Where are the people?

[We Never Know]

Doesn't the lack of sound arguments supporting the existence of a god constitute supporting evidence?

Lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of existence.
It means/could mean unknown.
Most everything we know was once unknown to exist because of lack of evidence. Examples include DNA, dinosaurs, planets, atoms, dark matter, etc etc.

 

[We Never Know]

Not true, some people believe in Solipsism and would not believe you exist because they don't believe the input of the senses corresponds to any objective reality, so God could still walk in and there are people who would choose not to believe.

Critical thinkers may believe in God so long as they don't apply critical thought processes to their belief in God, I myself am a perfect example of that. Why would I want to build up someone else over myself?

Accepting or denying a god isn't critical thinking.

 

[Trailblazer]

Allowing the guardian who is allegedly infallible with respect to Baha'i teachings to misinterpret the words of Abdul-Baha is a mistake in my view. Therefore your God is demonstrably *not* infallible.

That won't cut the mustard. The Guardian is not infallible and neither is Abdu'l-Baha. Only Baha'u'llah is infallible.

 

[danieldemol]

Neither Abdu'l-Baha nor Shoghi Effendi are infallible.

That is contrary to the teachings of the main body of Baha'is as you are in a good position to know. So you are essentially identifiying yourself as a covenant breaker to them by saying as much as I understand it. I don't have any problem with so called "covenant breakers", but you should be aware that it is a relatively lonely path to take I guess

 

[ppp]

Lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of existence.

You didnt ask about the existence of god. You asked about critical thinking. Critical thinking does not allow for the acceptance of a proposition as true where there is a lack of evidence.

 

[We Never Know]

Not true, some people believe in Solipsism and would not believe you exist because they don't believe the input of the senses corresponds to any objective reality, so God could still walk in and there are people who would choose not to believe.

Critical thinkers may believe in God so long as they don't apply critical thought processes to their belief in God, I myself am a perfect example of that. Why would I want to build up someone else over myself?

"I myself am a perfect example of that"

Of course you are because you're a critical thinker right?

 

[danieldemol]

That is exactly what it is all about. I am too smart to believe in God and you are stupid because you believe in God.

No it is not, I believe in God, just not in *your* God.

 

[sayak83]

I still believe that you are running away from the fact that the Baha’is have actually established the only functional world community in human history under world governance, something the world has as of yet been unable to achieve torn aside by strife and division. We are living proof that world unity is possible. You won’t find anything like this in all of humanity all under one global governance functioning perfectly in a spirit of loving consultation.

A Global Community

The website of the worldwide Bahá’í community

www.bahai.org

You must be joking to believe that you are the only one to establish a single faith world community in history.
Humanists International
Home - ISKCON - The Hare Krishna Movement
Brahma Kumaris - Home
These are just to name a few. Mormons have it. Communists have it. Etc etc.

 

[We Never Know]

You didnt ask about the existence of god. You asked about critical thinking. Critical thinking does not allow for the acceptance of a proposition as true where there is a lack of evidence.

Huh? Your post was about a god and evidence for a god.

Doesn't the lack of sound arguments supporting the existence of a god constitute supporting evidence?

 

[We Never Know]

That is exactly what it is all about. I am too smart to believe in God and you are stupid because you believe in God.

Sadly that's is exactly what some think

 

[danieldemol]

"I myself am a perfect example of that"

Of course you are because you're a critical thinker right?

Not with respect to my God, but with respect to Trailblazer's God I am in my view.

 

[We Never Know]

Not with respect to my God, but with respect to Trailblazer's God I am in my view.

Oh!! I didn't realize you had a god that differs from their god.

 

[danieldemol]

That won't cut the mustard. The Guardian is not infallible and neither is Abdu'l-Baha. Only Baha'u'llah is infallible.

Baha'u'llah's alleged infallibility can be tested against reality and fails equally in my view. But congratulations on having the courage to walk a lonely path.

 

[ppp]

Huh? Your post was about a god and evidence for a god.

My post was about critical believers. You know, the response to what you said:

Can you show and or prove no critical thinker believes in a god?

Did you forget?

 

[Truthseeker]

The Writings don't say the Universal House of Justice is infallible in it's interpretation of the Writings. Therefore, the understanding by The Universal House of Justice in the Century of Light may be wrong, when they say:

The Master's promise of "unity of nations", on the other hand, looked forward to today's widespread acceptance among the peoples of the world of the fact that, however great the differences among them may be, they are the inhabitants of a single global homeland.

This is not an infallible interpretation. What did Abdu'l-Baha mean by century? He certainly said century. I can only guess He mean age when He said century.

 

[danieldemol]

He certainly said century. I can only guess He mean age when He said century.

Because words don't mean what they really mean am I right?

 

[We Never Know]

My post was about critical believers. You know, the response to what you said:

Did you forget?

I never saw a post about critical believers.

My post..

This critical thinker crap is BS!

Can you show and or prove no critical thinker believes in a god? If not its just a cop out and a way of someone trying to build themself up to others lol.

Your reply..

Doesn't the lack of sound arguments supporting the existence of a god constitute supporting evidence?

My reply..

Lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of existence.
It means/could mean unknown.
Most everything we know was once unknown to exist because of lack of evidence. Examples include DNA, dinosaurs, planets, atoms, dark matter, etc etc.

Your reply..

You didnt ask about the existence of god. You asked about critical thinking. Critical thinking does not allow for the acceptance of a proposition as true where there is a lack of evidence.

 

[Truthseeker]

Neither Abdu'l-Baha nor Shoghi Effendi are infallible.

Shoghi Effendi is infallible in interpreting the Writings, so therefore his translation is correct. See my post #95 for my guess. this is all scorned by these people, but who cares. They scorned whatever we said anyway.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is contrary to the teachings of the main body of Baha'is as you are in a good position to know. So you are essentially identifiying yourself as a covenant breaker to them by saying as much as I understand it. I don't have any problem with so called "covenant breakers", but you should be aware that it is a relatively lonely path to take I guess

Neither Abdu'l-Baha nor Shoghi Effendi are infallible is not contrary to the teachings. Neither one of them ever claimed infallibility.
Even if Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi are considered infallible in a certain sphere, and I don't believe that, that does not make me a Covenant-breaker.
Ask @Truthseeker and he will explain it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Shoghi Effendi is infallible in interpreting the Writings, so therefore his translation is correct.

Than that would have to mean that Abdu'l-Baha was not infallible.