Evidence

[Valjean]

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?

It says nothing about atheists. It does say that believers are not employing reason or logic.

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

They are irrational, by definition and in practice.

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.

What logic is employed in theology? What facts are being logically evaluated?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

If you say something often enough, does that make it true?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Please give details about that 'logic employed in theology'..

..it's beyond the scope of the thread.
I do not wish to derail it.

eg. The One God is three persons

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

Possibly, but not always.
"established fact" can also be wrong.
It usually isn't wrong, but sometimes people claim that something is a fact, when it isn't !

 

[Valjean]

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.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

The Messengers are physical, but they are also spiritual. Their bodies are physical but their minds are spiritual.
However, as physical-spiritual beings, we can evaluate them in the same way that we evaluate all 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.

I agree.

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

Of course a claim to be a Messenger of God does not mean that the claim is true. It could be true or false.
Any man can "claim" to be a Messenger of God, but that does not make him a Messenger of God.

The way we can determine if a man is a Messenger of God is by looking at all the evidence that supports his claim.
It can never be proven "as a fact" that any man was a Messenger of God, we can only prove that to ourselves.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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

One needs to examine the evidence, and evaluate it for themselves.

Did Moses exist?
Did Jesus exist?
Did Muhammad exist?
What were they all saying?
..and why?

Did miracles actually occur?
If God does not exist, that implies that it is all a gigantic cosmic accident of some kind.
That is counter-intuitive .. it makes little sense.

"survival of the fittest" is an OK philosophy for the physical, but is unacceptable in a spiritual sense.
We have a conscience, and we can all understand the principals of righteousness and justice.
Denying that God exists, for whatever reason, throws that all away in the garbage.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you say something often enough, does that make it true?

Of course not.
A case in point is Donald Trump saying "the election was stolen!" over and over again.
No matter how many times he said that it never made it true.

 

[Ella S.]

The Messengers are physical, but they are also spiritual. Their bodies are physical but their minds are spiritual.
However, as physical-spiritual beings, we can evaluate them in the same way that we evaluate all evidence.

I agree.

Of course a claim to be a Messenger of God does not mean that the claim is true. It could be true or false.
Any man can "claim" to be a Messenger of God, but that does not make him a Messenger of God.

The way we can determine if a man is a Messenger of God is by looking at all the evidence that supports his claim.
It can never be proven "as a fact" that any man was a Messenger of God, we can only prove that to ourselves.

I am completely on board with that. I would be interested in discussing the supporting evidence, perhaps in another thread. I feel like that should have entered the discussion around 74 pages ago.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

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

To be honest, I don't need that much money. I'm content with how my life is now, and besides, very few people I know in person are aware of my mediumship abilities, that I'm an empath, or about my other abilities (see here). I am not as open about my abilities or my paranormal experiences in real life as I am online because I don't have the anonymity that I have on this forum. In fact, RF is the only online forum where I discuss them and my paranormal experiences. In this post here, I explain why I post on RF about my unique abilities and paranormal experiences. The only prominent social media platform I'm on is Facebook, and despite being a member of several paranormal-related groups, I don't discuss any of my abilities or my experiences with the paranormal there. I'm much more cautious about telling other people in person because I was threatened after I disclosed more about my abilities to someone I met through mutual friends. It was a serious mistake that I now regret, and I don't want to risk it happening again. I posted a thread about what happened (read it here), and before that, I posted another that explains the situation before I was threatened (read it here).

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your God much have known that humans would make bad decisions in the universe God created..

Of course .. He is Omniscient.
..and that is how we have knowledge about the "end-times" .. from God giving a few details of what is going to happen .. prophecy.

Almighty God knows why He created mankind, as an independent creature, capable of disobedience..
The sequel, is for those who ward off evil.
..not all of mankind will fail.
..and hopefully, not many will completely fail.
i.e. end up like satan

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?

You are asking a question with an obvious answer.
Mankind are weak in their love of wealth.
Remember the golden rule .. "Wish for your neighbour what you wish for yourself."

Usury is now defined as excessive interest rates, like payday loans..

The fact that payday loans exist, show how serious the majority of westerners take it today.
It is only defined like that out of convenience .. convenience to promote a system which benefits those that prescribe it.

China today has embraced "Capitalism", while promoting Communism .. complete hypocrisy.

We have a lot of terroism due to Islam..

It's not due to Islam .. it's due to inequality and envy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

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

"Idiomatically?" What on earth does that mean? The sun doesn't set at all -- the earth spins, or hadn't you heard?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sorry, but myths in books are not evidence..

Not for you .. but for many people they are. Why can you not grasp that?

 

[muhammad_isa]

They are irrational, by definition and in practice..

It is merely your opinion..
The hospitals are full of Muslim Doctors here in the UK.
Many of them pray regularly in prayer rooms on a daily basis.

You may claim that they are rational when they are treating patients, but when they go to pray, they are then acting irrationally.

Total codswallop !

 

[Alien826]

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.

I don't know if anything has a "set size". Even solid matter expands and contracts as it becomes hotter or colder. At any given moment it is measurable though.

Good! Sounds like we are on the right track.

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.

Finally!

Now lets move on to a different thread.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

A most excellent point!

 

[Trailblazer]

I am completely on board with that. I would be interested in discussing the supporting evidence, perhaps in another thread. I feel like that should have entered the discussion around 74 pages ago.

Are you referring to the supporting evidence for Messengers in general or the supporting evidence for Baha'u'llah?

Each Messenger has its own supporting evidence.

There has already been some discussion about the supporting evidence for Baha'u'llah on this thread somewhere, but I don't expect you to go looking through the whole thread as that would take a lifetime!

There was a discussion about this over two years ago on another thread:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports His claims are in this post I wrote:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

 

[Trailblazer]

Finally!

Now lets move on to a different thread.

Where do you want to go?

 

[muhammad_isa]

"Idiomatically?" What on earth does that mean?

..google is your friend..

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

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

There is absolutely no way I would ever agree to something like that, not that I would agree to participate in it anyway.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What method??

Faith, by which I mean holding an unsupported belief about what is real.

merely your opinion..

Nope. I had written, "I have told you repeatedly that your evidence doesn't support your beliefs and that your reasoning is often or usually fallacious." Everybody disagreeing with you holds that belief. They keep telling you so. And you may have seen a comment about that claim I made earlier in this thread regarding makings it about sound conclusions. It the poster is not only unable to think critically, but seems unaware that there is such a thing or what it can do for those who can do it, and therefore assumes that there is only ne way to come to opinions and that they are all subjective guesses. What else could such a statement mean?

If you told somebody that 316 + 973 = 1289, and they said that that was only your opinion, that would tell you not only that they can't add, but that they don't know that anybody can,or what addition is, or what it can do for those trained to add properly. What else could it mean?

You cannot scientifically prove that my evidence is fraudulent.

I don't care if its fraudulent. I care if it is correct.

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

What one believes is of little value or interest to the critical thinker - just what he knows and can demonstrate to be correct.

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

Reason.

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.

If you believe it based in just that, it is a guess. You are guessing. I'm starting to get the idea that for many posters, they are unaware that there is any other path to belief.

No, they are not "irrational" reasons, just because you say so.

They are irrational beliefs because they are not sound conclusions, meaning reason properly interpreted according to the rules of critical thinking.

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

Then belief in that is not derived from evidence. Evidence is always physical - better word than material. The physical world contains more than matter. The sun is matter, but the evidence of it to the unaided senses is energetic - light and heat. The solar wind and coronal mass ejections includes matter - subatomic particles - but that is not evident without special detectors.

one cannot apply "critical thinking" to the existence or non-existence of a Creator.

One can critically evaluate any declarative sentence. You've seen it done repeatedly in this thread. The claim is purely metaphysical, and as such is not falsifiable, scientific. It is "not even wrong."

I take the existence of God "on Faith"

Yes, I know, but faith is not a path to truth. Without faith, one can't hold that belief. That's what it means to say that the belief is irrational, unjustified, or insufficiently evidenced.

what you are claiming is that atheists employ reason, whilst believers do not, in ascertaining whether God exists?

Yes, if they are agnostic atheists.

I don't find that religious knowledge is "useless"

What can it be used for other than comfort?

If God does not exist, that implies that it is all a gigantic cosmic accident of some kind.

And if God does exist, that is also a big cosmic accident according to your usage of the phrase. There is no reason we know of why that needs to be the case, that is, why the existence of a god isn't contingent. Imagine being god and thinking how lucky you are to be possible much less actual. That's how I feel about reality - all of it, including gods if they exist.