Where was God...

[Trailblazer]

I MEANT 'good cover' in your covering for your "messenger" for not knowing what abiogenesis was, apart from evolutionary theory.

How do you know that Baha'u'llah DID NOT know that?
I think he did know, but He did not reveal everything He knew. Besides, He did not come to talk about science, science is for scientists.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am prevented from saying what I would LIKE to say in response to that remark....as I would likely be banned for it.
The TAME version is that I find it difficult to believe that anyone can be that ignorant. (Now I put the flak jacket on and watch for 'incoming')

Okay, call me ignorant if you want to, that is not anything I am not used to hearing... As you know, the physicist forum owner on that "other forum' thought I was ignorant too, because I did not know about science and history, and he called me stupid in so many words... But I will be the one having the last laugh because he does not have knowledge of God and I do.

“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 From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5​

So big deal if I do not know science and history... That will not matter in the afterlife and it does not really affect me now either. It is much more important to have knowledge of psychology because that helps with human relationships. Moreover, people who have a lot of worldly knowledge and think they know it all are the ones who are debarred from knowing God because they think they already KNOW what they need to KNOW.... Boy are they wrong.

““Knowledge is the most grievous veil between man and his Creator.” The former bringeth forth the fruit of patience, of longing desire, of true understanding, and love; whilst the latter can yield naught but arrogance, vainglory and conceit.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 69​

 

[ACEofALLaces]

Yes to all except does not exist at all. That is your assertion based on your agenda and unanswerable questions.

I have no such "agenda". Just free-thinking outside of the encumbrances of a religion which itself discourages such thinking.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it all depends on what YOU consider to be "something of substance". I only become involved in determining if I can accept your "substance" as being sufficient.

You mean you only become involved in determining if YOU can accept the "substance" of everything that surrounds the Revelation of Baha'u'llah as being sufficient.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

Ace said..."The universe can therefore be said to have come into existence, by means of what could be said to have been something on the order of "Spontaneous Expansion/Combustion".
No, not even science proposes anything close to this,

Actually it DOES...it's called the Big Bang, where matter, energy, space and time itself, all come into existence in the veritable blink of an eye.
Spontaneously, and sans any outside help, cosmic OR metaphysical.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

How do you know that Baha'u'llah DID NOT know that?

And how do you "know" that he DID know that?

I think he did know, but He did not reveal everything He knew.

So IOW, you just THINK that he knew....it is what you feel that you HAVE to believe, since you are a devoted Bahai.

Besides, He did not come to talk about science, science is for scientists.

And there you, once again, "covering" for him. Belief is one thing....NOT to be confused with knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok, I do gotta ask....what makes Bahai so special that differentiates it from all the other religions that can be "knocked down" so easily by an atheist?
It IS an honest question, so please do not go all ballistic on me about it.

Where do I even start to answer that?
For one thing, we have the Original Writings of Baha'u'llah, and no other religion has any original writings from its Prophet/Messenger.
For another thing, we have the verifiable history of the Baha'i Faith.
For another thing, the theology of the Baha'i Faith, Progressive Revelation, actually makes logical sense.
Also, the Baha'i beliefs about the soul and the afterlife also make logical sense and they do not contradict science as does the Christian belief that physical bodies will rise from graves.
That's just for starters....

 

[ACEofALLaces]

You mean you only become involved in determining if YOU can accept the "substance" of everything that surrounds the Revelation of Baha'u'llah as being sufficient.

Well sure that's what I meant....as I cannot do anyone elses "thinking" for them, can I?

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually it DOES...it's called the Big Bang, where matter, energy, space and time itself, all come into existence in the veritable blink of an eye.
Spontaneously, and sans any outside help, cosmic OR metaphysical.

The expansion of the universe from a singularity cannot be explained as "Spontaneous Expansion/Combustion." If you believe that science supports this please provide a source. The above reference 'spontaneous' does not equate to beginning of the expansion. There was no 'combustion' involved.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have no such "agenda". Just free-thinking outside of the encumbrances of a religion which itself discourages such thinking.

I do not like to speak for Shuny, but by agenda I think maybe he meant that you have certain requirements that a God would have to meet, in order to exist.

 

[shunyadragon]

And how do you "know" that he DID know that?

Arguing double negative is a fallacy. If you believe Baha'u'llah said something, simply provide a cited reference.

So IOW, you just THINK that he knew....it is what you feel that you HAVE to believe, since you are a devoted Bahai.

Incoherent.

And there you, once again, "covering" for him. Belief is one thing....NOT to be confused with knowledge.

I do not confuse belief and knowledge. Not covering for anyone.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not like to speak for Shuny,

I hope not . . .

. . . but by agenda I think maybe he meant that you have certain requirements that a God would have to meet, in order to exist.

The problem is demanding answers for questions where there are no possible answers from the human perspective.

 

[Trailblazer]

And how do you "know" that he DID know that?

So IOW, you just THINK that he knew....it is what you feel that you HAVE to believe, since you are a devoted Bahai.

And there you, once again, "covering" for him. Belief is one thing....NOT to be confused with knowledge.

I do not HAVE to believe that Baha'u'llah knew about science in order to be a Baha'i. I do not care if He knew, because it does not change anything. He had the knowledge of God and that is all I care about that He knew because I can get scientific knowledge by going to college.

I do not have to COVER for Baha'u'llah because He needs no cover.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

That's just for starters....

Well, that was indeed a damned GOOD start, if I must say so. Stay tuned....I got lots of flak incoming I need to deal with..will try to get back to you if I survive the onslaught

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is demanding answers for questions where there are no possible answers from the human perspective.

In other words, demanding to know things about God that are unknowable, what Baha'is often refer to as the Essence of God, which is unknowable.

 

[shunyadragon]

In other words, demanding to know things about God that are unknowable, what Baha'is often refer to as the Essence of God, which is unknowable.

True

 

[ACEofALLaces]

The expansion of the universe from a singularity cannot be explained as "Spontaneous Expansion/Combustion." If you believe that science supports this please provide a source. The above reference 'spontaneous' does not equate to beginning of the expansion. There was no 'combustion' involved.

WHY do people always resort to what amounts to nit-picking when faced with something that is diametrically opposed to their beliefs?
I could get into much greater detail regarding what the cosmologist have said in regards to universal origins, but I sincerely doubt it will go without additional nit-picking.
Suffice it to say that current big bang theory postulates the "presence" of a singularity, which precipitated the expansion event which itself permitted what is commonly REFERRED to as the big bang to occur......LIKENED TO, but not the same as, an "explosion".
And it ALL happened spontaneously withOUT the aid or assistance of any known external force, or 'triggering' device.
If you fancy yourself as a qualified cosmologist, suppose you explain it to me, so I can understand it better.

 

[shunyadragon]

WHY do people always resort to what amounts to nit-picking when faced with something that is diametrically opposed to their beliefs?
I could get into much greater detail regarding what the cosmologist have said in regards to universal origins, but I sincerely doubt it will go without additional nit-picking.
Suffice it to say that current big bang theory postulates the "presence" of a singularity, which precipitated the expansion event which itself permitted what is commonly REFERRED to as the big bang to occur......LIKENED TO, but not the same as, an "explosion".
And it ALL happened spontaneously withOUT the aid or assistance of any known external force, or 'triggering' device.
If you fancy yourself as a qualified cosmologist, suppose you explain it to me, so I can understand it better.

Not nit-picking, simply your explanation is rambling, and "Spontaneous Expansion/Combustion." does not remotely describe the beginning of the universe. As a scientist I like to see a coherent explanation in the language of science.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

Not nit-picking, simply your explanation is rambling, and "Spontaneous Expansion/Combustion." does not remotely describe the beginning of the universe. As a scientist I like to see a coherent explanation in the language of science.

Ain't gonna happen. If, as you allude, you are a scientist, then AS a scientist, you already know perfectly well what I am saying. This verbal volleyball game you are attempting to play with me, is over!

 

[shunyadragon]

Ain't gonna happen. If, as you allude, you are a scientist, then AS a scientist, you already know perfectly well what I am saying. This verbal volleyball game you are attempting to play with me, is over!

Actually, I do not know what you are talking about from the scientific perspective, because so far the discussion has not been about science.