Can you give me a solid proof

[Trailblazer]

That is an exceedingly weak definition of evidence. By the way, when you go use dictionary definitions for a complex idea you have admitted that you are wrong.

That is a little bit better and guess what, you just refuted your claims about their being evidence for your beliefs. The key word being "facts".

And back to weak definitions of evidence.

Here is something else that you need to understand:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Your claims are all in the extraordinary class and none of the "evidence" has been any stronger than me saying:

"I bought a puppy today!"

My claim in itself is evidence. The above claim many people would take as enough evidence to believe me. If I said:

"I bought a 12 foot dragon today!!"

You would be much more likely to demand some sort of reliable evidence. My claim alone is not strong enough evidence for such an event. So until you show some reliable evidence, and "I am convinced of it" is never enough for a concept to be reliable, the question is are other people convinced by it, then you have no evidence for your beliefs.

FYI, I am not arguing with atheists about what constitutes evidence anymore. Been there, done that.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is that you contradict yourself when you post only claims as evidence.

I never posted a claim as evidence.The claims are separate from the evidence.
Baha'u'llah made claims A and B and provided evidence C, D, and E to support His claims.

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

 

[Subduction Zone]

FYI, I am not arguing with atheists about what constitutes evidence anymore. Been there, done that.

How convenient. When you are demonstrably wrong you refuse to debate. Here are your red tiles ma'am:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never posted a claim as evidence.The claims are separate from the evidence.
Baha'u'llah made claims A and B and provided evidence C, D, and E to support His claims.

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

now that makes no sense at all.

All you have to do is to claim a belief. No one will fault you for that. When you claim evidence it becomes "Put up or shut up" time and so far you have totally failed to provide evidence for your beliefs.

You could even say that "Baha'i makes sense to me". That would be find. But that is not evidence. A personal conviction does not necessarily mean that one has evidence.

This might help: Beliefs are private. Evidence is public.

 

[Trailblazer]

How convenient. When you are demonstrably wrong you refuse to debate.

No, I just see the futility of arguing over the same things over and over and over and over and over again.
I lost a good atheist friend because we were arguing about the same things over and over again.
Because of arguing I can no longer post to him nor he to me per staff request.

 

[Trailblazer]

This might help: Beliefs are private. Evidence is public.

and the evidence is publicly available on the internet.

 

[Trailblazer]

You could even say that "Baha'i makes sense to me". That would be find. But that is not evidence.

Straw man. I never said my personal belief is evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and the evidence is publicly available on the internet.

The lack of evidence is publicly available.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Straw man. I never said my personal belief is evidence.

That was a possible solution for you. So not a strawman.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Messengers of God are human but they are also divine, so they are not just 'other people.'
The only way anyone is going to receive any communication from God is through the Messengers.
God is not going to speak to anyone else directly because nobody else has the capacity to understand God.

Again it's sourced to other people, who are alleged to be something more than special by declaration.


Dosent do very much if all it entails is putting someone on a pedestal and attempting to making it sound impressive.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I wouldn't accept that argument. The mystical experience isn't evidence of anything except that the human brain can have these experiences, not that they refer to any actual referent outside of the mind. The experience of the tree allows one to make accurate predictions about reality that guesses about the significance of a mystical experience cannot. If one goes outside and runs as fast as he can at the object of his mystical experience and then again at the tree, there will be only one interaction with reality.

That may be enough for some to believe both exist outside of one's head, but I would suggest not for those adept at reasoning.

I don't think I did a great job of explaining James's or Hick's positions.

Let's consider your tree example. When a botanist observes a tree, she does so in order to (as you say) make predictions about it. (Level of monthly growth, chlorophyll levels, etc.). Using her data, the botanist can draw conclusions which allow her to make accurate predictions about the world (or at least about certain plant life in the world).

This is, at bottom, an experiential observation. All empirical observations are sense experiences. Whether it is observing the tree, or using an instrument to analyze the tree, we must first "experience" a thing... even taking a reading from a sensor or other device is a sense experience. Without a basic experience or raw observation, we don't call something real.

That was Hick's point. Not that mystical experiences allow us to make predictions about the world. Simply that, experience is the most basic thing we have to learn what is real and what isn't, and that all science depends on experience to exist at all. If experience is such a solid epistemic foundation that it can support all of science, reasons Hick, then perhaps it can support other enterprises. Like religious ones.

Not that I find Hick's argument convincing. I'm a nonbeliever after all. It's just that I'm always looking for decent arguments that challenge my own position (atheism). As you well know, there are a ton of bad arguments out there. This one at least pushes the needle a little bit. Say what you will about Hick's argument. But it's head and shoulders above "my holy book says so" or "you can't prove God doesn't exist."

 

[blü 2]

I don't think I did a great job of explaining James's or Hick's positions.

Let's consider your tree example. When a botanist observes a tree, she does so in order to (as you say) make predictions about it. (Level of monthly growth, chlorophyll levels, etc.). Using this data, the botanist can draw conclusions which allow her to make accurate predictions about the world (or at least about certain plant life in the world).

This is, at bottom, an experiential observation. All empirical observations are sense experiences. Whether it is observing the tree, or using an instrument to analyze the tree, we must first "experience" a thing... even taking a reading from a sensor or other device is a sense experience. Without a basic experience or raw observation, we don't call something real.

That was Hick's point. Not that mystical experiences allow us to make predictions about the world. Simply that, experience is the most basic thing we have to learn what is real and what isn't, and that all science depends on experience to exist at all. If experience is such a solid epistemic foundation that it can support all of science, reasons Hick, then perhaps it can support other enterprises. Like religious ones.

Not that I find Hick's argument convincing. I'm a nonbeliever after all. It's just that I'm always looking for decent arguments that challenge my own position (atheism). As you well know, there are a ton of bad arguments out there. This one at least pushes the needle a little bit. Say what you will about Hick's argument. But it's head and shoulders above "my holy book says so" or "you can't prove God doesn't exist."

Interesting.

My own view is based on three assumptions ─ That a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing of that world, and that reason is a valid tool. (They have to be assumptions since none of them can be demonstrated to be correct without first assuming it is indeed correct ─ an idea of Descartes, though his examples differ from mine.)

This more clearly distinguishes the world external to the self, and the role of the senses, than it seems to me Mr Hick does.

I also wonder how Mr Hick defines "real" and "reality". "Real" for me means having objective existence, found in nature, the world external to the self. Is he a mathematical Platonist who thinks 1, 2, 3, pi, e, i, have objective existence, are independent of human thought?

(As for not being able to prove God's non-existence, God to be real would, in my terms, have to exist in nature, in which case [he]'d have a description such as any other natural thing has. There appears to be no such description of God ─ or if there is, no one's talkin'. But if there was, it would then be proper to say to the one who proclaims God is real, "Show me".)

 

[vulcanlogician]

Interesting.

My own view is based on three assumptions ─ That a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing of that world, and that reason is a valid tool. (They have to be assumptions since none of them can be demonstrated to be correct without first assuming it is indeed correct ─ an idea of Descartes, though his examples differ from mine.)

Nice. Pretty solid assumptions. Do you count yourself as a rationalist?

This more clearly distinguishes the world external to the self, and the role of the senses, than it seems to me Mr Hick does.

I also wonder how Mr Hick defines "real" and "reality". "Real" for me means having objective existence, found in nature, the world external to the self. Is he a mathematical Platonist who thinks 1, 2, 3, pi, e, i, have objective existence, are independent of human thought?

Hick was following in the British analytic tradition. So, no. He did not have any particular Platonic leanings. Nor do his ideas necessarily depend on a permanent or transcendent reality "beyond this one."

It should be pointed out that Hick did not think mystical experiences were "evidence of God"... He didn't think we could go around saying "God exists, because I experienced him."

In fact, it's best to forget the concept of God entirely when first approaching Hick's arguments concerning mysticism. Hick thought that mystical experience is a rational basis for religious belief. This is subtly different from "mystical experiences are evidence of God (or some other religious phenomenon)." The former is less ambitious. Hick wasn't claiming evidence for anything.

Think of Thoreau, who spent two years in the woods. He developed an almost religious view of the natural objects around him.

"I experienced sometimes that the most sweet and tender, the most innocent and encouraging society may be found in any natural object... [A]fter I came to the woods, for an hour I doubted whether the near neighborhood of man was not essential to a serene and healthy life. To be alone was somewhat unpleasant. But in the midst of a gentle rain, while these thoughts prevailed, I was suddenly sensible of such sweet and beneficent society in Nature, in the very pattering of the drops, and in every sight and sound around my house, an infinite and unaccountable friendliness all at once, like an atmosphere, sustaining me, as made the fancied advantages of human neighborhood insignificant, and I have never thought of them since. Every little pine-needle expanded and swelled with sympathy and befriended me. I was so distinctly made aware of the presence of something kindred to me, that I thought no place could ever be strange to me again." --Thoreau.


Thoreau, I would argue, is having a mystical experience of Walden Pond. His mystical account doesn't contradict a scientific account. All he sees are rocks, trees, and raindrops. An observer trained in science, using the scientific method would perceive the same phenomena. What makes Thoreau's observations religious is how he interprets those phenomena.


"Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis is based on the notion that the world is religiously ambiguous, such that it can be experienced either religiously or non-religiously, with no compelling proofs for or against any one religious or nonreligious interpretation of the world."
Hick, John | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

And we can get into what Hick's pluralistic hypothesis is if ya want. The point is, interpreting the world in a nonreligious way is just one way of understanding reality. Interpreting the world in a religious way does not add any axioms to your three. Nor does it contradict any of your axioms. So, does that mean you find such an interpretation reasonable?

Hick does. I'm not sure he's correct, but he makes a good argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence is the Messengers of God.
The evidence for Messengers of God is their Person, their completed Mission, and the scriptures they wrote.
That does not exist in my mind, it exists/existed in reality.

In that case, the evidence for alien anal probing are those who claim to have been abducted by aliens and having been anal probed.

So if that is your standard, then you should believe in alien anal probing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am making no claims. I believe the claims of Baha'u'llah so I am a Baha'i.

There is no practical difference.

You can't make a claim without implicitly expressing belief in said claim.
You can't express a belief without implicitly making the claim you believe.

"I believe god exists" vs "god exists". There is no practical difference between these two statements.


Repeating someone else's claim, does not absolve the claim from its burden of proof.

Baha'u'llah made the claims and I believe he met the burden of proof because He backed up His claims.

And yet, you can't repeat it to others.

Not everyone will believe the claims because everyone views the evidence differently.

Which is your first hint that the evidence is not solid.

I do not have to justify what I believe to anyone except myself. Imo, I am rationally justified in my beliefs because they are based on good evidence.

Since your "evidence" comes down to nothing more or less then "he said it, I believe it", it is safe to say that you are kidding yourself at worst and are simply mistaken at best.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is subjective and objective evidence?

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves thus it is objective evidence. For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

False. According to the very definition you have provided yourself, what your belief rests on is subjective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

False. According to the very definition you have provided yourself, what your belief rests on is subjective evidence.

Wrong.

Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves thus it is objective evidence. For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no practical difference.

You can't make a claim without implicitly expressing belief in said claim.
You can't express a belief without implicitly making the claim you believe.

I certainly can express a belief without making a claim.

"I believe god exists" vs "god exists". There is no practical difference between these two statements.

There is a huge difference. I believe God exists but I do not CLAIM that God exists becaue I cannot prove that God exists.

Repeating someone else's claim, does not absolve the claim from its burden of proof.

I have no burden of proof unless I am trying to prove something. I am not trying to prove anything.

And yet, you can't repeat it to others.

I have no reason or need to repeat it to others. Everyone is responsible for doing their own homework.

Which is your first hint that the evidence is not solid.

It has NOTHING to do with how solid the evidence is. Everyone views the evidence differently because we are all individuals.

Since your "evidence" comes down to nothing more or less then "he said it, I believe it", it is safe to say that you are kidding yourself at worst and are simply mistaken at best.

Straw man. He said it so I believe it is not evidence by any definition of the word.
The evidence is not MY evidence. The evidence is publicly available for anyone who wants to research it.

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are delineated in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

 

[vulcanlogician]

@blü 2

I just wanna be clear, that above... I was defending Hick's position. Not arguing my own.

 

[blü 2]

@blü 2

I just wanna be clear, that above... I was defending Hick's position. Not arguing my own.

Yes, you were clear on that point, and I hope I didn't appear to attribute any of Hick's views to you.

I think his point is valid as a view of history ─ for instance, I don't think less of the philosophers of Babylon for concluding that the earth is flat and at the center of everything and that the heavenly bodies go round it ─ you only have to go outside and look around to see that's obvious.

And the role of dreams of the recently deceased in forming ideas of an afterlife might be an even earlier example.