Evidence

[Trailblazer]

Then, since you clearly do not have any reliable evidence why can't you simply say "I believe" and leave it at that?

Since you clearly do not 'believe' I have any reliable evidence why can't you simply say "I don't believe" and leave it at that?
Why do you keep asking for evidence? I have the evidence I have and I don't have any other evidence.
You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I disagree. The question of why there is anything at all including gods is very helpful, even though we have no answer and may never. What it does is show the flaw in the claim that the universe comes from a god because the universe needs a cause - a special pleading argument that has an unjustified different (double) standard for the existence of gods than universes..

It is not a flaw, unless you want it to be.
It is oh so easy for a person to claim that they don't know whether there is something greater than ourselves, and that the universe could be some sort of cosmic accident.

What is materialist thinking? The unwillingness to believe by faith?

Not exactly .. it is a way of thinking, that demands scientific proof for spiritual concept.
A way of ignoring the spiritual, by claiming that the spiritual is purely derived from the physical, so is of no concern.

No, the atheists see the evidence..

..but they reject it..

You were asked to "prove that [God]'s aware of what is in our hearts," the claim you made: "Almighty God is aware of what is in our hearts." It doesn't matter that that may be possible..

It matters to me. If it were impossible, then I wouldn't believe it .. I would want to know why scripture suggests such a thing.

"One example of the burden of proof fallacy is someone who claims that ghosts exists, but doesn't prove this, and instead shifts the burden of proof to others, by stating that anyone who disagrees should prove ghosts don't exist."

It is a given, that I am describing what I believe, due to believing that the Qur'an is really from God, and that Muhammad is not deluded or fraudulent.

I do not have to prove it. If you want to tell me why you think that the Qur'an is lies, then I'm all ears.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you clearly do not 'believe' I have any reliable evidence why can't you simply say "I don't believe" and leave it at that?
Why do you keep asking for evidence? I have the evidence I have and I don't have any other evidence.
You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Because you claim to have evidence and unlike many I do not "want" to hold to any specific belief. I want to believe based upon what is properly supported. And your actions tell us that you do not have proper evidence. Even though you claim that you did not want to believe your actions tell us otherwise.

By the way, why did you dodge my rather reasonable question?

 

[Trailblazer]

You are mischaracterizing skeptics again. They do not say "it cannot be true". They have not already decided that. What they will say is "Every other such claim has failed when investigated why do you think that this one will not also probably fail?" A skeptic will state that the odds are huge that it is not true and that a natural explanation appears to be the better one.

But there is no "natural explanation" for what @Sgt. Pepper has witnessed and experienced.

That is why they are always asking for evidence.

She has provided the evidence to these skeptics, but it is never good enough.

That indicates that they have an open mind, but not so open that it has fallen on the floor. What is unreasonable about saying Give us evidence and we will change our minds.

What is UNreasonable is when you are given the evidence and you poo-poo the evidence you are given.

Is there any evidence that could make you change your mind about your beliefs?

No, there is no evidence that would make me change my mind about my belief in God. Even if you could prove that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God, there are many other Messengers and religions and I could NEVER discount them all. Jesus Christ alone is proof that there is a God, no other proof is even necessary!

 

[John53]

I had an epiphany while I read your post, my friend, and it suddenly dawned on me that I feel the same way towards the hard skeptics who used to keep asking me for tangible evidence of the paranormal, in spite of showing them the tangible evidence I already have, such as digital photos, SLS images, and thermal camera images of spirits, recorded videos, and recorded EVPs, or even what they saw and heard for themselves firsthand by using my ghost-hunting equipment. I was so immersed in the topic because it was religious in nature that I never considered the correlation between how we both feel similar about being repeatedly questioned about our beliefs.

As I've stated in other posts (including this one), I've long resolved not to argue or debate the paranormal evidence I've accumulated over the years with skeptics. I explained in the other post that I don't share my personal experiences as a psychic medium or with the paranormal in order to argue, debate, or persuade skeptics to believe me because, as far as I'm concerned, people are free to accept or reject what I say about my experiences as a medium or my other experiences with the paranormal. It's entirely their decision. The only reason why I talk about my medium abilities is so that others who don't have them can get a glimpse of what I see, hear, and feel everyday. I apologize for not treating your beliefs and those of the other Baha'i (as well as @muhammad_isa) with the same respect.

You are missing one key point, you don't try to get sceptics to accept your evidence without question. The reason this thread was started was to get sceptics of Baha'i to accept their evidence without question. As far as I'm concerned you have nothing to apologise for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a given, that I am describing what I believe, due to believing that the Qur'an is really from God, and that Muhammad is not deluded or fraudulent.

I do not have to prove it. If you want to tell me why you think that the Qur'an is lies, then I'm all ears.

You are right that if you merely say that you believe something that you do not have to prove it. You do take on a burden of proof when you claim to have evidence. And that is what this thread is about. Just say that you believe and I will let you go your merry way. Claim that you merely believe and people will let you wend your merry way. But when one claims to have evidence or a rational belief then one takes on a burden of proof.

Please note, when atheists state that they have a lack of belief in gods it is more often than not the theists that demand a burden of proof from them. Considering that the atheists did not say anything that puts the burden of proof on them that is rather telling I think that you yourself may have done so in the past. If an atheist was so bold as to claim evidence for the nonexistence of God theists would be the first to demand it and then almost certainly reject it no matter if it was valid evidence or not. I have found that it is the theists in these debates that tend to be inconsistent with their logic and demands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But there is no "natural explanation" for what @Sgt. Pepper has witnessed and experienced.

What makes you think that? I am very sure that people could come up with some, but I first need to "prove" your claim.

She has provided the evidence to these skeptics, but it is never good enough.

Because it is only what she thinks that she saw. That is very weak evidence wise. It would not qualify as being reliable.

What is UNreasonable is when you are given the evidence and you poo-poo the evidence you are given.

No, not at all. You simply need to learn what makes evidence reliable or unreliable and why. Don't blame others when you refuse to reason ratonally.

No, there is no evidence that would make me change my mind about my belief in God. Even if you could prove that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God, there are many other Messengers and religions and I could NEVER discount them all. Jesus Christ alone is proof that there is a God, no other proof is even necessary!

Ooh! Ooh! And there we have it. An admission by you that your beliefs are irrational. You see, I do not believe in a God but if almost any of the various Gods described here and elsewhere existed that being would know what evidence it would take to change my mind and that God could provide it if it existed. I do not hold an absolute faith in beliefs. I know that they can be flawed and that includes my own.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So no, I don't claim that Muhammad and His disciples were liars and guilty of fraud -- only the the Qur'an was written by human beings.

If Muhammad wasn't fraudulent, then you must be saying that he was deluded .. is that right?

If not, there is only one option left .. that the Qur'an is from God, and it is the truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you claim to have evidence and unlike many I do not "want" to hold to any specific belief. I want to believe based upon what is properly supported.

I do not want to hold any specific belief or any belief in God. I believe based upon what is properly supported.
You must have missed my post from a couple of days ago where I explained what used to happen in my discussions with my late husband. I often told him I do not want to believe in God because I do not like God, and then he kept telling me I should become an atheist. Then I told him I cannot become an atheist because I believe in Baha'u'llah.

And your actions tell us that you do not have proper evidence. Even though you claim that you did not want to believe your actions tell us otherwise.

Who is "us?" the other atheists on this thread?
You have not told me what 'proper evidence' is. Many years have passed by and I am still waiting.

By the way, why did you dodge my rather reasonable question?

Because you said I clearly do not have any reliable evidence, but I do have reliable evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If Muhammad wasn't fraudulent, then you must be saying that he was deluded .. is that right?

If not, there is only one option left .. that the Qur'an is from God, and it is the truth.

There could be other answers. But "deluded" seems to be a fairly accurate one.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because it is only what she thinks that she saw. That is very weak evidence wise. It would not qualify as being reliable.

I will let you take that up with @Sgt. Pepper since she is the psychic medium.

No, not at all. You simply need to learn what makes evidence reliable or unreliable and why. Don't blame others when you refuse to reason rationally.

Since you claim to know.....
Why can't you tell me 'what you think' makes evidence reliable or unreliable and why?
I have been waiting about five years and I am still waiting.

Ooh! Ooh! And there we have it. An admission by you that your beliefs are irrational.

No, I did not say that. Please do not take what I said and misrepresent me. I said if you could prove that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God... I did not say my beliefs are irrational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not want to hold any specific belief or any belief in God. I believe based upon what is properly supported.
You must have missed my post from a couple of days ago where I explained what used to happen in my discussions with my late husband. I often told him I do not want to believe in God because I do not like God, and then he kept telling me I should become an atheist. Then I told him I cannot become an atheist because I believe in Baha'u'llah.

Who is "us?" the other atheists on this thread?
You have not told me what 'proper evidence' is. Many years have passed by and I am still waiting.

Because you said I clearly do not have any reliable evidence, but I do have reliable evidence.

No, you have presented opinions and bad evidence usually involving logical fallacies, but I have never seen you present reliable evidence. Nor has anyone else.

And I am seriously trying to help you in this process. That is why I suggested that you need to see if you can come up with a working definition of what evidence is. A working definition allows one to see not only if something is evidence for a concept. It also allows one to clearly see what is not evidence for a concept. That can be dome rather easily for scientific evidence. There is a minimum bar set.

And I I defined evidence for you you would likely deny that definition. That is why you need to see if you an come up with a working definition yourself. If it is not a working definition I will gladly point out the flaws for you, but as I said, my working definition would almost certainly be rejected by you. That is why I will not give one. This is your belief. It is your claim that you have evidence. It is your burden of proof.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The evidence you have, which is extensive, will never be good enough for skeptics, because in their minds they have already decided it cannot be true. It is like what has been happening with my TV. There is no "normal" explanation for what has been happening, and even the Comcast technician said it had to be paranormal, but skeptics will continue to deny it no matter how many other technicians I call out to look at it who will find nothing wrong with my TV or the cable box.

I think the same thing is going on with atheists and evidence for God. NO EVIDENCE will ever be good enough...
That is why I sometimes tell atheists that they will just have to wait until they die to "get the evidence" they need.

On the other hand, as I think you have pointed out on the other thread, there is no 'guarantee' that people who die and cross over to the spiritual world will realize that God exists. They might still be lost in confusion. I think that is what will happen to many people, unless they already believed in God before they died and crossed over.

Are you referring to my post here or to another post I made in another thread? Based on my personal experiences and knowledge as a medium, there is also no guarantee that a person who believed in God before they died will find God in the afterlife. In the other post I linked, I mentioned the confused spirits who asked me, "Where is God?" and "Why am I not in heaven yet?" I could sense their confusion at not understanding why they weren't in heaven with Jesus, as they sincerely believed and were taught to believe before they died. I also felt their fear of not knowing what to do next. It's because of these experiences and others that I believe the afterlife and crossing over into the spirit world will be very different than what the majority of Christians and other Abrahamic theists believe about what will happen to people after they die and when they cross over into the spirit world. I've spoken to many spirits over the years who were in total shock and didn't know what was going on or what would happen to them. I've encouraged many spirits to cross over into the spirit world during the past fifteen years. Personally, I believe that the Bible misleads Christians about the afterlife.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There could be other answers. But "deluded" seems to be a fairly accurate one.

Right .. now we are getting somewhere..
What is it specifically, that makes you think he was deluded?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will let you take that up with @Sgt. Pepper since she is the psychic medium.

As I said, if someone simply says "I believe" I will let them be. I have no real fight with her.

Why can't you tell me 'what you think' makes evidence reliable or unreliable and why?
I have been waiting about five years and I am still waiting.

No, I did not say that. Please do not take what I said and misrepresent me. I said if you could prove that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God... I did not say my beliefs are irrational.

Because when one claims to have evidence then one is taking on a burden of proof. If you look at the history of religion all sorts of abuse occurred and still occur today by the hands of those that claim to have the one right religion. And claiming "proof" is often their excuse for their bad behavior. The only reason that we do not see any such abuse by Baha'i is that they are a very small minority and could not force others to do what they think is right .

 

[Trailblazer]

And I I defined evidence for you you would likely deny that definition.

That is just an excuse.
You have your own private definition of evidence, a definition you refuse to share
The fact is that you really have NO IDEA what would be evidence for God, you only know what you do not consider evidence. That is why you cannot provide the definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right .. now we are getting somewhere..
What is it specifically, that makes you think he was deluded?

From my experience all "God" beliefs appear to be such. No Muslim can seem to rationally support their beliefs which indicate that the source of their beliefs is not rational itself. Or in other words, the work of someone that believed things that were not true.

As the saying goes, show me some valid evidence or even logic and I could easily change my mind.

 

[John53]

I will let you take that up with @Sgt. Pepper since she is the psychic medium.

This is a pretty low thing to do, you are trying to drag into debate someone who has repeatedly stated they do not want to debate their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is just an excuse.
You have your own private definition of evidence, a definition you refuse to share
The fact is that you really have NO IDEA what would be evidence for God, you only know what you do not consider evidence. That is why you cannot provide the definition.

You are partially right. I have no idea what would be evidence for God. But I can see what is not evidence for God. Those two statements do not contradict each other. Now there may be some evidence that I cannot judge either way. But when someone posts clearly failed 'evidence" it is usually not a problem to point it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a pretty low thing to do, you are trying to drag into debate someone who has repeatedly stated they do not want to debate their beliefs.

And with someone that has stated the he does not want to debate her beliefs. I do not like it either. she was using Sgt's statements for her own purposes. I refused to do that either way.