I told you why I don't consider the Bible or any words ever written evidence for a deity. Evidence for something is something detectible or discernible that make one of two or more possibilities more likely to be the case. If that is not how you are interpreting evidence, then you're misinterpreting it. Is the existence of the novel Moby Dick evidence for (or against) a God as well? Does its existence make the likelihood of a god greater, less, or the same?
Less likely to be the case according to what
your expectations. All people see things from their own perspectives and I have different expectations, so as I see it, it would be unlikely to be the case that the entire Bible was written by men who had no divine inspiration because there would be no motive for men to make all that stuff up about God and because authors who did not even know each other wrote things that are consistent with what the other authors wrote.
The existence of the novel Moby Dick is not evidence for or against a God. Its existence does not make the likelihood of a God greater, less, or the same. However, the Bible is not comparable to a novel.
No, I have not concluded that gods don't exist.
That’s good to hear. So you are an agnostic atheist.
I suppose that if I relax my standards enough, I could call Moby Dick evidence that there is no God. You might object, saying that that book in no way rules out gods, and my answer could be like yours: You have convinced yourself that Moby Dick is not evidence against God based upon what you would expect to see.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but it is the fallacy of false equivalency to compare the Bible to a novel because the Bible does not read like a novel nor does it pretend to be a novel.
False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia
It doesn't need to be proven either way to serve as evidence for a God. It just has to be words that make the existence of a God more likely. I gave you an example with irreducible biological complexity. Such a finding is strong evidence for an intelligent designer, although that intelligence need not be supernatural.
More likely according to what
you have determined would be likely if the Bible was evidence for God. The analytical process you are engaging in only yields a personal opinion – more likely vs. less likely according to what you would consider likely if the Bible was evidence for God.
I never claimed that biological complexity was evidence that God is the Creator, because there are other ways that Creation could have come into being.
What you offer as evidence of a God is words that either of us could have written. I'm sure I could. Actually, I think it would be more likely that I could write convincing pseudo-scripture than a classic novel. That is why others are rejecting your assertion that the Bible or any other holy book indicates that a God wrote any part of it.
Unless you actually wrote the Bible you cannot say you could have written it. You
believe you or I could have but you do not
know.
I
never claimed that God wrote any of the Bible! God does not write but God can inspire people to write. How much of the Bible is divinely inspired is anyone’s best guess. I don’t believe much of it is, but there is no way to know.
Here are some Baha'i views of the Bible, and I hold the middle ground.
Introduction
Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.
A Baháí View of the Bible
These are the rules of interpreting evidence. They're not negotiable to one with well developed critical thinking skills. As I've said before, if you want to persuade such a person, you have to play on their field by their rules. If you offer as evidence that which does not make your conclusion more (or less) likely, it will be rejected as evidence for that claim, which is what is happening here.
What is happening here is that
you have already decided what would be more or less likely is God existed and as long as you hold to that position you will not change what you believe.
God either exists(a) or God does not exist (b), and using likelihoods of x, y, or z will never get you any closer to determining if it is a or b because the likelihoods are based only on
your expectations of what would be more likely or less likely if God existed, and you could be wrong.
And your response is basically that you intend to consider those words evidence for a deity anyway. OK. That's obviously adequate for you, but not for the critical thinker. Remember, you began this thread by asking what would be evidence of God's existence. You have been told.
Regarding the Bible, I cannot say I would ever have considered it evidence for God’s existence if Baha’u’llah did not uphold it as God’s testimony. I was never a Christian.
No, I have not been told what would be evidence of God's existence which is what I asked in the OP, I have only been told what would not be evidence for God’s existence; e.g., the Bible. But I already know that atheists don’t consider the Bible to be evidence for God’s existence so that is nothing new.
That which makes the likelihood of a deity more likely. You claim that words from prophets and messengers do that, but have yet to show a single passage that accomplishes that.
It is not mainly the scriptures that show that the Messengers claims are valid. Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and
if those do not fully suffice He said to look at His words (His Writings).
“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106
This comment from Sam Harris summarizes where we are at now:
· "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water"? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over."
What if someone says, that's not how I chose to think about evidence? What if their position is that anything they want to call evidence for their belief is evidence to them even if it doesn't make their belief more likely? Same answer: Then the conversation is over. That's what I meant by playing by rules of critical analysis, which includes knowledge about interpreting evidence.
Logically speaking, the converse applies. What if someone says, that's not how I chose to think about evidence? What if their position is that anything they want to call
non-evidence for their non-belief is
non-evidence to them even if it doesn't make their non-belief more likely? Same answer: Then the conversation is over. That's what I meant by playing by rules of critical analysis, which includes knowledge about interpreting evidence.
I've told you that the rules for interpreting evidence aren't negotiable. If you choose to do it your own way, then you're off the reservation.
Why are your rules for interpreting evidence
better than my rules?
So you think this kind of writing is evidence for a God? I don't.
I
never said that the writing is evidence for a God and I don’t know where you got that idea. Scriptures will normally be viewed as evidence only AFTER one had already verified the source from which they originated to be of divine origin. As I noted above, the scriptures are not the first evidence we look at.
I could write the same thing about critical thinking:
I actually have support for my version. The stellar success of science is evidence that this approach to knowledge (epistemology) is valid, and no other method is, since no other method can do that. Baha'u'llah is just making unevidenced claims.
To compare science and religion is the fallacy of false equivalence since religion is NOT science. As such the approach to knowledge of science and the approach to knowledge of religion can never be the same. Science can be proven factually true by testing and experimentation whereas religion can never be proven factually true by testing and experimentation. That is why they are called religious
beliefs.
Aren't you arguing that such an argument is supporting your contention that scripture is evidence of a God?
I am absolutely NOT arguing that scripture is evidence for God’s existence since as you said scripture could have been written without a God involved.
