I think it's pretty clear by this point, that he just wanted to know whether some people consider the Baha'i scriptures "evidence".
I think one has to guess what his purpose for starting this thread is. I get almost no information from his comments, and he doesn't address the comments made to him. He writes, "This OP is to finalise once and for all what is Evidence of God," but all he's done is repeatedly lay out what he calls evidence for a god and calls for all to examine it with little interest in the responses. He talks but doesn't listen. My guess is that he's proselytizing in a way that he hopes the mods won't call him out for.
no paper concludes that organism evolve through the Darwinian mechanism
Probably. So what?
I don’t have a larger point
1 we know that eyes evolved form simpler organs
2 we don’t know by which mechanism it happened, (many have been proposed, being the Darwinian mechanism just one among many possibilities)
Is this what our discussion has been about? I don't disagree with either of these points. But I will say to you what I just said about another poster. I don't believe that that is all you had to say or why you brought up the evolution of the eye. Your purpose was likely to undermine evolutionary theory by sowing doubt about whether evolution was up to the task of generating eyes in a series of stepwise mutations that each conferred a survival advantage. That's what creationists do. Nobody else broaches this subject except perhaps people learning about evolution for the first time who want to understand the science.
If I'm correct about your purpose - sowing doubt among those who accept the theory as likely correct - there is no need. Critical thinkers doubt everything and hold beliefs tentatively in the sense that they are willing to revise them pending new evidence that justifies that. I don't seriously doubt whether the theory of evolution is correct, that is, I don't feel uncertain, but I understand that I have no way to rule out a deceptive intelligent designer who stacked the deck to make it look like evolution had occurred. I only understand that that is possible, but don't seriously entertain the possibility or lose sleep over it. That kind of doubt is called philosophical doubt, and it is distinguished from psychological doubt by being understood but not felt.
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.
I rebutted this once, but you had no comment. You are describing a gaslighter. Here's some free advice: don't trust anybody who claims to have evidence for something that he could easily adduce but insists you trust him instead.
God is not indistinguishable from something that does not exist for 93% of the world population who believe that God exists.
You have been told repeatedly that such opinions are meaningless to the critical thinker, who doesn't care what others believe, just what they know and can demonstrate to be correct or probable.
Hundreds of times I have said that a claim is worthless unless there is evidence that supports the claim.
And your claims have been rejected as many times for that reason. It is others who judge for themselves whether your evidence and reasoning support your claim.
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.
That isn't working out too well. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to believe in gods.
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.
No, it is neither of those fallacies nor any other. It is the conclusion of a sound syllogism. P1: Believing in gods or anything else without sufficient evidence is irrational by definition. P2: It is alleged that 93% of people hold that belief. C: You do the math.
Faith with evidence is not unfounded belief.
This is incoherent. It's self-contradictory. You have repeatedly complained that nobody explains your errors in reasoning to you, although it seems that that's all I've been doing in this post. You are confused about what faith-based belief and unfounded belief are. They are synonyms. And if one injects enough evidence to support the belief and make it no longer unfounded, it is no longer believed by faith. That you cannot understand that or choose to not try to does not mean that nobody has explained your errors to you. It's that nobody can without your attention and cooperation.
There is clear evidence .. 50% of people are Christians and Muslims. They consider that there is clear evidence.
Hopefully, you read what I just wrote to Trailblazer. It doesn't matter to the critical thinker what they believe if they can't justify that belief. It no doubt matters to their priests, who, like them, appear not to have any empiric standard for belief.
I feel sorry for "critical thinkers", who cannot think outside the box.
I feel sorry for those who can't think in the box. Stepping outside the box is for finding new hypotheses, for creatively considering things never before considered. But one needs to bring such ideas back to the box for critical analysis before there is belief. This thread is an endless litany of such thinking outside the box being subjected to box thinking by others who can.
but you will probably say then that they are all deluded. Yeah, sure. We're all deluded.
You keep returning to this emotive language. I've already addressed this once with you, and you chose to ignore it then. If by deluded you mean holding a false belief, then yes, you are deluded, although I would probably just tell you that your belief is unjustified. If by deluded you mean mentally ill like a paranoid schizophrenic, then no, that would be an unjustified claim. Why not stick to descriptive language as I just did? And maybe this time explain why what I said is incorrect or inadequate if you think so before making this same claim again.
This applies to most of the atheists I have ever known.
