Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[nPeace]

No, I never said that.

I told you what the objective evidence is. It is actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.
The results of that examination is the conclusion I drew from the evidence, it is not the evidence.
The conclusion I came to was that the evidence supports the claims of Bahaullah to be a Messenger of God and the return of Christ.

Okay. My mistake. I actually realized that what I said was incorrect, since circumstatial evidence can exist, but persons can arrive at different interpretations - results - from that evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, Muslims have.

Oh, okay. Do you know of them?

I do not know about the Qur'an, but the Bible was written by some 40 different men, and it is very inconsistent with the message it claims to support.

It is? Please, tell me about those "inconsistencies with the message".

I do not know much about the Qur'an. Another Baha'i such as @Truthseeker would be better able to respond to that

Oh. I see. I thought you knew, hence why you asked the question.
Did you ask out of curiosity?

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, okay. Do you know of them?

I can only think of one right now, @muhammad_isa

It is? Please, tell me about those "inconsistencies with the message".

Those inconsistencies would never fit into a post, since there are so many.

Oh. I see. I thought you knew, hence why you asked the question.
Did you ask out of curiosity?

I asked it because I thought you would have the answer since you made the claim.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I do not know about the Qur'an, but the Bible was written by some 40 different men, and it is very inconsistent with the message it claims to support.

I am not familiar with the Qur'an either, but I agree with you that the Bible is very inconsistent with the message it claims to support.

Violence in the Bible: Greatest Hits

101 Clear Contradictions In The Bible

10 Christ-Like Figures that Predate Jesus

The Bible is Fiction: A Collection of Evidence

Other Gods That Rose From the Dead in Spring Before Jesus Christ

BibViz Project-Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You state that as if it was a fact, yet it is only a personal opinion, and a biased one at that.

If you could rebut my argument, you should have. But you can't, can you? A major difference between correct and incorrect statements is that only the latter can be successfully rebutted.

There is no logical connection between the reference to materialism and evidence for God.

Yes, there is, and I explained it in the comment you responded to. A little thought should tell you what that connection is without rereading my comment, but you always have it to fall back on if you can't make a connection yourself.

I explained why I consider Messengers as objective evidence for God.

No, you didn't. You just said that you considered it evidence for a god, but not why. I don' think that you can define what would constitute evidence for a god, and then show how your evidence meets that.

 

[nPeace]

I can only think of one right now, @muhammad_isa

Oh. Okay thanks.

Those inconsistencies would never fit into a post, since there are so many.

I think you can find one, if there are so many. I only ask for one, please.

I asked it because I thought you would have the answer since you made the claim.

Testing. Ah, okay.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think you can find one, if there are so many. I only ask for one, please.

I see that @Sgt. Pepper already sent you some links that contain many of the inconsistencies.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you could rebut my argument, you should have. But you can't, can you? A major difference between correct and incorrect statements is that only the latter can be successfully rebutted.

You said: Mankind doesn't need religion.

Can you prove that mankind does not need religion? If you can't prove it that is not a fact, it is only a personal opinion.
Correct and incorrect statements are not based upon personal opinions, they are based upon facts.

There is nothing to rebut, since you have no argument, since arguments are based upon facts, not personal opinions.

No, you didn't. You just said that you considered it evidence for a god, but not why. I don' think that you can define what would constitute evidence for a god, and then show how your evidence meets that.

What would constitute evidence for God is what God provides as evidence for His existence.

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

Messengers are objective evidence for God since we can examine and evaluate the Messengers for ourselves.

For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I can only think of one right now, @muhammad_isa

Yes, of course Muslims believe the Qur'an is true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Mankind doesn't need religion..

..actually, they do, except you do not perceive it.
..when mankind makes up his own values and way of life, it is not sustainable.
Mankind, as a whole, CANNOT succeed.

..and no, I shall not attempt to prove it, because I know where it will lead.
You will just deny all the points that I make.

..such as climate-change and economic collapse etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, of course Muslims believe the Qur'an is true.

and so do Baha'is.

 

[nPeace]

I see that @Sgt. Pepper already sent you some links that contain many of the inconsistencies.

I'm talking to you. I'm asking you. I hope you will answer me, in the same way I think you would have expected me to.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm talking to you. I'm asking you. I hope you will answer me, in the same way I think you would have expected me to.

This is my favorite inconsistency in the Bible.

Paul says we are saved by faith alone, not by works.

Ephesians 2
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Jesus says we need works in order to be saved.

Matthew 25
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Are we good now?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

This is my favorite inconsistency in the Bible.

Paul says we are saved by faith alone, not by works.

Ephesians 2
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Jesus says we need works in order to be saved.

Matthew 25
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Are we good now?

And you will be accused of misinterpreting these verses in 3, 2, 1,...

 

[Trailblazer]

And you will be accused of misinterpreting these verses in 3, 2, 1,...

Don't I know it.... I do not have to be a prophet to predict that.
This is certainly not my first rodeo.

That is how Christians get out of things they don't like, they say I misinterpreted the verses.

Here are some verses they always say I misinterpret, since they cannot face the plain meaning of the verses.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Finished means finished, especially when the same chapter says "now I am no more in the world."

Finished does not mean I am coming back as Christians believe Jesus is going to do.

 

[danieldemol]

Something is certainly necessary to prevent it, since materialism is so prevalent and destructive to the individual soul and for society collectively.
If religion cannot do it I don't know what can.

I disagree that materialism in the first sense is as prevalent as it is made out to be.

If something destructive to society were prevalent then either society would be destroyed or it is not as destructive as it is made out to be in my view.

So which do you say it is - not prevalent or not destructive?

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

I disagree that materialism in the first sense is as prevalent as it is made out to be.

If something destructive to society were prevalent then either society would be destroyed or it is not as destructive as it is made out to be in my view.

So which do you say it is - not prevalent or not destructive?

In my opinion.

I say it is prevalent and destructive.
I don't know what you mean by society being destroyed. Destroyed how?

 

[danieldemol]

I say it is prevalent and destructive.
I don't know what you mean by society being destroyed. Destroyed how?

It appears to me that you do not know the meaning of the words you are using, for example in post #525 you claim it is "destructive" "for society collectively". Now you are asking how it destroys society, which appears to be essentially asking me to explain your claim.

In my opinion.

 

[Valjean]

True, but it is still a wild goose chase because you will never find the God.

If it's a futile endeavor, wouldn't it be best to set the whole religion thing aside and live happy, secular lives?

 

[Valjean]

I could tell you but I can almost guarantee you won't like it....
If you liked it you'd get the door prize since you'd be the first atheist who ever liked my evidence.

Like it? What does it matter if I like it or not? I only care about its veracity.