What would be evidence that God exists?

[ppp]

If I believe that, I could not be a solipsist. As a solipsist believes that their idea of reality creates and controls 'what is'.

That is not true. While a hard solipsist (and we are talking about hard, not soft solipsism) might believe that they control and create, that is not necessarily the case. A person who believes that they are all that exist, and that their perceptions as presented to them are simply a brute fact, would still be a hard solipsist.

All I'm saying is that 'what is' will remain forever unknown and unknowable to us. All that we will ever know of it is what we think is, is. And given that this is the humans condition, our knowledge of 'reality' will remain delusion, and our lack of it, profound.

If you think that I actually exist as an entity independent from you, then what you are saying cannot be the case. While we may not know all of what is, we must be able to know some of what is in order for independent minds to have common references. In order for us to both talk about the clouds, and have similar experiences of clouds, there must be some objectively real reference point external our respective imaginations.

If we had not access to objective reality, we would be unable to communicate at all.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So again, how on Earth do you reach the conclusion that guidance and not confusion have been given?

I see it is the realisation there is only One God and all the confusion is of our own making.

The chosen people are those that accept God's Message in the age it is given. Thus in reality, if names do not become our barrier, a person becomes a jew when they embrace a Message in the age it is given and submit to that wisdom and laws in that age.

All Jews of all Faiths find the promise they await, fulfilled in the Message of Baha'u'llah.

That is how I have come to see life, I do not expect others will choose to see it the way I do.

Just know, I wish you all happiness and all the best life can give, always. Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

The Jew should have accepted Jesus, the Christian then should have embraced Muhammad and then the Muslim should have embraced the Bab and then the Babi needed to Embrace Baha'u'llah, the One promised in all those scriptures.

Many mistakes would have been avoided.

God knew that would not happen.

That's my view.

Regards Tony

Okay, but those old religions were very regional and reflected the culture from where they came. So, if we go backwards a little, then no matter which order you want to put them, a Hindu should have become a Buddhist, then somewhere in there, and maybe before them was Judaism, then somewhere in there is Zoroastrianism. So which ever order, the newer one, according to Baha'is had the latest message and the newest laws from God, so to be up to date, the older ones should have recognized the continuation and truth about God found in the new and followed that message.

Then comes Jesus. Still very regional and very much rooted in Judaism and maybe even some Pagan religious beliefs. Even some Baha'is say that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies about what the Messiah was to do. The NT writers say that people cannot do any "works" to have sins forgiven... only by believing that Jesus paid the penalty for their sins can a person have their sins forgiven. The NT says that sin entered the world by one man, Adam. It claims that Jesus rose from the dead and is coming back. 600 years later, that message still hasn't reach all people, and the Christian message now includes an infallible Pope and the belief in a trinitarian God. Nobody that knows the truth found in their own religion should have left their religion to follow these beliefs from in Christianity. Then comes Muhammad.

Do most people convert to Islam on their own, after reading the Quran and recognizing the truth from God in it, or are they forced into converting by invading Islamic forces? Were some people, either by Christians or Muslims, forced to convert or die? Like lets say in your country, Australia. Were the Aborigines allowed to practice their religion or were they forced to go to Christian schools and forbidden to practice their old religion? Which was better? Their old religion or a religion that taught them they were born in sin and they need to believe in Jesus or they would be sent to hell? And of course, that Jesus was God.

What would Australia be like if instead those Christians had converted to Islam and then "colonized" Australia? Would they have been treated any different? Or would they have been forced to convert to Islam and renounce their old religious beliefs? And if they didn't renounce them, what do you think would have been done to them?

 

[PureX]

If you think that I actually exist as an entity independent from you, then what you are saying cannot be the case.

I think that what I think you are is only what I think you are. And whatever you are beyond or apart from that will forever be beyond my cognitive reach.
Likewise, I think "reality" is what I think it is. And whatever it is beyond and apart from will remain forever beyond my cognitive reach. I do not delude myself into pretending that what I think I know to be true, is Truth.

While we may not know all of what is, we must be able to know some of what is in order for independent minds to have common references.

But 'some' truth can't be logically be presumed to be 'the truth' because we can never how what we don't know would change what we think we do know, if we were to come to know it. Which we never will, because there will always be the unknown. So half truths, and relative truth, cannot honestly or logically be presumed to be 'the truth'. Which is something we humans keep ignoring, over and over, at our peril.

In order for us to both talk about the clouds, and have similar experiences of clouds, there must be some objectively real reference point external our respective imaginations.

Shared subjective experiences of physical phenomena do not logically equate to an "objective reality".

If we had not access to objective reality, we would be unable to communicate at all.

We communicate because we share SUBJECTIVE experiences of existing. We share them because we are similar in physical structure and functionality. But truth is not determined by consensus. And neither is "objective reality" unless we are defining "objective reality" as the shared subjective human experience of whatever reality is. And that is not how I think you, or most people, would define it.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is no marketing and there is no propaganda by any clergy, because the Baha'i Faith has no clergy.

I've heard several speeches by Hands of the Cause and other "leaders" of the Baha'i Faith. They exhorted Baha'is to give more money to the "Cause" and for people to go out and "teach" and to go "pioneering". How different is that than a Christian Preacher asking for money, telling people to go out and "witness" and to become a "missionary"?

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe God should get up from his throne and give people some actual guidance then, instead of filling them with confusing messages that no seem to be able to figure out? Just a suggestion

God already did that.
Too bad people cannot get up off their *** and read what God has revealed for THIS age in history.
Too back people are STILL mired in the past with their face in the Bible, and they wonder why they are confused
Can't blame God for that because humans have free will.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Okay, but those old religions were very regional and reflected the culture from where they came. So, if we go backwards a little, then no matter which order you want to put them, a Hindu should have become a Buddhist, then somewhere in there, and maybe before them was Judaism, then somewhere in there is Zoroastrianism. So which ever order, the newer one, according to Baha'is had the latest message and the newest laws from God, so to be up to date, the older ones should have recognized the continuation and truth about God found in the new and followed that message.

I see In theory yes, but in practice no, as the conditions, the people and the means were not yet available. The Holy Books record and foretell of this neccessary progression.

It's a big topic, many variables, needless to say, the key lays in accepting our oneness and that God given Faith, is from the same One source.

I see all humanities spiritual maturity issues unfold in the two extremes of man only after gain in all this world has to offer, instead of man giving all they can, to give all other people, all this world has to offer.

One is done in the love of self, the other is done in the love of God. Then the majority of issues that man faces, unfold in all that lies between.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I've heard several speeches by Hands of the Cause and other "leaders" of the Baha'i Faith. They exhorted Baha'is to give more money to the "Cause" and for people to go out and "teach" and to go "pioneering". How different is that than a Christian Preacher asking for money, telling people to go out and "witness" and to become a "missionary"?

Much the same I would say, as both Jesus the Christ and Baha'u'llah as Messengers from God asked that of us.

The important thing is, there is no compulsion to do any of what is suggested as a good path to take in Faith, in someone's talk.

It is up to us in heart to follow what was asked of us. The material world requires material means, you have to agree that is not rocket science reasoning.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

I think that what I think you are is only what I think you are. And whatever you are beyond or apart from that will forever be beyond my cognitive reach.

I agree. But the fact that you do not apprehend everything is not the same as knowing nothing. That whatever the you know about me that is correct, is knowing something that is real.

Likewise, I think "reality" is what I think it is. And whatever it is beyond and apart from will remain forever beyond my cognitive reach. I do not delude myself into pretending that what I think I know to be true, is Truth.

I think that you are trying to use the word Truth where I am simply using the word reality. Is this simply a dance around what to call that which is? Or is there actually some conceptual difference?

Shared subjective experiences of physical phenomena do not logically equate to an "objective reality".

Equate? No. There can be some additional subjective fuzz. And probably will be. But the substance of both experiences must be an objective reality. Otherwise you are claiming that everyone has a randomly consistent overlap of imagined subjective experience. Which is, to use your word, absurd.

We communicate because we share SUBJECTIVE experiences of existing. We share them because we are similar in physical structure and functionality.

That sounds dangerously close to saying that you know something objectively real about us. If all that you have is access to the SUBJECTIVE, then that second sentence is not justified or justifiable.

But truth is not determined by consensus. And neither is "objective reality" unless we are defining "objective reality" as the shared subjective human experience of whatever reality is. And that is not how I think you, or most people, would define it.

Truth, as I use it, is merely a label for what can be demonstrated to be the case using logic backed by evidence. My certainly is proportional to that evidence, and is never absolute. It is tentative pending disconfirming evidence. Reality is what truth approximates. Truth is just an assessment of a single proposition regarding some component of reality. Truth is not on overarching thing.

This is why I was questioning definitions and conceptions above.

 

[CG Didymus]

Do you really think that Christians are still waiting because they missed the dawn of the new day?

Since the "Dawn" of the new day we've had two world wars and the threat of a third that could include nuclear exchanges. The economy and climate problems could put the whole world in chaos. It sure sounds similar to the "Woes" and tribulations of the Book of Revelation. And like I've told Baha'is again and again, Jesus, or the "Christ", which ever you prefer, doesn't come until after the bad stuff. I don't have a problem with the Baha'is being right and the world turns to them and Baha'is actually do something to fix things. Or, that, as improbable as it sounds, that Jesus comes back and fixes things. Right now, I have little faith in what Baha'is or Christians are doing and saying.

So you are going to base your belief on whether things happen according to what some pilgrims notes said?
I have a really good memory and I just recalled what was posted by a Baha'i who knows Persian years ago on Baha'i Forums, and he said that when Abdu'l-Baha said this century he meant this age. So it was a misunderstanding because of the translation from Persian into English.

According to the UHJ, Abdu’l-Baha anticipated that the Lesser Peace could be established before the end of the twentieth century, but he did not say it would come by then.

Pilgrim Notes
recorded after the nightly dinner-table talks of the beloved Guardian, Shoghi Effendi
19-28 April 1957 by Isobel Sabri

The Lesser Peace will come in the Formative Age, in this century. The unified outer world must be merged with the Baha’i World Order. This will begin the spiritualization of the world.​

So if I put my "faith" in something that Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi said to a pilgrim, that is wrong. But you put your "faith" in a Baha'i who knows Persian and says that the word meant "age" not "century"? So there are errors in translations of things that Abdul Baha has said? Great. But how about what Isobel Sabri said about Shoghi Effendi? That was in English.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've heard several speeches by Hands of the Cause and other "leaders" of the Baha'i Faith. They exhorted Baha'is to give more money to the "Cause" and for people to go out and "teach" and to go "pioneering". How different is that than a Christian Preacher asking for money, telling people to go out and "witness" and to become a "missionary"?

It is different because we have no clergy. Clergy are different because they have a job they are hired for and paid for. All positions of leadership in the Bahai Faith are democratically elected and not salaried.

The Hands of the Cause were not anything like clergy.

The Hands of the Cause of God, Hands of the Cause, or Hands (informally) were a select group of Baháʼís, appointed for life, whose main function was to propagate and protect the Baháʼí Faith. Unlike the members of the elected institutions and other appointed institutions in the Baháʼí Faith, who serve in those offices, Hands are considered to have achieved a distinguished rank in service to the religion.[1]

According to The Will and Testament of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, they are to be nominated and appointed by the Guardian of the Cause of God and are to be under his direction and obey his command[2] and a quote of Baháʼu'lláh's is also used as a prayer for them.[3]

The title is no longer conferred. The last living Hand of the Cause was ʻAlí-Muhammad Varqá (1911–2007). The work of the Hands of the Cause is now carried out by the Continental Counsellors and the Auxiliary Boards.

There were fifty Hands of the Cause in all, four named by Baháʼu'lláh, four by ʻAbdu'l-Bahá and forty-two by Shoghi Effendi (including ten posthumously). Twenty-seven Hands were alive when Shoghi Effendi died in 1957.

The most complete list of the Hands available is from The Baháʼí World: Vol XIV. The Universal House of Justice has confirmed that this list may not be complete, and that a study of the letters and archives may reveal others named to this station.

Hands of the Cause - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

So again, how on Earth do you reach the conclusion that guidance and not confusion have been given?

Guidance has been given by Baha'u'llah. The past is gone. Why do people keep talking about it?

 

[CG Didymus]

The reason I believe His claim to be a Manifestation is very involved, but in short it is because of the evidence.
The reason I do not claim that He was a Manifestation of God is because I cannot prove that to anyone else.

Yeah, yeah, What really matters is he said he was a manifestation. Baha'is have said he has fulfilled all prophecies of all religions. That is something we can check for ourselves. But, really, claim it, say it, whatever, Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah has the truth from God for today. And if we were smart, we'd listen to him. Because to reject him is not going to far well for the world. And, what is happening in the world, is kind of like proof. Are things falling apart? I'd say so. Does the Baha'i Faith have the answers? Maybe. Should we trust that Baha'u'llah is from God and implement those answers? No, we better check this guy out. Just look at the track record of other religions and the claims they've made.

And that's what we are doing. Some of us don't trust him or his followers. The questions are going to be mean sometimes and very tough. And, too much of the time, there is no answer or not very good ones. But thanks for trying to convince us of the truth of the Baha'i Faith. Sorry, I forgot again. That's not what Baha'is do. They don't try and convince anyone of anything. But thanks for trying anyway. It's always interesting to hear the different arguments. Oops, sorry again. Baha'is don't argue their beliefs... they "present" them and let us make our own choices.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know why you are bring up clergy. Clergy is not required for a system of marketing or propaganda.

That is true, clergy is not required, but that does not mean that there is any marketing or propaganda in the Baha'i Faith. If you are making that assertion you would need evidence to support that assertion.

Not dark and dismal? So, you were feeling "sad" for the bright and hopeful future outlook of non-believers?

Momentarily I was feeling sad because I could not understand how nonbelievers could have hope for the future of the human race and this planet, but maybe they do, I don't know.

I hope for what matters - the real.

So do I. I just have a different idea of what is real and what is illusory.

“The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, bearing the semblance of reality. Set not your affections upon it. Break not the bond that uniteth you with your Creator, and be not of those that have erred and strayed from His ways. Verily I say, the world is like the vapor in a desert, which the thirsty dreameth to be water and striveth after it with all his might, until when he cometh unto it, he findeth it to be mere illusion.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 328-329

 

[Trailblazer]

Sounds like a fine premise to me.

I stated it as a premise and later realized I should have stated it as a belief, since it can never be proven.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It does show that to me.

It is distinguishable to me and to other people.

Whatever that means, who said so?

You are completely illogical. No two people see things the same way even within the same religion.

I cannot stop laughing, so everyone in the world would recognize the evidence for God if it was good evidence. I can explain why they don’t.

Whenever a new Messenger of God appears, He is the narrow gate by which we can attain eternal life. That is why Jesus said…

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

There are many reasons why only a few people recognize the new Messenger when He appears on earth. The main reason is because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. Secondly, if they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. Thirdly, if they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies. You are a case in point.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

It would only make sense AFTER you had proven it to yourself.

There is no such thing as “supposed to be” and as long as you cannot shirk that idea of what evidence has to be then there is no hope that you will ever see the evidence for what it IS.

First off, God is not verifiable since God is not in the world, so how could evidence fom God be independently verifiable? The only evidence we CAN verify is evidence that indicates that a Messenger of God us the real deal.

I never said the evidence is personal evidence; it is evidence that is available publicly for everyone to evaluate, but the evaluation has to personal because you are the person doing the evaluation.

I do not call it that because there is absolutely no need for me to compare my religion to the older religions that are outdated, but I have compared them since I joined my religion so now I am informed

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Religious knowledge is not demonstrable to others. We can share it but if you had ANY logical abilities you would see that does not good for anyone because nobody is going to believe what I do because I shared it since people are stuck in their own beliefs. Ever tried to change a Christian's beliefs?

It has to be investigated independently and verified by each individual.

Believe whatever you want to believe. Religion is associated with a God, scientology is not associated with a God so it is not a religion..

You do not know that your explanation os correct and you do not know that there is no other explanation because you never bothered to listen to any other explanation because you believe you already know the reason.

The new religion for this age does explain why there are so many different religions. It explains that and a lot more.
It works for you because you have a lack of knowledge that came from God when God sent the last Messenger who explained all of that.

That does not prove a single thing. Just because humans can imagine - a faculty given to us by God -- things does not mean everything they imagine is superstition. There are rational religious beliefs but you will never know what they are because you have already made up your mind.

You cannot know that so to make that claim is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Those religions were all correct for the ages and to the peoples to which they were revealed but time marches on and people and their world change so those old religions are no longer pertinent to the age we live in, so they are not correct for this age. They are incompatible with each other because they all teach different things and that is because they were revealed in different ages; but that does not matter anymore because there is a new religion for this age which had everything that humanity needs for this age.

I hate to interrupt, but quick question. Why do you use bible quotes to support what you're saying but you said that you don't follow the bible, half of the things in the bible you don't believe as christians do, and, unlike other bahai peers online here, the bible doesn't align to bahaullah's teachings, why use it to support your points?

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not know who keeps the laws and who doesn't but I believe that as time goes on Baha'is will become more spiritual and it will be easier for them to keep the laws. The laws were revealed for at least 1000 years, until the next Messenger of God comes. Spiritual growth is a process and it does not happen overnight.

Yes, that claim against Judaism by Christians was that they followed the "letter" of the law and not the "spirit" of the law. That the true law is the law of love... to love your neighbor as yourself. I'd say most Christians have failed in that. And even the best of them I wouldn't ever expect them to be perfectly loving and reflecting God all the time. But Baha'is have the same problem. I do believe most Baha'is get better and more spiritual after they have become Baha'is. And some Baha'is continue to grow spiritually, but some get into the religious rut of just going through the motions.

To work, I think everybody is going to have to be onboard, especially the leaders. We can't have leaders getting caught foolin' around like so many Christian leaders have. But then, every Baha'i is going to have to live a life of truth. Right now, Baha'i or Christian, I think there is too much hypocrisy. The believers aren't that much different than us "sinners". The only difference is they go to Church on Sunday and most (or some?) Baha'is go to Feast every nineteen days.

 

[ppp]

That is true, clergy is not required, but that does not mean that there is any marketing or propaganda in the Baha'i Faith. If you are making that assertion you would need evidence to support that assertion.

Considering the fact that you poo-poo any obligation to present evidence for your assertions, I give your a well-earned horse laugh.

 

[Trailblazer]

I hate to interrupt, but quick question. Why do you use bible quotes to support what you're saying but you said that you don't follow the bible, half of the things in the bible you don't believe as christians do, and, unlike other bahai peers online here, the bible doesn't align to bahaullah's teachings, why use it to support your points?

That is easy to answer. The spiritual truths in the Bible are eternal and they are the same as what Baha'u'llah and all the Prophets of old revealed, as He said here:

Preamble

HE IS THE GLORY OF GLORIES

This is that which hath descended from the realm of glory, uttered by the tongue of power and might, and revealed unto the Prophets of old. We have taken the inner essence thereof and clothed it in the garment of brevity, as a token of grace unto the righteous, that they may stand faithful unto the Covenant of God, may fulfill in their lives His trust, and in the realm of spirit obtain the gem of Divine virtue.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 3

For example, look at the similarity between what Jesus said and what Baha'u'llah said:

Matthew 7:24-27 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

“For every one of you his paramount duty is to choose for himself that on which no other may infringe and none usurp from him. Such a thing—and to this the Almighty is My witness—is the love of God, could ye but perceive it.

Build ye for yourselves such houses as the rain and floods can never destroy, which shall protect you from the changes and chances of this life. This is the instruction of Him Whom the world hath wronged and forsaken.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 261

 

[Trailblazer]

Considering the fact that you poo-poo any obligation to present evidence for your assertions, I give your a well-earned horse laugh.

I do not assert anything, I believe it.