Evidence

[John53]

This is not in line with the "Christmas spirit"

My Xmas spirit left when I was woken at 3.30am with stomach cramps.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

But when you engage in debate about your beliefs, rituals, your history, your assumptions you begin at zero, and you need to show every part of your religion and belief is true, or likley true. You get no freebies. You have to earn respect for your ideas and beliefs in debate. If you don't respect the process, then you don't respect others.

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist, when it comes to the biblical God. I'm an agnostic, not an atheist, because I cannot honestly prove or disprove the existence of any gods or goddesses, and that includes the God of the Bible. To be honest, I can't say with certainty that I know that any deities exist or don't exist because I'm not all-knowing and all-powerful, and I can't transcend time and be in all places at once to prove or disprove the existence of deities. I believe in multiple gods because I'm inclined to believe in the supernatural, and I have my reasons for believing as I do. I wouldn't be honest with myself or with others if I said that there aren't any gods that exist.

In my opinion, if the biblical God doesn't exist, then my sincere belief and devout faith as a Christian were in vain, and I prayed to thin air. However, if this God does in fact exist, then as far as I'm concerned, he is a cold-blooded, sadistic, insane, and abhorrent monster—exactly the antithesis of what Christians claim he is and believe about him (loving, just, merciful, and a "heavenly father"). I believe that if God is real, then he obviously doesn't give a damn about me or think I'm worth the trouble of saving because he allowed me to endure years of being badly abused and neglected as well as being relentlessly bullied while I was growing up. It's obvious to me that God turned a blind eye to me being severely abused and bullied, and willfully ignored all of my prayers pleading with him to save me.

It's my belief that no one—not me, you, or anyone else—can empirically or independently demonstrate whether God or any kind of deity is real or not. No human being has ever searched across all of space and time to give verifiable and empirical proof for the existence of deities since humans lack omniscience, omnipotence, and the capacity to exist everywhere at once. In my opinion, we—meaning you, me, and everyone else (including Christians)—make decisions on whether or not to believe in God, in other gods, or in anything else supernatural based on the limited knowledge that we have. Moreover, I believe that any claims made by Christians that "God saved me and changed my life" or "I sense God's hand in my life, so I know he is real" are anecdotal evidence and don't meet the criteria for empirical and verifiable proof, just as my belief in multiple deities is only supported by anecdotal evidence and doesn't satisfy the criteria for empirical and verifiable evidence either. I believe in many gods, while Christians choose to believe in one God.

As a Wiccan and polytheist, I believe in multiple gods and goddesses, but I am unable to provide empirical and verifiable evidence of their existence. I can't prove their existence because I'm not omniscient and omnipotent, and I can't be ever-present everywhere to know without a doubt that they actually exist. And while I can't prove that these gods and goddesses exist, I still choose to believe because I believe in the supernatural, and I have personal reasons for my beliefs. By the same token, I cannot provide empirical and verifiable evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist, just as when I was a Christian, I could not provide empirical and verifiable evidence that God exists. And this is why I am an agnostic and not an atheist when it comes to the existence of the Christian God.

Regarding my adherence to spiritualism, I have many years of personal experience as a psychic medium and have accumulated evidence as a paranormal investigator to substantiate my beliefs in it. My psychic mediumship abilities to communicate and interact with the dead have been confirmed by people I've never met or seen before who have witnessed me reveal personal information to them previously known only to them and their deceased loved ones. In addition to validating my spiritualist beliefs through my personal interactions with human spirits, I've also researched and investigated the paranormal over the past fifteen years, traveled across the country to investigate well-known and rumored haunted locations, and collaborated with other paranormal investigators to assist their investigations into numerous haunted locations. Furthermore, using my own personal ghost-hunting equipment, I've accumulated evidence of my encounters as well as other paranormal activity, and much of my evidence has been examined and validated by other people (paranormal investigators and skeptics alike) whom I've either met in person or corresponded with online.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which means there is a possibility if you come across evidence. Ok

Yes, if adequate evidence for a God is found I would change my mind. There are those that disregard evidence due to what they say that they believe in. When one states that one has a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence they are essentially saying "Show me the evidence and I will change my mind."

No one has yet to show me any reliable evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My Xmas spirit left when I was woken at 3.30am with stomach cramps.

Too much Christmas spirit will do that to a person. Make sure to drink plenty of fluids, and don't drive!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

should God send a personal message to all of the 8 billion people in the world?

Certainly not through messengers. That can't work unless the messages simply couldn't have been written by a human being. Imagine how spectacular a message would be if it authored by a deity who created the universe. Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by a human being, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. So what does that say when anyone can improve any holy book, but very few can improve on a book by Newton or Hawking? It says the latter are smarter than the authors of the former.

God does not send messages via Special Delivery, which is what atheists want.

You still don't seem to understand that atheists don't believe in gods, and want and expect nothing from them. What we want and expect is coherent arguments for gods before believing in them. The faithful simply don't have them as this thread attests.

God, in the wisest of manners, has chosen to not divulge His existence in the most obvious and irrefutable of manners - for there are many who, although may be obligated to acknowledge His presence, will never give Him the honour and reverence that is due.

You must be using a different definition of wise than I do. If one wants to be honored and revered, or even believed, he should make himself known.

This evidence can be tested in the heart of every fair-minded observer.

Would you like to hear the results of the test? I'm with the majority on this one. And are you sure that you're fair-minded and not biased in favor of belief? An honest appraisal of the evidence offered finds it not evidence of a deity.

I had a very difficult time trying to prove it false.

Not necessary. I can't prove it false, either, but I still reject it as truth because it hasn't been demonstrated to be correct, either.

But the real confirmation came when I realised Who Baha’u’llah actually was and it to this day, 48 years later, it still staggers me that humanity has still not discovered this greatest of all Secrets.

Humanity's principal reaction to Baha'u'llah - skepticism - doesn't surprise me a bit. Most people simply don't consider great what you call great. More surprising is why people think that his life or words aren't ordinary.

There is nothing exemplary to me about a life lived spreading religious ideas. I consider it a life lived unwisely if one could have actually been of service to others instead. What did you do for a living? Did you help people? Maybe you were a furniture maker. If so, you gave humanity more than itinerant preachers. We have a few animals rescue and neutering groups around where I live that reduce suffering. Everybody volunteering there is leading a more exemplary life than such people. In the meantime, the local priests do nothing equivalent. Almost everybody I know (not know of, but continue to socialize with) has lived a more productive life than they would have as professional religionists.

I realize that that comment is offensive to some, but refute it if it's wrong. If it's correct, isn't it worth knowing? Isn't one doing a service pointing it out to those who simply assume that those who say God and love a lot are really living exemplary lives so much so that we should recognize them as messengers of a god? That's what's being by many here including you. If it's correct, then you can show why. If it's wrong, then you can't.

if we are to look at what Baha'u'llah offered, in the middle of the 1800's to a very decadent Islamic clergy and totallian rule, to a world about to go to.war on a global scale, we can judge if the Word gave the solutions required.

Are you sure that you want to propose that as the test of Baha'u'llah's message? Have you seen what Iran is like? They're still decadent and living in a failed state.

I will take 30 seconds to offer the evidence as God has given it to us. To make it personal, Jesus said one must be born again. That is because Jesus as Christ, gave a Revelation and a Message from God, which is the personal Message to each of us.

We are to recognize God by assuming God sent us a message? More of circular argumentation. Are not interested in reaching those who know that this argument is flawed and its conclusion unsound? Are you not interested in being correct yourself? This is not the way to do that.

the evidence God gives humanity is, 1) The Person, 2 the Revelation and 3 the Message.

And more circularity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The point of the OP is that it is undebatable that evidence is provided.

This is a trivial point. Why are you arguing it? Because people say that there is no evidence for God? They are not saying that there is nothing offered as evidence, just that it fails to point to a deity.

That is because we have free will. The apex of our animal state is to live a full material life. Survival of the fittest, look after # 1

This is religious speak. Perhaps you should be listening to humanist more and religionists less. They've filed your head with myths about what life is like without religion. They've told you that it is empty and you've believed them despite that message being self-serving and contradicted by evidence. You seem to be unaware what life can be for people outside of religions like yours.

Have you never seen Maslow's pyramid? You're stuck at its base - hedonic well-being, or what is called basic needs here. Did they never tell you how high one can soar if he sheds the anchor of a religion that teaches him that the best life possible is to submit to a doctrine of human inadequacy, that calls thinking for oneself arrogance or impiety and promotes faith (passive belief) over reason and experience, and one that promotes submission over autonomy? My worldview says to stand up like the magnificent product of evolution you are, arm yourself with education, be bold, and make the world a better place, because only man can improve the human condition. These are the things that generate eudaimonic wellbeing (psychological and self-fulfillment needs in this diagram), or the wellbeing that comes from having a sense of purpose and of belonging in the world, and of having lived life courageously. Have you seen the auroras? Have you ever saved a life? You left that out of your formulation of what man can be without religion.

Are you as a theist allowed to do all of this, to ascend to the top of this pyramid (open link below)? Christianity teaches to be separate from the world, that pride in one's choices is sin, that man accomplishes nothing, and your full potential is to submit and focus on religious matters.

From Maslow's hierarchy of needs to Data driven hierarchy of needs (linkedin.com)

Yet look at the empty shell of a human being you see in man absent what you call spirituality but which I say has nothing in common with natural spirituality, and is actually its enemy for distracting one's attention away from nature to supernatural spirits in imagined places - one of the biggest mistakes man has made. You describe the Abrahamic believer better than the humanist. Sorry, but to me, the Roomba mindlessly circling the room bumping into objects is the zealous Abrahamic theist, not the humanist.

You are now speaking for God? What evidence do you have for that statement. The Messengers have left their person, their Revelation and the Word as evidence.

How dare he speak for a god. He needs to let others do that for him. That's Baha'u'llah's job.

Now in that evidence it tells us what we must do to find peace and how to go about implementing peace.

It hasn't worked. When do you realize that this program is sterile? How many years or centuries does it need to fail before recognizing that it is not an answer.

Not everyone will look at the evidence provided, that in no way negates that the evidence is provided, to say it is not provided is paramount to a denial of Justice.

Who's denying that you have presented evidence? They are rejecting your interpretation of it.

as expected the naysayers are here about what constitutes evidence.

The naysayers. What are you?

The naysayers are trying to teach you the proper interpretation of that evidence - yet another man once wandered the land claiming to speak for a god. That's all it is evidence of, not of gods.

 

[Alien826]

So should God send a personal message to all of the 8 billion people in the world?

Just put it on Twitter, phrased so it goes viral.

More seriously, why not? Are you doubting that he can? The problem would be having it believed, of course.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It isn't valid evidence. It wouldn't even be accepted as admissible evidence in a court of law, which has a lower barrier of evidence than history or science.

It's also not valid evidence for the existence of God, because the existence of God is a claim about the nature of reality, not what occurred in the past. The only kind of evidence that's valid evidence for a claim of that character is empirical, scientific evidence.

What you have provided simply isn't evidence. At best, they're claims.

Well that is simply incorrect about it not being evidence. Billions do accept a Messenger, a Revelation and the Written Word as evidence.

This following statement to made can be expanded upon.

It's also not valid evidence for the existence of God, because the existence of God is a claim about the nature of reality, not what occurred in the past.

God encompasses the past, present and future, all the seen and unseen worlds. God is outside of time. All creation emanates from God, the nature of reality includes all of the past and the future. The evidence of this is contained in the Word of God and is proof of this statement. That Word confirms the past and tells of the future.

As already stated, the evidence is available.

Available to humanity is 6 senses. 5 to navigate this world and 1, the rational mind to navigate the virtues, hidden possibilities and spiritual connections of life.

It is the rational mind that is required when searching for all things that were previously unknowable.

Regards Tony

 

[Alien826]

Humanity's principal reaction to Baha'u'llah - skepticism - doesn't surprise me a bit. Most people simply don't consider great what you call great. More surprising is why people think that his life or words aren't ordinary.

There is nothing exemplary to me about a life lived spreading religious ideas. I consider it a life lived unwisely if one could have actually been of service to others instead. What did you do for a living? Did you help people? Maybe you were a furniture maker. If so, you gave humanity more than itinerant preachers. We have a few animals rescue and neutering groups around where I live that reduce suffering. Everybody volunteering there is leading a more exemplary life than such people. In the meantime, the local priests do nothing equivalent. Almost everybody I know (not know of, but continue to socialize with) has lived a more productive life than they would have as professional religionists.

I realize that that comment is offensive to some, but refute it if it's wrong. If it's correct, isn't it worth knowing? Isn't one doing a service pointing it out to those who simply assume that those who say God and love a lot are really living exemplary lives so much so that we should recognize them as messengers of a god? That's what's being by many here including you. If it's correct, then you can show why. If it's wrong, then you can't.

I have to disagree, in principle at least. What about those that influence others to do good? We can use a school teacher here as an example, rather than a preacher if you wish. Many people have been influenced by the teachings of Jesus to do good, and much more good resulted than if he had stuck to carpentry. Of course, that doesn't make his religious claims correct.

 

[Alien826]

Then you would be saying that all evidence in most court cases is just hearsay.

The testimonials of witnesses and the accused are valid evidence, especially if they are found Trustworthy and Truthful and in the past, swear that unto God!

The fact that people now lie and are untrustworthy, only adds to the validity of their given evidence, because they are trustworthy and truthful.

Regards Tony

hearsay
hîr′sā″
noun

1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.
3. Information communicated by another; report; common talk; rumor; gossip.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

So, hearsay is quoting another person who is not in court to verify what is said. It's not all verbal evidence.

If your quoted words were from your own experience, not hearsay. Simply quoting Bahá'u'lláh, hearsay, as he cannot be here to testify.

Being hearsay doesn't mean it's not true of course, just that an attempt at verification can't be made.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Just put it on Twitter, phrased so it goes viral.

More seriously, why not? Are you doubting that he can? The problem would be having it believed, of course.

Well I would say that the voice of God can be heard by any willing soul, but first we have to be willing, and then we have to learn how to listen. Listening requires silence, for which we need to quiet the endless noise generated in our own heads.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And you have not shown any of your claims to be evidence yet.

I see you are yet to accept what is valid evidence.

The Person
The Revelation
The Word given.

These 3 together are the evidence.

Depends what one is searching for.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see you are yet to accept what is valid evidence.

The Person
The Revelation
The Word given.

These 3 together are the evidence.

Depends what one is searching for.

Regards Tony

No, that would not qualify as evidence. Those are simply claims. As others have already told you they do not point reliably to a god.

This might help. See if you can properly define your God. Then perhaps some evidence for him can be found.

 

[Alien826]

What assumptions do you make in your worldview that leads you to draw the conclusion that they cannot all be true? What do you believe about the nature of reality, the human ability to know reality, and the nature of truth? I ask rhetorically so don't feel like you need to reply - one's answers to them would shape the conclusions. Personally, I have no trouble reconciling these things (the map is not the territory and all that) but others need not reach that same endpoint.

Surely the Judeo Christian claim that there is only one god compared to the claim of some religions (pick your own example) that there are multiple gods would introduce just a teeny sliver of doubt about all god claims being true?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, that would not qualify as evidence. Those are simply claims. As others have already told you they do not point reliably to a god.

..in your opinion .. each claim needs to be analysed separately, and then examined again in light of the whole.

Your sweeping brush, is a mere wave of the hand to dismiss..
..and then you will reply with the usual "nobody has given me empirical evidence of gods" boloney, I would expect.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Ok.

Wait are you going to use "it's true because it says so"????

OMG, you are? It says he is the manifestation, that is the proof?????? The proof is a guy?

Yes people are their "own self". Not evidence.

Yes revelations are a common claim. Like others these have nothing new, nothing a human couldn't come up with using theology and knowledge of the time. These do however have no philosophical density at all and literally completely wrong science. Every science mention is incorrect.

Mercy, compassion and being just are not then or ever, evidence of a supernatural being sending messages to this person.

I've read much of his writings. The philosophy is literally child like. Could you link to anything that demonstrates a knowledge of any philosophy. This would not demonstrate divinity because if you read some similar philosophers from this time period you will see they are an infinite level above these writings. Read some Kant and Nietzsche .

I think I've seen all the science. It's literally all incorrect. He doesn't understand humans evolved and still are in the animal Kingdom, never mind primate Order. Thinks the ether is a thing. So did scientists of that time. So he's using science of the day. Not getting divine messages about science.
Is there a summary of all the science he talks about in case I missed something?

This is not evidence. Even if he were a great philosopher. Kant wasn't claiming divine messages. Even if he used intuition to predict science
Epicurus predicted 22 big scientific discoveries without help from Yahweh.
These are claims. Like Joe Smith, Muhammad, Paul, Prince Arjuna, current Jesus in Australia and Scientology and its claims about an alien race seeding humanity during an intergalactic war or something.

Do you know what evidence is?
Jehovah's Witnesses use the same level of evidence (writings of a guy) to show the world is soon ending and all non-JW are going straight to hell, no exceptions. The rapture is on it's way and they have evidence.

Even worse, Bahai get to CHOOSE the criteria by which he is judged?????? Since he was - nice guy, compassionate, wrote a lot, the things that he WAS in life? They take those normal person things and say that is the evidence?????? This is made up whole-cloth?

Are you quoting other people and writings as evidence against the evidence?

A person can indeed be evidence. An artist produces art, the quality of the artist is seen in the artwork. Without the quality art, the person is not an artist and would be found to be untrustworthy and untruthful.

A Messenger is known by their qualities which is found in their Revelation and their Message. They are proven to be trustworthy and truthful.

We have the example of false Messengers to compare this against.

The quandary of free will choices will always challenge us to impart justice as we examine the facts.

Regards Tony

 

[John53]

Well that is simply incorrect about it not being evidence. Billions do accept a Messenger, a Revelation and the Written Word as evidence.

She didn't say "evidence" she said "valid evidence".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see you are yet to accept what is valid evidence.

The Person
The Revelation
The Word given.

These 3 together are the evidence.

Depends what one is searching for.

Regards Tony

I see that you still do not understand the concept of valid evidence.

All you have are empty claims. Also why did you edit my post? There was no good reason to do so. A person that had evidence would not do so.

 

[syo]

There are three kinds of people. Ok, we are doomed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are three kinds of people. Ok, we are doomed.

Alright. There are four kinds of people. The fourth are those who find the claim of there only being three kinds of people laughable.