Evidence

[Trailblazer]

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

Believers already learned what they needed to learn in order to believe.
What do atheists want to learn and how are they going to learn it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

You had quite a few responses in that thread. Did you read any of them?

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?

Let me get this straight. You think that in a scenario where:

- all evidence is entirely consistent with God's non-existence (though God hasn't been conclusively disproven), and

- no evidence points toward God's existence,

... the claim that God does not exist would have no advantage over the claim that God does 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.

Agnosticism isn't a neutral position.

The assertion of agnosticism - i.e. that the existence of deities is unknowable - still implies that all theistic religion is false.

 

[F1fan]

Well that is simply incorrect about it not being evidence. Billions do accept a Messenger, a Revelation and the Written Word as evidence.

This is a fallacy, argument by popularity. It is irrlevant how many believe in some concept, that doesn't mean it is true. Truth is established by verifiable and valid evidence, not claims. You offer claims, not evidence.

God encompasses the past, present and future, all the seen and unseen worlds. God is outside of time. All creation emanates from God, the nature of reality includes all of the past and the future. The evidence of this is contained in the Word of God and is proof of this statement. That Word confirms the past and tells of the future.

There are no gods known to exist. These are just more claims.

I see you are yet to accept what is valid evidence.

The Person

Baha'u'llah is a person. It doesn;t mean he was a messnger from God. That is dubious.

[quoite]The Revelation
The Word given.[/quote]
The revelation is not so impressive that the only conclusion is that it came from a supernatural source. The texts were most just invented by Baha'u'llkah himself.

These 3 together are the evidence.

Depends what one is searching for.

Only if you assume it is all what you assume it is. Not to a rational mind.

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.

"Creation" is a religious term, and of course that use implies there as a reator. But this isn't factual, this is religious and has no basis in reality, so we dismiss your claim. And messengers are not known to be legitimate, as you haven't provided evidenbce that they are as you claim they are.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Well that is simply incorrect about it not being evidence. Billions do accept a Messenger, a Revelation and the Written Word as evidence.

Your response seems to imply that the "evidence" you posted in your OP is true because "billions do accept a messenger, a revelation, and the written word as evidence." Is that correct? If so, then, as another Baha'i pointed out in her post, argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is a fallacy, argument by popularity. It is irrlevant how many believe in some concept, that doesn't mean it is true. Truth is established by verifiable and valid evidence, not claims. You offer claims, not evidence.

The Claim is supported by the only Evidence God Gives us.

The Person
The Revelation
THE Message.

I have covered this in posts to others, refer to them.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Your response implies that the so-called "evidence" you posted in your OP is true because "billions do accept a messenger, a revelation, and the written word as evidence." As another Baha'i member pointed out in one of her posts, 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.

This OP is not about if we find truth in the evidence. It is about what constitutes evidence, so we can make a determination, with no compulsion, in the manner we choose to about a Claim the Message is from God.

It is offering that people easily and unjustly reject what is valid evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[Alien826]

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.

You're right! I googled "message from god" and got 1,260,000,000 hits. Now all we have to do is sort through them. The mystery of the ages solved!

 

[Quintessence]

Surely the Judeo Christian claim that there is only one god compared to the claim of some religions (pick your own example) that there are multiple gods would introduce just a teeny sliver of doubt about all god claims being true?

For some, sure - those who think there is truth rather than truths would struggle with this idea.

For others, not so much - those who think there are truths rather than truth accept the paradox.

Perhaps ironically, the extreme doubts I have about the human capacity for knowledge is why I embrace paradox. Humans are not omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent. Even if a singular truth is the reality of things (which is easily up for debate in of itself), humans don't have the capacity to know it (or know that they know it). Humans just tell stories about what they think and experience, which are true in some sense to the story's teller. That is sufficient for me.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You're right! I googled "message from god" and got 1,260,000,000 hits. Now all we have to do is sort through them. The mystery of the ages solved!

That is indeed the quandary, much evidence has been provided, from many sources for us to consider.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Great minds think alike. I posted a similar response to the same OP quote as you did without even realizing it. I certainly agree with you that just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean it's true. We know that for an absolute fact with Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters insisting that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.

This OP is not about the truth of the Evidence.

It is about what constitutes Evidence that is given to support a claim.

What was offered is that billions of people except what constitutes Evidence. It is not about all those billions agreeing the evidence supports the claims.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

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.

We need evidence that the text has content that in no way an ordinary person could know at the time. There is none for Baha'u'llah and his texts.

Believers are easily convinced, critical thinkers are not. We thinkers are the threshold claimants need to satisfy.

Every human has the capacity to recognize the Messenger.

Based on what facts? All we see is people very willing to believe in a religion as being convinced, not critical thinkers. Explain this capacity as a fact.

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.

There is no clear evidence of this. This seems to be something a believer tells themselves to avoid having doubts.

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.

But you are a person who needs a religion to believe in, not a critical thinker.

 

[Trailblazer]

You had quite a few responses in that thread. Did you read any of them?

I read all of them. I always read all the posts on threads that I started.

Let me get this straight. You think that in a scenario where:

- all evidence is entirely consistent with God's non-existence (though God hasn't been conclusively disproven), and

- no evidence points toward God's existence,

... the claim that God does not exist would have no advantage over the claim that God does exist?

A. all evidence is entirely consistent with God's non-existence (though God hasn't been conclusively disproven),
B. no evidence points toward God's existence,

If A and B were true, then the claim that God does not exist would have an advantage over the claim that God does exist.
However, if A and B are false, then the claim that God exists would have an advantage over the claim that God does not exist.

Agnosticism isn't a neutral position.

The assertion of agnosticism - i.e. that the existence of deities is unknowable - still implies that all theistic religion is false.

It does not imply that all theistic religion is false. It implies that since it cannot be known whether God exists it cannot be known whether a theistic religion is true or false.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're right! I googled "message from god" and got 1,260,000,000 hits. Now all we have to do is sort through them. The mystery of the ages solved!

Obviously, you have to narrow down the search.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

However I get a tad peeved when someone starts claiming they are posting indisputable fact. Not to mention the snide comments directed at those who don't agree with them.

And yet the most observable candidates for this come from mainstream Darwinian followers. I think you need to look in the mirror a little more often.

Eyewitness testimony has demonstrated itself to be unreliable.

Not when that testimony is validated by multiple sources of using different forms of transmission. As i said, there is no evidence that supports the idea that Codex Sinaiticus or the Dead Sea scrolls have been manipulated over the last 2 millennia. The Dead Sea scrolls in particular remained as they were found for almost 2000 years and yet they are the same as modern texts that should have been exposed to Chinese Whispers had this been a "con". That is very clearly not the case...so your point on this is absolutely false.

If I said that I went to the grocery store and met an extra-terrestrial, and I could demonstrate that I went to the grocery store with my receipts, would you also believe that I met an extra-terrestrial?

Again, there is no way to attempt to relate the conspiracy of extraterrestrials with the bible account. We have ancient sources outside of the Bible from other civilizations and cultures who document the same story and we have physical evidence that irrefutably supports the historical record. Can you show me one piece of scholarly reviewed physical evidence in support of aliens? I have lots of physical evidence to support the historical account of the Bible (i am not arguing God...simply the written history)

Have you read the Bible? Multiple times in the Bible, it gives conflicting accounts of the same events

pray do tell, what are those conflicting accounts exactly? I can assure you that if you really do believe this, then you have not researched the scholarly discussions and consensus about these "conflicting accounts".

It's my understanding that the Dead Sea Scrolls are widely seen to demonstrate quite the opposite of this. They demonstrate quite a diversity of contradictory sources, as well as changes to familiar texts

um that's a new one to me...what changes are you laying claim to with this? The general consensus as far as I am aware is that these scrolls are the greatest affirmation of the integrity of the Bible in history. So i think you might need to produce some pretty compelling "new evidence to the contrary on this one"

The Bible also refers to a mass exodus from Egypt which couldn't have happened and claims that the origin of humanity is in the modern-day region of Saudi Arabia, formed 6,000 years ago. You're cherry-picking.

Why couldn't it have happened? We actually have other historical writings now that indicate pretty strongly the Israelites hdid plunderethe Egyptians and then leave that region. I not aware of any Biblical claim the origin of humanity is Saudi Arabia. My understanding is that after the flood it is very unlikely that the original 4 rivers talked about were still in the same locations as preflood...so we just don't know. When we talk post flood, the bible clearly says Noah came down out of the Ark from the Mountains of Ararat. That is in modern day Turkey. Some of the group moved out into Mesopotamia and from there spread all over the place. I don't see any claim to Saudi as being a possible Christian view given it is not whats even written in the Bible.

Can you reference a little more on this one...I'I am genuinely interested in reading your information on this point.

The fact that Pontus Pilate exists doesn't realistic provide any credibility to the gospel accounts.

To answer this question:
1. Do you believe Socrates [the father of philosophy] existed? Do you know that its very likely he is nothing more than a character construct of Plato...especially given that two other known sources who apparently attest to his existence, though not necessarily having met him, were also closely associated with the school of Plato?
2. If a historical account of Pontius Pilot in the Bible, is also supported by the finding of archaeological artifacts...i am not sure what you are trying to state above. It appears to be ignoring the existence of something/someone that is quite literally, slapping you in the face! If we now know Pontius Pilate really did exist and was a Roman Governor, doesn't that actually support the Bible account of Him as being true rather than a fairytale as has been claimed by humanists? I am not sure exactly what your point is here? I am not arguing the deity of Christ...I am simply arguing the historical authenticity of the writings in the New Testament. Even Bart Erhman attests they are historically authentic. He simply denies the deity of Christ because he has a theological issue with the idea that a powerful deity would not force us to be robots by preventing evil and/or ensuring we have the original autographs of the new testament. He is asking God to create some kind of modern day internet and ensure that words written on papyri, that the papyri itself would go outside of science and not decay over time irrespective of whether or not its environment of storage was dry moist or otherwise (that is absurd). God protected his autograph in a far better way and that is why its existence largely unchanged is so incredible. It is a way better testament than us potentially having the original. Bart is, and has consistently been proven, completely wrong on this claim.

We don't teach these things because they're one-sided at best, but mostly because they're false.

Given my answers above, how do you support the claim it is false again?

Pascal's Wager doesn't demonstrate the truth of anything. It has no relevance to any argument about truth. It's wholly useless

Im sorry but when you back out of the driveway in your car, is the decision you make binary? I would argue it absolutely is, you have two choices...either leave home or stay at home. If you do not eat...will you live or die? That is binary. I could go on for hours about the debate over whether or not life is binary...it obviously is at some of the most basic level choices we make or have to make. It is ridiculous to attempt to input the "complexity argument into a denial of pascals wager. It ignores the stuff that comes long before the complexity...the fact we initially have a yes/no choice to make. The non binary is simply the "other stuff" that helps us make the binary choice.
So i challenge the view that Pascals Wager is wholly useless. The idea that you claim it has no relevance to truth is an entertaining one...have you ever had kids? Any parent who has raised children would immediately recognise the huge problem with your claim there!
In any case, we [Christians] are not asking Pascals Wager to answer the question "what is truth?" Im not sure why you would write that as a means of denying the validity of it? We are simply stating that lives choices are at the fundamental level, simple ones...binary. The convenience of life is what changes that by adding complexity. Even Maslows hierarchy of human needs illustrates this concept in that the more foundational to survival the choice, the less complex the variables that choice become.

I am simply trying to get individuals to move their focus down the tree to more foundational-level stuff. Ask the questions, how did all this start? Where did i really come from? What happens next after this life?
Our search for answers should adequately test the responses given to us. Those responses should be able to start with some kind of eyewitness and the reason for this is simple...we tend not to believe stuff people claim that does not have eyewitness testimony or some written account that can be verified using external sources.

You would rather believe something that has its very foundation on a hypothesis ...the irony being, that hypothesis denies the credibility of the very fundamental doctrine of modern science:
1. that we can neither create nor destroy energy and matter,
2. a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist; that is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings.

How then pray tell did the Big Bang occur? Do you not see how well my belief explains what according to Science is impossible even in the world of secular humanism and Darwinian theory?

I can adequately explain the Big Bag no problem and stay within my world view. It largely fits with my world view and i don't even need to bend my theology to achieve that view. I don't need to have different theories about the foundation of science in order to enable the impossible to happen. I can stay true to the discovery of individuals such as:
Thales of Miletus (550BCE)
Empedocles (490-430BCE)
Epicurus (350 BCE)
Simon Stevin (1639)
Christiaan Huygens (1669)
Gottfried Leibniz (1676-1689)
Isaaac Newton (1687)
The Father and son combo Bernoulli (1715)

all these and many more are listed on Wikipedia..easy to find

the list goes on...there are a large number of contributors. Now atheists are attempting to find ways around such a massive list of proponents of the law of conservation of energy...i find the lack of issue with this amongst humanism incredibly inconsistent indeed its fully hypocritical given that is the very argument being thrown at proponents of the historical authenticity of the bible!

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

If you want to claim that there is a God to give guidance the burden of proof is upon you. I might as well say that some theists defend their evil behavior by claiming that God said it is the right thing to do.

 

[Alien826]

Why would that be a cop out?

It's just saying "god could do it", which is probably true but avoids all other discussion.

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.

If everyone in the world were suddenly to believe that god existed, and not just any god but a specific definition of god, I'd take that as evidence. Wouldn't you?

"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.

I was thinking of inexplicable by any known scientific understanding.

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.

Given what some people believe, I guess so. What if it was spelled out by comets of something though?

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?

I think it would have to be followed up in some way. Like a warning to stop fighting followed, if it was disobeyed, by all weapons of war disappearing from the Earth. Then all disease instantly cured. Then ... well we can go on. No doubt some would claim it was aliens not a god, but I'd settle for that. They'd be near enough to a god for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Claim is supported by the only Evidence God Gives us.

The Person
The Revelation
THE Message.

I have covered this in posts to others, refer to them.

Regards Tony

And that it is just another claim has been pointed out to you in other posts. You need to support all three of those claims. It is not up to us to refute them. Claims are not accepted until the person supports them. Making a list of your claims is not evidence. All you have are more claims now that you have to support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Believers already learned what they needed to learn in order to believe.
What do atheists want to learn and how are they going to learn it?

I seriously doubt that. They may believe, but that does not mean that they learned anything. Knowledge is demonstrable and believers pretty much fail when they try to demonstrate what they "know".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your response seems to imply that the "evidence" you posted in your OP is true because "billions do accept a messenger, a revelation, and the written word as evidence." Is that correct? If so, then, as another Baha'i pointed out in her post, argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it.

Oh, I don't know..
It is a sure sign that something is going on. It is evidence, but whether it is valid evidence, is for us to decide for ourselves.
That's the purpose of a jury. They have to decide for themselves.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Knowledge is demonstrable and believers pretty much fail when they try to demonstrate what they "know".

Get you .. atheists can learn things, but others can't.
Most western universities have their roots in Christian belief.
Believers aren't as stupid as you seem to think.