Evidence

[Polymath257]

No .. because one cannot apply "critical thinking" to the existence or non-existence of a Creator.

If that is the case, then belief is irrational by that very fact.

It involves a human element called conscience, which is not part of that rational process.

And this makes belief, by definition, irrational. it is not the result of a 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."

And how does that lead to the belief that a deity exists?

I have found that they are..

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

Comparison of the texts with observation and tests of the ideas within. Study is useless if the texts are false. Evaluation is useless if the evaluation isn't based on observation and ideas that are testable.

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.

Sure, you can have faith. But that means that you give up on rationality and critical thinking. Faith, by its very nature, means that you believe in spite of the evidence available. And that is almost the definition of irrationality.

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.

Personal testimonies are *always* less reliable than observations that can be performed multiple times and tested as to their properties.

Eye witnesses are known to be unreliable.

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.

Ok, and you are free to believe whatever you like. But that does not make the belief rational or the result of critical thinking. it just means you choose to believe in spite of the quality of the evidence.

In my view, faith is a dereliction of the duty to think deeply and be skeptical of outlandish claims.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Well, I find it unreliable because that sort of reasoning and evidence has repeatedly shown itself to be unreliable.

Show any way in which the writings you choose are more reliable than the Iliad or Odyssey when they talk about the Greek deities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That was not quite a case of a "black and white" fallacy. He stated that there is no rational evidence for your beliefs. Where perhas he should have said that he has never been shown any. And oddly enough none of the people here claiming to have rational reliable evidence have as yet to have posted any. Claims are not rational evidence, nor are "holy books" until one has demonstrated that they are reliable. They are just another claim.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

..Ahh .. so you admit that you don't particularly care whether they are right or not .. you just assume they are not.

Well, I certainly can't speak for @It Aint Necessarily So, but I KNOW for a certainty that the sun does not set in a pool of murky water. Nope, those words are definitively not right.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is an incorrect statement: billions do NOT find it rational, they find it believable..

I find this to be pedantic, and does not really teach us anything.

rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic

..so what you are claiming is that atheists employ reason, whilst believers do not, in ascertaining whether God exists?
No .. it's pointless rhetoric.

You just keep telling yourself that believers are irrational, if it makes you feel better.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I do not know what you mean by 'level of evidence.' If you mean physical evidence for the actual being called God, I do not believe there will ever be any such evidence since God is not a physical being. Imb, God is a spiritual being who exists in the spiritual world, and the evidence is the Messengers of God (also called Manifestations of God) that God sends to Earth to speak for Him. Since the Messengers have a twofold nature, both human and divine, they can understand both God and humans, so they can receive the message from God and relay it to humans in a written form that humans can understand.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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

I'm not referring to scientific observations .. I am referring to the logic employed in theology, and determining correct beliefs and evaluation of historical events.

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

See above..

 

[John53]

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

Yep, only celebrity psychics with their own TV crew. I guess the cost of running it became too much, probably way more than the actual prize.

 

[Polymath257]

I find this to be pedantic, and does not really teach us anything.

rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic

..so what you are claiming is that atheists employ reason, whilst believers do not, in ascertaining whether God exists?
No .. it's pointless rhetoric.

If they use logic, then it would be easy to make the reasoning explicit so we can evaluate it.

You just keep telling yourself that believers are irrational, if it makes you feel better.

Well, the arguments used to 'prove' the existence that I have seen all have basic logical flaws. That means that belief based on those arguments is irrational. You have said that belief isn't based on rational analysis, but on conscience. So that also says that belief is irrational.

It is possible to be rational in some matters and irrational in others.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not referring to scientific observations .. I am referring to the logic employed in theology, and determining correct beliefs and evaluation of historical events.

Please give details about that 'logic employed in theology'. Every instance I have seen of it has *very* basic logical flaws.

If historical claims contradict established scientific facts, then it is the historical interpretation that needs to change.

See above..

I don't see how anything above changes that statement.

 

[Ella S.]

I do not know what you mean by 'level of evidence.' If you mean physical evidence for the actual being called God, I do not believe there will ever be any such evidence since God is not a physical being. Imb, God is a spiritual being who exists in the spiritual world, and the evidence is the Messengers of God (also called Manifestations of God) that God sends to Earth to speak for Him. Since the Messengers have a twofold nature, both human and divine, they can understand both God and humans, so they can receive the message from God and relay it to humans in a written form that humans can understand.

Messengers and their writings are physical; if they're being used as evidence for God, then they can be evaluated in the same way that we evaluate all other physical evidence.

I don't think there's a division between "physical" and "spiritual" evidence. There's just evidence. "Evidence" being, loosely, an observation or set of observations that indicate (or increase the likelihood) of a given conclusion.

The problem is that I don't see how messengers claiming God exists indicates that their claims are true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If that is the case, then belief is irrational by that very fact.

If that wss the only evidence we have, i.e. intuition, that maybe so.

Study is useless if the texts are false..

It is not entirely useless..
..without studying them, we cannot know the liklihood of them being true or false.

Evaluation is useless if the evaluation isn't based on observation and ideas that are testable..

I don't find that religious knowledge is "useless" .. far from it !

Sure, you can have faith. But that means that you give up on rationality and critical thinking..

No it doesn't That is just a claim .. an excuse for disbelief.
One can employ reason to evaluate correct religious knowledge.
Science employs statistical probability .. and so can theology.
It does not have to be all about observations .. one can use reason in many ways.

Faith, by its very nature, means that you believe in spite of the evidence available..[/quote[
That is just what you want it to mean.
The fact that some people's beliefs are irrational, does not mean that rational beliefs do not exist.

Personal testimonies are *always* less reliable than observations that can be performed multiple times and tested as to their properties..

I don't know about always, but as a general rule, yes.

Eye witnesses are known to be unreliable..

More excuses..
We do not depend on one or two witnesses .. there are too many to enumerate.

Ok, and you are free to believe whatever you like. But that does not make the belief rational or the result of critical thinking. it just means you choose to believe in spite of the quality of the evidence..

No, it does not mean that.
That is your claim i.e. that the quality of evidence is poor

In my view, faith is a dereliction of the duty to think deeply and be skeptical of outlandish claims.

I do not take faith lightly..

I do not believe in every scientific fact that comes along .. I am inherently suspicious, in every academic discipline .. religion included.

 

[F1fan]

..not that again.
We are all held responsable for our deeds.

If you thists are going to calim there's a God as outlined in numerous books, then you are accountable for those claims when you resent your beliefs and "arguments". I don't see how a tri-omni God as Abrahamics claims can't know how humans will evolve over time. Your God much have known that humans would make bad decisions in the universe God created. We are aware that pollution is toxic to the world we live in, and toxic to humans. Some have made efforts to limit pollution, while others still deny the data and science. These are faith-based thinkers, the same category of people who believe in religious frameworks.

Passing the buck does not wash.

Yet you are doing just that when you dismiss that your idea of God is accountable for anything. Youy blame everything excetp your God, the Creator.

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

Then your God is useless. Your fellow Muslims jihadists who believe God tells them to kill other people is their fault, not Gods? So your morality is your own wits, not God's inspiration? When an atheist is moral, it is via their own wits? When religious people do criminal acts, it is via their own wits?

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

Why should non-Abrahamics follow your idea of God? Even many Abrahamics borrow money, so they don't take the usury rule very seriously. Why is that?

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.

Banks make success in a Capitalist economic system more feasible. Usury is now defined as excessive interest rates, like payday loans.

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

We have a lot of terroism due to Islam. Why didn't God teach Muslims a more clear set of lessons if terrorism is bad?

.so what you are claiming is that atheists employ reason, whilst believers do not, in ascertaining whether God exists?
No .. it's pointless rhetoric.

The rhetoric is all yours, and other believers who repeat religious claims and can only refer to faith as the means to believe, and then dismiss reason and facts as relevant to examining religious concepts. You want an exemption, yet can't even explain why you deserve it.

You just keep telling yourself that believers are irrational, if it makes you feel better

It is an observtion, not a judgment.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Show any way in which the writings you choose are more reliable than the Iliad or Odyssey when they talk about the Greek deities.

I would have thought that that needs its own thread.
This thread is about evidence in general, for the existence of God.

I specialise in the Bible and Qur'an.
50% of the world's population are either Christians or Muslims.

The OP and @Trailblazer specialise in the Bahai writings.
They also believe that most other religions have their roots in monotheism too.
..I would agree that it is very likely.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Claims are not rational evidence, nor are "holy books" until one has demonstrated that they are reliable. They are just another claim.

That is right.
..and that is what the OP pointed out.
There is evidence of God's existence, but the question is .. does one find it to be reliable?

..so, rather than an atheist repeatedly saying "there is no evidence gods exist", rather, they should say that there is no reliable evidence, in their opinion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, I certainly can't speak for @It Aint Necessarily So, but I KNOW for a certainty that the sun does not set in a pool of murky water..

Idiomatically, it does .. but obviously, in a literal sense it doesn't.

One doesn't need to have a PhD to realise that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is right.
..and that is what the OP pointed out.
There is evidence of God's existence, but the question is .. does one find it to be reliable?

..so, rather than an atheist repeatedly saying "there is no evidence gods exist", rather, they should say that there is no reliable evidence, in their opinion.

And you keep demonstrating that you do not understand what evidence is. Sorry, but myths in books are not evidence. Nor are the writings of men that appear to be delusional to say the least. Evidence needs to be able to cut both ways. If you cannot tell us what would refute your beliefs then you do not have evidence for your beliefs.

 

[F1fan]

I would have thought that that needs its own thread.
This thread is about evidence in general, for the existence of God.

I specialise in the Bible and Qur'an.
50% of the world's population are either Christians or Muslims.

The OP and @Trailblazer specialise in the Bahai writings.
They also believe that most other religions have their roots in monotheism too.
..I would agree that it is very likely.

And neither of you can offer credible evidence that your religious frameworks are rational, and can be judged true via reason. You even use a logical fallacy above. So no matter how much you two study your religious texts it doesn't prepare you to present a valid argument that any of the writings are true.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Yes, both exist, and are made of "stuff", but I consider an object to be physical and an entity to be spiritual. It's all semantics. The requirements you gave to be existent is that it has size and duration, but a I do not know if a spiritual body has a 'set size', it might be able to contract and expand. A spiritual body has a duration, which is forever, since it is eternal.

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.

Yes, a soul (which becomes a spiritual body when we die) has some kind of substance, but it is not comprised of physical matter, it is comprised of spiritual elements. There is no way we can understand what that will be like since we have never seen or experienced a spiritual body. There is an interesting description of what it is like in a little book called Private Dowding. The book was written by a psychic medium, who was communicated to by the spirit of a soldier who was killed in battle during WWI, and it is free to read online if you are interested.

“How does it feel to be 'dead'? One can't explain, because there's nothing in it! I simply felt free and light. My being seemed to have expanded. These are mere words. I can only tell you just this: that death is nothing unseemly or shocking. So simple is the 'passing along' experience that it beggars description. Others may have other experiences to relate of a more complex nature. I don't know.....
When I lived in a physical body I never thought much about it. My health was fair. I knew very little about physiology. Now that I am living under other conditions I remain incurious as to that through which I express myself. By this I mean that I am still evidently in a body of some sort, but 'l' can tell you very little about it. It has no interest for me. It is convenient, does not ache or tire, seems similar in formation to my old body. There is a subtle difference, but I cannot attempt analysis.”
Private Dowding, p. 17

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.

The Bible says that people could touch Jesus physically, but I believe that if Jesus appeared after the resurrection, as the Bible says, He appeared in a spiritual body, not a physical body. Of course, since Jesus could do miracles so he could have made His body "look" and "feel" physical to those who saw it and touched it. As an aside, there are reports from spirits in the book called The Afterlife Revealed who say that the spiritual body is an exact replica of the physical body, only it is not physical.

None of this contradicts what I am saying.

Good! Sounds like we are on the right track.

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.

No, that's not it. I just did not understand exactly what you were saying, but now I understand so we are on the same page.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..It is possible to be rational in some matters and irrational in others.

Of course, it is possible..
We all have different beliefs, regardless of whether we are believers or not.

There is a reason for that .. it is not just plucked out of thin air in a random fashion.