• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The word of god

Oh yes, sorry, you are right. Quran was not written by Mohammed himself ... but asfaik, science agrees that the tradition of the scripture is very accurate, much moreso than in case of the Bible (which even most Christians claim is not "God's word", but was written by "inspired" people).

Baha'u'llah's scriptures were directly written by himself or dictated, and many of the originals still exist in Haifa.

If you look at Quaranitc textrual criticism, there are just as many varients as there are in the NT, we don't have older manuscripts for the Quaran than we do for the NT.

For the NT, we have independant accounts, much more manuscripts and texts to work with to make sure we have the most accurate copy and much earlier sources.

You can't even compare the Quran to the NT when talking about historical reliability and textual credibility.
 
Here is an interesting fact.

FACT: “Many of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science were BIBLE-Believing creationists!”

Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past

This is what is known as an appeal to inappropriate authority. Scientists are not experts on religion, their beliefs or disbelief is not evidence of anything.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of archeology, here's an interesting fact:


FACT: NO ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY HAS CONTRADICTED A BIBLICAL REFERENCE!


“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”- Nelson Glueck

Nelson Glueck was an American rabbi and archeologist whose pioneering work in biblical archaeology resulted in the discovery of 1,500 ancient sites.

Absolutely, totally and completely false. Archaeology is brutal to the bible. Here is a decent read on the topic: Digging for the Historical Truths of the Bible - Los Angeles Times . Here is another: NOVA | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
 
Absolutely, totally and completely false. Archaeology is brutal to the bible. Here is a decent read on the topic: Digging for the Historical Truths of the Bible - Los Angeles Times . Here is another: NOVA | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

You can find results going either way on just about anything involving religion. That includes archeology. Regarding religion you WILL find the results you want. The existence of a God will not, and cannot be proven nor can it be disproven. It all boils down to what you want to believe.
 
You can find results going either way on just about anything involving religion. That includes archeology. Regarding religion you WILL find the results you want. The existence of a God will not, and cannot be proven nor can it be disproven. It all boils down to what you want to believe.

Science can't disprove God.

But science can disprove a literalist interpretation of the Bible, such as creationism.
 
Science can't disprove God.

But science can disprove a literalist interpretation of the Bible, such as creationism.

There is not, will not ever be, and cannot ever be any man written document about God that is written without fallacy. It just isn't possible. Disproving a part of a book is a popular and wildly inaccurate way to disprove the existence of God.
 
There is not, will not ever be, and cannot ever be any man written document about God that is written without fallacy. It just isn't possible. Disproving a part of a book is a popular and wildly inaccurate way to disprove the existence of God.

Agreed. But I'm not sure that's always the intention. Maybe the intention is just to prove those believers wrong who hold a fallacious interpretation of the Bible (i.e. confusing Biblical metaphors and analogies for hard scientific facts).
 
You can find results going either way on just about anything involving religion. That includes archeology. Regarding religion you WILL find the results you want. The existence of a God will not, and cannot be proven nor can it be disproven. It all boils down to what you want to believe.

Archaeology cannot prove or disprove the existence of god, nor does it try. What it can do is look for evidence that events described in the bible happened, and several do not. This does not disprove god.
 
Science can't disprove God.

But science can disprove a literalist interpretation of the Bible, such as creationism.

Creationism, depending on the flavor, can be a sticky one. Young Earth creationism, yeah, that is disproven assuming that god did not form the universe full form but with all the evidence pointing to an older universe(which being allpowerful one would assume he could do that), however ID style creationism cannot be proven nor disproven by science, nor does science try.
 
Agreed. But I'm not sure that's always the intention. Maybe the intention is just to prove those believers wrong who hold a fallacious interpretation of the Bible (i.e. confusing Biblical metaphors and analogies for hard scientific facts).

That seems to be the intention of many.
 
Archaeology cannot prove or disprove the existence of god, nor does it try. What it can do is look for evidence that events described in the bible happened, and several do not. This does not disprove god.

not archeology itself, but many use archeological findings as "proof".
 
not archeology itself, but many use archeological findings as "proof".

That does not work. The best you can hope for is to find evidence to prove or disprove that an event mentioned in the bible happened when and where it is said to have happened.
 
You can find results going either way on just about anything involving religion. That includes archeology. Regarding religion you WILL find the results you want. The existence of a God will not, and cannot be proven nor can it be disproven. It all boils down to what you want to believe.

No, it all boils down to what is actually true, and belief should be shaped by facts. Facts should not be selectively ignored because they contradict belief. Of course the existence of a god could be proven. If Thor came down from a rainbow, flung his hammer around, and performed magical feats for all to see, that would prove his existence. The same is true of any other god or supernatural entity. But Thor doesn't do that, so you conclude that Thor isn't real. Barring his recent adventures with Iron Man and Captain America, of course. ;)
 
No, it all boils down to what is actually true, and belief should be shaped by facts. Facts should not be selectively ignored because they contradict belief. Of course the existence of a god could be proven. If Thor came down from a rainbow, flung his hammer around, and performed magical feats for all to see, that would prove his existence. The same is true of any other god or supernatural entity. But Thor doesn't do that, so you conclude that Thor isn't real. Barring his recent adventures with Iron Man and Captain America, of course. ;)

A belief is not the same as a fact. If the existence of a God can be proven, or a fact, then it is no longer a belief. The existence of God, and the lack of, are both impossible to prove. Just as you are saying a belief should be shaped by facts, so should a lack of a belief. Just as you think that facts are ignored by those who believe in God, you must also ignore facts in order to not believe.
 
Hey Tosca! Glad to see you responding! :)

I won't refute every posting you made, because they have been refuted many times already by people seriously interested in science.

What do you mean they've been refuted??? :mrgreen:


Did anyone refute the list of great scientists given as a fact - did anyone refute and confirmed they were not Bible-believing creationists?

What? Did anyone find and confirmed any archeology that contradicted the Bible?

Did anyone refuted and confirmed that P. Jansen did not produced a vessel after the pattern of the ark?

Did anyone refute and confirmed that there are no springs and fountains in the oceans?

Did anyone refute and confirmed that this did not happen: Maury, on the basis of the Bible, concluded that there are well-established wind circuits, and that there are literally "paths in the sea" - that is, definite currents in the ocean.

Or did anyone confirmed that there are no ocean currents? It's all a mistake?

OF COURSE you don't want to refute them....I've been expecting that. You won't refute them simply because, you can't.

Why do you think I've thrown you the challenge to refute?
Because I'm confident no one can refute these FACTS!
 
Last edited:
A belief is not the same as a fact. If the existence of a God can be proven, or a fact, then it is no longer a belief. The existence of God, and the lack of, are both impossible to prove. Just as you are saying a belief should be shaped by facts, so should a lack of a belief. Just as you think that facts are ignored by those who believe in God, you must also ignore facts in order to not believe.

Facts are not needed to not believe - nor do you need to ignore them, non believe is the default position. Facts are what are needed (for many) to move the needle from the default state of non-belief to belief. I do not believe my room is host to a vast herd of critters dwelling in another dimension - I do not need any facts to not believe this, there is simply no reason to believe it, and that is reason enough. Now, if I were to actually be persuaded to believe in this alternate dimensional herd of critters, then indeed I would need supporting evidence/facts.
 
What do you mean they've been refuted??? :mrgreen:


Did anyone refute the list of great scientists given as a fact - did anyone refute and confirmed they were not Bible-believing creationists?

Yes, for example Redress did so above, by pointing out this is an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

What? Did anyone find and confirmed any archeology that contradicted the Bible?

If you believe it's literal truth that earth was created 6000 years ago, then yes. Most archeological findings are much older than that.

Did anyone refuted and confirmed that P. Jansen did not produced a vessel after the pattern of the ark?

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I don't see what this is supposed to "prove".

Did anyone refute and confirmed that there are no springs and fountains in the oceans?

Did anyone refute and confirmed that this did not happen: Maury, on the basis of the Bible, concluded that there are well-established wind circuits, and that there are literally "paths in the sea" - that is, definite currents in the ocean.

I'm sure that there are many true and smart things written in the Bible. But that does not allow to make the reverse conclusion that everything written in the Bible is literally true.


OF COURSE you don't want to refute them....I've been expecting that. You won't refute them simply because, you can't.

Why do you think I've thrown you the challenge to refute?
Because I'm confident no one can refute these FACTS!

Tell me ... do you believe the Bible is literal truth in a scientific sense?

Or do you not, and we're maybe just talking at cross purposes here?
 
German
I'm not interested in going into the details of allegedly scientific arguments pro or contra the Bible, but more in a more basic debate, if you're open for it (I assume you're open minded, as you have joined this debate forum, and there is not much sense in debating when you are not open for other opinions, or is there?)

Baha'ism continues the line of the Abrahamic religions, as it came into existence in a Muslim background.

The prophet who revealed God's word to found the Baha'i faith, Baha'u'llah, laid out that Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zarathustra, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, the Bab and Baha'u'llah himself were all divine messengers, prophets and manifestations of God. Jesus Christ is the son of God and was born by virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit. All of these prophets/manifestations of God reveal the same message from the same unique, single God.


And all that is according to your "prophet," Baha'u'llah.

Born in 1817, Bahá’u’lláh was a member of one of the great patrician families of Persia.

According to Bahá’í belief, Manifestations of God, including Moses, Abraham, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, and Buddha, have appeared at intervals throughout history to found the world’s great religious systems. They have been sent by a loving Creator to enable us to know and to worship Him and to bring human civilization to ever higher levels of achievement.
Bahá


Why should we believe what your prophet said? Because he personally wrote those down? :roll:

For one thing, he is among hundreds, if not thousands who'd claimed to be prophets. They all have their own ideas.

You want a basic debate. For starters, what evidences does your prophet have to support his claims that his words came from the Judeo-Christian God?

Did he make any prophecy that has come true?


Btw, let's create a thread for this debate with Bahai....just like I told our Muslim friend, this thread is not about the Bible vs fill-in-the-blanks.
 
Last edited:
Why should we believe what your prophet said? Because he personally wrote those down? :roll:

For one thing, he is among hundreds, if not thousands who'd claimed to be prophets. They all have their own ideas.

You want a basic debate. For starters, what evidences does your prophet have to support his claims?

He does not have more or less proof on his side than Abraham, Moses or Jesus, i.e.

You can't "know" he is a divine prophet, just like you cannot "know" Jesus is the Son of God and Christ. Either you believe it, or you don't. That's why it's called "belief" and not "knowledge".

And I think this path to belief is an individual matter. Every individual has to find his or her own path to embracing faith.

I can tell you how my path was: I grew up as an atheist. Then I made a few experiences that made me reconsider my worldview, things that shook my image of the world. I started reading Bible and Quran, and prayed to God that He may show me the right path to the right religion. I asked for guidance, and asked God that He may give me a sign in my heart and conscience which path to follow. So when reading the OT and Quran, I found a few things that seemed right to me, but many more that did not. When I read the NT, especially about Jesus, it was much better already, but still not right. Accidentally, I came across the Baha'i religion (I had never heard of it before), and I started reading Baha'i scripture -- et voilà, it felt totally right, spot on! So I realized this was God's sign for me to embrace it.

How did you find your path to Christianity?
 
We are getting off-topic here....so I created a thread for Baha'i. Please, let's continue the discussion in that thread.
 
What is the evidence proving that the Bible is the word of God?
 
Did he make any prophecy that has come true?[/SIZE]

Yes, quite a few.

And many prophecies in the Bible or Quran are pointing towards Baha'u'llah -- if you know how to interpret them correctly. Look here, if you are interested:

Baha'i: Prophecy Fulfilled Homepage

Here are many fulfilled prophecies:

Bahá'í prophecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One example that has obviously come true already, even when Baha'u'llah was still alife, is the following:

"O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory."

Baha'u'llah wrote this in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, a central Holy Book of the Baha'i faith, in 1873. He predicted shortly after Germany's glorious victory over France in 1871 that if Kaiser Wilhelm I will not obey God, his dynasty will fall just like Napoleon III did by his hands. The "swords of retribution" were indeed drawn against Germany (in 1914-18) and Germany had indeed "another turn" in 1939-45.
 
Holy books are called the word of God so that the people who wrote them don't have to take responsibility for what they wrote, and also so that followers can't question authority.

All religion and spirituality must necessarily be questioned in order for it to yield truth. If you can't interrogate any kind of belief system, then that system is not worth the paper it was written on. Only systems that endure scrutiny stand the test of time and yield spiritual value.
 
This is what is known as an appeal to inappropriate authority. Scientists are not experts on religion, their beliefs or disbelief is not evidence of anything.

You're missing the point. It is not saying they are experts on religion.

FACT: “Many of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science were BIBLE-Believing creationists!”

It is stating an important fact. Many of these Bible-believing creationist-scientists did not only make important discoveries - they founded and developed key disciplines of science.

Some of them were inspired - and guided - by the Bible, which resulted in discoveries. To non-believers, the Biblical verses that inspired these men may sound gibberish or insensible, or merely poetic - but the fact still remains that to some of these Bible-believing scientists, their interpretation of the Bible verses had led to actual discoveries.
 
Back
Top Bottom