Evidence

[TransmutingSoul]

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

Luckily there is evidence of the Quran and the Baha'i Writings, they in turn confirm the Bible.

This OP has offered we need to consider all the evidence available, not just some aspects of it.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

You implied it with your posts about percentage of belief.

What you think I implied, I denied.
Just because many or most people believe something that does not mean it is true.
That is illogical.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

God does not expect belief with no evidence. Faith with evidence is not unfounded belief.

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

No, because there is good, rational evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

No, but your belief that there is no good evidence is a personal opinion.

 

[Valjean]

Luckily there is evidence of the Quran and the Baha'i Writings, they in turn confirm the Bible.

But what confirms the Quran and Baha'i writings.
And what about all the errors and contradictions in the bible?

This OP has offered we need to consider all the evidence available, not just some aspects of it.

Quite so. We also need to distinguish real evidence from unsubstantiated claims and opinions.

 

[Valjean]

What you think I implied, I denied.
Just because many or most people believe something that does not mean it is true.
That is illogical.

Agreed. So what was the point of the population data?

God does not expect belief with no evidence. Faith with evidence is not unfounded belief.

Faith is, by definition, unfounded belief. Faith with good evidence is knowledge.

No, because there is good, rational evidence.

You faithful keep repeating that, but I have yet to see any. Every time one of you posts purported evidence we point out the flaws, only to have you keep repeating the assertion and posting the same evidence again, later.[/quote]

 

[Valjean]

No, but your belief that there is no good evidence is a personal opinion.

No! We've explained why the evidence is not good; pointed out the errors. Proper evidence is not opinion, it's epistemic fact, just as 2+2=4 is fact.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But what confirms the Quran and Baha'i writings.
And what about all the errors and contradictions in the bible?
Quite so. We also need to distinguish real evidence from unsubstantiated claims and opinions.

What we need to consider is that we did not meet the Messengers, but other people have and left their testimonials about those meetings and what they experienced.

Using reason and justice we are able to conclude many of those those testimonials are reliable. Early people lost their lives when embracing these radical changes from the current practices, they had nothing to gain.

The Quran is supported by the Revelation and Muhammad, it changed the direction of humanity.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah and their Revelations had the same result.

Specifics are not the intent of this OP.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Quite so. We also need to distinguish real evidence from unsubstantiated claims and opinions

I see the Claims are more than substantiated by the evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No! We've explained why the evidence is not good; pointed out the errors. Proper evidence is not opinion, it's epistemic fact, just as 2+2=4 is fact.

This OP is not exploring facts and proofs the evidence contains.

So we are not able to determine if it is good or bad evidence.

Personally I see there is no point of exploring that aspect of the evidence, this OP has more than proved it would be a pointless argument.

Regards Tony

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This OP is not exploring facts and proofs the evidence contains.

So we are not able to determine if it is good or bad evidence.

Personally I see there is no point of exploring that aspect of the evidence, this OP has more than proved it would be a pointless argument.

Regards Tony

This OP is not exploring facts and proofs the evidence contains.

So we are not able to determine if it is good or bad evidence.

Personally I see there is no point of exploring that aspect of the evidence, this OP has more than proved it would be a pointless argument.

Regards Tony

Then what was the intention of this thread? What did you want to debate? This was posted in General Religion Debates after all.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Then what was the intention of this thread? What did you want to debate? This was posted in General Religion Debates after all.

I think it's pretty clear by this point, that he just wanted to know whether some people consider the Baha'i scriptures "evidence".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Please support this claim.

Fiction is not of an historical nature.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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.

Well, that's the thing isn't it..
There is clear evidence .. 50% of people are Christians and Muslims. They consider that there is clear evidence.

Atheists have decided that the evidence is not reliable.
Almighty God knows what is in our hearts.

He knows WHY we might not accept what believers accept as evidence. It might not be as simple a case as "no gods can be proved to exist" .. there might be deeper underlying reasons why a person rejects a higher authority.

If a person truly believes that believers are deluded, and that there is no higher authority, then they will live their life accordingly.
We all have to bear the consequences of our intentions and actions in this life.
The main difference between belief and disbelief, is that the consequences continue to be felt after death.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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..

There are many different beliefs about "what happened"..

I have to say, that if Jesus was sentenced to death, and put on a cross but never died, there is no need to explain a ressurection.

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.

Many Christians believe that Jesus' appearance to the disciples post crucifixion was not a bodily appearance, but not all.
Again .. it all hinges on Jesus' actually dying on the cross.

Many people cite Jesus reporting to have prophesised his own death as proof of him dying on the cross.
..but as you say, if the majority of people believed he actually died and came to life again, through "oral tradition", it is not hard to see how this could have been seen as "I will be crucified" as meaning he will die.

 

[Valjean]

What we need to consider is that we did not meet the Messengers, but other people have and left their testimonials about those meetings and what they experienced.

Using reason and justice we are able to conclude many of those those testimonials are reliable. Early people lost their lives when embracing these radical changes from the current practices, they had nothing to gain.

These testimonies are hearsay, passed through thousands of hands. Do you really think they're reliable?
Even with sincere original claimants and current historians, the reports wouldn't be reliable. It's well known that a half dozen people witnessing the same event often give wildly different accounts. Pass the story through a few friends and it'll likely bear no resemblance to the original report, much less video recordings.

The Quran is supported by the Revelation and Muhammad, it changed the direction of humanity.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah and their Revelations had the same result.

Can't any revelation or gospel make the same claim?

 

[Valjean]

I see the Claims are more than substantiated by the evidence.

Yes, you do.

This OP is not exploring facts and proofs the evidence contains.

So we are not able to determine if it is good or bad evidence.

OK, but what are we discussing, then?

Well, that's the thing isn't it..
There is clear evidence .. 50% of people are Christians and Muslims. They consider that there is clear evidence.

How is that evidence? Most people used to believe the Earth was flat, too.
We've brought up argumentum ad populum several times. Did you not see it?

Atheists have decided that the evidence is not reliable.

Atheists? Mathematicians, logicians and scientists have decided it's not reliable.

If a person truly believes that believers are deluded, and that there is no higher authority, then they will live their life accordingly.

OK. Is that a problem?

We all have to bear the consequences of our intentions and actions in this life.
The main difference between belief and disbelief, is that the consequences continue to be felt after death.

So numerous different religions claim. How do you pick the winner and avoid Hell?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think it's pretty clear by this point, that he just wanted to know whether some people consider the Baha'i scriptures "evidence".

They are not

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

They are not

I was thinking they were just evidence that a man named Bahaullah who claimed things, made those statements.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

You said: "From that passage coupled with logic I have concluded that God chooses not to prove that He exists, since we have no proof of God's existence."

You do not see it but the logical flaw in this is that you are arguing in a thread about evidence for the existence of something. In order to get there -- first, you assume that something exists, then you give it a reason (its own "choice") for there being no evidence for its existence. A perfect circle. But a very real logical error.