Evidence

[Trailblazer]

Then it is not really evidence. Evidence is not something that would convince just you. Evidence consists of observations or logic that would convince others. What you are describing is confirmation bias.

It does convince others, it just does not convince everyone....
Why should it? How could it?

I might be biased in favor of the Baha'i Faith now that I am a Baha'i, but I have no confirmation bias since I had nothing to confirm before I chose to become a Baha'i, since I had no preexisting religion.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, but you do not like working definitions of evidence. Also part of the burden of proof of the person claiming to have evidence is an ability to define what supporting evidence is and what is mot.

If you cannot define evidence properly then you cannot know if you have any.

Obfuscation. I have defined evidence and what is the supporting evidence for my beliefs hundreds of times. You do not like my definitions or my supporting evidence so now the ball is in your court to define *proper evidence.*

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

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"?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread (see here), I'm a Wiccan and a polytheist, and I don't have any actual evidence for my spiritual beliefs either. And, as I stated earlier in this thread (see here), I don't believe the biblical God or any other gods can be proven or disproven. I've seen an angelic being, a demonic entity, and elemental spirits, but I don't classify them in the same category as gods.

I was simply in the right place at the right time to see these beings, but I became physically ill when I got close to the demon. The last elemental spirit I saw was an Undine, and that was almost two weeks ago, and again, I was simply in the right place at the right time.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then that is a huge problem for you. Reliable evidence cannot be subjective. It has to be objective by definition.

Then that is a huge problem for you since there is no objective evidence for God.
Can we all go home now?

 

[Trailblazer]

That tells us nothing. Is anyone that claims to be a Messenger from God a Messenger?

Of course not. A Messenger of God needs evidence to support His claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

We have empirical evidence for lots of things that can't be seen, but are well evidenced.
Are there any reasonable criteria for believing the messengers?

I have made up my own set of criteria that I believe is reasonable.

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and He accomplished everything that He set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

But it's either evidence or its not. How is this a matter of opinion?

That's true, it is either evidence or not. Evidence helps to prove and indicates that something is the case, it is not the same as proof which proves unequivocally that something is the case.

I believe I have evidence, but I am tired of arguing with atheists.

 

[Trailblazer]

My goodness, I can't tell how much I wish you could see how little actual reasoning you bring to your argument. You seriously have no idea at all of what critical thinking is, nor even any idea of how your thought has been hijacked by truly unintelligible memes.

Talk is cheap. When you make accusations you need to support them. What precisely is wrong with my reasoning?

 

[Valjean]

Proofs and Arguments for the Existence of God

From the link:

Among the proofs and arguments for the existence of God is the fact that man has not created himself,

How does that evidence God? The several mechanisms of evolution created us.

The article then goes on to claim a perfect God exists, with the ability to create man. No evidence is given. It infers that created things need a creator and uses examples of humans creating things to illustrate this. God is an unevidenced, presupposed premise, not an evidenced consequent. The evidenced alternative, evolution, is not mentioned.

It is certain that the entire contingent world is subject to an order and a law which it can never disobey. Even man is forced to submit to death, sleep, and other conditions

This is claimed to be evidence for God.

So long as the contingent world is characterized by dependency, and so long as this dependency is one of its essential requirements, there must be One Who in His own Essence is independent of all things.

This doesn't follow.

It is therefore evident that there is an Eternal and Almighty One Who is the sum of all perfections, for otherwise He would be even as the creatures. Likewise, throughout the world of existence the smallest created thing attests to the existence of a creator.

Again, God is not evidenced, but premised. It's a converse error. The author is affirming the consequent.

Gracious God! The change in the outward form of the smallest thing proves the existence of a creator: Then how could this vast, boundless universe have created itself and come to exist solely through the mutual interaction of the elements? How patently false is such a notion!

Still doesn't follow. Still begging the question.

These are theoretical arguments adduced for weak souls,

These are weak, circular arguments themselves. Not proofs or evidence.

but if the eye of inner vision be opened, a hundred thousand clear proofs will be seen. Thus, when man feels the indwelling spirit, he is in no need of arguments for its existence; but for those who are deprived of the grace of the spirit, it is necessary to set forth external arguments.

So the proofs and evidence is clear only to those who already believe?

This link is poorly reasoned and not evidence of God.

 

[Valjean]

..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.

Please support this claim.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Yet people do agree that germs cause disease and the Earth is round. How did this common data come about? I'd say evidence.
If there is evidence for God, why does a similar consensus not obtain?

 

[Valjean]

Talk is cheap. When you make accusations you need to support them. What precisely is wrong with my reasoning?

Good grief --we've been pointing out problems for years now...

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet people do agree that germs cause disease and the Earth is round. How did this common data come about? I'd say evidence.
If there is evidence for God, why does a similar consensus not obtain?

Could it be that God allows it that way?

 

[F1fan]

I never claimed that any of those are facts. When I stated it I stated it as a belief.

Then be very, very careful to not refer to messengers as authentic, or that God and the Holy Spirit are real.

Any time you refer to these you it is honest and proper to refer to them as uncertain.

There is evidence but there is no proof, and that is why it is not a fact.

This doesn't seem to be something you really believe.

You cannot say that His Writings have errors unless you can prove they are in error. Your personal opinion will not do.

Sure I can. When Baha'u'llah refers to Noah living for 950 years he is dead wrong about that. When he refers to Adama nd Noah as messengers he is dead wrong, as they are fictional characters. And his bigotry is a huge red flag that he is expressing the typical negative attitudes towards gays all through history. Modern societies are more tolerant, and Baha'i won't adjust. Big mistake.

The evidence I have is evidence for me 'beyond any doubt' that God is guilty of existing.
To prove God exists by a preponderance of the evidence simply means to prove that "God exists" is more likely than not.

No theist has adequate evidence. The gods theists describe is highly unlikely.

Simply put, the evidence of God comes through the Revelations from God which comes through the Messengers of God.

ONLY if you assume the revelations are true. The revelations are unlikely authentic, so your whole argument falls apart.

 

[F1fan]

Could it be that God allows it that way?

What God? The many different versions that theists can't agree on? Which Hindu god do you think would do this?

No, we can't use imaginary beings to explain real phenomenon.

If you don't think your God isn't imaginary feel free to demonstrate it exists outside of human minds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does convince others, it just does not convince everyone....
Why should it? How could it?

I might be biased in favor of the Baha'i Faith now that I am a Baha'i, but I have no confirmation bias since I had nothing to confirm before I chose to become a Baha'i, since I had no preexisting religion.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

It convinces very very few. And yes, you can have confirmation bias even without being a member of a sect. What makes you think that you can't?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not. A Messenger of God needs evidence to support His claim.

And we have not seen any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then that is a huge problem for you since there is no objective evidence for God.
Can we all go home now?

No, the lack of objective evidence hurts your claims. If you reasoned rationally instead of emotionally you would see that too.

 

[Valjean]

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?".​

A common argument, and commonly refuted. It misinterprets the law.​

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...​

Read it. In summary:
*The fine tuning argument -- often refuted.
*Some unsupported claims and preaching.
*An argument from personal incredulity.
*A non sequitur claiming since science says the universe had a beginning, and the Bible also says it was created, therefore: God.
*Another fine tuning argument, putting the cart before the horse.
*A misleading claim and non sequitur. Science doesn't know how life began, therefore: God.
*Another argument from incredulity.
*Some more false claims and conclusions.
*Yet another fine tuning argument.
*A combined fine tuning and incredulity argument.

There is no real evidence here.

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.

They're largely non sequiturs, falsehoods and widely refuted old arguments. Oddly, some of the stronger arguments were omitted.

 

[Valjean]

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.

!!! .
Seriously? They're very widely challenged.

 

[Valjean]

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.

It's not opinion. It's maths -- logic. It's the definition of "irrational."
Yes, opinion per se is not irrational, but many of the claims made by theists certainly are.

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.

But non belief in the unevidenced is rational.
It is your place. It is your duty, as a poster in a debate forum, to point out irrational claims when you see them.