Evidence

[muhammad_isa]

If anything, the one true God suffers from a multiple personality disorder, and given that diagnosis I recommend no one believe anything any Messenger says.

That is a false dichotomy.

Every claim needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
Pointing to 1000's of claims that God speaks to them, as a reason not to believe in God, is not a valid reason for ignoring the opinion of 50% of people who are Christians and Muslims.

It is arrogant twaddle.

 

[Alien826]

I was with you until the last sentence. I mean I agree with everything you said, that the "truth' is obvious to everyone, such as whether it is raining or not. However, "Truth" as we find in religious beliefs generally has little correspondence to anything we personally experience, so it is not that obvious to everyone. I think you are onto something here, but when you ask a believer to 'demonstrate Truth' that is illogical, since Truth is not demonstrable, since it is not physical, such as the rain coming down outside the window. You cannot see religious Truth with your physical eyes, you can only recognize it with your mind (soul).

I don't see why Truth (I'll drop the quotes here, and just use the upper or lower case "t") should not be impossible to demonstrate simply because it is "not physical". If it exists, as we are assuming, it must have some of the same characteristics as "physical" truth, in particular that it can be interacted with. And that opens the door to some kind of demonstration, I would think. It may not be possible to us, but it's not illogical. Incidentally, if non physical things cannot be interacted with, they might as well not exist.

It is the "Truth" that an immortal spirit leaves the body and is still alive in some other plane of existence. Yes, the body decays, but some people have witnessed the soul leave the body at the deathbed of a loved one. They "see" something with their physical eyes and they try to describe what they saw to other people.

And @Sgt. Pepper says she can actually talk to dead people. That would open up a line of potential "demonstration", would it not?

Unfortunately, all we have are words to explain things to other people. Some of us have experienced things personally but we still only have words to describe it to others and they don't usually believe us, since they have never experienced what we experienced. I never experienced anything paranormal myself, not until last year after the death of my late husband, but since I already believe in the paranormal it was not difficult to believe.

I spent some time looking into this. (My first wife was very into astrology and spiritualism). I attended a spiritualist church and had some sessions with psychics. All very interesting, but I remained unconvinced.

God has given us evidence, through the Messengers that He sent. God is not a man who can "show up" on Earth and bring the evidence Himself. That is why God sends Messengers as Representatives.

You keep saying this, and I keep doubting it. God created the world and can't enter it in some way? It would be some kind of "avatar" perhaps, but to say that's impossible really limits God imo.

Initially, a leap of faith is required to entertain the 'possibility' of an "unseen God," but after that, if we use our rational mind to reason, we can figure out that there is a God, using the evidence that was provided by the Messengers. Once that is accomplished, faith is no longer needed because at that point we know there is a God, we not only believe.

What is evidence to one person is not evidence to another person, since all people are coming from different angles.
What people see evidence for and end up believing is influenced by combination of factors, such as childhood upbringing, education, and adult experiences. All of these are the reasons why we choose a belief or no belief at all.

I agree with most of that, including the uncertainty that is implied.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you DO understand that when a Muslims claims what Muhammed wrote in the Quran is true, we require material evidence. When a Baha'i claims the texts written by baha'u'llah is true, we require material evidence. When a Mormon claims what Joseph Smith wrote is truth, we require material evidence. No one gets a free pass. What has been offered as evdeicne by believers? Just the texts.

The texts are the only 'material evidence' you are going to get from anyone, since they are made of materials.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not confused by it..
You said: "How can anyone assume all of them are correct, and that be rational?"

It could be that 2 creeds are identical, except one creed says God is everywhere, and another that He is in heaven.
..so they can be might be correct, apart from that one detail.

There is no evidence either version is correct, and the fact they disagree is a reason to discount them both as unreliable.

If there was a creed about the Flying Spaghetti Monster would you assume it is correct? Do you assume all the various creeds in Christianity are correct? If so, why aren't you a Christian and following them?

As we see, in religion Truth and "correct" is in the eye of the beholder, not objectively true. Anything goes. If your believe it, it's true. No test in reality required.

You are assuming that you know what "my worldview" is.

No I don't, you have offered what you consider true about the universe, and I'm trusting that you aren't lying to the members when you post.

..so the cosmos doesn't care, but you DO .. funny that.

How is it funny that me as a very small part of the cosmos does not represent the whole of the cosmos? Only a God would do that. I don't claim to be a god.

Why do you single out children?
..because they are innocent, right?

That. And how I witnessed first hand how some clients of mine had a 3 year old daughter get diagnosed with Leukemia, and after about a year and a half of painful treatment she died. It was horrific. I'd never been that close to such a tragedy. When i was 7 my 10 year old neighter was hit by a car and died, but that is just the chances we take living our lives. This 3 year old did nothing to bring on cancer, and never had a chance at life.

When I hear theists talk about a lovoing God, and that is created everythong for a purpose, I get sick to my stomach. There's no purpose to a child dying like that. If a human did that to a child it would be a death penalty case.

Unfortunately, in a mortal world, it is not only those people who are guilty of inequities that suffer.

Like a sniper shooting at random in a crowd at Disneyland.

It is not random..

So your God targets people deliberately with cancers, defects, and other illnesses. That is criminal intent.

I would think you would take my lead and say that your God only set the universe in moriion and bad things happens randomly. But no, you say it's not random that a three year old develops Leukemia, that is fatal. This tells us more about you than your idea of God.

I've already agreed with you in another thread, that there are genetic, behavioural and environmental causes.
Stop telling "porkies"

Those are certainly another category, but it remains that your creator designed biology that develops cancers as a response to the environment, so still culpable.

 

[F1fan]

That is a false dichotomy.

Every claim needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
Pointing to 1000's of claims that God speaks to them, as a reason not to believe in God, is not a valid reason for ignoring the opinion of 50% of people who are Christians and Muslims.

Your point wiould be valid if we were talking about interior design. But we are talking about theists who are often claiming absolute Truth from a "one true God". That sets a standard for the rest of the religious claims. This is most relevant to the Abrahamic religions.

I understand you want to create room for all religious beliefs, but that only makes your personal belief even less truthful, and deceitful if you keep refering to a God as if it is absolute. You can't have it both ways. There is a reason why a person would be callkes "two-faced".

It is arrogant twaddle.

Another heaping serving of irony.

 

[F1fan]

The texts are the only 'material evidence' you are going to get from anyone, since they are made of materials.

So the Mormon Bible is true as well, yes? It's a material book.

Should we accept Joseph Smith as a Messenger and become Mormons? If not, why not?

But that isn't what a material fact (a legal reference), or evidence, means. Material evidence means it is relevant and verifiable. Evidence can't be a claim. It has to be demonstrated as true. The texts are verifiable as texts, but their content is not objectively verifiable, so we throw it out by default. We can't assume the texts are true, and that is because there are claims in the texts that are not verifiable, and even references that are known to be false. That Baha'u'llah says Naoh lived to be 950 is a serious indication that he is making some of the content up, or in this case, copying a Bible myth as literal, so casts doubt on all of it. Even if the texts were all factually correct there would need to be content that no mortal could know, and other (material) evidence that the supernatural bits were plausible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Quite the contrary, Truth is by definition absolute, not subjective as you admit here,

Only God knows the absolute Truth and He does not reveal that Truth to humans all at once.
God reveals His Truth in stages, as humans are able to understand it.

For example, when you were in grade school, you were not capable of understanding what you can understand now. Likewise, in ancient times, humans were not capable of understanding what they can understand in this new age, and that is why "all Truth" was not revealed by Jesus back in the Bible days.

John 16
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Baha'u'llah was the Spirit of truth who came to reveal the "many things" that Jesus held back

By your admission you know Truth isn't true objectively, and any ordinary slob can believe anything they want and call it Truth TM.
That means it isn't Truth, so why do believers insist it is?

Anyone can believe anything they want and call it Truth, but that does not mean it is not Truth; it might be Truth or not.

This would only make sense if there are different Gods, otherwise the Messengers would be representing what one true God says through all ages, which was my point, they don't. If anything, the one true God suffers from a multiple personality disorder, and given that diagnosis I recommend no one believe anything any Messenger says.

What the one true God 'says' through all the ages is not the same in every age because people and the world they live in is not the same throughout all the ages. Also, what people are capable of understanding is not the same throughout all the ages since people progress over time and are able to understand more as time goes on.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evidence given by a witness, is not "demonstrated true" by the witness

Then it shouldn't be called the truth. This is the difference between empiricism and belief by faith. If something isn't demonstrably true, why call it that? Every idea I call truth is an idea that allows me to accurately predict outcomes. If an idea can't do that, it may have some other value, like being a nice poem or some kind of comfort, but calling such things truth dilutes the meaning of the word. What the faithful call truth is usually some belief they hold fervently or hope is true.

It depends what you mean by "correct".

See above. An idea should only be called correct if it can be confirmed to be so. Once you start calling other ideas truth or correct - ideas not derived from the proper interpretation of evidence - you've become untethered to reality.

Almighty God has created this world for a purpose

Is this what you call truth?

You mean you wouldn't have created a mortal world? Do you think that you know better than God? Ridiculous !

What's ridiculous is for you to keep assuming in this discussion that this world was designed by an intelligence. No, we don't think we know better than a tri-omni god, but we do believe that a tri-omni god ought to know better than us, and that is much of the reason to reject the claim that one exists - something you appear to be unable to do. When I see how the world or scripture can be improved on, I see it as evidence against this deity. Since you can't think such a thing, you're stuck believing the world can't be improved upon, and are forced to exclaim "ridiculous." That kind of thinking has you corralled into these beliefs. There is no way out if you are unable to think dispassionately and open-mindedly, which of course is the purpose of teaching you to never think about such things. If I had been like that, I'd still be a Christian. The evidence that helped me figure out that the religion was a false one would have been chased out of my mind rather than be used to arrive at the sound conclusion I did.

you just claim that omnipotence means that you can create an illogical world, which is mortal, but no suffering etc.

Who claimed that? What is claimed is that this world could be made better if one had the power of a tri-omni god. Even human power has made the world better. Life is longer, safer, more comfortable, easier, more functional and more interesting that the one nature presented us with, the one where child mortality is greater and worms infect eyes. If you refuse to consider such things, well, you're stuck trying to explain why these things are good for man. You can't, of course, so you just dismiss the entire topic out of hand with "ridiculous!"

more "pie in the sky".

I don't think you understand what that phrase signifies. Pie in the sky refers to the promise of a reward after death, but now has been expanded to include any unrealistic desire. Here are song lyrics from a song by that name:

From the day of your birth it's bread and water here on earth
To a child of life to a child of life
But there'll be pie in the sky by and by when I die and it'll be alright it'll be alright
There'll be pie in the sky by and by when I die and it'll be alright it'll be alright
Sometimes I doubt and fear that I've really gained salvation here
For it's out of sight for it's out of sight
But there'll be pie in the sky

Here's another version, called The Preacher and the Slave. It's what the Sermon on the Mount teaches the downtrodden, and why they should accept their meager fates (be meek, be longsuffering, turn the other cheek), for your reward will come after death. It's good stuff for keeping slaves docile:

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

"Truth" as we find in religious beliefs generally has little correspondence to anything we personally experience

That's correct, and a good reason to not call it truth. Since they don't say anything about "anything we personally experience, "religious "truths" are generally unfalsifiable claims, meaning that they can never be shown to true or false- what is often called "not even wrong."

It is the "Truth" that an immortal spirit leaves the body and is still alive in some other plane of existence.

More of what the faithful are willing to call truth.

God is not a man who can "show up" on Earth and bring the evidence Himself.

More truth, huh?

What is evidence to one person is not evidence to another person, since all people are coming from different angles.

The interpretation of evidence is subjective to you, which is why you consider all opinions equal - how often have you commented "That's just your opinion" to ideas others recognize as fact. What's remarkable about you is your inability to even consider this. OK, be skeptical if you are unable to repeat this method, or see others come to demonstrably correct conclusions using it, which ought to be easy. But you steadfastly adhere to this belief that everybody is guessing things like your two guesses above.

There are many people who can't think critically but who know that it's a thing, that it can be done by others, and what it does for them. These are the people who turn to such others to benefit from their expertise. They understand that there are opinions better than their guesses. But below this level, people are trapped in Dunning-Kruger territory. To illustrate, there are those who can look at the data regarding Covid deaths and vaccines and correctly conclude that the evidence supports taking the vaccine. Then there are others who can't do that, but understand that experts like Dr. Fauci can, and heed his advice. And then you have the lost who think everybody's guessing and their guess is as good as any other. Many are dead of Covid now.

No, it makes absolutely NO logical sense that there would be consistency of what believers consider to be Truth, which is their beliefs. Since different theists believe in different religions that were revealed by different Messengers in different ages it makes sense that there would be no consistency. Beliefs will be different, but Spiritual Truth is consistent across the ages, so we will see the same Spiritual Truth revealed in all the religions.

Not by your definition of truth, no, which apparently is both "consistent across the ages" and varies among believers - what you call no "consistency." But this is a useless description of those ideas. What do expect the truth about the periodic table of the elements to be across the ages? Evolving guesses? New table with fewer elements arranged differently according to hunch? Of course not, and that's the difference between truth as an empiricist uses the phrase and religious "truth." The former is demonstrably correct, stable over the ages (a few new elements may be added at the top, but there will be no other changes), and useful to predict the behavior of chemicals.

I realize that you experience these kind of comments as personal attacks and arrogance, but what is arrogant is to go beyond saying that this is what you choose to believe and claiming that your beliefs are justified. When you do that, you demean what others consider sacred. You can claim faith, but when you claim that you have evidence and reason for your beliefs, you offend those that actually have and use those things, and who disagree with you because of that. It's disrespectful of you. I don't expect you to ever figure this out or adapt, because despite your claims to the contrary, you don't think critically, but you shouldn't expect others not to beset you with what you experience as arrogant personal attacks when you sin against reason.

 

[Trailblazer]

So the Mormon Bible is true as well, yes? It's a material book.

Should we accept Joseph Smith as a Messenger and become Mormons? If not, why not?

But that isn't what a material fact (a legal reference), or evidence, means. Material evidence means it is relevant and verifiable. Evidence can't be a claim. It has to be demonstrated as true. The texts are verifiable as texts, but their content is not objectively verifiable, so we throw it out by default. We can't assume the texts are true, and that is because there are claims in the texts that are not verifiable, and even references that are known to be false.

Did I say that all the texts are true just because they are made of materials? No, I did not say that.

I said "The texts are the only 'material evidence' you are going to get from anyone, since they are made of materials." I said that in jest, but it is also true, because the WAY that truth comes to us is by way of written material that is in the texts, which can now also be found on the internet.

Material evidence in a court of law means it is relevant and verifiable. There is no 'verifiable' evidence for religion.

No, the content in the religious texts is not objectively verifiable, but that does not mean it is not true.
Verifiable evidence is just what atheists want, it does not make anything true.
I don't know how many times have I said this on this forum, 100 times, 200, 300, or 400 - I lost count.

That Baha'u'llah says Naoh lived to be 950 is a serious indication that he is making some of the content up, or in this case, copying a Bible myth as literal, so casts doubt on all of it. Even if the texts were all factually correct there would need to be content that no mortal could know, and other (material) evidence that the supernatural bits were plausible.

That quote from Baha'u'llah did not mean that Noah lived to be 950 years old. It means that the Dispensation of Noah lasted for 950 years. The text should have been translated differently, so that would have been made clear.

 

[F1fan]

Only God knows the absolute Truth and He does not reveal that Truth to humans all at once.

There are no gods known to exist, so this is not a truthful statement. There is no religious "truth" that ius confirmed to be from any divine sourse, so before you reveat this claim prove a God exists, and then prove there is at least one religious truth that came froma divine source. Otherwise you stating this is irrelevant.

God reveals His Truth in stages, as humans are able to understand it.

Just prove it.

For example, when you were in grade school, you were not capable of understanding what you can understand now. Likewise, in ancient times, humans were not capable of understanding what they can understand in this new age, and that is why "all Truth" was not revealed by Jesus back in the Bible days.

Not a good analogy. That a young person doesn't have the brain development to understand knowledge is not related to ancient people who did not have access to modern knowledge.

Baha'u'llah was the Spirit of truth who came to reveal the "many things" that Jesus held back

A religious claim that has too many assumptions to be considered true, so I reject it by default. Just prove this is true with facts. If you have none, then don't repeat this claim until you do.

Anyone can believe anything they want and call it Truth, but that does not mean it is not Truth; it might be Truth or not.

This is you. Critical thinkers don't believe in any idea unless it has substantial evidence that it is true, or at least likley true. Religious claims are based on assumptions that are not warranted.

What the one true God 'says' through all the ages is not the same in every age because people and the world they live in is not the same throughout all the ages. Also, what people are capable of understanding is not the same throughout all the ages since people progress over time and are able to understand more as time goes on.

Irrelevant to polytheists, so we can dismiss this as true or plausible. Why don't you accept the hundreds of Hindu gods?

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

Self-serving theology, not a factual argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: "Truth" as we find in religious beliefs generally has little correspondence to anything we personally experience

That's correct, and a good reason to not call it truth. Since they don't say anything about "anything we personally experience, "religious "truths" are generally unfalsifiable claims, meaning that they can never be shown to true or false- what is often called "not even wrong."

That is as much as saying that if something is true we would personally experience it, that nothing is true unless we can personally experience it, and that is illogical on its face, as many thing are true that we never personally experience, even in science, so why is the same standard NOT applied to religion?

Religious "truths" are generally unfalsifiable claims, meaning that they can never be shown to true or false, but that does not mean they are not true. It only means it cannot be proven that they are true. However, proof is not what makes anything true, proof is just what atheists want.

The interpretation of evidence is subjective to you, which is why you consider all opinions equal

I never said all opinions are equal, I said they are different.

But you steadfastly adhere to this belief that everybody is guessing things like your two guesses above.

I never said that everyone is guessing. I said this in a previous post, that people believe, not guess, and religious beliefs are based upon their scriptures.

Not by your definition of truth, no, which apparently is both "consistent across the ages" and varies among believers - what you call no "consistency."

Spiritual truth is consistent across the ages but what people believe according to their religion is different.

In the following passage, the Law of God refers to the divinely revealed religion of God. The spiritual message (spiritual virtues and divine qualities) are the same in all the great world religions:

“the Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy.......

These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.
Some Answered Questions, pp. 47-48

I realize that you experience these kind of comments as personal attacks and arrogance, but what is arrogant is to go beyond saying that this is what you choose to believe and claiming that your beliefs are justified. When you do that, you demean what others consider sacred.

All I ever said is this is what I choose to believe. My beliefs are justified for me since I believe them for a reason that is good or legitimate to me. I am not demeaning anyone else by having my own beliefs. Others have different beliefs that are justified for them.

justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.
justified meaning - Google Search

You can claim faith, but when you claim that you have evidence and reason for your beliefs, you offend those that actually have and use those things, and who disagree with you because of that. It's disrespectful of you. I don't expect you to ever figure this out or adapt, because despite your claims to the contrary, you don't think critically, but you shouldn't expect others not to beset you with what you experience as arrogant personal attacks when you sin against reason.

I say that I have evidence and reason for my beliefs, why does that bother you? It does not seem to bother other atheists on this forum, only a few. Imo, I think you should dig deep down and ask yourself why 'what I believe' bothers you so much. Atheism does not bother me at all because I have certitude of my beliefs, and I allow others to have their own beliefs or non-beliefs.

When you say that I offend those that "actually have and use those things" (evidence and reason) you are saying that I do not have evidence or reason for my beliefs. You are the one who is offensive, not me. It's disrespectful of you, because you are the one who is attacking my beliefs, I am not attacking atheism. When you do that, you demean what I consider sacred.

I don't expect you to ever figure this out or adapt, because you have no respect for anyone who disagrees with you. All you do is put them down and say they can't think critically, like you do. You cloak everything you say in a blanket of words which functions as a smokescreen to hide the constant insults.

I cannot see any reason why you are on this thread, except to talk about how smart you are and put believers down. You are not here because you 'care' about Evidence for God. You have already decided that there is no Evidence. You are just on a soap box for atheism and critical thinking.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There are no gods known to exist,.

Nothing to discuss then..

 

[Trailblazer]

Nothing to discuss then..

I vote to shut this baby down, since there is nobody on here who cares about Evidence for God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then it shouldn't be called the truth..

Do you think?
The truth is, that we will all die, and return to our Maker.

You have been informed of the truth .. so maybe one day, when you find that it is true, you will know why it is called truth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I vote to shut this baby down, since there is nobody on here who cares about Evidence for God.

There is no point in replying to deliberate blasphemy .. but if anybody has anything sensible to say, then that's OK.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Irrelevant to polytheists, so we can dismiss this as true or plausible. Why don't you accept the hundreds of Hindu gods?

I am a polytheist, and I believe that many gods and goddesses may exist, but I cannot prove it.

As I explained to @Evangelicalhumanist in my previous post here, I believe that many gods and goddesses could exist because I believe in supernatural phenomena, and I posted four different links to my other post where I explained why I believe as I do.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no point in replying to deliberate blasphemy .. but if anybody has anything sensible to say, then that's OK.

Okay, I'll stay as long as you stay.... Us believers have to stick together.

 

[John53]

Do you think?
The truth is, that we will all die, and return to our Maker.

You have been informed of the truth .. so maybe one day, when you find that it is true, you will know why it is called truth.

Nothing but proselytising.

 

[muhammad_isa]

When I hear theists talk about a loving God, and that is created everything for a purpose, I get sick to my stomach..

I'm sorry to hear it..
I wonder how you will feel if you find out that what we have been telling you is true .. that you will find yourself aware once more after you die.
That would be the ultimate evidence, would it not?

If this world is what you say it is .. a free-for-all lottery, then why should that not make you "sick to your stomach"?
Why is it that only humans can feel emotions, while everything else is just indifferent?

There's no purpose to a child dying like that. If a human did that to a child it would be a death penalty case..

Almighty God did not create all the problems of the modern world. We did.

We all have to die of something .. this world is finite.
The body dies, but the soul does not.
No, I can't provide you with "material evidence".
Personally, I don't need it .. I am convinced that the Bible and Qur'an are true.

I do not see God as "unloving", because He creates a mortal world, in which we are required to police ourselves.
..but mankind prefers wealth, even if they are hurting their neighbours accumulating it.
You constantly hypothetically blame God, whilst I blame mankind.
It is mankind who love wealth so much that they harm others .. harm children .. your stance is just a tactic to divert attention away from the real perpetrators.

There's no purpose to a child dying like that..

If you care so much, then why don't you accuse human beings who are destroying their environment, in pursuit of wealth?

Like a sniper shooting at random in a crowd at Disneyland..

..grow up..

So your God targets people deliberately with cancers, defects, and other illnesses..

..no, that would be "your god" .. you know, that evil one of chance, that can't be held responsible for anything.

Those are certainly another category, but it remains that your creator designed biology that develops cancers as a response to the environment, so still culpable.

It is a finite world, yes.
..but not a permanent one.

According to you, mankind don't have any blame, because God created us capable of evil.
That won't hold up in a court of law .. and neither will it on the day of judgment.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said:
Only God knows the absolute Truth and He does not reveal that Truth to humans all at once.

There are no gods known to exist, so this is not a truthful statement. There is no religious "truth" that is confirmed to be from any divine source, so before you reveal this claim prove a God exists, and then prove there is at least one religious truth that came from a divine source. Otherwise you stating this is irrelevant.

I was stating a religious belief, not a scientific fact. It is not necessarily true or false, it is unknown to be true or false since it cannot be proven true or falsified.

Just prove it.

A religious claim that has too many assumptions to be considered true, so I reject it by default. Just prove this is true with facts. If you have none, then don't repeat this claim until you do.

Self-serving theology, not a factual argument.

No religious claims can be proven true with facts or factual arguments. How many times to I have to say this, 100, 200, or 300?

Irrelevant to polytheists, so we can dismiss this as true or plausible. Why don't you accept the hundreds of Hindu gods?

Because I believe what Baha'u'llah revealed about the one true God.