Evidence

[muhammad_isa]

False, there has been no use of reason by anyone who concludes the Bible, or related concepts, are true..

That is your opinion .. that we believe just because of some whim.
When I employ reasoning, I find it harder to disbelieve than to believe.
..but of course, you claim that all the witnesses involved are bearing false witness or deluded.
..suit yourself. Most people do.

 

[CG Didymus]

Okay, more nonsensical inconsistencies.

Yeah, if the stories about Jesus aren't true, then they are fictional. Fictional stories about a God/man, that were believed to be true, is exactly what made Jesus into what he is to most Christians. What he is to Baha'is aren't those things.

 

[Secret Chief]

Thanks, I like learning about religions. I just don't like when some religions make themselves out to be the only true one. And that's one of my problems with the Baha'i Faith. Although they say all religions are one, when I looked into it, they really meant that they all were true but have now been replaced with the teachings of the Baha'i Faith.

Yes it seems to me it started with the conclusion and then worked backwards to shoehorn everything in to fit it, albeit involving great misappropriation and deceit along the way. I'm perfectly happy that someone thinks Buddhism is a crock if it seems incorrect or whatever, but the Bahai stealing of the name and cherry-picking to use to its own ends is rather galling.

 

[CG Didymus]

I know. And I think that jealousy of atheists has quite a bit to do with this thread. Atheists can have a clear rational reason not to believe. The OP seems to desire to have a rational belief but knows that he cannot support it. Others may try to support their beliefs as being rational, but fail to do so and cannot afford to understand why their arguments fail.

At any rate I do not see a resolution coming from the believers. If one claims to have reliable evidence for one's beliefs on is taking on a burden of proof.

Yes, they've got to go deeper into why they think it is evidence. But how many times to they put the burden on others to go research the "evidence"? I think the hope is that a person will see just how great their prophet was and how much he suffered, therefore, it must all be true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..If this stuff didn't happen as reported in the gospels, then what? Is the NT the truth or just partly true and partly made up?

One has to look at the whole, in order to be able to understand what is being taught.
I would say that Gospel of John is a sectarian Gospel.
..well I would, wouldn't I.

One can see from the word go, that it has a very strong "Christology", compared to the others.
We also have to bear in mind that Paul(Saul) was not a disciple .. some people claim he was a prophet .. but then why would the Messiah ascend to heaven, just to be replaced by Paul?
.. makes no sense to me.

 

[Polymath257]

That is your opinion .. that we believe just because of some whim.
When I employ reasoning, I find it harder to disbelieve than to believe.
..but of course, you claim that all the witnesses involved are bearing false witness or deluded.
..suit yourself. Most people do.

I have been a math professor for 36 years now. one of the things I have found is that logic and reasoning are unnatural for most people. In fact, even among those who are math majors, the hardest part of their education is usually learning how to reason and use logic correctly.

Because of this, i don't find it unusual or unbelievable that you *think* you are using logic and reasoning, but you are not, in fact, doing so. Unless you have trained to use logic and reasoning correctly, I can almost guarantee that you do not.

I do NOT claim that witnesses are bearing false witness: I very much believe that they are relating things as they see them. What I *do* claim is that they are over-interpreting or misinterpreting their experiences. I don't even say they are delusional since that typically implies a disorder in mental processes as opposed to a simple mistake of interpretation.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, they've got to go deeper into why they think it is evidence. But how many times to they put the burden on others to go research the "evidence"? I think the hope is that a person will see just how great their prophet was and how much he suffered, therefore, it must all be true.

And that is where I don't understand their claims.

No matter how good or special a person is, they can still be mistaken. And their goodness is NOT evidence of a supernatural. They are, after all, natural beings.

So, even if their prophet is good, wise, and wonderful, it would *still* not come anywhere close to showing they are a 'messenger' from a deity.

 

[Trailblazer]

I just posted this on another thread but I think it also belongs on this thread.

We are all arguing from ignorance, since there is no proof that God exists, but we are not all committing the fallacy of "argument from ignorance."

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Most atheists say that the proposition "God exists" is false because it has not yet been proven true by the believers' evidence.
If they do this they commit the fallacy and their argument is illogical.

As a believer I do not claim that the proposition "God exists" is true because it has not yet been proven false, since the proposition cannot be proven true or false. I simply say that the proposition "God exists" unknowable.
I believe that "God exists" but I do not claim it because I cannot prove it is true.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This can also be applied to whether Baha'ullah was a Messenger of God or not.

Most atheists say that the proposition "Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God" is false because it has not yet been proven true by the believers' evidence.
Thus they commit the fallacy and their argument is illogical.

As a believer I do not claim that the proposition "Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God" is true because it has not yet been proven false, since the proposition cannot be proven true or false. I simply say that the proposition "Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God" unknowable.

I believe that "Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God" but I do not claim it because I cannot prove that Baha'u'llah ever got messages from God. Nobody can prove that. We either believe or disbelieve that based upon the evidence. The evidence I have presented IS the evidence, although there might be more evidence I have not thought of. Thus people are welcome to look for more evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Character, mission and writings claiming revelation may all be admirable, but from an epistemic perspective I'm skeptical.

Yes .. you find it hard to believe that miracles happened .. you haven't seen them yourself, personally, and think that there is a better explanation to explain what people "thought they saw".

There is a reason why some people believe and some don't.
..and it is not just about gullibility .. it is more fundamental.
We all have a different "take" on how we view the world,
and on the moral values scriptures contain.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have been a math professor for 36 years now. one of the things I have found is that logic and reasoning are unnatural for most people..

..that's taking things to extreme.
I do not claim that believers are perfect in their logic and reasoning .. any more than disbelievers.

I do NOT claim that witnesses are bearing false witness: I very much believe that they are relating things as they see them. What I *do* claim is that they are over-interpreting or misinterpreting their experiences..

I don't disagree.
We all do that .. but there is just too much information that reinforces each other, to put it all down to human error.

 

[Valjean]

The evidence is provided as

The Person
The Revelation, and
The Message.

From those sources, all we will ever know of God can be found. They contain the facts and proofs.

How are these evidence?
There are many good people in any religion -- and without religion. What makes a person proof?
Likewise, there are many revelations in many religions, and many people everywhere claiming revelation. They're all different, and none evidenced. How are these facts or proofs?
The message? See above. Many conflicting messages. How are these either facts or proofs?

 

[F1fan]

There is much that can be discussed as to how God's interaction in creation is manifested, which is contained within the given evidence. We would talking about the Spirit that is the cause of creation when we talk of God, it needs logic and reason to discuss this, not the lack of.

In saying that, the interaction of God is manifested in creation which can resonate with humanity, and this interaction is manifested in many ways, humanitarian efforts are born from that interaction.

All that divides humanity is born from the neglect of that interaction.

That is not this OP, as it has never been the intent to provide proofs of God, just the line of evidence we need to pursue, if there is going to be meaningful discussions about God.

These comments that you contribute are not meaningful because you are making dogmatic statements, not factual statements. You are treating your beliefs as if they are factual and accepted as true by the forum. They are not. By you making reference to a God existing, and behaving in certain ways, you now have the burden of proof to demonstarte these claims are true.

Since you have offered no evidence (that doesn't require certain assumptions) then it is rejected by default. Your efforts here are fruitless because you post with assumptions that are not valid or warranted through reason.

The only evidence where the existence of God can be proved by logical and rational thought, is via the evidence provided as noted in this OP.

Not truth in the slightest. You believe you have evidence, but you are oblivious that you are making huge, irrational assumptions. You assume a God exists, you assume Messengers are valid, therefore what you read of baha'u'llah is valid evidence. This is irrational, and that means your statement above is completely false.

The evidence doee provides the key lines of investigation needed.

Only if you make unwarranted assumptions that critical thinkers do not make.

Unless people are willing to consider that faith also requires critical and analytical thought and reasoning, I doubt we will ever be able to discuss these matter's, yet our goals are for the good of all humanity.

You don't use analysis or critical thought. We skilled thinkers understand this, but you resist this awareness.

 

[Polymath257]

..that's taking things to extreme.
I do not claim that believers are perfect in their logic and reasoning .. any more than disbelievers.

But, unless someone has been trained in logic and reasoning, they are very likely to do it wrong.

I don't disagree.
We all do that .. but there is just too much information that reinforces each other, to put it all down to human error.

Given the very human tendency towards confirmation bias, I strongly disagree.

 

[Trailblazer]

Please, you supported the OP off and on.

One more time, the only reason that atheists are asking for evidence for God is because the OP and sometimes you and others have claimed that there is evidence.

One more time, the only reason that believers tell atheists there is evidence for God is because there is evidence.
Science doesn't study a god or gods so no scientific evidence for that exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

No atheist on this thread has told a single person what they ought to do or believe.

No, not in so many words, but they have criticized believers for believing what they believe, saying believers have no evidence.

 

[Valjean]

That is your opinion .. that we believe just because of some whim.
When I employ reasoning, I find it harder to disbelieve than to believe.
..but of course, you claim that all the witnesses involved are bearing false witness or deluded.
..suit yourself. Most people do.

I find disbelief the epistemic default; a blank slate we should rationally start with. I then admit facts and beliefs when they're evidenced or reasonable.

 

[F1fan]

I know. And I think that jealousy of atheists has quite a bit to do with this thread. Atheists can have a clear rational reason not to believe. The OP seems to desire to have a rational belief but knows that he cannot support it. Others may try to support their beliefs as being rational, but fail to do so and cannot afford to understand why their arguments fail.

At any rate I do not see a resolution coming from the believers. If one claims to have reliable evidence for one's beliefs on is taking on a burden of proof.

I've debated religion since 1996 and I have noticed over the years that the most fervent will continue to beat their heads against the wall way beyond what a normal person would do. This can be seen with Tb who says she hates these debates but then continues to post feverishly as if she is in a pot of boiling water. This irrationality is what I find interesting, and one reason why I continue in discussions, I want to see how far the theists will go to wiggle and distort into knots in hoes of some satisfaction. It never comes, so what is the payoff?

I suspect these fervent believers see themseves as martyrs for the truth, that their suffering and efforts are recognized by their God, and they feel obligated to defend the truth against evil forces. Notice how the believers have appropriated words like reason, logic, truth, evidence, as if they have the truer forms of these over the evil atheists. But they don't use the words properly, but they don;t care, the image and illusion is what is important, not truth.

Its interesting to see the egos deform and compress, sometimes it gets insulting. In military terms the believers retreat and retreat as their claims get battered, and their last position is the final redoubt of faith. Tb admitted that her beliefs are not factual, so she surrendered. TmS often hits this himself and leaves for a while, but then returns. I notice TmS will continue on as if there is no opposition to his claims. That is interesting. His tactic is to pretend that oppostion isn't what it is, and pretends to act like a teacher to willing students. Most believers are aware of what they face in opposition and deal with it honestly, but TmS is acting through denial that the criticisms of his beliefs are even real. He ignores the most devastating criticisms, and reacts with blatant dogma. I suspect much of this is more to convince himself that he is correct than critics.

I think most believers know their beliefs have serious problems, but that pride fights reason and awareness, and keeps faith alive.

 

[Trailblazer]

Unreliable for common sense and experience with sources - for people who don't take everything for granted, who evaluate the sources. It's called source criticism:

Source criticism - Wikipedia

common sense: good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.
what is common sense - Google Search

What is common sense vs. not common sense is only a subjective personal opinion.
It is not a fact because it cannot be proven that someone has good sense and sound judgment'
It is a personal opinion and nothing more.

 

[Valjean]

I just posted this on another thread but I think it also belongs on this thread.

We are all arguing from ignorance, since there is no proof that God exists, but we are not all committing the fallacy of "argument from ignorance."

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Most atheists say that the proposition "God exists" is false because it has not yet been proven true by the believers' evidence.
If they do this they commit the fallacy and their argument is illogical.

But this isn't true. I think you're creating a straw man, here.
Atheism and reason say that belief is reserved for that which is evidenced.
I don't say God doesn't exist. I say belief is provisional -- pending evidence.

 

[F1fan]

That proves the minefield that would result.

It is a simple task to Google original Buddha manuscripts and see what one can find.

As for specific subjects, see what evidence is available to support the concept.

Reincarnation - Wikipedia

I like this, "Skeptic Carl Sagan asked the Dalai Lama what he would do if a fundamental tenet of his religion (reincarnation) were definitively disproved by science. The Dalai Lama answered, "If science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation…"

Obviously the Dalai Lama is a very wise man.

To the well educated on this matter the reincarnation in Buddhism isn't what Westerners tend to believe. there is no personality that passes on to another life. What Buddhism says is that our souls are an essence that makes up the living person. Have you ever heard the terms "young soul" or "old soul"? An old soul is more common, but it means to refer to people who are unusually smart and wise for their age. This would mean their soul has had many incarnations anmd has learned a lot through many lives. Young souls have few incarnations and are tyically unwise and have a lot to learn. Some believe souls reach an end and become part of the universe.

There are many different takes on souls and reincarnation, but this seems to be the most common in my exverience.

I personally don't believe in any of this. In Buddhism we are allowed to reject any ideas we don't think are relevant or true. This is unlike many rigid religions where there is dogma that has to be accepted, and the believers prisoners to it.