Evidence -- making it useful

[muhammad_isa]

This thread is about evidence. If you don't understand the concept what are you doing here?

How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?

Well, first of all you could check the medical records, to see if he has a history of mental illness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?

Well, first of all you could check the medical records, to see if he has a history of mental illness.

Well you might be able to. The problem is that so far all messengers of God fail when you do that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, you can start off by reading the wiki page..
Religion - Wikipedia

..or maybe that is too basic for you..
..maybe you know a lot about religion, but pretend it is all the same, and you're not interested.

No thanks. I asked for you to back up your claim about probabilities.
I didn't ask you to explain what religion is.

This was what I had asked you:
What are the facts and probabilities about gods? And how did you calculate those probabilities?

Send me to a Wiki page explaining what religion is, doesn't answer those questions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So the questions would be, does science fully understand any of the evidence they are using, how much of it is really based on the faith they have in the evidence?

Example. Much scientific research has been done on the brain, how it works and where memory is stored. They come to many conclusions based on what they have determined is sound evidence.

Yet they make many evidence based conclusions about the brain, thought and memory, without knowing the essence of the human, let alone the brain.

Yet a Messenger knows the essence of the human, they know where our thoughts come from, they understand creation, it's beginning and it's end. They can direct our thoughts to useful science.

Until we understand that our rational capacity is external from the body, I see science is not able to evolve in its research on the brain.

Regards Tony

This illustrates my point even though you didn't actually directly address it.

Anything can be believed on faith, obviously. So it's not a reliable pathway to truth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No thanks. I asked for you to back up your claim about probabilities.
I didn't ask you to explain what religion is..

I think you mean the "facts and probabllities about gods"..
Why ask me? Why not find out more about "gods" for yourself?

Send me to a Wiki page explaining what religion is, doesn't answer those questions.

It is "starter for 10".

Now, if you want to know more about a specific "god" or religion, you would need to go to the relevant page.

..and perhaps you'd like to tell us the probability of "a god" I make up myself, on being true?
I would say that it would be less than 0.00001%

If you think that the Abrahamic God has the same chance of being correct, perhaps you can show me your working.
Clearly, you know something I don't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think you mean the "facts and probabllities about gods"..
Why ask me? Why not find out more about "gods" for yourself?

I mean whatever this means:
What are the facts and probabilities about gods? And how did you calculate those probabilities?
(You said it.)

It is "starter for 10".

Facts and probabilities would have something to do with numbers and statistical analysis.

Now, if you want to know more about a specific "god" or religion, you would need to go to the relevant page.

Not my question either.

..and perhaps you'd like to tell us the probability of "a god" I make up myself, on being true?
I would say that it would be less than 0.00001%

Based on what? How did you calculate that?
Show your math that supports your claims. Don't just make stuff up, like you just did here.

If you think that the Abrahamic God has the same chance of being correct, perhaps you can show me your working.
Clearly, you know something I don't.

Your god (and thousands of other gods humans have believed in over the centuries) has the same chance of being correct as universe-spitting pixies or invisible dragons or anything else you can dream up. None of them have any evidence and I have no idea how on earth you'd calculate the probabilities for those.

I haven't said anything about chances. We're talking about YOUR CLAIMS about probabilities.
Where are these probabilities you claim to have and how did you calculate them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you think that the Abrahamic God has the same chance of being correct, perhaps you can show me your working.
Clearly, you know something I don't.

Do you think that this attempt of yours to shift the burden of proof is going to fool anyone? If you fooled yourself you also insulted yourself. You are also indirectly insulting anyone that agrees with you when you use this technique. It is a loss all of the way around.

But that is normal when one has a cherished irrational belief. Since one cannot support it as one needs to if one wants to claim that it is rational you instead try to twist the argument. No one else was saying what the odds were of a God. That was you. We don't even know if a god is possible. We definitely do not know the odds of one existing.

But we do know that the universe exists and to date has not demonstrated a need for any god.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This illustrates my point even though you didn't actually directly address it.

Anything can be believed on faith, obviously. So it's not a reliable pathway to truth.

I see that would be because that truth, for humanity, can only be relative.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But we do know that the universe exists and to date has not demonstrated a need for any god.

As many humans are now currently using scientific advances for the destruction of humanity, I see it is very logical that humanity as a whole, does urgently need a God given Revelation of disarmament and peace.

You are unable to offer a better path, and no human can offer a better path, other than God's Messengers.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?

Well, first of all you could check the medical records, to see if he has a history of mental illness.

Well you might be able to. The problem is that so far all messengers of God fail when you do that.

Luckily the record for the Bab and Baha'u'llah exist and that is exactly what they tried to do, show they were not of a sound mind.

Both the Bab and Baha'u'llah were found to be of sound mind. That is why they are persecuted, as the so called intelligent people that offer opposition, soon find that they are intellectual morons when put side by side with a Messenger.

Regards Tony

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see that would be because that truth, for humanity, can only be relative.

Regards Tony

It's because people believe all kinds of things on faith - whether they are true or false. Because anything can be believed on faith and therefore I don't find it useful in discerning fact from fiction.

 

[F1fan]

Luckily the record for the Bab and Baha'u'llah exist and that is exactly what they tried to do, show they were not of a sound mind.

Both the Bab and Baha'u'llah were found to be of sound mind. That is why they are persecuted, as the so called intelligent people that offer opposition, soon find that they are intellectual morons when put side by side with a Messenger.

Regards Tony

Someone got their feelings hurt and is acting with passive aggression.

To my mind this suggests you are not confident in your beliefs or assertions.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's because people believe all kinds of things on faith - whether they are true or false. Because anything can be believed on faith and therefore I don't find it useful in discerning fact from fiction.

That is why examination of the available evidence is needed.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luckily the record for the Bab and Baha'u'llah exist and that is exactly what they tried to do, show they were not of a sound mind.

Both the Bab and Baha'u'llah were found to be of sound mind. That is why they are persecuted, as the so called intelligent people that offer opposition, soon find that they are intellectual morons when put side by side with a Messenger.

Regards Tony

There is no need to prove that a person's mind was unsound. People with a sound mind still make incredibly ignorant and wrong claims quite frequently. There have been examples of that brought up in this thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is why examination of the available evidence is needed.

Regards Tony

And since there does not appear to be any what is the next step?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Someone got their feelings hurt and is acting with passive aggression.

To my mind this suggests you are not confident in your beliefs or assertions.

Ha ha, you wish, the only person that can hurt my feelings is my wife,she was God sent moderation for me.

That is not passive aggressive, that was the truth of what happened, it is recorded in the evidence.

If one looks at the evidence, one would find that.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There is no need to prove that a person's mind was unsound. People with a sound mind still make incredibly ignorant and wrong claims quite frequently. There have been examples of that brought up in this thread.

People of sound mind are also trustworthy and truthful.

You get to wrongly or rightly judge any of them, based on the evidence given.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And since there does not appear to be any what is the next step?

Do not deny the evidence that is obviously available. That is your choice.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

People of sound mind are also trustworthy and truthful.

You get to wrongly or rightly judge any of them, based on the evidence given.

Regards Tony

No, they are not. Or else you are using two different definitions of the term.

And since so much of the Bab's evidence appears to be flawed or nonexistent how should we judge him?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do not deny the evidence that is obviously available. That is your choice.

Regards Tony

If it is "obviously available" why haven't you provided any? You claims are refuted by your actions.