Evidence

[Trailblazer]

But non belief in the unevidenced is rational.

and belief in the evidenced is rational.

 

[rational experiences]

I believe spiritually in my origin human natural father. Spirt a memory a record an image.

His life advice natural spiritual allows me to know my adult brother is nothing like him.

I believe in father I will never believe in my inhumane brother.

Before father there is no human consciousness choice awareness or human advice.

If you actually used intelligence and not theory.

 

[Valjean]

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.

You're just demonstrating that you don't know what proof is. You're using the term colloquially.
And we're still waiting for your real evidence.

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

This is an argumentum ad populum.
Most of the believers have never questioned their beliefs, or looked for evidence. Most haven't learned the critical thinking skills to recognize or interpret evidence. Critical thinking is not natural. Most people have never used it to assess the probability of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

What "logical" (?) reason would that be?

The logical reason God does not prove He exists is because God wants our faith. If God proved He exists then we would no longer need faith.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

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?

God is not indistinguishable from something that does not exist for 93% of the world populaation who believe that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Something can, but God cannot be proven by algebra.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Read back over our posts. There are abundant -- and repeated -- explanations

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

I never said a claim is the evidence.
Hundreds of times I have said that a claim is worthless unless there is evidence that supports the claim.
How many more times do I have to repeat myself?

 

[Spirit of Light]

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.

I was just reading the Baha'i text about this topic. To me it seems like the Baha'i teaching say the resurrection was a spiritual one, and not with the physical body. That may create a huge debate between Christians and Baha'is due to the different ways of understanding of this verses in the scriptures.

Today it comes down to faith and understanding of the scriptures, some take religious scriptures more metaphorical than others.

If science could prove a bodely resurrection or a spiritual resurrection that would be good. But how to prove spiritual resurrection?

Can humans even prove spiritual understanding to others when the other person isn't in to spiritual understanding?

 

[Valjean]

and belief in the evidenced is rational.

Only when the evidence is sufficient.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you disbelieve in reason and logic?

I never said that.

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?

Hundreds of times I have said that a claim is not evidence, that evidence is needed to support the claims of the Messenger. I have also presented the evidence. I cannot help it if you don't like the evidence.

 

[rational experiences]

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.

If you say I was born. Male baby by a human mother. You were.

All men today own that review ..
it's fact and it's science as it's man's adult observation. You can't lie about it.

If you said I use a word to say I'm not a woman human. Therefore my conception I said belonged to my father. A human too.

Humans you know live Inside of the heavens. On the ground. We don't live in the sky as clouds.

So my dimwitted theist brother made sun cross by mass. It burnt our immaculate gas body. Already light owner remains voiding. It fell sacrificed.

He saw it land on the ground. But it stopped.

Crop circle.

He knew.

He says O earth ground dirt gets seeded by crop seeds. Watered it grows.

Thesis ground minerals dirts. Seeds water growth into crop mass. It's a mans natural thesis.

Then he compares what fell from above. Nope he says it doesn't equal the same body life from above. It squashes flattens the grown crop.

I'm proven wrong.

So he thinks ...so what stops the fallen sacrificed body?

Oh I know God above in clouds just keeps making new cloud mass as emerging body. Next moment man's images reappeas in clouds. Oh look cloud man saved us. Body returned above.

Oh man image with God above saved us. No condition to do with any human.

That type of thinking is a Multi subject and not connected and it's not a thesis. Thinker... its lots of mans observations.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the very definition of confirmation bias!

Sorry but no. That is not the definition of confirmation bias.

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

I had no preexisting beliefs before I became a Baha'i, so I had no confirmation bias.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

For me, if God and religion are for real, I expect obvious prophecies to be fulfilled. If they aren't, then I'll continue to be skeptical about the claims religions make.

As for Baha'is in your area. There are Baha'is everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some in the far north of Norway with the Laplanders. But I think it would be important for you and them to get to know some Baha'is personally. Wikipedia says there's a couple of thousand Baha'is there.

In the late 1990s by one count there were 173 Baháʼís per million population in Norway[23] which implies around 800 Baháʼís while by 2005 a Norwegian Census reports just over 1000 Baháʼís.[5] The Association of Religion Data Archives (relying on World Christian Encyclopedia) estimated some 2,700 Baháʼís in 2010.[31] In May 2001 the Baháʼí youth gathered for "Project Panacea" for a Baháʼí Youth Workshop (see Oscar DeGruy) including public performances.[32] There have been successive Youth Conferences across Scandinavia since 2004[33] and there exists a Baháʼí Student Club of Oslo University.​

 

[Spirit of Light]

Only when the evidence is sufficient.

Can the evidence for a spiritual awakening only be on a personal level?
Would it be posdible for science to gain evidence through use of technology that we have today? MRI, CT or other Machines.

 

[Spirit of Light]

For me, if God and religion are for real, I expect obvious prophecies to be fulfilled. If they aren't, then I'll continue to be skeptical about the claims religions make.

As for Baha'is in your area. There are Baha'is everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some in the far north of Norway with the Laplanders. But I think it would be important for you and them to get to know some Baha'is personally. Wikipedia says there's a couple of thousand Baha'is there.

In the late 1990s by one count there were 173 Baháʼís per million population in Norway[23] which implies around 800 Baháʼís while by 2005 a Norwegian Census reports just over 1000 Baháʼís.[5] The Association of Religion Data Archives (relying on World Christian Encyclopedia) estimated some 2,700 Baháʼís in 2010.[31] In May 2001 the Baháʼí youth gathered for "Project Panacea" for a Baháʼí Youth Workshop (see Oscar DeGruy) including public performances.[32] There have been successive Youth Conferences across Scandinavia since 2004[33] and there exists a Baháʼí Student Club of Oslo University.​

Probably i just have not looked hard enough to find other Baha'is in Norway yet I guess i needed time to read up on the scriptures first.

About prophets, I might be biased but prophets are clearly there, even today. But due to our messy world today, prophets are more difficult to spot

Proving that past prophets really was prophets isn't easy either.

 

[Valjean]

The logical reason God does not prove He exists is because God wants our faith. If God proved He exists then we would no longer need faith.

True, but why would he prefer unfounded belief to knowledge? If he gave us brains, wouldn't he want us to use them?

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

So he does dislike intelligence and rational thought. Interesting. Was giving us large prefrontal cortexes a mistake, then?

God is not indistinguishable from something that does not exist for 93% of the world populaation who believe that God exists.

93% of the population is not rational, then.
Popularity of an opinion alone has never been good evidence for its veracity. Look at history.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Verifiable evidence is proof.

What is verifiable evidence?

Something that's verifiable can be proven. In a courtroom, verifiable evidence is backed up with specific proof. If you have a birth certificate, your exact time and place of birth is verifiable — in other words, you can prove where and when you were born.

Verifiable - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

I did not say I know what. We are talking about beliefs here.
I never said I believe that God is evil. I cannot imagine where you got that idea.

 

[CG Didymus]

I was just reading the Baha'i text about this topic. To me it seems like the Baha'i teaching say the resurrection was a spiritual one, and not with the physical body. That may create a huge debate between Christians and Baha'is due to the different ways of understanding of this verses in the scriptures.

Today it comes down to faith and understanding of the scriptures, some take religious scriptures more metaphorical than others.

If science could prove a bodely resurrection or a spiritual resurrection that would be good. But how to prove spiritual resurrection?

Can humans even prove spiritual understanding to others when the other person isn't in to spiritual understanding?

My problem with the Baha'i explanation is that I do believe the gospels say Jesus came back to life physically. But I have no problem if someone says that the gospels writers just made that up, and that it never happened. But that would make the gospels fictional. I don't think Baha'is want to say that, but, for me, saying that the resurrection was not literal but spiritual, still makes the belief that Jesus rose physically from the dead not true.

 

[Valjean]

Something can, but God cannot be proven by algebra.

Good point , but belief in him can be shown to be irrational thereby.

I never said a claim is the evidence.
Hundreds of times I have said that a claim is worthless unless there is evidence that supports the claim.
How many more times do I have to repeat myself?

I agree with you, yet you keep adducing the claim as evidence.
Look back at your post.

I never said that.

Hundreds of times I have said that a claim is not evidence, that evidence is needed to support the claims of the Messenger. I have also presented the evidence. I cannot help it if you don't like the evidence.

It's not that I don't like it. It's that it's not evidence.