Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The atheist arguments are also the same.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
What I like? I follow the evidence, or lack of evidence, whether I like it or not.
I question God's message, and I question God -- for solid, logical reasons.
Granted, Baha'I'llah wrote more clearly and concisely than most, but, clear or not, the message is not epidtemically defensible.
I have read what he wrote. I first read New Era over fifty years ago, when someone at a fireside gave me a copy. I later acquired a half dozen of his books.
I know Bahai.
Old world order? -- what's that?
I look at claims, and evaluate them logically.
I have no problem with what Bahais do. My problem is with their ontology.
Perhaps because it's not actually evidence; because it's epistemically useless?
Usable evidence isn't subjective.
I've always liked his message -- but reality can be a harsh mistress. The evidence is what it is, and doesn't care what I like.
And they follow, don't they?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, you are not following the evidence, you are rejecting the evidence.
What are those logical reasons?
I was also given Baha'u'llah and the New Era over fifty years ago, and a lot of other books, but the conclusions I came to were different from yours since I am a different person, so what makes logical sense to me does not make logical sense to you.
The difference between me and you is that I did not look at the claims of Baha'u'llah, not until I had been a Baha'i for decades. Nor did I care much about whether God existed or have a need to prove that. Rather I looked at the Baha'i Faith in its entirety - the spiritual and social teachings and the underpinning theology of progressive revelation, and that there is only one God and all religions are from that God.
I do not know what you mean by ontology as it applies to the Baha'is.
The evidence is not subjective but how one interprets the evidence is subjective.
I never needed any evidence. The religion spoke for itself. I knew within two weeks that The Baha'i Faith was true, simply based upon logic and reason, and I have not wavered in my belief for 53 years. It is only now that I talk about evidence since so many atheists ask for it.
I never thought much about God for the first 40 years I was a Baha'i, it just made sense to me that God existed. Now that I get in discussions about evidence I see the evidence for God all around me. Even if there was never a Baha'i Faith, the Bible is ample evidence that there is a God, as many problems as it has. Jesus Christ is also evidence, just as good evidence as Baha'u'llah.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Follow what?
I try to avoid making any assumptions from the outset. As an agnostic, I'm perfectly okay with admitting "I don't know," which expresses neither belief nor disbelief.
Now, of course, for all practical purposes, in everyday situations, one is better off approaching all with rational skepticism, as you say. This is a practical consideration in the real world. But at the end of the day, as long as someone isn't asking for money or something like that, then I might acknowledge a 1 in a trillion chance that they could be telling the truth.
Sorry but you don't hold any knowledge of God through the rational. No theist does.
I'm not sure why you post this list when none of them apply to why you decided a God exists. Notice you admit it is due to you believing the messenger, but offer no other reasons, which require evidence. I'm convinced you reall, reall want to be a believer, and tell yourself whatever justification that will lead to belief (which you call knowledge).
Fallacy: argument of popular belief. Who cares what the masses believe? We need evidence that can be sensed and acknowledged without assumpytion and bias. Religions offer NONE, including yours.
So what? What makes a messenger beyond question? Notice skeptics aren't convinced of any of them. And of believers of religions, the are only convinced of their own. Very few agree with Baha'i.
Last edited:
And that's pretty much where it ends for me. If we can't verify or prove a claim to be true, then I would just leave it in some unknown or indeterminate category until more evidence can be found.
This would be the key point that I do not think many folks fully appreciate. It is a tremendous and unfounded assumption to entertain the idea that any entities described in the worlds religions are even possible. Couple that with what *is* known, including the traceable lineage of these fictional entities born out of the ignorance of our ancient ancestors and it seems quite clear that we actually do know all there is to know about "God" and gods. What we do not know is how the Cosmos began and especially nothing about what came before that. Given our current understanding of the Cosmos, we can infer a rapid expansion of the Cosmos from a very early and high density state, but that is it. There is absolutely no evidence to support involvement of sentient entities of any imagined sort. Such things can be neither deduced nor inferred, simply sprung forth from pure imagination, in other words, pure fiction.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Just like all theists, any knowledge I have of God comes through the Messenger of God. That is perfectly rational.
No, I don't know that God exists only because of the Messenger. That is the best evidence but I don't need a Messenger for evidence; all I need is logic and reason to figure out that God exists.
I know that God exists by means of the second way on my list: Cognitive (Rational)
2. Cognitive (Rational)
With cognitive, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it, argued it, or rationalized it.
No, I do not want to believe in God. I believe because of the Messengers and because I thought my way through it.
I said: "I would say that the existence of all the great religions is the main reason that I believe in God."
That is not the fallacy of argumentum ad populum because I do not believe because many or most people believe in a religion. I do not care what the masses believe. I believe because it makes sense to ME that God exists owing to the existence of all the great religions.
You want some kind of evidence that does not exist. Religion is the evidence for God.
If the Messenger is a manifestation of God then He is infallible since God is infallible.
Why would it matter if religious believers are only convinced of their own religions and very few agree with Baha'i?
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.
The Narrow Way
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)
Few people are able to enter through the narrow gate because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through and few people are able to follow the narrow road because it is narrow, so it is difficult to walk on. It is much easier to enter through a wide gate and walk on abroad road.
It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.
Religion is evidence of human nature.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
As I always say, agnosticism is a respectable position.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Religion is evidence that God exists since it was revealed by God through a Messenger of God.
But that is not what the historical record describes, nor does it fit with our understanding of human behavior.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not go by the Bible so I don't care if it is not what the historical record describes, or if it does it fit with our understanding of human behavior.
The Bible is a product of human behavior since it was written by humans. How much of it was inspired by God is an open question in my mind.
Nevertheless, that is all we had for belief in God in ancient times, the Bible and other scriptures from other ancient religions.
But if I cognitively think through things and decide I know leprechauns exist, will you find my “knowledge” valid? You’ll agree it’s nonsense, right?
@Trailblazer
You gave this an optimistic frubal.
I have a terrible time interpreting the "Optimistic" one. If you care to elaborate I would love to know what you were trying to convey. I often feel folks use it somewhat sarcastically, synonymous with "In your dreams", "Yeah, when pigs fly", that sort of thing.
If you don't wish to comment further, no problem. I just am always left scratching my head when I see it used.
You gave this an optimistic frubal.
I have a terrible time interpreting the "Optimistic" one. If you care to elaborate I would love to know what you were trying to convey. I often feel folks use it somewhat sarcastically, synonymous with "In your dreams", "Yeah, when pigs fly", that sort of thing.
If you don't wish to comment further, no problem. I just am always left scratching my head when I see it used.
There have been non-scriptural religious beliefs all around the globe for many millennia before the stories in the Tanakh began to be written down, compiled and curated. Indeed, the first stories of the Tanakh are modified forms from the polytheistic foundations of what would become monotheistic Judaism. Your fictional concept of a single entity did not exist for most of human existence. From Animism to the varied pantheons found across cultures, all having evolved from our earliest, newly verbal forebearers. Forbearers struggling to understand the world around them and desperate to find some means to control the uncontrollable. This is the crucible that started the ball rolling, the application of human imagination to fill in the unknown.
A modest proposal:
Something along these lines, perhaps ─
Kingdom Imaginary Things
Class Imaginary living things
Genus Gods
Species Dominant Gods
Sub-species YHWH, Vishnu, Great Spirit, Rainbow Serpent (&c)
Genus Critters
Species Cryptids
Sub-species Bigfoot Unicorn Nessie (&c)
Sub-species Fairy Leprechaun (&c)
Genus Sentient Objects
Species Wishing Wells (&c &c)
I've put a first draft of an explanation above.
I'm not at all sure that can be avoided in discussions of this topic. For instance, for the Abrahamic God I've found no definition appropriate to an entity with objective existence. It seems to me plain from the hard evidence that gods neither appear nor say nor do nor give any other unambiguous demonstration of their objective existence. Given that's the case, it's fair to say the only way they're known to exist is as concepts and things imagined in individual brains.
As above.
