Evidence

[Valjean]

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..

You haven't answered his question, just restated your belief.

 

[Valjean]

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

If he wants people to believe in him, and know his will, it's his job to provide clear evidence, like the evidence for a heliocentric solar system or germ theory. If he's going to hold people accountable for their actions and beliefs, it's his moral duty to do so.

 

[Valjean]

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 much as flat-Earth, stolen election and Bigfoot testimony counts as evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Only *in your opinion.*
In my opinion, it is reasonable and logical to believe in such a God that chooses to not be demonstrable since there is a logical reason why God so chooses.

What "logical" (?) reason would that be? How does a claim that God has good reason to be indistinguishable from something that does not exist constitute a reasonable excuse to believe in him?

 

[Valjean]

They absolutely ARE subjective.
Just try to prove that what is reasonable and logical *to you* is also true as a fact.

Huh? You don't believe something can be proven by algebra?

 

[Valjean]

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

So a claim is evidence... for itself?
If I claimed I was a messenger and that God was a baboon that commanded us to destroy all leopards, would that be evidence?

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

It was proven (not just evidenced) that germs cause disease and the Earth is round because those things could be proven. The existence of God can never be proven, it can only be evidenced.

Regarding the consensus, even though the existence of God cannot be proven, most people in the world believe in God, around 93% of people. The fact that all these people don't have the same conceptions of God is irrelevant to the point. The point is that they believe in a God or gods, so they are not atheists or agnostics. Only 7% of the world population is atheists and agnostics.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists).
Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Nobody has ever explained WHY anything is wrong with my reasoning, they have just claimed that. Claims count for nothing unless they can be proven. Otherwise they are nothing more than personal opinions. We all have those.

 

[Valjean]

No, it is not reasonable to think that the Earth is the center of the universe since it has been proven by science that it is not.

Technically, it has not. Science has just amassed overwhelming evidence, like it has for the ToE, sufficient to make disbelief obtuse in the extreme.

The problem with what you said regarding a reasonable argument for God is that you do not determine what is reasonable or unreasonable; all you can ever know is what seems reasonable or unreasonable to you.

So you disbelieve in reason and logic?

Someday you and other atheists might get somewhere if you could drop all this reasonable vs. unreasonable and just look at the evidence that God has provided. Imo that is the reasonable thing to do.

But we have not seen any evidence. A claim isn't evidence. People claim all sorts of contradictory things. How is one to decide, without reason?

 

[Valjean]

It is evidence *for me* because it supports my conclusions and beliefs about God.
It is not evidence *for you* because it does not support any conclusions or beliefs about God.

This is the very definition of confirmation bias!

The only reason you would believe in them is if you looked at the evidence that supports their claim to be a Messenger of God and determined they were telling the truth.

We do, and find no real evidence, just claims. Anyone can make wise and clever claims, and say they came from God. Is that evidence they really did come from God?

 

[CG Didymus]

@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

Thanks, The reason I posted that is that a Baha'i made the claim that science doesn't study God. But there are scientists that are also Christians. They do study their God and evolution to try and show scientific evidence for belief in God and for a belief in creation over evolution.

And speaking of studies, how is your studies of the Baha'i Faith going, and are you meeting with other Baha'is in your area?

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure I can. When Baha'u'llah refers to Noah living for 950 years he is dead wrong about that.

Baha'u'llah did not say that Noah lived for 950 years. He meant that the Dispensation of Noah lasted that long.
I already explained that to you.

When he refers to Adama nd Noah as messengers he is dead wrong, as they are fictional characters.

Can you prove that they were fictional characters? Otherwise it is only a bald assertion.

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.

Tough tiddlywinks. God's Laws are far above men's personal opinions.
God does not make any mistakes because God is infallible.
Only fallible humans make mistakes, and when it comes to sexual behaviors the human mistakes run rampant.
The sexual standards of modern societies are thoroughly corrupt.

 

[Valjean]

Not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof.

No, it's not. It's just evidence.

Not all evidence is testable.

Then it's not really evidence.

How do you test a God that is hidden?

Now you've got it!

 

[CG Didymus]

More cherry picking and confirmation bias, I see.

My post was only meant to show that some scientists are religious, in these cases Christian, and they do try and prove God using science. Bad science? Made up BS science? I don't know, but the Baha'i claim was that science does not study God. But there are Baha'i scientists too, so I'd imagine they'd be in there trying to find some scientific way to provide evidence and proof that God exists. For me, I think there's also a problem of which God exists?

 

[Trailblazer]

It convinces very very few.

Why would it matter if there are few Baha'is?

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, voxpopuli,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

The Narrow Way

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14 )

 

[Spirit of Light]

Thanks, The reason I posted that is that a Baha'i made the claim that science doesn't study God. But there are scientists that are also Christians. They do study their God and evolution to try and show scientific evidence for belief in God and for a belief in creation over evolution.

And speaking of studies, how is your studies of the Baha'i Faith going, and are you meeting with other Baha'is in your area?

Actually I do belive some scientists do study the science behind what God can be CERN is one area i think looking in to this topic, but of course from a science point of view.

To become a Baha'i has been the true saving for me but unfortunately i have not met any Baha'is in my area. So my study has been mostly online.
As you maybe noticed i changed my screen name a bit and that is a direct result from my spiritual journey.

The White light was with me all the time, I just needed to remove a lot of filth (in the mind) to be able to see the white light.

I can see clearly now.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Well, I don't necessarily think that the writers themselves were there when Jesus spoke and then several years later remembered it exactly. I'd suspect there were oral traditions going around. But the other thing, besides what Jesus said, are the things he did. I think the most important event that all the gospels describe is the resurrection, yet the Baha'is say that it never happened. Their explanation is that the writers meant for it to be taken symbolically. But I don't see how they can claim that by the way it is written. The writers go out of their way to show Jesus was alive. But, for some reason, Baha'is don't want a bodily resurrected Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Take that up with God since God is the one in charge of providing evidence.
I only tell you what the evidence is, I don't provide the evidence.

Imagine that, objective evidence of a God that can never be seen.
If you reasoned rationally instead of emotionally you would see how absurd that is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would it matter if there are few Baha'is?

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, voxpopuli,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

The Narrow Way

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14 )

That would be a valid observation if you had reasonable reliable evidence for your beliefs. But you yourself have told us that you are lacking that sort of evidence. Is your God evil or kind? Is he just or unjust? So far you have not pained a very nice picture of him.

You do not have reliable evidence. Your sect has converted fewer people than the Mormons has. It is just about as old. And if you want to see a religion started by a fraud that is one. Their evidence is like yours. It fails upon investigation.

Any half decent "holy boo" is going to have at least some good advice. It is pretty hard to screw up all of the time and have any followers at all. But how do you tell the difference between a sect like yours and one like the Mormons?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take that up with God since God is the one in charge of providing evidence.
I only tell you what the evidence is, I don't provide the evidence.

Imagine that, objective evidence of a God that can never be seen.
If you reasoned rationally instead of emotionally you would see how absurd that is.

No, that is your claim. You really do not know that at all, you only believe that. And you believe that God is evil. So why worship him?