There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Sheldon]

Not really, I feel more of a concern for your ability to have more open mind.

Open minded simply means you treat all claims without bias, and since I treat god claims the same as all other claims and set the same criteria for belief, that is being open minded. Some people just get their panties bunched, when you dare state publicly, that you don't share their unevidenced beliefs in archaic superstition.

 

[Sheldon]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
I do not know of any valid biblical prophecies.

Try Jesus many will come saying I am he.

How does that evidence any supernatural divine communication?

 

[Sheldon]

Peter Hitchens only recently decided to become a believer in God.

Not entirely true it was quite a few years ago he returned to the Christian faith, he was brought up in the Christian faith and attended Christian boarding schools for a start, but became an atheist at 15. Christopher Hitchens stated publicly in 2005 that the main difference between the two was belief in the existence of God. So that is at least 17 years.

He also publicly opposed the MMR vaccine following the Lancet MMR autism fraud. He asked in a 2001 article: "Is it really our duty to risk our children's lives with this jab?" In 2013, he defended this earlier article, He has defended discredited former doctor Andrew Wakefield. He has a history for this sort of blinkered fanaticism in the face of facts and evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does that evidence any supernatural divine communication?

I have no clue. But when one is a believer one can convince oneself that the weakest of straws is a steel cable.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Which particular principle of logic are you claiming my argument violated? Or is this the usual rhetorical use of irrational, that theists use when someone dares disagree with their subjective opinion?



Wow, what a spectacularly irrelevant point. Poor value is your subjective opinion remember, I am content to risk £5 a week, some people are more tight fisted.

Value, in betting terms, can be easily measured Sheldon. Especially so on events like a lottery, where definite probabilities can be obtained before the event. There really is nothing subjective about this. Let me give you an example; the probability on the toss of a coin landing heads or tails is clearly 50/50. If you can find a bookmaker to lay you odds of 11/10 against either heads or tails, you’re getting value. But such a bookmaker wouldn’t stay in business very long, so if he’s a pro he might offer you 10/11, to protect his margin. In this case the value is with him not you. Trust me, your lottery bet offers far poorer value than this.

 

[Sheldon]

Value, in betting terms, can be easily measured Sheldon.

Yes it can, but I am not arguing it represents more value than X Y or Z of gambling, you claimed there was no reasonable reason to play, which is just your subjective view.

Especially so on events like a lottery, where definite probabilities can be obtained before the event. There really is nothing subjective about this.

Except your subjective conclusions that the odds make it an unreasonable action to play it of course.

conclusion Let me give you an example; the probability on the toss of a coin landing heads or tails is clearly 50/50. If you can find a bookmaker to lay you odds of 11/10 against either heads or tails, you’re getting value. But such a bookmaker wouldn’t stay in business very long, so if he’s a pro he might offer you 10/11, to protect his margin.

I know, but it has no relevance here, as I already know the odds against the winning the lottery are astronomically small, but since the risk is minimal and the potential reward massive it is still reasonable to play, I believe I explained this already?

Trust me, your lottery bet offers far poorer value than this.

Why do you keep repeating things I already know and have acknowledge are true? It doesn't make your conclusion any less subjective.

You also failed to explain which principle of logic I'd violated, after claiming my playing the lottery was irrational, is it safe to assume then this was pure rhetoric, and it's not irrational at all. You just view it as valueless because the odds are so stacked against a win, and thus subjectively you believe it's not worth playing. Go tell someone who won hundreds of millions then, and see if they agree their £2.50 ticket was as you put it "valueless".

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Clarified.

I'd like for you and @PearlSeeker to know that I'm grateful for your support in this thread. I appreciate it very much. Thank you.

 

[joelr]

You would think people would learn something from Proverbs, it seems to escape people, they make the same errors over and over.

Regardless, scholarship is aware that Proverbs is taken from wisdom literature in older cultures like Egypt and Mesopotamia.

You continue to make false statements about me though, for example I don’t only believe in God but have received His Spirit and have this witness and promise from God. So on the one hand I have evidence and proof for what God has done for me and on the other hand faith for future promises He has made. In the mean time I’m waiting for His return.

Show me a "false statement". It's clear you have beliefs, doesn't make them real at all. You think you received a spirit and a promise. I imagine you were told this by fellow fundamentalists. We see people go through this on tv all th etime in evangelical healing services. These people all swear they have received God. So the only evidence you have is for things taking place in your mind. I hear the same from Muslims and Hindu. Spirits, promises, all the same. So this demonstrates people can fool themselves into believing they are having experiences with a deity.

Again, ask your deity for 8 numbers and write them down.

The 2nd coming is a Persian myth. All followers get resurrected into a new body and you live in eternal paradise on Earth. Sorry, not real.

Your perspective and studies are interesting yet your conclusions about them are way off. Jesus Christ is the real deal and the rest are counterfeits, that’s what I found.

Except the "counterfeits" came first. Jesus was the last mystery religion savior. I've seen Muslims, Hindu and Christians all get the same "rebirth" and go through all the same things you claim. Many I have even posted as examples.
Anecdotal evidence is terrible evidence and everything you claim is old hat among born again religious and fundamentalist Muslim and Christians.
If Jesus is the real deal why not ask Jesus for 8 numbers and write down what you get. I have 8 numbers from pi written down.

The truth of Scriptures make a person wise and for successful living in this world, for avoiding the pitfalls of the worldly way of thinking and living.

Yes because it was taken from other cultures wisdom which was made up by wise humans. Maybe they added a few. One is a DIRECT COPY of an Egyptian book?
The third unit, 22:17–24:22, is headed "bend your ear and hear the words of the wise". A large part of this section is a recasting of a second-millennium BCE Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope, and may have reached the Hebrew author(s) through an Aramaic translation.
Book of Proverbs - Wikipedia

 

[joelr]

It's sad that all the "science" people don't see the issue with demanding Proff of God.

Essentially as many a physicist will acknowledge today Space Time is doomed it is not a fundamental part of actual reality.

And all science has been built upon the assumption that Space time are fundamental.

Effectively the situation is that humanity has evolved with a perception that presents an extremely low quality of perception, an extremely low resolution imaging system- and all investigations are investigating that low quality perception not actual reality.

In simplicitic terms it's like scientist are living in a situation similar to the matrix, they have explored the code of the matrix, but that tells them nothing about the fundamental nature of reality- even if they managed to notice that actually the matrix was a computer construct that also would tell them nothing about the actually nature of reality outside the matrix.

And anyone demanding a proff of God is simply like a scientist in the matrix demanding someone demonstrates the existence of God by proving it in the code somehow. As I suggested before its trying to crample God into their little box of perception.

What God? Zeus? Yahweh?
Physics does not assume that Space time are fundamental.

 

[joelr]

Sad, its mis-educated children going to college to discover what they were taught is wrong. Bible is a narrative of instruction not a historical document of inerancy.

And that's hilarious the 4th kingdom of Daniel is Rome- the third kingdom is Greece.

It's the 4th kingdom that devides. These liberal scholars are forced to push that theory because they refuse to accept the possibility of prophesy.

As far as they are concerned it isnt possible for the book of Daniel to predict the future so they seek to push the date of the book as late as they can, but they cant push it past Greece- which then forces them to see the last kingdom as Greece when it's clear from the text the 4th kingdom is Rome.

The 5th kingdom is still present today.

There is no good evidence for prophecy. There is good evidence Daniel is a forgery.
Would you also want scholars to start taking the claims of Islam serious as well? They have prophecies as well (equally as vague) but do you want them to all start buying into Islam without proper evidence or just Christianity?

The wisdom in the Bible are just re-workings from older cultures.
Proverbs
The "wisdom" genre was widespread throughout the ancient Near East, and reading Proverbs alongside the examples recovered from Egypt and Mesopotamia reveals the common ground shared by international wisdom.
The third unit, 22:17–24:22, is headed "bend your ear and hear the words of the wise". A large part of this section is a recasting of a second-millennium BCE Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope, and may have reached the Hebrew author(s) through an Aramaic translation.

and the mythology borrowed as well.

 

[joelr]

Sadly you are like many stuck in enlightenment thinking, which is inherently reductionist in its conceptions. Ideas like the notion only substance is real therefore science by exploring REAL world can learn the ultimate truth about the universe- also leads into even more crazy ideas about the ability of man to control nature.

God is inherently meta physical, therefore will always be outside the realms of a science that is inherently reductionist in its perception things only exist for science once discovered, considering how much we do not know about the nature of existence scientists are always in the dark yet often choose to ignore that truth while simultaneously over estimating their actual awareness.

Space time is doomed to quote Donald Hoffmann "the entire scientific framework is False!"

In another sense science has completely misunderstood the nature of reality, its built inside a box- you speak about proff of God, but as things stand all the current proofs of science are wrong in their conception.

You'd have to stick god in that fantasy box of science to prove him, I suggest you gain more awareness about the actual limitations of science.

Although Hume does say "nothing cannot create anything therefore there must be a God"

I would say when all is in balance(given equal value) God has weight.

Donald Hoffman is a psychologist peddling quantum mysticism.
Why did the Israelites and Christians think God was literally above the Earth in the 7th heaven? The blue sky was the cosmic ocean above heaven.
The planets resided in a lower heaven but it was all above us in outer space. Even the NT mentions the 3rd heaven so Paul still believed this model.
Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia
The only reason later theologians started moving Yahweh to other dimensions was because Aquinas began borrowing Greek ideas on "the One". Also astronomy was becoming a thing and we were noticing the 7 heavens model wasn't accurate.
This metaphysical God is a modern creation based on Greek thought.

 

[joelr]

It's rather a difference of perspective on the nature of the scriptures.

People like yourself welcome simplistic notions that are easy to attack and discredit as it lends assistance to your agenda.

It's another form of the invented conflict between religion and science- which doesn't actually exist, ultimately they are different subjects using different tools to answer different questions.

"You cant get an ought from an is" science can not tell you anything about how you should live or what you ought to do with the knowledge science offers.

Right, psychology, Greek philosophy, Western philosophy, the many versions of the Heroes Journey, modern fiction, role models and such can show you how to live.

The NT may have a few good suggestions but it's also preaching eternal flame, don't speak to non-believers, hatred toward non-believers, women should be silent in church, and so on. The Greek/Persian fiction isn't needed.

I

That people like yourself seek to impose your opinion over everyone else- and arrogantly see that opinion as superior, speaks more about your own ignorance then it does about any truth with regards to that opinion.

It's a debate forum. That is where people impose their opinion?

 

[joelr]

PAY ATTENTION- I was not speaking about the two Stuident who had the discussion!

I was speaking about the liberal scholars they studied. SEE THE DIFFERENCE!




Hardly Rome devided into east and west around 200 years after these scholars suggest the text was written. Which is why they try and cram everything into Greece.




Try Jesus many will come saying I am he.

There have been soo many people that have come.and claimed they are jesus come back its overly fulfilled.

Clearly in the future liberal scholars will say the gospels must have been written in 2022



Much of Daniel's prophesy cant have come true yet because it deals with the end of days and the judgement





Not at all I was discussing hypothesis related to the dating of the text, conservative scholars do not accept the later date.




Daniel's prophecy of the statue is not vague, the 5th kingdom clearly describes the mixing of seed from all over the world exactly what we see today.

The only reason we are having this discussion is because liberal scholars- decided that it wasnt possible for Daniel to have been able to see the future and therefore the texts must have been written after the fact- even tho their later dating still does not account for rome. They were lead by that premise and forced all evidence to comply with it.

People claim to be all religious figures, often. That isn't much of a prophecy.

If there was evidence that Daniel could see the future than maybe. But there is not.

Here is a historian explaining why Daniel is believed to be a forgery. Which point do you think is wrong?
How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery • Richard Carrier



End of days is Apocalypticism and started with the Persians.
"Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation."

During the Persian occupation the Hebrews were exposed to Persian myths. Revelation was one of the big ones. World saviors and God vs devil was another.

From Mary Boyces work:

Revelations


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which

there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07). ~1600 B.C.

 

[joelr]

Again you dont get my point, you rummage arround in your head set, and think you have some greater grasp of the truth, I'm simply saying your confidence is misplaced, but I can also understand that leaving that box isnt easy when you have built an entire world view around it.

His confidence is misplaced for wanting sufficient evidence for belief? While you have sourced Hoffman, a complete Quqntum-wu crank and ancient Iron age mythology? AND sounds like you have built a world view around those and a conspiracy theory about scholars?
Yet I doubt you would call for the same scholars to accept Islamic prophecy (they are about equal)?

Not really, I feel more of a concern for your ability to have more open mind.

An open mind doesn't have anything to do with believing myths, unproven wu and crank. It means INSTEAD of buying into religions, cults, modern myths, legends, you actually use critical, rational and skeptical thinking and assess the evidence with an open mind. Empiricism. Even if it's more fun to believe some of these things and to think consciousness creates reality as Hoffman practically says, you look at evidence from both sides.
What Hoffman is saying is NOT supported by one single modern physicist. He's using quantum -wu just like everyone else even though he's more technical. But he still makes the leap from a mystery with observation in physics to a belief and an assertion that consciousness is fundamental.
Of course he has no experiment or way to demonstrate this is true.

 

[shunyadragon]

I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this? If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?
I’m in agreement. I used to believe my personal experiences to be subjective evidence for god, but I know now that’s not the case. I am not a theist anymore because I recognize I was a Christian thanks almost completely to my environment. That’s why I believed. I was brought up in it. Wasn’t because of any proof or anything,
So, theists, why do you believe? Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location? There is no proof for god (right?), so what logically keeps you believing? Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith? Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?
I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?

To respond to this I needed some time to reflect on what and how one believes or does not believe.

Fundamentally I am philosophical agnostic in that regardless of whatever I believe it is subjective and in reality, I do not know, I also describe myself as a universalist as believing the reality of our existence both physical and possible spiritual beyond the physical is in harmony and without contradiction.

I believe in a 'Source' some call God(s), but the question as to whether this 'Source' exists as what we call God or simply exists is an open question.

The problem of contradiction and the issue of the fallible cultural human perspective of belief is reflected in the following response in another thread concerning the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity,

Matt. 28 Verses 19 to 20
[19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

There are more verses that elevate Jesus to the station of an incarnate manifestation of God and the agent of Creation, we can go into this further. Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is controversial, and opponents of the Trinity can cite their side of the scripture. Nonetheless, the New Testament was compiled edited, and redacted by the Greek and Roman Church Fathers that concluded that the Trinity is the reality of God and the relationship with Creation.

Yes, the Tanakh contains no references that may be interpreted as God is a Trinitarian God without first relying on the references in the NT.

I am a Baha'i and reject the Trinity and the claim of the exclusiveness and uniqueness claim of Christianity in the relationship with humanity and Creation. All the ancient religions make exclusive tribal claims for their relationship with God or God(s), which reflects a cultural view of God and is irrational and illogical, culturally egocentric, and contrary to the relationship of a universal Creator God undefinable from any one cultural belief.

IF God exists God is not a Hebrew, Christian, Islamic, Vedic, Zoroastrian or whatever ancient God or God(s) of the past. God would be the 'Source' of all of our physical existence, and the relationship with ALL of humanity since the first human knew of their relationship with the 'Source' sone call God(s) by many different names. From the universal perspective, the different diverse and conflicting divisions of religions are a fallible human view of God,

 

[joelr]

I am a Baha'i and reject the Trinity and the claim of the exclusiveness and uniqueness claim of Christianity in the relationship with humanity and Creation. All the ancient religions make exclusive tribal claims for their relationship with God or God(s), which reflects a cultural view of God and is irrational and illogical, culturally egocentric, and contrary to the relationship of a universal Creator God undefinable from any one cultural belief.

IF God exists God is not a Hebrew, Christian, Islamic, Vedic, Zoroastrian or whatever ancient God or God(s) of the past. God would be the 'Source' of all of our physical existence, and the relationship with ALL of humanity since the first human knew of their relationship with the 'Source' sone call God(s) by many different names. From the universal perspective, the different diverse and conflicting divisions of religions are a fallible human view of God,

Likewise if God exists and speaks volumes of books to a person shouldn't he be able to give us some math, science, maybe some cosmological information, some medical cures, answer a few mysteries like how to quantize gravity, is the Riemann Hypothesis true, maybe a number in pi we won't get to for several more years or have to build a data center to work on the math. Something definitive to stop the tribal divides that religion continues to do?
Would God not have had enough of the religious wars by now?
Instead he gives volumes of stuff that looks lt was taken from Islam and Christianity (light on the Hinduism though???) and wow, the science section is terrible. Awful.
And all Hindus are just wrong with Brahman/consciousness as the fundamental state of reality? In Tabernacle of Unity he addresses Hinduism and knows literally not one thing about it.

"In brief, what is right and true in this day and acceptable before His Throne is that which was mentioned at the outset. All men have been called into being for the betterment of the world. It behoveth every soul to arise and serve his brethren for the sake of God. Should a brother of his embrace the truth, he should rejoice that the latter hath attained unto everlasting favour. Otherwise he should implore God to guide him without manifesting the least trace of animosity or ill-feeling towards him. The reins of command are in the grasp of God. He doeth what He willeth and ordaineth as He pleaseth. He, verily, is the Almighty, the All-Praised"

Does he ever say anything?All I can find are platitudes and long stretched out praise? Metaphysics? Philosophy? Anything?

 

[shunyadragon]

Likewise if God exists and speaks volumes of books to a person shouldn't he be able to give us some math, science, maybe some cosmological information, some medical cures, answer a few mysteries like how to quantize gravity, is the Riemann Hypothesis true, maybe a number in pi we won't get to for several more years or have to build a data center to work on the math. Something definitive to stop the tribal divides that religion continues to do?
Would God not have had enough of the religious wars by now?
Instead he gives volumes of stuff that looks lt was taken from Islam and Christianity (light on the Hinduism though???) and wow, the science section is terrible. Awful.
And all Hindus are just wrong with Brahman/consciousness as the fundamental state of reality? In Tabernacle of Unity he addresses Hinduism and knows literally not one thing about it.

"In brief, what is right and true in this day and acceptable before His Throne is that which was mentioned at the outset. All men have been called into being for the betterment of the world. It behoveth every soul to arise and serve his brethren for the sake of God. Should a brother of his embrace the truth, he should rejoice that the latter hath attained unto everlasting favour. Otherwise he should implore God to guide him without manifesting the least trace of animosity or ill-feeling towards him. The reins of command are in the grasp of God. He doeth what He willeth and ordaineth as He pleaseth. He, verily, is the Almighty, the All-Praised"

Does he ever say anything?All I can find are platitudes and long stretched out praise? Metaphysics? Philosophy? Anything?

Likewise if . . . ???????

Your previous posts were OK, and your assessment of Donald Hoffman was spot on, but this post kind of rambles and did not really respond to my post coherently.

 

[joelr]

Likewise if . . . ???????

Your previous posts were OK, and your assessment of Donald Hoffman was spot on, but this post kind of rambles and did not really respond to my post coherently.

Well I just was reading Bahai scripture, I have so many questions?
His text about Hinduism didn't address Hinduism.
Does he ever say anything of substance?

I listen to Swami Sarvapriyananda and I am not Hindu. His talks on Vedanta are incredible. On that channel he is asked any question you can imagine, his knowledge and insight is amazing. When he gets into the deepest concepts of Brahman I still see some areas where faith is needed. So I'm not sold. But the wisdom is incredible in these videos.

Why is there suffering, he's probably going to go with Karma which makes no sense.
Anyway, where does Bahai speak deep philosophy, concepts, answers? He doesn't do mythology, wisdom framed in stories about Gods. So were does he say something besides long passages about how great God is?
Is that more coherant?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well I just was reading Bahai scripture, I have so many questions?

First, in reviewing your post it was not clear. In retrospect what you are referring to likely was essentially meditative chants something like a prayer, and not specific religious nor philosophical guidance. That takes a deeper look. Your expectations of substance are misplaced.

Your academic knowledge is heavy and extensive, but it is more brick and mortar, too much mortar. Most of it is very accurate, and your references are in my library including Bart Ehrman.

His text about Hinduism didn't address Hinduism.
Does he ever say anything of substance?

Saying his text does not address Hinduism is like saying water does not address water.

I listen to Swami Sarvapriyananda and I am not Hindu. His talks on Vedanta are incredible. On that channel he is asked any question you can imagine, his knowledge and insight is amazing. When he gets into the deepest concepts of Brahman I still see some areas where faith is needed. So I'm not sold. But the wisdom is incredible in these videos.

Why is there suffering, he's probably going to go with Karma which makes no sense.

Coherence?!?!? Not sure that is relevant.

Incredible wisdom? Sorry, I do not see it. I see a perspective of some insight of wisdom from his worldview, but not beyond the Vedic culture.

Suffering from the Baha'i perspective is simply a part of the nature of our physical existence. Too much preoccupation with 'circular reasoning' to explain suffering like a hamster on the play wheel.

I agree that Karma makes no sense and it is fatalistic, or maybe described as believing in predestination. Speaking of the Vedic view is basically culturally Hindu (?) by definition from the ancient cultural perspective.

Anyway, where does Bahai speak deep philosophy, concepts, answers? He doesn't do mythology, wisdom framed in stories about Gods. So where does he say something besides long passages about how great God is? Is that more coherent?

The depth of philosophical concepts is more simple than it seems, and it goes beyond simple citations, but to begin I will summarize my view as aspects of the more universal perspective reflected in the Baha'i Faith My reflection considers a more universal view in considering the attributes of different religions, particularly Buddhism. One very important principle of Buddhism is impermanence that everything changes over time, and nothing is permanent including human knowledge,

How does the Baha'i Faith view human knowledge, both physical and spiritual? First, there are two languages scriptures are spiritual and science which is the language of understanding the physical nature of our physical existence. They do not directly translate. Nonetheless, there is the Baha'i principle of the harmony of science and religion. By this principle the Baha'i Faith teaches human knowledge evolves over time, and scripture in reference to our physical existence must be understood in the light of the advancing knowledge of science. Critics of the Baha'i often take the selective brick and mortar' approach to scripture but neglect . . .

Baháʼí views on science - Wikipedia.

A fundamental principle of the Baháʼí Faith is the stated harmony of religion and science.[1] Whilst Baháʼí scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict, critics argue that statements by the founders clearly contradict current scientific understanding.[2] ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that "when a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition".[3] He also said that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science.[4][5]

Therefore the understanding of scripture and science must change over time, which is a principle that the more ancient religions live in conflict with a world and human knowledge that is impermanent.

An interesting concept of 'Creation' is not an event but from the Baha'i perspective 'Creation' is infinite and eternal reflecting the 'attributes' of God in eternal cycles of birth and death of likely an infinite number of universes and/or multi-universes. This view may in some ways reflect the Vedic view.

This view extends to the Baha'i Principle of the Unity of religions. On the surface from the 'brick and mortar' approach, this is of course absurd.

The Baha'i view is simpler and more coherent. Fallible human knowledge evolves over time in a cyclic manner and ancient religions reflect the human knowledge and cultural worldview of the time they were written. Understanding them in a more universal context is not right nor wrong, but reflecting the culture and time. Of course, ancient religions judge other religions based on 'subjective differences' from their own limited cultural perspective. Thes conflict may be in the form of 'ten-foot pole' polite distancing to outright condemnation and violent aggression.

More to follow . . .

Fundamentally I am a philosophical agnostic because, in reality, I do not 'know.'

I do believe in a 'Source' some call God(s), and the 'Source' may be just physically nature and will likely be forever unknown to human efforts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, in reviewing your post it was not clear. In retrospect what you are referring to likely was essentially meditative chants something like a prayer Your expectations of substance are misplaced.

Your academic knowledge is heavy and extensive, but it is more brick and mortar, too much mortar. Most of it is very accurate, and your references are in my library including Bart Ehrman.



Saying his text did not address Hinduism is like saying water does not address water.



Coherence?!?!? Not sure that is relevant.

Incredible wisdom? Sorry, I do not see it. I see a perspective of some insight of wisdom from his worldview, but not beyond the Vedic culture.

I agree that Karma makes no sense and it is fatalistic, or maybe described as believing in predestination. Speaking of the Vedic view is basically culturally Hindu (?) by definition from the ancient cultural perspective.

Baha'i is a very young faith and I do not know if there are any sects in it yet, but I have seen a range in beliefs from some members here. Some of them appear to be almost "fundamentalist" at times in their beliefs. Those with a more fundamentalist nature make me fear that the religion could be abused as so many others are. Just as Christianity is not monolithic and most accept the sciences it appears that Baha'i is even more so. But again, there are exceptions. But that is human nature. If I were to "choose" a religion it would be something on the order of the rational parts of Baha'i beliefs.