Evidence

[Trailblazer]

Agreed, but that doesn't address or contradict my claim. My claim is that words that could have been written by men are not evidence of a channeled deity.

Baha’u’llah did not say that His Writings were the most important part of the evidence.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and if we fail to recognize either the one or the other of those, we are to look at His Writings.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

And what reward is that? A promise that needn't be fulfilled? There doesn't seem to be much value there before death for somebody comfortable with atheism, and there might be a significant cost.

Baha'is are enjoined not to do what we do for the reward in heaven, even though we know there will be a reward. We are enjoined to worship God for His sake, without fear of fire, or hope of paradise.

The primary reward does not come to us in this life, it comes after death, when we go to the next life.
What is the cost of belief? Baha'is live their lives fully, just like everyone else.

You couldn't determine that the message was from a god, but if it contained thoughts that men couldn't have written, then it wasn't of human origin. Suppose a message written before telescopes described the existence of the Kuiper belt. That needs some 'splainin'. But the kind of thing we just looked at? It's human.

I believe that it was from God, you believe it was human. Neither one of us can prove what we believe so why argue about it?

However, please note that I did not become a Baha’i because of what Baha'u'llah wrote. I only later read Gleanings, in June 2014, and realized it was from God. I became a Baha’i because the entirety of the religion made sense to me, and I used my rational mind and asked myself if there could be any other explanation for the existence of the Baha’i Faith. After 52 years I still cannot find another explanation other than it came to be because of a Revelation from God.

Baha’u’llah was either a Messenger of God or He was a lying con-man or He was deluded. NOTHING that Baha’u’llah did in His life and on His 40 year mission fits with Him being a con-man or a delusional man, so that is why, by the process of elimination, I believe He was a Messenger of God. Of course, you would have to read Baha'i history in order to know what He did. All of that is readily available in books and online.

Anyone who claims to be a critical thinker would ask themselves why Baha’u’llah would do what He did in His life and on His mission if He was a con-man or how He could do all that if He was delusional. That is not to even mention that He fulfilled all the Bible prophecies for the return of Christ and the coming of the Messiah, which is simply icing on the cake.

In short, there is no way for me to determine that Baha’u’llah was not who He claimed to be, because I have looked at ALL the evidence and there is too much evidence that indicates that He was exactly who He claimed to be.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Do Baha'is defend the beliefs and practices of any of the other religions? No. They believe all of them are wrong in some ways. Even though, most all of those religions has their proof and evidence that what they believe is true. So, how do the Baha'is know those other religions aren't true in some of the things they believe? By comparing them to what the Baha'i knows is the truth... the stuff their religion teaches.

Yeah, let's take a neutral position and analyze the so-called proof and evidence about the things they claim. But wait, we've already done it several times in several other Baha'i threads.

One "proof" would be, does the religion work? Kinda sorta. But I don't think it's working any better than any other religion. Like other "organized" religions, it still has a problem of having too many nominal believers and too many "inactive" members that can't be found. Which is kind of an indicator that things don't work all that well for all its members. For some? Sure. But what they are claiming is that by implementing the Baha'i teachings they can bring peace and unity to the world?

 

[Trailblazer]

Where you see failure on the part of theists to provide evidence of God, the theist sees a failure of perception on your part.

Glad you showed up and joined the party .

 

[Trailblazer]

That means s because theists tend to not understand the concept of evidence. Here they seem to think that dogma is evidence.

No theist I know ever claimed that dogma is evidence of God. Dogma is only evidence of men who wrote that dogma.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Or just teach, spread, proselytize their beliefs.

 

[muhammad_isa]

False. Theories in the social sciences have to succeed the scientific method just as the hard sciences. The methods are as rigorous and requires careful analysis. The only difference is that the hard sciences have a statistical minimum of 99.95% while the social sciences have a standard of 95%..

That's almost laughable..
..and what are the null hypotheses?
Are they always things that can be empirically proved? No.

The study I conducted in college examined the correlation between religiosity and attitudes towards science. My prediction was that the higher the religiosity the lower the trust and attitudes toward science. My result was over 99.9%.

Bully for you..

..yet that does not explain why there exists in psychology many different schools of thought.

 

[CG Didymus]

Maybe evidence is the wrong word. But the assumption that our beliefs are without foundation, and without reason, is erroneous and rather patronising.

Maybe not you, but some Christians don't believe the proofs, the evidence, the assumptions, and the claims of other religions. For instance, do you believe that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ and has been sent with the teachings from God to bring peace and unity to the world? If not, why not? But the Baha'is don't believe lots of things about Jesus that many Christians believe. Why don't they? Because they think they've got a newer and truer message from God. And in that message, it teaches that Jesus is not coming back. They believe it is Baha'u'llah who came in the "spirit" of Christ.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Maybe evidence is the wrong word. But the assumption that our beliefs are without foundation, and without reason, is erroneous and rather patronising.

That indeed is an option to pursue. The word evidence is not found a lot in the Baha'i Writings, yet one would have to conclude, that to prove a point one has to supply that proof from the given evidence? So let's explore!

Abdul'baha offers many times that it is with Rational Proofs and Traditional Arguments from the Sacred Scriptures that we can show that God exists.

These Rational Proofs have to be drawn from a source, which in my mind, it is logical that the source is used as evidence of the rational proof?

Is there any other way to offer that we are not drawing our rational proofs from the evidence given?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Maybe not you, but some Christians don't believe the proofs, the evidence, the assumptions, and the claims of other religions. For instance, do you believe that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ and has been sent with the teachings from God to bring peace and unity to the world? If not, why not? But the Baha'is don't believe lots of things about Jesus that many Christians believe. Why don't they? Because they think they've got a newer and truer message from God. And in that message, it teaches that Jesus is not coming back. They believe it is Baha'u'llah who came in the "spirit" of Christ.

This OP is about evidence. What is the evidence used in these discussions?

Regards Tony

 

[Alien826]

Oh my, icy shadow of intellect. What a derogatory implication that is really just bias against reliable thinking.

Where I’m standing is facts, reason, objectivity, science, tests in reality, and self-awareness. Your unwarranted bias must stand opposed to these for some reason, and I doubt you have put any thought into it.

There seems to be some kind of belief that those who rely on science must do so in every aspect of their lives. I'll give a personal example.

I'm learning to play the clarinet. How the notes are produced is a fascinating thing. It's all to do with pressure waves in a closed tube. I enjoy reading about that, but it's an intellectual form of enjoyment. On the other hand, when I hear a clarinet played well (not by me!) I don't think about that at all. I just surrender to the pleasurable sensations that the music evokes. These two approaches can be described as scientific and spiritual respectively (though I'm not fond of the word spiritual) but to me there is no conflict, and I don't have to get all religious about enjoying the music.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You have to read what i was responding to. Excuse me if I don't repeat it here. This thread is already growing faster than I can read it.

Yes, I have the same problem.

Maybe we can sort out what is Evidence?

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

God has defined what is Evidence.

So, an unknowable, invisible being defined what evidence is? I thought it was his manifestation that defined it? Or is it indirectly? God defined it through his manifestation who told us that God has defined it by the person, revelation and whatever the other thing was that the manifestation did. As pointed out several times, by several people, that is so circular.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That is all the defendant will give as proof of God.

Then the defendant has given ZERO proof, since all the defendant has provided are unverifiable claims. Defendant has failed to prove its claim, thus the case is dismissed.

So you have concluded that the evidence contained absolutely no proof? That's fine, no issue from me about that.

Can I ask, just out of interest, did you pursue any of the evidence provided?

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

"Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person."

This is ordinary thought, and typical from any believer, although they probably wouldn't use the flowery language unless they were in a pulpit. Here's what it says when you remove the affectations: God can't show himself to man. He's exalted in the extreme. He says he's the only God and he knows everything. He says he manifests through messengers, whose message has the whole world proclaiming him the best and the only god. You can't know this god except through messengers, whose credentials will be himself.

Now throw in a few veriliy's, season liberally with unnecessary capitals, and voila - evidence of a deity, right?

It depends on the person what effect Baha'u'llah's words have on them. Pardon what I say here, but to me this shows you don't have enough spiritual awareness to recognize the Word of God. Most people don't have this awareness, especially from a few random Baha'i Writings they see. I know I didn't when I first encountered the Baha'i Faith.

Like @Trailblazer said the frist criterion is the person of Baha'u'llah anyway. However, as we can't know him in person now, and the picture has been muddied up by certain enemies of Baha'u'llah about His life, it would take some time for an independent investigator to clear up this picture about his life.

In short, it would take a lot of work by you to establish the the truth, and I don't expect you to put in that work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No theist I know ever claimed that dogma is evidence of God. Dogma is only evidence of men who wrote that dogma.

What are you talking about? That is all that the OP has done. In post after post. Have you not been reading them?

 

[RestlessSoul]

No. That is not semantics. Why not do the honest thing and admit that you don't understand?

“I don’t believe in God”, and “I believe there is no God” are symmetrical statements. You can shuffle the words around a little, and there may be a slight change in emphasis, but there is no significant change in meaning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you have concluded that the evidence contained absolutely no proof? That's fine, no issue from me about that.

Can I ask, just out of interest, did you pursue any of the evidence provided?

Regards Tony

You only provided dogma not evidence. And you did not proved any of the tests that you claimed to exist either.

 

[Alien826]

I have journeyed and found God. It is for each to journey on his/her path haply they too may find Him. I did my search but I cannot do others search for them. Whether people find or don’t find God will depend solely on their own efforts.

I am absolutely 100% certain without doubt about my discovery. I am in no need of further evidence or proof as I know what I found but it’s up to each to search or not or deny as they wish. It’s their loss or gain not mine.

Meditation and prayer and reflecting on the Words of the Great Manifestations are very important but I cannot deliver God to anyone’s doorstep. Effort, sincere effort must be made or otherwise one can just go through life forever demanding proof when the only proof is given to those who search for it.

It’s perfectly ok to believe God is a myth or a superstitious Being created by man’s imagination. But for myself I ‘know with absolute certainty’ that God exists as I’ve done my search.

Anyway Happy New Year 2023. I wish you all the best and I really respect you and love reading your posts and I learn a lot from you.

I speak for myself, but I'm going to bet I am not alone. The last thing I would ever want is to shake someone's faith, if they are happy with it and it does no harm. This is a debate forum and people will debate on it, but in the end, let's not make it a hill to die on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“I don’t believe in God”, and “I believe there is no God” are symmetrical statements. You can shuffle the words around a little, and there may be a slight change in emphasis, but there is no significant change in meaning.

Not al all. "I don't believe in God" only says that one has a lack of belief. That implies that given evidence that a person may change his mind. "I believe there is no God" tells us that that person's mind is already made up. He or she may be close minded to any support for the existence of God. Please note how the OP claimed "evidence" but has not provided any. He only has provided claims. I do not think that he understand the concept of evidence.

 

[CG Didymus]

Then throw in all the Muslim and Christian sects that disagree with their fellow Muslims and Christians. I don't know much about Baha'i but I wouldn't be surprised if there are various sects of it.

The word of God is easily manipulated.

They kick out and shun all dissenters. Most of the prophet's own family were booted out. After every major transition, there was a power struggle.

And I'd call the Baha'is masters at manipulation of the words in the Scriptures of the other religions. Jesus didn't resurrect. There is no Satan. Ishmael, not Isaac, was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed, Krishna is a manifestation, not an incarnation, and he didn't teach about reincarnation, Buddha taught about God, Baha'u'llah is the "spirit of truth" that will be sent by God to the disciples.

But who, other than the believers in those things, actually believes that they were true? So, all Baha'is are doing is putting a symbolic interpretation on these things to make them compatible with Baha'i beliefs.