Evidence

[Thea]

@TransmutingSoul Hi! I totally disagree with your OP. But think you are a great guy. Well wishes to you and your wife.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

This OP is applicable to all Faiths Moses and Torah, Jesus New Testament, Muhammad Koran, etc), but I will use what has been offered in the Bahai writings.

So Evidence of the Hidden God.

"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." Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

I am sorry to have to say it, but this is nonsense both superficially and at a deep level.

I once had a friend (very religious) who stated, "in order to prove the existence of angels, you must first posit their existence." He could never understand that if you assume the consequent that you are looking for, and thereby affirm it, you needn't even bother going on to a "proof." Not to mention the slightly more salient fact that it doesn't work, anyway.

And that is exactly what Baha'u'llah is doing. He is saying that you could not know of God until a "manifestation" (or messenger) comes along and identifies him for you, and you know he is such a "manifestation" because -- well, obviously, because he said so. And why would he lie, eh?

 

[Quintessence]

The problem arises when they try to claim that "evidence" should be good enough for others to believe them. Yes, a person may be convinced through all sorts of different ways. That does not mean that they necessarily have a rational belief. When I see theists they often use evidence in the sense of "This should convince you that I am right" and it usually is not evidence by that standard.

This is a very fair point, though personally I don't find it a problem unless I make it a problem for myself. I choose not to do that as there is little to be gained. It's not like I can stop the fraction of theists who proselytize or are disingenuous from being what they are. I don't let them control my understanding of theism and instead approach the discussion as an interested listener or impartial academic documenting a culture. That is, I'm less interested in passing judgement in some inevitably self-important fashion than exploring and discovering. Most days, anyway; every so often that dumb, self-important ego rears up and things do rub me the wrong way.

See above also, @John53 - I'm not interested in entertaining absurdity and pretend it makes any sort of valid point. I trust you can discern the difference between learning about other cultures and accepting they aren't lying to your face and things like illegal activities or demanding your belief and conversion. This second part is more interesting though:

It also brings up the problem of the sheer number of Gods throughout the ages, many with conflicting ideas. Surely they can't all be true?

What assumptions do you make in your worldview that leads you to draw the conclusion that they cannot all be true? What do you believe about the nature of reality, the human ability to know reality, and the nature of truth? I ask rhetorically so don't feel like you need to reply - one's answers to them would shape the conclusions. Personally, I have no trouble reconciling these things (the map is not the territory and all that) but others need not reach that same endpoint.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I mean, it actually doesn't need to be that complicated.

Listen to what people tell you about the evidence for their gods and accept that it's evidence for their gods. ​

Put another way, accept that when people tell you stuff about themselves and their culture, that they aren't lying to you. These things are, actually, evidence of their gods for them and their people.

There, all done. Simple.

If the OP was just presenting his own views on what he considered evidence for God, that approach would be fine.

... but that's not what he did:

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.

 

[Colt]

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.

This OP is applicable to all Faiths Moses and Torah, Jesus New Testament, Muhammad Koran, etc), but I will use what has been offered in the Bahai writings.

So Evidence of the Hidden God.

"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." Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

After the Manifestations have left the earth, the Word remains as the proof

"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 Baha'u'llah

So the trial begins, the evidence is already boxed, the defendant/s stand in front of all Humanity

So what can be provided are the links to all the proof given by the Manifestations (defendants).

The person of the Manifestation is one line of evidence, Character references are available.

The Guidence/Wrirings given by them is the other line of Evidence left, that can be linked.

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

Now the key here is, we all get to be the jury and the judge. The Manifestations will individually submit to your verdict, so the burden of Justice now falls upon each individual.

Regards Tony

You cant provide reasons in defense of a belief that you were never reasoned into to begin with.

 

[John53]

See above also, @John53 - I'm not interested in entertaining absurdity and pretend it makes any sort of valid point. I trust you can discern the difference between learning about other cultures and accepting they aren't lying to your face and things like illegal activities or demanding your belief and conversion. This second part is more interesting though:

I don't think they're lying, I think they're wrong. It's not a bad thing, we've all been wrong many times.

 

[Bird123]

You are now speaking for God? What evidence do you have for that statement.

The Messengers have left their person, their Revelation and the Word as evidence.

Regards Tony

You do not Understand. I do not speak for God or anyone. I speak to what actually is.

God hides nothing. All the secrets of the universe and God stare us all in the face. It waits to be Discovered by those who seek.

In this time-based causal universe God's actions can be seen. Understand God's actions and you will understand God.

Unlike holy books, God's actions can not be altered by anyone. When you reach a certain level of understanding you might just get a visit from God. At this point God will no longer be a belief. God will be what Is.

Just like all the physics of this world add up perfectly, so does the people factor. The people factor is more complicated since it carries so many more variables.

The dynamics of God's system is simply amazing. When you look at this world and the people and see a Masterpiece rather than a mess, I will know you understand much more than most.

Everything I have said can be Discovered for oneself. I merely point as one who has been there.

Burden of proof along with evidence rests on those who seek and never on beliefs.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[F1fan]

I need only pursue it for my own self. After I come to my verdict, I get to live my choice.

So what? You started this thread saying

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.

This OP is applicable to all Faiths Moses and Torah, Jesus New Testament, Muhammad Koran, etc), but I will use what has been offered in the Bahai writings.​

so do you have evidence that is so overwhelming that it is applicable to all people and all religions, or is it just for yourself, and the opening post just another deliberately false claim on your part?

God provides the Messenger,

This is a claim, prove it.

the Revelation and the Word to each and every individual to be the judge of that evidence, which we have to pursue individually.

This is another claim, prove it.

That is the proof God gives, the signs of that proof are found in all of creation, in many varied ways.

No it isn't, they are just claims. And this is yet another claim.

You don't seem to understand what evidence actually is.

The evidence is available, it was provided in the OP you quoted.

It isn't evidence, it is just religious material that has no factual basis. You need to prove those texts are true. THEN it is evidence.

I have been reading it for over 40 years, but it became apparent early for me, that the Messengers do, thus God does exist.

Irrelevant. You need to present valid evidence, not your beliefs.

 

[DNB]

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.

This OP is applicable to all Faiths Moses and Torah, Jesus New Testament, Muhammad Koran, etc), but I will use what has been offered in the Bahai writings.

So Evidence of the Hidden God.

"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." Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

After the Manifestations have left the earth, the Word remains as the proof

"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 Baha'u'llah

So the trial begins, the evidence is already boxed, the defendant/s stand in front of all Humanity

So what can be provided are the links to all the proof given by the Manifestations (defendants).

The person of the Manifestation is one line of evidence, Character references are available.

The Guidence/Wrirings given by them is the other line of Evidence left, that can be linked.

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

Now the key here is, we all get to be the jury and the judge. The Manifestations will individually submit to your verdict, so the burden of Justice now falls upon each individual.

Regards Tony

God, in the wisest of manners, has chosen to not divulge His existence in the most obvious and irrefutable of manners - for there are many who, although may be obligated to acknowledge His presence, will never give Him the honour and reverence that is due.
Thus, to reveal Himself in a fashion that is undeniably blatant to the insightful, but still obscure to the skeptic, exposes the fact that He wants the devout and righteous to distinguish themselves from the unwise and rebellious.

Humans have created within them a spiritual dimension, that the veracity of this is axiomatic to all - man has been searching for the transcendent, and all things related, ever since history began.
We are clearly created in our Maker's image, and not in the image of stardust or protoplasm, obviously.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

This OP is applicable to all Faiths Moses and Torah, Jesus New Testament, Muhammad Koran, etc), but I will use what has been offered in the Bahai writings.

So Evidence of the Hidden God.

"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." Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

After the Manifestations have left the earth, the Word remains as the proof

"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 Baha'u'llah

So the trial begins, the evidence is already boxed, the defendant/s stand in front of all Humanity

So what can be provided are the links to all the proof given by the Manifestations (defendants).

The person of the Manifestation is one line of evidence, Character references are available.

The Guidence/Wrirings given by them is the other line of Evidence left, that can be linked.

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

Now the key here is, we all get to be the jury and the judge. The Manifestations will individually submit to your verdict, so the burden of Justice now falls upon each individual.

Regards Tony

The problem is evidence is considered only valid, if it comes into our brains through our sensory systems; third person observations that we all can compare and then agree. This is the philosophy of science.

But there are phenomena that cannot be seen that way. For example, say someone had a dream. We all know dreams occur, since we all have had one or more at some time. But there is no way for science to witness a unique dream in all its details, through the sensory systems in the third person. They would need to conclude dreams are real based on brain waves; see that, but unique dream details are not covered by the philosophy of science so we cannot see or agree. Spiritual things are not material in nature, so they do not match up easily with the five external senses. This is why this distinction is made.

I remember many years ago, I had an interest in Jungian Psychology and was fascinated by his theory of the archetypes of the collective unconscious. I read many of his books to learn about his evidence. It all made sense, based on his theory and proof, but what was lacking was a first hand experience.

The analogy is a group of scientists watching someone have a toothache. They all observe and correlate and then agree on what they all see. One things that is missing is the first hand experience of a toothache. This has unique data can only be fully appreciated in the first person. Science cannot include it, since they cannot read minds with the five senses. They need to stay in the shallows; third person only.

Say one of the scientist volunteers to have this tooth drilled, so he has a tooth ache. His goal is to gain the extra missing data; first person data. But even if he is by the book in terms of his observations, the others cannot see this since they only have a third person reference.

For me to experience the archetypes I knew I had to become the scientist and the experiment. I needed to induce my unconscious mind; set up dams, so the various archetypes would manifest as the potential builds, and I could observe in the first person. But like the example of having your tooth drilled to observe in the first person, the first person observer will somewhat distracted by the pain; internal output.

When you deal with phenomena of the mind and human consciousness; the operating system, we need to use your consciousness to witness itself from the inside. Science is not able to go there by its own philosophy.

Dreams and visions are part of many in not all religions. These deal in stuff that makes the most sense in the first person, while science has to stay behind.

 

[F1fan]

"You presenting quotes is hearsay because the writer is dead and we can't ask him questions about what he wrote. That makes the texts inadmissible as evidence"

Do you view/feel that way about all writings from past history?

When there is an existing person using old texts (with unfactual claims, and that the person thinks is true) from dead writers as evidence that the texts are true, and we don't have the writer available to ask questions directly, then it is hearsay. This doesn't apply to fiction or history, it does to religious texts since the subject matter of God is contentious.

 

[F1fan]

Then you would be saying that all evidence in most court cases is just hearsay.

There is some hearsay that is admissible in court. If you had a discussion with a person that is dead you could offer testimony of what that discussion was about even though the other person can't be called as a witness.

The testimonials of witnesses and the accused are valid evidence, especially if they are found Trustworthy and Truthful and in the past, swear that unto God!

Only afidavits are admissible in court as testimony of someone not present in court. There can be exceptions to documentary evidence, for example letters a person had written in confidential correspondence with another trusted party. If they had confessed to crimes in letters it could be used as evidence in court.

But what you are doing is not valid or credible. You are taking texts that a guy wrote 150 years ago about non-factual ideas and presenting them as IF they are true at face value. We can't interview Baha'u'llah to ask him if it was all serious or a fraud. We can't ask him if he was serious or joking with what he wrote. Maybe it was all symbolic. We can't listen to him speak and be suspicious that he is mentally ill and really believes he is a messenger from God. This line of questioning is what we can't do to determine the credibility of the texts. All we have are the texts. Are they factual? No. Do they make fantastic claims that can't be tested? Yes. Is there any reason to accept them as true at face value? No.

As I noted these could not be admitted in court as evidence because they are not factual, and you trying to represent them as credible is irrelevant since you are not the author. You are an irrelevant party in this.

You would need to present evidence that the claims in the texts are true, and satisfy questions that indicate doubt. You avoid this in these discussion, so likley would in court. You have no evidence. Your versonal beliefs in irrelevant.

The fact that people now lie and are untrustworthy, only adds to the validity of their given evidence, because they are trustworthy and truthful.

You have your own credibility problems, so ponder that.

 

[We Never Know]

When there is an existing person using old texts (with unfactual claims, and that the person thinks is true) from dead writers as evidence that the texts are true, and we don't have the writer available to ask questions directly, then it is hearsay. This doesn't apply to fiction or history, it does to religious texts since the subject matter of God is contentious.

That's what I was curious about..if you only apply it to religious writtings/texts.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

OK, as expected the naysayers are here about what constitutes evidence. I am not going to address these one on one, pure waste of time.

Evidence of an artist is the artwork.

Evidence of an inventor, is the invention.

Evidence from a crafts persons is the craft created.

The quality of the artwork, invention or crated object attests to the quality of the artist, inventor or craftspersons. The works contain the essence of their trade.

Evidence of a Messenger is that a Message is given. The Quality of that Message determines the quality of the Messenger, the Message contains the essence of the Messenger.

God is only defined by the Messengers.

Not everyone will look at the evidence provided, that in no way negates that the evidence is provided, to say it is not provided is paramount to a denial of Justice.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But what you are doing is not valid or credible. You are taking texts that a guy wrote 150 years ago about non-factual ideas and presenting them as IF they are true at face value.

Validated 100% that they were recorded from Baha'u'llah. Trustworthy evidence.

The factual aspect of these wrirings tie back to determining if they are indeed from an Infallible Trustworthy source.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You have your own credibility problems, so ponder that.

The trial is actually for those that negate valid evidence.

It is a trial of one's own sense of Justice.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You cant provide reasons in defense of a belief that you were never reasoned into to begin with.

That has naught to do with the OP.

That could apply to ones own stance. Truth is relative to our capacity to apply reason based justice.

Regards Tony

 

[Revoltingest]

Entropy is the decline into disorder that began when the universe began and will reach maximum entropy when there is no thermal energy left.

Entropy state changes are independent of 2 things
under discussion...
1) How the universe develops.
2) Arising of life.
Think of stars, planets, galaxies as all separate systems
unto themselves....open systems that can even interact.
Energy & matter flow in &/or out of each system.
Entropy might increase or decrease. Thus the entropy
state & changes of each aren't a cause of anything.
They're just results.
Conditions for life don't depend upon entropy increasing
or decreasing....just a goldilocks zone of temperature,
chemistry, & environment over eons. And all this depends
upon the constants of the universe being within particular
narrow ranges to form planets, stars, supernovae, & galaxies,
so say cosmological simulation nerds.

 

[John53]

OK, as expected the naysayers are here about what constitutes evidence. I am not going to address these one on one, pure waste of time.

Then why post it in a debate forum. It's just a disingenuous excuse to proselytise if you're not willing to debate .

 

[TransmutingSoul]

@TransmutingSoul Hi! I totally disagree with your OP. But think you are a great guy. Well wishes to you and your wife.

That's 100% OK. To me it is the foundation of faith in God. Our willingness to apply Justice in determining a claim. The Bible actually warns us to be cautious when applying justice to these very type of claims.

All the best and well wishes in return. Regards Tony