Evidence

[F1fan]

If you think my beliefs are irrelevant I suggest you stop talking to me about them.

This discussion was oend to present EVIDENCE for beliefs, not to hear ABOUT beliefs. You repeating what you believe means nothing for the discussion.

You can say "I believe in Santa Claus". OK, why? You respond "Well my mom told me he exists." That's not good enough. And you come back with "Well I believe he exists." We don;t care, if you are going to tell us what you believe, and your reasons are not sufficient, we don;t want to hear you repeat your beliefs. We want you to explain why your mom is correct, and so on.

How many times do I have to tell you that there are no facts about God, only beliefs.

Then there is no rational basis for such belief. As we see, believers don;t beliueve for factual reasons, they are for other reasons, which are not rational.

The only facts you will ever have are facts about Baha'u'llah, not facts about God.

And there is no fact that suggests the texts are authentic. It's more likely he invented the content.

All facts have been shown to be true, that is what a fact is.

Fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

There might be evidence for a belief, but there is no proof. Beliefs cannot be shown to be true, that is why they are called beliefs rather than facts.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
Belief - Wikipedia

Any ideas that can't be shown to be true are not UNTRUE by default. You just committed the fallacy of argument from ignorance. A belief is not false simply because it has not yet been proven true.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

You don;t seem to aply these definitions for your own posts when you get emotional. You have two personalities, one that is rational, honest, and objective, and themn when you go into complete believer mode and post a series of your beliefs as if you think they are factual, namely writing that God is such and such, and does such and such.

Religious beliefs cannot be shown to be true, but that does not mean they are false. It only means it cannot be known if they are true or false.

Will you remember this when you write a post that calims God doesn't care, or God wants us to do something, etc.?

There are facts about Baha'u'llah but there are no facts that prove He was a Messenger of God.
I don't care if you like it.

That is why we reject what you believe. Why you believe he was a real messenger is something you haven't been able to articulate. You believe for some reason, but you don't seem to know what that is.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course. Because I see that 8 billion people exist, that presumably are like me, in as much as they have a conscious mind and are aware that they exist.

It doesn't require much imagination, to see that there is an explanation for this .. something greater than ourselves, that just "is" .. isn't born and doesn't die.

Greater in what way? There *is* an explanation, but it has to do with the specifics of events in the African Rift Valley and how it affected the evolution of certain great apes.

The assumption that a cause must be 'greater' than an effect is a point of faulty logic.

..that is just questioning existence itself .. it doesn't get us anywhere.


Oh, please !
"critical thinking", or materialist thinking?

Critical thinking is enough. Being willing to discard ideas that are pleasant, but shown to be false or untestable is key.

Materialism is irrelevant. Requiring ideas to be testable and actually pass tests based on observation is the central point.

Religious ideas are ultimately untestable and hence should be discarded as 'not even false' in most cases.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then there is no rational basis for such belief. As we see, believers don;t believe for factual reasons, they are for other reasons, which are not rational..

No, they are not "irrational" reasons, just because you say so.
..unless you are think that we are all human beings with no empathy .. just robots only capable of on/off .. yes/no.

Your "black and white" fact claim is false.
In effect, you are suggesting that scientists are gods, and their "facts" are the only ones possible.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not so sure about that.
Almighty God is capable of causing these catastrophes, if He wills .. but do you really think that sucking natural resources out of the crust of the earth at our present rate, has no effect on quakes?
..and it is well-known that the burning of these natural resources are causing catastrophes, due to climate change.

However, if your beliefs are correct, the way humans behave it is due to how your idea of God created them. If your God wanted more rational, and less foolish humans, it should have created them that way. So your gripe is with your God if you chose to believe in it.

No .. mankind, in their love of wealth, are bringing these catastrophes upon themselves.
If we all listened to the guidance that God has given us, it would not be happening.

Yet many believers, namely Muslims, think they do listen to God and commit mass murder in the name of Allah, so I am not impressed by your appeal to God. Facts show us how dangerous your approach is to moral ends. Feel free to ignore this fact once again, but we all know.

..at least, not at the rate that they are.
..same with pestilence and disease.
Is it any surprise that the origin of many novel viruses is from China? Why did they refuse international investigation?

No more surprising that the virus spread fast in the USA due to incompetence by the administration of Trump.

In 2019, their pig-farms were experiencing huge loss from disease. They had to import it by the ton, as it is eaten daily by the majority.

Disease spreads quickly in this modern world, through global travel, and city environment etc.

Large populations of any animal, inclkuding humans, means disease can spread fast. This is a world as your God created, so blame it. Across the world we saw liberals and some wise conservatives implement mandates and measures to slow the spread of Covid, yet it was more fervent conservatives who believed in conspiracy theories and had contempt for science that thwarted these policies, and that is due to irrational belief and faith-based thinking.

You want to make it all about a hypothetical God .. but it isn't ..
You just wish to divert attention away from the real cause.

No Gods are known to exist as a cause, but that isn;t stopping you from refering to your God as if it is real and factual. We need to correct your error of thought. Feel free to believe what you want in your personal life, but debate has rules to follow.

I don't believe it is entirely accurate, but you will say the same about the Qur'an, in any case.

But the Old Testament does detail a cruel and vengeful God. It's right there in the stories.

Lots of Christians and Muslims are wealthy .. that does not mean that they are necessarily following their faith.
Mankind are weak .. wealth is a huge test..

OK, so when you are criticl of things humans do don't make it an apveal to God when you admit the same behavior is done by believers. Am I supposed to think they are wrong and you are right? Then prove it. I look at the data. If Muslims claim to be godly and moral, yet many commit mass murder, I don't fimnd their testimony compelling or accurate. When you claim humans are flawed, OK, that's the way your God created humans. You can't escape accountability for what you have adopted religiously.

What are you on about?
You summed it up in another thread.
The causes are many .. genetic, behavioural, environmental.
It is not all about "lady-luck"..

My point is that if you Abrahamics are correct about your idea of God, that it is the loving creator of all things, is in control, has lans for evenryone, etc., then the natural diseases that inflict people are part of this plan. Believers hate this revelation, and can't explain how their beliefs do not account for children getting cancer. Some blame the devil, but guess what created the devil. Your God.

No, and it is not easy to sue local authorities that do not monitor pollution and take action accordingly, either.

..neither can we sue oil companies who burn off excess "gas" in Africa, while the poor unfortunate living nearby are dying of cancers.

Human progress doesn't mean it isn't deadly and messy. Where is your God's guidance? Anything in the Quran warning of pollution and cancer? No?

 

[Polymath257]

More "divide and rule"..

There is only one truth, and God is aware of what it is.
Many people state things about God with little knowledge.
They have no business doing so, but that is the nature of humans.
We claim that we know things when we do not.

..so we end up with many different creeds and denominations, but still only One God.
The splitting of religion into sects does not split God .. it splits people.

Such is your claim. Now, how can we put these ideas to the test? Critical thinking doesn't get to assume that there is a God before you give evidence for such. You don't get to rely on faith until you show that faith is reliable for finding truth (which it isn't).

It is an informed opinion, based on the Bible and Qur'an .. not to mention my intuitive thoughts that mankind are accountable for their deeds in some way.

But that assumes the Bible and Qur'an are reliable in some way. The question of whether that is the case needs to be determined *before* claiming your knowledge of them is 'informed opinion' about reality (as opposed to knowledge about what a couple of books say).

There are different ways of establishing truth. The scientific method is one of the most important, but it is not the only consideration.

Well, there is mathematical truth, which has little to do with the real world and is based on making assumptions and deducing the consequences of those assumptions. Philosophy has shown itself unable to 'establish truth' as has religious faith.

What other method do you propose?

We believe that scientific facts are true, until somebody proves they are not.
Empirical proof is not absolute either. We can make errors.

But the scientific method is self-correcting. Faith, by definition, is not.

eg. butter is bad for you .. it increases cholesterol

For many years, people believed this to be "true", but now the empirical evidence is in question.

What method??

Exactly. the ideas are tested by actual observation. Nothing is held simply on faith.

The method is to require all ideas to be testable by observation and be willing to discard those that fail observational tests.

..merely your opinion..
You cannot scientifically prove that my evidence is fraudulent.

Well, what precisely do those who have done scientific studies say? What actual evidence do you have? How does that evidence stand up to detailed scrutiny?

What is the point of a discussion, if we don't care what anybody else believes but ourselves?

Quite right .. but would it be based on reason .. or merely your own opinion?

Well, what are the rules of reason? Among others, don't take anything on faith.And require all ideas to be testable and tested.

 

[Polymath257]

No, they are not "irrational" reasons, just because you say so.
..unless you are think that we are all human beings with no empathy .. just robots only capable of on/off .. yes/no.

Your "black and white" fact claim is false.
In effect, you are suggesting that scientists are gods, and their "facts" are the only ones possible.

Not at all. But neither are ideas correct simply because someone likes and believes them.

What is it that makes an idea 'rational' or 'irrational'? part of the definition of 'irrational' is that the idea is held in spite of contrary evidence or that it is impossible to test at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you think?
The truth is, that we will all die, and return to our Maker.

It is a truth that we all die. Whether there is a Maker at all is not established.

You have been informed of the truth .. so maybe one day, when you find that it is true, you will know why it is called truth.

No, we have been informed of your opinion. But that opinion has no evidence to support it, so it has no justification to be called 'truth'.

 

[Ella S.]

You say in theory as a human. When no human existed so no human language explanations existed either.

What would be said?

A real questioner a human would state no discernable human answer as I'm not a God.

As honest as a human can be knowing themself is as a or the human. One self a twin of any other human. Yet a sacrificed human twin looking at a sacrificed human twin.

As men can be looked at and seem the same looking human as a woman said natural genetic history. Human.

So you'd ask that human. If your conscious awareness is higher isn't it by birth first the baby human?

All humans should say yes. You are correct. It is the teaching actually.

So teaching said not humans sex but by heavenly mass body changes. Gave my health so I become more aware from my birth.

The same yes you are correct in self presence. Just self aware.

So where is your message?

Given owned by my own self a human in my owned mind a human owning my own body.

As a lot of humans own and use the same claim. In lots of countries.

They gain a following by what they said. As the human.

If you lived by yourself. Told stories. No one but your own self to talk to is the relativity of one human self in life's reality.

A human says I am proof that a God exists before my life by my conscious ability. Dominion.

As a human expressed dominion over all things is including space suns stars planets heavens. If you took a good look at your human behaviours.

Why?

If a type of God existed it would mean you left its body to only be a human who dies.

As we do all die. As death is known as no conscious ability and decomposition.

The term human death isn't arguable as the terms are exact science.

Yet humans not using exact science preach false science theisms. When evidence is witnessed as human death exact in natural laws.

Now when the bible is read it says two testimonials about temple practiced science. Before. Case studies.

A legal precedence. On a shut book the bible is an oath to speak the truth and is sworn. And only evidence in life is used.

As the book is shut.

Therefore saying I quote out of a book in the now life isn't legal. The oath plus evidence is now with the living humans.

Evidence now says human.animal nature's life is being attacked destroyed by man's technological science practiced now.

If legal says I use case evidence of past history. Then the case to argue was the testimony of before a case to argue now.

The terms god is only a human told story. I was created. Reasoned as everything I see is not a human reasoned by the human.

If a human is seeking God as a science then it's not what they infer. As they seek a power source to convert it in their human built machine.

Very obvious it's not the same topic.

I agree because case law can be overturned. To overturn case law, we have to first examine the initial ruling.

None of the theists in this thread have really given us a summary of the original proceedings or why they were originally determined to be evidence for God. We can't even have a proper hearing about whether this previous case can hold up to modern scrutiny without understanding the previous case.

This is something nobody is really doing in this thread. Maybe it's just too big of a topic?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Religious ideas are ultimately untestable and hence should be discarded as 'not even false' in most cases.

No, they are not all "untestable"..

The core belief that God exists is "untestable", from a material point of view.
We all know that God does not masquerade as a man, and appear on TV.
..and even if he did .. that would not stop people claiming he was a liar etc.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the way humans behave it is due to how your idea of God created them..

..not that again.
We are all held responsable for our deeds.
Passing the buck does not wash.

Large populations of any animal, inclkuding humans, means disease can spread fast. This is a world as your God created, so blame it..

No! Mankind are responsible for the problems in the modern world, and not God.

Human progress doesn't mean it isn't deadly and messy. Where is your God's guidance? Anything in the Quran warning of pollution and cancer? No?

If we followed God's guidance, the world would not be as it is.

Example: usury is forbidden

Now, you will say that it is impractical to have any other financial system, and that banks are serving us well.

..if there were no banks, then we wouldn't have mass industrialisation in one nation, and extreme poverty in another.

We wouldn't have mass migration and terrorism.
..the list goes on..

 

[F1fan]

No, they are not all "untestable"..

The core belief that God exists is "untestable", from a material point of view.
We all know that God does not masquerade as a man, and appear on TV.
..and even if he did .. that would not stop people claiming he was a liar etc.

At best your version of God can only be said to exist in the minds of believers. There is nothing that indicates any gods exist outside human imagination.

 

[Ella S.]

NO!! That is not the way that it works at all.
I have already presented all the evidence I have, over and over and over and over again.
You always say "that's not evidence."
Since you do not consider my evidence to be evidence, you need to tell me what would constitute evidence for you.

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

I have written and bookmarked my own answer to this thread after seeing it linked here a few times. Here is a link to my answer, which I might refer back to in the future when this same topic comes up again:

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

I doubt that my honest answer to this question will be satisfying to most believers, but it will probably elucidate why none of their evidence is very convincing to me. I expect the same level of evidence for the existence of God as we have for, say, the colossal squid or the planet Pluto.

 

[Alien826]

You are describing objects that exist in the physical world, i.e., physical existence. Spiritual things do not exist as objects in the physical world, they exist as entities in the spiritual world. According to @Sgt. Pepper some people who die never cross over to the spiritual world, they hang around the physical world unless a psychic medium helps them cross over. These are called ghosts, earthbound souls, or disembodied souls.

Why do you use the word "objects" for things in this world and "entities" for things in the spiritual world? Both exist, no? Made of different "stuff" maybe, but still subject to the requirements I gave to be existent.

I suppose it is also possible that after a person dies and ascends to the spiritual world, the soul of that person can come back to the physical world in a spiritual body to pay a visit, or that soul can somehow affect objects and people who are still in the physical world, from the spiritual world... What do I know? I am only a believer.

This suggests the same thing. The soul has substance. Otherwise how could it move from one level of existence to another. And you also suggest that the spiritual form can interact with the physical form.

Incidentally, the stories told about Jesus after his resurrection agree with this. He could walk through walls (or otherwise appear in closed rooms) yet people could touch him physically.

It is in the Bible that we get spiritual bodies after we die and divest ourselves of our physical bodies. This is what Jesus meant by a resurrection, not a physical resurrection of the physical body from the grave, not a physical body coming back to life as so many Christians believe will happen. God created the human body to be mortal, not immortal.

Our physical bodies will die and we will be raised as spiritual bodies. Paul says that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God and that means they cannot exist in heaven. When Paul says these dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever, he is referring to the spiritual world (heaven), which will last forever.

1 Corinthians 15 says that there are two different kinds of bodies:

--- The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.
--- For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies, which are different.

Our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God which is in Heaven. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever is referring to Heaven, which will last forever. Our physical bodies will die and we will be raised (resurrected) as spiritual bodies that will be suited to go to Heaven and live forever.

1 Corinthians 15:40-54 New Living Translation

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.

44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.

51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!

54 Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die,[c] this Scripture will be fulfilled: “Death is swallowed up in victory.[d]

Read full chapter

None of this contradicts what I am saying.

See how similar the Baha'i writings are to the Bible.

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.”
Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194

Exactly, from the horse's mouth. "[M]ade up of elements of that heavenly realm". Therefore existing in the sense that I described. I'm beginning to wonder if you think I am saying, or suggesting, something different from what I am.

I am sure there are plenty of bad mediums. A bad medium is worse than mo medium at all, because it is better to not know anything than to get bogus information.

I think it is important not to give the medium any information about your loved one, because if you do that, how can you know that the medium is really communicating with your loved one? A fraudulent medium might just come back with what they think you want to hear. However, if you give them little or no information and they come back with things that only your loved one could possibly know, that is a good test, a way to know that the medium connected with the spirit (soul) of your loved one.

Exactly. They don't have to be out and out fraudulent of course. There are many motivations and the human mind has an almost unlimited ability to delude itself.The mediums at the Spiritual church didn't charge for their services. No doubt they got a sense of being special though, which is its own reward.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Critical thinking doesn't get to assume that there is a God before you give evidence for such..

No .. because one cannot apply "critical thinking" to the existence or non-existence of a Creator.
It involves a human element called conscience, which is not part of that rational process.

Critical thinking is an "intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."

But that assumes the Bible and Qur'an are reliable in some way..

I have found that they are..

Philosophy has shown itself unable to 'establish truth' as has religious faith..

What other method do you propose?

Study, and evaluation of texts.
What else is there?

But the scientific method is self-correcting. Faith, by definition, is not.

We can have faith that God exists, but we might change our beliefs about Him.. we can employ critical thinking, as God does not expect us to believe irrational things .. that would make no sense .. to me, at least.

What actual evidence do you have? How does that evidence stand up to detailed scrutiny?

Well, these things are debated constantly by members on this site.
Some people feel that scripture is reliable evidence, and some don't.
It is not about "material evidence" for the existence of God .. it is about people's testimonies and how credible they are.

Well, what are the rules of reason? Among others, don't take anything on faith.And require all ideas to be testable and tested.

I take the existence of God "on Faith" .. I do not expect to meet God in some kind of physical manifestation.
I believe that Jesus and Muhammad are who they say they were.
I believe in the testimonies of those who witnessed miracles.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, we have been informed of your opinion. But that opinion has no evidence to support it, so it has no justification to be called 'truth'.

It has evidence to support it .. but you consider it unreliable .. simple as that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As far as I'm concerned, Subduction Zone can believe whatever he chooses about my mediumship abilities. If I knew him in person and he asked me if he could come along on one of my paranormal investigations, I would let him. I'd let him decide for himself about whatever potential evidence of the paranormal we may find, and I wouldn't try to persuade him to believe either. And if, by chance, there was the spirit of his deceased loved one present and the spirit asked me to give him a special message, then I would tell him.

In all honesty, I've discovered that the most effective approach to convincing a skeptic that there are earthbound spirits and that the paranormal is real is to reveal personal facts that only they and their deceased loved one know. I've been a practicing medium for the past fifteen years now, and I've yet to meet a hard skeptic who walked away still skeptical of the paranormal after I revealed personal facts about a deceased loved one that I had no way of knowing or a memory that only they and their deceased loved one knew about.

With all those powers, you really should have taken on James Randi's challenge. Heck, the money's good!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What is that supposed to mean?
You make a general statement saying that "it looks irrational", without saying why..

I was merely pointing out that billions find it rational.
You will really need to be more specific, if you want a more specific reply.

..just saying "belief in a god is irrational" is relatively meaningless.

This is an incorrect statement: billions do NOT find it rational, they find it believable. That is a much, much lower threshold. To find something to be rational requires that you provide reasons -- that's the actual meaning of the word.

 

[Ella S.]

With all those powers, you really should have taken on James Randi's challenge. Heck, the money's good!

Last time I checked, they aren't accepting applicants unless they have significant TV or press coverage.

 

[Polymath257]

No, they are not all "untestable"..

Give a specific testable via observation and specific criteria that would say that idea is wrong if the observations go an unexpected direction.

The core belief that God exists is "untestable", from a material point of view.

Nope, that is not what I said.

To be testable (definition), there must be an observation that, if it happens, would show that idea to be wrong.

What do you propose?

We all know that God does not masquerade as a man, and appear on TV.
..and even if he did .. that would not stop people claiming he was a liar etc.

Not sure what relevance this has to the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Last time I checked, they aren't accepting applicants unless they have significant TV or press coverage.

It went beyond that. At least I am pretty sure that the funds went to other uses. And that was before Randi died.