Tiberius
Well-Known Member
A person can 'claim' to know something even if it is not true, people do that all the time.
Likewise, a person can claim to know something that is true, even if it cannot be proven as a fact.
The definition says: aware of the truth or factuality of something.
I know. I've already said this.
What I've ALSO been saying is that if the thing is false, then no one can ACTUALLY know it. They can only ever THINK they know it.
There is evidence. Just because you do not consider it proper that does not make it non-evidence.
There is no evidence. Just because you want to present subjective opinion and gut feeling as evidence, does not make it evidence.
That's true, that is part of it, but there are also the teachings, and that is what I believed in at first. Belief in God came later.
And the fact that you already believed Baha'i had no influence on you reaching the conclusion that God exists?
No, I do not see a flaw. Evidence FOR a claim supports that claim. Now, if I wanted to disprove the claim, I would look for evidence that refutes the claim. For example, I would try to dig up some dirt on Baha'u'llah and what He did on His mission.
If I was not already a Baha'i and i was a seeker I would want to look at everything that is available to look at that has been written about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith, both pro and con, but I have already seen the pro and the con so I have no need to look at it again.
I clearly explained how it was a flaw. Our beliefs must ALWAYS be tested. The moment we decide that we've got the truth and thus don't need to actually investigate things properly is the moment that we can't claim to have an accurate view of the real world.