What would be evidence that God exists?

[Trailblazer]

I already thought about that.
And I came to the conclusion that they can't do it for the same reason that a homeopath can't (and won't even try to) demonstrate that homeopathy actually works.

They can and they have. I am living proof because I would have died from psychotropic drugs had I not found homeopathy just in time.

And of course it is not only me because that would not be proof. There are many cured cases, and I mean cured, not palliated.
I do not think you want to go there because I have a D.Hom. degree so I know what I am talking about, so let’s stick with religious beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you think that, aside from that it is what you religiously believe?

Why else would I believe it? How else could I know the future? God alone knows the future and that was revealed to Baha’u’llah, so that is how I know.

You left out the relevant parts of your post. These sentences:

How are nonbelievers faring with what is going on all over the world, in this country? What hope can they have for the future?

You are saying that nonbelievers have no hope and implying that we can't cope with "what is going on all over the world", as if we are getting depressed or otherwise not doing well.
ie: that we aren't comfortable with the current status of the world and that the reason for that is that we don't have faith based religious beliefs.

That was a question, not a statement.

That doesn't rhyme with the quote above, implying that nonbelievers can't cope with the current world and have no hope for the future.

Straw man. I did not say that.

 

[Trailblazer]

yet when people ask you about it, you can't answer.

It is not my job to do your homework.

 

[Trailblazer]

Translation: you'll simply "interprete" them in your favor.

And you won't?

You don't even know what the verses are.

Again, the bible specifically says jesus was killed by crucifiction and subsequently resurected.
While the quran specifically says the bible is wrong about that.

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

— Qur'an, surah 4 (An-Nisa) ayat 157–158[3]

Okay so that is one verse, but I am not responsible for other people's religious scriptures.

Because you say so?

Yep.

Dodgeball.

No, I just get tired of playing ball with atheists because the ball just goes round and round.
It's fun, but only for a while.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe it was true because if the evidence that supports the claim if Baha'u'llah to be a Messenger of God.

I do not believe that any Prophets have some after Baha'u'llah, as you might recall from what Baha'u'llah wrote, and that means there have been no new divinely revealed religions after the Baha'i Faith.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.”

No evidence has ever been provided that supports the existence of Allah / God, nor of the 19th Century uneducated Iranian preacher being a manifestation (copy, avatara) of this fictitious God / Allah.

That is a fallacy, because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the Mahdi from Allah. His evidence or the absence of evidence is the same as of Bahaollah, the only difference is that one was Iranian, the other was Indian. Who knows if Bahaollah was the imposter? God has not repudiated Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim. Is not your God a loving and merciful God? Why is Bahaollah cursing someone else? You have a God who was born in England in medieval times. His GodSpeak clearly shows that. Your God is not the God of Abraham.

 

[PureX]

But the perception of love is, right? What else would you say? If a person told you that they love their dog or pasta... would you say that they are lying and if not are they then telling the truth? Again im not talking about absolute truth here, but agreed on truth. No different than I could then doubt anyone claiming to love God and say that they were lying as well. But i don't do that, do I?


But in order for us to reach an "agreed on truth" that the Earth is in fact more round than flat, we need agreement or consensus... and we get that through evidence. If there is no consensus in regards to what evidence is or ought to demonstrate, then a person saying that the Earth is flat is equally as right as one that say that it ain't. And any evidence that we throw in each others face is meaningless, because we have no general agreement on how and what these should lead to or demonstrate.


Yeah and that might be the case, but it doesn't change anything in regards to what I just wrote. It is still an agreed on truth that the Earth is round. If it turns out that later someone present sufficient evidence that the Earth is in fact flat. Then sure, then that will be the new agreed on truth.

But it's not the truth. It's just something that that we humans temporarily agree to declare 'true'. The truth is that the Earth has many very different characteristics, and we are just subjectively choosing a few of them to "define" it for us. The Earth IS flat. The Earth IS spherical. The Earth IS matter. The Earth IS energy. The Earth IS phenomenon. The Earth IS an event taking place. The Earth is alive. The Earth is conscious of itself. The Earth is many things simultaneously, and some of them are directly contradictory (from our limited perspective).

The truth of the Earth is far greater in scope and complexity than we can ever hope to grasp.

Why is it arrogant and biased, we both have access to the same evidence. You think they mean something other than I do, and we both argue our case for why that is so.

We're arguing relativisms, and pretending that we're arguing truth. But the truth is not relative, it's holistic. It's singular, and absolute. And we will never grasp it. Much less grasp the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose (God).

Look, you say im arrogant and bias, but then you write something like this: "What makes you think a human could even recognize such 'evidence'?" and you expect me to not comment on it?

See above.

If people are not able to recognize such evidence, what on Earth are the scriptures then talking about?

Religious myths and parables and images and icons and prophets and rituals and so on are all designed by humans to help other humans live in accordance with a specific conceptualization of the 'Divine Mystery' generally referred to as "God".

What is the purpose of them, if even those that wrote them, didn't think they were evidence for a God and others would believe them as well? Then you have started a completely new purpose of scriptures, because what are they suppose to do then, if no one can recognize them as evidence and therefore God?

Religious scripture is only 'evidence' of mankind's belief in God, and our need to anthropomorphize that belief to make it easier for us to live in accordance with it.

 

[Trailblazer]

No evidence has ever been provided that supports the existence of Allah / God, nor of the 19th Century uneducated Iranian preacher being a manifestation (copy, avatara) of this fictitious God / Allah.

That all depends upon what you consider evidence.

That is a fallacy, because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the Mahdi from Allah. His evidence or the absence of evidence is the same as of Bahaollah, the only difference is that one was Iranian, the other was Indian.

No, it is not the same for more than one reason, but for starters this man did not fulfill the prophecies for the Mahdi.

Who knows if Bahaollah was the imposter? God has not repudiated Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim. Is not your God a loving and merciful God? Why is Bahaollah cursing someone else?

Baha'u'llah was not cursing anyone, He was just warning would-be prophets what God would do if they laid claim to prophethood.

You have a God who was born in England in medieval times. His GodSpeak clearly shows that. Your God is not the God of Abraham.

Baha'u'llah was born in Iran.

Bahá'u'lláh was born on 12 November 1817 in Tehran, Iran, and this holy day was instituted in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, his book of laws, where Baháʼu'lláh first refers to four great festivals: the Festival of Ridván, the Declaration of the Báb, the birth of the Báb—who is considered to be a Manifestation of God, and who ...

Birth of Baháʼu'lláh - Wikipedia

 

[CG Didymus]

That makes me think that spiritual experiences are not a good indicator of truth.

But they were based on the teachings of two different religions. So to experience the love, the joy and thinking I had found a religion that is the truth can't be trusted either. It all depends on a person's commitment and belief in that religion. A good example is Pentecostal Christians I knew. They felt the power of God, prophesied and spoke in tongues... laid hands on people and, they say, some were healed.

 

[CG Didymus]

No, it is not the same for more than one reason, but for starters this man did not fulfill the prophecies for the Mahdi.

Okay, what do Baha'is say are the prophecies the Mahdi is supposed to fulfill?

 

[CG Didymus]

Adam, Noah, and Abraham... legend and myth... especially Adam and Noah. Why do they even need to be made manifestations?

Because Baha'u'llah named Noah and Abraham in The Kitáb-i-Íqán....

And Abdu'l-Baha names Adam in Some Answered Questions

Okay, that's another "Because they said so".

Yes, and do you believe the Bible stories about them?

Why not? But I do not believe Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is a true story.

So "no" on Adam and "yes" on Noah? Really? That he was hundreds of years old and the whole world was flooded? But let's talk about Adam, you and I don't believe that story is true. I call it a religious myth. You do what? Say it's symbolic or what? So we have no real story about who Adam was, so why make him a manifestation?

 

[Trailblazer]

But they were based on the teachings of two different religions.

But it was the same God.

So to experience the love, the joy and thinking I had found a religion that is the truth can't be trusted either.

I would think it could be trusted if it was the truth, but how can that ever be proven?

It all depends on a person's commitment and belief in that religion.

Yes, whether one trusts the religion depends upon that.

 

[CG Didymus]

As a Baha'i I do not think it is necessary to know about other religions because it is not going to affect my beliefs or my actions.

I do not think that knowing a lot about past religions is a problem, unless it prevents one from learning about the religion for this day. I just do not see the utility in talking about the past religions because the past is gone and it has no bearing on the present or on the future.

Lots of people have learned a lot of things from the different Hindus Gurus and Sages... Same with Buddhists. They are here and now. And we have the same problem as with people claiming to be from God, some religious leaders say they are the reincarnation of Krishna or some other deity. And there's a person saying he is "Maitreya". We've got to talk about them, because, if Baha'u'llah is the one, then who are these guys?

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, what do Baha'is say are the prophecies the Mahdi is supposed to fulfill?

I do not rightly know, but I found this, and it seems to fit the Bab.

The Mahdi (Arabic: ٱلْمَهْدِيّ‎, ISO 233: al-mahdīy, meaning "the guided one") is an eschatological redeemer of Islam who, according to some Islamic traditions, will appear and rule for five, seven, nine, or nineteen years (according to differing interpretations)[1][2] before the Day of Judgment (yawm al-qiyamah, meaning "the Day of Resurrection")[3] and rid the world of evil.[4]

There is no direct reference to the Mahdi in the Quran,[5] only in the hadith (the reports and traditions of Muhammad's teachings collected after his death). In most traditions, the Mahdi will arrive with 'Isa (Jesus) to defeat Al-Masih ad-Dajjal ("the false Messiah", or Antichrist).[6] Although the concept of a Mahdi is not an essential doctrine in Sunni Islam, it is popular among both Sunni and Shia Muslims.[7] Both agree that he will rule over Muslims and establish justice; however, they differ extensively on his attributes and status.

Mahdi - Wikipedia

 

[CG Didymus]

It is small to me.

Like I said, I don't think the Jewish scribes could have pulled off such a thing. Muhammad could much more easily send something that implies it, and then Baha'u'llah very easily could say something that, for Baha'is, confirms it. So to me it's a big thing, because it questions the truth about Baha'u'llah. Again, no proof, no explanation on who made the change and when it happened... just his word and Baha'is believe it. But, it's nothing I expect you to care about. It was just a contradictory thing between the Bible and the Baha'i writings.

 

[CG Didymus]

All the Jews I have spoken with hold this position, I don't know about the others.

Reformed Jews are very much like Liberal Christians and don't take things very literal.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, that's another "Because they said so".

True, "because they said so" is because Baha'is are faithful to the Covenant.

Okay, that's another "Because they said so".
So "no" on Adam and "yes" on Noah? Really? That he was hundreds of years old and the whole world was flooded? But let's talk about Adam, you and I don't believe that story is true. I call it a religious myth. You do what? Say it's symbolic or what? So we have no real story about who Adam was, so why make him a manifestation?

We have what Abdu'l-Baha said about Adam in Some Answered Questions.

"A great man is a great man, whether born of a human father or not. If being without a father is a virtue, Adam is greater and more excellent than all the Prophets and Messengers, for He had neither father nor mother. That which causes honor and greatness is the splendor and bounty of the divine perfections. The sun is born from substance and form, which can be compared to father and mother, and it is absolute perfection; but the darkness has neither substance nor form, neither father nor mother, and it is absolute imperfection. The substance of Adam’s physical life was earth, but the substance of Abraham was pure sperm; it is certain that the pure and chaste sperm is superior to earth.

Furthermore, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, verses 12 and 13, it is said: “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on His name:
“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” 1

From these verses it is obvious that the being of a disciple also is not created by physical power, but by the spiritual reality. The honor and greatness of Christ is not due to the fact that He did not have a human father, but to His perfections, bounties and divine glory. If the greatness of Christ is His being fatherless, then Adam is greater than Christ, for He had neither father nor mother. It is said in the Old Testament, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” 2 Observe that it is said that Adam came into existence from the Spirit of life. Moreover, the expression which John uses in regard to the disciples proves that they also are from the Heavenly Father. Hence it is evident that the holy reality, meaning the real existence of every great man, comes from God and owes its being to the breath of the Holy Spirit.

The purport is that, if to be without a father is the greatest human glory, then Adam is greater than all, for He had neither father nor mother. Is it better for a man to be created from a living substance or from earth? Certainly it is better if he be created from a living substance. But Christ was born and came into existence from the Holy Spirit.

To conclude: the splendor and honor of the holy souls and the Divine Manifestations come from Their heavenly perfections, bounties and glory, and from nothing else."
Some Answered Questions, pp. 89-90

 

[CG Didymus]

Belief in claims are only justified in so far as their burden of proof can be met.

But what if I say he made the claim and I believe it because he said so?

 

[Trailblazer]

Lots of people have learned a lot of things from the different Hindus Gurus and Sages... Same with Buddhists. They are here and now. And we have the same problem as with people claiming to be from God, some religious leaders say they are the reincarnation of Krishna or some other deity. And there's a person saying he is "Maitreya". We've got to talk about them, because, if Baha'u'llah is the one, then who are these guys?

If Baha'u'llah is the one, any of these guys who came after Baha'u'llah wrote the following are false prophets, if they lay claim to a Revelation direct from God. So if that are they are here and now and they lay claim to a Revelation direct from God they are lying imposters, according to Baha'u'llah. But if they simply claim to be enlightened souls that is a different matter. I am sure there are many enlightened souls in the world.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346

 

[CG Didymus]

Whether you see contradictions ALL depends upon how the scriptures are interpreted, A-L-L.
I could prove that if I had the verses in front of my face.
Case closed.

You mean interpretations like.... The Ishmael, Isaac? Not a contradiction because "originally" the Bible did have Ishmael, but the Jews changed it to Isaac. The Resurrection? Not a contradiction because Jesus rose "spiritually" not physically. The disciples and the gospel writer's knew that the resurrection was only symbolic, even though the story was told and written down as having really happened. Later Christians then misunderstood and foolishly thought that Jesus had actually come back to life physically. Jesus and healings. People were "spiritually" blind and he healed their spirits so they could see. Lazarus was "spiritually" dead and Jesus raised him up into "spiritual" life.

 

[Trailblazer]

Like I said, I don't think the Jewish scribes could have pulled off such a thing. Muhammad could much more easily send something that implies it, and then Baha'u'llah very easily could say something that, for Baha'is, confirms it. So to me it's a big thing, because it questions the truth about Baha'u'llah. Again, no proof, no explanation on who made the change and when it happened... just his word and Baha'is believe it. But, it's nothing I expect you to care about. It was just a contradictory thing between the Bible and the Baha'i writings.

Don't you even see what you are doing? You are assuming that the OT is inerrant. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, given how ancient it is and how it came to be recorded. You do not believe that the NT is inerrant do you, so why would you believe that the OT is inerrant, it is much older than the NT. Jewish scribes? So what? That does not mean one single thing. Do we even know who these scribes were?

By contrast we know who some of the scribes are who wrote the Qur'an and we know it was dictated to them by Muhammad, and by stark contrast we absolutely know that what Baha'u'llah wrote was written in His Own pen or dictated to His secretary, after which time he stamped it with His official seal. and we have all the original Writings of Baha'u'llah.

If anyone even made a change you will never have any no proof or explanation on who made the change and when it happened because this is ancient history.