Evidence for God

[mikkel_the_dane]

The issue wasn't whether belief is natural, it is how a person uses their ability to reason whether what they believe or conclude follows a rational set of rules.

You were quick to post a link about the limits of science, which happens to be a disciplined approach using a set of reliable rules, yet when it comes you your personal beliefs you abandon this just as quickly. So the rules and limits only apply to those who use reason, and for those who don't it's not? Special pleading at its finest.

No, it is not special pleading. I don't claim I am better than anybody else or hold a truth nobody else can find.
I use religion as a crutch. It helps me.

You can't cope as a human only being objective and rational. We have tried that for over 2000 years now and nobody have found the method to only live a life with objectivity and rationality.

 

[F1fan]

No, it is not special pleading.

It's special pleading, as you advocate for a different standard for your religious belief. You question rewason and science, but not your religious belief.

I don't claim I am better than anybody else or hold a truth nobody else can find.

I agree you haven't claimed any superiority.

I use religion as a crutch. It helps me.

This is a true and honest statement. I do wonder why you would want to introduce this personal part of your life that opens it to scrutny and debate. Unless you are open to others helping you find a beter crutch I'm not sure how it's helpful.

You can't cope as a human only being objective and rational. We have tried that for over 2000 years now and nobody have found the method to only live a life with objectivity and rationality.

True. But then since religious belief is an ongoing, daily routine it suggests believers are in a coping cycle constantly. That is a lot of despair and suffering. I can see how religious helps believers be lost in this cycle and seldom have a life free of the anxiety and stress that religions distracts them from. I only have to cope when there are tragic events that are outside of my control, like when my mom died last year. Even with dealing with that I had no impulse to use religion as a coping strategy, and instead faced the trauma and pain by enjoting my life the best I can. My mom would often say "Be good to yourself." and to sabotage my real emotional state with endless distractions would not be good for me. I understand many do need religious belief to cope, and I think some of that is learned helplessness, and emotional dependency. I suggest people seek therapy to find better, more self-fulfilling ways to cope with life anxiety, sadness, and stress. Illusions can offer short term relief, but long term it becomes more anxiety because the negative mental state does not get resolved.

 

[viole]

The messengers do provide evidence of God, which exists.

Are you assuming existence before accepting the evidence thereof?

I have said umpteen million times that the claim is not evidence but that there is evidence that supports the claims.
I am not going to delineate what I believe the evidence is again. I am only going to ask you one thing. Hypothetically speaking, if a man was actually a messenger of God what would he have to do to demonstrate that to you?

In other words, what would be the evidence that would support his claim to be a messenger of God?

I don’t know. I don’t think she can make any, that does not come accompanied by some extra natural evidence. Or something truly extraordinary. For instance, he could prove all mathematical problems, or conjectures, that are open since centuries. Or the cure for cancer together with the way to have unlimited energy. Or be able to turn Trump into a genius chess player. Or something truly amazing.

but for sure, claiming something, or behaving such that, that can easily be explained by ordinary means, is not evidence. it is not difficult to make up, or read about the qualities of a God, and behave according to that. Even to die for Him. Does that prove anything? Nope. Nothing. Because the explanatory distance from the ordinary is much smaller than the explanatory distance from the extraordinary. i would provide evidence of Superman, by doing something similar.

and that is why adding extraordinary evidence could help.

Of course not, not unless you could do something to convince me you were a messenger. Otherwise why would I believe you were speaking for God?

And what would that be? Can you show it to me, so that we can see how far a possible naturalistic equivalent explanation is?

They wouldn't prove anything unless they could demonstrate that they were messengers.
You got that right. There is zero evidence without the messengers.

And how would they do that without applying circular reasoning? how could they demonstrate they are Messengers of X?

let’s make an example. We don’t know, or did not know, the qualities of God. Not before the first qualified messenger proved himself of being messenger of God. First, as you say, we need to as ascertain that X is a messenger of God, and then, once we know that, we can interview him about the qualities of God. In other words, the first messenger must have used evidence that certified him to really speak for God, without us having a clue about the qualities of God. God could be evil. Good, He might no care in the slightest about us. He might like to fish, or eat bananas. Or whatever.

so, how did that very first messenger offered himself as evidence that he spoke for God, and that therefore that God exists?

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's special pleading, as you advocate for a different standard for your religious belief. You question rewason and science, but not your religious belief.

I agree you haven't claimed any superiority.

This is a true and honest statement. I do wonder why you would want to introduce this personal part of your life that opens it to scrutny and debate. Unless you are open to others helping you find a beter crutch I'm not sure how it's helpful.

True. But then since religious belief is an ongoing, daily routine it suggests believers are in a coping cycle constantly. That is a lot of despair and suffering. I can see how religious helps believers be lost in this cycle and seldom have a life free of the anxiety and stress that religions distracts them from. I only have to cope when there are tragic events that are outside of my control, like when my mom died last year. Even with dealing with that I had no impulse to use religion as a coping strategy, and instead faced the trauma and pain by enjoting my life the best I can. My mom would often say "Be good to yourself." and to sabotage my real emotional state with endless distractions would not be good for me. I understand many do need religious belief to cope, and I think some of that is learned helplessness, and emotional dependency. I suggest people seek therapy to find better, more self-fulfilling ways to cope with life anxiety, sadness, and stress. Illusions can offer short term relief, but long term it becomes more anxiety because the negative mental state does not get resolved.

Well, I use it to deal with the existential absurdity of being a human.
I mean, we in the Western culture have this idea of objective and rational, though it doesn't work universally. We don't even have evidence for the fact that the world is natural or physical. The closest you can get, is non-reductive physicalism.
And then there is e.g. this:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3."
I.e. if the universe is supposed to play fair, then that is a non-physical trait. Thus I am a deist and no, I am not a theist.

 

[viole]

No convincing argument FOR YOU.
Others evaluate the evidence differently .. they are convinced.

I bet. i would say that they evaluate the evidence AFTER they are convinced (because of reasons that have nothing to do with objective evidence). Which is something that all believers in things without evidence usually do. from believers in Allah, to believers in Ganesh, to believers in Zeus, going through believers in the great Juju at the bottom of the sea.

They really have no other choice, if they insist, for some reason, to give some rational justification for their faith.

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I bet. i would say that they evaluate the evidence AFTER they are convinced (because of reasons that have nothing to do with objective evidence). Which is something that all believers in things without evidence usually do. from believers in Allah, to believers in Ganesh, to believers in Zeus, going through believers in the great Juju at the bottom of the sea.

They really have no other choice, if they insist, for some reason, to give some rational justification for their faith.

ciao

- viole

So you have solved Agrippa's Trilemma as to justification?

 

[viole]

So you have solved Agrippa's Trilemma as to justification?

Of course I did.

ciao

- viole

 

[F1fan]

Well, I use it to deal with the existential absurdity of being a human.
I mean, we in the Western culture have this idea of objective and rational, though it doesn't work universally. We don't even have evidence for the fact that the world is natural or physical. The closest you can get, is non-reductive physicalism.

It’s a self caused problem. I notice the wisdom of children, and dogs, cats, squirrels who live a life free of self-caused confusion and fear. This is what I found interesting about Buddhism and Krishnamurti, as there is a direct and honest approach to life that avoids the typical religious anxiety. Religion offers solutions to the problems they cause. It’s a trap that can be faced and overcome.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course I did.

ciao

- viole

So present it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It’s a self caused problem. I notice the wisdom of children, and dogs, cats, squirrels who live a life free of self-caused confusion and fear. This is what I found interesting about Buddhism and Krishnamurti, as there is a direct and honest approach to life that avoids the typical religious anxiety. Religion offers solutions to the problems they cause. It’s a trap that can be faced and overcome.

Yeah, my problems are the problems of secular Western philosophy, not religion.
I got anxiety from the problem of grounding objective reality with rational justification and whether this is a Boltzmann Brain universe or not.
So your diagnosis doesn't apply to me.
I was born into a secular society, I live in secular society and in all likelihood I will die in that society. As for dying, I have faith in that when I die, I die and thus is no more.

 

[Trailblazer]

That can be used to justify any illogical statement though. For example is it logically impossible that God died on a cross then resurrected after 3 days?! Gods logic is not your logic.

It could be used to do that but logic alone does not justify a belief in something. We have to use our own logical reasoning since that is all we have.

It is not logically impossible that God died on a cross then resurrected after 3 days, but does that make logical sense to us?

As humans we don't have access to God's logic, only our own and *if* God created us then God presumably gave us our brains for a reason - to reject that which is not logical to us in my view.

Sheesh! That is basically what I just said above before I read what you said. We must be on the same wavelength.

 

[Trailblazer]

Give whatever is yours to whomever you want. That is no concern for anyone here. What you cannot give is any evidence which will satisfy an atheist about your God or his so-called prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis.
Since atheist do not believe in existence of God, whatever you say about God, about his system, about his messengers, is not relevant to us.

I know that about atheists, but @PearlSeeker is not an atheist and he was the one who asked for the information about Baha'u'llah.
Welcome back from wherever you went.

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. i would say that they evaluate the evidence AFTER they are convinced (because of reasons that have nothing to do with objective evidence). Which is something that all believers in things without evidence usually do..

That is contradictory..
One cannot evaluate evidence, if they are "a believer in things without evidence"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is contradictory.. One cannot evaluate evidence, if they are "a believer in things without evidence"

Sure they can, and often through a faith-based confirmation bias. It's not a dispassionate, reasoned evaluation. It's all motivated thinking, meaning intended to negate the contradictory evidence and overemphasize whatever they think supports the faith-based belief.

Critical analysis - observe evidence and then generate an induction that accounts for it and predicts future events.
Faith - begin with a belief, then observe evidence and pick that which you like while rejecting whatever seems to contradict your belief.

We've been contending with it today in a thread with creationists. They have no reasons for their beliefs or the rejection of scientific beliefs except weak apologetics about the degradation of DNA over time or the rejection of the idea that there was no first human in that thread, but also the Kalam Cosmological argument or arguments against the possibility of "macroevolution," and other assorted apologetics tools that they think supports their rejection of the science, all chosen according to the rule I outlined - motivated reasoning, also sometimes called rationalization.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course you did, and in a backhand way which is why he was offended. So did whoever you're carrying water for. Your man chose that language to demean and intimidate people for blaming his god for gratuitous suffering.

I should not have said what I did. We all make mistakes since humans are fallible, but I later explained to him that I was not calling him a coward, even though it might have sounded like that.

You mean except messengers and their messages, right? Or is that metaphysical to you?

That is correct, and the messengers are physical although some of the scriptures are metaphysical.

Unless there are real things that aren't physical, not physical and not real are synonymous, and nothing is known to be real that isn't also physical, so you have no basis for assuming otherwise.

I have my own basis for believing that there are real things that are not physical.

Moreover, you offer this as absence of evidence as justification for your belief,

No, I offer evidence.

I asked you that and never answered with anything more specific than his character, his work, and his words, which were all very human.

I asked YOU what would be the evidence to YOU that would support his claim to be a messenger of God (since you do not think his character, his work, and his words are sufficient evidence.)

I agree with you here, which is a large part of the argument that no tri-omni god rules our world.

If there is a loving God, as theists claim, the existence of suffering is problematic. It is not problematic that some suffering exists, it is problematic that so much suffering exists and that suffering is so unequally distributed. The only way this can be reconciled is if there is an a spiritual world we go to after this life ends, a world in which there will be no more suffering, and that is what I believe.

“O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329

I also believe there will be a recompense for those who endured suffering through no fault of their own.
I also believe there will be a great reward for those who suffered for the Cause of God.

By the way, since you don't like suffering, does this make you a coward?

No, that was a horrendous thing for Abdu'l-Baha to say, Imo. Nobody is a coward just because they don't like suffering. I was repeating what he said without thinking but I don't agree with it, even if I agreed at the split second in which I posted it.

This lasted about six seconds ....

No, that has always been who I am. I don't look at atheists as bad unless they do bad things, it has nothing to do with what they believe.
You do good things, humanitarian things, so I don't view you as bad just because you don't believe in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

We've been through this already. You made that claim recently and I rebutted it: "That would be incorrect. Man has much foreknowledge as well. The odds are very good for Peking duck the Saturday evening. I called and reserved a duck and a table for four. Oh, and the sun will swell in about five billion years. In between (hopefully not sooner), I'll die, and the world will go on without me." Your response was to back peddle and move the goalposts, "You can know some things about the future, but not absolutely. The restaurant could be closed due to a fire so there go your plans. We all know we will die someday, that is a given." Did you forget? That was less than three weeks ago.

You said: I knew how this would go before it unfolded. No, she cannot give you anything specific. It will always be broad, nonspecific generalities.
I said: No you don't know how this will unfold because you are not God. Only God has foreknowledge.

You have some foreknowledge of events that you are planning to do in the future will transpire according to your plans, if nothing goes wrong, but you don't know that what I am planning to do will not happen.

I can give @PearlSeeker specific things because Baha'u'llah did specific things. I just haven't has time to answer his post yet, but it is on my to do list.

 

[Ella S.]

You can't cope as a human only being objective and rational. We have tried that for over 2000 years now and nobody have found the method to only live a life with objectivity and rationality.

Well, what do you mean by "objectivity" and "rationality?"

As far as I'm concerned, being objective means that you're focusing on facts rather than preferences, opinions, emotions, or judgments. It's objective when we say that an object is red even if we're wrong; it is subjective when we say that the same object looks terrible in red.

Objectivity is therefore not some holy grail of impossible standards. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're completely rational, unbiased, or omniscient. It just determines what kind of statements you examine and make.

As for rationality, most of the successful coping mechanisms I know of and have had success with are rational processes and include methods of becoming more objective. That's how we fight pathological ways of thinking like emotional reasoning and motivated reasoning, which tend to exacerbate mental illness and suffering in general. This has been successful for over 2,000 years, as early as Socrates at least, from what I know of history.

I'm not sure what you mean by "live a life with only objectivity and rationality." Do you mean live a life where you have no preferences or feelings whatsoever? Clearly, even desiring such a life would be a feeling, so that's impossible. However, in my opinion, it is completely possible to consistently live in accordance with "rational action" as defined by game theorists and decision theorists, which includes maintaining a perception of the world informed by objectivity rather than preference. That's literally living with only objectivity and rationality.

You could say that game theory and decision theory require goals and that these goals are therefore subjective. I would say that these goals are literally called objectives and you're being obtuse. You could say that the goals are not necessarily chosen through a rational process, but then I would say that there surely are goals which have been considered rational and that's the whole point of a number of philosophies, namely rationalism and intellectualism. Unless you're going to say that rationalism does not meet your definition of rational? But then, at that point, what can be called rational if we reject the definition given to us by the philosophy that has devoted the most time to rigorously defining rationality?

I would say that you can cope as a human only being objective and rational, and we found the method to only live a life with objectivity and rationality over 2,000 years ago. We have only refined our methods and understanding since then, but the core rational approach has remained the same.

 

[Ella S.]

This is the response of someone I perceive to be motivated by dominating and winning arguments rather than genuine truth seeking, which is willing to explore beyond the strict confines of rationality. I am only looking to engage truth seekers.

Rationality is the only reliable means for approximating truth. Therefore, genuine truth seekers necessarily adhere to the strict confines of rationality. If you don't, then you are not engaging in genuine truth seeking.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I asked YOU what would be the evidence to YOU that would support his claim to be a messenger of God

That doesn't address much less rebut my comment: "I asked you [what about your messenger or his message constitutes evidence for a god] and you never answered with anything more specific than his character, his work, and his words, which were all very human."

And I've answered your multiple times already. Do you really not know my answer still?

that was a horrendous thing for Abdu'l-Baha to say

Yet you quoted him without attribution or disclaimer. I didn't know that they weren't your words and opinion until later. I don't know who all of these apostrophe people you quote are or which you think speak for a god. Hopefully, not that one.

You said: I knew how this would go before it unfolded. No, she cannot give you anything specific. It will always be broad, nonspecific generalities.

That was based in experience, and you haven't disappointed yet after a couple of days, although it looks like you now feel compelled to do more this time based on your comment below.

I said: No you don't know how this will unfold because you are not God. Only God has foreknowledge.

But you are wrong. We all have foreknowledge. I made the case and you agreed. Why are we back to this again?

Have you ever thought about words like grasp and comprehension (from Latin comprehendere, from com- ‘together’ + prehendere ‘grasp’)? Their metaphors for mental activities based in what we do with our hands (or monkeys with their prehensile hands, feet, and tails). The metaphor implies being able to hold an idea up in the imagination without it fading away or morphing into something different long enough to consider it, understand it, and make judgments about it. Do you do that with my ideas? It seems like they too often don't make an imprint on your memory. You fail to respond to most of them as they go by much less rebut them, and then you post as if you've never seen them before.

You have some foreknowledge of events that you are planning to do in the future will transpire according to your plans, if nothing goes wrong

Yes, and more. Now read your words again: "Only God has foreknowledge." Shall I repeat them? "Only God has foreknowledge." Do you not know what those words mean? Shall I paraphrase? God alone can know what things will happen. It was wrong before and it's wrong again.

I can give @PearlSeeker specific things because Baha'u'llah did specific things. I just haven't has time to answer his post yet, but it is on my to do list.

It's a question others have asked you in vain for a few years now, and you have never brought a single fact that supports your claims for who Baha'u'llah represented. Now it seems that you might look for your most divine text or quality or feat, although I have grave doubts that you will do that. But if you do, the debate on the significance of that evidence can proceed.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you assuming existence before accepting the evidence thereof?

No, I looked at the evidence first.

I don’t know. I don’t think she can make any, that does not come accompanied by some extra natural evidence. Or something truly extraordinary. For instance, he could prove all mathematical problems, or conjectures, that are open since centuries. Or the cure for cancer together with the way to have unlimited energy. Or be able to turn Trump into a genius chess player. Or something truly amazing.

In other words, miracles. Baha'u'llah did miracles but they were only evidence to those who witnessed them.

but for sure, claiming something, or behaving such that, that can easily be explained by ordinary means, is not evidence. it is not difficult to make up, or read about the qualities of a God, and behave according to that. Even to die for Him. Does that prove anything? Nope. Nothing. Because the explanatory distance from the ordinary is much smaller than the explanatory distance from the extraordinary. i would provide evidence of Superman, by doing something similar.

It would be very difficult to make up actual history. There are verifiable things that happened in history while Baha'u'llah walked the earth. We are not talking about Jesus now, for whom all we have are the gospel accounts, we are talking about Baha'u'llah. Accounts of His life were documented by His contemporaries.

and that is why adding extraordinary evidence could help.

It would help you, but that is not the kind of evidence that Messengers provide.

And how would they do that without applying circular reasoning? how could they demonstrate they are Messengers of X?

Circular reasoning does not disprove that a person is a Messenger of God, nor does it prove it.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

So here are some perfectly valid circular arguments:

If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Similarly, if the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, the argument is not sound. Since I can never 'prove' the premise that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists. The same applies to the Bible, it can never be proven to be true, so it cannot be used to assert that God exists.

let’s make an example. We don’t know, or did not know, the qualities of God. Not before the first qualified messenger proved himself of being messenger of God. First, as you say, we need to as ascertain that X is a messenger of God, and then, once we know that, we can interview him about the qualities of God. In other words, the first messenger must have used evidence that certified him to really speak for God, without us having a clue about the qualities of God. God could be evil. Good, He might no care in the slightest about us. He might like to fish, or eat bananas. Or whatever.

I imagine that the first messenger must have used evidence that certified him to really speak for God, since God would not expect people to believe in His messengers without evidence.

All messengers of God know the qualities of God since those qualities are revealed to Him by God

so, how did that very first messenger offered himself as evidence that he spoke for God, and that therefore that God exists?

I don't know, because I did not live in prehistoric times.