Evidence

[Spirit of Light]

I looked up whether or not there were "scientific" studies about the existence of God, and several turned up...

While Intelligent Design skeptics may claim there is no evidence of God, the actual scientific evidence for God's existence is overwhelming, scientifically answering the question, "does God exist?".​

Then this one,

What does the evidence show?
Ironically, as scientific discovery has progressed, the evidence for God’s existence has actually grown stronger rather than weaker...​

Then this book,

Science Proves That God Exists
William Schonfelder​

Maybe not Baha'is, but Christians think that science shows proof and evidence for God. I wonder what Baha'is think about those studies. Especially if they claim to prove Jesus is God.

@CG Didymus I hope this can clerify a bit about Baha'i and the view of science.

Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion, a notion that became prevalent in intellectual discourse at a time when the very conception of each system of knowledge was far from adequate. The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith, which teaches that religion, without science, soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism. “Religion,” according to the Bahá’í writings, “is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive.

Science and Religion | An Ever-Advancing Civilization | God and His Creation | What Bahá’ís Believe

 

[Viker]

I looked up whether or not there were "scientific" studies about the existence of God, and several turned up...

While Intelligent Design skeptics may claim there is no evidence of God, the actual scientific evidence for God's existence is overwhelming, scientifically answering the question, "does God exist?".​

Then this one,

What does the evidence show?
Ironically, as scientific discovery has progressed, the evidence for God’s existence has actually grown stronger rather than weaker...​

Then this book,

Science Proves That God Exists
William Schonfelder​

Maybe not Baha'is, but Christians think that science shows proof and evidence for God. I wonder what Baha'is think about those studies. Especially if they claim to prove Jesus is God.

More cherry picking and confirmation bias, I see.

 

[Viker]

Woohoo! 100+ pages! Where do I jump in and get started?

 

[muhammad_isa]

50% clearly do... so what?

Do they?
I doubt it..

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm okay with people not believing the NT. But Islam and the Baha'i Faith do believe at least some of it. But which parts and why? And how do they explain the parts they don't believe are true?

I just attempted to explain that, in my post you quoted.

What Jesus is reported to have said in the 3 synoptic Gospels is not seriously challenged, for example.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I would also say that faith in a supernatural deity is a type of trust in magic..

..maybe so, but it is not generally considered ignorant to believe in God.

Only an ignorant person would think so.

 

[John53]

Do they?
I doubt it..

They must according to your logic

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

..so do I.


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

Then show us the non-fictional sources upon which it IS based. We just keep waiting and waiting and waiting while you guys say "I've god the evidence," and then refuse to present it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can give some examples:

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

That's true. I am not *claiming* that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God since I cannot prove that God exists. I only *believe* that He was a Messenger of God.

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

That is not true. This has nothing to do with logic. Even if you do not know if God exists you can ask God, and if you get an answer that might give you a reason to believe that God exists.

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

The existence of God can never be demonstrated so I am not making a *logical argument* for the existence of God.
If people cannot discuss God based upon their beliefs then there is no point of this thread or any other such threads.

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.

You can disbelieve anything you feel like but that doesn't mean there is reason or logic supporting that disbelief..
Your disbelief does not make by belief false and it doesn't mean there is no reason or logic supporting my 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.

I believe I have evidence to support my belief. Atheists believe I don't have evidence and thus I believe irrationally.
Can you *prove* which of these beliefs are correct? If not they are only personal opinions.

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.

Who determines what is irrational and why it is irrational? It is only your personal opinion that it is irrational, unless you can *prove for a fact* that it is irrational.

I could just as easily say that the non-belief of atheists is irrational, but I don't say that do I? Why do you think that is? It is because I can see this from other perspectives, not just my own, and also because I don't think it is my place to label other people as irrational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Really? How are you going to support this claim?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..what reason do we have to believe them?

Clearly, you have no reason to believe in Jesus or Muhammad..
Me? I have many reasons.

I believe that the scriptures teach us valuable lessons on how we should live our lives.
I don't believe that they are made up by mankind, as I have no good reason to think that they were lying, or have been completely misrepresented.

I believe that I have a lot to lose by ignoring them, and a lot to gain by doing my best to take heed of what they teach.

I could go on..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you don't say that but some atheists say that.

I say that belief is reserved for that which is evidenced and I believe I have evidence.
I am not going to argue what is evidence and what is not evidence for God since that is an exercise in futility since it is only a matter of personal opinion.

Believing you have evidence and having an inability to demonstrate it refutes your belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An absurdity.
50% of people in the world clearly do not think so.

That only 50% of the world agrees with you shows that God is doing a crappy job if he exists.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That only 50% of the world agrees with you shows that God is doing a crappy job if he exists.

..and what's God's job?
..to force people to lead a life that they do not want?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Woohoo! 100+ pages! Where do I jump in and get started?

Pretty much anywhere. The OP claims there is evidence, but has never presented any, nor does he appear to even know what evidence is. He certainly cannot define it. Nor can any other believer so far.

We do ironically get quite a bit of complaining about demands to provide evidence. It is almost as if they forgot what the OP claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..and what's God's job?
..to force people to lead a life that they do not want?

It depends. Is your god good or evil? Is he just?

If you want to claim that he is evil and unjust then he can get away with all sorts of crap.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

1. The Messengers know, but how they can know is beyond human comprehension since the Messenger are both human and divine, above our level.

2. I admit that is very challenging. The only way we can know is by looking at the evidence that supports their claims. We have to work backwards, first looking at that evidence (their Person, their Revelation, and their Writings), which becomes evidence to us that they are a Messenger of God. It is at that point we can believe they received messages from God. We can never know that in the sense of having verifiable proof, but we can know in the sense of having certitude that they were telling the truth.

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.

That is a Catch-22 situation. It is impossible to know that God exists first, *before* believing in the Messenger, since it is impossible to know that God exists *without* the Messenger, since the Messenger is the evidence that God exists.

 

[Viker]

Pretty much anywhere. The OP claims there is evidence, but has never presented any, nor does he appear to even know what evidence is. He certainly cannot define it. Nor can any other believer so far.

We do ironically get quite a bit of complaining about demands to provide evidence. It is almost as if they forgot what the OP claims.

I will admit it. I'm also theistic but I have no actual evidence. I confess, I have only faith and no facts to provide to the curious world.

Does religious testimony count as "evidence"?

 

[Alien826]

Interesting term. I Googled it but found nothing related to this usage, which seems to refer to a limited space small enough to rule out the elephant in your example. Where does this term mean to you? The same?

It's something I came across years ago in a discussion like this one. That was back when the forums used to start with "alt". The meaning was obvious from the context, and I've never actually checked to see if anyone else was using it. What it means to me is a negative claim that is so general (distributed?) that it is effectively impossible to check. Like having to search the entire universe for something that supposedly doesn't exist. Finding one such object disproves the claim that there are none, but we have to search the entire group to prove the negative assertion.

I think most critical thinkers posting here have long ago been disabused of the conceit that he might ever make an impact in any faith-based thinker's belief set. I have seen one or two learn something I believe, but that might just be wishful thinking. We all have other reasons for being here and doing this, which reason also cannot be taught. As you see, this activity is described in terms of it being a fight and a battle of egos. Tell them otherwise until you're blue in the face and they'll still hold that position.

Yes. My reasons for being here are to enjoy a good discussion, sometimes meeting people I would like to know better (that has happened, but not lately) and learning stuff about religions that I am not familiar with (I've just learned a lot about the Baha'i faith).

I've been waiting for a opening to say this, none has presented itself so I'll just plow ahead ... your life as you briefly described is one I wanted and never attained. A compatible woman, no kids and playing music.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe you don't say that but some atheists say that.

I say that belief is reserved for that which is evidenced and I believe I have evidence.
I am not going to argue what is evidence and what is not evidence for God since that is an exercise in futility since it is only a matter of personal opinion.

I don't see real evidence as a matter of opinion. think evidence is usually pretty concrete; objective, empirical, logical, hopefully testable.