Evidence

[Subduction Zone]

Aristotle believed that the Jews came from India: “These Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers,” The RM-124 gene may provide evidence of such a link. This gene is found widely among the Indian Yadava community; and also among 2 percent of Ashkenazi Jews. A possibility is that the original home of the Hebrews was in the Indus Valley. That would resolve many a question on the historicity of the Exodus: (1) The parting of the Yam Suf could be the Indus River; (2) The Sinai volcano could be Taftan; (3) Paran could be the place of this name near Isfahan; (4) the second Yam Suf could be the Shatt al-Arab. Moses may have led the Exodus from the Indus Valley and carried the RM-124 gene that is found among the Ashkenazi Jews.

Why would it matter what Aristotle thought? And if you are going to claim only one gene then you would need to check all of the surrounding areas. If it is widely prevalent that would harm your case.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

immoral

What is immoral about the Baha'i Faith? Okay, I get it, Baha'is don't allow sex between homosexuals, and don't allow Baha'i homosexuals to marry, but besides this one minor thing, what teachings do Baha'is have that is particularly immoral?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is immoral about the Baha'i Faith? Okay, I get it, Baha'is don't allow sex between homosexuals, and don't allow Baha'i homosexuals to marry, but besides this one minor thing, what teachings do Baha'is have that is particularly immoral?

Banning premarital sex is another one. It made sense at one time, but we have moved past then. If you go back to the Old Testament women were basically property. Rape was not a crime against the woman as much as it was a crime against the father or husband. Baha'i morality is an improvement but it is not perfect.

 

[Trailblazer]

Correct. Neither exist because neither have any of the three requirements for existence, namely, to exist in some time and some place and affect and be affected by the other things that exist, the collection of which can be called reality or nature.

God does exist in time and a place, just not in time and place as we know it on earth.
God does affect and is affected by other things that exist..

Yes. If your deity is not physical and doesn't interact with the physical, it has all of the same characteristics as the things you agree don't exist. This is how we decide such matters.

No, this is not how "we" decide such matters, that is how "you" decide such things.
God being physical, there is nothing more hilarious in the entire world!
God can and does interact with the physical.

But I *DO* know what your god is. You don't.

You know what God is and I don't.....
And here I though there was nothing 'more hilarious' than what you said above.

There is nothing else but the things in nature. If a god is among them, then it too is part of nature.

God created the things in nature, but God is not a part of His creation. so God doesn't 'exist in nature.'

Thanks. What a long strange trip it's been.

And the afterlife will be a much longer and stranger trip, since it is eternal.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That means that your argument is rather pointless.

No it doesn't.

This thread is about evidence. When evidence is given, you just wave it away as pointless.
..but that is what I expect. The life of the world is very alluring,
and people would rather pay homage to that, than acknowledge truth.

 

[leroy]

Two is wrong. There is a general consensus. In fact they do agree that it is mainly through natural selection and variation.

If you meant “random variation” then no there is no consensus.

If you mean any type of variation (random or non random) then yes there is obviously a consensus given that “variation” includes a wide range of possible mechanisms and obviously one has to be correct.......
But I would point out the straw man, since you are changing my original words

By the way, random mutation cannot be part of the "Darwinian" mechanism. Think about it. You can get it if you try. The thing is that they agree that there are other natural forces at work. Those are not Darwinian. In fact random mutation is not Darwinian. There is a reason that that term was dropped. It does not mean that Darwin was wrong, it only means that there is a more thorough explanation.

Ok my mistake I meant random variation, not random mutation


But I have problems in spotting points of disagreement between you and I in this particular subject.......care to spot those points please?

Why do so many creationists think that a more thorough explanation is somehow a refutation of Darwin?

I am not claiming that anyone has refuted Darwin………I am saying that we dont know if the mechanism that he proposed is the main one (random variation + natural selection)

If you disagree then please support the claim with a proper source……………if you g}agree then we can simply shake hands and move on

You don’t have to read between the lines, you don’t have to discover the hidden meaning of my words , this is not a trap all I am saying is that the claim

“organism evolve mainly through random variation + natural selection” is a controversial claim , that lacks consensus, and we simply don’t know if it´s true or not. (and my bet is that we won’t know anytime soon, perhaps next century)

if you claim the opossite (that we know with high degree of certanity that the claim is true) then please support it

So, yes, there is a consensus on evolution. When one gets to the very fine points is where there is some debate.

Well scientists disagree on whether if mutations are mainly random or non random I personally view this as an important point, but if you want to claim that it is a secondary point, I guess it´s ok (we are dealing with subjective stuff)

But as to you sharing a common ancestor with a banana there is no significant doubt about that fact.

sure

 

[Trailblazer]

What is immoral about the Baha'i Faith? Okay, I get it, Baha'is don't allow sex between homosexuals, and don't allow Baha'i homosexuals to marry, but besides this one minor thing, what teachings do Baha'is have that is particularly immoral?

Why is it immoral to disallow sex between homosexuals, and not allow Baha'i homosexuals to marry?
Something is not immoral just because some people do not approve of it, it is only immoral if God disapproves of it, since God sets the standards for human morality. If we allow humans to set their own standards what would that be based upon, the consensus of public opinion?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Wow, way to ignore most of what I said.

OK, not just the Baha'i faith. Now how about the rest of it, which was about why the thread has gone on so long when your OP was so simple?

You will have to ask the people that kept it going.

I have replied with the same answer from the beginning.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

There is strong evidence that shows that thought is just a physical process. Evidence to the contrary does not seem to exist. Can you think of any reliable evidence that shows otherwise?

Thought in humans (while they are living in a physical body) is a physical process since it occurs in the brain and mind.
There is no evidence to the contrary.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That rings hollow after seeing so much negativity from several of you. Also, see below for what happy and optimistic looks like from my side. I'm not looking to trade life for one that considers material pleasure a fault.

The negative only comes from this material world, which we have to live in.

May sadness is for those that only see this world.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The world is a pretty nice place.

It could be, not yet. This is one of the greatest issues facing humanity, an outlook from the place of safety, or comfort when many have no food or water and watch their children die.

So how can a person say it is a great place while any person is suffering? It is not just to do so.

Usually these comments come from a person that has not faced the level of suffering many 3rd world people do, or those that are under tyrants or facing war are suffering.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I just wanted to show you what you are turning your back on, what you dismiss with the wave of a hand and a sniff:

You can have no idea what I turn my back on. All the great spiritual aspects of this creation are but a reflection of God and are to be embraced.

With the arts, there is many aspects that need to have the back turned on.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

God is not a tangible fact, and can't be examined, tested, confirmed or refuted.

Using the Evidence available, I disagree with that statement.

God to me is tangible and can be examined, tested and confirmed via the evidence.

I do not need the 5 senses for this to be a reality, we have available the Spirit of humanity that can connect to the Holy Spirit.

Dreams and visions can become reality and surpass anything the material senses can offer.

Many records in the evidence provided are available.

Regards Tony

 

[rational experiences]

TagliatelliMonster said: ↑
Evolution is the testable proposed mechanism for the data we have.
When tested, it checks out.

There is no other proposed mechanism with equal, let alone better, results.



The problem is Evolutionary theory cannot predict the future, but can only correlate the past. This is not a real theory, but a good correlation.

As an example, say we gather the data about every person who ever won a lottery. We have all the lottery fossils that came before today. We can correlate this data into a catalog as a function of time. If we just stay in the catalog it all seems to check out. But, like evolution, we cannot be extrapolate this data to the future, so we can know who will be the next winner.

As long as you stick to the old data, we can pretend to have it under control. You can arrange the catalog anyway you wish. This is more of a mind game, than a rational theory. Genuine cause and affect will be needed to extrapolate to the future. If cause is replaced by Lady Luck, we may not know the affect since the gods are fickle.

If Lady Luck is the cause, in both lotteries and evolution, what is the science behind Lady Luck, so we can know her mind and what she will do next? How does she differ from God? The religious assume God is the cause for the affect ,that we call all modern animals. How does lady luck differ? The Lady Luck approach cannot even fill in missing links between data; where we have no data. If I left out a few lottery winners from 5 years ago, that correlation will also be stumped to fill them in. It will be all speculation.

I would downgrade the Theory of Evolution to the Correlation of Evolution, until it can predict the future, successfully. The reason we need or do this, is now can rest on its laurels, as being more than it really is. It really needs to go back to the drawing board, so the correlation can evolve and make rational predictions. If you cannot predict the future or the gaps, the theory falsifies itself. Use the current theory, make a prediction, and if it fails, we junk it. Or go back, make it better, and then we run the test.

There are ways to improve the theory so it is not just a magic trick. For example, the second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. While entropy has been found to be a state variable. Any given state of matter will have a constant entropy. Life can be modeled as a state. Evolution should be connected to increasing entropy, jumping from stable state to stable state as entropy increases. Stable states persist, while unstable states will disappear or evolve into stable states. This can be correlated to water. Increasing entropy has a direction; higher and higher over time. Lady Luck has no sense of direction. The former has the potential to be a theory, while the latter is stuck at correlation; nilly willy.

In natural life real law that conversation you just expressed owns no sense.

A human lives first the human to be a thinker to theory. To exist only.

In law the topic science law owns why a human exists first and it's survival balanced all natural words and choices.

Future as the word. Once first just planet earth. God as rock existed.

Man theist used GOD GOD twice and lies.

God the rock planet opened its coldest energy mass rock not burning no light coldest energy in space into a mass black hole. Volcanic. Mass black hole hottest energy mass.

With coldest womb colder than rock is law above that of mass...nothing. formed gases. Clear.

The sun a mass ejection formed light in the gas by its mass. Not gods earth rock.

See how dangerous the past as law is to the future just heavens mass. About light?

And you aren't there as a man in any of that advice gods past gods future.

You said heavens was earths own future. Just a mass heavens.

You won't ever know the future as the whole mass has to not exist first as gases.

 

[Alien826]

Wow. Just .... wow!

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Banning premarital sex is another one. It made sense at one time, but we have moved past then. If you go back to the Old Testament women were basically property. Rape was not a crime against the woman as much as it was a crime against the father or husband. Baha'i morality is an improvement but it is not perfect.

For the religious, marriage is between three central figures: the husband, the wife and God. Baha'is are already conditioned, like Christians, to believe that religious law is meant to be taken seriously, but acknowledge already that everybody breaks God's law at times. If I had to guess I bet there's plenty of Baha'is who have sex before marriage (just not @Trailblazer ) and there are plenty of gay Baha'is who get married. It's just not officially sanctioned by the religion.

Because the Baha'i Faith is one of the world's youngest religions, it's also a religion that promotes peace and tolerance amongst its kind. If they condoned sex between unmarried couples or between two men or two women, you remove the part of marriage that is meant to be for God. Before we had all this fancy technology, people were only able to reproduce via vaginal sex, so reproduction was a much bigger thing back then, keeping in line that you have your own kin and they stay faithful towards the religion.

Now that it is medically possible for two men or two women to have children, or simply able to adopt or have a surrogate, the concept of traditional marriage, which was focused on reproduction, is no longer as important as it used to be. My question to Baha'is, and to all of the religious community is: homosexuality is a natural evolutionary trait. In fact, being gay corresponds to not just being a homosexual, but being happy as well. If God made certain people gay, and everybody is God's children, doesn't that also mean that God condones those feelings too?

Now, I know this doesn't apply to everything. Some people are born antisocial. They're destructive. If they are God's children, then God himself must be antisocial, too, right? Well, what if all the good and bad of humans is also represented in God? What if God is everything humans are, and everything we're not, too? I mean, if someone who is antisocial is one of God's children, isn't it true then that God is capable of just about any behavior -- but uses us to enact those feelings? I guess God is partially antisocial, and definitely bisexual. God is all of these things and more.

But what we need to remember that destructive tendencies in humans, like antisocial personality behaviors, aren't divine characteristics in people - they are there to remind us of what good people have in themselves, too. Baha'is often suggest that you cannot know what good is without evil, and that evil is simply the absence of light, or God. If there was light, or God, everywhere, nothing would be good nor evil. I'm not entirely sure I can believe this, and I honestly believe humans will make enough progress to not only define definitive good and evil, as I am a moral objectivist, but I also believe we will go beyond that too, becoming post-moral too.

Conservatives will often note this study that suggests that waiting to have children after 21 and getting married means your chances of being in poverty falls to just a 2% chance. Religions often create artificial boundaries for people to help them achieve the most success at their lives. When I listen to Joel Osteen (which isn't often, but he is uber-popular) he often talks more like a life-coach to me or a success guru than a religious figure. Maybe both roles are played by him. But typically those who have sex before marriage are often having kids out of wedlock and possibly before they turn 21 too.

Baha'is who do not follow their own religious law has virtually no repercussions for doing so - except one thing. Covenant breaking. Claiming that you have a Baha'i-centric religion and wanting to create a denomination of the Baha'i Faith is such a no-no in the religion that you can be permanently expelled from it, just by mentioning it - in a similar fashion that the Islamic world treats Baha'i "apostates". Simply put, if you are a gay Baha'i who has sex before marriage with your same-sex partner, that might not look good for the Baha'is, but if a straight and otherwise Baha'i-law obedient was caught trying to divide the unity of the Baha'i Faith and thus covenant breaking, the gay Baha'i would stay Baha'i and the straight Baha'i would be expelled from the religion.

In that case, does religious law even matter anymore? Yes, all religions say things about God that he wishes us to do. For us to have a better, more prosperous society at large. But unless you get expelled for essentially breaking the covenant, it doesn't really matter. Of course, there are religions like Jehovah Witnesses that doesn't allow homosexuality, or anything different for that matter. You can be expelled for Jehovah Witnesses just by being a smoker! Of course, Baha'is don't like it when people smoke, but you aren't considered covenant breaking in the Baha'i Faith if you do, but you are covenant breaking as a JW if you do smoke!

I wouldn't be surprised if the UHJ starts to accept gay marriages, but I would be surprised if they allowed sex before marriage. As I said before, marriage for the religious is a contract between two people and God, and if you remove the idea that God needs to approve of your sex before marriage, why call it a religion at all? The way I see it, marriage not only shows commitment but it also shows to other people that you are taken. The ring that you wear, and the covenant you make before your friends and family - essentially your localized version of God - symbolizes that you will be faithful towards your partner. And how is waiting until marriage, and protecting that covenant, before having sex immoral at the least? Abstinence means no unwanted pregnancies, and no sexual diseases transmitted between a commited couple.

And remember, Baha'is forbid both asceticism and monasticism, so you can't play that card and say that they are restricting people in those ways, either. In almost every way I see the Baha'i way of life better, with a few small disagreements. In any case, religious law is meant to be taken as advice, not like political law which you can be arrested for. Atheists like you take religious law as if it is as serious as political law, and read the Bible and other texts as if the whole thing is meant to be taken literally. Ironically, it is only die-hard atheists and fundamentalists who do take everything these people say word for word. By understanding the symbolism these religions place, you start to understand where they are truly coming from - not what people like Ken Ham or Bill Nye want you to believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK. You've restated what I initially asked about. To clarify, I'm asking what the significance of their belief in God/s is. We all agree that theism is and has been widespread, but how does this relate to the thread's subject: Evidence.

The way it related to evidence is that in order for belief in God to become widespread there had to be some evidence.
I can already predict what you are going to say, that all those people believe in God even though there is no evidence for God, but that is illogical. How many people believe in pink unicorns or sky fairies?

That's a very broad definition, unworkably broad. It would render faith-based my belief in a heliocentric Earth the germ theory. My take:
Faith is poorly evidenced or unevidenced belief.
Knowledge is well evidenced belief.
Proof is the percentage of alcohol in a beverage, or a solution in mathematics.

My take:
Faith can exist with no evidence, poor evidence, or good evidence. There is no correlation between faith and evidence. Faith is what is necessary when there is no proof, even if we have good evidence.
Knowledge exists when we have well evidenced belief.
Proof is evidence that establishes a fact or the truth of a statement.

And I agree with this. The rub lies in the "good evidence." Thus far, the only evidence I've seen cited is subjective evidence; or logically or factually flawed evidence. This subjective evidence may be very clear and convincing to the individual, but it's epistemically useless. It can't be used in a thread to support or refute God or religion.

What we're asking for is Objective evidence, which can be examined, tested and evaluated. Your subjective evidence is like trying to grasp water.

There is no objective evidence for God because God cannot be can be examined, tested or evaluated.
There is objective evidence for Baha'u'llah because the evidence for Baha'u'llah can be can be examined, tested or evaluated.
We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are 'actual facts' surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

The evidence for Baha'u'llah is not subjective but the way we interpret that evidence is subjective.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Why is it immoral to disallow sex between homosexuals, and not allow Baha'i homosexuals to marry?
Something is not immoral just because some people do not approve of it, it is only immoral if God disapproves of it, since God sets the standards for human morality. If we allow humans to set their own standards what would that be based upon, the consensus of public opinion?

As a syntheist I believe people create God. Baha'u'llah set a standard. No sex before marriage, no marriages between two same-sex couples. If Baha'u'llah had not established that, and said both were okay, you'd be okay with both too, but because your personal opinion is also a factor, you might not even be a Baha'i at that point. Humans are the closest thing to a Syntheos in the Synverse, we are the apex of evolution on Earth. We create God by developing laws and procedures. Some people developed more utilities than others, and conquered their lands because of this. They became closer to God by understanding it. Marriage is a contract by God, because it is an event that represents your dedication to someone else, at least for the time they are alive - or until you divorce. God, in this case, is represented by the people who attend your wedding, or see that you have a ring worn on you. I have a wedding ring worn because I have a dedication towards knowing and understanding God, and for me, God comes before any single person, including myself, on Earth. I paid $80 and the tattoo really hurt, but now I have a story to people on why I have a wedding ring tattoo without particularly being married to any individual.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, then. Pastafarianism is legitimate evidence of God. And I suppose hallucinations are legitimate evidence of flying pink elephants, as well.

If you believe that it is only your personal opinion.

How is a belief actual evidence of the thing believed?

It isn't.

Again, objective evidence consists of tangible facts that can be examined and evaluated. God is not a tangible fact, and can't be examined, tested, confirmed or refuted. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he can be discussed, claims can be made about him and testimony cited, but it leads nowhere, epistemically.

I just covered that in the post above.
#2397 Trailblazer, 4 minutes ago

 

[Trailblazer]

As a syntheist I believe people create God. Baha'u'llah set a standard. No sex before marriage, no marriages between two same-sex couples. If Baha'u'llah had not established that, and said both were okay, you'd be okay with both too, but because your personal opinion is also a factor, you might not even be a Baha'i at that point. Humans are the closest thing to a Syntheos in the Synverse, we are the apex of evolution on Earth. We create God by developing laws and procedures. Some people developed more utilities than others, and conquered their lands because of this. They became closer to God by understanding it. Marriage is a contract by God, because it is an event that represents your dedication to someone else, at least for the time they are alive - or until you divorce. God, in this case, is represented by the people who attend your wedding, or see that you have a ring worn on you. I have a wedding ring worn because I have a dedication towards knowing and understanding God, and for me, God comes before any single person, including myself, on Earth. I paid $80 and the tattoo really hurt, but now I have a story to people on why I have a wedding ring tattoo without particularly being married to any individual.

I believe that God created humans, not that humans created God. How could humans create God? Well, I guess that depends upon who or what you believe God is.

I would still believe in no sex before marriage no marriages between two same-sex couples even if Baha'u'llah had not established that. I never had sex before I became a Baha'i even though I had plenty of opportunities. It makes no sense to me that sex or marriage would be between two people of the same gender since the human body was not designed for sex acts between same sexes. I consider it an abuse of what God created sex for, which is procreation.