What verifiable evidence is there that god exists?

[ratiocinator]

And so it doesn't matter how many strange ideas you dig up, you are back at the point of 'DON'T KNOW!'

You seem to be missing the point. I know I don't know but I'm talking about what is rational to believe in the absence of knowledge. The default position must be disbelief unless and until there is some reason to take a proposal seriously.

The law of cause and effect states that: Every effect has a specific and predictable cause. Every cause or action has a specific and predictable effect. This means that everything that we currently have in our lives is an effect that is a result of a specific cause.

We've done this bit. As I said before quantum mechanics complicates things (it's not clear if we live in a strictly deterministic universe) and so does general relativity when it come to the big bang because it appears that time may have started at that point. Also, if we just take the GR position, we end up with a "block universe". The universe as a four dimensional object and time being just a direction through it. It is unclear if that would have a cause or even if the idea of a cause makes sense.

The very word sets my teeth on edge.

I do apologise.

...science at this time cannot disprove Gods because it has not found any evidence to show any reasons at all for the initiation of everything.

That's not why science cannot disprove (some) god-ideas - science can only disprove something if it is falsifiable. Even if we knew why the big bang happened, that still wouldn't disprove some god-ideas.

However, that something cannot be disproved is not a reason to take it seriously. To return to the subject of the thread, if there is no evidence for something, and no other reasons to take it seriously, it is rational to not to believe it.

Unknowns in science, including the one we've been discussing, do not provide a reason to take god-ideas seriously - they are simply irrelevant to the question.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Would you like to list these 5 levels of Spirit?

In the talk by Abdul'baha they are;

Vegetable
Animal
Human
Spirit of Faith
Holy Spirit.

Regards Tony

 

[JJ50]

Granted but what about those that report healings instantly and miraculously due to prayer? Surely they're not all lying?

I am of the opinion that the body's own healing mechanisms can kick in from time to time in response to certain vibes like prayer, for instance. I don't think any external entity is responsible. I am going to start a new thread, which some might find interesting.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But you do not give any credit to mediums, spiritualists or healers who claim that they are in contact with Spirit Worlds.

It's just another Bahai 'We do but we don't' message.

I am sure we explained in detail all those questions, did we not?

Healing - "Healing through purely spiritual forces is undoubtedly as inadequate as that which materialist physicians and thinkers vainly seek to obtain by resorting entirely to mechanical devices and methods. The best result can be obtained by combining the two processes: spiritual and physical." (Shoghi Effendi, Throne of the Inner Temple, p 76)

Mediums - We are told not to harness these powers as we do not know what we are dealing with. "Regarding the materialization of spirits through mediums: A person finding himself in a state of trance, or unconsciousness, is like one who sleeps; whatever he feels and sees he imagines to be matter and of material things, but in reality they are wholly immaterial."
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Daily lessons Received at ‘Akká p. 82) Thus what they are seeing are spiritual realities they are trying to interpret materially, thus not interpreted correctly, which could lead to more harm than good.

"Regarding the materialization of spirits through mediums: A person finding himself in a state of trance, or unconsciousness, is like one who sleeps; whatever he feels and sees he imagines to be matter and of material things, but in reality they are wholly immaterial." (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Daily lessons Received at ‘Akká p. 82)

I see being Spiritual as harnessing the virtues in the life and living them. Not playing with forces we have no idea about and warned about using them.

Regards Tony

 

[Jos]

Uhmm.. no objects. Apparent reality subjective to singular mentality. Humans in the seeming mix but actually only one.

Could you explain this further? I don't get it?

 

[oldbadger]

You seem to be missing the point. I know I don't know but I'm talking about what is rational to believe in the absence of knowledge. The default position must be disbelief unless and until there is some reason to take a proposal seriously.

Ah, you can't tell the world that your belief (Faith) is rational and other folk's is irrational. You can't.
You've got Faith, and Deists and Theists have Faith.

And this is now separating you from Agnosticism.
'Don't know' simply means that.

We've done this bit. As I said before quantum mechanics complicates things (it's not clear if we live in a strictly deterministic universe) and so does general relativity when it come to the big bang because it appears that time may have started at that point. Also, if we just take the GR position, we end up with a "block universe". The universe as a four dimensional object and time being just a direction through it. It is unclear if that would have a cause or even if the idea of a cause makes sense.

Ah ha!......... but most religions tell us clearly that God is beyond human understanding. I can dig out the Christian version for you if need, but not being a Christian I'm hoping that I won't have to find the piece from G-John ..... but it's there.

So the complications surrounding 'The Reason' cannot help you.

I do apologise.

That's cool. Thankyou. My first wife died in Status....... enough......

That's not why science cannot disprove (some) god-ideas - science can only disprove something if it is falsifiable. Even if we knew why the big bang happened, that still wouldn't disprove some god-ideas.

However, that something cannot be disproved is not a reason to take it seriously. To return to the subject of the thread, if there is no evidence for something, and no other reasons to take it seriously, it is rational to not to believe it.

The thread title requested proof and a I don't think that a Theistic God can be proved, that's all about Faith.
But the Deistic Deity is harder to put aside, I think. Since everything and force that is is a part of the PanDeity, a Deist has only got to ask you to pinch yourself, or grasp something, or just look outwards........ and you're surrounded with evidence!

You seem to accept that there is a reason or cause for the Universe, and anything that is beyond, and 'voici'....... A Deist calls the reason 'God' and everything that is a part of it.
I wonder how many scientists are Deists? That would be worth investigating....

Unknowns in science, including the one we've been discussing, do not provide a reason to take god-ideas seriously - they are simply irrelevant to the question.

That depends upon the individual. What we do or don't take seriously is a personal choice.
Big S science doesn't have a doctrine which gives/awards marks to Faiths.

So whilst the thread's request cannot be answered, that doesn't extend to a proof against the existence of God/s.

Me? I don't believe in a God that is in any way interested in humans, the very idea seems most odd to me, given how many star systems and there are in the whole Universe. But I have friends who DO believe in such God/s and I am prepared to acknowledge their beliefs and respect how such beliefs affect their lives and actions, as long as they stick within my country's laws.

 

[oldbadger]

In the talk by Abdul'baha they are;

Vegetable
Animal
Human
Spirit of Faith
Holy Spirit.

Regards Tony

So Bahauallah never wrote about this?
If vegetation and animals have spirits I'm surprised that you eat them!

And you have a Holy Ghost, by the looks of it.

The 'Spirit of Faith' might not lay with you, Tony, because previously you have written that you are certain, true?

 

[oldbadger]

I am sure we explained in detail all those questions, did we not?

You could have, but maybe I never saw the posts?

Healing - "Healing through purely spiritual forces is undoubtedly as inadequate as that which materialist physicians and thinkers vainly seek to obtain by resorting entirely to mechanical devices and methods. The best result can be obtained by combining the two processes: spiritual and physical." (Shoghi Effendi, Throne of the Inner Temple, p 76)

Ah ha...... so Bahais can go to Spiritual Healers as well as Doctors.
That's interesting.

Mediums - We are told not to harness these powers as we do not know what we are dealing with. "Regarding the materialization of spirits through mediums: A person finding himself in a state of trance, or unconsciousness, is like one who sleeps; whatever he feels and sees he imagines to be matter and of material things, but in reality they are wholly immaterial."
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Daily lessons Received at ‘Akká p. 82) Thus what they are seeing are spiritual realities they are trying to interpret materially, thus not interpreted correctly, which could lead to more harm than good.

"Regarding the materialization of spirits through mediums: A person finding himself in a state of trance, or unconsciousness, is like one who sleeps; whatever he feels and sees he imagines to be matter and of material things, but in reality they are wholly immaterial." (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Daily lessons Received at ‘Akká p. 82)

But Spiritualists don't harness spiritual powers. They are receivers, not transmitters.
If a person naturally receives spirits then that's natural, and I cannot see anything wrong about it.
But I can see why Bahai would worry about it because Spirits might have ideas contrary to Bahai?

I see being Spiritual as harnessing the virtues in the life and living them. Not playing with forces we have no idea about and warned about using them.

Regards Tony

So that is not Spiritual, just another meaning for the word.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ah, you can't tell the world that your belief (Faith) is rational and other folk's is irrational. You can't.
You've got Faith, and Deists and Theists have Faith.

Why would I need faith to not adopt beliefs? I can't rule out god(s) but I can see no reason at all to take any of them seriously - how can that be a faith position?

Ah ha!......... but most religions tell us clearly that God is beyond human understanding.

What's that got to do with it?

So the complications surrounding 'The Reason' cannot help you.

Help me do what? They mean there might not be a cause.

But the Deistic Deity is harder to put aside, I think. Since everything and force that is is a part of the PanDeity, a Deist has only got to ask you to pinch yourself, or grasp something, or just look outwards........ and you're surrounded with evidence!

Evidence of what? I don't see how it can be evidence for anything but the universe itself.

You seem to accept that there is a reason or cause for the Universe, and anything that is beyond, and 'voici'....... A Deist calls the reason 'God' and everything that is a part of it.

What's the reason for the god?

So whilst the thread's request cannot be answered, that doesn't extend to a proof against the existence of God/s.

Did somebody say it did? I see no reason to even try to disprove god(s). I mean, we can provide evidence against some of them (YEC gods, for example), but many god ideas are simply unfalsifiable. The only question I have to any theist or deist is: why should I take your idea seriously?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So Bahauallah never wrote about this?
If vegetation and animals have spirits I'm surprised that you eat them!

And you have a Holy Ghost, by the looks of it.

The 'Spirit of Faith' might not lay with you, Tony, because previously you have written that you are certain, true?

Remember, what Abdul'baha wrote is what Baha'u'llah had already said. All Abdul'baha said and wrote was authorised interpretation by Baha'u'llah.

All of creation has been so perfectly designed that the highest attainment we can acheive is selfless service to God.

Thus you have rightly noted, the vegetable gives to the animal, the animal gives to man and man gives with Faith to God. As we are the only Spirit that has choice, we can choose to be of use to all levels of existance.

Big subject, as all subjects are when God is involved.

Stay well oldbadger, and I hope things are good for you and yours. Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Ah ha...... so Bahais can go to Spiritual Healers as well as Doctors.
That's interesting.

I see the best doctors of the future will be great at both.

We have also been told the future will see cure by diet, simple foods and hot and cold waters. The diet will balance the hot and cold elements and will be vegetables, nuts, fruits and grains, we will not eat meat. I see we will not eat meat because of our compassion for all animals.

The science of healing has a long way to go. Drugs are money.

Regards Tony

 

[loganonekenobi]

Who cares if God exists or does not exist, the argument is meaningless, as in totally irrelevant to anything that matters.

It matters when it affects people outside of the religion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But I can see why Bahai would worry about it because Spirits might have ideas contrary to Bahai?

I would have never even given that a thought.

It is up to you if you see it as good advice or not. I see that God has said do not play with these powers, thus they do exist, but we are immature in spirit and do not know how to use them.

Our time is best spent serving each other and looking after the planet and all it contains. If we have been told something we do, can cause harm to an individual, or a group of individuals, why pursue it?

I met a few Baha'i over the years that have these insights and visions.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So that is not Spiritual, just another meaning for the word.

Or living the virtues in Faith is true spirituality.

I consider it this way. If Baha'u'llah is as He has claimed, then He had all power of life. He is the cause of our spirit that gives us life and thus the ultimate goal of all Spirituality.

This passage might say it better;

"Man is the highest degree of materiality, and at the beginning of spirituality—that is to say, he is the end of imperfection and the beginning of perfection. He is at the last degree of darkness, and at the beginning of light; that is why it has been said that the condition of man is the end of the night and the beginning of day, meaning that he is the sum of all the degrees of imperfection, and that he possesses the degrees of perfection. He has the animal side as well as the angelic side, and the aim of an educator is to so train human souls that their angelic aspect may overcome their animal side. Then if the divine power in man, which is his essential perfection, overcomes the satanic powers, which is absolute imperfection, he becomes the most excellent among creatures; but if the satanic power overcomes the divine power, he becomes the lowest of the creatures. That is why he is the end of imperfection and the beginning of perfection. Not in any other of the species in the world of existence is their such a difference, contrast, contradiction and opposition as in the species of man. Thus the reflection of the Divine Light was in man, as in Christ, and see how loved and honoured He is!…"

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

Why would I need faith to not adopt beliefs? I can't rule out god(s) but I can see no reason at all to take any of them seriously - how can that be a faith position?

You have spoken of your personal beliefs.
Here is one example:-
.........I'm talking about what is rational to believe in the absence of knowledge. The default position must be disbelief unless and until there is some reason to take a proposal seriously.

Surely the default position is an open mind?

 

[oldbadger]

This passage might say it better;
..........................................................
Then if the divine power in man, which is his essential perfection, overcomes the satanic powers, which is absolute imperfection, he becomes the most excellent among creatures; but if the satanic power overcomes the divine power, he becomes the lowest of the creatures. ..........
..............................

Regards Tony

And so Bahai does believe in Satan, and therefore believes in Evil?

What a turn-round!

 

[ratiocinator]

Surely the default position is an open mind?

Which is why I said "unless and until there is some reason to take a proposal seriously". All totally unsupported (by evidence or reasoning) proposals fall into the same category, as far as I'm concerned: I'm not going to believe them or consider them seriously without reasons.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And so Bahai does believe in Satan, and therefore believes in Evil?

What a turn-round!

This is a world of opposites. As you do well know by now, we do not beleive in an independent source of evil.

Heaven is nearness to God, Hell is remoteness.

All refernce to Satan is reference to our lower self and the choices we make. Even the Manifestations of God have a human aspect that they subdue. We see that recorded in all the scriptures.

Also this verse is relevant,

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

This passage is now in context with the above;

"Man is the highest degree of materiality, and at the beginning of spirituality—that is to say, he is the end of imperfection and the beginning of perfection. He is at the last degree of darkness, and at the beginning of light; that is why it has been said that the condition of man is the end of the night and the beginning of day, meaning that he is the sum of all the degrees of imperfection, and that he possesses the degrees of perfection. He has the animal side as well as the angelic side, and the aim of an educator is to so train human souls that their angelic aspect may overcome their animal side. Then if the divine power in man, which is his essential perfection, overcomes the satanic powers, which is absolute imperfection, he becomes the most excellent among creatures; but if the satanic power overcomes the divine power, he becomes the lowest of the creatures. That is why he is the end of imperfection and the beginning of perfection. Not in any other of the species in the world of existence is their such a difference, contrast, contradiction and opposition as in the species of man. Thus the reflection of the Divine Light was in man, as in Christ, and see how loved and honoured He is!…"

Thus we turn to our potential, which are the virtues given by God, or we stay bound to this world.

Regards Tony

 

[nPeace]

Hard to say. Perhaps you could be clear on what you mean. You did make the mistake of bringing up the idea of a dictionary.

This is funny.
You admit, it's hard to say, yet you proceeded to tell me this: You do not seem to understand what a scientific theory is. Then try to school me about a scientific theory.
So evidently every Creationist must ask a question, and every Creationist do not recognize their mistakes for which they need SZ's correction.

I know this is not SZ admitting his mistake, because it seems the earth hasn't stopped rotating.
Funny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is funny.
You admit, it's hard to say, yet you proceeded to tell me this: You do not seem to understand what a scientific theory is. Then try to school me about a scientific theory.
So evidently every Creationist must ask a question, and every Creationist do not recognize their mistakes for which they need SZ's correction.

I know this is not SZ admitting his mistake, because it seems the earth hasn't stopped rotating.
Funny.

Not really, unless you are laughing at your own ignorance. In the science a theory is totally different from your attempted use of the word. You would be hard pressed to find a scientific theory in the present meaning that has been refuted. The closest that I have seen creationist come up with is the theory of phlogiston, and that was refuted shorty before the U.S. became a nation.

Here is the post where you first screwed up:

"I'm not asking for scientific facts, and scientific theories. Thanks.
Would you like me to pull up a dictionary on theory, so you can say evolution is not a theory in that sense, but a different theory?"

Since then you have been trying to justify your error. I was not the only one that called you out on your mistake, why the false attack against me?

You tried to defend it by saying that others could not read your mind, yet only a person that had no clue would even mention using a lay dictionary for a scientific term.

I do admit that I am wrong quite often. Sadly creationists are almost never right. This is simply another case where you were wrong. A relatively low bar for me to pass. You need to do a lot better than this.