• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
To be fair that tends to happen with all religions.

People may go through a lot of work if they actually choose a religion. But once they have chosen the tend to ease up on trying to confirm their beliefs.
Well, thinking I "believed" was tested early on. There are just too many "do's and don'ts". Who can and who wants to follow all the religious rules? And Christianity was supposedly not "under" the law, so it's worse with a religion, like the Baha'i Faith, that has a lot of rules.

For two or three months I tried to obey the rules and morals of Christianity. And I felt an inner "spiritual" thing happening. So that kind of, I'd call it, confirmed that Jesus was real. But I was in my twenties and couldn't keep telling myself and girls "no". And, it ended up all my friends were doing it with their girlfriends. Then it ended up the Music Minister was having an affair. Then Jimmy Swaggart was in the news for having had an affair. So did I believe strong enough to follow all the rules? Hell no, just some of them. Enough to look like a Christian for another two years... like smiling and saying "Hi, God bless you" to everyone at Church.

But it was the same with my Baha'i friends. They were nice people and tried to spread the word about this new religion that was supposed to be bringing peace and harmony to the world. But when alone, a couple of the girls got a little "friendly", and who was I to say no? But the funniest thing that ever happened was with a couple of Catholic girls. They said, "Do whatever you like... We'll just go to confession tomorrow." So, I'm sure there's some people that follow all the rules, but I would doubt very many. So how deep, and how strong is their belief?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You repeatedly said it was evidence?

Evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

You seem to have contradicted your earlier assertions that you have made repeatedly, that the bible is evidence?
There is more than one definition of evidence. 15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support your initial premise? If not I must withhold belief.
That would depend upon what you mean by objective evidence.
For a deity? I've only seen bare assertions sorry, could you demonstrate what you consider to be the best piece of objective evidence you think supports the belief a deity exists?
No, not for a deity. I have presented evidence (facts and information) that indicates the claims of Baha'ullah are true.
Yes you have sorry, you even claimed to have evidence (facts and information) to support them,
That is because I have evidence (facts and information) to support my beliefs.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
No. I was very careful to state quite clearly that I did not know if his claims were true or not. I said if true it did not look good for him.

Do you have any reliable sources, and that would exclude Baha'i sources, on his life? By the way since Muslims opposed him it would also exclude Muslim sources.

The most reliable early history was compiled by early Baha'i, so it would not be lost, in a book called the Dawn Breakers, Nabils Narrative. That is of the time of the Bab. So it gives the story from those who had faced the attempt to silence them.

So yes, Persian Islam records were aimed at the elimination of the faith, so are highly unreliable.

There are other external sources.

Regards Tony
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
but if the Bible is God's testimony as I believe, the Bible is evidence.

It is the all or nothing fallacy to say that just because there are some errors in the Bible that it is not true at all.
Besides that, much of the Bible is symbolic truth, not literal truth.

The Bible has too many problems for me to be able to rely upon it for my beliefs
Some errors? And what are errors and what is true? And, what is this "symbolic" truth. I thought you kind of agreed with me that it was written to be taken as being literally true? That would be just too strange to have some guys write a story that was "symbolical" and not make it clear to the readers. Because it is the Bible, people today still take it literally. People today, still try and prove why it is reliable and true.

And still, the dumbest "symbolic" truth I ever heard was Abdul Baha's explanation of the meaning of the resurrection...

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.
Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection.​
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Then the bible is not demonstrable evidence, you just choose to believe it is. Evidence is defined as the body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, yet despite asserting you believe those two assertions, you can demonstrate no objective evidence for those beliefs? I realise you don't seem to see this as a barrier to belief but your assertion that the bible is evidence is clearly not something you can support.
The Bible is evidence, just not according to YOUR definition of evidence. You commit the fallacy of jumping to conclusions when you assume there is only one kind of evidence.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them

Evidence comes in many forms, and even if it’s not admissible in court it can still be relevant to a case and provide valuable insight during an investigation

Posted by Dawn Lomer on April 6th, 2016

1. Analogical Evidence
While not a kind of evidence you’d use in court, this kind of evidence can be useful for increasing credibility by drawing parallels when there isn’t enough information to prove something in a workplace investigation. Analogical evidence uses a comparison of things that are similar to draw an analogy.

2. Anecdotal Evidence
Anecdotal evidence isn’t used in court, but can sometimes help in a workplace investigation to get a better picture of an issue. The biggest problem with this kind of evidence is that it is often “cherry picked” to present only anecdotes that support a particular conclusion. Consider it with skepticism, and in combination with other, more reliable, kinds of evidence.

3. Character Evidence
This is a testimony or document that is used to help prove that someone acted in a particular way based on the person’s character. While this can’t be used to prove that a person’s behavior at a certain time was consistent with his or her character, it can be used in some workplace investigations to prove intent, motive, or opportunity.

4. Circumstantial Evidence
Also known as indirect evidence, this type of evidence is used to infer something based on a series of facts separate from the fact the argument is trying to prove. It requires a deduction of facts from other facts that can be proven and, while not considered to be strong evidence, it can be relevant in a workplace investigation, which has a different burden of proof than a criminal investigation.

5. Demonstrative Evidence
An object or document is considered to be demonstrative evidence when it directly demonstrates a fact. It’s a common and reliable kind of evidence. Examples of this kind of evidence are photographs, video and audio recordings, charts, etc. In a workplace investigation, this could be an audio recording of someone’s harassing behavior or a photograph of offensive graffiti.

6. Digital Evidence
Digital evidence can be any sort of digital file from an electronic source. This includes email, text messages, instant messages, files and documents extracted from hard drives, electronic financial transactions, audio files, video files. Digital evidence can be found on any server or device that stores data, including some lesser-known sources such as home video game consoles, GPS sport watches and internet-enabled devices used in home automation. Digital evidence is often found through internet searches using open source intelligence (OSINT).

7. Direct Evidence
The most powerful type of evidence, direct evidence requires no inference. The evidence alone is the proof. This could be the testimony of a witness who saw first-hand an incident of sexual harassment in the workplace.

8. Documentary Evidence
Most commonly considered to be written forms of proof, such as letters or wills, documentary evidence can also include other types of media, such as images, video or audio recordings, etc.

9. Exculpatory Evidence
This type of evidence can exonerate a defendant in a – usually criminal – case. Prosecutors and police are required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they find or risk having the case dismissed.

10. Forensic Evidence
Forensic Evidence is scientific evidence, such as DNA, trace evidence, fingerprints or ballistics reports, and can provide proof to establish a person’s guilt or innocence. Forensic evidence is generally considered to be strong and reliable evidence and alongside helping to convict criminals, its role in exonerating the innocent has been well documented. The term “forensic” means “for the courts”. Its use in workplace investigations is generally limited to serious cases that may end up in court.

11. Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence consists of statements made by witnesses who are not present. While hearsay evidence is not admissible in court, it can be relevant and valuable in a workplace investigation where the burden of proof is less robust than in court.

12. Physical Evidence
As would be expected, evidence that is in the form of a tangible object, such as a firearm, fingerprints, rope purportedly used to strangle someone, or tire casts from a crime scene, is considered to be physical evidence. Physical evidence is also known as “real” or “material” evidence. It can be presented in court as an exhibit of a physical object, captured in still or moving images, described in text, audio or video or referred to in documents.

13. Prima Facie Evidence
Meaning “on its first appearance” this is evidence presented before a trial that is enough to prove something until it is successfully disproved or rebutted at trial. This is also called “presumptive evidence”.

14. Statistical Evidence
Evidence that uses numbers (or statistics) to support a position is called statistical evidence. This type of evidence is based on research or polls.

15. Testimonial Evidence
One of the most common forms of evidence, this is either spoken or written evidence given by a witness under oath. It can be gathered in court, at a deposition or through an affidavit.

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Could you please demsonrate some objective evidence for any deity then please? Preferably the most compelling piece of objective evidence you think you have, but that's your choice. Only I keep seeing claims for evidence, but no actual evidence.

So can we agree on this, can you also say in your refutation of faith you have undertaken it Objectively?

What type of Objective evidence are you after, there is more then the scientific method, a reporter can also compile objective evidence.

Unbiased:
Objective evidence is unbiased.
Factual: Objective evidence is factual.
First hand: Objective evidence is first-hand. trusted.
Traceable: Objective evidence is traceable.

and

We can also often turn subjective evidence into objective evidence by doing some additional digging, like an audit trail. So we might start out with biased or second-hand information, but then convert it to objective evidence by asking a few more questions.

Regards Tony
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It is the fallacy of black and white thinking and the all or nothing fallacy to say that either everything in the Bible is true or nothing in the Bible is true. You will never be able to reason rationally as long as you keep committing logical fallacies.
Don't throw your "logic" BS at me. Did a messenger from God reveal it? Black and White? Tell me, why are those statements in Acts wrong? Are they "metaphorical"? And how "logical" is it for a religion to say that the Bible is the greatest gift one minute and say it is not wholly authoritative or accurate the next?

Oh, and I've got to look at this again... "You will never be able to reason rationally as long as you keep committing logical fallacies?" Wow. You tell me how accurate that statement is? So, it insinuates that I don't reason rationally? Because I keep committing logical fallacies? Unbelievable.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
That is for you to figure out, if it is important to you. I have no need to sort it out since I have a new religion and new scriptures.
Wait, your "new" religion says this...

Abdul Baha's explanation of the meaning of the resurrection...

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.
Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection.

Do you have any comments on Abdul Baha's interpretation? Does this sound "logical" and "reasonable"?
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is true?

Is that the only mud pie you can keep throwing?

If it is important, maybe you can use it to falsify the Messenges claims instead, so what scientific objective evidence disproves the existence of the spirit claimed by the Messengers?

Give that a go instead.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
And when did modern science start? Didn't Galileo have a run in with the Catholic rulers? So even then and before that, what did science have to do with trying to make some bird fly straight?

The issue is, that all our material advances have never been intune with the spirit of the Messengers.

Regards Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Don't throw your "logic" BS at me. Did a messenger from God reveal it? Black and White?
I will throw logic at you because it is my last ditch effort. Without logical reasoning you can never figure anything out.
Whether a Messenger of God revealed it or not is black and white because it is either true or false.
Tell me, why are those statements in Acts wrong? Are they "metaphorical"?
That depends upon what you mean by wrong. Maybe they are not wrong but they can be interpreted in different ways. I have posted my interpretation of Acts 1:9-11 numerous times and it is just as valid as any Christian interpretation.
And how "logical" is it for a religion to say that the Bible is the greatest gift one minute and say it is not wholly authoritative or accurate the next?
I never said the Bible was the greatest gift; I said that Baha'u'llah said that it is Gods' greatest testimony to His creatures, so now we need to figure out what He meant by testimony. It could mean more than one thing.

You already know the Baha'i view on the Bible, but here it is again, for our other viewers:

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.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Below is the Baha'i position on the Bible according to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Shoghi Effendi:

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet.

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Regarding the stories in the Bible, the following are more letters from Shoghi Efffendi about the Bible:

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)

Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
Oh, and I've got to look at this again... "You will never be able to reason rationally as long as you keep committing logical fallacies?" Wow. You tell me how accurate that statement is? So, it insinuates that I don't reason rationally? Because I keep committing logical fallacies? Unbelievable.
I do not make statements without backing them up with examples. You keep saying that Bahais have to believe all of the Bible or none of the Bible. It is black and white thinking and it is all or nothing fallacy to say that either all of the Bible is true or none of the Bible is true. That is clearly illogical.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Rather than intuitive, I will term it as hear-say. So Bahaollah and Abdul Baha were illiterates, and even Shoghi's reports were not satisfactory in school.That is right. .
When and where were they hearing these? In those days, they didn't have TV's, and did not attend talks on scientific matters.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Wait, your "new" religion says this...

Do you have any comments on Abdul Baha's interpretation? Does this sound "logical" and "reasonable"?
It sounds logical and reasonable to me. If you do not think it is logical and reasonable please tell me why it isn't.

It does not explain why the resurrection stories sound as if these events really took place, but that is for us to ponder. I don't think we can ever know why they were written as if real so all we can do is use our rational mind and come up with a reason that makes sense to us.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
The issue is, that all our material advances have never been intune with the spirit of the Messengers.

Regards Tony
The issue was that the RCC assigned itself as the sole arbiter of god's truth on earth.

When Galileo challenged that authority with scientific facts that were at odds with church doctrine and dogma, they subjected an old man to the Inquisition. Shown the instruments of his torture of course Galileo recanted, but the Pope was taking no chances and he sentenced to house arrest for the rets of life.

Galileo's evidence in support of the ideas of Copernicus, didn't need religion, religious beliefs, or any deity to explain and evidence them.

So your metaphor about two wings of the same bird is pretty hilarious, sorry. I've debated too many creationists to believe religions value the integrity of science, they value it for what it can give them, then deny it when it contradicts their beliefs in any way.

I don't care if religions value or work with science, I'm just glad they don't have the power to directly threaten or supress science and scientists anymore.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So your metaphor about two wings of the same bird is pretty hilarious, sorry. I've debated too many creationists to believe religions value the integrity of science, they value it for what it can give them, then deny it when it contradicts their beliefs in any way.
Two fallacies that atheists routinely commit are the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.
They commit these fallacies whenever they 'assume' that the Baha'i Faith is just like Christianity or any other religion.

If you are trying to say that the Baha’i Faith is no different from Christianity that is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:
  1. religion a did x, y and z
  2. religion b did x, y and z
  3. religion c did x, y and z
  4. religion d did x, y and z
  5. religion e did x, y and z
  6. religion f did x, y and z
  7. religion g did x, y and z
8. Therefore, religion h (in this case the Baha’i Faith) does x, y, and z, just like all the other religions.

The following is the Baha'i position on science and religion which is markedly different from the Christian position.

Science and Religion

Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion, a notion that became prevalent in intellectual discourse at a time when the very conception of each system of knowledge was far from adequate. The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith, which teaches that religion, without science, soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism. “Religion,” according to the Bahá’í writings, “is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive.”1Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created things embody the potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific acquisition is a higher virtue specialized to man alone. Other beings and organisms are deprived of this potentiality and attainment.2

So far as earthly existence is concerned, many of the greatest achievements of religion have been moral in character. Through its teachings and through the examples of human lives illumined by these teachings, masses of people in all ages and lands have developed the capacity to love, to give generously, to serve others, to forgive, to trust in God, and to sacrifice for the common good. Social structures and institutional systems have been devised that translate these moral advances into the norms of social life on a vast scale. In the final analysis, the spiritual impulses set in motion by the Founders of the world’s religions—the Manifestations of God—have been the chief influence in the civilizing of human character.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá has described science as the “most noble” of all human virtues and “the discoverer of all things”.3 Science has enabled society to separate fact from conjecture. Further, scientific capabilities—of observing, of measuring, of rigorously testing ideas—have allowed humanity to construct a coherent understanding of the laws and processes governing physical reality, as well as to gain insights into human conduct and the life of society.

Taken together, science and religion provide the fundamental organizing principles by which individuals, communities, and institutions function and evolve.

https://www.bahai.org/beliefs/god-his-creation/ever-advancing-civilization/science-religion
 
Top