Baha'i and Messengers

[F1fan]

What does objective evidence mean?

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.
What does objective evidence mean?

There is no information based on facts that can be proved, so there is no objective evidence, but I do not care if there is no objective evidence. You care but I do not care.

So if you are accused of murdering someone and the killer's blood is at the crime scene and is tested to be type O, and then you get a blood test and it comes back as type A you won't accept that as objective evidence?

 

[F1fan]

Out of body NDE,s.

Dreams where the future is foretold.

Regards Tony

There are no NDEs that give information that can only be explained from a person's conscious awareness being outside their physical body. So that is out.

If you mean dreams that have ominous predictions that might come true? Well that happens all the time. We humans can see indications of a phenomenon and put pieces together and have a "prediction". Like if you son keeps coming home drunk and you have a dream that he gets arrested and beaten up in jail, then three weeks later he gets arrested and beaten up in jail, well that is called coincidence.

We humans are pattern seeking animals and we often think coincidences are some special abilities we have when instead it is just our brains putting together many, many forgotten scenarios. the forgotten scenario only comes back into consciousness because events happen that are similar to what we imagined. We forget all the scenarios we imagine that don't happen, and we assume we have a special ability. Too bad this special ability doesn't work for lottery ticket, eh?

 

[loverofhumanity]

No human's knowledge is infallible, nor can it ever be. Your last paragraph looks like an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to me, as logically no one needs to disprove a claim. Nor does simply asserting that you believe something is a fact, make it factual, and of course this:

"after thorough investigation of many years, I concluded that Baha’u’llah was from God and His knowledge infallible therefore unquestionably correct, factual and true."

Is a circular reasoning fallacy. If I claimed that after thorough investigation of many years, I concluded that Harry Potter was a wizard, and His wizardry infallible, therefore wizardry was unquestionably correct, factual and true. Would that be a compelling reason for you to believe Harry Potter was a real wizard? I'm guessing not, so perhaps you can see how your claim might look to others?

That’s an incorrect assumption for Baha’u’llah is not Harry Potter.

 

[Sheldon]

You need to look deeper and not just for evidence to support one side of a story.

Sorry but that's pretty ironic, given you have chosen to be certain in one version of one deity.

There is a lot science cannot explain about dreams and NDE's.

Science couldn't explain lightning, volcanic explosions, earthquakes or tsunamis once, but all the superstitious assumptions humans imagined about them, turned out to be wrong when science did managed to explain the natural phenomena that cause them.

Knowing how it may work does not mean one knows of the source of the phenomenon associated with it.

You seem to be using god of the gaps polemic here, argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies. not knowing something doesn't justify unevidenced assumptions.

 

[Sheldon]

Dreams where the future is foretold.

Yeah I am extremely dubious about this claim, but let's assume for the sake of argument someone can demonstrate an example, all you would have is inexplicable event, it would be irrational to make unevidenced assumptions based on not knowing why something appears to have occurred as it has.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There are no NDEs that give information that can only be explained from a person's conscious awareness being outside their physical body. So that is out.

If you mean dreams that have ominous predictions that might come true? Well that happens all the time. We humans can see indications of a phenomenon and put pieces together and have a "prediction". Like if you son keeps coming home drunk and you have a dream that he gets arrested and beaten up in jail, then three weeks later he gets arrested and beaten up in jail, well that is called coincidence.

We humans are pattern seeking animals and we often think coincidences are some special abilities we have when instead it is just our brains putting together many, many forgotten scenarios. the forgotten scenario only comes back into consciousness because events happen that are similar to what we imagined. We forget all the scenarios we imagine that don't happen, and we assume we have a special ability. Too bad this special ability doesn't work for lottery ticket, eh?

Sorry but that's pretty ironic, given you have chosen to be certain in one version of one deity.



Science couldn't explain lightning, volcanic explosions, earthquakes or tsunamis once, but all the superstitious assumptions humans imagined about them, turned out to be wrong when science did managed to explain the natural phenomena that cause them.

You seem to be using god of the gaps polemic here, argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies. not knowing something doesn't justify unevidenced assumptions.

I have absolutely no motivation to say more than I have on this.

We all choose how we see life, to which I have personally found is much more than the material senses.

If you need science to confirm what we can already know, then that is a choice and I am happy for you to have that choice.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

That is not true sorry, simply linking sites that contain your religion's claims, or quoting those claims, is not evidence.

Sorry, it is evidence, but the claims are not the evidence. The claims are completely separate from the evidence that supports the claims.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I am one of numerous objective thinkers, and my type of evidence is perfectly adequate as has been explained to you by many folks. You don't like it, but my evidence is still adequate.

Do you ever question just as to WHY your "evidence" is not liked by so many others? I am also curious as to how you can consider your evidence as being "adequate" when in the same breath you claim to be an OBJECTIVE THINKER?......when what you believe, is for the most part, purely SUBjective?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yeah I am extremely dubious about this claim, but let's assume for the sake of argument someone can demonstrate an example, all you would have is inexplicable event, it would be irrational to make unevidenced assumptions based on not knowing why something appears to have occurred as it has.

I am not dubious as I have had my own dreams come true.

All the best. Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

In casual debate a proposition can be argued to be likely true. As for gods, they are not even in a category that is plausible and consistent with facts and reality, that being: supernatural.

How would anyone, even a Baha'i, know that the Sky God, or Sun God, or the Volcano God isn't real?

If "The God" is real but not in any way we can see or prove, then why can't there be an invisible spirit that controls the Sun or a volcano? Yet, most of us don't believe that is so. And, I wouldn't be surprised, if some "God" believing people "know" that those other Gods aren't real, because their Scriptures tells them that there is only one God, and all those other Gods are false.

 

[Sheldon]

"after thorough investigation of many years, I concluded that Baha’u’llah was from God and His knowledge infallible therefore unquestionably correct, factual and true."

Is a circular reasoning fallacy. If I claimed that after thorough investigation of many years, I concluded that Harry Potter was a wizard, and His wizardry infallible, therefore wizardry was unquestionably correct, factual and true. Would that be a compelling reason for you to believe Harry Potter was a real wizard? I'm guessing not, so perhaps you can see how your claim might look to others?

That’s an incorrect assumption for Baha’u’llah is not Harry Potter.

It's not an assumption it is a question, you see the question mark at the end right? Your claim is not objectively different to my hypothetical example, don't fixate on Harry Potter, just ask yourself why you think your bare claim is a compelling argument for your beliefs?

Instead of making the bare assertion that you have studied the religions and find it compelling, offer what you think is the best objective evidence for why you believe that?

 

[Trailblazer]

If it is open to subjective opinion, then it is not very good evidence.

All evidence for religion is open to subjective opinion. There is no way around that since no religion can be proven as a fact, like science can be proven.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I have absolutely no motivation to say more than I have on this.

Regards Tony

In my relatively short time here, I have noticed a decided lack of motivation to discuss what a Bahai believes, beyond the claims themselves.
I take it, this is typical of Bahai strategy, in that disallowing debate, is a safe way to defend ones beliefs, in the absence of any, shall I say, more EMPIRICAL kind of "evidence"?

 

[Sheldon]

I am not dubious as I have had my own dreams come true.

All the best. Regards Tony

I remain extremely dubious about this bare unevidenced claim.

And again even were we to assume for the sake of argument, that someone can demonstrate it was true, all you would have is inexplicable event, it would be irrational to make unevidenced assumptions based on not knowing why something appears to have occurred as it has.

You just seem to have doubled down with another unevidenced claim, then ignored the part where I explained making assumptions about an inexplicable event is irrational. This response seems little more than hand waving sorry.

 

[Trailblazer]

So if you are accused of murdering someone and the killer's blood is at the crime scene and is tested to be type O, and then you get a blood test and it comes back as type A you won't accept that as objective evidence?

I was talking about religion, not about objective evidence in a court of law.

For religion, there is no information based on facts that can be proved, so there is no objective evidence, but I do not care if there is no objective evidence.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

All evidence for religion is open to subjective opinion. There is no way around that since no religion can be proven as a fact, like science can be proven.

So THAT begs the question of why would anyone actually BELIEVE any of this religious nonsense.....unless it really IS something emotional within the person that is what is the actual motivation and driving force TO believe?

 

[CG Didymus]

@CG Didymus , People can make the change even without religion. Religion creates a dependency which is harmful. The dependency has side-effects of religious extremism (Bahaollah is God's messenger for the current age lasting 50,000 years. He is this and he is that). It is like a soother given to the child. When the child grows up, it is many a times difficult to make the child loose the habit.

Yes, we see the habits and worse, the superstitions people got from their religions. Sometimes, with superstitious beliefs, people ended up dead like with the Chrisitan witch hunts.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I was talking about religion, not about objective evidence in a court of law.

For religion, there is no information based on facts that can be proved, so there is no objective evidence, but I do not care if there is no objective evidence.

Man, THAT sure says a lot........"you don't CARE if there is no objective evidence"......you just believe.....just because that's what you WANT TO DO, or what?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
If it is open to subjective opinion, then it is not very good evidence.

All evidence for religion is open to subjective opinion.

Pause for thought if true, I would think.

There is no way around that since no religion can be proven as a fact, like science can be proven.

You keep making this same false dichotomy fallacy, since our choices are not limited to pure subjective opinion, or absolute proof, which is a misnomer anyway.

The point is that what you call evidence cannot be supported by any objective evidence, and as you admitted, is being subjectively interpreted to give the meaning you accept. So not objectively different to any other religion really.

 

[Trailblazer]

In my relatively short time here, I have noticed a decided lack of motivation to discuss what a Bahai believes, beyond the claims themselves.
I take it, this is typical of Bahai strategy, in that disallowing debate, is a safe way to defend ones beliefs, in the absence of any, shall I say, more EMPIRICAL kind of "evidence"?

It goes beyond the claims. There is evidence but there is no EMPIRICAL evidence, since it can never be validated (proven) that an alleged Messenger was a Messenger of God. I posted the evidence for Baha'u'llah on the BUE forum.

Empirical evidence is a quintessential part of the scientific method of research that is applicable in many disciplines. In the scientific method, the pieces of empirical evidence are used to validate or disprove a stated hypothesis. It is used to test if a statement regarding a population parameter is correct.

Empirical Evidence - Definition, How to Collect, Types