If we ask God for Proof we must be content with one proof.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well I see the quoted passage in the OP gives each individual a chance to determine what may be a proof and then ask it of God.

It's can be a proof one choose they see will work.

My guess is, that even with that choice, many will not take the time, nor make the effort to do this.

Regards Tony

But do you understand how the "proof" you suggest is irrational?

If we don't have a rational pathway to your desired conclusion, we don't throw up our hands and say "oh, well. I guess we'll have to get to that conclusion an irrational way." The rational and reasonable approach is to just not accept your desired conclusion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How many reasons do Baha'is have for rejecting the beliefs of the Evangelical Christians? Or... why do Baha'is reject the Book of Mormon? Or... why do Baha'is reject Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? For all the things they say that might be true, they all have things that Baha'is believe aren't true. Therefore, Baha'is reject them.

That's the same reason why I, at this time, still reject the Baha'i Faith. Baha'is believe in some things I don't believe are true. So, no matter how many good things or true things Baha'is believe in, it doesn't make everything the Baha'i Faith believes in true. And does "almost" true make a religion true enough to be believed in?

No, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Baha'is, to be a true believer, they all have to believe all of the beliefs as true. Anything less... and what do you have? A person professing belief in a religion while at the same time saying that some of the things in their religions aren't true?

You have the chance to ask for a solution to the quandaries faced CG, not of everyone else, but of God.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why do I need this purported God to prove anything to me, including its own existence?

Let's suppose that God proves to me that it exists, and I accept that this God exists; so what?

Maybe you would find out the answer to that question of "So what?"

Maybe it would be a birth.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

That whole post has naught to do with the opportunity of asking individually from God a proof and if answered would that proof suffice?

It is far easier to rubbish a faith rather than pursue a solid given change to find out. Mostly we do not want to hear the answers God has given us and will give us to hear.

Regards Tony

Religious belief is a complicated thing. If people knew what they know now, and it could be either scientific-based atheism or the Baha'i Faith, they wouldn't have become Christians. The Christian belief about God based on the NT, led them to believe Jesus was God. People were tortured and killed for denying the Trinity.

Over time, religions have too often become a harmful thing for society.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But do you understand how the "proof" you suggest is irrational?

If we don't have a rational pathway to your desired conclusion, we don't throw up our hands and say "oh, well. I guess we'll have to get to that conclusion an irrational way." The rational and reasonable approach is to just not accept your desired conclusion.

I have not suggested a proof, I have offered a passage that has said if we want a proof we can ask it of God.

Thus a person gets to ask of their own rational proof, however they choose to structure it.

The issue then, will that person actually be able to ask of that rational proof in all sincerity?

I know of a story where someone said to a Messenger, that we would all beleive if you give us a sign. The Messenger replied I will supply that proof with the following conditions.

After consultation, you will choose one proof that you want me to perform, and when I do produce that proof, then you will all submit and have no doubt that the answer has been given.

The result of this was that those people could not agree on a proof, and failed to ask of any proof.

Here the OP again shows that the individual is also given a chance. Now does an individual have the capacity to take this opportunity and can they even determine a proof they would ask, one that they will ask in true sincerity?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Religious belief is a complicated thing. If people knew what they know now, and it could be either scientific-based atheism or the Baha'i Faith, they wouldn't have become Christians. The Christian belief about God based on the NT, led them to believe Jesus was God. People were tortured and killed for denying the Trinity.

Over time, religions have too often become a harmful thing for society.

This OP is about possibilities CG. Does an Individual have the courage to ask of such a proof, or will their life be unaffected by such a choice being given?

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have not suggested a proof,

This is going to be a difficult conversation if you can't remember what you wrote.

I have offered a passage that has said if we want a proof we can ask it of God.

Thus a person gets to ask of their own rational proof, however they choose to structure it.

The issue then, will that person actually be able to ask of that rational proof in all sincerity?

I know of a story where someone said to a Messenger, that we would all beleive if you give us a sign. The Messenger replied I will supply that proof with the following conditions.

After consultation, you will choose one proof that you want me to perform, and when I do produce that proof, then you will all submit and have no doubt that the answer has been given.

The result of this was that those people could not agree on a proof, and failed to ask of any proof.

Do you think this is a fair or reasonable test? If so, why?

Here the OP again shows that the individual is also given a chance. Now does an individual have the capacity to take this opportunity and can they even determine a proof they would ask, one that they will ask in true sincerity?

Regards Tony

The OP was also a bull**** test.

You skipped over a question that I asked earlier:

A question for you, though: the existence of a God should suggest all sorts of testable things. If we test those things and don't find results that are consistent with a God, would you think that this is a problem?

I asked it because it ties directly into your OP. Any given God's existence would imply various testable things. If any of those tests fail, this is a problem when trying to find a rational way to accept the existence of God.

This means that your question in the OP is equivalent to asking if there's one single testable implication of God's existence that's so compelling that it would let us overlook all the other ways that the evidence implies that God does not exist.

The answer to that question is "no," obviously. But your OP takes for granted that it's "yes."

 

[Kathryn]

Oh, most of you guys would figure out some way to disprove whatever proof you were given so there's that.

 

[an anarchist]

God's telling Baha'u'llah exactly what is needed to create a perfect, happy world. Or... somebody's telling him these things.

Maybe the voices in his head?

Maybe the little devil on his shoulder telling him to create a new racket?

 

[Audie]

So what? This is what.

No. Those things were from the religions in the past. Today is a new day with a new message... A new "Divine" truth especially prepared for us by God and brought to you by Baha'u'llah, the prophet of this new day. You get to believe in all the things said in all the Baha'i books.

Wonderful things and wonderful laws given by God for all us to live by. Laws that will bring peace, security and unity to the world. Men and women, equal. All the races, equal. All the religions one. All nations will disarm and live together in peace. No more booze or drugs. No more adultery or homosexuality. Why? Because God said so, and those are his laws. And for those that don't want to live by those laws? Hmmm? I don't know? I haven't thought that far ahead. Hopefully, God has.

Oh good. Here's what happens to adulterers...

God hath imposed a fine on every adulterer and adulteress, to be paid to the House of Justice: nine mithqals of gold, to be doubled if they should repeat​

the offence. Such is the penalty which He Who is the Lord of Names hath assigned them in this world; and in the world to come He hath ordained for them a humiliating torment.​

Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 37​

And for homosexuality...

"A number of sexual problems such as homosexuality and transsexuality can well have medical aspects, and in such cases recourse should certainly be had to the best medical assistance. But it is clear from the teaching of Bahá’u’lláh that homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be reconciled, but is a distortion of his or her nature which should be controlled and overcome...​

​

"No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá’u’lláh, and homosexual relationships he looks upon as such, besides being against nature.​

​

"To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.​

​

So a fine of gold for adultery and "seeking" medical help for homosexuality. I guess God knows what's best. But what about criminals, like thieves or murderers or arsons?

"Exile and imprisonment are decreed for the thief, and, on the third offence, place ye a mark upon his brow so that, thus identified, he may not be accepted in the cities of God and His countries. Beware lest, through compassion, ye neglect to carry out the statutes of the religion of God; do that which hath been bidden you by Him Who is compassionate and merciful. We school you with the rod of wisdom and laws, like unto the father who educateth his son, and this for naught but the protection of your own selves and the elevation of your stations. By My life, were ye to discover what We have desired for you in revealing Our holy laws, ye would offer up your very souls for this sacred, this mighty, and most exalted Faith."​

​

(Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Aqdas, par. 45)​

​

"Should anyone intentionally destroy a house by fire, him also shall ye burn; should anyone deliberately take another's life, him also shall ye put to death. Take ye hold of the precepts of God with all your strength and power, and abandon the ways of the ignorant. Should ye condemn the arsonist and the murderer to life imprisonment, it would be permissible according to the provisions of the Book. He, verily, hath power to ordain whatsoever He pleaseth."​

​

(Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Aqdas, par. 62)​

​

So, it is obvious that God's on top of this. Just look at how well all the other religions that had a bunch of rules turned out. God's telling Baha'u'llah exactly what is needed to create a perfect, happy world. Or... somebody's telling him these things.

What a delightful invitation.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do you think this is a fair or reasonable test? If so, why?

If any one says they doubt there is proof, then they can ask of one proof that they see will prove to them there is a God.

Why is it not a reasonable test is more to the point.

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If any one says they doubt there is proof, then they can ask of one proof that they see will prove to them there is a God.

Why is it not a reasonable test is more to the point.

Regards Tony

I just explained why it's an unreasonable test in the parts of that post that you ignored.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is going to be a difficult conversation if you can't remember what you wrote.



Do you think this is a fair or reasonable test? If so, why?

The OP was also a bull**** test.

You skipped over a question that I asked earlier:

A question for you, though: the existence of a God should suggest all sorts of testable things. If we test those things and don't find results that are consistent with a God, would you think that this is a problem?

I asked it because it ties directly into your OP. Any given God's existence would imply various testable things. If any of those tests fail, this is a problem when trying to find a rational way to accept the existence of God.

This means that your question in the OP is equivalent to asking if there's one single testable implication of God's existence that's so compelling that it would let us overlook all the other ways that the evidence implies that God does not exist.

The answer to that question is "no," obviously. But your OP takes for granted that it's "yes."

I just explained why it's an unreasonable test in the parts of that post that you ignored.

You skipped over the point you could ask of God one proof that would validate God for you.

I see nothing in your reply that would show why anyone could not asked God for one proof, and you are just stating your personal opinion and appraoch in the light of the Poll "I do not see this would prove anything" by the use of some foul language to say the test is no good.

Regards Tony

 

[Audie]

Oh, most of you guys would figure out some way to disprove whatever proof you were given so there's that.

Not being a " guy" I guess I'm exempt
from this accusation of intellectual dishonesty?

 

[CG Didymus]

You have the chance to ask for a solution to the quandaries faced CG, not of everyone else, but of God.

Regards Tony

Well, one solution would be that people keep inventing new religions. Always a few changes and a few improvements, but it's still just a bunch of unproveable religious beliefs.

If you took the main Catholic or Protestant Christian beliefs as true and from God, according to Baha'i beliefs, you'd be wrong.

I'm not that spiritual, and I'm not a religious scholar, and yet I can find things that I don't believe are true about the things that Baha'u'llah said.

But does that matter? If you took most any religion and followed the teachings that said to be a good, honest, humble, loving person... you'd be pretty good "proof" that the religion is true.

But then there is reality... Most of us, even religious people, aren't all that perfect. And if a religious person that keeps claiming God and his prophet are real, but cannot live up to the teachings of that God and prophet... Well, that doesn't give me much confidence in the religion. And makes the person just look like all talk.

So... one really good proof for the Baha'i Faith would be if its people actually lived humble, loving, respectful lives. I've mentioned that before. And it would still really impress me a lot. The world doesn't need another preacher... that don't walk the walk. Can you show me by your life that God and Baha'u'llah are real? We can all see when a person is caring and loving and respectful.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing it in very many religious people. That is... except when they are together. I've never seen such love as when I was surrounded by a bunch of believers. They all treated me and each other so nice. And the best of all of them were people that were in some crazy cult. So, many never mind. Even love can be faked in order to get someone to believe in your religion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well, one solution would be that people keep inventing new religions. Always a few changes and a few improvements, but it's still just a bunch of unproveable religious beliefs.

I see that reply was still missing the point of the OP CG.

It is about this, if we should ask a proof from God.

".....And should we ask for a testimony of His truth, we should content ourselves with one, and only one, that thereby we may attain unto Him Who is the Fountainhead of infinite grace, and in Whose presence all the world’s abundance fadeth into nothingness, that we may cease to cavil at Him every day and to cleave unto our own idle fancy...."

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You skipped over the point you could ask of God one proof that would validate God for you.

No, I didn't. I've addressed it directly several times.

I see nothing in your reply that would show why anyone could not asked God for one proof, and you are just stating your personal opinion and appraoch in the light of the Poll "I do not see this would prove anything" by the use of some foul language to say the test is no good.

Regards Tony

You didn't read any of the many times I told you? Okay - I'll try one more time:

- any theoretically provable god-concept would have testable implications.

- all of these testable implications are false, as far as we've been able to see.

- "proving" God along only one line of argument would still leave the problem of all those testable implications.

- so what you're proposing is really just a paradox.

Does this help you to understand my perspective?

 

[Audie]

I see that reply was still missing the point of the OP CG.

It is about this, if we should ask a proof from God.

".....And should we ask for a testimony of His truth, we should content ourselves with one, and only one, that thereby we may attain unto Him Who is the Fountainhead of infinite grace, and in Whose presence all the world’s abundance fadeth into nothingness, that we may cease to cavil at Him every day and to cleave unto our own idle fancy...."

Regards Tony

That would be quite impressive, if stated in
normal prose from an authoritative source.

The authoritative source would be miracle, proof
enough, in itself.

Self proclaimed prophets are available by the gross, case lots of them, ones from every culture, today and through
history. Authorities all or any?

People as utterly credulous and convinced as thee
built pyramids to house the dead in Egypt. Or to
rip out the beating hearts of the newly dead, in Mexico.

However much anyone thinks their "messenger" is real,
THEIRS is the idle fancy. How droll that " messengers" would carefully warn against any but their "message".

The bible states clearly what awaits such persons as
Mr. B of your religion.


You want to know what Sign an atheist would need?

God speaking for itself.
We don't do faith in the unseen.

For those Christians who have faith, faith is not just
sufficient, it's central to their religion.

Asking for "proof" is going contrary to the essence of
their relationship with God.

 

[Kathryn]

Not being a " guy" I guess I'm exempt
from this accusation of intellectual dishonesty?

No, you're not exempt, sorry.

 

[Kathryn]

Not exempt in general but I at least try for intellectual integrity.
For whole categories of theists its anathema.


As for the charge against atheists,
it should properly be directed with more truth
and less calumny toward theists.

For lo, "it's possible I am totally mistaken" is amongst them
as rare as sightings of ivory bill woodpeckers.

I've not seen either.

Well, that's too bad. I'm sorry, I guess.