Default position

[ratiocinator]

The point is for the universe as such if it is fair, real, orderly and knowable...

Real? Well the only way to really question this is with extreme "brain in a vat" type scepticism, which is a pointless, dead-end thought. Who cares? If it's not real, it might as well be, we're just as stuck with it.

Fair? Not sure this can even apply.

Orderly and knowable? The evidence (success of science) to date suggest that it is, at least in part. It may not be, and we might reach a limit, but, again, who really cares? What would we do differently if we somehow knew there was a limit?

So for the broad one, science is, but what we ought to do with that, is not science as natural science. Simple.

What we ought to do with anything is a different subject. Even more off-topic here than the above.

So yes, dogmatic fundamentalistic theists are a part of it, but not all of it. And even if we remove that variant, it is not the only variant and your variant is not the only other one. Do you understand that???

You've said this sort of thing endlessly and to go off into a discussion here would seriously derail the topic. If you want to discuss this, or the previous point, there is a philosophy section where you can start your own thread for those interested.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Real? Well the only way to really question this is with extreme "brain in a vat" type scepticism, which is a pointless, dead-end thought. Who cares? If it's not real, it might as well be, we're just as stuck with it.

Fair? Not sure this can even apply.
I wont'
Orderly and knowable? The evidence (success of science) to date suggest that it is, at least in part. It may not be, and we might reach a limit, but, again, who really cares? What would we do differently if we somehow knew there was a limit?


What we ought to do with anything is a different subject. Even more off-topic here than the above.


You've said this sort of thing endlessly and to go off into a discussion here would seriously derail the topic. If you want to discuss this, or the previous point, there is a philosophy section where you can start your own thread for those interested.

Okay, let us debate how subjectivity is natural using natural science.
I mean it. I will be using methodological naturalism. I won't be doing any skepticism at the meta-level, but rather connect subjective to the natural.

Or we can do different understandings of morality within nature.

I do more than just what you notice.

 

[ratiocinator]

Okay, let us debate how subjectivity is natural using natural science.

Why? Not only is it a pretty short discussion but, like much of the rest, it's a derail here. Go start a thread about whatever it is you want to talk about (or find one that is already talking about it), and those who are interested can join in.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is not a claim, it is a belief. Baha'u'llah made the claim and I believe His claim.

You've explained that you have this understanding of how those words are used such that something can be called a belief but not also a claim, but others use them differently. Your words are understood as you claiming that the words of Baha'u'llah are true, which is you claiming that they are true as well. No distinction is made between you saying something is true to you and you saying that you believe that that something is true.

Did Baha'u'llah make more than claims? Not in my experience reading the citations you and others reproduce here. What I see are vague, lofty exhortations, not evidenced arguments. Even so, if you believe his claims and repeat them as something you believe, it is your claim as well, even if it wasn't original to you. Whether you have good evidence or not doesn't change that, just the nature of the claim in the spectrum of unsupported claim to a claim that is the sound conclusion of a valid, evidenced argument.

You don't need to say that that's not how you see it. You've made that clear. Hopefully, so have I made myself clear enough for you to understand that whether you agree or not, which isn't relevant to others.

If God decided everything we would be and do we would be programmed robots.

Another poster correctly identified that finding an outcome undesirable is not an argument against its correctness.

We very likely are what you call programmed robots, if by the self we mean the observer within the theater of consciousness and not the material reality outside of consciousness that supports it and is one of its objects. All of our thoughts are generated in neural circuitry and then delivered to consciousness to be discovered and obeyed. The idea of the self being the free source of those thoughts is incoherent, because that's the role of neurons.

Maybe by robot, you are envisioning something with less that human consciousness, maybe unconscious like the robots in old sci-fi like Lost in Space, Forbidden Planet, and The Day The Earth Stood Still, or something half comatose like a zombie. If so, the word doesn't apply, as we are clearly not that. But if a fully alert but deterministically functioning organism that experiences a series of imperatives delivered to awareness and complies with them can exist - and there is no reason to think that any other kind of conscious thing can exist - then we are likely that. Think more like Data on Star Trek.

Would that be a setback to discover that that was the case if it were? It would be to the religions that consider perdition a just punishment for disobedience, but how about you?

Not me. I've already assimilated the possibility and likeliness, and guess what? Nothing at all changes.

I cannot prove that the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true.

Nobody expects you to prove your beliefs, just support them sufficiently to justify believing them if you can. If not, your beliefs are of little value to critical thinkers, and are understood as belief by faith, the only alternative to belief following sound, evidenced argument.

To lead us unto all Truth about Life and Death.

I asked, "What's the use of the god you describe?" Here you are again with another private definition, this time truth. You have no truth by my definition of the word, just unfalsifiable claims. So, to translate into my usage, the value of this god is to make unfalsifiable claims through a messenger.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims.

Whatever followed would fail at that, unless his claim was one involving only pure reason like the proof of the Pythagorean equation, but it is not. It is a claim about what actually exists outside of minds, and like the Christian Bible, all other scripture, and all other writing about our common reality, none of it establishes the truth of anything about the world. This why the messages of messengers are rejected by critical thinkers, because they are only words like those human beings frequently write, which is evidence that a human being wrote them and nothing more - not even evidence the authors believed them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why? Not only is it a pretty short discussion but, like much of the rest, it's a derail here. Go start a thread about whatever it is you want to talk about (or find one that is already talking about it), and those who are interested can join in.

So we are in general religious debates and that means that you control what that is. You don't do that and neither do I. But if what religion is not an objective fact like say e.g. gravity. But never mind that.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no us.

Us is humanity.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It seems to me that an atheist's default position is, in fact, atheism.

Absent of proof for a god, they don't believe in one.

I have no proof of god, but I think that is because I haven't diligently searched long enough yet. I am sort of young. For me, absent of proof, I believe in a higher power. It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

Perhaps, after some years of searching, I will become an athesist if I find no experiences which reinforce my faith. But I've already have had experiences which reinforce my faith, so I just have to see if living a religious life will lead to more of those.

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

Have you heard of chaos magic?

 

[Trailblazer]

I asked, "What's the use of the god you describe?" Here you are again with another private definition, this time truth.

You asked me what the use is of the God I describe so what did you expect to get other than my belief/personal opinion?

You have no truth by my definition of the word, just unfalsifiable claims. So, to translate into my usage, the value of this god is to make unfalsifiable claims through a messenger.

I have all truth by my definition of the word.

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

So, to translate into my usage, the value of this God is to make true claims through a messenger.

 

[an anarchist]

Have you heard of chaos magic?

Oooooooo sounds interesting I'm intrigued. Set is the god of Chaos, I wonder if it could relate perhaps...

 

[Trailblazer]

When you post "The Messengers are the objective evidence for God", you are making a claim. If you want to state a belief it is customary to say something like "I believe...".

That is what I said:
"I never claimed that messages are evidence for God, I said I believe that Messengers are evidence for God." #218

I'm not actually interested in your beliefs unless you can back them up with evidence, anyway, so the distinction is all but irrelevant. There is no point in telling me what you believe unless you can back it up with evidence.

There is evidence for the Messengers of God. I have already explained that.

I haven't seen any evidence. You keep on telling me it exists but won't say what it is. Just saying the 'messengers' are the evidence is meaningless unless you explain in what way they are supposed to evidence.

I believe Messengers are the evidence for God because God sent them as evidence of His existence. That is the reason they are evidence.
This is kind of a no-brainer since any evidence of God's existence would have to come from God.

Still makes no sense and you didn't answer the question: what on earth do you think the difference is between evidence 'of' and evidence 'for'?

There really isn't an important difference.

Another argumentum ad consequentiam.

No, just basic logic.

Look, either the universe is deterministic or it isn't. If it's deterministic, then (assuming a god) everything was decided at the moment of creation. If it isn't deterministic, then that directly leads to true randomness, and god would be playing dice with our destiny. Free will is not a third option. Free will, as many people think of it, is logically impossible, for the reason that (just like the universe) our minds must either be deterministic or not.

Deterministic or randomness, our minds must either be deterministic or not. That sounds like the fallacy of black and white thinking.

The Black-or-White Fallacy is the provision of only two alternatives in an argument when there are actually more options available. ... It's also sometimes called the Gray Fallacy, between black and white options, or the middle-ground fallacy, after a middle ground between two warring camps.Domena writer.meteo24.nazwa.pl jest utrzymywana na serwerach nazwa.pl
black and white fallacy examples in politics - nazwa.pl

I never said that we are free to choose 'everything' we want to choose, I said that free will has many constraints. What is illogical is that humans have no free will to choose 'anything' they say, do, or believe, since that alternative is that we are being controlled by someone or something else and thus we have no control over our lives at all. Moreover, the entire justice system is predicated on the fact that humans have free will to choose between right and wrong.

Everyone wants to hold criminals responsible for their actions. This “responsibility” has its foundation in the belief that we all have the free will to choose right from wrong. What if free will is just an illusion, how would that impact the criminal justice system? Free will creates the moral structure that provides the foundation for our criminal justice system. Without it, most punishments in place today must be eliminated completely. Its no secret that I’m a firm believer in free will, but I’m also a firm believer in arguing against it when it helps my clients. That’s what we lawyers do (call me a hypocrite if you like, I can take it). Now, let’s delve into the issues and practical effects of eliminating free will.​

​

We only punish those who are morally responsible for their action. If a driver accidentally runs over a pedestrian–there will be no criminal charges in the death of the pedestrian. This is what we call an “accident”. However, if a husband runs over his wife after an argument, that same pedestrian death now constitutes murder. It was the driver’s “intent” that made one pedestrian death a crime, and the other not. But, what if we examine the husband’s brain, and an MRI discovers a frontal lobe defect that could explain his deviant behavior? Is he still guilty of murder? If such a defect “caused” the husband’s actions, our criminal justice system has laws in place that would label the husband “Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity”. That being said, what happens if “causation” runs deeper than a mere frontal lobe problem?​

​

To continue reading: Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System​

Then WHERE IS IT!? Just saying it's the 'messengers' is not an answer.

See the link to the post at the bottom.

Verifiable evidence is not proof. Non-verifiable evidence is not evidence.

Verifiable Evidence means documented proof by means that are reasonably reliable to establish authenticity of submitted documents. Documentation may include employer endorsement, pay statement, services contract, remittance advice, student practicum, or intern time log.

Verifiable Evidence Definition | Law Insider

Sample Contracts and Business Agreements

www.lawinsider.com

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.
15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them

What’s the Difference Between Proof vs Evidence?

The difference between evidence vs proof all comes down to whether or not something is completely proven to be true. Proof is conclusive; evidence is not necessarily conclusive.

Evidence and proof are closely related. Proof comes from evidence. We gather evidence to prove something or support an idea.

When we have enough evidence, data, or facts, we might find proof.

Proof vs Evidence: What's the Difference?

Okay. What is that evidence?

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

 

[Trailblazer]

So Baha’u’llah didn't understand what evidence (let alone proof) means.

He certainly did know, it is you who does not know. Baha'u'llah got His knowledge from the all-knowing God, and you think you know more than Him?

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

Moreover, since Baha'u'llah was the one making the claims, He is the one who knows what the evidence is to back up His claims.

If a prosecutor is claiming that the accused is guilty, he presents the evidence is that backs up his claim.
Likewise, Baha'u'llah is claiming he heard from God so He presented the evidence is that backs up his claim.
You do not get to decide what the evidence for someone else's claim would look like. That's illogical.

Any logical person could figure out that the evidence for a Messenger of God is not going to be like evidence for other things.
The evidence is according to what we are able to examine and investigate, and what Baha'u'llah delineated in that paragraph can all be examined and investigated.

His own Self -- who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following:
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation -- what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

His Writings -- what He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

 

[an anarchist]

what He accomplished

Well he established a religion. That's nothing too major. By this standard here, I'd say that Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great had way more significant accomplishments that effect us more to this day that the Bahai faith ever will. So are they gods? They certainly claimed to be. I intend on worshipping them one day.

 

[an anarchist]

His Writings

I don't think I am gonna read his discography, thanks for linking though. I don't suppose he states anything that is unequivocally from a higher power in the totality of his works though... You leave me unconvinced, and I don't think that's my fault. I think it's the (imo) weak argument

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd say that Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great had way more significant accomplishments that effect us more to this day that the Bahai faith ever will.

What effect do they have on us? They have no effect upon me at all.

You do not know what effect the Baha'i Faith will have in the future, it's early yet.
In the first century, few people thought Christianity would amount to anything, now look at it.

“Just how small was the Christian movement in the first century is clear from the calculations of the sociologist R Stark (1996:5-7; so too Hopkins 1998:192-193).Stark begins his analysis with a rough estimation of six million Christians in the Roman Empire (or about ten percent of the total population) at the start of the fourth century... There were 1,000 Christians in the year 40, 1,400 Christians in 50, 1,960 Christians in 60, 2,744 Christians in 70, 3,842 Christians in 80, 5,378 Christians in 90 and 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.​

​

These figures are very suggestive, and reinforce the point that in its initial decades the Christian movement represented a tiny fraction of the ancient world.”​

​

How many Jews became Christians in the first century?​

 

[Trailblazer]

You leave me unconvinced, and I don't think that's my fault. I think it's the (imo) weak argument

It is nobody's fault and it is not an argument so it cannot be weak.
The evidence is what it is and people can choose to believe based upon it or not.

 

[an anarchist]

What effect do they have on us? They have no effect upon me at all.

Well considering Hellenism probably is partially responsible for how abrahamic faiths developed philosophically and how they look today...

 

[an anarchist]

It is nobody's fault and it is not an argument so it cannot be weak.
The evidence is what it is and people can choose to believe based upon it or not.

Well I've been doing my best to pay attention to these debates and I think the evidence is weak. it's not a fully informed opinion but you excerpt enough of your holy scriptures to give me a general idea that this guy isn't convincing me of anything.

His "character" as evidence is supremely lacking.

 

[Truthseeker]

It is nobody's fault and it is not an argument so it cannot be weak.
The evidence is what it is and people can choose to believe based upon it or not.

Hey, I'm here in Zoom. just reminding you in case you lost track of time.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well I've been doing my best to pay attention to these debates and I think the evidence is weak. it's not a fully informed opinion but you excerpt enough of your holy scriptures to give me a general idea that this guy isn't convincing me of anything.

His "character" as evidence is supremely lacking.

Baha'u'llah had no interest in convincing anyone of who He was because that was not the job that God gave Him to do.
Besides, He knew who He was.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hey, I'm here in Zoom. just reminding you in case you lost track of time.

Okay, I'll be there.