Evidence

[Exaltist Ethan]

That is a big question with many answers since there are many benefits of knowing God.

But in the main, if God created humans for a purpose, we have to know God by way of what God revealed through the Messengers in order to know the purpose for which we were created and fulfill the purpose of our existence. That purpose was revealed by Baha'u'llah.

There are certain things about the Baha'i Faith that really attract me. Labor as a means of worship. And the spiritual development of man being another. The fact that even your prophet says they'll be someone to eventually replace him and usher in another, more advanced spiritual age for humanity. There are a number of things I don't like about this religion too, however. The fact that there is no clergy and monasticism is forbidden. And honestly, even though the religion promotes unity, I feel as if it won't really do too much for the overall unity of our species, because even though it is but one religion, all it really did was create another schism in the Islamic world view.

I reject the reason why I exist is to know God. That's trite and too simple. Instead, I try practicing my own divinity by being resourceful and being generous whenever it is appropriate to be so. Knowing the Messengers may be how one person understands the Abraham, and in return, the Baha'i God, but rather I intend on trying to exemplify divine attributes and characteristics while I'm alive so I and my loved ones can have the best life possible during my short time I am here. Life is too precious to constantly be reciting prayers and quoting scripture and we should learn and love to live life instead by enacting own our divinity, especially the generosity between oneself and others.

That may not be the reason why you exist, but that is the reason why I exist, and know that God exists, too.

 

[Truthseeker]

Nope... #1 is a claim based on flawed logic which employs the fallacy of circular reasoning. #2 is NOT based on verifiable fact, since you've yet to provide ANY verifiable evidence that this proposed god being sent any messengers whatsoever.

This is just her belief. No more, no less. No reason to argue about it really.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

This is just her belief. No more, no less. No reason to argue about it really.

I understand and respect your concern for Trailblazer, but this is a religious debate thread, and she can stand her ground here.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You've got a belief that forces you to keep making just-so excuses like why this god can't or won't stop imitating its own nonexistence. That's a pretty reliable indicator that you're wrong.

This is a truly salient comment, and accurately describes so much of what I've read -- not only in this thread!

 

[John53]

This is just her belief. No more, no less. No reason to argue about it really.

It's a debate forum. No one is forced to be here but if you choose to come then expect debate.

 

[Truthseeker]

If people aware of more effective ways for God to reach people how come I have not heard of any?
Put your money where your mouth is.

Well, that's his belief, but why does he state it as if it's universal? Proabably you should just stop talking to this guy and arguing with him. He won't listen. Some other's will hear this, yes, but they have their own opinions and they won't likely change either. You can get the satisfaction I guess of other people agreeing with you.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you are Baha'i -- you believe that you possess a soul (which is spirit) which survives your death and begins a new conscious relationship with God. How is that spirit possible to exist here on earth, as part of you, if the spirit you believe is God cannot? The inconsistency is confusing to me.

The soul (spirit) of man is part of man, it became part of man somewhere during the process of evolution. The soul is a sign of God which is a mystery no mind can ever unravel.

The Spirit of God does not exist on earth as part of humans. God, who is Spirit and not flesh, always remains in His own high place in the spiritual world (heaven), seated upon His Throne of Glory. That is how I understand the Baha'i Writings.

If, as I believe, God is unreachable, remaining in His own high place, how then can God also be omnipresent?
I believe that God, who is Spirit, is out of reach, but God's knowledge and power is universally present.
I like this definition of omnipresence:

In Western theism, omnipresence is roughly described as the ability to be "present everywhere at the same time", referring to an unbounded or universal presence. Omnipresence means minimally that there is no place to which God's knowledge and power do not extend.

Omnipresence - Wikipedia

 

[Truthseeker]

I have put this request in my back pocket to come back to later. What I mean is that I have copied it into a Word document and saved it in my folder called Threads to post.

I don't know. Trying to prove that Baha'u'llah had a divine mind? There is the problem that this would a rule 8 violation, wouldn't it? Wasn't what Tony started in this thread considered a rule 8 violation?

 

[Truthseeker]

This is your guess about the rest of the Abrahamic faiths only because of what you think is true in the baha'i texts. In the Bible God does talk directly to people. Many Christians claim that God talks to them. So the Bible and all these Christians are liars, but you are correct?

You love arguing, don't you? Yes, sometimes @Trailblazer does that. Everybody does. But you do that all the time.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is your guess about the rest of the Abrahamic faiths only because of what you think is true in the baha'i texts. In the Bible God does talk directly to people. Many Christians claim that God talks to them. So the Bible and all these Christians are liars, but you are correct?

No, it is not my guess, it is my belief.
I do not care what the Bible says because it is anthropomorphic, and I believe that the Writings of Baha'u'llah, which are not anthropomorphic, supersede the Bible.

Men who wrote the Bible wrote that God talked to people. What reason do I have to believe that? I have no reason.
However, even if God did talk to people thousands of years ago that does not mean God is going to talk to people again. This is a new age and we no longer need what people needed back then.

Anyone can claim that God talks to them and they are free to believe that if they want to since we all have free will.
I am not calling anyone a liar.

 

[John53]

I don't know. Trying to prove that Baha'u'llah had a divine mind? There is the problem that this would a rule 8 violation, wouldn't it? Wasn't what Tony started in this thread considered a rule 8 violation?

I'm no expert on the rules but I think trying to prove something would be fine. Claiming something is fact and refusing to debate it wouldn't be,

 

[F1fan]

She's just saying what she believes.

She has mixed statements, some of which acknowledghe her views are mere beliefs, and others that are stated dfinitively, as if factual. That is my dispute. If a person states their view that Coke is the best cola that should say it is THE best cola. A person shouldn't make statemenst like "God has blue eyes, blonde hair, and ripped abs, plus doesn't want you to eat pizza with pineapple" in a forum that is debating evidence. Such statements are not evidence-based.

It's not meant as any evidence for anyone else.

Yet she and other Baha'i have claimed what they believe IS evidence, namely the Texts, what the texts say, what Baha'u'llah claims, etc. Those are not evidence of anything beyond the superficial, and each requires even more evidence equal to the extraordinary claims. There is none, thus we reject the claims by default.

Can't she state what she believes?

I never said she can't state it, I am saying that if a person is going to make a declaritive statement in debate they are making an assertion that requires evidence. Just stating your belief is irrelevant in debate, for exaple, you might believe putting underwear on your head and dancing naked under a full moon gets you closer to God, but who cares, it's irrelevant what any individual believes when it isn't relevant, nor accompanied with evidence of being true.

You should know by now through your encounters with her that that was what she was doing.

I do. I don;t thiunk she does. She seems to have two sides to her posting style, and one side is humble and the other side is blind with passion. Jeckl and Hyde.

 

[Truthseeker]

I understand and respect your concern for Trailblazer, but this is a religious debate thread, and she can stand her ground here.

I'm just pointing out to him that I underscored later that he loves to argue. Why argue on something like that? I don't get it.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I'm just pointing out to him that I underscored later that he loves to argue. Why argue on something like that? I don't get it.

Why are you here debating in a religious debate thread with others? Nobody is forcing you to post in this thread, and no one is forcing Trailblazer to post in this thread. You choose to post in this religious debate thread and argue with those with whom you disagree.

 

[Truthseeker]

This is a very confused argument. The deity appears conflicted and indecisive. Does it want that or not?



I can't argue there. Your god, like all gods, does the perfect imitation of nonexistent. This universe behaves as we would expect if it were the product of natural substances and forces.



You and I have more effective ways of reaching people than messengers. Or maybe you'd prefer to send messengers to RF participants than to use the Internet. If you'd like to respond to this by messenger, I can give you an address. I like to have it sung if you can sing. Just leave something in the mailbox next if nobody's home.

You've got a belief that forces you to keep making just-so excuses like why this god can't or won't stop imitating its own nonexistence. That's a pretty reliable indicator that you're wrong.

View attachment 70117

I've already given you examples of that in the past (Ptolemaic epicycles to explain retrograde planetary motion in a geocentric model), and you ignored them then, so no reason to write out what those are or how they were resolved by a paradigm shift in celestial mechanics, but it is an excellent example of that phenomenon. Look at this George Santos in the news now. He's got a just-so answer for everything, why nothing is what it appears to be. That's how you know he's lying. I wouldn't accuse you of lying - just of making up your theology as you go along, or repeating the theology that others created for you. Either way, it's vamping.

Another person that loves arguing. I argue sometimes, but why do so many people love arguing?

 

[John53]

You love arguing, don't you? Yes, sometimes @Trailblazer does that. Everybody does. But you do that all the time.

And you really need to Google the definition of debate in my opinion.

 

[Truthseeker]

Why are you here debating in a religious debate thread with others? Nobody is forcing you to post in this thread, and no one is forcing Trailblazer to post in this thread. You choose to post in this religious debate thread and argue with those with whom you disagree.

You have a point. I'm wasting my time trying to get people to stop arguing. Thanks for the observation.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a very confused argument. The deity appears conflicted and indecisive. Does it want that or not?

God wants exactly what I said He wants, there is no confusion.

You and I have more effective ways of reaching people than messengers.

To compare God to human communication to human to human communication is the fallacy of false equivalence.
Since God is not a human, God does not reach humans the same way a human would reach a human.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Baha'u'llah has a divine mind. But so does everybody else. I don't put people on pedestals against others. But just about everybody can be good at something, develop skills and traits worthy of God. I believe in the ascension of human divinity, it is concurrent to our evolutionary goals as develop more divinity. Some people are good at understanding monotheistic religions. Baha'u'llah might have been the most exemplified in this skill. But I believe I understand syntheist theology very well. In many ways I seem to be on a completely different level than most theists, who focus on tradition.

Like the Baha'is I focus on progress, but I don't ruin my theology with a God that is tied to so much baggage. In many ways I do understand that your prophet understands God, because in many ways, I understand God in a similar fashion as him. But I focus on the application of God more than its pure sagacity of which, will get you nowhere if you are trying to attract new followers. That's probably why the Baha'i Faith is still such a small religion and why none of Baha'u'llah's descendants are Baha'is themselves. Baha'is too often restrict themselves from modern, every day living but at the same time reject asceticism. It's unfortunate but a lot of people who I talked to about this religion seem to moniker it as a 'hippie religion'.

While I disagree with those assertions, I can't really wrap my head that there are more people who are part of the LDS faith, which started around the same time as the Baha'is. Most Baha'is are very private people and there's very little community in this religion, unfortunately.

 

[Truthseeker]

And you really need to Google the definition of debate in my opinion.

I'm wasting my time trying to get people to stop arguing, I just admitted. It's a form of arguing I just did.