What would be evidence that God exists?

[CG Didymus]

Yes. Didn't Moses say to the that the Israelites that they should have no other Gods but the one true God?

Exodus 20 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

That means that any other gods were false Gods.

Yes, Christians use that against all other religions. Their 3 in 1 Trinity God is the true one and all the Gods of the other religions are false Gods. Whereas Baha'is, do accept other religions, but don't accept how those religions define their Gods... like with the Trinity God. So then Baha'is are stuck with having to explain how those religions got off track. And, of course, they say they are on track and it is the Baha'is that are wrong and are following a false God.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If someone started a new religion today and convinced 10 people to join... that would be a very high percentage of growth. If in the next 10 years they got 20 more people to join... that's still pretty high.

With the Baha'i Faith, I used to hear stories of whole villages becoming Baha'i. I asked about before, but I didn't get an answer. But I'd think it might be similar to what happened to my Baha'i friends. They'd go off to a Reservation, have a "mass teaching" event, then leave. So they could honestly say that many native people joined the Baha'i Faith, but what would they say one or two years later? I visited one of those native people several years later. She had signed a card, but she never really joined.

That was a problem of the 70's and 80's. No follow-up deepening.

That was the nature of the times, many Baha'i spread very thin, many people embracing the Spirit, but not able to maintain the light that was ignited within themselves at that time.

That cannot be changed, but lessons were learned.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

I think that would include all the books of the NT, including Paul.
In have no idea if God guided anyone, but I think God probably left it to the free will of man to decide what to include.

I can see why they included Paul, but like you were saying... it changed the way Christians were to go. And that is, that they left Judaism behind and went their own way, which included Satan, hell, the Trinity, a dying and rising God/man, original sin etc. I can see why Jews would of and, I think, should of rejected Christianity.

 

[CG Didymus]

That was a problem of the 70's and 80's. No follow-up deepening.

That was the nature of the times, many Baha'i spread very thin, many people embracing the Spirit, but not able to maintain the light that was ignited within themselves at that time.

That cannot be changed, but lessons were learned.

Regards Tony

It was easy to go for a weekend teaching trip, but to return again and again? Some people did. But, even all you Baha'is that pioneer, that's a commitment.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, Christians use that against all other religions. Their 3 in 1 Trinity God is the true one and all the Gods of the other religions are false Gods. Whereas Baha'is, do accept other religions, but don't accept how those religions define their Gods... like with the Trinity God. So then Baha'is are stuck with having to explain how those religions got off track. And, of course, they say they are on track and it is the Baha'is that are wrong and are following a false God.

It is self-evident to me that the Jews had the correct conception of the one true God and then the Christians got off track with Jesus is God and the Trinity. Muhammad did some repairs but Baha'u'llah finished the job.

Baha'is can easily explain how the Christians got off track; George Townshend did a good job of explaining that in one of his books entitled Christ and Baha'u'llah.

 

[rational experiences]

Human life, aware, proof is the ability to express science, that is a creation that existed created a very long time ago.

So you would question who is the human to be so aware and also express real spirituality. To know that God exists as concepts of expression in self presence.

If you quoted there is no God, for a human in science thesis it means no Earth planet/body.

To then ask other questions, did science remove portions of the planet body for this argument to exist. And the answer is yes, it is named Satanism to take God the planet entity back to a state when only burning hot dense mass/gases existed.

To do it from a cold fused sion base, SINK HOLES. Removal of original sin says the science saves you. I know it destroys you.

So did every other rational spiritual human life.

If you ask self do you realize that God a planet named Deity by HUMANS did not speak?

Then you have arguments, but I heard the speaking voice. The atmosphere is not the planet. The atmosphere records and feeds back between machines voice recordings and imagery.

Then look today as science thesis and all human warnings about machines being given our place, natural life owner in a natural atmospheric natural light radiating body....to machine radio wave radiation/transmitting trans missions.

And then see what you believe in, is scientific based and your destruction.

Therefore the entity O one and stone created its owned heavens from stone. Hence the information sought has nothing to do with any other body, except Earth...relativity and laws about the Earth O a planet, another name for God.

Now if you said I believe in the evil spirit because science released it out of fusion as a fixed held constant burning act. Then we have had a huge reactive list of causes of self in attack.

Humans quote...."I go to the eternal when I die". And it is not in creation.

Which then proposes, so you spiritual self, Father, male identity who was once a whole large same male DNA community, and it is the same male life/body and DNA thinker that invented science, you came from a spiritual place. So were spiritual first and original to self x large conscious aware humanity as compared today?

The answer yes, who you quote and think is God, self a male and a Father being.

Because WE, are the spiritual self speaking.

Therefore when awareness gives you new spiritual messages to give to humanity as reminders due to attack on life, spiritual the only life we all own is a natural life....we do not own a replacement life. To be replaced is to return as a newly born baby by human sex.

Then see all of the coercive history of mis information that began with science. It never began with the natural spiritual self ownership, who has to fight ever since for the rights to be spiritual by nature and also health and mind psyche.

Those who believe in the POWER of God, science claim that they are searching for GOD, a power. Humans, the spiritual self are not the power of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can see why Jews would of and, I think, should of rejected Christianity.

I can also understand why they rejected Christianity, but unfortunately they threw the baby (Jesus) out with the bath water (Christianity). Baha'u'llah wrote that the Jews should have recognized Jesus, and that by rejecting Jesus the Jews were deprived of beholding the Face of God. That is pretty string language... "And they still await His coming!" refers to the Messiah the Jews are still waiting for.

“Israel refused to apprehend the meaning of such words as have been revealed in the Bible concerning the signs of the coming Revelation. As she never grasped their true significance, and, to outward seeming, such events never came to pass, she, therefore, remained deprived of recognizing the beauty of Jesus and of beholding the Face of God. And they still await His coming! From time immemorial even unto this day, all the kindreds and peoples of the earth have clung to such fanciful and unseemly thoughts, and thus have deprived themselves of the clear waters streaming from the springs of purity and holiness….”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 20-21

 

[Milton Platt]

My premise is that Messengers of God are the only real evidence that God exists because they are the evidence that God provides and wants us to look at in order to determine that He exists.

Allow me to preface this by saying that nobody can prove that a Messenger received communication from God, since nobody can prove that God exists. As I have been saying in this forum for years, all we have is evidence, and evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

All that said, I want to share part of a conversation I had with an atheist on another forum. I cut parts of it out and am only posting the salient points that support my argument.

His comments are in blue; my comments are in black.

<< Trailblazer >>

Atheist

Trailblazer

<< There is absolutely NO WAY to ever know anything about God without religion. >>
<< There is absolutely NO WAY to ever know anything about God without Messengers of God. >>

<< That is the way it is because God wanted it that way. >>

And what makes you think that "God wanted it that way"? Did he tell you that?

Yes, God did tell me through the Messenger. God does not speak to anyone else directly because (a) Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God, and (b) It is totally unnecessary for God to speak to everyone in the world and tell them the same things, because God can tell it all to a Messenger and everyone can get the same information from what He wrote. The fact that atheists cannot trust that the Messenger speaks for God is their own problem, and since they never even bother to check Him out, they will never know.

<< Yes, God did tell me through the Messenger. >>

How do you know that your "messenger" didn't make it all up?

What evidence did he provide in support of his claims?

I know because there would be no reason for Him to make all that up, no motive, given He got nothing for Himself, no personal gain.

But that is not the main reason I know. I know because of the evidence that supports His claims. The evidence is as follows:

Suppose I wanted to "check out" your "messenger". How would I go about it?

You could check the sources of information on the links above but that is for more in depth study.

Your "evidence" is worse than worthless.

My evidence is worthless to you, but it is not worthless to me. You just demonstrated just how illogical you are.

If we are going to vote for the President, how do we know if he is worthy of being President? How do we know if he will be able to do the job? We investigate the President the same way we would investigate an alleged Messenger of God. We look at his past life, his present life, what he says and how he says it, whether he has kept his promises in the past, and most importantly, we look at his character.

You are the epitome of illogical thinking because you are so biased against the IDEA of a Messenger of God that you cannot think logically at all.

**************************************

I was not implying to this atheist that we can prove that a man was a Messenger of God simply by looking at his past life, his present life, what he says and how he says it, whether he has kept his promises in the past, or by his character. As I said above, nobody can prove that a man was a Messenger of God as a fact, but I now qualify that statement by saying that we can prove it to ourselves, and then we know. How we know is not something other people can understand because they have not gone through the process of proving it to themselves.

There are no shortcuts. If we want to know is a man is a Messenger of God we have to do our own homework. It might require a little homework or a lot of homework; it depends upon our individual requirements. Or we can refuse the homework assignment and forget the whole idea of God. It does not matter to God because God does not need anyone’s belief, but it might matter to us, especially if there is an afterlife, as the Messengers teach.

When we vote for the President do we know unequivocally that he is worthy of being President? Do we know that he will do what he promised to do? No, we do not know that because nobody can predict the future, so we have to put our trust in him. No matter how many facts we have about him, we still have to believe he is the best man for the job, take a chance and vote for him, hoping that will be in our best interest.

Apples and oranges. A man becomes president because we vote him into office. We know the office exists, and is occupied by a person. we know the specific duties of the office, we know the limits of the office.
We can verify that a person has been elected, and that he, is in fact, the president.

What objective facts can we muster for a messenger?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It was easy to go for a weekend teaching trip, but to return again and again? Some people did. But, even all you Baha'is that pioneer, that's a commitment.

Yes many travelled, returned a few times and then got busy lives at home.

Some moved and stayed.

Some moved, stayed, left and came back.

I can say that spirit of the 70 and 80's has far diminished into a materialistic mindset.

RegardsTony

 

[Trailblazer]

I told you I would be back later when I finished fighting the other atheists.

Trailblazer said: all we have is evidence, and evidence is not the same as proof.

That is correct, but you use evidences trying to establish a proof.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

Evidence is not really useful is you can't use them to establish a proof and therefore a truth with. Wouldn't you agree with that? If the evidence doesn't help you to figure out if A is more likely than B, then it's not really good evidence for either A or B.

That’s right…

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence helps to prove it but it does not necessarily prove it because if it proved it, it would be proof.

Some evidence might establish a proof though and that is the best kind of evidence. You can see how Baha'u'llah talks about proof and evidence. He says His words are proof and this is evidence that God has mercy in men.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

Im sorry to tell you, but your argument is flawed, not in the sense that you might not be right. But you are not going to convince anyone, simply stating what you believe to be facts without providing evidence.

As the passage above says, the evidence that indicates that a Messenger was sent by God is His own Self, His Revelation, and the words He has revealed. Anyone can research this evidence and come to their own conclusions.

"God did tell me through the Messenger." This is a false statement, since there is no way for you to establish/know this. Because clearly God didn't tell you, he told a messenger that you trust is telling the truth and he then told you that this is what God said. You see why a statement like this is not convincing to anyone?

That is not false simply because I cannot prove it is true. As it stands, it is either true or false that God spoke through a Messenger. Even if it is unable to be determined it is still either true or false.

For example, a man murdered his wife or not, that is true or false. The fact that it cannot be proven that he murdered his wife changes nothing -- he either murdered his wife (true) or he did not murder his wife (false).

Proof is not what makes Messengers of God true or false, proof is just what atheists want so they can know if it is true but when I give them evidence they don’t like what I give them and they say it is not evidence.

God is not going to tell me, or anyone else, except a Messenger! This is what atheists just refuse to accept.

Its like me saying:
Me: "Some aliens told me, that in the future they will come and save the Earth."
You: "Really aliens? What did they look like?"
Me: "Well, actually it was a friend of mine that spoke with them, but he never lies. Anyway isn't it amazing?"

It is not really compelling, wouldn't you agree? I start by presenting something as a fact, which is clearly false, given that I got this information second hand, with no way of establishing, if my friend is just having fun or might have misunderstood an experience or whatever.

You are not going to convince any atheist writing something like that.

That analogy won’t cut it. Is there any evidence that there are any aliens? Even if we knew there were aliens and talked to them, would there be any reason to believe what they said? What are their credentials, what have they done to earn our trust and belief?

And you follow that up with another statement that you can't verify.

God does not speak to anyone else directly because (a) Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God, and (b) It is totally unnecessary for God to speak to everyone in the world and tell them the same things, because God can tell it all to a Messenger and everyone can get the same information from what He wrote.

That is not going to fly with any atheists and I doubt it would with any religious person either. Because you don't present an argument, you state a fact as if it is absolute true. No one is going to buy that!!

Its like me saying: "God loves strawberry ice cream more than anything else. Because that is what Divine Bob told me."

Wouldn't you question the validity of that statement?

Here is the thing Nimos. FIRST we have to believe that the Messenger really got a message from God, that He was telling the truth when he made His claims, and THEN we believe that anything He wrote about God is the absolute truth, because we believe he was infallible.

I have tried to explain this to you before about the burden of proof. You are not going to get any atheist and probably not a lot of religious people either to go read through Baha'u'llah's texts, trying to put together evidence of whether or not it is true or not.

The burden to prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is not my burden because I did not make the claim. The burden of proof rests on Baha’u’llah, and He provided the proof to support His claim.

If atheists do not want to take the time to do the necessary investigation then they will never know about God. That’s just how it works. It is nobody else’s job to do the investigation. If they are sincere seekers of truth then they will spend the time. My brother read the Bible five times and he also read all the scriptures of all the other religions before he heard about the Baha’i Faith. Then he heard about the Baha’i Faith and read everything in print that Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi wrote that had been published as of the late 1960s, and he also read everything about the Baha'i Faith that been written by that time. Then after all that research he decided to become a Baha’i.

If you make a claim like this for instance: "Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God"

You have to present a case for why people should accept that statement by finding compelling evidence of why that is the case. And not just call them out as being to "lazy" or not interested in checking it out. You can't expect people to read through 1000s of pages trying to make a case, that is not up to them to make in the first place. It is not helping you convince anyone.

Again, and I am sure I have told you this in the past, ONCE we do the necessary investigation and come to believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God we believe everything He wrote because we believe it is the same as if God wrote it. That said, I can explain to you the reason why "Nobody else could EVER understand God direct communication from God" since Baha’u’llah explained it.

Look at this survey:

Atheists are on the very top when it comes to religious knowledge, despite not believing in any of them, so it's not really fair to say that they don't bother?

I know atheists know more about religions than most believers but from my point of view that does not help them at all unless they know about the Baha’i Faith because the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is the revelation for this age and makes sense out of all the conflicting messages of the older religions as well as bringing a fresh new message that is very clear and pertinent to this age in history. How many atheists do you think are proficient in the Baha’i Faith? From what I have seen most atheists discount the Baha’i Faith out offhand because they assume it is just one more religion like Christianity. That of course is committing the following fallacies:

the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization
the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions

You have to work to present your case, you are talking to people that are very sceptical of God(s). As I told you, earlier.. when I first started reading the bible, I had no strong meaning about God, the bible or anything, I simply didn't care about it, to the point where I probably couldn't even tell you what an atheist were. But I decided to read the bible with an open mind, because I knew that a lot of people thought it was true. And it took me maybe 3-5 pages before, I was convince that it was nonsense, there were so many things that didn't make sense in these few pages, that I was in shock to be honest. But anyway decided to read on to at least give it a fair chance of changing my mind. So when you just throw an atheist some links, then I am not surprised that this is the response you get, because I would probably have reached the same conclusion, but have phrased it differently.

Good for you Nimos, but if you had spent your time reading the Baha’i Writings instead of the Bible you would not see nonsense, but now that you are so biased against religion it will be difficult for you to see any religion as valid and believable. On the other hand, it is good for you to have read the Bible because it is God’s testimony and it contains important revelations from God to man which are part of man’s spiritual evolution, as these chapters in the following book explain.

The Heart of the Gospel is a book that was written by a Christian clergyman who resigned his orders after 40 years to become a Baha’i. It explains how the Bible fits into history.

I. The Bible as Universal History
II. History as Spiritual Evolution

You want to convince anyone, you need to give them good evidence for your claim, someone simply stating "facts" without evidence or proof is not compelling.

Again, I have no claim, but the evidence that supports Baha’u’llah’s claim is readily available on the internet at no cost. Back on 1970 when I became a Baha’i it was not so easy as all we had were books and we had to purchase them. It is so much easier now and there is so much more to read because we have the internet.

 

[ppp]

God is not going to tell me, or anyone else, except a Messenger! This is what atheists just refuse to accept.

Let's be clear. Its not that we refuse to accept it. It is that you do not give us any reason to accept it. You can cry that we "don't like" your evidence if that makes you feel better, but the fact is that your evidence is inadequate and your reasoning is fallacious.

 

[Trailblazer]

Apples and oranges. A man becomes president because we vote him into office. We know the office exists, and is occupied by a person. we know the specific duties of the office, we know the limits of the office.
We can verify that a person has been elected, and that he, is in fact, the president.

What objective facts can we muster for a messenger?

I guess you missed the point of my comparison. I was comparing how we investigate a Messenger of God before believing in Him to how we investigate the President before voting for him.

For both the alleged Messenger and the Presidential candidate, we look at his past life, his present life, what he says and how he says it, whether he has kept his promises in the past, and we look at his character.

There are many objective facts surrounding the Messenger. These facts can all be checked and verified.:

1. His personal qualities which show us His character

2. What He accomplished on His Mission on earth

3. Scriptures that He wrote revealing His Words

4. Prophecies that were fulfilled by His coming

5. Predictions that He made that later came to pass

As I said above, nobody can prove that a man was a Messenger of God as a fact, but I now qualify that statement by saying that we can prove it to ourselves, and then we know. How we know is not something other people can understand because they have not gone through the process of proving it to themselves.

There are no shortcuts. If we want to know is a man is a Messenger of God we have to do our own homework. It might require a little homework or a lot of homework; it depends upon our individual requirements. Or we can refuse the homework assignment and forget the whole idea of God. It does not matter to God because God does not need anyone’s belief, but it might matter to us, especially if there is an afterlife, as the Messengers teach.

When we vote for the President do we know unequivocally that he is worthy of being President? Do we know that he will do what he promised to do? No, we do not know that because nobody can predict the future, so we have to put our trust in him. No matter how many facts we have about him, we still have to believe he is the best man for the job, take a chance and vote for him, hoping that will be in our best interest.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let's be clear. Its not that we refuse to accept it. It is that you do not give us any reason to accept it. You can cry that we "don't like" your evidence if that makes you feel better, but the fact is that your evidence is inadequate and your reasoning is fallacious.

What is a good reason to accept it varies among people. Your reasons are not my reasons.

What atheists do not like is the IDEA of Messengers, period. It would not matter of they walked on water, metaphorically speaking, it is the FACT that they claimed to be Messengers of God that is the problem.

I have been discussing this with atheists day and night for seven years so I know what I am talking about.

Atheists say my evidence is inadequate never having looked at the evidence...
Atheists say my reasoning is fallacious yet they cannot prove it...

Been there, done that, round and round we go, for seven years.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can say that spirit of the 70 and 80's has far diminished into a materialistic mindset.

That is what I also think the problem is.

 

[osgart]

Authoritative and irrefutable the messenger must be.

Not relying on inferior sources.

Consistent from words to actions.

Insightful into the nature of how human nature works.

Highly accurate in predicting the unfolding of events.

Makes claim statements that can be verified to be true.

Expresses things that never fail to be true.

Then I will listen to a messenger!

Inspiring impact that transforms the soul.

You know everyday God stuff.

 

[Trailblazer]

Authoritative and irrefutable the messenger must be.

Not relying on inferior sources.

Consistent from words to actions.

Insightful into the nature of how human nature works.

Highly accurate in predicting the unfolding of events.

Makes claim statements that can be verified to be true.

Expresses things that never fail to be true.

Then I will listen to a messenger!

Inspiring impact that transforms the soul.

You know everyday God stuff.

Baha'u'llah did all of that.
Will you listen to Him?

I could go through these one by one and show how He did them, but it would be better if you did the research yourself because then you would not have to trust what I say. It might be a lot of work, but what is it worth to know there is a God and a glorious afterlife to look forward to? Atheists keep telling me I need to be more convincing so I am trying out my wings on you.

“They that are the followers of the one true God shall, the moment they depart out of this life, experience such joy and gladness as would be impossible to describe…. Well is it with him that hath quaffed the choice and incorruptible wine of faith through the gracious favor and the manifold bounties of Him Who is the Lord of all Faiths…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

 

[ppp]

What is a good reason to accept it varies among people. Your reasons are not my reasons.

People who tell me that the earth is flat, that being gay is a disease and that 5G causes Covid tell me the same thing. That their reasons are not my reasons. As though that matters. It doesn't.

What matters is whether any of you can demonstrate your conclusion backed by non fallacious reasoning. And none of you have. All that you do is try to pretend that reasoning fallacies only apply to other people -- never to you.

What atheists do not like is the IDEA of Messengers, period. It would not matter of they walked on water, metaphorically speaking, it is the FACT that they claimed to be Messengers of God that is the problem.

The world is full of real things that I do not like the IDEA of. Period. Horrid things. Things that matter far more than anyone being some sort of messenger from some armchair quarterback of a god. Cancer. Rape. Child abuse. Diseases. Parasites. Racism. Sexism. Murder and assault on trans people. Murder and assault on homeless people. Institutional police brutality. The quality of some of our leaders. If I were the sort to deny things merely because I don't like the IDEA of them, all of those things would rank far higher for denial than your beliefs.

How I feel about a claim is irrelevant to whether or not I believe it.

I have been discussing this with atheists day and night for seven years so I know what I am talking about.

Atheists say my evidence is inadequate never having looked at the evidence...

You keep pretending that.

Atheists say my reasoning is fallacious yet they cannot prove it...

You spent night before last trying to ignore the difference between validity and soundness so as to pretend that circular arguments are not fallacious. Spare me.

 

[Trailblazer]

What matters is whether any of you can demonstrate your conclusion backed by non fallacious reasoning. And none of you have. All that you do is try to pretend that reasoning fallacies only apply to other people -- never to you.

Fallacious reasoning does not matter......
All that matters is if Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God or not, and it does not matter if I can demonstrate it to atheists....
If He was He was, if He wasn't He wasn't.

if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

The world is full of real things that I do not like the IDEA of. Period. Horrid things. Things that matter far more than anyone being some sort of messenger from some armchair quarterback of a god. Cancer. Rape. Child abuse. Diseases. Parasites. Racism. Sexism. Murder and assault on trans people. Murder and assault on homeless people. Institutional police brutality. The quality of some of our leaders.

Baha’u’llah brought the solution to many of these problems.

YOU have no solutions.

You keep pretending that.

No, I keep witnessing it, over and over and over again.

You spent night before last trying to ignore the difference between validity and soundness so as to pretend that circular arguments are not fallacious. Spare me.

At the end of this life it will not matter one iota if I knew the difference between validity and soundness. Spare me.

I never said that circular arguments are not fallacious; I said it does not MATTER, because...

if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

It does not matter if my argument is fallacious, it only matters if my premise that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true.

Just like all the other atheists, you cannot acknowledge what I am saying so you obfuscate. You know what I am saying is true, you just cannot admit it because you are too proud.

False pride is all you have, but I have the knowledge of God, something you will never have.

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.” Gleanings, p. 5

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, I do not see Christianity or Islam going quietly, and the other religions such as Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism are not bothering anyone so I see no reason why anyone would worry about them.

I agree that the people who are in the older religions are not the ones at the forefront of progress, but the Baha'i Faith is at the forefront of progress, as you would find out if you did a little research into what the Baha'is are doing all over the world... It is pretty awesome, especially given the very small number of Baha'is compared to the other religions.

I believe that eventually the agnostics and atheists will realize that there is a God, and this is based upon what the Bible and the Baha'i Writings say, that everyone will believe in God in the future.

Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

“The Day is approaching when God will render the hosts of Truth victorious, and He will purge the whole earth in such wise that within the compass of His knowledge not a single soul shall remain unless he truly believeth in God, worshippeth none other God but Him, boweth down by day and by night in His adoration, and is reckoned among such as are well assured.”
Selections From the Writings of the Báb, pp. 153-154

We can already see it trending in that direction, as the number of atheists on the world are dwindling and will continue to do so. As a Baha'i, what I believe will happen is what was predicted by the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith about 80 years ago... As soon as the Baha'i Faith becomes more prominent the Christians will launch all out attack on the Baha'i Faith, and when the happens the Baha'i Faith will become more well known and people will join it in droves. When agnostics and atheists realize what the Baha'i Faith teaches and how different it is from traditional Christianity, they might be the first to join. The Christians cannot stop any of this from happening because they cannot thwart the Will of God. I wish I could live long enough to see this day, I want nothing more than this.

I think you are a little optimistic on two fronts - that the Baha'i faith will have much effect or that atheists/agnostics will come to some religious belief (especially of any existing ones) rather than remaining such. Speaking as one, I can't see anything that would persuade me. But I don't know how people's beliefs will change in the future, given that we just don't know that much about the future. The Baha'i faith is a sensible position to take no doubt for those who can't relinquish the grip of faiths though.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think you are a little optimistic on two fronts - that the Baha'i faith will have much effect or that atheists/agnostics will come to some religious belief (especially of any existing ones) rather than remaining such. Speaking as one, I can't see anything that would persuade me. But I don't know how people's beliefs will change in the future, given that we just don't know that much about the future. The Baha'i faith is a sensible position to take no doubt for those who can't relinquish the grip of faiths though.

I see the world will show us how, as not considering what God has offered, was a grave mistake.

I wonder how far the world has to deteriorate, until some choose to consider the good advice that was available in the 1800's and 1900's.

Regards Tony