The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.

[Trailblazer]

But the spirit does not die. People are body, soul and spirit. and there is no death of the spirit.

I was not implying that the spirit, which is the soul, dies. That is not what I meant by spiritual death.
Spiritual death is a state of the soul that does not have spiritual life.

The following verses are referring to a spiritual resurrection, rising to spiritual life, which is synonymous with eternal life. This verses do not refer to resurrection or the physical life of the body. The body once dead remains dead, it does not rise from the grave.

All the verses below refer to eternal life of the soul, not the resurrection to life of the physical body.

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”​

​

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.​

​

1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.​

​

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

All souls continue to exist in the spiritual world after the body dies but not all souls have eternal life (everlasting life).
Eternal life refers to a “quality” of life, nearness to God which, according to Jesus, comes from believing in Him. A soul can have eternal life in this earth world as well as in the spiritual world (afterlife).

Also the damned are resurrected before they are cast into the lake of fire. So who knows what part is tormented forever. Surely the spirit though

I do not believe in the resurrection of physical bodies. I believe that resurrection as mentioned in the scriptures means birth of the individual to spiritual life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit.

“Resurrection is the birth of the individual to spiritual life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed through the Manifestation of God. The grave from which he arises is the grave of ignorance and negligence of God. The sleep from which he awakens is the dormant spiritual condition in which many await the dawn of the Day of God. This dawn illumines all who have lived on the face of the earth, whether they are in the body or out of the body, but those who are spiritually blind cannot perceive it.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 222​

 

[F1fan]

Nature doing its thing? Does it think things out?

No, matter behaves according to the laws of physics. I though you said you knew science.

Only in religious beliefs do people claim there is a God behind things existing, like cancers that kill children. Why does your God do that to kids?

God has given ample evidence of His existence. Rose from the dead.

Stories aren't evidence that the stories are true. You need to show why they stories are true in reality, and that means facts, which you haven't done yet. What's the problem?

You do understand that Jesus isn't the only resurrection story in history, yes? Are these other gods true as well?

6 Ancient Resurrection Stories | HISTORY

Jesus wasn't the only one believed to have risen from the dead. The concept of resurrection appears in ancient cultures around the world.

www.history.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

The whole creationist model is defended by a bunch of gaslighting

Is there even a model?

 

[Trailblazer]

Stories aren't evidence that the stories are true.

No, stories aren't evidence that the stories are true. Anyone can write a story that sounds true.

You need to show why they stories are true in reality, and that means facts, which you haven't done yet. What's the problem?

You know that nobody can show that the bodily resurrection of Jesus really happened. If they could it would be a fact, not a belief.

You do understand that Jesus isn't the only resurrection story in history, yes? Are these other gods true as well?

Good point. Even if Jesus did rise from the grave that doesn't prove that he was "special" or that God exists.
but of course nobody can ever prove that Jesus rose.

 

[Bthoth]

Is there even a model?

The genesis of bible that a god created everything.

The creation story from the biblical Book of Genesis describes how God created heaven and earth, plants, animals, and people; and later how the first people were cast out of the Garden of Eden as punishment for eating from the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil. ' In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It's rather cute but unsubstantiated in peer review form

 

[Subduction Zone]

The genesis of bible that a god created everything.

The creation story from the biblical Book of Genesis describes how God created heaven and earth, plants, animals, and people; and later how the first people were cast out of the Garden of Eden as punishment for eating from the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil. ' In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It's rather cute but unsubstantiated in peer review form

Yes, not much of a model since a key part is that any scientific model needs to be falsifiable.

 

[Bthoth]

Yes, not much of a model since a key part is that any scientific model needs to be falsifiable.

Nothing of genesis is scientific

 

[Trailblazer]

The god of Abraham is ruled out by the fact that the things it is said to have done didn't happen.

Or else the things that God is said to have done are just allegorical stories. The Bible is the problem, not God.

Others have tried to mitigate that argument by arguing that one is not to believe the stories - to treat them as allegories rather than actual historical accounts and then the god can come alive. Well, yeah, if we can change the meaning of words, we can make the claims not incorrect, but then they words describe another god or no god.

How do you know the words mean that God actually did those things in the stories and that they were not intended to be allegorical?
Nobody can know what the writers of those stories intended. Maybe back when they were written the authors intended for those stories to be understood literally, but people living in the modern age of science know they are not literally true. That is the problem with trying to apply old scriptures to the modern age. It doesn't work.

This is how the Christians argue that Jesus is the prophesied Hebrew messiah and Jesus are the same person - they simply redefine the meaning of the words of prophecy.

No, the argument Christians give is to say that Jesus will do what the prophesied Hebrew messiah is supposed to do when Jesus returns to earth.

Nothing that is known to be possible is known to require a god to make it possible.

That's true.

Sorry, but this god is still looking for a job in reality - something it is needed to explain.

I'll let God know He is unemployed next time I talk to Him in prayer. Maybe He will get a job.

Yes, which alone can account for the decline in Abrahamism in the West, since the other three Abrahamic religions (I'm including the Mormons and JWs with the Christians) altogether are just a few percent of Western Abrahamics - Jews, Muslims, and Baha'i

Yes, Christianity accounts for the decline of Abrahamic religion in the West since it is the primary religion in the West.

These gods are all quite distinct. Christianity's god had a son and sent a messiah, but neither the Jewish deity or the Muslim deity did, nor did yours to my knowledge. How often do you tell me what Baha'is don't believe that these others do? Your god is different than theirs.

God is one. It is the religious beliefs that different religions hold that are distinct.
The Revelation of Baha'u'llah is different from the revelations of Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad, but these revelations all came from the same God.

What God revealed through Messengers was different at different times in history since the needs of humanity were different. As humans and the world they live in changes, God's revelation to man must change. That is what Christians do not understand. They believe that time stands still so the Bible is all we will ever need. That makes no sense.

You answered that? He asked, "Was evolution gradual or was it by hopeful monsters?" I couldn't think of what that might have meant that would make it sensible. He's a creationist, so he likely believes that life "evolved" in six days at the hands of a god many consider monstrous, but I doubt he meant that - evolution versus his god.

I recently read in a Baha'i book that the six days don't represent 24 hour days. They represent long periods of time during which different kinds of life evolved. I'll see if I can remember what book I read that in and I'll post it if I can find it.

Nevertheless, Dawkins said it well: "The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

I often wonder why so many people, including atheists, believe the OT God is the real God. I guess it is because they are not Baha'is so they take the Bible at face value.

We're in accord there. Yet as you can see, many do believe these stories.

Many people believe them, but I don't let that bother me since I know they are not true.
And times are changing so many Christians no longer believe that these are true stories.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's rather cute

I'd hardly call it cute. Look how many people it has misled. I'd call it criminal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing of genesis is scientific

No argument here.

 

[F1fan]

The genesis of bible that a god created everything.

Twice!!!

The creation story from the biblical Book of Genesis describes how God created heaven and earth, plants, animals, and people; and later how the first people were cast out of the Garden of Eden as punishment for eating from the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil. ' In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It's rather cute but unsubstantiated in peer review form

Apparently the first attempt failed, and God had to scrap the whole thing and try a second time with a few changes. What else explains the 2 accounts? Still, look what happened. The two kids that were designed to take care of the Garden totally didn't follow the rules. How hard was it? It may have been a mistake to send a troublemaker and allow him to tempt them, but still, rules are rules. Maybe they were a tad bit too naive, and couldn't resist temptation. OK, that's the disadvantage to not having knowledge of good and evil when it stares you in the face.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you are saying that they had books with pictures of dinosaurs in 500 BC?

The Chinese had many statures and figurines of dragons and other similar creatures to dinosaurs and your figurines in 500 BCE.

One thing that is really humorous or maybe tragic ignorance about what you cited is clay figurines cannot be C-14 dated. Clay pottery used to cook and contain organic food can be dated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Chinese had many statures and figurines of dragons and other similar creatures to dinosaurs and your figurines in 500 BCE.

One thing that is really humorous or maybe tragic ignorance about what you cited is clay figurines cannot be C-14 dated. Clay pottery used to cook and contain organic food can be dated.

The Mexican figurines were determined to be fakes because they have none of the signs of age. The cracks and crevices were almost dirt free along with other telltales of being recently made items made for the tourist trade.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The Mexican figurines were determined to be fakes because they have none of the signs of age. The cracks and crevices were almost dirt free along with other telltales of being recently made items made for the tourist trade.

So they had cracks and crevices but no signs of age. That is a contradiction.
They were dirt free,. So someone washed them off. That is a nonsense comment.
They were C-14 dated to be circa 500 AD.
And the depiction of Stegosaurus from circa 900 AD.
All these refute evolution and billions of years forever.

 

[John53]

So they had cracks and crevices but no signs of age. That is a contradiction.

Never broken a new plate then.

They were dirt free,. So someone washed them off. That is a nonsense comment.

Oh ok, as they lifted them out of the hole. It's a miracle!

They were C-14 dated to be circa 500 AD.

Dated incorrectly because the testing company was mislead.

And the depiction of Stegosaurus from circa 900 AD.

I'm guessing the one from Angkor Wat?

All these refute evolution and billions of years forever.

Google evolution and you might understand how ridiculous that is.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Never broken a new plate then.

They were dirt free,. So someone washed them off. That is a nonsense comment.

Oh ok, as they lifted them out of the hole. It's a miracle!



Dated incorrectly because the testing company was mislead.



I'm guessing the one from Angkor Wat?



Google evolution and you might understand how ridiculous that is.

Since you have only added failed logic to your post, my post stands.

 

[John53]

Since you have only added failed logic to your post, my post stands.

Which logic did I fail?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Which logic did I fail?

One is that you again said that they said the figurines did not have any signs of age. Broken stuff is a sign of age.
Breaking new stuff is very rare especially if it holds value,

 

[John53]

One is that you again said that they said the figurines did not have any signs of age. Broken stuff is a sign of age.
Breaking new stuff is very rare especially if it holds value,

They've supposedly been buried for 2,500 years. You've obviously never seen an archaeological dig. Try watching time team some time.

And your logic completely fails if you think any kind of art work is the end of evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So no one can meet the challenge

Yes, sure, nobody can meet your invalid fallacious challenge.
That is correct.

That's usually the case with intellectually dishonest invalid challenges. It's in fact what they are designed for: to be unmeetable, so the issuer of the challenge can then try and make some equally invalid fallacious point.