Evidence

[Valjean]

How can you or anyone clarify what you/they don't know?

They clarify what they do know, such as a factual error or logical non sequitur.

 

[Valjean]

So neither are correct?

Who knows, till the subject is debated?

 

[Truthseeker]

I would have thought that that needs its own thread.
This thread is about evidence in general, for the existence of God.

I specialise in the Bible and Qur'an.
50% of the world's population are either Christians or Muslims.

The OP and @Trailblazer specialise in the Bahai writings.
They also believe that most other religions have their roots in monotheism too.
..I would agree that it is very likely.

I just found out from your profile that you are originally of the Church of England! My background is Quaker, which also originated from England. Quakers are pretty sparse in America today, though they own a lot of property, as a legacy from the past. The Church of England is on the decline, too. I am about 70% English ethnically.

 

[Valjean]

Why would you believe they are Messengers of God just because they made a claim?
Did they have any evidence to back up their claims?

My point exactly.

 

[We Never Know]

One thing I might agree with, without agreeing with the whole entire message, is that the non-theists here might be better debaters and better arguers, which means that even in a fair debate, they'll (usually) come out on top.

I have two daughters. One believes in god, goes to church regularly, etc etc.
The others is completly the opposite. Doesn't belueve in god or go to church.

Sometimes they butt heads and that is when I step in and tell them they are both right and free to believe how they want. But telling the other you are wrong because you disagree doesn't make you right when its unknown. Basically I tell them how they feel is right for themselves, but not right for the other. That they are two different people with their own thoughts and choices and just because you don't agree, doesn't make either of you right or wrong, because its your choice for whats right for you and it makes you both right for yourselves.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'll break down an example of a one-on-one debate I was in once. It was a theist vs. atheist debate on the subject of "Is there a God or gods?" We argued for awhile, then got down to one point: All I had to do was provide an argument which absolutely "seemed to" convince of a God or gods, and I would win, and the other side also said they might even change their beliefs over it. If I'm not mistaken, those were the terms of the debate.

Then I thought some more. And realized I didn't have the answer or answers. I could win by being the better arguer, and maybe even convince the guy, but I couldn't win based on having the better arguments.

So I decided to concede. Because I didn't want to change this guy's mind just by being the better arguer. Had it been a "just for playing around" thing, I might have tried to be the better arguer, and it's possible I may have even won, but changing this guy's mind just based on being the better arguer, and not having the better arguments, wasn't something I could bring myself to do. I would have, in fact, felt quite badly about it.

So I conceded and admitted defeat.

 

[John53]

A debate about believe and opinion from both sides when neither knows? So how its a winner declared when neither know?

IMO There isn't a winner. There are hopefuls and unhappy dicks that try to destroy the hopes of others.

Prove me wrong!

So what! It's a debate! It's entertainment. There are no sheep stations at stake.

 

[We Never Know]

If a winner must be determined, it's determined by the crowd, the people watching the debate.

If the crowd is honest, they'll hopefully decide that based on who was the better arguer, and most of all, who presented the best arguments.

Back to majority wins.

 

[We Never Know]

They clarify what they do know, such as a factual error or logical non sequitur.

Ok. So to them their faith is factual. End of story.

 

[Valjean]

Ok. Let say you think blue is the best color.
I disagree with how you see colors and say its red.

Using mathmatics, tell me which of us is right

This is a subjective, æsthetic opinion, not a question of fact. Logic does not apply.

 

[We Never Know]

Who knows, till the subject is debated?

Really? A debate can show 100% for fact if a god does or doesn't exist? I'm getting my popcorn. Let me know when it starts

 

[We Never Know]

So what! It's a debate! It's entertainment. There are no sheep stations at stake.

"So What!"

You got me. That's a winner every time

 

[Valjean]

Cool! So why can't someone believe in a god, for theirself, without being attacked?

One can, but keep it to yourself amongst intellectuals. They'd likely believe you valued ontological truth, like themselves, and try to assist you in correcting your misapprehension.
What you interpret as attack is valued by intellectuals and considered assistance.

 

[We Never Know]

This is a subjective, æsthetic opinion, not a question of fact. Logic does not apply.

Correct. Its because I believe red is better.

Believe being the key word.

 

[We Never Know]

One can, but keep it to yourself amongst intellectuals. They'd likely believe you valued ontological truth, like themselves, and try to assist you in correcting your misapprehension.
What you interpret as attack is valued by intellectuals and considered assistance.

Ok intellectual, show me 100% for a fact a god does not exist. If you cannot do so, then all you have is belief and opinion a god does not exist.

 

[Valjean]

Really? A debate can show 100% for fact if a god does or doesn't exist? I'm getting my popcorn. Let me know when it starts

Attempting to prove a negative in a debate will get points deducted.
What can be shown is that X belief is unfounded or unevidenced, rendering belief logically irrational.

 

[Valjean]

Ok. So to them their faith is factual. End of story.

Isn't "faith," by definition, non-factual, ie: unjustified belief?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Attempting to prove a negative in a debate will get points deducted.
What can be shown is that X belief is unfounded or unevidenced, rendering belief logically irrational.

I'd add that, while not everyone interprets the rules of debate this way, it also depends on how one phrases things. I haven't seen you guilty of this, but if one says out of the blue:

"There is no God."

Then the burden of proof is on them.

But most experienced debaters aren't going to say that. If they do, they'll likely retract their statement upon being made aware.

 

[Trailblazer]

What I am saying is that it is inappropriate to call something truth if it isn't confirmed empirically.

In your opinion.

Then why call them truth? It doesn't matter that they haven't been ruled out, just that they haven't been ruled in.

Religious truths will never be 'ruled in' since they cannot be proven to be true, but that does not ean they aren't true.

You write, "That's only your opinion." It's more than that. My opinions are not guesses. They reflect knowledge. My standards for that are higher than the faith-based thinker who calls everything he believes by that method truth.

It is all a matter of perspective. I can just as easily say: It's more than that. My beliefs are not guesses. They reflect knowledge of God through scripture. My standards are higher than the standards of the atheist thinker who calls everything he believes by the critical thinking method truth.

I have told you repeatedly that your evidence doesn't support your beliefs and that your reasoning is often or usually fallacious. No, you do not have evidentiary support for your beliefs by the standards of critical thinking.

I have told you repeatedly that my evidence supports my beliefs. My reasoning is not fallacious. I do not need evidentiary support foe my beliefs by your standards which you call critical thinking.

No, I am not. I don't care about your beliefs. I care that you call them reasoned and evidenced. Why would I care what you believe? If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and give his like meaning, that's fine, as long as he keeps the noise down. But if he wants to claim that what he believes is fact supported by evidence, I will probably tell him I disagree.

I did not mean that you are attacking my religious beliefs, I mean you are attacking my reason, which is 100 times worse. Why does it bother me if "I think" my beliefs are reasoned and evidence? If you don't believe they are why not just say so once and be done with it. You have probably said this 100 times. Why the need to beat it into the ground?. You are not going to impress anyone and your atheist cohorts already agree with you, so why not drop the subject and agree to disagree?

You don't understand me or what motivates me. You just said so. And I am not on a soapbox for atheism. When have I ever tried to promote that? My soapbox is related to thinking well.

I am not on a soapbox for belief either. I care more about reason and logic.

Your claim that your religious belief is supported by the evidence you offer in its support has been rebutted a few times. But I wouldn't expect you to recognize a rebuttal. Have you noticed any in this post? Every comment I have made to you in this post contradicts you.

My claim that my religious belief is supported by the evidence I offer in its support has never been rebutted, it has only been disagreed with. There is a big difference between those two.

True, every comment I have made to you in this post contradicts me, but that does not mean that you are right and I am wrong. That is what you cannot see since you cannot look at any perspective but your own and you think you are always right. There is no need for me to say what that is called, everyone knows.

I have told you several times. I'd repeat it here, but why bother?

No, you have only ever said what is NOT evidence for God.

You know what evidence you offer. I've told you what support for your beliefs would look like.

Oh? I do not recall you answering when I asked if, hypothetically speaking, if Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, what would we have for evidence that would prove that.

Again, why bother? Merely being a professional religionist is not an exemplary life. I had lunch with a woman yesterday who has led a more productive life than that. So have I. Writing flowery prose is easy. Starting a new religion is not a contribution and certainly isn't evidence of a god.

You don't bother because you can't show me even one person that led a life that equaled or surpassed is the life of Baha'u'llah.

This comment tells me that you don't know what evidence is. Evidence is the noun form of evident, and evident means evident to the senses. What it is evidence of requires further interpretation.

I must have posted what evidence is 100 times on this forum.

Evidence does not prove, it only *helps to prove.*
Evidence *indicates* that something is true.
Evidence might contain facts but evidence does not have to be factual. Only proof has to be factual.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

I've seen your evidence. We keep talking about it because you keep claiming that it supports your belief. Your religious beliefs are not based in the evidence you present according to the rules of critical analysis. The claim has been rebutted, and you have never responded to that. You just keep repeating it without trying to show how it supports your conclusion.

Nothing I said has been rebutted, all you have is a personal opinion. Personal opinions don't count for anything because they are a dime a dozen. Moreover, your personal opinion is no 'better' than mine, you just believe it is.

Again, already answered multiple times. So, here it is again for you to ignore again before reposting again that nobody ever answers your question. Evidence of a god is something evident to the senses that makes the likelihood of a god greater. You claim to be a competent reasoner. Then you offer ordinary words and an ordinary life.

You never answered it.
I asked you: "Let's just say that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be. How would we know if Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be - what would the evidence look like?" You are saying it is not a book and not what He did in His life. what would a Messenger of God have to present as evidence that He is a Messenger?

"Evidence of a god is something evident to the senses that makes the likelihood of a god greater" - is not an answer to my question.
It is not the physical senses that recognize evidence for God, it is the spiritual capacities.

What specific evidence would enable us to know that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, if He was one?

There was nothing ordinary about Baha'u'llah's life. That just goes to show that you don't know anything about it, thus you speak from ignorance.
Have you read these books or do you just have an uniformed and biased personal opinion?

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892

It is your SUBJECTIVE personal opinion that the words of Baha'u'llah were ordinary.
It is my SUBJECTIVE personal opinion that the words of Baha'u'llah were extraordinary.
Why not just agree to disagree? Why do you keep insisting you are right?

 

[We Never Know]

Attempting to prove a negative in a debate will get points deducted.
What can be shown is that X belief is unfounded or unevidenced, rendering belief logically irrational.

I can show you with science a man can't run at the speed of light.

I can show you with science a man can't flap his natural arms and fly like a bird.

I can show you with science a man can't free dive as deep as a whale in the ocean.

I can show you with science a man can't etc etc.

Those are all proving a negative.

So why can't you show me with science a god does not exist?