Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Unveiled Artist]

@Trailblazer

What does it mean in general for god to exist if he can only be varified in your mind?​

Bahallahs writings arent objective evidence of god; the history is proving bahaullahs words not gods. (History studies dont prove supernatural events only whats written and analyze by culture and connections with past and present events)

Why does bahaullah and you have different typesof varifications for the same god whose existence cant, by its nature, be varified?​

1817-1892 are recent dates (or Im just old). I mean, even two thousand years ago is young. Id say if we depended on authenticity based on age and god cant be varified then some sort of writing about him would be older than about 201 years ago probably so old that there would be nothing written just oral trasmittion of scriptures.

Jesus varified gods existence. His followers varified gods existence through and as jesus. He is no longer a mystery but a flesh and blood person and incarnation of god himself.

Since you said god cannot be varified, what role does jesus play when he continously proves gods existence to the people around him who listened?​

Bahaullahs writings

1. Have been recorded
2. We know he wrote prophecies
3. We know many people belive what he says

But that means nothing if varification of these beliefs only are facts in your mind. How are you supporting what you say to others if they can only be varified by you?
​

In other words, how can you get someone else to undersand your faith and Bahaullahs writings (hence the conversation) when you conclude it cant be know as fact?

That kinda defeats the purpose of talking about it unless you share experiences. Historical records mean nothing; but, if you found words to connect them to your experiences, it will have more depth.

At least thats with me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can see how it would seem that way if one had no way to know anything about God.

It took me a long time to piece these things together by reading what Baha'u'llah wrote, and talking to atheists day and night explaining what I had pieced together. Whenever I get different responses from them, I come up with new insights. It is a process.

Frankly, it is a wasteful and pointless process.

 

[Trailblazer]

Faith is to believe in something without evidence. If there is evidence than it is not longer faith.

No, that is not true.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

Evidence is not proof. Only of there is proof is there no need for faith.

Then as I said earlier as long as God is not using criteria from text and/or belief to judge that isn't a big issue. However it does not help with it's claims.

I cannot say how God will judge nonbelievers. The Baha’i Writings are not clear on that.

This is your dogma again.

It is not dogma, it is based upon historical facts and currently observable phenomena.

If a person commits evil acts according to your view but not their own view our idea of judgement has a major issue. After all judgement become subjective. If those people believe they are good and moral they are free to enter the afterlife in direct conflict to the morals your religion puts forward. If such people flip then I question if it is the same person.

It will be too late to flip after we enter the afterlife because we will no longer have free will. Our character goes with us. We will be whoever we were when we died. We will only be able to change if other people pray for us or by the bounty of God.

I was pointing out the success rate of conversion and numbers of follower, rather lack of, to point out the arguments are not convincing.

We are not attempting to convert anyone or convince them with arguments. People are all responsible for their own beliefs.

The Baha’i Faith is the narrow gate and it is narrow because only a few people can get through the gate and recognize God’s new religion in the beginning. That is why the Baha’i Faith is still relatively small.

You have major issues with math. Compare the numbers of followers and growth percentage not only the percentage. Islam is still growing faster than your religion.

I know Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world right now because the Formative Age of the Baha’i Faith ended in the 20th century. From 2000-2010 Islam became the fastest growing religion (1.86 %) and the Baha’i Faith was the second fastest growing religion (1.72%).
Statistics from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

Having a location in a nation does not make your religion wide spread. The number of followers do.

Widespread: existing or happening in many places and/or among many people: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/widespread

The number of followers has nothing to do with how widespread a religion is. The goal has been to spread all over the world, not to gain more followers. There is no hurry to gain more followers. The world is not ready for that yet.

Victim status brings it own rewards and can be self-serving. It can be used to reinforce truth claims. Hence my KSA example.

Logically speaking, just because it can be self-serving does not mean it is self-serving. The life of Baha’u’llah is what can be used to determine if it was self-serving. There is no indication of that.

“Who can ever believe that this Servant of God hath at any time cherished in His heart a desire for any earthly honor or benefit? The Cause associated with His Name is far above the transitory things of this world. Behold Him, an exile, a victim of tyranny, in this Most Great Prison. His enemies have assailed Him on every side, and will continue to do so till the end of His life. Whatever, therefore, He saith unto you is wholly for the sake of God, that haply the peoples of the earth may cleanse their hearts from the stain of evil desire, may rend its veil asunder, and attain unto the knowledge of the one true God—the most exalted station to which any man can aspire. Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 85

There is no evidence that Baha’u’llah had any selfish motives and all the evidence is to the contrary.

Your scripture cited earlier showed otherwise.

I know of no such scripture.

Said self-serving. Everyone else is the problem!

Show me some actual evidence of Baha’is being self-serving.

Yet there are billions of people follow different religions so obvious it is not that difficult. All you have done is again inject your dogma as if true.

No, it is not difficult to follow the older religions that are firmly established, large, with many followers. It is difficult to follow the new religion that nobody likes, the one that has few followers people are always trying to disprove.

Dogma as an excuse.

Excuse for what?

You, and your text, have repeatedly by assuming what billions of people think, calling them closed minded for following their religion and not your own. You seems not to consider people can arrive at different choice then the one you made. It is always something else stopping people from converting, never your message, methods, etc, etc. You have also confined God to your narrow scope based on dogma.

Most people are closed-minded because they won’t even look at anything other than their own religion. Of course I realize people arrive at different choices but I do not have to believe in those choices nor do they have to believe in mine. The evidence indicates that all new religions are rejected because people cling to older religions. It is human nature. People do not like the new Messenger or the new message and they do not think they need it. The same thing happened when Jesus appeared to the Jews. He brought something new and the Jewish clerics did not want something new because they were steeped in their religious traditions. History repeated itself when Baha’u’llah appeared and was rejected and persecuted by the Muslim clerics.

 

[Trailblazer]

Frankly, it is a wasteful and pointless process.

For some people it is... but when people ask, I answer.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are drawing a lofty conclusion from that data. Do you think there may be more factors weighing on this issue than these two quoted statistics? I do. Do you think the conclusion you are drawing is the only one that could be drawn? I do not. Empirical evidence is gathered through the senses, not through statistics. You don't know the population well enough to say this data is empirical. No one could.

Of course there are more factors weighing in than two statistics. That was just a general statistic relevant to what I was saying about Messengers.

Of course other conclusions can be drawn. Data abounds and conclusions will vary.

This is exactly why you don't understand why people disbelieve. You refuse to acknowledge their reasoning as reasoning. The cart pulling the horse.

Their reasoning is their reasoning. I understand it but it is different from my reasoning. I am not trying to change their reasoning. I just explain mine.

You don't seem willing to acknowledge the possibility that God doesn't communicate AT ALL. You put it on your list but then simply refuse to talk about it as a possibility including this feigned ignorance you are displaying here. As if people come to these conclusions out of whim and will and are simply ignorant to 'empirical' data. That isn't the case (at least, not often). They are examining the same evidence and arriving at #2 and #3 (and many more) because those are also logical conclusions.

The possibility that God does not communicate at all was on my list as one of the logical possibilities. I have no problem if people want to arrive at #2 or #3. All I asked was the following:

Why do some people question God's use of Messengers?
In other words, why do people want God to communicate in some way other than Messengers?

 

[Trailblazer]

Granted, taking your word for it will not be happening. But you are still evidence.

Only in the sense that I am a member of my religion and I represent my religion.

So be it. If I am required to rewire my brain such that it is no longer skeptical and cynical in order to learn about God then I guess I'll just wallow in ignorance.

I guess so. We were not all meant to believe in God, at least not at this time in history. We can try but not everyone will succeed.

Except the validation and justification of their peers, of course. You may be surprised to find how valuable that can be to some of us. Worth more than gold, I assure you.

Do you have any idea what their peers did to them? Baha’u’llah was betrayed by almost all the members of His family and they gathered followers to try to bring Him down so they could take over the religion.

Granted, but some things are easy to dismiss. Speaking on God's behalf is one of those things in my book.

Unless He really did speak on behalf of God.

If you had a specific question I could answer it though.
That last bit is why you are better than any messenger.

Ask away.

I don't get to know that's why it is private. I must take his word for it.

By private do you mean that He was the only one who got the revelation from God, privately?

I mean that good people do bad things and vice versa. Telling me someone is honest doesn't mean they can't lie. Your messenger may have great things to say about how one should live, etc. The doesn't add any strength to his claim of divine communication.

It is good to be skeptical, suspicious. Otherwise you could get duped by a false messenger.

Evidence, yes. Empirical, no.

Why isn’t religion empirical evidence? We can observe its effects upon humanity. It is not just a theory.

I did warn you about that.

I appreciate your honesty.

And all of that would have mattered just as much as it matters now without divine revelation. But since it began there (with something I can't accept as true) then the rest becomes suspect very easily. Your messenger would like divine authority to come before intelligence.

So I see, the main issue you have is that divine revelation is suspect. You also take issue with someone who claimed to have divine authority; but if that if he got a divine revelation and he had innate divine intelligence, then what? But of course you would not want to believe that unless you had a lot of evidence.

The thing is that Baha’u’llah said some of us are guided by God, so we are not having to question as much as others. But even some people who were very skeptical became Baha’is, so they were also guided. Nobody can know if they were the ones who God chose to guide until they got to their destination.

No reason at all for him to lie? You don't see an inherent gain in speaking with divine authority?

No, absolutely not! It is quite the opposite. He lost everything for making this claim to Prophethood, he lost all his property and possessions, and he was thrown on prison and then exiled and banished from place to place for 40 years. I would hardly call that a personal gain.

There are uncountable logical ways. You are most certainly falling victim to confirmation bias in this case.

I might have a bias now but I could not have fallen victim to confirmation bias before I became a Baha’i since I had nothing to confirm, no preconceptions.

One of them won and 'took over' after the messenger's death. He was called Abdul baha. Do you not consider this man to be Bahaullahs successor?

Abdu’l-Baha was Baha’u’llah’s eldest son and successor and the Centre of His Covenant. He was named in Baha’u’llah’s will and testament so he did not take over. Bahá’u’lláh and His Covenant

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can be done because I can know “in my own mind” that He was telling the Truth. I cannot explain to you how I know. Suffice to say that verification does not require objective evidence.

Verification: the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something.
https://www.google.com/search

So you changed your mind on what you said earlier?

God Himself cannot be verified to exist (proven to exist).

Do you have a consistent position or not? The way you’ve described it so far is inconsistent with itself.

 

[Audie]

Of course you don’t. I don’t expect you to.

No, the problem is that not one single atheist can give me one good reason why they have a problem with the idea of Messengers ---- something logical please, not just saying it is baloney... Also, not one atheist has come up with a better way by which God could communicate ---- something logical please, not that God could write “I exist!” in the sky.

No, I do not know that. Baha’u’llah even wrote that God could have chosen another way, and I am sure He would have if there was a better way, but there isn’t. An All-Knowing and All-Wise God knows the best way to communicate to humanity.

I suggest you do some research before you say that.

Only 7% of people in the world are atheists and not all of them even want to believe in God... That means 93% of people are believers and they believe in God. 84 percent of the world population has a faith and those faiths all have some kind of Founder, what I refer to as a Messenger. Very few people in the world believe in God for some other reason. So obviously, using Messengers is a successful method of communication.

I’d call that a pretty big success myself. The fact remains God does not need anyone to believe in Him, let alone everyone, so why should God change His time honored method of communication just to accommodate a few atheists? Give me a logical reason please.

Why should God do that just because you do not want to trust His Messengers that most people in the world trust? God is not trying to make people believe in Him. God does not give a twit if people believe in Him. God is fully self-sufficient and self-subsisting. God does not need anyone’s belief.

Besides that, Baha’u’llah wrote 15,000 Tablets. How is all that information to be conveyed in some “other way?” I said I wanted something logical, and no, God is not going to whisper in the ears of 7.44 billion people all 15,000 Tablets. There have to be scriptures so everyone can refer to them until God sends another Messenger in the future and He reveals new scriptures.

And of course there is absolutely no evidence that the legitimate Messengers of God such as Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah were frauds, crazies or power hungry. The exact opposite is easily demonstrable by looking at their lives.

How can you think God isn’t? The job got done and a few whiny atheists complain about how it got done. Why should an Omnipotent God care about a few atheists who poke fun of the messengers God sends who suffer for the sake of all of humanity?

My way of knowing God exists and what God’s will is for me and all of humanity is quite frankly very rational and logical.

You have no right to speak for me as if you know me. That is disrespectful and arrogant. You do not know me. You just know I believe in a Messenger so you have to cut me down so you can make yourself right and make me wrong... Been there, done that with atheists on other forums for four years. This is psych 101 stuff but I am a psychologist so it is easy to spot something this obvious.

You are completely illogical. I demonstrated that above. You have no logical reason why using Messengers is a sub-optimal way for God to communicate a message to humanity. You are all emotion... You just do not like Messengers, like a little kid who does not like broccoli, but you have no good reasons why.

Sorry you do not like it, but it is a Revelation for God. You cannot change that with all your ranting and raving.

Well! The on and on with bold font, the insults, all
the things you make up, assertions of facts not in
evidence certainly do make it clear who is illogical
and raving.

Sure does not take much to smoke you out
for what you are.

 

[Audie]

So you changed your mind on what you said earlier?



Do you have a consistent position or not? The way you’ve described it so far is inconsistent with itself.

Inconsistent?

She keeps saying over n over, how logical and
rational he is, but whats he describes has no
detectable traces of logic, and seems based
entirely on how she feels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Inconsistent?

He keeps saying over n over, how logical and
rational he is, but what he describes has no
detectable traces of logic, and seems based
entirely on how he feels.

She, not he. @Trailblazer is a woman.

 

[Audie]

She, not he. @Trailblazer is a woman.

How imperceptible of me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, the problem is that not one single atheist can give me one good reason why they have a problem with the idea of Messengers ---- something logical please, not just saying it is baloney... Also, not one atheist has come up with a better way by which God could communicate ---- something logical please, not that God could write “I exist!” in the sky.

The idea of "messengers" fits perfectly with man-made religion.

Imagine that someone wanted to create a religion with themselves as the undisputed leader. What do you think they'd do?

I think one obvious possibility is that they would claim that they have received special revelation from God that's inaccessible to average people. Don't you?

If a man-made religion was created, odds are it would look very much like the Baha'i faith or any of the many "revealed" religions out there that you think are false, too.

Imagine yourself as an outsider to faith. Put yourself back in time before any "revealed" religion. You encounter someone who says that they're a messenger from God; how would you go about deciding whether they really were one or not?

Edit - the short version: everything I've ever heard about every "revealed" or "messenger" religion I've ever encountered has been entirely consistent with the religion being man-made... and that's my "one good reason."

 

[Subduction Zone]

How imperceptible of me.

Abrahamic religions tend to be rather misogynistic so it can be hard to tell if followers are male or female when they defend those beliefs.

 

[Audie]

Abrahamic religions tend to be rather misogynistic so it can be hard to tell if followers are male or female when they defend those beliefs.

The thing I picked up on was the thing about
how I was just being emotional, totally illogical.

It is very common from men, directed
against women. Great way to
dismiss someone. Women are emotional,
they dont use logic. A bit surprising
that she'd use it.

There are layers of irony in there.
Like a onion, or a ogre.

On defending the misogynist faith,
we are remind of "dottie" who defended
the seizure of virgins by a victorious army!

 

[Audie]

The idea of "messengers" fits perfectly with man-made religion.

Imagine that someone wanted to create a religion with themselves as the undisputed leader. What do you think they'd do?

I think one obvious possibility is that they would claim that they have received special revelation from God that's inaccessible to average people. Don't you?

If a man-made religion was created, odds are it would look very much like the Baha'i faith or any of the many "revealed" religions out there that you think are false, too.

Imagine yourself as an outsider to faith. Put yourself back in time before any "revealed" religion. You encounter someone who says that they're a messenger from God; how would you go about deciding whether they really were one or not?

Edit - the short version: everything I've ever heard about every "revealed" or "messenger" religion I've ever encountered has been entirely consistent with the religion being man-made... and that's my "one good reason."

Id like to see one good reason for this odd
assertion that atheists have "a problem"
with "Messengers"! The people with a proablem
are the ones who scurry after them!

How many do you suppose have been led
into disaster, over the years?

 

[QuestioningMind]

But what exactly did Saint Nicholas do that was so fantastic? Did he start a new religion?

I think it is time to fold your deck. My atheist friend folded his deck about a week ago and now I have another atheist friend on that forum who is listening to me instead of to him. I spent the entire day yesterday posting to him.

One more time... I have verifiable evidence of everything surrounding the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, but my atheist friend only has a personal opinion regarding what god would do to communicate if god was real. He has no verifiable evidence whatsoever.

I am sorry you cannot understand this striking difference between my good and his goods – verifiable evidence vs. personal opinion.

My goods have gone to market but his will never go to market because they won’t sell.

My goods caused a change all over the world and his goods are just sitting on the shelf gathering dust.

My goods get people to believe in God and his goods leave people waiting for a god that is never going to show up the way he imagines.

Need I go on?

Nope... you've made it crystal clear that your verifiable evidence is JUST as valid as this atheist's and that you are both trying to get people to believe in a god that there is no reason to believe actually exists. The only thing you've failed to address is why you think accepting someone else's made up story is better than making one up yourself. But that's okay... you've wasted more than enough of my time as it is. You can go waste some else's time now.

 

[Trailblazer]

Inconsistent?

She keeps saying over n over, how logical and rational he is, but whats he describes has no
detectable traces of logic, and seems based entirely on how she feels.

If I based everything upon how I FEEL, I would not be a believer. I would be an atheist.

The ONLY reason I believe in God or is because of the Baha’i Faith, which is a very logical religion. I tried not being a Baha’i for 42 years but I have never been able to refute the claims of Baha’u’llah, because it is impossible to disregard all the evidence. That is why I decided to give the Baha’i Faith and God a second chance about five years ago. I know it is the truth from God and it would be really stupid for me to keep ignoring it as I had been doing.

I have atheist friends on my other forum I post on who have been trying to talk me into becoming an atheist, and I want to be one, I really do, because I am really angry at God right now.... Is that an emotion? Ubetcha.

But when reason returns I know God exists in spite of all my suffering.

The ONLY reason I believe in God is because of Baha’u’llah, period.

It’s too bad that most people cannot see the evidence for Baha’u’llah staring them in the face. Not all people are meant to see it. God only guides those who He is pleased to guide.

“Great indeed is this Day! The allusions made to it in all the sacred Scriptures as the Day of God attest its greatness. The soul of every Prophet of God, of every Divine Messenger, hath thirsted for this wondrous Day. All the divers kindreds of the earth have, likewise, yearned to attain it. No sooner, however, had the Day Star of His Revelation manifested itself in the heaven of God’s Will, than all, except those whom the Almighty was pleased to guide, were found dumbfounded and heedless.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 11

 

[LuisDantas]

If I based everything upon how I FEEL, I would not be a believer. I would be an atheist.

The ONLY reason I believe in God or is because of the Baha’i Faith, which is a very logical religion. I tried not being a Baha’i for 42 years but I have never been able to refute the claims of Baha’u’llah, because it is impossible to disregard all the evidence. That is why I decided to give the Baha’i Faith and God a second chance about five years ago. I know it is the truth from God and it would be really stupid for me to keep ignoring it as I had been doing.

I have atheist friends on my other forum I post on who have been trying to talk me into becoming an atheist, and I want to be one, I really do, because I am really angry at God right now.... Is that an emotion? Ubetcha.

But when reason returns I know God exists in spite of all my suffering.

The ONLY reason I believe in God is because of Baha’u’llah, period.

It’s too bad that most people cannot see the evidence for Baha’u’llah staring them in the face. Not all people are meant to see it. God only guides those who He is pleased to guide.

“Great indeed is this Day! The allusions made to it in all the sacred Scriptures as the Day of God attest its greatness. The soul of every Prophet of God, of every Divine Messenger, hath thirsted for this wondrous Day. All the divers kindreds of the earth have, likewise, yearned to attain it. No sooner, however, had the Day Star of His Revelation manifested itself in the heaven of God’s Will, than all, except those whom the Almighty was pleased to guide, were found dumbfounded and heedless.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 11

How confused of you.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I don't believe that it has been established that a God exists, let alone a messenger or representative. I believe that not only does a God(s) not exist, but that a God(s) can't exist. Nor can the supernatural, spiritual, or the metaphysical. At least not in our 4-dimensional reality.

What I am saying, is that the more we learn and understand about how natural phenomena work, the less we are incline to adopt any alternative explanations, especially those based on faith and belief. Nothing exists in the physical world that is based on faith and belief. All events are based on the Laws of physical cause and physical effect. There are no exceptions. What I am also saying, is that the entire Universe would cease to exist if any spiritual, metaphysical/supernatural event were to manifest itself. If this were to occur, all the physical laws in the Universe would have to be either violated or suspended. This could not happen without the collapse of all physical laws. Our physical laws are only relevant to our 4-dimensional reality. Nothing can get into this reality, and nothing can get out, without being detected. I believe that if a God(s) manifest itself, no one would be around to witness the event.

I think for a host of reasons, we simply want to believe that our beliefs are true. Without evidence all religious beliefs are true. With evidence all religious beliefs are false.

 

[Koldo]

Obviously, your personality has developed from the day you were born until the present time. It was shaped early on by your parents but then you went off on your own and became who you are today.

Obviously, the body is necessary because without it your soul would have no way to express itself. Everything is experienced through our body in this mortal world of existence.

It is very different, because your parents are not All-Knowing and All-Wise and they are not Inerrant, so they might be wrong about what is best for you. God if God exists cannot be wrong.

You still might not agree with what God thinks is best for you; often I don’t, but I realize that is illogical, because I cannot know more than an All-Knowing God.

The problem is: What is best for me is a matter of opinion up to a certain degree.
Consider this: Is it better for me to die young but do absolutely everything I feel like doing, or is it better to do some of the things I want to do ( not all ) and live a lot longer ?
This is the sort of thing that is a matter of opinion because there is no inherent value in those things, there is only the value we give to them. I don't have to share God's values just because God is God.

Okay then, you probably aren’t a good candidate for believing in God.

But bear in mind that God does not want anything for Himself because God does not need anything for Himself. Whatever God wants for us is only because it is in our best interest.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

Those are distinct matters.
One can believe in God ( any god ), and yet not worship him.

You are right. That would be weird. So why should we love God? We should love God because it is in our best interest. That is a big subject.

That sounds really really weird to me.
Do you love people just because it is in your best interest ?
I can't relate to that at all.

Because God created us so God knows who we are. We are all made in the image and likeness of God, so one who knows God knows himself, meaning that they know what they were created for.

“Having created the world and all that liveth and moveth therein, He, through the direct operation of His unconstrained and sovereign Will, chose to confer upon man the unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him—a capacity that must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary purpose underlying the whole of creation…. Upon the inmost reality of each and every created thing He hath shed the light of one of His names, and made it a recipient of the glory of one of His attributes. Upon the reality of man, however, He hath focused the radiance of all of His names and attributes, and made it a mirror of His own Self. Alone of all created things man hath been singled out for so great a favor, so enduring a bounty.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 65

It is not about a true and false dichotomy. Nothing about you is true or false. I can see I am not explaining this very well. In man there are two natures and we strive to live according to our spiritual nature. We thereby become our true selves in the sense of becoming who God intended us to be, a reflection of God’s attributes.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

I find it intriguing that one would label it as 'material nature'.
Where does one find untruth in nature ?