Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[Trailblazer]

Wait a second. I did answer your question. You may not have understood the answer or not have like the answer, but that does not mean that your question was not answered.

That is nothing but deflection.
I asked: "Who made the rule?" and thus far all you have done is obfuscate.
Why not just answer the question directly?

The fact is that you should not even need to ask such a question in the first place. That is why it was a silly question. Just a little bit of reasoning would have led you to the conclusion that a person claiming to "know" something has put a burden of proof upon himself.

A belief is not a claim. Baha'u'llah made the claims and He provided evidence to back them up. I just believe in those claims, I do not make them. As such, I do not have the burden of proof. All I can offer you is the evidence that Baha'u'llah provided to back up His claims, which I did some time ago on this thread when I was asked to do so.

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

I do not have the burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything to you or to anyone else.
Just because I know something that does not mean I have the burden to prove it to other people.

Let me give you a simple example. Let's as that a man called Mike knows that a man called Jim committed a murder. Mike has no burden to prove that to anyone unless he is a prosecutor in a courtroom.
The bystanders knew that Chauvin murdered Floyd but they did not have the burden of proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

As I read your post, which I like, I think--someone who approaches God is like a child. What decent parent would turn away the request of a child in need whose heart is open? To HIM? Yes, He knows the requests and can sum up a person's mind and heart.

That is the key.... if their heart is open, but if their heart was open they would recognize the evidence that God has provided, God would not have to do anything special. God is not a short order cook flipping burgers to one's request. We get what God provides or nothing at all.
God never turned away from anyone, it is the people who reject the evidence God provides that turn away from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Almost as if a God doesn't exist.

Almost but not quite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is nothing but deflection.
I asked: "Who made the rule?" and thus far all you have done is obfuscate.
Why not just answer the question directly?

A belief is not a claim. Baha'u'llah made the claims and He provided evidence to back them up. I just believe in those claims, I do not make them. As such, I do not have the burden of proof. All I can offer you is the evidence that Baha'u'llah provided to back up His claims, which I did some time ago on this thread when I was asked to do so.

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

I do not have the burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything to you or to anyone else.
Just because I know something that does not mean I have the burden to prove it to other people.

Let me give you a simple example. Let's as that a man called Mike knows that a man called Jim committed a murder. Mike has no burden to prove that to anyone unless he is a prosecutor in a courtroom.
The bystanders knew that Chauvin murdered Floyd but they did not have the burden of proof.

Your question is still silly. You act as if some specific person had to invent a rule. I have explained to you why you should have realized that it was correct with just a little thought. It appears that you are trying to justify people making false claims that they cannot support.

And we are not talking about mere beliefs here. I pointed out that if someone simply said "I believe" I would not have a problem with that. It is when someone makes the claim of "I know" when they have to be able to support their claims.

As to Chauvin. many people did not "know" that Chauvin was murdered. They saw an event that was unjustified and appeared to be illegal to boot. They did not even know of Chauvin's death at that time. They can claim that they know he was murdered after the confirming evidence came out that explained why he was dead due to the policeman's actions. And if they ever claimed to "know" then yes, there would be a burden of proof upon them. Guess what? There are people that claim to "know" that he was not murdered. I would say that the later are wrong and the evidence tells us that they are wrong.

Anytime that someone claims to know something they are taking on a burden of proof.

Please note, I do not make the mistake of the theists here. I do not claim to know that there is no God. I can refute certain variations of God, but that does not mean that I can refute all of them. And if I do say that I can refute one the burden of proof to do so is upon me.

Go ahead, claim that you believe in a God. I will not say that you do not believe. But if you claim to know then you need to be able to support that claim. The same standard applies to me, which is why there are only certain issues where I will claim to know.

 

[Trailblazer]

And your failure was explained to you. You did not give an example of what you thought was evidence or try to learn why it was not. You appear to have made a false and clearly unjustifiable claim.

I never gave an example of what I thought was evidence because nobody asked me for evidence.

I never made any claims, I simply have beliefs. I explained that in another post. Baha’u’llah made the claims and He provided the evidence to back up His claims. If you do not like that evidence your beef is with Baha’u’llah, not with me.

Once again, if you want to learn ask using specific examples. Who knows? You might have significant evidence. I sincerely doubt it though.

I have been down this road hundreds of times before. It would not be evidence to you so why would I bother?

Because many of us understand the concept of evidence. I have seen that the theists that claim to have evidence do not tend to understand the concept.

What is evidence then? What would be evidence for a God?

Okay, I have to stop here. It sounds like what you are describing is confirmation bias. Evidence should have the ability to cut both ways. If your observation could not refute you it is likely not evidence.

I have no confirmation bias because I never had any belief in God or religion before I became a Baha’i so there was nothing to confirm.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[1]

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

If my beliefs could be refuted they would not be evidence for God.

Sorry, not going to read all of this post where it appears that you are only trying to defend confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is not evidence.

I just explained why I do not have confirmation bias.

To have evidence you have to be willing to put your beliefs to the test.

That is another matter and it is fair game. I have put my beliefs to the test many times over and I do not mind if people challenge them. If they can come up with something that refutes my beliefs I am all ears. Do you think it is “fun” being a Baha’i? It is not as if I ever set out to be a Baha’i or to believe in God, but I cannot reject what I know to be true because that would be foolish.

What reasonable possible observation could show your beliefs to be wrong? If you cannot think of one then it is a good bet that you do not have evidence.

The only thing that could prove my beliefs are wrong is if Baha’u’llah was not who He claimed to be.
How do you think that could be proven? I know of some ways, but I am asking you.

What does that have to do with not having evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is nothing but deflection.
I asked: "Who made the rule?" and thus far all you have done is obfuscate.
Why not just answer the question directly?

A belief is not a claim. Baha'u'llah made the claims and He provided evidence to back them up. I just believe in those claims, I do not make them. As such, I do not have the burden of proof. All I can offer you is the evidence that Baha'u'llah provided to back up His claims, which I did some time ago on this thread when I was asked to do so.

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

I do not have the burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything to you or to anyone else.
Just because I know something that does not mean I have the burden to prove it to other people.

It is doubtful if anyone "made that rule". It is a generally known maxim. I explained to you more than once why someone should be able to figure this out for themselves. By the way, when someone says "Who wrote that rule" they tend to do so because they know that they are wrong. There is no other point besides asking such a question. And saying that it was "silly" was me being very very generous.

Let me give you a simple example. Let's as that a man called Mike knows that a man called Jim committed a murder. Mike has no burden to prove that to anyone unless he is a prosecutor in a courtroom.
The bystanders knew that Chauvin murdered Floyd but they did not have the burden of proof.

They did not know at that time. There was no way for them to know then. They could only know after the fact, after the coroner did his autopsy. At the time of the event they did not even know that Chauvin was dead. And you missed the point. If they later claimed to know they would have a burden of proof. A poster here claimed to know something. That put a burden of proof upon him.

Go ahead, say that you believe something. Hopefully no one is going to say that you do not. But if you claim to know something then you do have a burden of proof.

By the way, you refuted yourself with your Baha'u'llah example. He was ready to defend his beliefs. He did not just say "I know" and leave it at that.

 

[KerimF]

I didn't have the chance knowing, in my rather long life, even one person (atheist, theist or believer) who can imagine that the word 'God' doesn't have to refer to a supernatural powerful selfish ruler!!! At best, such an image of God is simply the image of an earthly powerful selfish king who is nothing without his followers and slaves. For more details, you may like reading post #395

Cheers,
Kerim

 

[F1fan]

Almost but not quite.

Well you have quite a bit of work to do to show your exception is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't have the chance knowing, in my rather long life, even one person (atheist, theist or believer) who can imagine that the word 'God' doesn't have to refer to a supernatural powerful selfish ruler!!! At best, such an image of God is simply the image of an earthly powerful selfish king who is nothing without his followers and slaves. For more details, you may like reading post #395

Cheers,
Kerim

Not so:

 

[F1fan]

Are you saying "he" doesn't?

I'm saying if believers have evidence of their god to a degree they know it has a penis then they have been keeping a big secret.

Or maybe they just adopted the traditional concept of God being male and there's still no evidence that it exists outside human imagination.

 

[Thief]

time is an invention
created by Man to serve Man
it is a quotient
one measure divided by another
you will find it on the chalkboard

no where else

 

[F1fan]

A belief is not a claim. Baha'u'llah made the claims and He provided evidence to back them up. I just believe in those claims, I do not make them. As such, I do not have the burden of proof. All I can offer you is the evidence that Baha'u'llah provided to back up His claims, which I did some time ago on this thread when I was asked to do so.

I do not have the burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything to you or to anyone else.

You're right that a belief is not a claim. You can sit quietly in your room and believe all you want to yourself, but as soon as you claim your belief is true in conversation with another is is your burden to demonstrate it's true. What you are doing is trying to evade the burden by deferring it to Baha'u'llah. Thing is that person isn't here. So if you believe what he says X is true, then you need to explain how it is true and rational to us. Baha'u'llah could be a conman and you got taken advantage of, we don't know. We defer to the logical default either way.

Just because I know something that does not mean I have the burden to prove it to other people.

Even if you know how to make sourdough bread we can ask you questions and you can provide answers that convince us you actually do know it. As it is you're claiming knowledge of something quite fantastic and not credible.

Let me give you a simple example. Let's as that a man called Mike knows that a man called Jim committed a murder. Mike has no burden to prove that to anyone unless he is a prosecutor in a courtroom.
The bystanders knew that Chauvin murdered Floyd but they did not have the burden of proof.

Mike isn't proving anything, he's testifying to an act he witnessed.

And it's odd that you're comparing your religious belief to a crime. You seem like a hostile witness, like you have something to hide and are resistance to testify, like maybe Mike is complicit with the murder. That would explain why he's resisting testifying. But it doesn't explain why you're resisting.

 

[F1fan]

time is an invention
created by Man to serve Man
it is a quotient
one measure divided by another
you will find it on the chalkboard

no where else

Time coincides with change.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I guess no trees fall in forests if we didn't hear them fall. But how, then, did fallen trees get there when we go out and look?

Maybe unobserved trees fall differently from the trees we do see fall?

 

[Thief]

Time coincides with change.

mmmmm.....close

Man uses time to calculate
it is a measure of movement

 

[rational experiences]

Common sense owned by humans versus humans as scientists.

Notice O a planet not original anything evolved into a self form. The planet.

So if you decide to remove it from its highest holding which you said is cold fused sealed as mass then it disappears.

Sin K hole he says.

Life gets replaced by sex as life is owned exists is not being created. Atmosphere. The other God terms.

All said by humans in science.

God exists he preaches a planet a self entity. As a science statement.

The heavens God existed O planet created heavens that owned holy light as a sacrificed spirit. Status gas burning the constant. Notice sacrificed spirit science said is the light constant only.

Science never owned anything.

You are just a human.

How does your ego not understand the human concept?

You gave yourself machine encoded transmitted feedback the AI state.

Reason machines transmitted to machines.

You built machines on ground state so life was changed by machine caused conditions. We own living at ground state.

Life was not invented by you thinking.

Teaching conditions natural owned human presence supported equally the science teaching.

Science not of the occult reaction theme had to develop to state science said the closest living form to humans the apes to a human. An ape is not God to stop you from lying. But it did not work.

Notice how a human says I am more developed than an ape doing all comparisons as a human.

Stone does not develop past itself. As an entity.
Gases are formed. From an entity.
Water what we live inside of as bio life once kept us safe until you invented radiation fallout.

Notice how a self evolved developed body one of a planet was science identified as the self created.

As it owned no origins again lying theists. It also as a self evolved form developed its own gases.

The theme one. One only. No origin thesis. Evolution of form naturally as a self body.

Terms of the God form planet earth.

Basic advice. Science never invented the light constant. Humans apply counting for human conditions.

 

[F1fan]

mmmmm.....close

Man uses time to calculate
it is a measure of movement

Bowel movement for sure.

 

[Thief]

Bowel movement for sure.

post as topic.....in the health section

 

[rational experiences]

Time coincides with change.

A human says O God the earth cycles around the sun. And counts the cycle himself.

Who knows how many times earth circled the sun as time counting.

To use numbers. Imposed by a human only.

Then the human says my numbers own everything.

Yet any created form pre exists a human using numbers.

 

[rational experiences]

Bowel movement for sure.

Scientists with machines doing illegal atmospheric human bio life attacks.