Evidence

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Any way I can parse this, it comes across as incoherent. Can you rephrase?

As noted above.

"Above" communicated no information, so my question still stands.

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

You've seen people hear your arguments and walk away unconvinced... IOW, your arguments have failed.

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

Because one approach failed, you decide to take no other approaches? This makes no sense.

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?

If you're trying to establish that God exists, you can't start by assuming God.

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

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

Regards Tony

Thanks, but I'm not inclined to put any more effort into your link than you did into copying & pasting it.

If you think something on that page supports what you're saying, feel free to quote the relevant passages and explain their significance as you see it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 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?

How about we cut to the chase:

- do you agree that God knows what it would take to convince any given person of his existence?

- do you agree that God is capable of making that happen, whatever it is?

 

[muhammad_isa]

- do you agree that God knows what it would take to convince any given person of his existence?

Yes .. but God does not need to persuade anybody.
He is closer to us than our jugular vein.

- do you agree that God is capable of making that happen, whatever it is?

Yes .. and I see that many people are convinced that He exists.

..now perhaps you can answer @Trailblazer 's question..
"Let's just say the banner across the sky was really sent by God. What would we have for evidence to corroborate that?"

 

[Trailblazer]

But I've still not seen anything that supports the claim --

Time and again, I have posted the evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah.
The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

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.

The fact that some people believe the claim is true is not evidence that the claim is true, not any more than the fact that relatively few people are believe the claim is true is evidence that the claim is false.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

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

There are reasons why the Baha'i Faith is still relatively small, reasons that make sense. These reasons are related to the human factor.

I heard the Baha'i faith is the second biggest faith worldwide.Is that true?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes .. and I see that many people are convinced that He exists.

Yes, that's true. 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

By contrast, only 7% of the world population do not believe that God exists.

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

If you do the math, that means that about 9% of people who believe in God do not have a religion.

The large percentage of people who believe that God exists, as there is no proof that God exists, since God chooses not to provide proof, only evidence.

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.

We must first believe that it is possible for God to exist, and that requires faith since no man has ever seen God. God wants us to have faith and that explains why God does not provide absolute proof. I believe that God will reward those who earnestly seek Him with the evidence we need to believe, but God will not force us to accept the evidence. That is a choice we all have to make.

 

[Trailblazer]

How about we cut to the chase:

- do you agree that God knows what it would take to convince any given person of his existence?

- do you agree that God is capable of making that happen, whatever it is?

Yes, I believe that God is capable of that, but then belief would not be a choice.
God wants belief to be a choice and that is one reason why humans have free will to choose.

Aside from that, God has no need for anyone's belief since God is fully self-sufficient, so there would be no reason for God to try to convince people that He exists.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

Then why not via a Messenger who is given the task to distribute unconditionally the Message in Writing to all humanity?

Then those that choose to pursue that evidence, gain by that choice.

The Supernatural is a choice, Jesus offered it is the process of being born again. Born from the material into our Supernatural abilities, or our Supernatural Reality.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why not via a Messenger who is given the task to distribute unconditionally the Message in Writing to all humanity?

If you can think of 'another way' that would work, please let me know.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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 remain so totally blind to this is something I cannot understand.

Because that is not what is offered, no one has to beleive the evidence given, in fact we are told we are not to accept it blindly. That we must pursue the evidence and judge with justice and wisdom.

The claim is supported by valid evidence, it is only the evidence that will support the claim. Anyone can make a claim, I can claim I am a Messenger from God, but I would need to support that by my own person, I would have to give a Revelation from God and I would have to give a Message from God.

If I do not have evidence of my Person, a Revelation or a Message, then I am easily proven untrustworthy and untruthful and that I have made a false claim.

The Person is evidence
The Revelation is Evidence
The Word is Evidence.

Now the Quandary. It is already foretold that many false Claims will be made, and that it is by the evidence that we will be able to determine if it is a true claim or false claim.

So again a Claim is not evidence, a Claim is supported by Evidence and for God who speaks to humanity via a Human, the evidence we are given is,

The Person
The Revelation
The Word

The claim can be validated or rejected by Judging the provided evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

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.

When theists start getting passive aggressive and cynical it is an indication that they are at their wits end.

The thing is no one is obligated to believe anything. Even all theists Don’t believe in all the gods that are available for religious systems. Atheist just don’t believe in at least one more God then the rest. Why is it a problem for Theists? How come they aren’t fighting each other more over the truest truth? There seems an alliance between most theists to remain neutral to each other.

There’s obviously something that irritates Theists across-the-board about atheists. That one thing is we think, we doubt, we reason, we require evidence, we have a high standard for conclusions and belief. Theists in debate can’t win. That is the distinguishing pattern that we observe. The religious claim lacks the very thing that allows valid conclusions: valid evidence. Not beliefs, not assumptions, not tradition, not feeling, not faith, but verifiable evidence that requires no special assumptions.

In debate atheists have the advantage, that’s because we are at the most neutral position, and in that we don’t have to defend any religious positions, we don’t have to defend any beliefs, whether directly or indirectly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes .. but God does not need to persuade anybody.
He is closer to us than our jugular vein.

So yes.

Yes .. and I see that many people are convinced that He exists.

So yes to both questions. Thank you.

..now perhaps you can answer @Trailblazer 's question..
"Let's just say the banner across the sky was really sent by God. What would we have for evidence to corroborate that?"

And God's existence hasn't already been established some other way?

How would we eliminate every other possibility - known and unknown - in order to establish that the only possible explanation is God?

Or how would we establish that God is even possible in the first place, for it to be available as a possible explanation?

 

[Trailblazer]

How would we eliminate every other possibility - known and unknown - in order to establish that the only possible explanation is God?

We cannot establish that it came from God, or that it did not come from God.

Or how would we establish that God is even possible in the first place, for it to be available as a possible explanation?

We cannot establish that God is possible, but that does not mean that God is not possible.
There was a time in history when it could not be established that man could land on the moon, but that did not mean it wasn't possible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We cannot establish that it came from God, or that it did not come from God.

So then jumping to the conclusion that God must exist is necessarily irrational?

We cannot establish that God is possible, but that does not mean that God is not possible.

It seems to me that if we can't even establish that God is at least possible, then we definitely can't establish that God exists.

There was a time in history when it could not be established that man could land on the moon, but that did not mean it wasn't possible.

There were definitely technological challenges to be overcome, but we could at least confirm that the moon was there.

 

[Trailblazer]

The religious claim lacks the very thing that allows valid conclusions: valid evidence. Not beliefs, not assumptions, not tradition, not feeling, not faith, but verifiable evidence that requires no special assumptions.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that God exists. What would be evidence? If God exists, how could God be verified?

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

In debate atheists have the advantage, that’s because we are at the most neutral position, and in that we don’t have to defend any religious positions, we don’t have to defend any beliefs, whether directly or indirectly.

I don't see where that puts you at any advantage. If atheists are claiming that God does not exist then they have to defend that position. Can you prove that God does not exist?

It is agnostics who have the neutral position, since they say they don't know if God exists or not.
There is no debate to be had between believers and agnostics, since agnostics have nothing to bring to the table.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Theists in debate can’t win..

That would depend on the debate..
The usual tactic of the atheist is deviation..
They like to steer the debate to be about empirical evidence .. as they consider it to be a "winning point", when in fact it only serves to end the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You have it backwards. Most atheists want to learn. It appears that most believers just want to believe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And God's existence hasn't already been established some other way?

How would we eliminate every other possibility - known and unknown - in order to establish that the only possible explanation is God?

Or how would we establish that God is even possible in the first place, for it to be available as a possible explanation?

..so you are agreeing that there IS no possible valid evidence of the existence of God, unless a person chooses to believe?

Pharaoh insisted that his subjects worshiped him. He oppressed the Israelites, and God sent Moses to him. He refused to believe, and God sent a series of disease and pestilence .. he then claimed that he then believed .. and then, after the pestilence was removed, he went back to claiming he was God.

He was finally drowned along with his army .. and then he again said he believed when he saw the sea coming on him.
..which was of no avail. His belief could not be trusted .. he'd already showed his "true colours".

Belief is not about empirical evidence .. God knows what is in the depths of our minds .. we make our choice .. following our desires .. or God's guidance.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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 !

Since I never suggested anything of the kind, I've nothing to say to this.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Most atheists want to learn. It appears that most believers just want to believe.

Some atheists are interested in learning about religion, yes.
Some atheists would like to be believers .. but they have "issues",
and argue against it for some personal reason.

Some atheists dislike God's guidance, as they prefer to follow what seems good to them

etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

So then jumping to the conclusion that God must exist is necessarily irrational?

It would be irrational to jump to the conclusion that God exists from a banner in the sky that says "I am God and I exist" because there are other explanations for why that banner got there.

It seems to me that if we can't even establish that God is at least possible, then we definitely can't establish that God exists.

How would you establish that God is possible?
Unless we can establish that God is impossible, how can we say that God is not possible?

There were definitely technological challenges to be overcome, but we could at least confirm that the moon was there.

That's true, so maybe that is not the best analogy.

There was a time in history, before 1930 when nobody knew that Pluto existed, but later Pluto was discovered and we knew it existed. However, Pluto existed before 1930, when it was discovered.

I am sure there are many other things in the universe that exist right now but are yet to be discovered.

God is yet to be discovered by atheists.