Evidence

[Subduction Zone]

It seems that I was mistaken about that. @TransmutingSoul just told me that I was mistaken that this thread was to convince anyone. He said it was to establish what evidence was.

But he never did that. All he could do was to refer to dogma. He won't even define what he means by evidence. Preaching is probably the best assessment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems we agree on something and that's the purpose of this thread, proselytising.

Times ten!

 

[John53]

Ask and thou shall receive

Bahá’í Reference Library | The Bahá’í Faith

Regards Tony

I might need an Australian section or something that starts simpler. I don't even know how to pronounce Baha'i or Baha'u'llah. And I've stumbled on the first paragraph of the page as I've never searched the depths of the oceans....

Whoso hath searched the depths of the oceans that lie hid within these exalted words, and fathomed their import, can be said to have discovered a glimmer of the unspeakable glory with which this mighty, this sublime, and most holy Revelation hath been endowed.”

— Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who failed?

Regards Tony

It is rather obvious to everyone that you did. When one starts a thread and cannot answer reasonable questions about the topic that is considered a failure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would rather say that sense of guilt is justified.

How would you justify that?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Or, just maybe, and since there does not appear to be a good reason not to, they could see if they were compatible or not.

By getting married, one would find out..

What is the reason why a person would rather have a relationship outside of marriage? Is it that they do not want to take responsibility?
What, exactly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't start this thread as you say. I do consider this thread to be a mistake. It won't lead to anything productive probably. Not with @Subduction Zone anyway. I doubt that anyone will be persuaded here that God exists, or that Baha'u'llah is a true Prophet, not in any thread. I just try to make friends where I can. I can learn here, too, sometimes. @Seeker of White Light believed in Baha'u'llah through Baha'u'llah, not through any Baha'is.

Oh my, do you know why it won't have a productive result for me? Do you think that it might have to do with the OP? And this is not how you go about making friends.

All that the OP had to do was to come up with some evidence instead of empty claims.

 

[John53]

It seems that I was mistaken about that. @TransmutingSoul just told me that I was mistaken that this thread was to convince anyone. He said it was to establish what evidence was.

And then a few posts in stated that he would not debate evidence so I'm a bit cynical of his response to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By getting married, one would find out..

What is the reason why a person would rather have a relationship outside of marriage? Is it that they do not want to take responsibility?
What, exactly?

So you are for a high divorce rate?

And why have a sexual relationship outside of a marriage? Because sex is enjoyable. Because there is no good reason not to if reasonable precautions are taken.

Why wouldn't one do so?

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, then you don't have knowledge, you have beliefs. That is why we reject what you believe, it isn't knowledge, and that's because it isn't factual.

There are plenty of facts surrounding the Baha'i Faith.

How important are facts within your religious beliefs?

You asked m what would prove to atheists that a God exists and I said the elimination of childhood diseases, and then you respond with a bewildering set of accusations and defensive positions. Why didn't you just accept what my answer was? I find the fact that children, and even adults, suffer from genetic diseases to be something no loving god would allow. Theists claim their God can do anything, and that is something I want to see happen. I consider my attitude of saving children from fatal diseases to be a moral thing on my part.

No, I just responded a question, a question no atheist can answer.
"A better question is why God should perform miracles just to prove to a few atheists that He exists?"

Then I asked why children are more important than adults:
"Why are kids more important to you than adults? We are all humans."

I don't share your beliefs about this. Any reference to vindictive or judging Gods is irrelevant. It doesn't affect my thinking, and I have no worries.

I said nothing about a vindictive judging God.
I said "Those who accept and believe will receive their reward, the others will forfeit the reward."

Yet you are critical of atheists for being atheists, so why is that?

Please show me where I was ever critical of atheists. I am not.

We thinkers are interested in the truth, not believing the tradition of myth.

So are university scholars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said nothing about a vindictive judging God.
I said "Those who accept and believe will receive their reward, the others will forfeit the reward."

I love the first claim and then the instant self-contradiction.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I want to contribute more to this thread, but there are at times too many things going on for me to keep track of in it, in general.

@Seeker of White Light was mentioned. I just hope he's doing alright because we haven't heard from him in awhile, and I'm worried that his embrace of femininity as a man, and his choice to be a Baha'i, could in some cases, if taken far enough, contradict. I just hope he isn't shunned by the Baha'i community over it, because I feel he's a good person.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So you are for a high divorce rate?

Well, that is not a good attitude to have when embarking on a relationship.
i.e. assuming it won't work out

Because there is no good reason not to if reasonable precautions are taken.

Why wouldn't one do so?

A believer knows that it is "trouble" .. fights in pubs over women, and broken glasses in people's faces. Pfft !

 

[Trailblazer]

You amaze me. First, all these things would happen in a short period, so it's the total impact we are considering. Second, each thing is accompanied by a message from God.

Yet, you hand wave it all away, all the while continuing to claim that some old writings are evidence for God. Words fail me.

The reason it could never be evidence for God is because it could never happen unless God took over everyone's minds, in case we would all be robots, not humans. That was my point.

My other point is that even if it did happen it would not be evidence that God exists to everyone.
There isn't anything that is going to be evidence for everyone, since everyone thinks differently.

I never claimed that "some old writings" are evidence for God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that is not a good attitude to have when embarking on a relationship.
i.e. assuming it won't work out

Of course it isn't. But you were the one with the unreasonable standard.

A believer knows that it is "trouble" .. fights in pubs over women, and broken glasses in people's faces. Pfft !

No, and that is a huge problem. Believers only tend to believe. They avoid actual knowledge. If one knows something one can demonstrate it. If the only reason is that "My holy book says that it is bad" then they only have mere belief and not knowledge.

 

[F1fan]

You always say what is not evidence. Maybe you should say exactly what would be evidence.

If you heard there is a guy named Jim Sanderson and people are saying that he speaks to God, would you be impressed? He's known to have said that if people follow his method that it will please God. Don''t you think you should listen to him? Shouldn''t you follow Sanderson? His method pleases God.

Are you impressed? Would you use his method?

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

I've already answered this, and you resopnded poorly to my suggestion of God making all children safe from defects and cancers, among other diseases. I don't understand why you were so hostile towards 1. definitive evdience of a God likely existing, and 2. a moral act.

What believers accept as evidence is selective bias. You don't accept Scientology, JW, Mormonism, Islam, the Uranantia Book, right? All these groups have believers that accepted their evidence too, but not you. You accepted Baha'i claims for some reason, and it isn't due to the evidence, it was something else. Why? Bceause what Baha'i say is evidence is no batther than any other of the religions I listed.

 

[Secret Chief]

Maybe best I supply your own solution.

Regards Tony

I take it that's a no then?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Have you taken the time as best you can what kind of person Baha'u'llah was? It would take some work, believe me, for an independent investigator, as enemies of Baha'u'llah have muddied up the picture. Perhaps you don't believe that has a bearing on the matter. However, you could determine, perhaps whether he has a good probability of being a liar, or a good probability of telling the truth about His claim. Is there evidence he was deluded or crazy? If neither of those that narrows the possibilty that His claim was unfounded. Have you read enough of Baha'u'llah's writings to form an informed opinion about whether they might possibly be the truth? The writings also impinge on the possibility of Him being crazy, if not deluded.

I have read what followers of Baha'u'llah claim are his most compelling writings and have not found them to be any more convincing than any other claims made by other professed messengers from god. Was he a liar, crazy, or deluded? I don't know. He could have been all or none of the above. All I know for certain is that if such messengers are the best evidence this god being has for itself then it's a very ineffectual god being.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course it isn't. But you were the one with the unreasonable standard.
No, and that is a huge problem. Believers only tend to believe. They avoid actual knowledge. If one knows something one can demonstrate it. If the only reason is that "My holy book says that it is bad" then they only have mere belief and not knowledge.

If, for instance, one knows that hellfire is not something ascertained in the Bible as true, in other words, God does not have a raging fire ready to torture the "unsaved," but others believe hellfire actually exists -- ready, willing and able, so to speak, to torture the unsaved forever -- yet refuse to have a cogent discussion about this from the Bible, then what? Does that mean that belief is blind?

 

[Trailblazer]

Belief, not acceptance. I can see how God would want us to choose whether to accept him (whatever that may mean), but belief depends on how likely the proposition seems to each individual person. Hiding from us would seem to stack the deck in favor of the easily convinced. A level playing field would be something easy to believe (because it is easily seen or experienced) coupled with a free choice, with neither carrot nor stick.

That's the catch. If evidence for God was easily seen or experienced everyone would choose to believe, and that would be too easy. God does not want to be easily believed. God wants us to prove our worthiness by making some effort. If it were too easy to believe then God would not be able to separate out people who are really willing to make an effort to believe from those who aren't.

However, the fact that most people in the world are believers means that it cannot be as hard as you make it seem.

Incidentally, God wouldn't have to interfere with our free will. Just make his existence more obvious.

That's true, but as I said above, if evidence for God was easily seen or experienced everyone would choose to believe.

That's a small question with a big answer. This thread is long enough already.

I'd sure like to see the big answer, someday.
The small answer is that most people believe in God because of a Messenger, Holy man, Prophet, or whatever you choose to call him. Atheists reject these individuals as evidence for God, which is why they don't believe in God.

Nice quotation (seriously). I assume then that he doesn't, elsewhere, make any definitive claims about the nature of God or what God wants of us?

He never reveals the intrinsic nature of God. He only reveals some attributes of God and what God wants of us.