Evidence

[muhammad_isa]

I agree. The original purpose of this thread, in my opinion, is to proselytize and preach the Baha'i faith, and that has been prevalent in the subsequent posts of the OP and in some of the other posts supporting the OP. In my personal opinion, I think that the thread was posted in complete disregard for Rule 8. Of course, I could be mistaken about the OP's intent for this thread, but I don't think I am.

I don't think so..

@TransmutingSoul said: "The Guidence/Wrirings given by them is the other line of Evidence left, that can be linked.

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

Now the key here is, we all get to be the jury and the judge. The Manifestations will individually submit to your verdict, so the burden of Justice now falls upon each individual."

It's quite simple .. the evidence is that which the messengers of God left us .. the scriptures .. and we have to evaluate them for ourselves.

It has nothing to do with trying to convert anybody, imo.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree. The original purpose of this thread, in my opinion, is to proselytize and preach the Baha'i faith, and that has been prevalent in the subsequent posts of the OP and in some of the other posts supporting the OP. In my personal opinion, I think that the thread was posted in complete disregard for Rule 8. Of course, I could be mistaken about the OP's intent for this thread, but I don't think I am.

With all due respect, it does not matter what the 'original purpose' of this thread was, since Tony is long gone.
Since that time, this thread has turned into nothing but proselytizing for atheism and critical thinking in an effort to squash believers and insult them constantly with long posts which try to hide the barrage of insults behind a smokescreen of words. Only one atheist on this thread that I know of has any interest in the Evidence for God's existence. This is drop dead obvious to any objective observer.

 

[John53]

I agree. The original purpose of this thread, in my opinion, is to proselytize and preach the Baha'i faith, and that has been prevalent in the subsequent posts of the OP and in some of the other posts supporting the OP. In my personal opinion, I think that the thread was posted in complete disregard for Rule 8. Of course, I could be mistaken about the OP's intent for this thread, but I don't think I am.

Yet it could be an interesting discussion if it wasn't for the "believe my evidence or be punished" nonsense.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..this thread has turned into nothing but proselytizing for atheism and critical thinking in an effort to squash believers and insult them constantly with long posts which t"crry to hide the barrage of insults behind a smokescreen of words.

Oh well..
They are not the only ones to possess "critical thinking" despite them claiming so.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Why do you think that spiritual truth would have the same characteristics as physical truth such that it could be interacted with or demonstrated? You might think that if non physical things cannot be interacted with, they might as well not exist, but I do not need to be able to interact with everything that I believe exists, especially because I know it is not available for interaction with me.

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

It definitely would, but would you or any atheist believe that she was actually talking to departed spirits?

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.

The Manifestations of God are avatars.

avatar: a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.
what is an avatar - Google Search

God cannot 'enter' the material world in a way that you could 'see Him' because God is not a material being.

The Essence of God is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men and can never be known except through a Manifestation of God who is sent by God. God manifested Himself by sending Messengers who manifested God. The Messengers are the Day Spring of the signs of God's Revelation to man.

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

 

[Trailblazer]

That's merely your uncorroborated belief, and has been rebutted, which rebuttal you failed to address. You have been told repeatedly what evidence for a god is, and what you offer isn't that.

No, my belief has never been rebutted.
No, I have never been told by any atheist what evidence for God is, and I have asked repeatedly.
Since no atheist has 'any idea' what evidence for God is, no atheist can know what I have presented isn't evidence.

And you have been told just as many times that what you offer is not evidence in support of your belief and why it falls short. You don't seem interested in addressing any of that. You just keep making the same rebutted claim. It's still wrong for the same reason previously given that still have never refuted.

And you have been told just as many times that what I offer is evidence in support of my belief and why it is evidence. It is MY belief, not yours, so I know what evidence supports it.

You have not rebutted any claim, you only believe you have. It is not wrong, you only believe it is wrong.
No religious belief can be proven right or wrong, so all this is just like spitting in the wind.

Then they shouldn't believe it if they can't find reasons of their own.

That is absolutely true, the truest thing I have heard in weeks, maybe years!
Who ever said you should believe it? Certainly not me.

I've seen all of the evidence you and others have presented as evidence of a god. True to form, your claim when it is examined and rejected, is that it was never seen. You apparently consider your evidence so powerful and compelling that one only need look at it, and that those who don't believe must not have looked.

What I have posted is not 'the evidence.' I have only posted what evidence there is to look at.
I said: "People who say "that's not evidence" have never opened the door to the next room so they will never see the evidence."
If you have not opened the door to the next room and looked at the all evidence you cannot know if it is evidence for Baha'u'llah, but if you have looked at it and still do not consider it evidence then it is not evidence for you. Case closed. Why do we need to keep talking about it?

Shouldn't you be able to answer that? Apparently, you think a book millions could have written and a life millions have equaled or surpassed is that.

I do not have to answer that because I have already stated what I believe the evidence is.

I asked you: "Let's just say that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be. How would we know if Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be - what would the evidence look like?"

You are saying it is not a book and not what He did in His life. Then what would a Messenger of God have to present as evidence that He is a Messenger? The ball is in your court now, as I have already told you what is evidence according to Baha'u'lah.

If it is true that "millions of people" could have written the 15,000 tablets that Baha'u'llah wrote, show me just one person who has written 15,000 tablets like He wrote.

If it is true that "millions of people" have led a life that equaled or surpassed is the life of Baha'u'llah, show me one person who has led such a life.

Talk is cheap. Put your money where your mouth is.

Then what is failed evidence to you?

I should mention here that the phrase failed evidence has no meaning to me. How can evidence fail? Fail to do what? Evidence is what is evident. People can fail to understand it, but evidence can't fail or do any of a number of other things like drink a beer or sing Karaoke or run for public office. It's a category error.

There is no such thing as failed evidence. If something is evidence for x it is evidence for x.
Evidence that failed to convince you or anyone else of x is not failed evidence, it is just evidence that did not convince you of x. Nevertheless, a, b, and c is the evidence that Baha'ullah set forth as evidence of His claim x. Whether the claim is true or not is another matter. The evidence is still the evidence.

Trailblazer said: ↑

there is no evidence that would make me change my mind about my belief in God.

Then that belief is not based in evidence as you claim.

It is based in evidence but since nobody can ever refute that evidence I have no reason to ever change my mind.
There is too much evidence to refute.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yet it could be an interesting discussion if it wasn't for the "believe my evidence or be punished" nonsense.

I don't think that anybody has said that..
Nobody will be punished, unless they deserve to be..

A person who decides there is not enough evidence for them to believe is not automatically guilty of anything.
It is our deeds that might make us guilty of something.

Those who believe, try to avoid sins .. sin is that which God teaches us that we should avoid.
An atheist might not agree, and therefore sin without realising the consequences.
..or just might not care .. whatever.

 

[rational experiences]

As a spiritual researcher one species a human I researched tested spirit.

All the information not mine and not realised or studied or my awareness was given to me by my question to answer. By my own head mind.

Eventually I learnt trust that advice all human. It was real. So you do as research said the advice was real. From encyclopaedias....herbal books...medical documents..dictionary.

So I used common sense about how and why humans information existed. As not by self experience only but why to learn by study or as taught is our humans truth.

The concept was a spiritual teacher. By circumstance lots of humans in experiences of life owned the expressed information. Family.

That teacher advised me it was first man the highest and origin spiritual self. Very different from our bio type now who had invented then built the machine time shift conversion.

From its beginnings place in mans science terms deep space in mass. Metals the mass from melt to solid.

Who gave us death. Separated us from the eternal to live as a human with bio body changed pain and suffering.

The scientist grail hunter a man's men agreed science search for power of God proved it. Without any doubt they did it to us.

As he formed the thesis nuclear bomb...blasting power of God released in our heavens...a dust shadow left after of all things once existing.

So our human parents spirit eternal body was changed by him as he time shifted earths mass into a heavens nuclear event.

Took the cloud protection away above and now humans were held in a converting reaction change over time into a pile of skeletal dusts like earth.

At bios eventual end of conversion itself. Science of man introduced.

The real story.

Which proved humans were never god earth. And earth and humans had both come from the eternal body as an explanation. Not a thesis.

To end as a similar substance in a conversion. Dusts. A pretty basic known truth we were taught.

The grail story only depicts a human ages fast in the God eternal power back to its hell past. To old age a skeleton that explodes into dusts. On waters in take into our body.

Gods power causes it in water.

The carpenters Christ outcome vacuum void stopped saved biology. The actual humans teaching. Not about one man...all things.

One man idea is just the theist in mind terms spirit thinking the thesis identifying advice then teaching as the Messenger of the human needed advice.

Is exact. Exact how a human psychic explains I'm advised.

As origin eternal isn't nor was it ever created creation. It cannot ever be a humans thesis and created creation was legally the only acceptable law. No change by human men allowed.

God earth still in its reactive changing body...reaction not yet ended is still owning its first position. It's body changed.

Same as the sun. The term reaction phase hasn't ended. Hence you are not allowed to interfere said human legal.

Humans once were without death. We know we were. Memory ours advised us it was real.

Says the story. Conscious mind.

Our brother Mr machine man changed our bio type and ended us. Forced by the machine. It's beginning its end is no layering of all above metal Seams of mass and natural history pressures.

Pressure that only applies as space opened into nothing as mass in the whole infinite body disappeared burnt converted. Told exactly why you are not allowed science.

We still are currently converting in a reaction he caused. Biology. Staying alive by sex. Trying to stop him from advice. Allowing adding into recausing The suns cross.

We are losing our rights to stay alive to win the heavens evolution returned. We want our true biology health returned.

This story we know isn't fake it's our known spiritual reality.

So humans knew if the sun UFO mass stopped crossing our biology type could transform back into a higher biology. Once owned by body mass above presence pressures.

We wanted water micro biology reunification with our separated human spirit held in the heavens body. The spirit self teaching. All the voices. Our human rights.

The date 2012 we looked forward to evolving us by the sun sacrificed bio cross ending.

Rome stopped that event in our past. The story that Eventuated into Hitler's own search the grail. Man's mind is possessed by our destruction. Proven.

Who updated the advice warning is they stopped our 2012 outcome already. Please don't let man's mind to reinvent life's destruction. Don't support his unnatural advice.

Ignored as all you do is argue. So it's too late we all are already dying from cancer types by science trying to convert us into their beginning thesis dusts.

Ever wonder how evil a human man theist is? His wisdom science says yes his evil knowledge today says it all.

Given to his spiritual mind only as visions from the sun stars attack. He once had a choice family or invention. He already chose invention.

Is why the bible was written as a humans legal testimony. Allow our life to reunify it's healing. And no liar of a satanist man by thoughts....biology didn't begin in the unstable nuclear position.

 

[Alien826]

Why do you think that spiritual truth would have the same characteristics as physical truth such that it could be interacted with or demonstrated? You might think that if non physical things cannot be interacted with, they might as well not exist, but I do not need to be able to interact with everything that I believe exists, especially because I know it is not available for interaction with me.

You've made me think now, it was just pretty obvious to me. First, not an abstract thing like "truth". That's a different definition of existence. I mean the objects that the truth describes. I would say that in order to "exist" an object must have certain characteristics. Substance. It must be made of something. Size. An object of zero size may be describable mathematically, but it can't be said to exist in the real world. Duration. An object that exists for zero time doesn't exist. I see no reason why describing an object as "spiritual" gets around the requirements for existence. Once we have these characteristics it would follow that the object can be interacted with, at least in principle.

It definitely would, but would you or any atheist believe that she was actually talking to departed spirits?

I can't speak for others but I can envisage things that would make me seriously consider that there was some kind of after death existence. I found that the psychics and mediums I met performed very badly when I was careful not to feed them any information. Maybe @Sgt. Pepper could do better. I'd certainly give her a chance.

The Manifestations of God are avatars.

avatar: a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.
what is an avatar - Google Search

God cannot 'enter' the material world in a way that you could 'see Him' because God is not a material being.

The Essence of God is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men and can never be known except through a Manifestation of God who is sent by God. God manifested Himself by sending Messengers who manifested God. The Messengers are the Day Spring of the signs of God's Revelation to man.

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Perhaps we can leave it at that.

 

[F1fan]

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?

No it wouldn't, because dead people are dead, and they aren't conscious to know anything. But as conscious being, the religious claims of an afterlife are absurd and not believable.

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?

Whast has made me sick is religious people beign caable of understanding the sort of cruel universe we live in, but still some sort of loving God exists. Obviously they want the rose-colored glasses scenario, but reality is so harsh it requires delusion to manage both in the same mind. I suspect believers know their religious beliefs are not compatible with reality, but they are trapped in a social/cultural framework that they cannot reconcile rationally.

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

Making excuses for your God since you realize it would be held accountable for the worst of the natural world, natural disasters, defects, diseases, pandemics, etc. Of course human activity has caused some problems for ourselves, and many humans are not wise in accepting these realities, like climate change and pollution. But we don't cause earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, and most hurricanes and tornados, meteor impacts, etc., your God does, assuming your God exists, of course, which no one has shown is true.

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 don't see belief in either book being a worthy use of my time. I value reason, not faith. If belief works for you, and that's the best you can do, then OK.

I do not see God as "unloving", because He creates a mortal world, in which we are required to police ourselves.

Read the Old Testament, you claimed to believe it. That is a vengeful and cruel God that would be convicted of crimes against humanity if real, and human.

..but mankind prefers wealth, even if they are hurting their neighbours accumulating it.
You constantly hypothetically blame God, whilst I blame mankind.

And mankind is just as your version of God designed, so balme the creator, not the product.

And this comment is common among Christians, and is oddly much like an abused wife who keeps saying she deserves the abuse because it's her fault, and her husband really loves her deep down despite the beatings.

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.

You do realize that many wealthy people are Christian evangelicals, and have exploited republican politics to maintain their wealth? And guess what, this tends to leave the federal government underfunded and the social programs that are there to help the poor can't help as many as need it. There is a shallowness that the Abrahamic religions have not help fix. What is the percentage of believers that Tb noted quite a few times? Oh yes, it is 93% of people, so you csn't blame atheists for all the greed you observe in the world. Look at the failure of Christianity and even Islam to not solve this vice. Where's your God as all this happens?

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

I've made my fair share of posts about that issue in the appropriate threads.

..grow up..

If your God exists, does it cause cancers randomly, or deliberatly?

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

Weren't you just posting how it's humans that are the cause of our misfortune, not your God? Remember, I was asking why your God created children with genes that cause cancers. Remember, you had no explanation. You could not explain why your God creates children with cancers that resulkt in their deaths.

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.

Right, you can't blame Mickey Mouse in court any more than you can God. Imaginary characters are not recognized in courts. That's why people who were exposed to asbestos can sue companies for mesothelioma, but children with cancer can't sue God. Defendants have to exist. But according to you God does exist, so he is to blame for the natural occurance of cancer in children.[/quote]

 

[F1fan]

I was stating a religious belief, not a scientific fact.

Why? Your beliefs are irrelevant. Facts are evidence, do you have none of those? More facts, less belief.

It is not necessarily true or false, it is unknown to be true or false since it cannot be proven true or falsified.

That is why your beliefs are irrelevant. Just find facts that support your beliefs, don't just keep posting your beliefs.

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?

And ideas that can't be shown to be true are UNTRUE by default. We don't believe in untrue ideas until they csn be shown to be TRUE.

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

We don't care. Find facts that Baha'u'llah is an authentic prophet.

 

[Trailblazer]

You've made me think now, it was just pretty obvious to me. First, not an abstract thing like "truth". That's a different definition of existence. I mean the objects that the truth describes. I would say that in order to "exist" an object must have certain characteristics. Substance. It must be made of something. Size. An object of zero size may be describable mathematically, but it can't be said to exist in the real world. Duration. An object that exists for zero time doesn't exist. I see no reason why describing an object as "spiritual" gets around the requirements for existence. Once we have these characteristics it would follow that the object can be interacted with, at least in principle.

You are describing objects that exist in the physical world, i.e., physical existence. Spiritual things do not exist as objects in the physical world, they exist as entities in the spiritual world. According to @Sgt. Pepper some people who die never cross over to the spiritual world, they hang around the physical world unless a psychic medium helps them cross over. These are called ghosts, earthbound souls, or disembodied souls.

I suppose it is also possible that after a person dies and ascends to the spiritual world, the soul of that person can come back to the physical world in a spiritual body to pay a visit, or that soul can somehow affect objects and people who are still in the physical world, from the spiritual world... What do I know? I am only a believer.

It is in the Bible that we get spiritual bodies after we die and divest ourselves of our physical bodies. This is what Jesus meant by a resurrection, not a physical resurrection of the physical body from the grave, not a physical body coming back to life as so many Christians believe will happen. God created the human body to be mortal, not immortal.

Our physical bodies will die and we will be raised as spiritual bodies. Paul says that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God and that means they cannot exist in heaven. When Paul says these dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever, he is referring to the spiritual world (heaven), which will last forever.

1 Corinthians 15 says that there are two different kinds of bodies:

--- The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.
--- For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies, which are different.

Our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God which is in Heaven. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever is referring to Heaven, which will last forever. Our physical bodies will die and we will be raised (resurrected) as spiritual bodies that will be suited to go to Heaven and live forever.

1 Corinthians 15:40-54 New Living Translation

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.

44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.

51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!

54 Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die,[c] this Scripture will be fulfilled: “Death is swallowed up in victory.[d]

Read full chapter

See how similar the Baha'i writings are to the Bible.

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.”
Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194

I can't speak for others but I can envisage things that would make me seriously consider that there was some kind of after death existence. I found that the psychics and mediums I met performed very badly when I was careful not to feed them any information. Maybe @Sgt. Pepper could do better. I'd certainly give her a chance.

I am sure there are plenty of bad mediums. A bad medium is worse than mo medium at all, because it is better to not know anything than to get bogus information.

I think it is important not to give the medium any information about your loved one, because if you do that, how can you know that the medium is really communicating with your loved one? A fraudulent medium might just come back with what they think you want to hear. However, if you give them little or no information and they come back with things that only your loved one could possibly know, that is a good test, a way to know that the medium connected with the spirit (soul) of your loved one.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yet it could be an interesting discussion if it wasn't for the "believe my evidence or be punished" nonsense.

In my opinion, it is an interesting discussion anyway. I think that it's been interesting learning about the Baha'i faith. I'm trying to keep everything that's been said in this thread in perspective, which I realize I didn't adequately convey in my last post (put foot in mouth).

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You are describing objects that exist in the physical world, i.e., physical existence. Spiritual things do not exist as objects in the physical world, they exist as entities in the spiritual world. According to @Sgt. Pepper some people who die never cross over to the spiritual world, they hang around the physical world unless a psychic medium helps them cross over. These are called ghosts, earthbound souls, or disembodied souls.

It's no secret that there was a time, even recently, where I considered I might have esp. One thing which put me off to such an idea was when comparing my experiences to others, they just weren't the same.

I'm sure had I used a Spiritual Guide, my experiences would have matched theirs, but only because I would have been trained to see the same things as that person. And interpret things in the same way.

But for now, I'm ready to say that my sense of imagination might be slightly active, and even if it's not, and I do have particularly special talents - I haven't reached an answer at all to questions like "Why do such things matter? Why do they matter to me? What good will they do for the world? What's the reward for using them?"

So I kind of just sink back into "Believing what I can see." Whether part of that is frustration, or just evolutional need to see the here and now, or both, I can't say at this time.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans living evidence.

A man is a brother father.
A woman is a mother sister.

As scientists their new baby is a machine that human scientists built created. As two human parents lying.

Instead of living natural law on earth. By human sex. Baby human con ceived. By sex. Birth. Baby human then the as the adult humans body creator creates. Human adult.

Machine not biology. Not a holy human baby. Same scientists using a Jesus Phi theme human baby created direct out of heavens. And Not by human sex. Law is sex.

Is a confession to not allow a bio human babies sex conception. I'm theorising for babies life removal by heavens position.

As no human baby is conceived inside a metal machines body by a reaction. To be sacrificed converted into electricity.

Evidence.

Humans own use believe apply attack experiment on not their lives they are holy you know. Families life attack by machine. Most acceptable.

Machine not any biology. Machine not a human baby.

Evidence non arguable what legal is as humans seen thought upon evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why? Your beliefs are irrelevant. Facts are evidence, do you have none of those? More facts, less belief.

That is why your beliefs are irrelevant. Just find facts that support your beliefs, don't just keep posting your beliefs.

If you think my beliefs are irrelevant I suggest you stop talking to me about them.

How many times do I have to tell you that there are no facts about God, only beliefs.
The only facts you will ever have are facts about Baha'u'llah, not facts about God.

And ideas that can't be shown to be true are UNTRUE by default. We don't believe in untrue ideas until they can be shown to be TRUE.

All facts have been shown to be true, that is what a fact is.

Fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

There might be evidence for a belief, but there is no proof. Beliefs cannot be shown to be true, that is why they are called beliefs rather than facts.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
Belief - Wikipedia

Any ideas that can't be shown to be true are not UNTRUE by default. You just committed the fallacy of argument from ignorance. A belief is not false simply because it has not yet been proven true.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Religious beliefs cannot be shown to be true, but that does not mean they are false. It only means it cannot be known if they are true or false.

We don't care. Find facts that Baha'u'llah is an authentic prophet.

There are facts about Baha'u'llah but there are no facts that prove He was a Messenger of God.
I don't care if you like it.

 

[rational experiences]

If you think my beliefs are irrelevant I suggest you stop talking to me about them.

How many times do I have to tell you that there are no facts about God, only beliefs.
The only facts you will ever have are facts about Baha'u'llah, not facts about God.

All facts have been shown to be true, that is what a fact is.

Fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

There might be evidence for a belief, but there is no proof. Beliefs cannot be shown to be true, that is why they are called beliefs rather than facts.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
Belief - Wikipedia

And ideas that can't be shown to be true are not UNTRUE by default. You just committed the fallacy of argument from ignorance. A belief is not false simply because it has not yet been proven true.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Religious beliefs cannot be shown to be true, but that does not mean they are false. It only means it cannot be known if they are true or false.

There are facts about Baha'u'llah but there are no facts that prove He was a Messenger of God.
I don't care if you like it.

To be taught as a human adult bio life your own adult biology is changing. As adult humans are theist scientist.

Baby human already displaced by built machine. From dusts already mass removed in natural law. A dangerous beginning machine not a human conception.

Baby the human life body owns all bio messages as you live to have created your man adult life.

Heavens change.

Bio messages change.

Your life mind bio chemical life changes. Baby human bio history Sacrificed. You become self aware. You detail your human adults awareness.

Owning no human terms why heavens above changed.

Only realising your human baby creator changed its bio message history messages in DNA as so had heavens mass... Not human DNA.

Is the reasoning. You're not Jesus as your man image now hadn't appeared in clouds. A teaching.

Is his advice wrong?

No.

He saw muslim mind change wanted to rebuild temple sciences under land control. He tried to warn them.

Same as Russian star fall evidence mind changes rebuilds nuclear uses it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The truth is, that we will all die, and return to our Maker.

You're guessing. You cannot know that.

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?

What I am saying is that it is inappropriate to call something truth if it isn't confirmed empirically.

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.

Then why call them truth? It doesn't matter that they haven't been ruled out, just that they haven't been ruled in.

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

You write, "That's only your opinion." It's more than that. My opinions are not guesses. They reflect knowledge. My standards for that are higher than the faith-based thinker who calls everything he believes by that method truth.

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.

I have told you repeatedly that your evidence doesn't support your beliefs and that your reasoning is often or usually fallacious. No, you do not have evidentiary support for your beliefs by the standards of critical thinking.

It's disrespectful of you, because you are the one who is attacking my beliefs

No, I am not. I don't care about your beliefs. I care that you call them reasoned and evidenced. Why would I care what you believe? If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and give his like meaning, that's fine, as long as he keeps the noise down. But if he wants to claim that what he believes is fact supported by evidence, I will probably tell him I disagree.

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.

You don't understand me or what motivates me. You just said so. And I am not on a soapbox for atheism. When have I ever tried to promote that? My soapbox is related to thinking well.

No, my belief has never been rebutted.

Your claim that your religious belief is supported by the evidence you offer in its support has been rebutted a few times. But I wouldn't expect you to recognize a rebuttal. Have you noticed any in this post? Every comment I have made to you in this post contradicts you.

I have never been told by any atheist what evidence for God is, and I have asked repeatedly.

I have told you several times. I'd repeat it here, but why bother?

It is MY belief, not yours, so I know what evidence supports it.

You know what evidence you offer. I've told you what support for your beliefs would look like.

If it is true that "millions of people" have led a life that equaled or surpassed is the life of Baha'u'llah, show me one person who has led such a life.

Again, why bother? Merely being a professional religionist is not an exemplary life. I had lunch with a woman yesterday who has led a more productive life than that. So have I. Writing flowery prose is easy. Starting a new religion is not a contribution and certainly isn't evidence of a god.

What I have posted is not 'the evidence.' I have only posted what evidence there is to look at.

This comment tells me that you don't know what evidence is. Evidence is the noun form of evident, and evident means evident to the senses. What it is evidence of requires further interpretation.

If you have not opened the door to the next room and looked at the all evidence you cannot know if it is evidence for Baha'u'llah, but if you have looked at it and still do not consider it evidence then it is not evidence for you. Case closed. Why do we need to keep talking about it?

I've seen your evidence. We keep talking about it because you keep claiming that it supports your belief. Your religious beliefs are not based in the evidence you present according to the rules of critical analysis. The claim has been rebutted, and you have never responded to that. You just keep repeating it without trying to show how it supports your conclusion.

I asked you: "Let's just say that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be. How would we know if Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be - what would the evidence look like?" You are saying it is not a book and not what He did in His life. what would a Messenger of God have to present as evidence that He is a Messenger?

Again, already answered multiple times. So, here it is again for you to ignore again before reposting again that nobody ever answers your question. Evidence of a god is something evident to the senses that makes the likelihood of a god greater. You claim to be a competent reasoner. Then you offer ordinary words and an ordinary life.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Of course human activity has caused some problems for ourselves, and many humans are not wise in accepting these realities, like climate change and pollution. But we don't cause earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, and most hurricanes and tornados, meteor impacts, etc.,

I'm not so sure about that.
Almighty God is capable of causing these catastrophes, if He wills .. but do you really think that sucking natural resources out of the crust of the earth at our present rate, has no effect on quakes?
..and it is well-known that the burning of these natural resources are causing catastrophes, due to climate change.

No .. mankind, in their love of wealth, are bringing these catastrophes upon themselves.
If we all listened to the guidance that God has given us, it would not be happening.
..at least, not at the rate that they are.
..same with pestilence and disease.
Is it any surprise that the origin of many novel viruses is from China? Why did they refuse international investigation?

In 2019, their pig-farms were experiencing huge loss from disease. They had to import it by the ton, as it is eaten daily by the majority.

Disease spreads quickly in this modern world, through global travel, and city environment etc.

You want to make it all about a hypothetical God .. but it isn't ..
You just wish to divert attention away from the real cause.

I don't see belief in either book being a worthy use of my time. I value reason, not faith..

I value both..

Read the Old Testament, you claimed to believe it. That is a vengeful and cruel God that would be convicted of crimes against humanity if real, and human..

I don't believe it is entirely accurate, but you will say the same about the Qur'an, in any case.

You do realize that many wealthy people are Christian evangelicals, and have exploited republican politics to maintain their wealth?

Lots of Christians and Muslims are wealthy .. that does not mean that they are necessarily following their faith.
Mankind are weak .. wealth is a huge test..

Weren't you just posting how it's humans that are the cause of our misfortune, not your God? Remember, I was asking why your God created children with genes that cause cancers. Remember, you had no explanation..

What are you on about?
You summed it up in another thread.
The causes are many .. genetic, behavioural, environmental.
It is not all about "lady-luck"..

..children with cancer can't sue God..

No, and it is not easy to sue local authorities that do not monitor pollution and take action accordingly, either.

..neither can we sue oil companies who burn off excess "gas" in Africa, while the poor unfortunate living nearby are dying of cancers.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You're guessing. You cannot know that.

It is an informed opinion, based on the Bible and Qur'an .. not to mention my intuitive thoughts that mankind are accountable for their deeds in some way.

What I am saying is that it is inappropriate to call something truth if it isn't confirmed empirically.

There are different ways of establishing truth. The scientific method is one of the most important, but it is not the only consideration.

We believe that scientific facts are true, until somebody proves they are not.
Empirical proof is not absolute either. We can make errors.

eg. butter is bad for you .. it increases cholesterol

For many years, people believed this to be "true", but now the empirical evidence is in question.

You write, "That's only your opinion." It's more than that. My opinions are not guesses. They reflect knowledge. My standards for that are higher than the faith-based thinker who calls everything he believes by that method truth..

What method??

I have told you repeatedly that your evidence doesn't support your beliefs and that your reasoning is often or usually fallacious..

..merely your opinion..
You cannot scientifically prove that my evidence is fraudulent.

Why would I care what you believe?

What is the point of a discussion, if we don't care what anybody else believes but ourselves?

..if he wants to claim that what he believes is fact supported by evidence, I will probably tell him I disagree..

Quite right .. but would it be based on reason .. or merely your own opinion?