybmh]

No, our eyes and ears are still open. We can listen to those objections but once we attain certitude there is no reason for us to backslide, not unless you can prove we are wrong about who Baha'u'llah was, which is what this all boils down to. If Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be all those objections are just like dust in the wind.

Are you open to the evidence that Baha'u'llah is the Jewish messiah? No, because you are Jewish and you have certitude of what the Jewish messiah will be like.

Am I open to the evidence that Baha'u'llah is the Jewish messiah? I tried to be open to it. I honestly tried. I think the problem I have is there are two competing arguments which undermine each other.

On the one hand, the claim is that Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Jewish requirements to be the Jewish messiah.

When a requirement from scripture is brought which is not fulfilled, perhaps there's a disqualifying factor, the response is "your scripture isn't relaible, it's so old, it's corrupted, how do you even know what's accurate about it"?

This then undermines the original claim. The first claim is depending on accurate scripture in order to prove the messiah status, but, the 2nd claim undermines that.

So how can a person claim to fulfill all the requirements, when those requirements are not *actually* and *accurately* known? They can't.

That means the person making the original claim is not trustworthy. If they don't have accurate sources, they cannot accurately claim fulfillment.

This is exacerbated when one examines the claim that Baha'u'llah possesses all the divine powers that all the other Baha'i claimed manifestations possessed.

If we're talking about Moses, that would be splitting the red sea, turning a staff into a serpent, bringing water from a rock, turning water into blood, etc...

If we're talking about Jesus, that ups the ante significantly. Miraculous healings, raising the dead, and ressurecting himself is what's needed.

Muhammad's miracles are a little less profound, but Baha'u'llah would need to split the moon, perform some miraculous healings, and speak to and understand animals.

Presented with these miraculous signs, the response is similar. "Don't be silly, those are just myth and legend, they go against the laws of nature, and never happened."

That means the original claim isn't *really* that Baha'u'llah has all the same attributes and divine power of the previous ( so called ) manifestations. The *actual* claim is "All your stories about your legendary figures are wrong. They are like me, but the stories about them are false."

So, the person making that original claim about shared divinity, is not trustworthy.

That means that the evidence from the "Person" of Baha'u'llah fails.

That's the proof that he isn't who he said he was. It's not because I'm certain I'm right. It's because the claims made have demonstrable faults.

I tried to set asside all prior biases, and I think I did a good job. But a person cannot claim to be the Jewish messiah per prophecy without accurate scripture. And a person cannot claim to be the same divinity without accurate scripture. And if the scripture is deemed accurate that's a problem too for both claims.

That's the result of my independant, non-biased to the best of my ability, investigation into Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, those are rough definitions. But how would you tell if something is evidence of not for any faith?

If it indicates that the faith is true it is evidence for that faith. e.g., The Bible is evidence for Christianity.

I do not see how the sources that the OP talked about as being "evidence".

No, the sources cited are not the evidence.

 

[We Never Know]

Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people."

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

1 Timothy 2:3-6 "3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."

But god wants people to seek him...

“If you seek him, he will be found by you” (1 Chronicles 28:9). And when he is found, there is great reward. “Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).

 

[YoursTrue]

This is the post I was responding to when things went blank. But it was still here.

If he is a false Messiah, then nothing. If he is the true Messiah, then the prediction is the world will fall into times of tribulation. After the "old world" order collapses, those that are left will turn to the Baha'i Faith.

Although the world looks as if it is heading for disaster, does that mean that Baha'u'llah was the true Messiah? I still would question it because I don't see any prophecies that say the Messiah comes, gets rejected, dies and then the world goes into the tribulations. So, if the Messiah comes after the tribulation, then who was Baha'u'llah? Oh, and also, for the Baha'is to be right... Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, along with Jesus all have to be the Jewish Messiah. Are there prophecies of four Messiahs with the main one coming from Persian? And for Christians, does Christ come from Persia, gets sent to the prison city of Akka, but never sets foot in Jerusalem?

Oh, I think I see. I believe in Jesus Christ as the only Messiah we need; no one in his place comes after him. Seems to me the "last days" Jesus spoke about regarding his return and the so-called end of the world (not the end of the planet or life on earth) are taking place, there's still time for many to turn to God, but when the end comes (Armageddon), decisions are to be made. By God. As to who will be saved. Matthew 24 has a good description of what's happening. In order to truly understand this, however, one must turn to God.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Why should someone care about believing in God when there is no proof? Someone can be moral without God, someone can live a fulfilling life without God. What is the benefit to exploring this so called evidence?

In my case, there wasn't any benefit to seeking the biblical God, and it was a total waste of my time. If I were you, and this is just my personal advice, don't waste your time seeking this God who either doesn't even exist or, if he does, doesn't give a rat's behind about you and the pain and trauma you may suffer. I wasted thirty years of my life as a Christian, and several years before that, sincerely praying to the biblical God to protect me from abuse. Despite my sincere prayers to God, I still was abused while I was growing up, and I suffered from severe trauma and depression as an adult. I began to heal emotionally only after I renounced my Christian faith.

And what of those who have studied this “evidence” but came out a non believer in the end because they were not convinced? They had put effort into looking into these books but nothing resulted.

I came to a very different conclusion about the so-called evidence of God and the Bible after I was no longer under the influence of my Christian indoctrination. In fact, I have a very different perspective on the Bible and the so-called evidence for God now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it indicates that the faith is true it is evidence for that faith. e.g., The Bible is evidence for Christianity.

I am sorry, but that does not make sense. That sounds like some serious circular reasoning.

No, the sources cited are not the evidence.

The OP seemed to think so. Or at least that was what his posts indicated.

 

[PruePhillip]

So when a child is hit and killed by a car the car had to be coming down the road at the right time and right speed and right spot, the child had to be running at the right time and right speed and at the right spot, so by your thinking all car accidents are caused by a fine tuned universe.

As a competitve cyclist I have been hit by cars four times in the last decade, each time I was i was following the rules and the drivers made mistakes, and I have had many close calls, so the four times that time, place, and speeds was all planned out by the universe (God)?

The error here is the number of times people get hit by cars,vs the number of times a giant asteroid hits the earth on the scale of the Yucatan meterorite.
It's not even one in a million, more like one in a thousand billion.

 

[Trailblazer]

That sounds like you are saying that God is evil since he plays hide and seek and yet judges people because they do not believe in him.

Not making Himself verifiable is not hide and seek. God can be found through religion but the entity called God can never be verified to exist.

You would have to show how #1 is logical and you absolutely need to properly support #2. It does not look like a fact at all.

1. God is not weak because He chooses to use Messengers to communicate. God uses them because the all-knowing God knows that Messengers are the *best way* to communicate to humans.

Why would God be weak because He uses Messengers to communicate? Why would an all-knowing God not use the *best way* to communicate to humans? Messengers are the best way since they have convinced the majority of the world population that God exists, as noted below.

2. God is not ineffectual because the Messengers have had an effect on the vast majority of humans.

84 percent of the world population has a faith.

Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. That means that Messengers have had an effect on the vast majority of humans.

We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are holy men who founded the religions, so they are intermediaries between God and man. Sure, there are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers or holy men very few people would believe in God.

 

[PruePhillip]

Freakish accidents kind of refute the fine tuning idea
If the universe were fine tunes freakish accidents could not occur

It's a good argument, on the surface. Fine tuning gave us our earth - billions of earths get created. What is freakish is the odd things which happen to give us our seasons, loss of giant carnivores etc..

 

[Trailblazer]

I suppose not, but a lack of explanation for negative actions indicates that he is not just. That he is not good. If you want to worship an evil god have at it.

What negative actions? I hope you are not referring to the anthropomorphisms in the OT.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your claim that God is omnipotent but can only talk to "Messengers" is self contradictory for one thing.

When did I ever say that God can only talk to Messengers?

 

[PruePhillip]

No, that is an unsupported claim. And it is too easy to refute.

A fine tuned universe will give us the earth, spinning on its axis (gravity, angular momentum etc..) but the earth's tilt needed something more than fine tuning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The error here is the number of times people get hit by cars,vs the number of times a giant asteroid hits the earth on the scale of the Yucatan meterorite.
It's not even one in a million, more like one in a thousand billion.

Yah, you never supported your claims in regards to that strike.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When did I ever say that God can only talk to Messengers?

I am pretty sure that you did. But if you didn't then why would he use such a poor method?