Evidence

[Trailblazer]

Just to muddy the waters a bit more, there is no reason why a scientific investigation could not be applied to religion. I think this may have been done, but I don't know how rigorous it was.

Hypothesis: Prayer has effects on Earth.
Method: Choose groups of sick people, and have them examined by doctors. Assign different groups of people to pray for the sick people. Make it as "double blind" as possible. For example, the sick people should not know about the prayers. All medical treatment given to the patients should be "placebo" and look the same as their regular drugs. Examine the patients again and note any changes.

I haven't set out all the methods to ensure that prayer could be the only factor, it should be obvious.

I have heard about these prayer studies but I do not consider them scientific.
There is no way to know bout the effects of prayer. One can only believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I provided several definitions of evidence.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Evidence is not the same as proof. Evidence indicates something is true, proof establishes it is true.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Does anyone mind if I state my objections to the Baha'i faith here, and why I'm not a Baha'i?

Or would posting about it here branch out the number of subjects too much for the readership?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I provided several definitions of evidence.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Evidence is not the same as proof. Evidence indicates something is true, proof establishes it is true.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Okay, those are rough definitions. But how would you tell if something is evidence of not for any faith?

I do not see how the sources that the OP talked about as being "evidence".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm inclined to think that both things (the high rate of divorce and extramarital sex) are related to a decline in people's respect for the "sanctity" of marriage, rather than any causative factor related to those things. We can add (for the sex) the availability of reliable contraception.

Except that the divorce rate has been falling since its high in the 70's or 80's.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I already know that your position, but God can never be verified to exist because God does not *choose* to make Himself verifiable.

1. God is not weak because 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.

No, those were not claims. #1 was based upon logic and reason and #2 is a verifiable fact.

 

[dybmh]

As a Bahai, I offer that, Baha'u'llah did not have any education in religion, nor did He have any teachers, or books to study. Then the question would be, where did get His knowledge from to write over 100 volumes of Books? In our view, the knowledge must have come from Himself, from His own mind, a clear evidence of being Manifestation of God. That is knowing things without learning them from another source.
The Bahais investigated this, and came to this conclusion. I wouldn't be able to convince anyone else. Rather everyone is free to investigate and make their own conclusion. Hope that helps

Thank you for adding to the discussion something novel. Personally I cannot imagine a wealthy persian family omitting education from one of their children. He was born into a Muslim family, was he not? No books? Not a single Qu'ran, nothing? That sounds like neglect. You think his parent's neglected him?

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I should not have to ask. I am innocent till proven guilty and you are saying I am guilty so it's your job to provide the evidence, not that it matters now as it is going to take me a month of Sundays to catch up on this thread so I cannot afford to look at old posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already know that your position, but God can never be verified to exist because God does not *choose* to make Himself verifiable.

That sounds like you are saying that God is evil since he plays hide and seek and yet judges people because they do not believe in him.

No, those were not claims. #1 was based upon logic and reason and #2 is a verifiable fact.

You would have to show how #1 is logical and you absolutely need to properly support #2. It does not look like a fact at all.

 

[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.

I suppose not, but a lack of explanation for negative actions indicates that he is not just. That he is not good. If you want to worship an evil god have at it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I should not have to ask. I am innocent till proven guilty and you are saying I am guilty so it's your job to provide the evidence, not that it matters now as it is going to take me a month of Sundays to catch up on this thread so I cannot afford to look at old posts.

Your claim that God is omnipotent but can only talk to "Messengers" is self contradictory for one thing.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I said "Anybody who sincerely seeks truth will find it".

That is a general statement, of course. There would be exceptions.
I wouldn't know if you would be an exception .. only God knows that.

I still disagree with what you said because I believe it reflects a pompous, "holier than thou" attitude. And assuming the biblical God even exists, I honestly don't care what he thinks of me because, as far as I'm concerned, he can stick it where the sun doesn't shine. He obviously didn't think I was worth caring about (let alone protecting, despite my prayers to him) during all the years I was abused as a child and teenager or during the years I suffered from trauma and depression as an adult, so now I'm simply repaying the favor.

 

[Trailblazer]

... 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.

No, our eyes and ears are still open. We can listen to those objections but once we attain certitude there is no reason for us to backslide, not unless you can prove we are wrong about who Baha'u'llah was, which is what this all boils down to. If Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be all those objections are just like dust in the wind.

Are you open to the evidence that Baha'u'llah is the Jewish messiah? No, because you are Jewish and you have certitude of what the Jewish messiah will be like.

 

[Trailblazer]

And so how are we doing on that front?

I dunno. I am too busy answering posts.

 

[dybmh]

Just to muddy the waters a bit more, there is no reason why a scientific investigation could not be applied to religion. I think this may have been done, but I don't know how rigorous it was.

Hypothesis: Prayer has effects on Earth.
Method: Choose groups of sick people, and have them examined by doctors. Assign different groups of people to pray for the sick people. Make it as "double blind" as possible. For example, the sick people should not know about the prayers. All medical treatment given to the patients should be "placebo" and look the same as their regular drugs. Examine the patients again and note any changes.

I haven't set out all the methods to ensure that prayer could be the only factor, it should be obvious.

Apologies if this has already been answered. Yes, if I recall this has been done. And the results did not show prayer was more effective than the control group on recovery.

But! I am still a little confused about it, because of QM. If I understand, and I might not, observation interferes / effects the outcome of quantum phenomena. If so, and if prayer operates on a quantum scale, then the act of measuring the results would perhaps interfere with the phenomena causing a false negative.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Does anyone mind if I state my objections to the Baha'i faith here, and why I'm not a Baha'i?

Or would posting about it here branch out the number of subjects too much for the readership?

Your post might get lost in the jumble of other posts, so perhaps you should start a new thread on your objections.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?"

What ever gave you the idea that God wants *everybody* to believe in Him?
Not everyone is going to be convinced by the only evidence that God provides.
Have you never heard of separating the wheat from the chaff?
The wheat are the ones who accept the evidence that God provides, the chaff don't accept it.

Matthew 3:12 King James Version (KJV)

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Matthew 13:29-30 King James Version (KJV)

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Your post might get lost in the jumble of other posts, so perhaps you should start a new thread on your objections.

Yep.

Maybe I'll post it some other time, as a thread.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm pretty sure nothing I suggested involved mind control. It was all demonstration of power in one form or another. Perhaps you can quote something I said that contradicts that?

My point was that what you suggested could never happen unless God took over everyone's minds.

There would always be some people that refuse to believe the obvious. You'd have to be extremely stubborn or deluded though. We can probably live with a few of those!

That is how I see going on right now. There will always be some people that refuse to believe the obvious - Messengers.

Well, OK. But you do believe the Baha'i writings don't you? Are they not considered evidence for God?

They are only a small part of the evidence.

 

[John53]

Your claim that God is omnipotent but can only talk to "Messengers" is self contradictory for one thing.

He hasn't got a good track record of picking competent communicators as messengers. Their words can and are interpreted dozens (maybe hundreds) of different ways.