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

[Balthazzar]

Do you think you could be content with one proof?

This extract from the Kitab-i-iqan by Baha'u'llah first addresses why we reject a Messenger

"...It is evident that the changes brought about in every Dispensation constitute the dark clouds that intervene between the eye of man’s understanding and the divine Luminary which shineth forth from the dayspring of the divine Essence. Consider how men for generations have been blindly imitating their fathers, and have been trained according to such ways and manners as have been laid down by the dictates of their Faith. Were these men, therefore, to discover suddenly that a Man, Who hath been living in their midst, Who, with respect to every human limitation, hath been their equal, had risen to abolish every established principle imposed by their Faith—principles by which for centuries they have been disciplined, and every opposer and denier of which they have come to regard as infidel, profligate and wicked—they would of a certainty be veiled and hindered from acknowledging His truth.…"

Then He adds that the darkest veils become the teachings and traditions

"....It behooveth us, therefore, to make the utmost endeavor, that, by God’s invisible assistance, these dark veils, these clouds of Heaven-sent trials, may not hinder us from beholding the beauty of His shining Countenance, and that we may recognize Him only by His own Self..."

It is the Self of the Messengers that become the greatest way we can recognise 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...." — The Kitáb-i-Íqán

That is the OP, it appears if we want proof, then we should ask of only One and be content with it.

Would One proof be sufficient for you?

Bonus question if you want to share, "What proof could we possibly ask"?

I am aware of stories of what some people have asked and that some also were not content with just one.

Many had private thoughts and challenges that they expected to be answered without asking the question.

Thus another question, if you want to share is, "if someone could always do this, is it proof of Divinity, would it convince you"?

Regards Tony

Everything is proof. There's nothing that isn't proof. Even the lies, deception, and error is proof. Whether a person accepts the proof as evidence for life, creation, and God is moot, imo. Truth is proof enough to acknowledge as true. Deception is enough to acknowledge as error. The difference between right and wrong ... Yes.

 

[Audie]

Everything is proof. There's nothing that isn't proof. Even the lies, deception, and error is proof. Whether a person accepts the proof as evidence for life, creation, and God is moot, imo. Truth is proof enough to acknowledge as true. Deception is enough to acknowledge as error. The difference between right and wrong ... Yes.

If everything is proof, the word has no meaning.

" Everything is Glack", so say I.

Is that somehow useful?

 

[Kathryn]

Sorry about what? The state of integrity among
theists ?

Keeping in mind the vast majority are theists,
so it may have nothing to do with being theists, but rather just ordinary people who are no better than they ought to be.

FWIW atheists tend to be better educated..

No apology is due me, if that's what you guess you mean.

No, I am sorry that you haven't seen an ivory bill woodpecker.

 

[Kathryn]

I take it you are sticking to the scurrilous claim that
atheists are by nature lacking in integrity.

Some are and you know it's true.

 

[Balthazzar]

If everything is proof, the word has no meaning.

" Everything is Glack", so say I.

Is that somehow useful?

Yes, it means something. I have no idea what a Glack is. I know what God is. Many disagree. That's ok. Could understanding what we all understand as truth, and viewing that as God, be useful? For people like me, yes. For you? Apparently not. Some prefer the giant flying spaghetti monster concept over something real, tangible, evident, and acknowledged.

 

[Balthazzar]

Some are and you know it's true.

Sometimes it's just simple intellectual honesty that's lacking.

 

[Audie]

Yes, it means something. I have no idea what a Glack is. I know what God is. Many disagree. That's ok. Could understanding what we all understand as truth, to be God, be useful? For people like me, yes. For you? Apparently not. Some prefer the giant flying spaghetti monster concept over something real, tangible, evident, and acknowledged.

You don't understand what I said.

 

[ratiocinator]

Some prefer the giant flying spaghetti monster concept over something real, tangible, evident, and acknowledged.

I have never once seen any reason to think that any of the many, many versions of 'God' that people believe in are at all real, let alone tangible or evident. I find them indistinguishable from fiction.

 

[Balthazzar]

You don't understand what I said.

I guess not. You suggested it takes away from the meaning of the term, making the term pointless. I suggest it adds to the validity of the term, making the term itself more assessable and easier to understand than concepts like giant flying spaghetti monsters.

 

[Audie]

I have never once seen any reason to think that any of the many, many versions of 'God' that people believe in are at all real, let alone tangible or evident. I find them indistinguishable from fiction.

Yes, I too wonder what " god" is more
tangible than the FSM.

 

[Balthazzar]

I have never once seen any reason to think that any of the many, many versions of 'God' that people believe in are at all real, let alone tangible or evident. I find them indistinguishable from fiction.

I agree ... But I have heard and read views that are far from science fiction. I also suggest you are being a little fictitious in that statement. "All" "never once" of all the many, many versions of "God? Come on, man. The valid ones you simply discard, so in other words you choose to focus on that which you find bogus as a definition for the term itself.

 

[Audie]

I guess not. You suggested it takes away from the meaning of the term, making the term pointless. I suggest it adds to the validity of the term, making the term itself more assessable and easier to understand than concepts like giant flying spaghetti monsters.

As I said. You didn't get it.

But never mind.

 

[Balthazzar]

As I said. You didn't get it.

But never mind.

And you offer no explanation. Your atheist wit and intellect is astonishingly on par with brit humor. Sorry, that may seem a little personal, but you did boast atheists to be well educated and intelligent. I suppose I'm to be a mind reader now. I didn't get it. You stated this much twice already. I didn't hear it, I read it. You stated as much in the text you presented for my viewing. You may have said it, also. How would I know? I didn't hear you say it. Maybe I don't get it. I may be offended by your intellect and education. Christians are far removed from all that "stuff". Right? Intellect and education I mean. We believe in God after all.

 

[F1fan]

I am offering what I see God has offered to us about the path to finding Faith.

This is the dilemma for any theists sharing wat they "see" as evidence and truth. You "see" your faith. Christians "see" their faith. Muslims "see" their faith. Mormons "see" their faith. It's all due to non-rational decision making. No theist has beliefs that are a conclusion of a set of facts. All religions are traditions of social belief, tht's it.

The conversation could be more productive if that topic of conversation was pursued.

You clearly want the dicussion to follow your assumptions and beliefs, not what others think or experience. You want this because your religious belioefs lack the evidence that rational minds require.

I have no goal but to share conversations with those that want to find God.

What God is there to find? Your version? The Jewish version? The gods of Hindus? The problem with your approoach there is that you frame statements as if God is a fact, which it isn't. The evidence (or proof as you Baha'i call it) has to be sufficient to convince critical thinkers. No theists can meet this standard. And what theists seldom admit is that not only is your evidence weak and in sufficient, but your judgment is highly flawed. No one comes to a conclusion that a God exists via evidence.

Having a religious debate is in its nature could be seen as proselytizing, but I do not see it is, if one is not forcing or compelling anyone to enter the debate and discuss the topic on hand.

Theists have a habit of belief, and their own inner dialog tends to assume God exists. This assumption is often expressed in these debates, as you did above in how you say "those who want to find God". I suggest it is atheists as a category that are the only genuine seekers of God. Why isn't it believers? Because what they "find" is not factual, and tends to be massively inconsistent with what other believers find. They are content to believe in a God that wasn't actually found.

You are responding this OP of your own free will, is it not to proselytize your opinion, in the light to advocate or promote your beleif, or lack of belief, or your chosen course of action in life?

What you say is on you. And we often see believers not terribly self-aware of what they are writing. They often write sentences that suggest they are trying to reinforce their own beliefs as these dialogs go against what they believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Why don't we see?

Give us a sound proof of God's existence and see how we react. Just one.

 

[F1fan]

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.

You want a proof that a God exists? Ask God to eliminate cancer.

The question is why it created cancer in the first place.

 

[Kathryn]

Why don't we see?

Give us a sound proof of God's existence and see how we react. Just one.

Nope. You'd make some excuse as to why it wasn't "sound proof." So I am not playing. Sorry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. You'd make some excuse as to why it wasn't "sound proof." So I am not playing. Sorry.

Sound, not "sound proof."

It sounds like you realize that any arguments you have come off as unconvincing to people who haven't already accepted that their conclusions are true.

Maybe reflect on that.

 

[Kathryn]

You out of the blue made a claim you know to be false, against all atheists.

That's a half way backpeddle then putting it on
me- again about a lack of integrity on my part
concocted by you out of attitude and thin air.

I made a general statement (that you are included in by the way, to be clear) but it doesn't include every atheist that ever walked the earth.

 

[Balthazzar]

You want a proof that a God exists? Ask God to eliminate cancer.

The question is why it created cancer in the first place.

I'm guessing something similar was stated about the plague. It was eliminated, or almost entirely eliminated and it didn't help prove anything but human resolve to counter our assessed threats. I'm wondering if rabbits ask the same thing about foxes and coyotes.