Evidence

[QuestioningMind]

No religious claims can be verified.
Messengers cannot be *verified* to have spoken for God because because God cannot be verified to exist.

The fact that the Messengers have no effect upon you and other atheists who disbelieve in them has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether God is weak and ineffectual.

1. God is not weak becaue He chooses to use Messengers to communicate. God uses them because the all-knowing God knows that Messengers are the *best way* to communicate to humans.

2. God is not ineffectual because the Messengers have had an effect on the vast majority of humans. I am not saying that *proves* God exists, as nobody can ever prove that God exists. You want verifiable evidence, which is proof, but there is no such proof, so you will just have to continue disbelieving.

Obviously God does not want us to have proof that He exists, because if God wanted us to have proof God could provide it, since God is omnipotent. God only wants us to have evidence that must be believed on faith, because God wants our faith. Obviously, there is nothing we can do to *make* God give is proof since we are not omnipotent.

No religious claims can be verified.
Messengers cannot be *verified* to have spoken for God because because God cannot be verified to exist.

Which is precisely why I lack any belief in any god or gods. Things that cannot be verified to be real do not warrant my belief.

1. God is not weak becaue He chooses to use Messengers to communicate. God uses them because the all-knowing God knows that Messengers are the *best way* to communicate to humans.

2. God is not ineffectual because the Messengers have had an effect on the vast majority of humans. I am not saying that *proves* God exists, as nobody can ever prove that God exists. You want verifiable evidence, which is proof, but there is no such proof, so you will just have to continue disbelieving.

All you're doing is making claims for which you have no evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I did not, but since you are making the claim it is your job to provide the proof.
Just *saying* that I contradicted myself is not proof.

Similarly, a Messenger of God can *say* "I am a Messenger of God" but that is only a claim, it is not proof.

You did, You should have asked now you contradicted yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you know? And he gained a significant following during his lifetime. So your claim of nothing to gain is shot.

Con artists don't do what they do for a following. Baha'u'llah had nothing to gain for Himself from having a following.

By definition, a con artist is a manipulator who cheats, or tricks, others through persuading them to believe something that is not true. Through deception, they fool people into believing they can make easy money when, in fact, it is the con artist who ends up taking the victim’s money.
The Art of the Con and Why People Fall for It

Sure, Baha'u'llah had a fair number of followers, but that was not because He was trying to convince anyone of who He was. They followed Him because they recognized who He was.

Baha'u'llah did not fit the profile of a con man. Con men do what they do to get something for themselves, usually money and sometimes power. Baha'u'llah gave up all his money and possessions when He declared His mission and He was powerless, nor did He ever stand to gain any power.

Baha'u'llah did what He did for the sake of God, not for anything else.

“Whatever, therefore, He saith unto you is wholly for the sake of God, that haply the peoples of the earth may cleanse their hearts from the stain of evil desire, may rend its veil asunder, and attain unto the knowledge of the one true God—the most exalted station to which any man can aspire. Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 85

 

[dybmh]

urged all to open their eyes and ears,

... until they reach certitude. After that their eyes and ears are closed.

Are eyes and ears open to the evidence that Baha'u'llah is not the Jewish messiah?
Are eyes and ears open to the objections from Buddists?
Are eyes and ears open to the objections from Hindu?
Are eyes and ears open to the objections from Christians?

No, certitdude closes the eyes, closes the ears.

 

[Trailblazer]

Evidence: an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects.

Please note that testimony alone can never be sufficient, for the simple reason that there is no way to compare one testimony to another which contradicts it and determine, based on the testimony alone, which is true.

The testimony of a Messenger of God is not evidence, it is only His claim.
A claim is not evidence. Evidence is required to support the claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Con artists don't do what they do for a following. Baha'u'llah had nothing to gain for Himself from having a following.

By definition, a con artist is a manipulator who cheats, or tricks, others through persuading them to believe something that is not true. Through deception, they fool people into believing they can make easy money when, in fact, it is the con artist who ends up taking the victim’s money.
The Art of the Con and Why People Fall for It

Sure, Baha'u'llah had a fair number of followers, but that was not because He was trying to convince anyone of who He was. They followed Him because they recognized who He was.

Baha'u'llah did not fit the profile of a con man. Con men do what they do to get something for themselves, usually money and sometimes power. Baha'u'llah gave up all his money and possessions when He declared His mission and He was powerless, nor did He ever stand to gain any power.

Baha'u'llah did what He did for the sake of God, not for anything else.

“Whatever, therefore, He saith unto you is wholly for the sake of God, that haply the peoples of the earth may cleanse their hearts from the stain of evil desire, may rend its veil asunder, and attain unto the knowledge of the one true God—the most exalted station to which any man can aspire. Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 85

Religious conmen are a bit different than monetary ones. Monetary conmen primarily want money. Religious conmen primarily want followers.

 

[Trailblazer]

605 posts in, and nobody has actually laid that evidence out yet. It can't be a good idea to start a thread saying, "If you want to know if I'm right, go look at the things I did, in the same way -- although I'm not going to tell you what those things are, nor how I interpreted them."

I think the mistake that Tony made was in the second sentence below, when he said that the evidence would be provided.

Tony said: "This OP is to finalise once and for all what is Evidence of God. After this OP there will be no need for anyone to demand evidence, as it will have been provided."

Tony later stated that his intention was not to provide the evidence but rather to determine what the evidence for God is.

 

[Secret Chief]

Tony later stated that his intention was not to provide the evidence but rather to determine what the evidence for God is.

And so how are we doing on that front?

 

[Trailblazer]

No, a simple evident excuse.

So close.

Incredible. As if an omnipotent/omniscient God would ever need an excuse for anything He chooses to do.
NOTHING could be more illogical.

 

[Alien826]

By getting married, one would find out..

Yes, too late to do anything about it. Would you buy a car on those terms?

The real problem is that people's (mainly women, they can't help it) sexual desire changes over time. It's a big deal for the sexier one, as the rules of marriage won't let them go elsewhere.

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?

That's a very interesting question, with many answers, and very off topic so I'll keep it short. In my case, after two divorces, I determined never to put the distribution of my property in the hands of a judge again. Oddly, my third committed relationship has turned out better than the first two. Weird huh?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Claims that can't be verified are about the weakest evidence someone can provide. Thus if there are genuinely 'messengers from god' then I can only conclude that this god is extremely weak and ineffectual and probably not worthy of my attention.

One has to combine the 3 layers of evidence to understand the Claim being made.

That is why the evidence is provided.

This OP is only about identifying the valid evidence. The OP is not about using the evidence to determine any facts based on proofs drawn from that evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[John53]

That is because people still negate what is valid evidence, yet the tide is turning, many now at least offer it is not strong or compelling evidence.

I see the OP has had a positive turn.

Regards Tony

If that is true you should easily be able to name a few of the many who said it was not evidence but have changed their mind?

If I were a betting man I'd have a few dollars on you not verifying your claim.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Did they though? They had some good ideas. They may have been ahead of most of the people of that time, but I do not see much in the line of lasting education coming from them. What contributions to "education" did Baha make that his predecessors did not?

Really? How many Christian and Islam schools are there, what motivation are they founded upon?

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Incredible. As if an omnipotent/omniscient God would ever need an excuse for anything He chooses to do.
NOTHING could be more illogical.

You keep contradicting yourself. Do you need to know how?
Why do you think the reasoning in that post was illogical?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? How many Christian and Islam schools are there, what motivation are they founded upon?

Regards Tony

I was asking about your faith. You made a claim about it. You need to support it. Using a Tu Quoque fallacy is just an attempt not to. It is as good as an admission that you were wrong.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Have you not noticed that I have asked for a definition of "evidence" from the believers? None of them can seem to provide such a definition. As I said, I can do that easily for the sciences. It does not look as if anyone can do that for your faith. Which would mean that if you do not have a working definition that you definitely cannot have evidence.

That's just a load of drivel.
You'd be much better off studying Divinity than being negative..
Welcome to the Faculty of Divinity | Faculty of Divinity

If there is no evidence of anything, how come people need to study for so long, in order to know what they are talking about?

 

[Secret Chief]

This OP is only about identifying the valid evidence

which is:

 

[Alien826]

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?"

I can I can! <waves hand frantically>

They answer is, because God presumably wants us to believe in him. Obviously, the evidence that is good enough for religious believers doesn't convince some people, so what should God do? Remember, he's loving and wants us all to be "saved".

Incidentally, that question tends to sound like an evasion. "I know the answer!" "Great, tell us!" "No." "Why not?" "I don't have to!" "Are you sure you know the answer?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's just a load of drivel.
You'd be much better off studying Divinity than being negative..
Welcome to the Faculty of Divinity | Faculty of Divinity

If there is no evidence of anything, how come people need to study for so long, in order to know what they are talking about?

Thanks for the softball question. If one's faith is wrong one would need to take a long time learning how to obscure that fact not only from others, but from oneself. Unfortunately it does not work that way in real life. People that study religion seriously tend to have a higher rate of atheism than others. They do not start that way, but there are many many examples of people becoming serious religious scholars only to realize that religions are man made stories.

And how was I negative? I merely pointed out a fact, that the OP failed in his claims of evidence. I am asking question s in order to help him. If he does not know what evidence is, if he cannot even define the term properly how is he ever going to be able to supply any?

 

[muhammad_isa]

In my case, after two divorces, I determined never to put the distribution of my property in the hands of a judge again..

That is because the secular idea of marriage is not "the law" according to Bible or Qur'an.

A man has his property, and a woman has hers. Their property does not automatically belong to both in a marriage contract.
The dowry [a sum of money] must be paid "upfront" to the bride.

It is up to the individuals how they manage their wealth.
A man is expected to spend out of his wealth for his wife's welfare, but if the relationship ends for some reason, there is nothing owed to either party. If they decided to have any property in joint names, then they need to sort it.
That's it !