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

[joelr]

The above bold is a subjective assertion, and a fallacy of avague 'arguing from authority. All the ancient scriptures of the world 'claim by some 'modern students' that ithey are entirely meaningful today.

I do not buy it, based on the ancient mythical view of science and issues like Karma.

That isn't a valid response at all. If you are going to claim a philosophical work is no longer valid, and it's a work still used by billions of people, read by even more and still a text worthy of study in philosophy curriculums, as well as a common favorite or top 5 among philosophy minded people then mis-using the argument from authority is plain wrong.
When you make the claim a philosophy work is no longer valid and it's clearly still a very popular work (which is what I was showing) then we have one avenue left. I gave a brief summary of some of the topics covered. Explain why these topics are no longer valid in modern society.
It's clearly popular so why isn't it valid?


They didn't have an ancient mythical view of science in this work? It's a book of philosophy? Karma? I didn't even put that in my list? It's not in the book? Karma Yoga is a different thing. It's detached action, something still used today. Nothing you just said is in the book.

Also, theistic Gods, revelations and people who claim them are also mythical views on reality.

Nothing new in the above. I have studied the Gits for over fifty years, and acknowledged that there are philosophical contributions in the Gita, but the above is a selective overstatement of the relevance of the Gita today.

.

Yeah it's still relevant today. Wow, what a crazy overstatement...?

Still waiting for a response concerning the problem of philosophical guidance from the Gita and the Swami, which you have dodged and failed to respond.

There is no problem with the Gita?
Why do you keep asking me about a Swami I don't listen to? I specifically said I don't agree with everything in Hinduism but some things I like and there is some deep wisdom in the Swami
Sarvapriyananda videos. If you watch some of his Q&A videos you may hear some interesting answers.

Why do you continue to think it's my problem or my responsibility to answer to something a Swami said (one of them, your link, isn't even someone I listen to)? If a Swami says something I don't agree with, that's it? I don't agree with Karma. But in other videos I find some interesting stuff. So why would you think I should explain an idea I am not in agreement with? Why do you continue to think this is some kind of "gotcha" moment when it has nothing to do with me. Some Swami I NEVER LISTENED TO denies evolution. Wow, DON'T CARE?????
Hey Sawmi - Believe in evolution. Done. Dealt with. Stop being creepy, get the hint.
I said Hinduism has some interesting things. Not "everything is true and I stand by every thing every Hindu says so please bother me with requests to answer to silly things"????
There are FIVE completely different Hinduisms, one has Vishnu as the theistic creator who listens to prayer and all that theism stuff.
If you wander into some weird form of Hinduism, WHY IS THIS MY FAULT. I am not the PR manager for silly concepts in Hinduism>???
Stop asking this ridiculous request that makes zero sense.

I didn't dodge anything, and I didn't fail to respond? I have said the same thing over and over and you can't get the message?
In fact I said I listen to S. Sarvapriyananda and there is some good stuff but I DON'T find he provided evidence for consciousness being part of Brahman and consciousness surviving death. Basically the biggest part of A. Vedanta. So clearly it's a see if you relate kind of thing, not it's all true? Then you post a video of a different guy and want me to make some explanation.............?

 

[joelr]

You have failed to present any problems with the Baha'i Faith concerning science. I emphasized that the language of the writings' is spiritual, and science is the language of science concerning the nature of our physical existence. The philosophy of science is that all religious scripture including Baha'i scripture must be understood in the light of the evolving and changing light of science.

Oh yeah, we can re-visit this. I need to find the section that summed up all the scientific material. It was completely wrong.

I just found 1 science thing for now, and one other thing.

"In the world of God there is no past, present, or future: All of these are one. So when Christ said, “In the beginning was the Word,”118 He meant that it was, is, and shall be; for in the world of God there is no time."
No, not what he meant. He didn't say it actually because John was taking it from Plato.
The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept.
The Hellenistic World: The World of Alexander the Great

"Consider that light consists in the vibrations of the ether, whereby the nerves of the eye are stimulated and vision is produced. Now, though the vibrations of the ether exist both in the lamp and in the sun, yet what a difference there is between the light of the sun and that of the stars or of the lamp!'"

At this time it was believed the ether was real. Clearly he bought into it because he's a man and he isn't really speaking with a God. Would have been a perfect time for a God to actually correct science and that would have been interesting proof.

I have presented the problems and you have failed to respond. There is the problem of the misrepresentation of science and the accusation of materialism, to which you have failed to respond to.

Why is this my problem? I said he's smart, wise and some stuff I agree with and some I don't. So you are a big boy, you can decide for yourself which Hindu concepts to accept of disregard. Why would you need my approval?
although I already told you (now it's creepy) that Swami thinks science is materialist because it reduces everything down to forces or fields while Hinduism believes everything is part of consciousness and Brahman. My take on that is I don't know if the Brahman thing is true? So at this point is is now you who have failed to stop asking completely inappropriate questions.

So weird? Like I'm supposed to answer to every quack belief you find online? Like I created Hinduism?

The vague subjective generalization you keep repeating is like a broken record. The ocean subduction trenches around the world are very deep. So what?!?!?!

I have listened to him and read his works for years. Also visited his communities and has a number of his friends. The problems concerning the philosophy of science are apparent throughout. The believers neither accept nor believe in science as a result of this flawed philosophy. They reject the science of evolution, virus/vaccine science, and global warming.

Then you know he has a lot of knowledge on Hinduism. I have not heard him speak against the vac, global warming or evolution? There might be some weird Brahman/consciousness things tied in and it might sound like wu. I haven't heard it? I don't expect to align with a religion I'm NOT IN. I like some of his ideas on consciousness and other areas. Grown people have to listen to things and decide for themselves what they agree with and not. If you hear something you disagree with what you don't do is ask me to explain why he thinks that way?

Way of seeing it?!?!? and 'what he calls it' is the problem including other citations including the belief in Hindu Creationism.

I'm not talking about "other citations"??????????? I'm talking about this one Swami. Not all Hindu are Advita vedanta.

Science will not accept the 'realizing everything is Brahman' any more than science will accept the religious beliefs of any religion based on the neutrality of Methodological Naturalism.

I want to emphasize that the claim of respect and education level is meaningless if one is not willing to accept the evolving knowledge of science over ancient views of scripture like the Gita.

What he calls science is the problem, and he is misusing and misrepresentation of the philosophical concept of materialism. Science by definition is NOT materialistic

Uh, he isn't trying to get accepted into science? He has a worldview that because everything is Brahman so to him science is materialistic. I'm grown up. I can parse between ideas that are useful and those that are not. I am trying to see if he can present evidence that consciousness is the fundamental reality. So far he has not.

again, if you want to bring up science then it's also not scientific to believe in Gods or revelations without proper evidence.

Hate to break it to you, but when others misrepresent the philosophy of materialism in relation to science.is not a justification for the misuse of the concept of materialism in science. I gave the proper definitions of materialism as philosophical materialism, and by definition, science is based on Methodological Naturalism. The arrogant assertion of science is materialistic shows a specific lack of respect of science..

Hate to break it to you but I DON'T CARE about how the Swami wants to talk about science? Unless he wants to come here and debate it.
The reason he is calling science materialist is an error but many physicists agree with him, he just doesn't know it.
Rudolf Peierls, a physicist who played a major role in the Manhattan Project, rejected materialism: "The premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including knowledge and consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing."

Erwin Schrödinger said, "Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

Werner Heisenberg, who came up with the uncertainty principle, wrote, "The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible ... Atoms are not things."

So Heisenberg is talking about the classic reasons why physics isn't materialist (wave/particle duality, quantum weirdness) but the first 2 are on the same page as Swami.

The Baha'i Faith of course rejects 'materialism as correctly defined as philosophical materialism in all aspects of science and philosophy because this philosophy rejects the existence of God. Science by definition is neutral to the philosophy of matereialism by definition.

There is no theistic God. There is zero evidence. People claiming revelations are using the term very loosely.

No, this is not a valid response to accuse science of cultural and societal views as being materialistic, Yes materialism is a problem in all societies and cultures of the world, but the accusation of materialism concerning science remains false, More vague subjective generalizations that are not meaningful nor accurate concerning science.

No, this is in response to you saying Newtonian science was old. Nothing to do with materialism?

It is a valid response. He said "Mathematicians, astronomers, chemical scientists continually disprove and reject the conclusions of the ancients; nothing is fixed, nothing final; everything is continually changing because human reason is progressing along new roads of investigation and arriving at new conclusions every day. In the future much that is announced and accepted as true now will be rejected and disproved. And so it will continue ad infinitum."

Which is what I said. At that time (like he says) science was progressing very fast. It was the mechanistic age. Nowhere does he call Newtonian science "old"? Are you talking about BAhai quotes where he says "transmutation of elements" will be big? You are equating that with Special Relativity????
This is typical of Christian and Islamic apologetics with prophecies as well. Skip the most probable to make it fit what you want. In truth, Newton WAS working on transmutation of elements and so were many other top scientists including Boyle, Kepler, Leibniz and others. So he also used this in his predictions. I said all of his science was science of the day, right or wrong. A God can't get the words E=Mc2 out? HE just happens to use the current terms? No chance did he mean anything about modern physics. He would have said it.

E=MC^2 is not quantum physics or atomic particle physics. It's from the Special Relativity paper in 1905.

 

[joelr]

[

Transmutation of elements is a reality of science today.

What you said is not meaningful. It is not a valid subjective vague generalization and is fundamentally a fallacy in logic, and a misrepresentation of science..

Any accusation of mechanistic age is a cultural view of materialism in society and not science.

You can string buzzwords all day. Not going to change the fact that he claimed transmutation of elements was going to be big. The probable reason is because the science of the day was working on this.
It isn't vague. It isn't a fallacy and it isn't a mis-representation.
The possibility of transmutation of the noble metal was accepted by such distinguished seventeenth century scientists as Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Robert Boyle (1627-1691), G W [Gottfried Wilhelm] Leibniz (1646 -1716), and, for at least thirty years of his life, Sir Isaac Newton (1642 -1727). Robert Boyle, the Father of Chemistry (and Uncle of the Earl of Cork), was among the richest men in Britain. He was one of the first members of the 'Invisible College' which became in 1665 the Royal Society. With his assistant Robert Hooke, he carried out experiments with a vacuum pump on respiration, air, and fire.

This caught on and was worked on until Faraday and Maxwell started a revolution in science.

The citation presented before from the Baha'i writing clearly described E=.MC^2

Clearly would be Energy equals mass times the speed of light but that isn't the actual equation. He didn't predict any such thing. He did predict the ether, and he used the exact word. Same with all the science. So if he was going to predict that equation he would have done it. He did not. Give me the citation.

Trying to pass the buck does not get you off the hook line and sinker.

I';m not on a hook line and sinker. You seem to want me to be responsible for some random person in not my religion? Your obsession with this is just weird.

I believe?!?!?!? Not Rumi. You are neglecting to respond to the heart of the citatio .

It isn't a prophecy, it's a Rumi quote.

Religious beliefs are independent of science.

No point here at all.

So what?!?!?! Talking of science is not meaningful. You are still failing to respond . . .

And I'm not going to because I am adult enough to take what I like and discard things I disagree with. Why you still think I'm supposed to explain some random thing is just bizarre.

The science of the 'Big Bang' is independent of any religious beliefs concerning the origins of our physical existence. Independence of materialism and religious beliefs is not materialism.

Religious beliefs are myths.

Insults 'stuff.'?!?!? Science by its nature only deals with the physical nature of consciousness and it does this very well. It cannot falsify, accept nor reject religious beliefs concerning consciousness beyond our physical existence.

Who are you arguing with? He has crank beliefs. People who believe in Gods and wu have cranky beliefs? I don't care?

None of the above reflects anything to do with science. Based on Methodological Naturalism science cannot falsify any of the above religious beliefs. IT is neutral to both materialism and religious beliefs,

It is a fallacy to accuse science of being materialist because it will not agree with nor support religious beliefs.

Materialism is the rejection of all influence of any 'Source' outside the physical nature of our physical existence. It believes that NAtural LAw is the only possible explanation for the nature of our physical existence. Science makes no such claim and is neural to any claim of materialism and religious beliefs.

Again any accusation of materialism misrepresents and disrespects science. Specifically, Swami states that because science does not accept the origin of consciousness from the Vedic perspective it is materialistic,

The accusation of 'materialism is common in ancient religions, such as Christianity and Islam also, because they claim that science does not accept their religious teachings.

Wow, I don't care at all about your criticisms of Hinduism because I don't believe in it. Maybe you should call Swami
How weird is it to ask me to defend something I don't believe in? Yes I said I like listening to him for SOME things? Doesn't make me responsible for everything he says. If you don't like it, or don't agree, MOVE ON.

Just get me that science section so we can really talk about bad quotes.

 

[shunyadragon]

[
You can string buzzwords all day. Not going to change the fact that he claimed transmutation of elements was going to be big. The probable reason is that the science of the day was working on this.[]quote]

No buzzwords. Just you failing to respond to my posts. Maybe what you call buzzwords is your lack of comprehension of the English language. The proposal of splitting the atom and releasing the energy of the sun is NOT a quote from Rumi, and it proposes special relativity.

Baha'u'llah proposes the release of the energy of the sun when you slit the atom, which is equivalent to special relativity, and that is NOT a quote from Rumi, If you believe so specifically cite Rumi,

All the Awamis cite Vedic traditions and the Gita, which are a riff on ancient mythology.

It isn't vague. It isn't a fallacy and it isn't a misrepresentation.
The possibility of transmutation of the noble metal was accepted by such distinguished seventeenth century scientists as Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Robert Boyle (1627-1691), G W [Gottfried Wilhelm] Leibniz (1646 -1716), and, for at least thirty years of his life, Sir Isaac Newton (1642 -1727). Robert Boyle, the Father of Chemistry (and Uncle of the Earl of Cork), was among the richest men in Britain. He was one of the first members of the 'Invisible College' which became in 1665 the Royal Society. With his assistant Robert Hooke, he carried out experiments with a vacuum pump on respiration, air, and fire.

This caught on and was worked on until Faraday and Maxwell started a revolution in science.

Faraday and Maxwell were innovative, but do not propose what Baha'u'llah proposed, and did not start a revolution. Einstein did.

Clearly would be Energy equals mass times the speed of light but that isn't the actual equation. He didn't predict any such thing. He did predict the ether, and he used the exact word. Same with all the science. So if he was going to predict that equation he would have done it. He did not. Give me the citation.

I gave you the citation and you avoided it.





I';m not on a hook line and sinker. You seem to want me to be responsible for some random person in not my religion? Your obsession with this is just weird.

It isn't a prophecy, it's a Rumi quote.

The reference to 'splinging an atom' IS NOT a Rumi quote. If you disagree cite Rumi.

And I'm not going to because I am adult enough to take what I like and discard things I disagree with. Why you still think I'm supposed to explain some random thing is just bizarre.

Failure to respond to my posts, and having meaningless tantrums is not the behavior of an adult
]quote] Religious beliefs are myths. [/quote]

The Swami endorses Hindu myths as cited.

Who are you arguing with? He has crank beliefs. People who believe in Gods and wu have cranky beliefs? I don't care?

Failure to respond to the posts with personal attacks.

ow, I don't care at all about your criticisms of Hinduism because I don't believe in it. Maybe you should call Swami
How weird is it to ask me to defend something I don't believe in? Yes I said I like listening to him for SOME things? Doesn't make me responsible for everything he says. If you don't like it, or don't agree, MOVE ON.

No MOVE ON, because you glorified the Swami as very deep philosophy and failed to defend him on the issue that his views of science are ancient and outdated. Now make a 180-degree turn and will not defend the Swami with Utube videos that do not address the

That isn't a valid response at all. If you are going to claim a philosophical work is no longer valid, and it's a work still used by billions of people, read by even more and still a text worthy of study in philosophy curriculums, as well as a common favorite or top 5 among philosophy minded people then mis-using the argument from authority is plain wrong.
When you make the claim a philosophy work is no longer valid and it's clearly still a very popular work (which is what I was showing) then we have one avenue left. I gave a brief summary of some of the topics covered. Explain why these topics are no longer valid in modern society.
It's clearly popular so why isn't it valid?


They didn't have an ancient mythical view of science in this work? It's a book of philosophy? Karma? I didn't even put that in my list? It's not in the book? Karma Yoga is a different thing. It's detached action, something still used today. Nothing you just said is in the book.

Also, theistic Gods, revelations and people who claim them are also mythical views on reality.






Yeah it's still relevant today. Wow, what a crazy overstatement...?



There is no problem with the Gita?
Why do you keep asking me about a Swami I don't listen to? I specifically said I don't agree with everything in Hinduism but some things I like and there is some deep wisdom in the Swami
Sarvapriyananda videos. If you watch some of his Q&A videos you may hear some interesting answers.

Why do you continue to think it's my problem or my responsibility to answer to something a Swami said (one of them, your link, isn't even someone I listen to)? If a Swami says something I don't agree with, that's it? I don't agree with Karma. But in other videos I find some interesting stuff. So why would you think I should explain an idea I am not in agreement with? Why do you continue to think this is some kind of "gotcha" moment when it has nothing to do with me. Some Swami I NEVER LISTENED TO denies evolution. Wow, DON'T CARE?????
Hey Sawmi - Believe in evolution. Done. Dealt with. Stop being creepy, get the hint.
I said Hinduism has some interesting things. Not "everything is true and I stand by every thing every Hindu says so please bother me with requests to answer to silly things"????
There are FIVE completely different Hinduisms, one has Vishnu as the theistic creator who listens to prayer and all that theism stuff.
If you wander into some weird form of Hinduism, WHY IS THIS MY FAULT. I am not the PR manager for silly concepts in Hinduism>???
Stop asking this ridiculous request that makes zero sense.

I didn't dodge anything, and I didn't fail to respond? I have said the same thing over and over and you can't get the message?
In fact I said I listen to S. Sarvapriyananda and there is some good stuff but I DON'T find he provided evidence for consciousness being part of Brahman and consciousness surviving death. Basically the biggest part of A. Vedanta. So clearly it's a see if you relate kind of thing, not it's all true? Then you post a video of a different guy and want me to make some explanation.............?

issue.

Just get me that science section so we can really talk about bad quotes.

I cited the quote by Abdul;baha concerning the fact that ALL scripture must be understood in light of the evolving nature of scientific knowledge, and you ignored.

No message, your UTube videos were vague and did not address the fact that NOWHERE di the Swami state that he endorses ALL modern science of evolution, global warming, and Virius/vaccines that his followers reject..

You have not addressed the misuse of his accusation that science is materialism which is false and disrespects science.

The Swami failed to provide guidance to his followers to accept the knowledge of science to understand the nature of our physical existence as Baha'ulllah did. Personal attacks on Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith do not represent responses to my post.

Your swami never and I mean never gave guidance to accept the advancing knowledge of science. Not making statements on the negative that one did not reject evolution is not sufficient,

 

[Balthazzar]

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?

Evidence for God? My simple suggestion would be to "look around", but that would never suffice. Have we become as one of them, as it is suggested in Genesis? Aware, as males and females who likewise create and multiply, creating other "gods" like ourselves. This is what I gather from scripture anyway. That we are and that we likewise live and move and have our being in God also. Evidence for God? Well, only if you choose to acknowledge this as a truth about yourself and about life in general.

 

[joelr]

I gave you the citation and you avoided it.

Right so can you give the citation? There is no link to any quote that says E=Mc2 in any of your posts?

The reference to 'splinging an atom' IS NOT a Rumi quote. If you disagree cite Rumi.

We were talking about the sun in an atom quote. I'm looking at several Bahai quotes on atoms, all incorrect and clearly just reference what is already known at the time.

"Therefore, it may be said that these individual atoms are eternal."
Wow, is that right? No one told God about fusion, black holes, quasars, nuclear decay, fission......

" When that attracting power is withdrawn, dissolution and disintegration follow; no mirror, table or clock remain -- no trace, no existence. Therefore, commingling of the atoms brings forth a reality, while dispersion or dissemination of them is equivalent to nonexistence.'"

Is that what happens? The attracting power is withdrawn? No, it isn't. Never.

"Again, certain atoms are bound together by chemical affinity; a composition called a flower appears. ."

This and the attracting power were written about by chemists around this time. It was the front of physics knowledge and he just happens to also be using similar terms? Nothing further?

"A tendency or law prevails (here), and that, no matter what the characters of the uniting atoms may be, the combining power of the attracting element, if I may be allowed the term, is always satisfied by the same number of these atoms." Scientist in 1800's


I don't know the splinging quote.

Failure to respond to my posts, and having meaningless tantrums is not the behavior of an adult
]quote] Religious beliefs are myths.

[/QUOTE]

Wow, what a tantrum? Really I said "Religious beliefs are myths"? Wow I was really out of control? I should slow it down.
You have been browbeating me with this bizarre demand, completely inappropriate, and I'm having the tantrum?

The Swami endorses Hindu myths as cited.

Uh huh. He does.

Failure to respond to the posts with personal attacks.

Huh. So you answered none of my points and instead just made stuff up?

No MOVE ON, because you glorified the Swami as very deep philosophy and failed to defend him on the issue that his views of science are ancient and outdated. Now make a 180-degree turn and will not defend the Swami with Utube videos that do not address the

Blah blah. Watch this, I'm going to say it again as well. - The Swami is very deep. Philosophy is not science. He is deep. I would post some actual answers he gives that are deep but somehow that won't matter. You have entered some sort of rage and cannot turn around? See I can claim you are in a tantrum as well.
So yeah, no, no 180, no turn. I do not have to defend a philosopher because he has science views I don't agree with. I don't even agree with all his philosophy. He has a deep knowledge of Hindu philosophy. Period. The end. I stated right up front I don't buy into Hinduism. He- has- a- deep-knowledge-of Hindu-philosophy............and I'm interested in what they think. The Q&A videos are really interesting

somehow I don't believe that you cannot grasp that you can admire part of someones knowledge and disagree with other parts. If you think I don't know what is really going on....I',m not a complete psychology moron? In fact "deep" doesn't mean I agree with any of it? But I want to understand Advita Vedanta and he knows it well.

I cited the quote by Abdul;baha concerning the fact that ALL scripture must be understood in light of the evolving nature of scientific knowledge, and you ignored.

Yes a man claiming to be getting messages from a God that is fiction said we should blah blah science. Great, then revelations and theism are not evidenced and should not be taken as true. Welcome to science.

No message, your UTube videos were vague and did not address the fact that NOWHERE di the Swami state that he endorses ALL modern science of evolution, global warming, and Virius/vaccines that his followers reject..

You have not addressed the misuse of his accusation that science is materialism which is false and disrespects science.

Yeah I did. He shouldn't believe that. All done.
In fact no one should believe in unevidenced wu.

Wait, yes I did? I told you Hindus believe science boils everything down to energy and fields while they think there is a fundamental reality Brahman, pure consciousness. Energy and fields to them is material substance while Brahman is the real unchanging fundamental reality.

It doesn't disrespect science because it has a belief that goes into an area that science cannot yet understand. It agrees with the standard model. Not much different than the Abrahamic God who is the creator of all reality in terms of substance. So if you believe in a theism related to that God you share the same beliefs. Western religion also doesn't care what science says regarding the fundamental reality. Under all this physics is that God. They just don't change science definitions.
Either way, both beliefs are unevidenced and unlikely. Both are wu.
I believe neither. I cannot yet understand why exactly Swami believes this, his words do not form a reasonable explanation and he has not provided good evidence or ways to test this idea.

This is the 2nd time I had to explain this.

The Swami failed to provide guidance to his followers to accept the knowledge of science to understand the nature of our physical existence as Baha'ulllah did. Personal attacks on Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith do not represent responses to my post.

First of all I don't know what the Swami I'm talking about thinks about that because he hasn't addressed it. If he doesn't, what exactly do you want me to do? They are not my beliefs? Here you are STILL asking me to (I don't know what because I already responded), this is very odd?
I'm not making personal attacks on Bahai, I'm saying the evidence to me is clear that he is not getting messages from any Gods. That is not an attack. We get to comment on the nature of our beliefs concerning religions here.
I do not care that Baha'ulllah told followers to understand the scriptures in light of current science? That statement is not magic power as you seem to think it is? What people should do is follow science without following claims of theism.
If you want to know what Advita Vedanta thinks about science I'm sure you can look it up online. I don't care.

Your swami never and I mean never gave guidance to accept the advancing knowledge of science. Not making statements on the negative that one did not reject evolution is not sufficient,

He's not my Swami. I don't care what he tells people to do with science. I'm not the baby sitter of every person who listens to him. I'm not in charge of their beliefs. If they come here I'll tell them to use critical thinking. Or maybe you can tell them since it's so important to you?

More:
"However, in his tablet written in 1921 to the Swiss scientist Auguste Forel, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá offers a distinctly modern proof of the existence of God, based on certain facts and principles associated with the phenomenon of biological evolution. He argues that the cause of the composition (and decomposition) of living beings must be an unobservable, objectively existing, voluntary force (thus, a conscious force external to the process of evolution itself). Since this force has produced humanity, it must be greater than humans and is, therefore, a Being endowed with superhuman capacities."


voluntary force (thus, a conscious force external to the process of evolution itself).
Nice apologetics trick. The laws of thermodynamics and such are not really "voluntary" as such, you could say that maybe. But then we see the motive. The word is associated with a "will" so the slow witted will see this proves the laws are conscious! Of course that's why the word was used to go one more step to conscious laws. Tricky. And NOT WHAT SCIENCE SAYS. The one thing you have been shouting over and over, you have to understand the religion in light of science.
Cool well no scientists is calling the laws conscious.


"Since this force has produced humanity, it must be greater than humans and is, therefore, a Being endowed with superhuman capacities.""


Wow. The laws of physics are not greater or less than people. Out of laws come emergent properties and that's it. So now our force is conscious, greater than humans, and......SUPERHUMAN!!!!!
Heh. What a fallacy. Laws can produce complex things, far more complex than the laws.
The conscious and superhuman is not part of the process and complete crank.

So, with following and interpreting the religion in light of science we have a big problem here.
This is from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and is equally as disrespectful of science as a Hindu calling it materialistic.
The axioms drawn are completely illogical, not scientific and aimed at arriving at a particular result, the opposite of scientific thinking.
How many more proofs are going to be like this?

 

[joelr]

Evidence for God? My simple suggestion would be to "look around", but that would never suffice. Have we become as one of them, as it is suggested in Genesis? Aware, as males and females who likewise create and multiply, creating other "gods" like ourselves. This is what I gather from scripture anyway. That we are and that we likewise live and move and have our being in God also. Evidence for God? Well, only if you choose to acknowledge this as a truth about yourself and about life in general.

Looking around doesn't provide evidence for God. It doesn't provide evidence for Allah or Vishnu, both supreme creator Gods. It is evidence for the natural world. You could choose to acknowledge your God, Yahweh is true while others choose that Allah is true and others choose Krishna is true. That does not make them true. Things suggested in Genesis are stories and wisdom that is similar to older religions that the Israelites had access to, Mesopotamian and a few others.
The 6 day creation period and God resting after that is an ancient tale going back to the first civilizations.

 

[Balthazzar]

Looking around doesn't provide evidence for God. It doesn't provide evidence for Allah or Vishnu, both supreme creator Gods. It is evidence for the natural world. You could choose to acknowledge your God, Yahweh is true while others choose that Allah is true and others choose Krishna is true. That does not make them true. Things suggested in Genesis are stories and wisdom that is similar to older religions that the Israelites had access to, Mesopotamian and a few others.
The 6 day creation period and God resting after that is an ancient tale going back to the first civilizations.

Evidence for Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, and the many, many other gods in the pantheon exist in texts, through dedication and honor, through tradition and ceremony. Evidence for yourself? Probably not, but this does not negate the existence of, but rather suggests that you are unaware of the valid existence of. Zeus, Aphrodite, etc. are no less relevant, nor are they required to be honored by you. You seem stuck on a 6th day timeline, whereas people like myself, acknowledge the billions of years of evolutionary processes, leading to our introduction. In another 5 to 7 billion years, there will have taken place even greater changes, spurring even greater evolutionary development, and another introduction will be likely, even as our sun red giants and our solar system traverses through another portal of birth.

 

[joelr]

Evidence for Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, and the many, many other gods in the pantheon exist in texts, through dedication and honor, through tradition and ceremony. Evidence for yourself? Probably not, but this does not negate the existence of, but rather suggests that you are unaware of the valid existence of. Zeus, Aphrodite, etc. are no less relevant, nor are they required to be honored by you

Oh so every God is real? Is all fiction about Gods real? Gandolf and Sauron as well?

. You seem stuck on a 6th day timeline,

Yeah, my job and all.

whereas people like myself, acknowledge the billions of years of evolutionary processes, leading to our introduction.

Wow so you wait a long time for the weekend then?

In another 5 to 7 billion years, there will have taken place even greater changes, spurring even greater evolutionary development, and another introduction will be likely, even as our sun red giants and our solar system traverses through another portal of birth.

Yes several asteroids will have wiped us out. I think we missed the first introduction because all I see are stories that are mythologies?

 

[Balthazzar]

Oh so every God is real? Is all fiction about Gods real? Gandolf and Sauron as well?




Yeah, my job and all.



Wow so you wait a long time for the weekend then?




Yes several asteroids will have wiped us out. I think we missed the first introduction because all I see are stories that are mythologies?

Ok, so you're referring to 6 work day week, and a day of rest on the weekend? I was under the impression you thought me to be a literal 6 day creationist, as opposed to what I am - an evolutionist. The Pantheon of gods, the well known ones anyway, may or may not be real characters in history. They are often honored as such, however. Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha, etc. some of the most well known among them, even if they never counted themselves among the fold. Avatars, if you will - from whom came great change and following. We're no more, nor less than they, aside from what some would call achievement. Either way, and although we rarely acknowledge our divinity, that's what we are. So, when you ask for evidence and you find none, it's probably not because it doesn't exist.

 

[joelr]

Ok, so you're referring to 6 work day week, and a day of rest on the weekend? I was under the impression you thought me to be a literal 6 day creationist, as opposed to what I am - an evolutionist. The Pantheon of gods, the well known ones anyway, may or may not be real characters in history. They are often honored as such, however. Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha, etc. some of the most well known among them, even if they never counted themselves among the fold. Avatars, if you will - from whom came great change and following. We're no more, nor less than they, aside from what some would call achievement. Either way, and although we rarely acknowledge our divinity, that's what we are. So, when you ask for evidence and you find none, it's probably not because it doesn't exist.

Well humans are a consequence of the physical laws. Beyond that we don't know where those came from or the material of the universe. None of that is evidence. Maybe for deism but it's only a possibility.

 

[Balthazzar]

Oh so every God is real? Is all fiction about Gods real? Gandolf and Sauron as well?




Yeah, my job and all.



Wow so you wait a long time for the weekend then?




Yes several asteroids will have wiped us out. I think we missed the first introduction because all I see are stories that are mythologies?

Dinasaur age, asteroids, introduction of homo sapiens, ongoing adaptation and evolutionary changes in both climate and appearance. Old texts, new texts, old paradigms and new, all connected as pieces to the puzzle of our history as a planet and as occupants. Mythologies, and stories, fact and fiction growing together to be divided into these categories, but which to keep as fact and which as fiction? Truth has a way of applying itself to reality, as lies have a way of being known also. The evidence is in the now, and the stories, text books, science journals, and astrological mapping add to this ongoing search for answers. What to believe and what not to believe? I guess that's a personal thing. What other choice do we have? We can't believe what we don't, and we can't know what is unknown, so ... we search for answers in the now, even looking from our history far into the future.

 

[joelr]

Dinasaur age, asteroids, introduction of homo sapiens, ongoing adaptation and evolutionary changes in both climate and appearance. Old texts, new texts, old paradigms and new, all connected as pieces to the puzzle of our history as a planet and as occupants. Mythologies, and stories, fact and fiction growing together to be divided into these categories, but which to keep as fact and which as fiction? Truth has a way of applying itself to reality, as lies have a way of being known also. The evidence is in the now, and the stories, text books, science journals, and astrological mapping add to this ongoing search for answers. What to believe and what not to believe? I guess that's a personal thing. What other choice do we have? We can't believe what we don't, and we can't know what is unknown, so ... we search for answers in the now, even looking from our history far into the future.

Well no, things that have reasonable evidence to warrant belief are things that should be believed. We have not seen anything violate the laws of physics. The universe is also probabilistic. Things that are more likely to exists tend to exist. Things that are just stories are probably just stories.

 

[Balthazzar]

Well no, things that have reasonable evidence to warrant belief are things that should be believed. We have not seen anything violate the laws of physics. The universe is also probabilistic. Things that are more likely to exists tend to exist. Things that are just stories are probably just stories.

What's the probability of Jesus not existing, given the number of followers? How about, Allah or Vishna based and gauged by probability in accordance to number of people following? The likelihood of them to have been nonexistent seems small in contrast to likelihood of being real. Opinion doesn't amount to much without required information to develop one of merit. These stories have enough merit and a large enough following to be considered valid, unless you compare them to cult followings, as with movies like rocky horror picture show and card games like Magik. It just seems unlikely that these "Avatars" never existed. Gods would be another applicable term. People another, teachers yet another, masters, lords, etc. all applicable terms and titles.

 

[samtonga43]

Well no, things that have reasonable evidence to warrant belief are things that should be believed. We have not seen anything violate the laws of physics. The universe is also probabilistic. Things that are more likely to exists tend to exist. Things that are just stories are probably just stories.

Has it ever crossed your mind, joelr, even for a second or two, that what A. considers to be reasonable evidence to warrant belief may be different from what B.considers to be reasonable evidence to warrant belief?

 

[Sheldon]

Evidence for God? My simple suggestion would be to "look around", but that would never suffice. Have we become as one of them, as it is suggested in Genesis? Aware, as males and females who likewise create and multiply, creating other "gods" like ourselves. This is what I gather from scripture anyway. That we are and that we likewise live and move and have our being in God also. Evidence for God? Well, only if you choose to acknowledge this as a truth about yourself and about life in general.

So if you believe in a deity you will see the evidence for it? That sounds like a pretty circular piece of confirmation bias tbh. Also people make this same claim, and arrive at it evidencing entirely different deities and religions.

 

[Sheldon]

What's the probability of Jesus not existing, given the number of followers?

Exactly the same as if he had none, obviously. The number of people who believe something is not validation of the belief, this is called an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Just as if there was an historical Jesus, it would not represent objective evidence he was anything but human. We have no objective evidence to support Jesus saying or doing anything, that is pure hearsay. Though of course many people hold a subjective belief it is true to varying degrees.

Allah or Vishna based and gauged by probability in accordance to number of people following? The likelihood of them to have been nonexistent seems small in contrast to likelihood of being real.

Another argumentum ad populum fallacy, what establishes the veracity of a claim or belief is how much objective evidence can be demonstrated to support it, the number of people who believe it is meaningless.

Opinion doesn't amount to much without required information to develop one of merit. These stories have enough merit and a large enough following to be considered valid,

That's just a bare subjective opinion though, ironically, and all you've offered beyond this a known logical fallacy - a bare appeal it numbers.

 

[shunyadragon]

Right so can you give the citation? There is no link to any quote that says E=Mc2 in any of your posts?

The citation is specifically descriptive of the nature of the theory of relativity as to what happens when you split the atom, and choose to ignore it. The concept of the atom at the time, if it was believed, was the 'smallest indivisible unit of matter.'

We were talking about the sun in an atom quote. I'm looking at several Bahai quotes on atoms, all incorrect and clearly just reference what is already known at the time.

"Therefore, it may be said that these individual atoms are eternal."
Wow, is that right? No one told God about fusion, black holes, quasars, nuclear decay, fission....

Splitting the atom and the result was NOT known," Therefore it may be known"?

" When that attracting power is withdrawn, dissolution and disintegration follow; no mirror, table or clock remain -- no trace, no existence. Therefore, commingling of the atoms brings forth a reality, while dispersion or dissemination of them is equivalent to nonexistence.'"

Is that what happens? The attracting power is withdrawn? No, it isn't. Never.

"Again, certain atoms are bound together by chemical affinity; a composition called a flower appears. ."

This and the attracting power were written about by chemists around this time. It was the front of physics knowledge and he just happens to also be using similar terms? Nothing further?

"A tendency or law prevails (here), and that, no matter what the characters of the uniting atoms may be, the combining power of the attracting element, if I may be allowed the term, is always satisfied by the same number of these atoms." Scientist in 1800's [/quote]

Nothing in this citation about relativity and splitting the atom.

If you use quotes give proper citations as I did. You neglect the fact that the Baha'i writings are clear and specific that ALL writings must be understood in the light of the evolving and changing knowledge of science. No such guidance exists from the Vedic writings nor the Swamis.

[quote[I don't know the splitting quote.[/quote]

I cited it for you from the Seven Valleys and Four Valleys.


[/QUOTE]

Wow, what a tantrum? Really I said "Religious beliefs are myths"? Wow I was really out of control? I should slow it down.
You have been browbeating me with this bizarre demand, completely inappropriate, and I'm having the tantrum? [/quote]

No, you dishonestly cite me and have been having tantrums and personal attacks throughout this thread as above. I said and the writings are in a spiritual language and must be understood in the light of the changing knowledge of science

 

[Balthazzar]

So if you believe in a deity you will see the evidence for it? That sounds like a pretty circular piece of confirmation bias tbh. Also people make this same claim, and arrive at it evidencing entirely different deities and religions.

No - It's more so about a simple acknowledgment of life being that deity. The universe, as it was, as it is, and as it will be - This is what I meant by the suggestion to "look around". Beyond this, we have life in its many forms. Deity - It may be a religious term, and other terms may have replaced similar terms like God, gods, angels, etc. as well as titles such as lords, ladies, princes, dukes, and what have you, but the intent and implications remain intact for the most part. Although often misconstrued, misapplied, and blown far out of proportion, these terms typically connote power players in life, chiefs, figures of authority, etc. The universe or rather the term existence a term now used to define God as supreme authority over all things, albeit not adopted by everyone. Also, we are - The way we perceive and experience life as conscious, self aware beings, being intimately connected on personal levels to what is, leaves us as witnesses - if not children. It's difficult for me to view it any other way than as a universal application of origin.

To put it simply - I see God as life, experienced by all living things daily. If terms like deity, divine, God, gods, angels, Lords, etc. offend you or throw you off, it might be beneficial to acknowledge that not all view these terms as super-natural entities, or anything like some religiously bent people seem to. Titles and terms used to identify authority figures and origins seem most reasonable to me. Long winded I've become. My apologies.

 

[Balthazzar]

Exactly the same as if he had none, obviously. The number of people who believe something is not validation of the belief, this is called an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Just as if there was an historical Jesus, it would not represent objective evidence he was anything but human. We have no objective evidence to support Jesus saying or doing anything, that is pure hearsay. Though of course many people hold a subjective belief it is true to varying degrees.



Another argumentum ad populum fallacy, what establishes the veracity of a claim or belief is how much objective evidence can be demonstrated to support it, the number of people who believe it is meaningless.



That's just a bare subjective opinion though, ironically, and all you've offered beyond this a known logical fallacy - a bare appeal it numbers.

I will disagree in reference to major world religions and their teachers. These have merit, despite an insistence that they do not by some. No objective evidence? None other than words, stories, holy texts, a 2000 year following and a continuation of that following. Subjective belief? Based on what exactly? Again, you use the terms subjective, as if objectivity is the only truly merited way to logic. I subjectively, through my opinion of great sexual relations, objectively find them very beneficial. Objectively speaking, without utilizing subjective experiences as part of the balance, would great sexual relations be beneficial or be considered great at all? Logical? Likely, depending on situation and intent, but great?