What evidence would you accept?

[Aupmanyav]

Some people will never accept the given evidences.

do so at the hour of extreme hardships, or pending death and find faith. Some who have claimed faith all their lives at such times, choose to turn away andfall into the nethermost fire!

Only G-d knows our hearts, is always there and always calling us to find our innermost selves.

"Dost thou believe thou hast the power to frustrate His Will, to hinder Him from executing His judgement, or to deter Him from exercising His sovereignty? Pretendest thou that aught in the heavens or in the earth can resist His Faith? No, by Him Who is the Eternal Truth! Nothing whatsoever in the whole of creation can thwart His Purpose . . .."
"Know thou, moreover, that He it is Who hath, by His own behest, created all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth. How can, then, the thing that hath been created at His bidding prevail against Him?"

You mean we are obligated to accept whatever you offer as evidence?
Does that help? I suppose many in Ukraine and the Middle-East are praying to their God, the war still goes on.
What is nethermost fire in the domain of an all-loving God?
God should have left some sign of his existence as also of sending down armies of prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis.
God does not exist. If you still fear him like you fear ghosts, it is your choice.
My intner-most, outer-most and the middle-most 'self' is the same as that of any other human, animal. vegetation or non-living substance.
All this is Brahman (Sarvam khalvidam Brahma), so say my books. (Mandukya Upanishad)
I am not at all impressed by the woo the narcissist uneducated 19th Century Iranian tried to weave around his own persona. For me, is is a scam.

 

[RabbiO]

I understand why you see my stated certainty of faith, as an undesirable trait.

You are the one who has, in essence, declared that except for you and your fellow Baha'i members, in everyone else a stated certainty of faith is an undesirable trait. I simply pointed that out.

I have never read anything from you that indicates that you have any real knowledge/understanding of Judaism in any if the ways it has and does express itself. Without that you don't even begin to have standing to comment on the tradition I am a part of.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

You are the one who has, in essence, declared that except for you and your fellow Baha'i members, in everyone else a stated certainty of faith is an undesirable trait. I simply pointed that out.

I have never read anything from you that indicates that you have any real knowledge/understanding of Judaism in any if the ways it has and does express itself. Without that you don't even begin to have standing to comment on the tradition I am a part of.

With our one G-d, a tradition worthy of consideration is that we all embrace G-d, on one planet, as one people, please.

In that light, I see all traditions can and will find their ultimate consummation.

This means each member of each faith finds the same level of certainty in the founders (Messengers) of all G-d given faiths.

We must look at ourselves, what prevents us from embracing all humanity and all the Messengers? You would be aware of such verses.

1 Kings 8:60 — That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is G-d, and that there is none else.

This can not be done by adherence to, or knowledge of, only one tradition.

Regards Tony

 

[otherbrother]

We must look at ourselves, what prevents us from embracing all humanity and all the Messengers?

A question I have asked recently in a slightly different way: why aren’t we getting to know our own spirits? I do tend to see my spirit as an angel assigned to my entire life in order to reclaim the divinity lost during a collapse or falling away into physical reality. My spirit or “Connected Self, enlists regular “Concrete” me (self) into the “Grand Reclamation Project.” My views are aligning lately with your “Messenger” belief. And I , like you, believe that all faiths will eventually converge to spiritual understanding and growth as their main focus. Watts’ Perinial philosophy?

 

[Ahanu]

God does not exist.

I agree . . . in the sense that God is beyond existence and every human conceptualization. Any human concept of God is a God that does not exist. To exist in the human sense implies being subject to time, space, and limits, which are all attributes that Bahá’u’lláh says do not apply to God.

Think about it: A tree proclaims, "Aupmanyav does not exist!" Surely such a tree speaks truthfully. It lacks the neural architecture to perceive you. Therefore, it speaks its own truth when it denies your existence. Its sphere of reality simply does not contain you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

With our one G-d, a tradition worthy of consideration is that we all embrace G-d, on one planet, as one people, please.

In that light, I see all traditions can and will find their ultimate consummation.

This means each member of each faith finds the same level of certainty in the founders (Messengers) of all G-d given faiths.

We must look at ourselves, what prevents us from embracing all humanity and all the Messengers? You would be aware of such verses.

1 Kings 8:60 — That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is G-d, and that there is none else.

This can not be done by adherence to, or knowledge of, only one tradition.

First thing Tony, I beg your excuse for the inappropriate remark that I made in one of my recent posts. Though our views differ, my post was not correct.
As for embracing, we have many Gods and Goddesses. We cannot ignore others even if we choose one (Ishta - the Chosen). Or as in my case, choose a non-God Brahman, the stuff of the universe.
Also we do not have any messengers. We talk to the Gods and Goddesses individually.
You cannot clap with just one hand. Therefore, embracing all humanity also requires others to be human.
We have Lord Gods and Lady Goddesses or we have the non-God Brahman. For those who accept the non-God Brahman, there is none other.
They themselves, do not exist, because what alone exists is the non-God Brahman.
"Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second).
I have the knowledge of the Abrahamic and Indic religions. Why should I have knowledge of just one tradition and be blind to other traditions?
You want me to be the proverbial 'frog in the well' who does not know what exists outside the well?
Why should I choose the falsehood of any other tradition, when my tradition answers all my questions clearly?

 

[Ahanu]

I mean this broadly enough to cover at least the following questions:
What evidence would you accept for the existence of the supernatural? (a supernatural world)

Special Relativity and the Block Universe.

Note supernatural world here means the reality that exists outside the time and space that human consciousness perceives.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Special Relativity and the Block Universe.
Note supernatural world here means the reality that exists outside the time and space that human consciousness perceives.

Special relativity and Quantum Mechanics, both are doing fine though differences remain.We don't yet have the 'theory of everything'.
Block Universe is a pholosopher's idea, and has its critics even among the philosophers. Science has nothing to do with these arm-chair fantasists.
If supernatural world exists outside the time and space that human consciousness perceive, then we should not make stories out of it.

"Special relativity in its Minkowski spacetime is accurate only when the absolute value of the gravitational potential is much less than c^2 in the region of interest. In a strong gravitational field, one must use general relativity. General relativity becomes special relativity at the limit of a weak field. At very small scales, such as at the Planck length and below, quantum effects must be taken into consideration resulting in quantum gravity."

Special relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ahanu]

"Special relativity in its Minkowski spacetime is accurate only when the absolute value of the gravitational potential is much less than c^2 in the region of interest. In a strong gravitational field, one must use general relativity. General relativity becomes special relativity at the limit of a weak field. At very small scales, such as at the Planck length and below, quantum effects must be taken into consideration resulting in quantum gravity."

Special relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The fact that your now is different from my now still exists in General Relativity. The past, present, and future still exist simultaneously.

Block Universe is a pholosopher's idea, and has its critics even among the philosophers. Science has nothing to do with these arm-chair fantasists.

Do you accept that the speed of light is finite and constant?

Do you accept that the laws of physics are the same for all observers?

If so, the conclusion is unavoidable from the hard data: the past, present, and future still exist simultaneously.

Einstein noted the flow of time is a "stubbornly persistent illusion." Looks like hard physics, not armchair philosophy.

"Now he [Besso] has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
-Einstein

If supernatural world exists outside the time and space that human consciousness perceive, then we should not make stories out of it.

It appears you and Bahá’u’lláh agree on something.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The fact that your now is different from my now still exists in General Relativity. The past, present, and future still exist simultaneously.
Do you accept that the speed of light is finite and constant?
Do you accept that the laws of physics are the same for all observers?
If so, the conclusion is unavoidable from the hard data: the past, present, and future still exist simultaneously.

Einstein noted the flow of time is a "stubbornly persistent illusion." Looks like hard physics, not armchair philosophy.
It appears you and Bahá’u’lláh agree on something.

True, my now is not the same as your now. In 'Advaita' Hinduism, IMHO, there is no past, present or future.
That is philosopher C.D. Broad's idea. For me, future is indeterminate or perhaps non-existent.
Expansion of space during the Big Bang was faster than speed of light.
Laws of physics do not hold in conditions of high gravitational potential.
Kindly refer to the first line above.
'Advaita' Hinduism, IMHO, agrees with Einstein. All that we perceive is illusion, 'maya'.
I differ from what Husayn Ali Nuri said/wrote. He made stories out of what exists outside the time and space.

 

[Ahanu]

True, my now is not the same as your now.

Exactly! Then now is relative.

In 'Advaita' Hinduism, IMHO, there is no past, present or future.

Doesn’t Advaita teach that time is part of maya and, because Brahman is eternal and outside of time, the division of time into past, present, and future is a result of human ignorance? If so, how is this any different from the Block Universe?

That is philosopher C.D. Broad's idea.

CD Broad proposed a Growing Block Universe, a variation of the Block Universe. CD Broad’s idea does not mesh well with Advaita. Block Universe does, however.

For me, future is indeterminate or perhaps non-existent.

How? Now is relative, isn’t it? One man’s future is another man’s now.

Creating such distinctions, such as the future is non-existent, is meaningless when now is relative. To make such a distinction (non-existent future), you need a universal now, but we both agree now is relative for observers.

Expansion of space during the Big Bang was faster than speed of light.
Laws of physics do not hold in conditions of high gravitational potential.

Even if space stretches at a trillion times the speed of light, the relativity of simultaneity still holds for every observer inside that space.

I differ from what Husayn Ali Nuri said/wrote. He made stories out of what exists outside the time and space.

Examples?

 

[Thomas]

With our one G-d, a tradition worthy of consideration is that we all embrace G-d, on one planet, as one people, please.

You have brought out the heart of the problem here, Tony:

The Transcendent Abode – that place of the Unity of all in the One – is beyond all names, all knowing.

To those with spiritual insight, it becomes apparent that all traditions point to the One – that the names, the texts, the ritual and cultic observances, and all the accompanying paraphernalia, become 'transparent' in the sense they are simply the outward forms by which we approach the Boundless.

With that insight it becomes apparent that the One is known by many names, in many forms, so that one might say "In my father's house are many mansions" (John 14:2).

If I may offer a reading from Isaiah:
"Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." (56:6-7 emphasis mine)

It seems to me that one might read "the stranger" as they who are unknown to us, who do not walk in our way, but nevertheless "join themselves to the Lord" in the ways made known to them. They "serve" and "love"; they "keepeth the sabbath" and "hold to their covenant".

So that "even them" He will gather on the "Holy Mountain", where their gifts and their sacrifices will be acceptable to God – then indeed shall His house be called "an house of prayer for all people".

Indeed, reading on, Isaiah holds a salutary warning for those who think they have exclusive access to the Divine, and demand that all observe according to their laws and their rules, as Jesus likewise confronted religious elitists and narrow-minded bigots:
"... shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter... " (Isaiah 56:11).
Such is the way with those who demand allegiance not to God, but to their particular expression of faith, and declare every other expression false, or corrupt, or deficient.

We all know the story of the centurion from Matthew 8. He asks Jesus to heal a member of his house, Jesus agrees, and the centurion says, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come in under my roof; but only declare it by a word and my servant will be healed." Jesus marvels, and says, "Amen, I tell you, I have found no one in Israel with such faith."

But we tend to gloss over what He says next: "Moreover, I tell you that many will come from East and West and will recline at table alongside Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of the heavens; But the sons of the Kingdom will be thrown out into the darkness outside; there will be weeping and grinding of teeth there."
A salutary warning again: there are many come from beyond the 'borders' of Israel and will be welcomed in the Kingdom, while there are those who think they possess it will find themselves in the darkness ...

... darkness because they follow their own lights, and blind to the true light, are unable to see the light in the heart of their neighbour.

The One True Light in the depths of all.

 

[RabbiO]

@Thomas -

You cited the KJV - "Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people."

In regard to that section of Isaiah you added, "So that "even them" He will gather on the "Holy Mountain", where their gifts and their sacrifices will be acceptable to God – then indeed shall His house be called "an house of prayer for all people".

Actually, the phrase "even them" does not appear in the Hebrew.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

You have brought out the heart of the problem here, Tony:

The Transcendent Abode – that place of the Unity of all in the One – is beyond all names, all knowing.

To those with spiritual insight, it becomes apparent that all traditions point to the One – that the names, the texts, the ritual and cultic observances, and all the accompanying paraphernalia, become 'transparent' in the sense they are simply the outward forms by which we approach the Boundless.

With that insight it becomes apparent that the One is known by many names, in many forms, so that one might say "In my father's house are many mansions" (John 14:2).

If I may offer a reading from Isaiah:
"Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." (56:6-7 emphasis mine)

It seems to me that one might read "the stranger" as they who are unknown to us, who do not walk in our way, but nevertheless "join themselves to the Lord" in the ways made known to them. They "serve" and "love"; they "keepeth the sabbath" and "hold to their covenant".

So that "even them" He will gather on the "Holy Mountain", where their gifts and their sacrifices will be acceptable to God – then indeed shall His house be called "an house of prayer for all people".

Indeed, reading on, Isaiah holds a salutary warning for those who think they have exclusive access to the Divine, and demand that all observe according to their laws and their rules, as Jesus likewise confronted religious elitists and narrow-minded bigots:
"... shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter... " (Isaiah 56:11).
Such is the way with those who demand allegiance not to God, but to their particular expression of faith, and declare every other expression false, or corrupt, or deficient.

We all know the story of the centurion from Matthew 8. He asks Jesus to heal a member of his house, Jesus agrees, and the centurion says, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come in under my roof; but only declare it by a word and my servant will be healed." Jesus marvels, and says, "Amen, I tell you, I have found no one in Israel with such faith."

But we tend to gloss over what He says next: "Moreover, I tell you that many will come from East and West and will recline at table alongside Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of the heavens; But the sons of the Kingdom will be thrown out into the darkness outside; there will be weeping and grinding of teeth there."
A salutary warning again: there are many come from beyond the 'borders' of Israel and will be welcomed in the Kingdom, while there are those who think they possess it will find themselves in the darkness ...

... darkness because they follow their own lights, and blind to the true light, are unable to see the light in the heart of their neighbour.

The One True Light in the depths of all.

We agree.

Now we have to all join in the promise of Zechariah 14:9 "And the Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord, and His name one".

It is a name the Lord has given, as promised.

Regards Tony

 

[TheLightWithin]

How could the skeletal system evolve without intentional design?

Survival of the fittest. If the trait helps the organism survive long enough to pass on its genes to the next generation, the genes survive and continue to develop the traits.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Some people will never accept the given evidences.

That circles back to my original question
WHAT constitutes evidence? Scriptures? Why? There must be a reason why scriptures, words on a page, physically written by humans, counts so heavily... why?

I'd like evidence that was less ambiguous - signs of some kind that communicate a direct message that could not come from a human source.

That would be one type of evidence for a belief in a particular religion.

Believe in a god or the supernatural - @Aupmanyav is quite right in questioning the evidence - what counts as evidence?

I think for years I made assumptions based on other peoples' passionate devotion or good intentions, finding them convincing as all get out, and then when asked by anyone else to explain I'm like... um...

Years ago my sister asked me why I believed in G-d, and we had a long email exchange, about which I remember almost nothing.

What did I tell her?

I'm not sure whether I still have access to that email address even.

Somewhere, in some forum, maybe this one but I don't think so - I was saying something about my personal history where I sough baptism as a teenager and someone with more conventional Christian beliefs said something to the effect of feeling sorry for me and sorry for the little girl who had so much faith compared to the - whatever it is I am now, whatever that person thought of me. (based on part of my story, that person was thinking of me as a nascent Christian then who has run amok now, rather than always the proud product of the decidedly different influences of my upbringing)

Nothing about what that person said about me was right. I didn't have "so much faith" not in Christian theology as it is. What I did have a lot of , then, was faith in a broad general conviction about the existence of a G-d that loved and helped people, probably something like the much maligned moralistic therapeutic deism, that I conflated with Christian faith-- because the Christians around me made it seem like Christianity was all there was in the world. That there was one G-d they knew all about it and that was that. But I knew extremely little about Christian theology and years later when I tried to learn about it I was often shocked and saddened by what the beliefs really were.

What I've always tried to find out, about every religion or spiritual topic I've studied, is what is it ABOUT the religion or spiritual tradition that is held to be factually right/real/true? What is the REASON for thinking one religion is "true" and another is "false" ? What is that BASED on IN REALITY?

Perhaps I ask the wrong questions. I debate with people about the beliefs I think are indefensible, trying to get my head around them - asking for evidence, something...

Maybe I should be asking a more psychological question - about the thought content and thought processes of believers.

Maybe I then would get my answers...

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

That circles back to my original question
WHAT constitutes evidence? Scriptures? Why? There must be a reason why scriptures, words on a page, physically written by humans, counts so heavily... why?

I'd like evidence that was less ambiguous - signs of some kind that communicate a direct message that could not come from a human source.

That would be one type of evidence for a belief in a particular religion.

G-d has always given Prophets and Messengers in a manner that requires a choice, that will never change.

Thus the G_d given evidence is as follows, I have listed it in logical order, as each Message from God stands upon its own merits.

1st & 2nd Proof) The person and Life of the Prophet/Messenger. (They are not men like us, even though they are born human, they are pre-existent and as such are born of the Holy Spirit. Their person is the mirror that reflects G-d's attributes, their life is the attributes).
3rd Proof) The Message. (This is suited to the age and is unique, no man can reproduce scripture as given by God. Gods Message, all the words contained within, attracts hearts that are ready, repels hearts that are not and forms doubt's to all of those that are in-between).
4)Past Scriptures. (This is a sundry proof, and I see a proof only to those that see G-d in the new Messenger. They tell us what to look for and the signs that will accompany the Prophets. Prophecy is always hard to interpret, It needs the new Prophets Interpretation. It assists new beleivers in certitude. Very few find the Messengers because of Prophecy. I have noted that it is mostly native indigenous prophecies that are more likely to enable an indigenous person to recognise a new Messenger, main stream faiths have a lot of veiled doctrine to prevent this happening)

Regards Tony

 

[TheLightWithin]

They are not men like us,

or women... are there women amongst the Messengers - are there thought to be women Messengers?

even though they are born human, they are pre-existent and as such are born of the Holy Spirit. Their person is the mirror that reflects G-d's attributes, their life is the attributes)

How are these facts known?

main stream faiths have a lot of veiled doctrine to prevent this happening

This statement makes some sense to me.

 

[TheLightWithin]

A kind of evidence I would be deeply intrigued by and somewhat likely find at least somewhat convincing would be something like this:

Imagine if contemporary religious leaders like the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Orthodox Patriarchs, Head Rabbis of various countries, Indigenous spiritual leaders, and others, all had the same dream. Or had a long series of the same dreams. Or one would receive a dream that was a continuation of another one's dream.

I am not even stipulating that I understand or like what their dreams seem to reveal.
Only that an occurrence like that would be convincing to me that some supernatural revelation was reality.

Now, I have picked the world's religious leaders as the recipients of this revelation with the idea that
1) It would seem to have, if not religious legitimacy, this is something that would get people's attention and how!
2) It would seem evident something of worldwide import was being revealed,
and also
3) that the level of publicity, the number of men and the lack of continuous contact amongst these various men (yep, all men, it's unlikely there would be an exception in that crowd) but anyway - that those factors I just mentioned would minimize the likelihood of conspiracy "let's get together and just say these things to people for some reason"

 

[Aupmanyav]

Doesn’t Advaita teach that time is part of maya and, because Brahman is eternal and outside of time, the division of time into past, present, and future is a result of human ignorance? If so, how is this any different from the Block Universe?
CD Broad proposed a Growing Block Universe, a variation of the Block Universe. CD Broad’s idea does not mesh well with Advaita. Block Universe does, however.
How? Now is relative, isn’t it? One man’s future is another man’s now.

Even if space stretches at a trillion times the speed of light, the relativity of simultaneity still holds for every observer inside that space.

Examples?

Yeah, at least by my understanding. Time (past, present and future) and space are illusions ('maya') in 'Absolute Truth' (Paramārthikā), but not in 'Pragmatic Truth' (Vyavahārikā - our perception). Brahman alone exists and is eternal, manifested or unmanifested.
'Block universe' says existence in time is real. 'Growing Block universe' says all three past, present and future exist simultaneously. Both differ with 'Advaita'.

Advaita does not need an observer or an observed, since nothing other than Brahman exists. Whom would Brahman observe and for what reason?

For Husayn Ali Nuri, appearance of the 'heavenly maiden' or that he was a manifestation of an Allah and what he said was the mesage of an Allah.