Evidence

[Trailblazer]

If the Messengers don't know God by direct empirical evidence why call them Messengers? If they just rely on old traditional narratives they are not more knowledgeable than other believers.

Messengers know God by direct experience through the Holy Spirit, but obviously that is not the same kind of empirical evidence that is used in science and law.

Since direct experience with the Holy Spirit can never be verified, whether Baha'u'llah had that or not is either believed or not believed, based upon evidence that indicates that He was who He claimed to be, a Messenger of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly. it does NOT depend on personal opinion. There are very clear rules about what is and what is not logical and reasonable.

For example, you don't get to use the existence of something before you demonstrate that existence.

I do not know what you mean by "use the existence of something."
If you mean claim the existence of something, I am not claiming the existence of anything I cannot prove exists, but that does not mean I cannot believe it exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see all our thoughts and actions are founded in choice. CG made a choice to say I have nothing to offer.

The thoughts I have on more ancient faiths and what they provide, are founded in evidence given in more recent faiths.

I see the evidence shows all Faith is from.One Source and as such the fundamental truths are not opposing.

That is way beyond the scope if this OP.

The evidence can provide key concepts to consider what past faiths may have been offering, yet time and man have changed many aspects of the original teachings.

We are taught this in school, all of us would have done the science on the accuracy of oral transmission.

Regards Tony

The problem is that you do not appear to have any reliable evidence. Your evidence appear to be only failed "messengers" of God.

Here is the thing. When a person has reliable evidence and wants to convince others he will provide it, using quotes and links if need be. You have only claimed that there is evidence which on its own tells us that you probably have none. When your sources are investigated no one here can find any evidence.

Why do you keep repeating what look like obviously false claims? Why don't you try to support your claims properly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, my mistake. I thought you said it worked for all messengers.

If they don't fit into his narrative then they are obviously false messengers. It must be nice. Having an irrational belief can make reasoning effortless. Almost as if little to no reasoning was involved at all.

 

[Valjean]

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".

I find it hard to believe for many reasons, including the fact that the miracles are inexplicable. I also question whether the reporters actually 'thought they saw' any of these miracles, just made them up to support an agenda, or were just telling stories which got passed on and sacrelized.
I believe people often hallucinate, as well as misremember, embellish or confabulate. They see or hear things that don't exist

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.

Good point. logic and critical thinking are not inborn. They're intellectually unnatural, learned skills, that were never very useful during our species' formative years.

Not all people learn these skills. Most people can get along fine without them. Many don't even realize that such analytic techniques exist, and can't follow along when they're employed.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes, and if those truths are wrapped up in myth and legends, do we have to accept those myths and legends as being true also? In a way, I think the Baha'i Faith does try to eliminate the beliefs in some of those things that sound mythical by saying that some of them aren't historical and literal but were meant to be taken symbolically. Like with fundy Christians, a person can't believe the basic spiritual truths without taking the whole Bible and NT literally. They must believe it all. And I don't think Baha'is are any better. Can Baha'is just promote the virtues of love and kindness and generosity and such without expecting people to have to accept the whole religion?

Yes, all has to be believed because it was meant literally (someone exceptions are for example the parables). Cultural Christians are seen as insincere and superficial by believers.

 

[Valjean]

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.

But there is not evidence in the epistemic sense; no objective, empirical evidence. There is, at best, anecdotal evidence.
People accept religion because it's taught them before they're capable of evaluating or analyzing it. It's installed as ROM or part of their intellectual operating system. Society and confirmation bias reïnforce it, and logic and reason aren't applied, or are misused, for various reasons.

 

[Valjean]

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.

But there is not evidence in the epistemic sense; no objective, empirical evidence. There is, at best, anecdotal evidence.
People accept religion because it's taught them before they're capable of evaluating or analyzing it. It's installed as ROM or part of their intellectual operating system. Society and confirmation bias reïnforce it, and logic and reason aren't applied, or are misused, for various reasons.

 

[Valjean]

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

But that's usually true, and we are usually criticizing the claim or the proffered support for it. not the claimant.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Common sense is based on familiarity and experience, not critical analysis or logic. It was only when people began abandoning commonsenical explanations that human knowledge of the how and why of the world worked skyrocketed. Abandoning common sense was behind the scientific and technological revolution.
Religion, on the other hand, hasn't made much progress at all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Now if we say God is all knowing, what is provided in the evidence to prove to us God is all knowing?

That is all one can say, as exploration of that answer is not this OP.

Regards Tony

Let us return, then, to your OP, and the "evidence," as you put it.

The Person

What do you know about this "Person?" All you can ever know, about anyone (any one of the thousands of humans who have claimed to come wih "messages from God") is what they say there are. You cannot observe them getting this message. You have no ability, no means, of testing whether they have "qualities of two separate natures," the human and the divine or spiritual. Only what they say. Such men have included, as I have pointed out before, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, and many others.

These "Persons" have also included the virtually certain-to-be mythical, like Abraham and Moses. And if they are mythical, then their "message" was actually written by somebody else, who you do not claim to have been a "messenger."

What you do NOT have is any corroborating evidence whatever to indicate that these "persons" are who and what they say they are. So, the "evidence" that you accept as evidence of the divine is your own predisposed selection of what and who to believe. In other words, you are all the evidence you need of the "Person."

The Revelation

How many of the "Revelations" that you claim have been given to man by God have you studied, and how have you compared one to the other in order to determine if they are in any way cohesive -- something that one would certainly expect if they are all coming from the same, omniscient source. God cannot, surely, be expected to be "more omniscient today than yesterday," as this would absolutely deny the meaning of the word omniscience itself.

Now, let me ask you to consider whether many of these "Revelations" have set humans against each other, resulting in untold war, misery and death? Can it really be that this is what God wanted to accomplish? Or is it possible God did not know that would be the result of asking one culture, in one place and time, to believe something absolutely for centuries or millenia, and then sending along a new "Revelation" to say, "okay, stop that and believe something else now."

But let me assure you, religious dispute has, throughout human history, been a terrible reality, and has resulted in exactly what I said: war, misery and death.

The Message

This is going to be your hardest challenge, because here's what we can say with certainty about any "Message" enjoining us how to live, worship and engage with one another for the purpose of improving human future: that you caannot and will not know whether it is a "Message" of real value until that future has arrived. Thus, you must take that 100% on trust.

Unless, of course, you reflect that if the "Message" has changed many times (as you yourself affirm that it has), that previous "Messages" have indeed been failures. And if you assume, as you have suggested, that at some remove in the future some new "Messenger" will come with a new "Revelation" and a new "Message," that this one will be, by that time, known to have not been all that it was cracked up to be either.

Can you see why some of us remain sketical?

 

[muhammad_isa]

But there is not evidence in the epistemic sense; no objective, empirical evidence. There is, at best, anecdotal evidence..

..and there's lots of it.

People accept religion because it's taught them before they're capable of evaluating or analyzing it..

No .. people believe in religion because they can envisage something greater than ourselves, that created the universe.
They are quite capable of evaluating it when they become an adult.
Some people decide it's not for them, and others decide they want to be guided by it.

..logic and reason aren't applied, or are misused, for various reasons.

Atheists are not the only ones capable of logic and reason .. that is not why people disbelieve
i.e. because they are smart

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes, and whether or not it's true is another matter, but the gospels went out of their way to show that God was real. Angels appearing, God speaking from heaven. the virgin birth, doves descending, dead people coming out of their graves in Jerusalem. Jesus healing a lame man and forgiving him of his sins, then angels appearing and saying Jesus had risen from the dead. That's what the gospels say. How much of it do even Baha'is say is true? If this stuff didn't happen as reported in the gospels, then what? Is the NT the truth or just parly true and partly made up?

Yes, it's way over the top. I still think it's partly true. Hystorical analysis can assess if something is likely to be true. For example:

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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?

By using the evidence, we can determine facts and proofs.

You ask, "What makes a Person a proof". In relation to Prophets or Messengers, they are more than an everyday person. That is why part of the evidence is their Person and life, the Revelation and Word is reflected from them.

The proof of compassion is a compassionate person. Etc etc

Thus a Messenger is evidence as they are the standard of virtue and morals. To.offer more foes outside the scope of this OP.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

And that is precisely why atheists are not convinced of the existence of God. The lack of that sort of evidence is *exactly* why it is reasonable to not believe in such a being.

Reasonable: (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.
what is reasonable - Google Search

What is reasonable is highly subjective:

1. We have reasonable cause not to believe him.
2. She offered a reasonable compromise.
3. It's not reasonable to expect perfect weather.
4. Please be more reasonable. There is no way I'll be able to finish all this work in so little time.
5. A reasonable man would not expect such a thing.
6. Our boss has reasonable expectations of his employees.
7. The team has a reasonable chance of winning.
8. He makes a reasonable amount of money.
9. The store's prices are reasonable.
10. The hotel offers excellent accommodations at reasonable rates.

Definition of REASONABLE

You can say the lack of that sort of evidence is *exactly* why in my opinion it is reasonable to not believe in such a being, but when you say the lack of that sort of evidence is *exactly* why it is reasonable to not believe in such a being you are defining what is reasonable, period, and you cannot do that without implying that believers are unreasonable.

In my opinion, the preponderance evidence is *exactly* why it is reasonable to believe in God.

But it is also illogical and unreasonable to believe in the absence of such evidence. So the fact that such evidence is impossible is *precisely* the best reason to not believe.

You can say in my opinion it is also illogical and unreasonable to believe in the absence of such evidence. So the fact that such evidence is impossible is *precisely* why I do not believe in God.

In my opinion, it is illogical and unreasonable to believe that the evidence for God's existence would be the same standard of evidence used in science and law, since religion is not science or law.

More accurately, that evidence is not sufficient to compel belief at all.

More accurately, that evidence is not sufficient to compel you to believe.

Not at all. You have admitted that proper evidence of God is impossible. And that is precisely why it is unreasonable to believe.

In your opinion it is unreasonable to believe because there is no proper evidence, but you cannot even say what *proper evidence* would look like if it existed.

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

What is proper evidence, what *you* consider proper?
No, I never admitted that proper evidence of God is impossible.

In my opinion, there is so much evidence for God it would sink a large ocean-liner, and it is proper evidence since it is *the evidence* that God has provided.

 

[F1fan]

Messengers know God by direct experience through the Holy Spirit, but obviously that is not the same kind of empirical evidence that is used in science and law.

No, because you have three concepts that do not correspond to fact.

• Messengers aren't known to be authentic.
• No God is known to exist.
• A Holy Spirit is not known to exist.

You can't name these three things as evidence for each existing when none of them are factual as claimed.

Since direct experience with the Holy Spirit can never be verified, whether Baha'u'llah had that or not is either believed or not believed, based upon evidence that indicates that He was who He claimed to be, a Messenger of God.

Yet there is no evidence that suggests he had divine communication. In fact his writings have errors, and that is evidence that he is not what he claims to be.

 

[F1fan]

By using the evidence, we can determine facts and proofs.

You ask, "What makes a Person a proof". In relation to Prophets or Messengers, they are more than an everyday person. That is why part of the evidence is their Person and life, the Revelation and Word is reflected from them.

The proof of compassion is a compassionate person. Etc etc

Thus a Messenger is evidence as they are the standard of virtue and morals. To.offer more foes outside the scope of this OP.

That discounts Baha'u'llah given the bigotry in his writings. Such a person lacks virtue and morals, especially if they claim to be a teacher.

 

[Trailblazer]

Once again, until the existence of God has been demonstrated, telling such a creature anything is unreasonable and illogical. Existence needs to be demonstrated *first*. Then, and only then, can that existence be used to explain things.

Only in your opinion.
In my opinion, the existence of God can NEVER be demonstrated because God chooses not to make Himself demonstrable.

In my opinion it is unreasonable and illogical to expect God to demonstrate that He exists just because you want Him to.

 

[Polymath257]

I do not know what you mean by "use the existence of something."
If you mean claim the existence of something, I am not claiming the existence of anything I cannot prove exists, but that does not mean I cannot believe it exists.

I can give some examples:

You cannot logically claim that someone is the Messenger of God before you know that God exists.

You cannot logically say I should ask God before you demonstrate to me that God exists.

You cannot logically use the existence of God in an argument before that existence has been demonstrated.

Yes, you can believe anything you feel like. You can believe the sky is orange. You can believe that pixies live on Mars. That doesn't make your belief true. And that doesn't mean there is reason or logic supporting that belief.

When you say that you believe something, that means there are two options: the first is that you have evidence to support that belief. The other is that you believe irrationally.

And if you want to believe irrationally, that is certainly your right. But there is then no reason for anyone else to take you seriously.

(I am using 'you' generically, not specifically).

 

[Trailblazer]

The most obvious reason is that such evidence is impossible. And the most obvious reason for that is that no deity exists.

You are right that such evidence is impossible....
The most obvious reason that such evidence is impossible is because the evidence for God can never be the same as the evidence used in science and law.