Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[Tiberius]

It is the objective facts themselves AND my interpretation of them.

They are two separate things.

 

[Trailblazer]

Absolute garbage. There are plenty of ideas based on objective facts which, when shared, can be checked. The particle/wave duality of light, for example.

How is that related to what I said?

We are not talking about checking to see if the facts about Baha'ullah are true, we already know they are facts so they are true. We are talking about me being able to share why I believe in Baha'u'llah, why I think the facts mean He is a Messenger of God.

Then you agree with me? You could have some subconscious bias which is leading you to an incorrect conclusion?

No, I do not agree with that. I came to my own conclusion just like God wanted me to.
I do not believe it is incorrect.

And this is what we use PEER REVIEW for. If I come up with an idea that is being influenced by some subconscious bias of mine, I can get someone to check it. After all, since they probably don't have the same subconscious biases that I do, they will be able to see where I made the mistake.

This is a very basic concept, and it works with ALL examination of ideas, so don't try to pretend it's a science only thing. It's not.

I have already explained why peer review is inappropriate for determining what we should believe about a Messenger of God. We want our own personal opinion whatever it is. We do not want someone else's personal opinion. "unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard." What that means is that we should not give a rip about what other people think about Baha'u'llah.

What Baha’u’llah wrote in The Kitáb-i-Íqán (The Book of Certitude) on the very first pages is vitally important. The following is part of the last sentence of a longer paragraph, the part I want to point out and explain.

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say or do.

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves.

How to Independently Investigate the Truth

So circular reasoning it is. "Mr B could only have been that prolific if he was divinely inspired, therefore he must have been a messenger from God. Since he was a messenger from God, he would have been divinely inspired, and that explains why he was so prolific."

That is a straw man. I never said that.
I said: "Since I already know that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God, I believe it came from God."
Stop misrepresenting me or you will not hear from me again.

 

[Trailblazer]

They are two separate things.

That's right. Maybe we are making some progress.

 

[Tiberius]

How is that related to what I said?

We are not talking about checking to see if the facts about Baha'ullah are true, we already know they are facts so they are true. We are talking about me being able to share why I believe in Baha'u'llah, why I think the facts mean He is a Messenger of God.

I was pointing out that there are plenty of conclusions that are based on objective facts, conclusions which can indeed by objectively shared with others. Your claim that being able to share a conclusion based on objective facts is not sufficient to convince others is, therefore, incorrect.

No, I do not agree with that. I came to my own conclusion just like God wanted me to.
I do not believe it is incorrect.

I said, "you can not eliminate the possibility that you are wrong due to some subconscious bias."

You said, "Every human has a subconscious and a bias."

Does that "every human" statement include you? Is it possible for you to have a subconscious bias which leads you to be wrong?

I have already explained why peer review is inappropriate for determining what we should believe about a Messenger of God. We want our own personal opinion whatever it is. We do not want someone else's personal opinion. "unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard." What that means is that we should not give a rip about what other people think about Baha'u'llah.

Your reasons for claiming that peer review is not suitable in this case seem to stem solely from the fact that you want to be able to keep using your subjective opinion as a basis for belief, and subjecting subjective opinion to peer review will show that it doesn't correspond to reality at all.

Now, you are free to believe what you want, I have literally zero problem with that. What I have a problem with is you claiming that you have something that backs it up when all you have is your opinion and subjective interpretation of the facts.

What Baha’u’llah wrote in The Kitáb-i-Íqán (The Book of Certitude) on the very first pages is vitally important. The following is part of the last sentence of a longer paragraph, the part I want to point out and explain.

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say or do.

As you have already been asked, why do you ignore this advice when it comes to Mr B himself?

And, sharing with me the source of your opinion does absolutely nothing to convince me that your opinion is accurate.

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves.

How to Independently Investigate the Truth

And how do we make sure our investigation is without error? How do we check it? If we have made a mistake unknowingly, then we will make the same mistake when we go to check it, and reached the same flawed conclusion. That is why we need to get others to check our work. They are unlikely to make the same mistakes as us.

I keep telling you this, and you never seem to understand it.

That is a straw man. I never said that.
I said: "Since I already know that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God, I believe it came from God."
Stop misrepresenting me or you will not hear from me again.

Okay, so you said that.

But the thing is, how did you know that Mr B was really a messenger from God? Now, it can't include his prolific output of work, since if you do, you are using his prolific work to justify you believing that he was a messenger, and then you are using your belief that he really was a messenger to justify citing his prolific output as proof he was divinely inspired. As I've said, this is circular logic, and you've claimed you are not using that.

So it must be something different. Yet, when I asked you to provide something from the Objective Facts about Mr B that could only have happened if he was divinely inspired, his prolific output was the only thing you mentioned.

So everything else that he did could have been done by a regular guy, someone who was not divinely inspired. I mean, if there WAS something else, surely you would have mentioned it, right? Yet you only gave one thing. So it would seem to me that you have no justification to believe that he was a messenger from God unless you base that conclusion off his prolific output. And if that is true, you can't claim to KNOW he was a real messenger from God.

So there is one of three options:

1. You are basis your claim that Mr B was a messenger from God off things for which there is a non-divine explanation, therefore you can not claim to KNOW that he was a messenger
2. You are using circular logic
3. There is something else that he did that could ONLY have happened if he really was divinely inspired.

Which is it? Option one, option two, or option three?

 

[Tiberius]

That's right. Maybe we are making some progress.

Yes, hopefully we are, and you can stop pretending that they are the same thing. Maybe you'll stop bring up one when I am clearly talking about the other.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, hopefully we are, and you can stop pretending that they are the same thing.

I never pretended that they are the same, it was all just a misunderstanding.

 

[Sheldon]

That's a contradictory claim.

No, not at all.

My belief is supported by objective evidence that I interpreted subjectively.

Well it quite demonstrably is, bare denials won't change that. Though it does demonstrate that you still seem to not fully understand the nature of objectivity or evidence. If you subjectively interpret something, then it is not objective, if the source were objective then it would not require subjective interpretation. Like flat earthers, who see the same objective evidence of a spherical planet as everyone else, but subjectively interpret it to believe in a flat earth. Their subjective belief of course does not change the shape pf the earth. You also got this wrong when you said all beliefs are subjective. Whilst there can be a scale of objectivity it is obvious that objective facts supported by overwhelming objective evidence are at one end of that scale, and entirely subjective interpretations like yours, and flat earthers, are at the other.

 

[Sheldon]

And don't play your weak game of hiding behind "I'm not stating/claiming/declaring/announcing anything, I'm simply saying what I believe." No one buys it for a second.

I agree, the semantics simply don't support her claim. A belief is the affirmation of a claim that something is true, When anyone asserts a belief in the way she has done here repeatedly, it is a claim that something is true, that couldn't be any clearer.

Claim
verb

1. State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

So if someone states or asserts a belief they are calming that belief is true, with or without evidence or proof.

I believe the world is not flat but spherical, and by saying so I just claimed it is true, and what's more the belief (in this instance) can be supported by sufficient objective evidence, evidence that does not require, nor is it influenced by, subjective opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

I was pointing out that there are plenty of conclusions that are based on objective facts, conclusions which can indeed by objectively shared with others. Your claim that being able to share a conclusion based on objective facts is not sufficient to convince others is, therefore, incorrect.

Objective scientific facts that are shared with others are not believed because the person with whom the objective fact was shared convinced the other person it was true. That is not necessary. It is a scientific fact because it was already proven to be true. You do not someone to convince you that the earth is round.

I can share my conclusion that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God based upon the objective facts of the Baha’i Faith but that is not going to convince other people to come to the same conclusion I came to. Was my conclusion sufficient to convince you? Why can’t you look at the objective facts and come to your own conclusion?

I said, "you can not eliminate the possibility that you are wrong due to some subconscious bias."

You said, "Every human has a subconscious and a bias."

Does that "every human" statement include you? Is it possible for you to have a subconscious bias which leads you to be wrong?

Is it possible for you to have a subconscious bias which leads you to be wrong about Baha’u’llah?

Your reasons for claiming that peer review is not suitable in this case seem to stem solely from the fact that you want to be able to keep using your subjective opinion as a basis for belief, and subjecting subjective opinion to peer review will show that it doesn't correspond to reality at all.

No, it would only introduce the subjective opinions of the people doing the peer review. God does not want us to have the subjective opinions of other people, He wants us to have our own subjective opinions as the basis of our belief. That is what you are totally missing.

Now, you are free to believe what you want, I have literally zero problem with that. What I have a problem with is you claiming that you have something that backs it up when all you have is your opinion and subjective interpretation of the facts.

That is all anyone can EVER have, subjective interpretation of the objective facts. Try to think about why, if you can remove your bias.

As you have already been asked, why do you ignore this advice when it comes to Mr B himself?

I don’t. I have never used the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. I always used my own rational mind.

And, sharing with me the source of your opinion does absolutely nothing to convince me that your opinion is accurate.

That was not an opinion, it was a scripture passage.

And how do we make sure our investigation is without error? How do we check it? If we have made a mistake unknowingly, then we will make the same mistake when we go to check it, and reached the same flawed conclusion. That is why we need to get others to check our work. They are unlikely to make the same mistakes as us.

No, but they might make other mistakes thus introducing more errors. Whatever mistakes we might make are our responsibility. When we take a final exam in college we don’t have other students check our exam before we hand it in. No, we do the exam our-self and hand it in and the professor checks it and sees if we made any mistakes and then he grades it.

Likewise, God will check our work and know if we made mistakes. You want some kind of guarantee that you will not make a mistake and choose the wrong religion but there is no such guarantee. We are all responsible to do our own homework and make a choice. Not choosing any religion is also a choice and it could have consequences.

I keep telling you this, and you never seem to understand it.

I keep telling you what I just said, and you never seem to understand it. God does not want the test results of other people; God wants us to take the test and come up with our own answers. We all have to do our OWN work because we are all fully accountable to God for our OWN beliefs. We cannot say “God, I did not believe because Mr. Jones reviewed my results and he said I had errors, so I rejected Baha’u’llah.” That will not cut it with God.

So it must be something different. Yet, when I asked you to provide something from the Objective Facts about Mr B that could only have happened if he was divinely inspired, his prolific output was the only thing you mentioned.

That is the first thing I thought of because it is impressive to me. Actually, the answer is that there is nothing in the objective facts that could only have happened if he was divinely inspired. So we are right back to square one. You want some proof that Baha’u’llah received communication from God but there is no way to prove that. All we can do is look at the preponderance of evidence and come to a conclusion. Faith is necessary when proof is impossible but it should always be an evidence-based faith.

So everything else that he did could have been done by a regular guy, someone who was not divinely inspired. I mean, if there WAS something else, surely you would have mentioned it, right? Yet you only gave one thing. So it would seem to me that you have no justification to believe that he was a messenger from God unless you base that conclusion off his prolific output. And if that is true, you can't claim to KNOW he was a real messenger from God.

No, his prolific output is certainly not the reason I believed that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, but the content of His Writings if what convinced me. However, the preponderance of evidence is why I am certain, not just one thing.

So there is one of three options:

1. You are basis your claim that Mr B was a messenger from God off things for which there is a non-divine explanation, therefore you can not claim to KNOW that he was a messenger

2. You are using circular logic

3. There is something else that he did that could ONLY have happened if he really was divinely inspired.

Which is it? Option one, option two, or option three?

It is 3. In my opinion, there is something else that he did that could ONLY have happened if he really was divinely inspired, and that is His Writings. If one thing convinced me more than anything else that God communicated to Baha’u’llah, it was Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and The Kitáb-i-Íqán.

I explained that in a post to another Baha'i, @Dawnofhope in April 2021.

“It was only 43 years after I had become a Baha'i that I connected with the Writings of Baha'u'llah on both an intellectual and an emotional level when I read Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh for the first time with serious intent, and that is when I realized without a doubt that Baha'u'llah was speaking for God. My life has never been the same since. Before that I had believed in God and I knew Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God; after that I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that God existed and Baha'u'llah was His Representative for this age. Such was the effect that little book had upon my heart and mind.”

How important are facts within your religious beliefs?

 

[Sheldon]

It is a scientific fact because it was already proven to be true.

No. it is a scientific fact because the amount of objective evidence supporting it has led to a broad consensus. Science doesn't "prove" things.

You do not someone to convince you that the earth is round.

You know that many people still maintain the earth is flat right? Do you think they haven't seen the objective evidence, or that they subjectively interpret it to mean something else?

I can share my conclusion that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God based upon the objective facts of the Baha’i Faith but that is not going to convince other people to come to the same conclusion I came to.

Indeed, because your conclusions is a subjective belief, and not based on objective evidence, as is the case with all religious beliefs of course.

Was my conclusion sufficient to convince you? Why can’t you look at the objective facts and come to your own conclusion?

The one's presented here don't appear to be objective facts on the whole, and what objective facts there are don't remotely support the subjective conclusion you have reached, obviously else I would share your belief and not be an atheist.

 

[Tiberius]

I never pretended that they are the same, it was all just a misunderstanding.

It's happened too many times for me to believe it was a misunderstanding. Once or twice, I could accept, but you've done this kind of thing quite a few times now.

 

[Tiberius]

Objective scientific facts that are shared with others are not believed because the person with whom the objective fact was shared convinced the other person it was true. That is not necessary. It is a scientific fact because it was already proven to be true. You do not someone to convince you that the earth is round.

So then how was it first proved? Someone has to do it in the first place, and that only happens by sharing the objective facts to show everyone.

I can share my conclusion that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God based upon the objective facts of the Baha’i Faith but that is not going to convince other people to come to the same conclusion I came to. Was my conclusion sufficient to convince you? Why can’t you look at the objective facts and come to your own conclusion?

Your conclusion is based on your SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the facts. Since it is subjective, you can not claim it to be an objective fact.

And don't try that "I'm not claiming anything" nonsense again. No one buys it.

Is it possible for you to have a subconscious bias which leads you to be wrong about Baha’u’llah?

Absolutely. If you or anyone else can point out where such a bias has occurred, please point it out. I will base my conclusion on the objective facts only, no subjective interpretation.

No, it would only introduce the subjective opinions of the people doing the peer review. God does not want us to have the subjective opinions of other people, He wants us to have our own subjective opinions as the basis of our belief. That is what you are totally missing.

Are you deliberately ignoring me? I have pointed out MANY TIMES that peer review works because different people usually don't share the same biases. If I get someone else to check my work, they can remove my bias, but I am also able to remove their bias. This is a very simple concept that is at the core of peer review, and despite the fact I have explained it to you many times, you refuse to understand it. Since I have told you this many times, I can only conclude that you are deliberately ignoring me in regards to this point.

That is all anyone can EVER have, subjective interpretation of the objective facts. Try to think about why, if you can remove your bias.

Once again, different people are unlikely to share the same bias. So if you get a lot of people who agree that the evidence points to a particular conclusion, it's safe to say that this conclusion is unlikely to be influenced by some bias.

I don’t. I have never used the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. I always used my own rational mind.

You've used the words and deeds of Mr B.

That was not an opinion, it was a scripture passage.

Which you used as the source of your opinion that "we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets."

No, but they might make other mistakes thus introducing more errors.

That's why we check their work as well!

How many times do I need to explain this to you?

Whatever mistakes we might make are our responsibility. When we take a final exam in college we don’t have other students check our exam before we hand it in. No, we do the exam our-self and hand it in and the professor checks it and sees if we made any mistakes and then he grades it.

Bad analogy.

An exam is designed to see what we know - not what we can figure out with other people.

And if the aim was simply to get the highest score, then having other students check our work would show us where we missed something, and we'd get a much higher score, wouldn't we?

Likewise, God will check our work and know if we made mistakes. You want some kind of guarantee that you will not make a mistake and choose the wrong religion but there is no such guarantee. We are all responsible to do our own homework and make a choice. Not choosing any religion is also a choice and it could have consequences.

Pascal's wager is a weak argument.

I keep telling you what I just said, and you never seem to understand it. God does not want the test results of other people; God wants us to take the test and come up with our own answers. We all have to do our OWN work because we are all fully accountable to God for our OWN beliefs. We cannot say “God, I did not believe because Mr. Jones reviewed my results and he said I had errors, so I rejected Baha’u’llah.” That will not cut it with God.

That God wants that is your subjective opinion. Why should I care what you claim God wants us to do when I don't even think God exists?

That is the first thing I thought of because it is impressive to me. Actually, the answer is that there is nothing in the objective facts that could only have happened if he was divinely inspired. So we are right back to square one. You want some proof that Baha’u’llah received communication from God but there is no way to prove that. All we can do is look at the preponderance of evidence and come to a conclusion. Faith is necessary when proof is impossible but it should always be an evidence-based faith.

Right. So if there is NOTHING that Mr B did that could only be explained by him being a legit messenger from God, then you could be wrong about the whole thing, couldn't you?

No, his prolific output is certainly not the reason I believed that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, but the content of His Writings if what convinced me. However, the preponderance of evidence is why I am certain, not just one thing.

That's still just your subjective opinion.

It is 3. In my opinion, there is something else that he did that could ONLY have happened if he really was divinely inspired, and that is His Writings. If one thing convinced me more than anything else that God communicated to Baha’u’llah, it was Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and The Kitáb-i-Íqán.

I explained that in a post to another Baha'i, @Dawnofhope in April 2021.

“It was only 43 years after I had become a Baha'i that I connected with the Writings of Baha'u'llah on both an intellectual and an emotional level when I read Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh for the first time with serious intent, and that is when I realized without a doubt that Baha'u'llah was speaking for God. My life has never been the same since. Before that I had believed in God and I knew Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God; after that I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that God existed and Baha'u'llah was His Representative for this age. Such was the effect that little book had upon my heart and mind.”

How important are facts within your religious beliefs?

Now you are contradicting yourself. Just now you said, "there is nothing in the objective facts that could only have happened if he was divinely inspired."

Now you are saying, "there is something else that he did that could ONLY have happened if he really was divinely inspired, and that is His Writings."

So which is it?

And is it any wonder that people find you unconvincing when you contradict yourself so regularly?

 

[Trailblazer]

It's happened too many times for me to believe it was a misunderstanding. Once or twice, I could accept, but you've done this kind of thing quite a few times now.

Are you above having a misunderstanding?
You are implying that I deliberately misled you. I never did that.
What you 'believe' I have done was simply a misunderstanding on your part.

I misunderstand other people and when they explain how I misunderstood them I endeavor to understand what they really meant. Then I move on.

 

[Tiberius]

Are you above having a misunderstanding?
You are implying that I deliberately misled you. I never did that.
What you 'believe' I have done was simply a misunderstanding on your part.

You have done it far too often for it to be just a misunderstanding.

I misunderstand other people and when they explain how I misunderstood them I endeavor to understand what they really meant. Then I move on.

Then I fail to see why you keep repeating flawed arguments when I have explained it to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

So then how was it first proved? Someone has to do it in the first place, and that only happens by sharing the objective facts to show everyone.

No, scientific facts are proven by the scientific method, by observation and testing, not by sharing the objective facts to show everyone.

'how are scientific facts proven'

Facts in Science

It can be proven to be correct through observations and testing. This process is known as the scientific method. However, it's important to remember that nothing is ever final in science. Even facts can change over time if new, disputing discoveries happen.
Scientific Fact — Definition & Examples - Expii

Your conclusion is based on your SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the facts. Since it is subjective, you can not claim it to be an objective fact.

I do not claim that my belief (which is based upon my subjective interpretation) is an objective fact. I never claimed that.

Absolutely. If you or anyone else can point out where such a bias has occurred, please point it out. I will base my conclusion on the objective facts only, no subjective interpretation.

Just like everyone else, you will base your conclusion on your subjective interpretation the objective facts, which will be your personal opinion.

Are you deliberately ignoring me? I have pointed out MANY TIMES that peer review works because different people usually don't share the same biases. If I get someone else to check my work, they can remove my bias, but I am also able to remove their bias. This is a very simple concept that is at the core of peer review, and despite the fact I have explained it to you many times, you refuse to understand it. Since I have told you this many times, I can only conclude that you are deliberately ignoring me in regards to this point.

I am not ignoring you, I just adamantly disagree with you, and continuing to repeat yourself over and over and over again will not make any difference.

You are ignoring me when I explain why peer review cannot be used to choose a religions belief. I have explained it time and again, and you ignore me every time.

Peer review is used for science and it has other applications but it is never used for picking a religious belief. That is why you cannot even find one article on the internet regarding using peer review for religion. This is your own hokey idea. You just don't want to be responsible for your own choices because you don't have enough confidence in your ability to make the right choice.

God does not ant our personal bias to be removed, that is what YOU WANT. God wants our personal opinion/belief, biases and all.

Once again, different people are unlikely to share the same bias. So if you get a lot of people who agree that the evidence points to a particular conclusion, it's safe to say that this conclusion is unlikely to be influenced by some bias.

"get a lot of people who agree that the evidence points to a particular conclusion"

Fallacy of ad populum.

You've used the words and deeds of Mr B.

That's right, and that is exactly what Baha'u'llah enjoined all of us to do!
God does not want us to listen to other peoples' opinions

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

What that says is that we will never discover the truth about Baha'u'llah if we listen to what other people think about Baha'u'llah. Rather we need to look at the words and deeds of Baha'u'llah by ourselves and come to our own conclusion regarding what they mean (was He a Messenger of God or not?) In other words, we should never base our conclusions on other people's opinions. That is why peer review is the worst thing we could ever do.

Which you used as the source of your opinion that "we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets."

That was not my opinion, it is my belief based upon what Baha'u'llah wrote. You can dispute it if you want to but I will never change my mind about this as it is the ONLY WAY one can ever discover the truth about God. You want opinions of many people about what you should believe, but God does not want other people's opinions, He only wants our own opinion.

That's why we check their work as well!

How many times do I need to explain this to you?

You can repeat it until ell freezes over but it will never make any difference.
Nothing could be more absurd than having other people check to see if we made the right choice regarding a religions belief, NOTHING. You are the only person who ever came up with such a ridiculous idea.

Bad analogy.

An exam is designed to see what we know - not what we can figure out with other people.

God does not want us to figure out what to believe with other people. God wants us to work individually and study the objective facts about Baha'u'llah and come to own conclusion about Baha'u'llah. What we conclude is our full responsibility because we alone are accountable to God for our own belief on judgment day.

And if the aim was simply to get the highest score, then having other students check our work would show us where we missed something, and we'd get a much higher score, wouldn't we?

But the aim is NOT to get the highest score, the aim is to independently investigate and decide what to believe. Why should other people show you where you might have been wrong? They have their on homework to do and their own test to take and they are each accountable to God for the belief they choose.

Pascal's wager is a weak argument.

Straw man. That was not Pascal's wager.

That God wants that is your subjective opinion. Why should I care what you claim God wants us to do when I don't even think God exists?

What God wants is according to my belief, not according to my subjective opinion.
This entire discussion is moot if you do not care what God would want if God existed.

Right. So if there is NOTHING that Mr B did that could only be explained by him being a legit messenger from God, then you could be wrong about the whole thing, couldn't you?

Why are you so concerned about whether I might be wrong?

I believe that that what Baha'u'llah did in toto is explained by Him being a Messenger of God and I do not believe a non-Messenger could ever do what He did.

That's still just your subjective opinion.

An opinion is all any of us has unless something can be proven as a fact. Religious beliefs cannot be proven as facts so all we can ever have is a subjective opinion.

Now you are contradicting yourself. Just now you said, "there is nothing in the objective facts that could only have happened if he was divinely inspired."

Now you are saying, "there is something else that he did that could ONLY have happened if he really was divinely inspired, and that is His Writings."

So which is it?

And is it any wonder that people find you unconvincing when you contradict yourself so regularly?

I do not contradict myself, but sometimes I change my mind during the process of a discussion if I think of something new. There is nothing in the objective facts that you would believe could only have happened if He was divinely inspired so that stands. However, I later realized that there there is something in the objective facts that I believe could only have happened if He was divinely inspired, and that is His Writings. That is my subjective opinion, not something I can prove.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have done it far too often for it to be just a misunderstanding.

I did not do anything. You just misunderstood what I meant and you cannot own up to that.
Not my problem.

Then I fail to see why you keep repeating flawed arguments when I have explained it to you.

Because I do not agree with your arguments and I think they are flawed.

 

[Tiberius]

No, scientific facts are proven by the scientific method, by observation and testing, not by sharing the objective facts to show everyone.

'how are scientific facts proven'

Facts in Science

It can be proven to be correct through observations and testing. This process is known as the scientific method. However, it's important to remember that nothing is ever final in science. Even facts can change over time if new, disputing discoveries happen.
Scientific Fact — Definition & Examples - Expii

Peer review is an important part of the scientific process.

I do not claim that my belief (which is based upon my subjective interpretation) is an objective fact. I never claimed that.

You claimed to KNOW. That's functionally equivalent.

Just like everyone else, you will base your conclusion on your subjective interpretation the objective facts, which will be your personal opinion.

And as I said (and you ignored), if you or anyone else can point out where such a bias has occurred, please point it out. I am inviting peer review. (See how it can apply to discussions about religion, not just science?)

I am not ignoring you, I just adamantly disagree with you, and continuing to repeat yourself over and over and over again will not make any difference.

You have never provided a justification for your disagreement. You argument has been nothing more than repeated cries of, "Nope, 'fraid not!"

You are ignoring me when I explain why peer review cannot be used to choose a religions belief. I have explained it time and again, and you ignore me every time.

I am not ignoring you, I just adamantly disagree with you, and continuing to repeat yourself over and over and over again will not make any difference.

Peer review is used for science and it has other applications but it is never used for picking a religious belief.

I never said it should be used to choose a religious belief to follow.

I have said we should use it to remove any biases we might have when it comes to determining the validity of a religious belief.

That is why you cannot even find one article on the internet regarding using peer review for religion. This is your own hokey idea. You just don't want to be responsible for your own choices because you don't have enough confidence in your ability to make the right choice.

I can't find one article about religion that uses peer review?

I found a WHOLE JOURNAL that uses it!

Critical Research on Religion is a peer-reviewed, international journal focusing on the development of a critical theoretical framework and its application to research on religion. SOURCE
​

Now, would you like to withdraw your claim?

God does not ant our personal bias to be removed, that is what YOU WANT. God wants our personal opinion/belief, biases and all.

Why would God want us to be influenced by biases?

"get a lot of people who agree that the evidence points to a particular conclusion"

Fallacy of ad populum.

No.

If you make some measurement by yourself, then you can get it wrong. Perhaps your math was off. Perhaps your equipment was poorly calibrated. Any number of potential errors could have led to you getting an incorrect result.

But if you get ten other people to check your work, and they all get the same result as you, it is highly unlikely, statistically speaking, that they will be incorrect. After all, if they got the same incorrect answer as you, then all of their calculations must be off by the same amount. And how could that happen if they are using their own equipment? Even if your equipment was miscalibrated, what are the chances that their equipment would be miscalibrated in exactly the same way? Very small.

As I've said before, you do not understand science, and you do not understand peer review. Disagree all you want, but you are WRONG.

That's right, and that is exactly what Baha'u'llah enjoined all of us to do!
God does not want us to listen to other peoples' opinions

Unless that "other person" is Mr B!

Do you see the hypocrisy there?

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

What that says is that we will never discover the truth about Baha'u'llah if we listen to what other people think about Baha'u'llah. Rather we need to look at the words and deeds of Baha'u'llah by ourselves and come to our own conclusion regarding what they mean (was He a Messenger of God or not?) In other words, we should never base our conclusions on other people's opinions. That is why peer review is the worst thing we could ever do.

Are you saying that the opinions of others are worthless?

Well, that certainly describes how I feel about your opinions...

That was not my opinion, it is my belief based upon what Baha'u'llah wrote.

Opinion, belief, same thing.

You can dispute it if you want to but I will never change my mind about this as it is the ONLY WAY one can ever discover the truth about God. You want opinions of many people about what you should believe, but God does not want other people's opinions, He only wants our own opinion.

According to your admittedly fallible viewpoint.

You can repeat it until ell freezes over but it will never make any difference.
Nothing could be more absurd than having other people check to see if we made the right choice regarding a religions belief, NOTHING. You are the only person who ever came up with such a ridiculous idea.

Yes, I am not surprised in the least by the arrogant claim that no one else could be better qualified than you to make a determination about the validity of a religion. People of all religions do it.

God does not want us to figure out what to believe with other people. God wants us to work individually and study the objective facts about Baha'u'llah and come to own conclusion about Baha'u'llah. What we conclude is our full responsibility because we alone are accountable to God for our own belief on judgment day.

If we are to ignore the words of others (Mr B gets a pass for some reason), then why shouldn't we start by ignoring your words?

But the aim is NOT to get the highest score, the aim is to independently investigate and decide what to believe. Why should other people show you where you might have been wrong? They have their on homework to do and their own test to take and they are each accountable to God for the belief they choose.

God does not want us to get the most accurate view possible?

Straw man. That was not Pascal's wager.

Yes it is. You said, "Not choosing any religion is also a choice and it could have consequences." Oh no! I could face CONSEQUENCES! A thinly veiled threat of God punishing me (the consequences) means your argument is nothing but "If you don't believe the right religion, God will punish you." And the right religion is always the one held by the person offering the thinly veiled threat.

What God wants is according to my belief, not according to my subjective opinion.

Your belief IS a subjective opinion. You yourself have admitted that you can never prove it objectively.

This entire discussion is moot if you do not care what God would want if God existed.

Then why do you keep making arguments for it?

And don't hide behind the "I'm not making arguments/making claims/etc," stuff.

Why are you so concerned about whether I might be wrong?

I honestly couldn't care.

My objections stem solely from the facts that you present your belief as fact, then whenever someone calls you out for that, you run and hide behind the "I'm not presenting it as fact, just stating my beliefs," argument, only to come out and do the same thing over and over again, and the fact that you constantly present logical fallacies and poor logic as though they actually mean something when they don't.

I believe that that what Baha'u'llah did in toto is explained by Him being a Messenger of God and I do not believe a non-Messenger could ever do what He did.

And yet you have admitted the exact opposite. "Actually, the answer is that there is nothing in the objective facts that could only have happened if he was divinely inspired. So we are right back to square one. You want some proof that Baha’u’llah received communication from God but there is no way to prove that." Those are your own words from Post 5449.

An opinion is all any of us has unless something can be proven as a fact. Religious beliefs cannot be proven as facts so all we can ever have is a subjective opinion.

So you can never claim to KNOW your belief is true, can you? Knowing, after all, requires certainty, and you can't get that from a subjective opinion.

I do not contradict myself, but sometimes I change my mind during the process of a discussion if I think of something new. There is nothing in the objective facts that you would believe could only have happened if He was divinely inspired so that stands. However, I later realized that there there is something in the objective facts that I believe could only have happened if He was divinely inspired, and that is His Writings. That is my subjective opinion, not something I can prove.

That's a laugh.

"I never contradict myself, but sometimes I say things that are the direct opposite of things I have said earlier."

 

[Tiberius]

Because I do not agree with your arguments and I think they are flawed.

You have never provided any justification to back up your claims that they are flawed.

 

[Trailblazer]

Peer review is an important part of the scientific process.

Tell me something I do not know.
But peer review is not part of the process of selecting a religion to believe in.

You claimed to KNOW. That's functionally equivalent.

No, I never claimed to know, I only ever said I know. That is not a claim, it is a statement of certitude regarding my belief.

And as I said (and you ignored), if you or anyone else can point out where such a bias has occurred, please point it out. I am inviting peer review. (See how it can apply to discussions about religion, not just science?)

It occurred every time you offered an opinion about Baha'u'llah or the Baha'i Faith.
You base your conclusion on your subjective interpretation the objective facts, and that is your biased personal opinion.

Why would it MATTER what other people think? That is just their personal opinion, it cannot be proven as a fact.

You have never provided a justification for your disagreement. You argument has been nothing more than repeated cries of, "Nope, 'fraid not!"

That is absolutely false and I could prove it if I wanted to waste my time going back through the posts.

I have provided a justification for my disagreement, over and over and over and over and over and over again, but you just blow me off. By stark contrast, I responded to what you say and explained why peer review is not appropriate for choosing a religious belief.

I am not ignoring you, I just adamantly disagree with you, and continuing to repeat yourself over and over and over again will not make any difference.

Then why not just agree to disagree and call it a day? I do not want to argue about this anymore. Baha'u'llah said that if two people argue they are both wrong.

I never said it should be used to choose a religious belief to follow.

I have said we should use it to remove any biases we might have when it comes to determining the validity of a religious belief.

That is the same thing. You are saying peer review should be used to remove any biases so we will not make a mistake and pick the wrong religious belief.

I can't find one article about religion that uses peer review?

I found a WHOLE JOURNAL that uses it!

Critical Research on Religion is a peer-reviewed, international journal focusing on the development of a critical theoretical framework and its application to research on religion. SOURCE
​

Now, would you like to withdraw your claim?

No, I am not going to withdraw my claim. You found a peer reviewed journal, that is all you found! Most journals are peer reviewed so that is nothing new.

You have found nothing that says that religious beliefs should be subject to peer review by other people in order to remove personal biases and you will never find such a thing anywhere since it is your own idea and nobody else would ever present such a ridiculous idea.

Critical Research on Religion is a peer-reviewed, international journal focusing on the development of a critical theoretical framework and its application to research on religion. It provides a common venue for those engaging in critical analysis in theology and religious studies, as well as for those who critically study religion in the other social sciences and humanities such as philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, history, and literature. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/crr

Why would God want us to be influenced by biases?

As I said, God wants our personal opinion/belief and that includes any biases we might have.
There is nothing wrong with having a bias unless it is unfair and if we have a bias that is unfair it is our job to realize that. It is not someone else's job to point it out.

bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bias+means

No.

If you make some measurement by yourself, then you can get it wrong. Perhaps your math was off. Perhaps your equipment was poorly calibrated. Any number of potential errors could have led to you getting an incorrect result.

But if you get ten other people to check your work, and they all get the same result as you, it is highly unlikely, statistically speaking, that they will be incorrect. After all, if they got the same incorrect answer as you, then all of their calculations must be off by the same amount. And how could that happen if they are using their own equipment? Even if your equipment was miscalibrated, what are the chances that their equipment would be miscalibrated in exactly the same way? Very small.

As I've said before, you do not understand science, and you do not understand peer review. Disagree all you want, but you are WRONG.

This only applies to science, NOT to religion. I am sorry you cannot understand why.
I understand science and the purpose of peer review but you do not understand religion and the importance of individual investigation of truth, but you might understand if you could remove your bias and try to understand.

Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true.

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."
Independent Investigation of Truth

How to Investigate Things For Yourself—and Not Rely on Hearsay

Science PART 3 IN SERIES: The What Why and How of Independent Investigation

Clearly, the Baha’i teachings ask all people to independently investigate the truth—but many will still be left with the question: How do I actually do robust independent investigation for myself?

One of the most straightforward ways to learn how to investigate reality involves learning the processes of science—which dovetails with the Baha’i principle of the essential harmony of science and religion:

Perhaps the most important gift that science has to offer us is the knowledge of its methods. The scientific method forms an excellent model for investigating many truths. The scientific method involves five basic steps:

• careful observation
• applying rigorous, questioning skepticism to those observations
• formulating hypotheses based on the observations, and on inductive reasoning
• experimental and measurement-based testing of all deductions drawn from the hypotheses
• and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

https://bahaiteachings.org/how-to-investigate-things-for-yourself-not-rely-on-hearsay
IN SERIES: The What Why and How of Independent Investigation

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

Unless that "other person" is Mr B!

Do you see the hypocrisy there?

You are not being logical at all.
There is no hypocrisy because Baha'u'llah is not 'other people', He was a Messenger of God.
What He wrote is not His opinion, it is based upon His Revelation from God. If you do not read what He wrote how can you ever know anything about His claim and teachings?

Are you saying that the opinions of others are worthless?

No, that is NOT what I am saying. What I am saying is that we should not base our beliefs upon other people's opinions. People should all base their beliefs upon their own opinions.

We will never discover the truth about Baha'u'llah if we listen to what other people think about Baha'u'llah. Rather we need to look at the words and deeds of Baha'u'llah by ourselves and come to our own conclusion regarding what they mean (was He a Messenger of God or not?) In other words, we should never base our conclusions on other people's opinions. That is why peer review is the worst thing we could ever do.

Well, that certainly describes how I feel about your opinions...

If my opinions are worthless, does that mean we are done here?

Yesterday, an atheist I have been posting to on other forums for over seven years asked me if I get paid for talking about my religion on forums and I told him no, I do not get paid. Here is how he responded.
"Then I guess you're paid what you're worth: nothing"

I had four posts from him yesterday but I did not respond to any of them.
I said:
"Since you think I am worth nothing, I have no reason to respond to any more of your posts... less work for me.

Happy trails."

Yes, I am not surprised in the least by the arrogant claim that no one else could be better qualified than you to make a determination about the validity of a religion. People of all religions do it.

That is a straw man. I never said that so that no one else could be better qualified than me to make a determination about the validity of a religion.. I only ever said that what we decide to believe should be determined by each one of us individually, our beliefs should not be determined by someone else.

If we are to ignore the words of others (Mr B gets a pass for some reason), then why shouldn't we start by ignoring your words?

That is a good point. You should not go by anything I say about Baha'u'llah. You should make your own determinations. I have said that on this forum myriad times.

God does not want us to get the most accurate view possible?

God does want that, but God does not want us to get our views from other people.

Yes it is. You said, "Not choosing any religion is also a choice and it could have consequences." Oh no! I could face CONSEQUENCES! A thinly veiled threat of God punishing me (the consequences) means your argument is nothing but "If you don't believe the right religion, God will punish you." And the right religion is always the one held by the person offering the thinly veiled threat.

All I said was it could have consequences. Everything we do has consequences. I did not say what those consequences would be because only God knows that.

Your belief IS a subjective opinion. You yourself have admitted that you can never prove it objectively.

I said: I keep telling you what I just said, and you never seem to understand it. God does not want the test results of other people; God wants us to take the test and come up with our own answers.

You said: That God wants that is your subjective opinion. Why should I care what you claim God wants us to do when I don't even think God exists?

I said: What God wants is according to my belief, not according to my subjective opinion.
This entire discussion is moot if you do not care what God would want if God existed.

What I meant is that my belief about what God wants (God wants us to take the test and come up with our own answers) comes from Baha'u'llah, it is not my personal opinion.

Then why do you keep making arguments for it?

And don't hide behind the "I'm not making arguments/making claims/etc," stuff.

I said: This entire discussion is moot if you do not care what God would want if God existed.

Do you mean why do I keep making arguments for what God wants?
I make arguments for what God wants because I am a believer who believes I know what God wants.
The question you should ask yourself is why you keep making arguments for how we should come to a belief in God if you do not care what God would want if God existed.

I honestly couldn't care.

My objections stem solely from the facts that you present your belief as fact, then whenever someone calls you out for that, you run and hide behind the "I'm not presenting it as fact, just stating my beliefs," argument, only to come out and do the same thing over and over again

Another straw man. I never presented my belief as a fact and many many times I have said a religious belief is not a fact because it can never be proven true.

If you had any logical reasoning abilities you would know that a belief and a fact are mutually exclusive.

And yet you have admitted the exact opposite. "Actually, the answer is that there is nothing in the objective facts that could only have happened if he was divinely inspired. So we are right back to square one. You want some proof that Baha’u’llah received communication from God but there is no way to prove that." Those are your own words from Post 5449.

I said : I believe that that what Baha'u'llah did in toto is explained by Him being a Messenger of God and I do not believe a non-Messenger could ever do what He did.
The answer is that there is nothing in the objective facts that you are going to believe could only have happened if he was divinely inspired.

So you can never claim to KNOW your belief is true, can you? Knowing, after all, requires certainty, and you can't get that from a subjective opinion.

I never claimed to know that my belief is true, I only ever said that I believe it is true.
I know with certainty because I got that certainty from God.

That's a laugh.

"I never contradict myself, but sometimes I say things that are the direct opposite of things I have said earlier."

You really have no logical abilities, that is becoming more and more obvious as time goes on.

A person saying something different from what they said before because they had a new and different thought is not a contradiction. You see, some of us can have new thoughts and new ideas rather than repeating the same old mantra over and over and over again. Some of us can also admit we might have been wrong and change our position. Obviously you can't. You are above admitting you might have been wrong.