Evidence

[loverofhumanity]

It seems that you agreed with some of the tenet’s of this religion when you did your deep research into it. And that is good, more power to you, but it still isn’t evidence.

To me what I discovered which is what remains unspoken is the evidence. It’s like you met God face to face but no words could explain it to another person. You would have evidence having met Him yourself but media or words just is insufficient to explain it so you are left alone being accused of having no evidence because God is inexplicable.

Professor E.G. Browne who met Baha’u’llah says of His Face ‘The face of him on whom I gazed I can never forget, though I cannot describe it.’ indicating that some things cannot be described in words alone. God is even more mystical but that does not mean one cannot ‘see God’ but the evidence would be for him alone and words cannot contain the reality of God only hint at His attributes.

The Western Scholar Meets the Eastern Prophet

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is like saying
" This boxed chicken egg in front of me in the breakfast table is the full and final evidence of God. Its perfect whiteness and oval symmetry is the definitive proof of the perfections innate in God. The beautiful omelet that come out from this egg is further proof of the Most High. Thus every person who sees a chicken egg and the final omelet has all the evidence one needs of the existence of the He Who is everlastingly Hidden and will have no excuse at the time of the final Judgement."
View attachment 69962

The proof of the life giving powers of the egg is contained within the shell, it has to be fertilised and then it has to be incubated.

So as a Metephor, the person of the Messenger is the Shell. The life giving fertilised contents is the Revelation and the Word is the incubation.

Some will only see the shell, some only the contents, a few see the entire incubation process.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Excellent point. To a Baha'i there is no debate about it, their prophet is the promised one of all ages, of all religions. Everything he said is true, because he has been sent by God and cannot lie. Ask them to "Prove it?" and they tell us... that their prophet is the proof. These threads get the same kinds of questions and same kinds of answers. "That's not proof." "Yes, it is. And it's the only proof God gives... his manifestations/messengers." "And how do we know these messengers are telling the truth?" "Because they are from God." "And how do we know God is real?" "Because his messenger said so." How does anyone debate that?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In the case of winning an argument by being a better arguer, and not necessarily having good evidence, I'd say it's just one person trying to prove their thoughts. And somehow, some way, the other side agreeing with them - I'm not sure why that happens, but I've seen it happen before. Maybe the other side just becomes motivated by that person's message and charisma.

I see it is a mistake to beleive without having pursued the given evidence. It is important to get to the Truth and not to be deceived.

Regards Tony

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Excellent point. To a Baha'i there is no debate about it, their prophet is the promised one of all ages, of all religions. Everything he said is true, because he has been sent by God and cannot lie. Ask them to "Prove it?" and they tell us... that their prophet is the proof. These threads get the same kinds of questions and same kinds of answers. "That's not proof." "Yes, it is. And it's the only proof God gives... his manifestations/messengers." "And how do we know these messengers are telling the truth?" "Because they are from God." "And how do we know God is real?" "Because his messenger said so." How does anyone debate that?

I agree that that much can be tiring. I don't know if you remember, but I was once well starting to consider myself a Baha'i (probably around late 2019), but saw some things that I didn't like when the other Baha'is were seeming to, in my opinion, trip over their own feet and just on rather simple questions. And this was after their tendency to profess that they had the answers to world peace.

That being said, I'm torn on this actual subject in the interest of fairness... I don't think the approach is correct that's being put forth, but saying "There is no evidence" seems a bit harsh - if it were me, I'd settle for just saying, "There is no reasonable proof presented, at least not to a non-Baha'i."

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Excellent point. To a Baha'i there is no debate about it, their prophet is the promised one of all ages, of all religions. Everything he said is true, because he has been sent by God and cannot lie. Ask them to "Prove it?" and they tell us... that their prophet is the proof. These threads get the same kinds of questions and same kinds of answers. "That's not proof." "Yes, it is. And it's the only proof God gives... his manifestations/messengers." "And how do we know these messengers are telling the truth?" "Because they are from God." "And how do we know God is real?" "Because his messenger said so." How does anyone debate that?

This OP has established that evidence does include the Person, the Revelation and the Message.

So it is about getting beyond the constant accusations that it is not evidence.

It does not concern me what people think of that evidence, but there are entire conversations that are just a pure waste of time, ones that demand evidence, that has already been provided.

Regards Tony

 

[sayak83]

The proof of the life giving powers of the egg is contained within the shell, it has to be fertilised and then it has to be incubated.

So as a Metephor, the person of the Messenger is the Shell. The life giving fertilised contents is the Revelation and the Word is the incubation.

Some will only see the shell, some only the contents, a few see the entire incubation process.

Regards Tony

The point I am making is a simple one
Claiming that something is evidence for X does not make it evidence for that X. You have to show a direct causal link of the form
" If and only if the hypothesized entity X exists then the observed evidence Y can exist."
And further for definitive evidence you need
" The non-existence of evidence Y implies the non-existence of entity X and vice-versa."

You can show none of these necessary causal links. You cannot even substantiate the evidence claim itself (that Bahaullah is indeed a manifestation of God and not an ordinary person who claimed as such and managed to gather a set of followers who created bloated and false accounts of his achievements).

So your claim of definitive proof is just as empty of essence (borrowing Nagarjuna's terminology which seems apt here) as my claim that the chicken egg is evidence of God.

 

[Truthseeker]

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 know, they would have dig into the evidence, and there is a lot of it to consider.

Here's one line of evidence: Bahá’í Reference Library | The Bahá’í Faith which has Writings to investigate.

Actually, a relatively short introduction is in Baha'u'llah and the New Era or The Baha'i Faith:The Emerging Global religion. I recommend the latter for a more complete picture since it was written later. Some named William McElwee Miller wrote introductory negative books on the Baha'i Faith if you want to look at the countervailing arguments and what I consider personally alternate facts about the Baha'i Faith. After all, you might want to consider the merits or lack of them from the other point of view, everybody.

I don't have high hopes that people will actually read stuff like the above.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The universe is not finely tuned, in fact it is chaos from the quantum right up to solar systems, galaxies, galactic clusters.

And unless evidence will stand up in court i do not consider it evidence..

"I have spoken."

The apparent ‘fine tuning’ issue ought not to be dismissed so casually. The very precise value of certain key variables in mathematical models of the universe, is supported empirically and is not readily explained away. Stephen Hawking drew attention to this around 40 years ago, and spent some decades struggling to understand the implications.

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

 

[John53]

Excellent point. To a Baha'i there is no debate about it, their prophet is the promised one of all ages, of all religions. Everything he said is true, because he has been sent by God and cannot lie. Ask them to "Prove it?" and they tell us... that their prophet is the proof. These threads get the same kinds of questions and same kinds of answers. "That's not proof." "Yes, it is. And it's the only proof God gives... his manifestations/messengers." "And how do we know these messengers are telling the truth?" "Because they are from God." "And how do we know God is real?" "Because his messenger said so." How does anyone debate that?

Yes indeed. It's an interesting debate tactic... I'm right and won't discuss it unless you agree with me. It's also the height of arrogance.

 

[John53]

I see it is a mistake to beleive without having pursued the given evidence.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Yes indeed. It's an interesting debate tactic... I'm right and won't discuss it unless you agree with me. It's also height of arrogance.

From experience, I feel that the best thing one can do is just let the arguments flow (at least if posting in the Debates) and you'll end up losing a few, winning a few, and getting bruised a few. But one reassurance about it all is, if you don't win an argument, it doesn't necessarily mean you have to change your beliefs, nor do most reasonable people expect you to.

 

[John53]

From experience, I feel that the best thing one can do is just let the arguments flow (at least if posting in the Debates) and you'll end up losing a few, winning a few, and getting bruised a few. But one reassurance about it all is, if you don't win an argument, it doesn't necessarily mean you have to change your beliefs, nor do most reasonable people expect you to.

The whole idea for me is a friendly discussion on a topic that interests me. However I get a tad peeved when someone starts claiming they are posting indisputable fact. Not to mention the snide comments directed at those who don't agree with them.

 

[Ella S.]

Eyewitness testimony has demonstrated itself to be unreliable. Some of your particular witnesses that you call might not have even existed and, if they did, the words attributed to them were written down long after their deaths so they cannot be verified. The ones that we can verify had their own agendas, which biases their claims almost to the point of uselessness.

Even if your eyewitness testimony was trustworthy, which it isn't, then it would still not be enough to prove the existence of a God. That would require scientific evidence, not historical or legal evidence, because it's a claim about the nature of reality rather than what events might have occurred.

If this is to finally rest the case of the question of God's existence, then I expect you to deconvert from the Bahai faith and become an atheist. I doubt you'll do that, though, because you don't actually care about evidence at all. This whole thread is vanity.

 

[Ella S.]

unless a person actually seeks the need to understand the questions of where why are we here? where did we come from? and where we are going? Then why would they even be interested in someone attempting to prove God?

That would seem to me to be like trying to sell a male diesel mechanic womens perfume for his workshop. Its kinda useful but not really wanted. Hes likely to pass it onto someone else!

These questions are better answered by geology, evolutionary biology, astrophysics, etc. If someone really wanted to know those answers, the scientific method is the most reliable means for finding them.

Anyway, despite the above, I would have thought that the usual means of providing an "on the balance of probabilities" case for God might focus on stuff like:
1. historical evidence (archeology and artifacts that support the story)
2. Oral and written tradition
3. consistency in the story and its alignment with other physical evidence
4. perhaps witnesses to the story

This does not really demonstrate the existence of God, merely that specific stories have some truth to them. If I said that I went to the grocery store and met an extra-terrestrial, and I could demonstrate that I went to the grocery store with my receipts, would you also believe that I met an extra-terrestrial?

now when it comes to the Bible, there are bucket loads of all of the above trails of evidence. The really interesting thing about it is that when it comes to consistency, if the bible was a "con" it is one of the most elaborate and incredibly consistent "cons" in history!

Have you read the Bible? Multiple times in the Bible, it gives conflicting accounts of the same events. I can think of many hoaxes that were more consistent in their story.

1. finding of the dead sea scrolls shows that in 2,000 years, the autograph has barely changed even though it has been passed on from person to person, tribe to tribe, country to country without the use of any control mechanism that could even ensure consistency (most of the variants we have have gone across cultures that have even been at war with each other...so fundamentally they would not seek to remain consistent with writings from another cultures)

It's my understanding that the Dead Sea Scrolls are widely seen to demonstrate quite the opposite of this. They demonstrate quite a diversity of contradictory sources, as well as changes to familiar texts.

2. the bible refers to a couple of civilisations where the was no other evidence of the existence of said civilisations...until recently when external evidence was found proving the bible account was actually true! (aka Hittites and Assyrians)

The Bible also refers to a mass exodus from Egypt which couldn't have happened and claims that the origin of humanity is in the modern-day region of Saudi Arabia, formed 6,000 years ago. You're cherry-picking.

3. evidence uncovered of Pontius Pilate...until this evidence was relatively recent found, the entire story of him in the bible was considered by most naysayers as being a biblical fairytale.

It still is, mostly. The fact that Pontus Pilate exists doesn't realistic provide any credibility to the gospel accounts. Similarly, the existence of Kim Il-Sung does not provide credibility to the claim that he's a god.

The real problem is, unless a non believer has reason to seek answers to the questions of Epistomology, and isn't satisfied with the evolutionary tale, why would they come searching?

I hadn't realized you were a creationist until reading this passage. I contemplated deleting my reply when I realized this, but I'll let it stand for the non-creationists who are convinced by similar arguments.

Unfortunately what really pains me is that in our schools, we do not teach these things. Its apparently dangerous for kids to be taught about religion/s...dangerous to teach them to really question all possibilities when it comes to explaining our existence.

We don't teach these things because they're one-sided at best, but mostly because they're false.

Lets face it, I like Pascals Wager and its extremely valid when one is standing at a funeral where a group of young people have died as a result of poor choice in a motor vehicle that ended up in a multiple fatality accident.

No, it isn't. Pascal's Wager doesn't demonstrate the truth of anything. It has no relevance to any argument about truth. It's wholly useless.

So for me there are but two choices...it really is binary (despite attempts to argue against this in an attempt to discredit the wager).

As just one bit of evidence to support the binary choice view...anyone who plays lotto does so in the hope they can win. Its binary choice...you can only potentially win if you choose to play the game. If you don't play you cant win...its that simple!

So here's my fundamental view of it...

1. I believe in God, I am part of the group...i engage with it as I should and am told to by the Bible...i choose the gift of salvation
2. An atheist has no interest in God, rejects any offer of salvation, God cannot save him even if he wanted to (you can lead a horse to water, but making it drink?)

My view is not quite so black-and-white. I think we should follow the evidence and new data to whatever conclusions they lead to, being open to changing our positions in the face of superior logic and new information.

If I am wrong what do I lose? Both the atheist and I end up the same

But if I am right, I gain salvation as outlined by the bible and live happily for all eternity visiting other worlds and there will be no more tears and crying, hurt or harm...no more funerals for young kids who made poor choices and died in multiple fatality car accidents.

The atheist on the other hand, if the said atheist who rejects God turns out to be wrong...well he gets the crap burned out of him and then it really is "kaput"!

Anyway, that's my view of it.

Nah, you will probably go to Hell for not accepting Mohammad as your prophet, or being in the wrong denomination of Christianity, or failing to obtain moksha, what have you. Most likely, you're going to Hell no matter what you believe. So why not believe in the truth rather than what makes you feel better about dying?

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Methinks you need to do some study on recent findings on entropy.

Here is a starter...
Thermodynamic Origin of Life

 

[ChristineM]

This evidence can be tested in the heart of every fair minded observer.

I had a very difficult time trying to prove it false. After a few years I found the claim to be true.

Investigating truth is a process that takes time and there are no guarantees. I was just very lucky because I set out to prove Them (God, Prophets, Baha’u’llah) false but by accident found Them to be true.

Others still investigate. I wish them all the best with whatever they find.

In your personal opinion...

However such evidence would not be considered falsifiable nor stand up in q court of law

 

[Altfish]

That is because we have free will. The apex of our animal state is to live a full material life. Survival of the fittest, look after # 1

Wheras the apex of spiritual rebirth is submission unto God and becoming a servant to all of humanity. Serving every person as a brother or sister, as one's own flesh. It means becoming selfless which includes looking after one's own self to enable selfless actions.

Regards Tony

Look after #1 ... wrong!
Look after family first and then me.
I don't need to submit to be good to all humanity

 

[Ella S.]

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.

If you can prove that something is a piece of art, all that implies is that there was an artist, not that there was a particular artist. Same with inventions and crafts.

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.

I disagree. I see no evidence for the existence of essences. To quote Chrysippus, "A horse I can see, but 'horseness' I can not."

Evidence of a Messenger is that a Message is given.

This is affirming the consequent. It's on you to prove that the supposed messages are actually messages. You haven't done that.

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.

Pointing out that your evidence is either not evidence or not evidence enough to support your claims is not the same as not looking at your evidence at all.

I think it's a denial of both justice and reason to continue claiming that what you've provided constitutes evidence in any shape or form. It doesn't and that much has been demonstrated to you several times throughout this thread.

 

[ChristineM]

The apparent ‘fine tuning’ issue ought not to be dismissed so casually. The very precise value of certain key variables in mathematical models of the universe, is supported empirically and is not readily explained away. Stephen Hawking drew attention to this around 40 years ago, and spent some decades struggling to understand the implications.

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

Values are natural, whether they are precise for certain aspects is down to personal belief. What may be precise here on earth may in fact be far from precise elsewhere.

But the fact remains that the quantum realm is chaotic and the universe is pulled every which way by trillions of gravity points.