Evidence

[Subduction Zone]

..in your opinion .. each claim needs to be analysed separately, and then examined again in light of the whole.

Your sweeping brush, is a mere wave of the hand to dismiss..
..and then you will reply with the usual "nobody has given me empirical evidence of gods" boloney, I would expect.

The problem is that as presented they are only claims. There is a very very small chance that they are evidence, but that raises the question: If they are evidence why can't anyone post that evidence properly?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Suddenly, one or more of the physical senses begins to apprehend a movement or a crash or an aroma. Something has become evident to the senses, and that makes it evidence, evidence being the noun form of the adjective evident. The brain then automatically begins telling us what this apprehension says about our reality and how we feel about it. This is evidence becoming evidence of - the interpretation stage. I hear a sound. Next, I recognize it as the doorbell. Next I interpret to mean that somebody is at the door summoning me. I open the door and see a face. The brain tells me whose based on prior experience and memory. It's the landlord. The brain reminds me that the rent is due, then that I don't have the money, and then tells me how to feel about that - a little apprehensive, perhaps. Then come the tentative predictions of what comes next. The formal definition of evidence states that it is knowledge that makes a given proposition more or less likely to be the case about reality (evidence for and evidence against).

Evidence of God would be an apprehension best understood as a manifestation of a supernatural sentient agent. The Baha'i offer the biography and words of people claiming to be channeling a god as defined here. You look at those words and see a god. I look at them and see words anybody could have written. I am certain that I could write words that you could not distinguish from those you think come from a god. So could many others, it seems.

Others offer different evidence, but it is also not evidence of a god, but rather, evidence that people believe in such a thing and hope to make others believe the same. Some point to reality and say, see - there's God. They point to a living cell. One RF poster used to like to post galleries of pretty pictures of flowers and animals as evidence of a god. Some claim that moral intuitions and moral behavior require that a god exist for that to be possible. Then come the logical arguments which include some self-proclaimed proofs from the Middle Ages as well as the fine tuning argument already mentioned in this thread.

None of these convince the competent critical thinker, even those who call themselves theists. They understand the evidence doesn't support their belief. Some have said so on these threads. If they believe, it is by faith, not through evidence.

Critical thinking can be understood as the science of evaluating evidence using reason to arrive at sound conclusions about what is true, what actually exists and can be found. We all do it to some degree every hour of every day, as when we correctly interpret the significance of a red traffic signal, but to do it well in all settings is an acquired skill, one typically only developed through a university education, and even then, most graduates are unfamiliar with many of the logical fallacies.

Incidentally, who is asking you for evidence of gods? The request, if made, is a rhetorical device by somebody who knows that you have no evidence that would convince him. How could you if he lives in the same world and has eyes and an analytical mind? If you had it, he would already have it, too. I've gotten out of the habit of asking that rhetorical device and just making my position plainly and directly - you don't have evidence for your beliefs that would convince me.

If they disagree, they can offer something and I can tell them why it doesn't support their belief as I just did regarding messages from self-proclaimed messengers of an alleged god. You needn't show me any more words from your book. Asking for evidence rhetorically just gets one another boatload of quotations in fey language to evoke otherworldliness with a lot of ye's and thou hasts - deepities, as Dennett calls such vapid pronouncements

Done. What else do you have?

Here's where a better understanding of logical fallacy would serve you. This is a circular argument. You wouldn't make it or believe it if you understood that. You assume what you're trying to prove. Change those words and make them fallacy-free: "These are the signs (evidence) that we interpret as evidence of a god" rather than "God gave us these signs of Himself"

The evidence contradicts you. Man's greatest progress comes whenever he puts his gods aside and turns to his own senses and mind for answers. That's true on a large scale as with the Enlightenment, which catapulted man from the intellectual dungeons of the Middle Ages to modernity, as well as an individual level. That describes my personal journey out of religion to an atheistic, humanistic worldview. That was a winner. I have navigated reality as if it were godless, and arrived at my desired destination - a state of wellbeing, both hedonic (comfort) and eudaimonic (purpose).

You have a pretty tough sell trying to convince somebody with such experience that he made a mistake and to return to "God" as his standard. What I see on these threads is the price some pay for that choice. Yes, it makes or breaks them. I see a lot of breakage. I see posters aimlessly wandering the halls of the forum in defense of their beliefs, starting thread after thread arguing for gods or against atheists or science (does anybody else use the word scientism?).

Thanks for the reply. One thing to know is that I am a very impatient person, a big flaw that I have always had. I do not do well with long posts, nor replies, as my impatient makes me also a bad listener.

I note that science is finding more than our 5 basic material senses, yet the addition senses they are finding are also based in the material.

I like the 6th sense, which I see is the Rational Mind, which controls all material senses while also enabling us to discover the unknown realities.

It is this 6th sense, our rational mind, that I see emanates from God and I agree that when we turns to our own senses and mind for answers, we can find many solutions, as all that is possible is found in the capacity of our mind.

We can consider that animals have greater senses than man, so what makes the rational mind superior? It finds hidden realities and brings them into our own reality, science is a great example as to how a rational mind discovers hidden possibilities.

Then we can ask what is proof of the greatest Mind? We then come to the Quandary of Science and Philosophy, are they opposing forces, or are they complimentary forces of Mind.

I see people do themselves a great injustice by choosing one over the other. It may be the greatest mind are the Messengers and this ties back to the OP.

Does not the proof of the greatest scientific minds become the person. Do we not think of Einstein when we think of great scientific minds.

Likewise for the greatest Philosophical minds, a person will become the source we offer.

This confirms one of the sources of evidence in this OP, the Person.

Regards Tony

 

[Alien826]

I’ll try as best I can. But there are some things that just can’t be expressed through the media of language.

‘How many are the truths which the garment of words cannot contain’. And..

‘Only heart to heart can speak the bliss of mystic knowers’ (Baha’u’llah)

Buddhists call it ‘enlightenment’. To Christians it is to be ‘saved’ or ‘reborn’ and to Baha’is it is the station of ‘certitude’ of knowing, not just believing. But seeing with the eyes of God.

This station cannot be attained unaided but needs to be confirmed by God. The seeker can only find the truth by the grace of God not through prayer, meditation or good deeds unaided.

When certain conditions are met, it is said then the ‘mystic herald’ will breathe the truth into the soul. These are the conditions. It’s called ‘The Tablet of the True Seeker’. Link below. (Link is correct)

Captcha

Some never fulfil these conditions, some over a lifetime and with myself about 3 years.

My mindset at the time was that I could not accept the disunity between people and religions as I saw us all as fellow human beings. This led me to the Baha’i Faith whose goal is unity and that we are all one human family.

But the real confirmation came when I realised Who Baha’u’llah actually was and it to this day, 48 years later, it still staggers me that humanity has still not discovered this greatest of all Secrets.

Fascinating. This is very close to the Buddhist concept of enlightenment, I think. It's something I have glimpsed briefly in meditation, and I can testify that it gives a sense of total certainty that needs no proof or evidence. The nearest I can come is that it cut through all the clutter and gibberish that goes on in our minds to a state of .... peace? Simplicity? See, I can't describe it.

There's one big problem though that emerges once you try to explain it to others. That experience cannot be demonstrated to others. What the Buddha did was to teach a methodology that would, he claimed, allow others to experience it. And that's it. Believe it or don't. Try it or don't. It can't be explained.

 

[John53]

Alright. There are four kinds of people. The fourth are those who find the claim of there only being three kinds of people laughable.

I have evidence there is five kinds of people and the fact I have evidence is evidence that my evidence is indisputable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..they are only claims..

Correct. They are all claims.

It is so easy to be an atheist. You don't need to learn anything.
..just keep repeating your mantra "it's only a claim".
Wow .. I've learned so much .. how wise you are, sir.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm not sure if you realize that you contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you said this, implying that evidence for God should be all around us:

It all ties together, to understand this subject we need to pursue the evidence.

Craftspersons are known by their craft, the instruments are the connection between the Craftspersons and the craft. The crafts are defined by the instruments they use.

The Creator is know by the creation. The Manifestations are the connection between the Creator and creation. Creation is defined by the Messengers. All the attributes found in creation are a result of Messengers and by all this the Creator is known.

Then you said this, implying that evidence isn't all around us except for "Messengers":

As noted above.

You've seen your arguments for God based on how wonderful - in your view - Baha'u'llah is fail over and over. If the first part of what you said is true, there should be all sorts of arguments for God you could make based on empirical evidence in the natural world; why don't you ever use them?

I have not see the evidence fail. I have see many people have disregarded valid evidence.

This also explains why we choose not to provide other evidence, which will also be disregarded.

I will offer Research in dreams, NDE and even twins have signs, if one is looking for evidence. Science also has many evidences of God, yet if God has been negated, how can one see the evidence?

This has some good talks, from the evidence of the Word

Part 4: On the Origin, Powers, and Conditions of Man

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Certainly not through messengers. That can't work unless the messages simply couldn't have been written by a human being.

It works just fine, and your logic is faulty. Just because a text could have been written by an ordinary human being that does not mean it was written by an ordinary human being. It could also have been written by a Messenger of God, who is both divine and human. It is for us to decide if it was written by a Messenger of God or just an ordinary human. That is why God gave humans a rational mind and free will to choose.

Every human has the capacity to recognize the Messenger. There is a reward for recognition and the belief in the one true God that follows. The punishment is our own if we fail to recognize the Messenger since it is our true loss.

Imagine how spectacular a message would be if it authored by a deity who created the universe.

I don't have to imagine that. All I have to do is pick up the book Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.

 

[Trailblazer]

Correct. They are all claims.

There are claims and these is the evidence that backs up the claims...
These two things are separate.
That is what atheists don't understand, even though I have explained it umpteen million times.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just put it on Twitter, phrased so it goes viral.

More seriously, why not? Are you doubting that he can? The problem would be having it believed, of course.

I have asked this question before but I never got an answer to this question.
If God sent a message to humans, how would you know that it was actually from God?
Please tell me how you could verify that a message came from God, if it came from God.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Just put it on Twitter, phrased so it goes viral.

More seriously, why not? Are you doubting that he can? The problem would be having it believed, of course.

Who uses Twitter?

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The OP is about what is Evidence and that what is provided as evidence, is valid evidence.

It's not about if people agree with the given evidence, it is about understanding that it is valid evidence.

It is very curious to me that you can't see the real import of what you are writing -- curious because you don't seem to be a stupid person, but do seem resolutely blind to the total unreasonability of what you claim.

Evidence that is not believed or agreed with can serve no useful purpose. A jury, presented with what a prosecutor calls "evidence" that does not agree that it constitutes evidence of what the prosecutor claims will not accept it as such, and will probably acquit.

And the same goes for "evidence" produced by the defense: "My client say he didn't do it, therefore you must acquit" is unlikely to be accepted as quality evidence by the jury. On the other had, a time-stamped photograph in a lobby in another city, at the time the crime was committed, would very well be seen by all 12 as quite definitive.

You continue to claim, with no reason whatever, that the claim of a presumed "manifestation" must accepted as valid evidence for no other reason that the claim, "I am chosen by God to deliver this message" guarantees that he was, in fact, chosen by God and must therefore be believed.

How you remasin so totally blind to this is something I cannot understand.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who uses Twitter?

Certainly not everyone, and since it is a message that needs to be available to everyone, that is why the message from God can be found on Google.

 

[Alien826]

Well I would say that the voice of God can be heard by any willing soul, but first we have to be willing, and then we have to learn how to listen. Listening requires silence, for which we need to quiet the endless noise generated in our own heads.

I don't think that was the voice that the original poster was wanting! Something that could be clear to all, probably.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Being rude and snide towards those who disagree with you does not help your case.

Where is the evidence that I intend to be rude?
It is only a claim.

 

[Alien826]

I have asked this question before but I never got an answer to this question.
If God sent a message to humans, how would you know that it was actually from God?
Please tell me how you could verify that a message came from God, if it came from God.

In the movie, God gave the guy a card with the word "god" on it. But then he made it rain inside the car they were traveling in.

I don't know, a cop out would be that it would be whatever the individual person would be convinced by. For me? It would have to be something inexplicable by other means. Of course some would say it was a hallucination ...

 

[Trailblazer]

You continue to claim, with no reason whatever, that the claim of a presumed "manifestation" must accepted as valid evidence for no other reason that the claim, "I am chosen by God to deliver this message" guarantees that he was, in fact, chosen by God and must therefore be believed.

No, that is not what me and Tony have been saying. A claim is nothing but a claim. A claim is not evidence of ANYTHING because anyone can make a claim. I can claim that I am a Messenger of God. So what?

A claim must be supported by evidence, as in a court of law. If a prosecutor claims that Mr. Smith killed Mr. Jones he has to present evidence to back up that claim. Then the jury looks at that evidence and decides if the claim is true or false.

 

[Alien826]

Who uses Twitter?

Regards Tony

We would all be supernaturally drawn to read it. Those that didn't have memberships would be magically granted them. Unless Elon Musk had shut the whole thing down of course, in which case God would go off in a huff for another 2000 years.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, that is not what me and Tony have been saying. A claim is nothing but a claim. A claim is not evidence of ANYTHING because anyone can make a claim. I can claim that I am a Messenger of God. So what?

A claim must be supported by evidence, as in a court of law. If a prosecutor claims that Mr. Smith killed Mr. Jones he has to present evidence to back up that claim. Then the jury looks at that evidence and decides if the claim is true or false.

But I've still not seen anything that supports the claim -- with the very unsatisfactory exception that you and some others believe the claim. That's still not evidence. About 5 times as many Americans as there are Baha'is all over the world believe Trump's claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him. It wasn't, and they are simply wrong.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You continue to claim, with no reason whatever, that the claim of a presumed "manifestation" must accepted as valid evidence for no other reason that the claim, "I am chosen by God to deliver this message" guarantees that he was, in fact, chosen by God and must therefore be believed..

I doubt whether @TransmutingSoul believes in Messengers of God, just because they say so..
I most certainly don't.

I had a couple of 1 1/2 hour Divinity lessons a week for 5 years, plus numerous other studies at external venues.
If you are suggesting that all I learned is that Jesus claimed to be a messenger of God in that time, you can't be serious !

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know, a cop out would be that it would be whatever the individual person would be convinced by. For me? It would have to be something inexplicable by other means

Why would that be a cop out?

Of course, it is true that the individual person would have to be convinced by it in order to believe it, but just because an individual person is convinced that does not mean it actually came from God. It may or may not be from God.

"It would have to be something inexplicable by other means" is an individual judgment call. I believe that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are inexplicable by other means, but other people do not see it that way.

Even if something supernatural happened, like a banner across the sky that said "I am God" not everyone would be believe it came from God. Some people would claim that it is explicable by other means.

Thus we have the age old problem. Belief in God is based upon faith, but that does not mean there is not also evidence, since that would be very unjust for God to expect humans to believe on faith alone.

Let's just say the banner across the sky was really sent by God. What would we have for evidence to corroborate that?