Evidence

[Trailblazer]

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.

It is probably true that most of the believers have never questioned their beliefs, or looked for evidence, but that does not mean I haven't done so. That is ALL I have been doing for the last 10 years.

It is not ad populum because I did not say that God exists is true because many or most people believe it.
I only said most people believe that God exists. Why they believe that is a different discussion.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

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.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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.

I don't have the Bible in front of me now, but does not the Bible say something along the line that the followers of Jesus did not recognize Him in the beginning? Only when Jusus spike was they able to recognize him as Jesus.
If that is so, that could indicate that the spirit of Jesus was inside an other physical body, and not the one He used before the resurrection.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't have the Bible in front of me now, but does not the Bible say something along the line that the followers of Jesus did not recognize Him in the beginning? Only when Jusus spike was they able to recognize him as Jesus.
If that is so, that could indicate that the spirit of Jesus was inside an other physical body, and not the one He used before the resurrection.

It may be, but I'd have to look it up.

One thing that I have always found interesting is that when a person in the Bible sees an angel, they are often afraid of it. It makes me wonder if angels look quite scary, should they exist.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It may be, but I'd have to look it up.

One thing that I have always found interesting is that when a person in the Bible sees an angel, they are often afraid of it. It makes me wonder if angels look quite scary.

That is something I have heard too. But maybe it comes down to how the Angel are showing themselves to us humans

 

[Valjean]

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.

Trailblazer said: ↑
It is evidence *for me* because it supports my conclusions and beliefs about God.

Not confirmation bias?

 

[Trailblazer]

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

God does not prefer unfounded belief to knowledge, God prefers founded belief. One reason God gave us brains is to look for evidence and find it so we can believe.

93% of the population is not rational, then.

To say that 93% of the population is not rational is illogical on its face because it is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of black and white thinking.

Popularity of an opinion alone has never been good evidence for its veracity. Look at history.

That is very true, and when it comes to a religion it especially applies.

The converse of ad populum 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 )

 

[Trailblazer]

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

How?

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

Show me where I ever adduced the claim as evidence.

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

Only in your personal opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not confirmation bias?

I had nothing to confirm since I had no preexisting beliefs before I became a Baha'i. I was a blank slate.
In 1970, before I became a Baha'i, the evidence I found was evidence *for me*
I became a Baha'i after that because the evidence proved to me that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

NOW, in 2023, the evidence I found in 1970 is still evidence *for me* because it supports my conclusions and beliefs about God, according to the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Valjean]

Can the evidence for a spiritual awakening only be on a personal level?

Hmmm... Good question.
Perhaps, but it would be 'evidence' that can't be used to argue for anything; it would support only a personal belief.

Would it be possible for science to gain evidence through use of technology that we have today? MRI, CT or other Machines.

Evidence for God? If there is evidence, today's science hasn't yet discovered any, that I'm aware of.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Baha’u’llah and the New Era by J.E. Esslemont is a good introduction. It was my first book on the religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You did in some of your posts. You did not apply reasoning to those posts.

 

[Valjean]

It is probably true that most of the believers have never questioned their beliefs, or looked for evidence, but that does not mean I haven't done so. That is ALL I have been doing for the last 10 years.

It is not ad populum because I did not say that God exists is true because many or most people believe it.
I only said most people believe that God exists. Why they believe that is a different discussion.

You implied it with your posts about percentage of belief.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Hmmm... Good question.
Perhaps, but it would be 'evidence' that can't be used to argue for anything; it would support only a personal belief.
Would it be possible for science to gain evidence through use of technology that we have today? MRI, CT or other Machines.

Evidence for God? If there is evidence, today's science hasn't yet discovered any, that I'm aware of.[/QUOTE]
My understanding is that the "awakening" to understanding God is happening within our spirit/soul and that might be impossible to verify by science, the only way to notice it would be through the persons change in speech and actions, as far as my understanding goes.

But I may be wrong

 

[Valjean]

God does not prefer unfounded belief to knowledge, God prefers founded belief. One reason God gave us brains is to look for evidence and find it so we can believe.

But didn't your post say God preferred faith? Faith is, by definition, unfounded belief.

To say that 93% of the population is not rational is illogical on its face because it is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of black and white thinking.

Perhaps I misunderstood.
Belief in that for which there is no good, rational evidence is irrational. Is that not what your post implied?

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

True, but that would be a whole different claim. You can't go by converses.

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 )

Good thing I'm skinny, then.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

My understanding is that the "awakening" to understanding God is happening within our spirit/soul and that might be impossible to verify by science, the only way to notice it would be through the persons change in speech and actions, as far as my understanding goes.

But I may be wrong

I've picked up atheism these days. Lack of belief in a God or gods. One thing I've wondered is whether atheists have (godless) awakenings though, and what that would look like. I think they do, even if they look entirely different and might be called different things and labelled perhaps a bit more specificly. However, it's a question I'd be better off asking RF some time, rather than assuming.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I've picked up atheism these days. Lack of belief in a God or gods. One thing I've wondered is whether atheists have (godless) awakenings though, and what that would look like. I think they do, even if they look entirely different and might be called different things and labelled perhaps a bit more specificly. However, it's a question I'd be better off asking RF some time, rather than assuming.

Maybe atheists has a physical awakening instead of a spiritual one?

 

[Valjean]

How?

Same way a belief in leprechauns can be shown to be irrational: lack of evidence.

Only in your personal opinion.

No, the evidence is evidence, it's objective. Is my belief that 2+3=5 a personal opinion?

I had nothing to confirm since I had no preexisting beliefs before I became a Baha'i. I was a blank slate.
In 1970, before I became a Baha'i, the evidence I found was evidence *for me*
I became a Baha'i after that because the evidence proved to me that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

NOW, in 2023, the evidence I found in 1970 is still evidence *for me* because it supports my conclusions and beliefs about God, according to the Baha'i Faith.

Your post: "It is evidence *for me* because it supports my conclusions and beliefs about God." Was from today, not 1970.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Are humans supposed to "Know" God?
What I find a bit difficult to say is "God i can not see you or hear you, but I KNOW you are there"
To me, it would be more wise to say, God, I believe in you and even i can not see you, I have faith because you tell me to be strong in faith through the teaching.

Not sure this make sense to others.

The Short Obligatory Prayer by Baha'u'llah offers this.

"I bear witness, O my God, that Thou hast created me to know Thee and to worship Thee. I testify, at this moment, to my powerlessness and to Thy might, to my poverty and to Thy wealth.

There is none other God but Thee, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting." Bahá’u’lláh

There is only only one way we can know God and that is via the Messengers. To know God, is to know the Messengers.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

From the link:
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.
This is claimed to be evidence for God.
This doesn't follow.
Again, God is not evidenced, but premised. It's a converse error. The author is affirming the consequent.
Still doesn't follow. Still begging the question.
These are weak, circular arguments themselves. Not proofs or evidence.
So the proofs and evidence is clear only to those who already believe?

This link is poorly reasoned and not evidence of God.

That is why the knowledge of all the 3 levels of evidence are needed.

The Word supports the person of the Messenger and the Revelation.

Regards Tony