Evidence

[Valjean]

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.

I'm a great supporter of many scriptural moral values, but not because they're scriptural.
I have a logical, analytic and fact-based take on the world, at least in argumentation. Others have a magical or mythological take.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

There are two huge problems with that.

1. How do the messengers know they are interpreting their experiences correctly?

2. How do those who are not the messenger know that the messenger is telling the truth?

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.

And what could *possibly* be evidence of that? Until you have evidence God exists, you cannot have evidence that any person is a messenger of God.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Which is a good reason to conclude that God does not exist. It cannot be 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt', nor can it even be 'the preponderance of the evidence' because such evidence is excluded.

 

[Trailblazer]

Frauds use low standard evidence as well. Your Messenger has more in common with frauds than critical thinkers.

If you are going to claim a messenger actually has communiucation with God then what they will attain as knowledge will be exceptional. What Baha'u'llah writes is not exceptional.

That is what my thinking realizes.

That is only your subjective personal opinion. We all have those.
In my subjective personal opinion the knowledge that streamed forth from the Pen of Baha'u'llah was exceptional.

Subjective personal opinions have no place in a debate since they can never be proven true or false.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Give an example of such evidence.

And no, whether the evidence is 'proper' has to be defined beforehand and not afterward.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And, in that case, it is also unreasonable and illogical to believe in such a being.

A being that chooses to not be demonstrable looks just like one that does not exist.

 

[Polymath257]

That is only your subjective personal opinion. We all have those.
In my subjective personal opinion the knowledge that streamed forth from the Pen of Baha'u'llah was exceptional.

Subjective personal opinions have no place in a debate since they can never be proven true or false.

Your main argument seems to be that the notions of 'reasonable' and 'logical' are subjective and not objective. That is where we disagree.

 

[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.

So what kind of "evidence" does exist?

And we keep waiting for this evidence; and when some is offered we keep finding it logically erroneous or, false, or, as F1fan pointed out, based on unsupported premises.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have a logical, analytic and fact-based take on the world..

..so do I.

..Others have a magical or mythological take.

No .. you imply that religion is purely superstition, when it is not.
Abrahamic religion is not based on fiction, despite atheists making such comparison.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So what kind of "evidence" does exist?

If you don't know by now, you never will.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Those that choose not to be reasonable are, by definition, unreasonable.

There was certainly a time in history when it was possible to be reasonable and believe in a flat Earth. That is no longer the case.

There was certainly a time in history when it was possible to be reasonable and think that the Earth was the center of the universe. That is no longer the case.

It *may* be possible to believe in a deity and still be reasonable. But until a reasonable argument has been given for the existence of a deity, the belief is unreasonable.

I have yet to see such an argument.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Those that choose not to be reasonable are, by definition, unreasonable.

There was certainly a time in history when it was possible to be reasonable and believe in a flat Earth. That is no longer the case.

There was certainly a time in history when it was possible to be reasonable and think that the Earth was the center of the universe. That is no longer the case.

It *may* be possible to believe in a deity and still be reasonable. But until a reasonable argument has been given for the existence of a deity, the belief is unreasonable. I have yet to see such an argument.

 

[Polymath257]

No .. you imply that religion is purely superstition, when it is not.
Abrahamic religion is not based on fiction, despite atheists making such comparison.

Define the notion of superstition.

Here's what I found:

noun
su·per·sti·tion ˌsü-pər-ˈsti-shən


1
a
: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b
: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2
: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Seems to fit.

 

[Trailblazer]

However, I think that when two people disagree on whether evidence is compelling or not, then there are three explanations; one of them is misinformed, one of them is ignorant, or one of them is being illogical.

It could be one of those or it could be all three.
And even if it is one or all of those, how do you think it can be proven? Let's say one of them is misinformed. They can tell the other person why they think the other is misinformed but unless they can prove it it is only their personal opinion. Nothing about God can be proven and that is why believers and atheists just keep going round and round in circles, saying the same things over and over and over again, and getting nowhere.

With the proper application of logic and the same set of data, we should be able to agree on what is true every time. Disagreement means that one of these elements is out of place.

It is logically impossible for everyone to agree on a God belief since every human being thinks with what is in their brain and every human has a different set of data in their brain. Thus only if they replace that data with new data from someone else can they ever come to an agreement. The reason that rarely ever happens even between two people is because of ego, peoples' refusal to admit they might be wrong.

 

[Alien826]

As Subs said it's an Eastern Rosella, quite common in my little area of the world which is lucky because it's my favourite bird species. I captured that one feeding on seeds near a beach so the sandy white foreground helped accentuate his colours. Their bright colouring actually makes them difficult to spot in long grass and trees. Bird boffins like to argue their relationship to other parrots. They even like to argue the number of rosella species and sub species. DNA has somewhat spoiled that so most of the heated debate now centres around the origin of the name Rosella.

Fascinating, and thanks for the information. Birds are such beautiful creatures. I was in Oz for two years in the 1960s but spent most of my time in the city (Melbourne) and didn't get to see a lot of the countryside.

I won't waffle on any longer, wouldn't want to derail the cries of outrage at people debating people in a debate forum or the claims of martyrdom at being abused by the evil atheists as they themselves drop a dozen or so insults.

Hey, don't do that, it's soooo interesting .... zzzzz

 

[Trailblazer]

And you never learn that this not about excessive ego.

That is ALL this is about. For example, We know why is all about ego.
You do not know why, you just believe you know why.

Trailblazer said: of course the Messengers don't present the same kind of evidence that is used in science and law. Try to think about why that is not the case.

It Aint Necessarily So said: We know why.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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

I doubt God would do such a lousy job. Why didn't he do any the spectacular things in the time of photos, video recording...? Why didn't he first teach the Messengers and eye witnesses how to write (to provide some primary sources)?

 

[John53]

Fascinating, and thanks for the information. Birds are such beautiful creatures. I was in Oz for two years in the 1960s but spent most of my time in the city (Melbourne) and didn't get to see a lot of the countryside.

Melbourne isn't really part of Australia, even Tasmania broke off and drifted out to sea trying to get away from it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Just out of curiousity -- how on earth do you think you can know what God chooses if God chooses to reveal nothing -- not even what He chooses? Your "belief" on that issue is purely a product of your mind, and your mind alone.

 

[muhammad_isa]

a
: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

That is the main definition..
Abrahamic belief is not founded on ignorance .. on the contrary.