Evidence

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

That is what the OP has indeed demonstrated.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

That is why in all Faiths the Word is submitted as evidence of the.Revelation given by the Messenger.

This OP was only to point out what is valid evidence of a Faith. It was in no way aimed at the validation if the evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

Faith is supported by the Evidence. (All Faiths, true and false)

The Messenger (Person)
The Revelation (From God or Self)
The Message (What was given via the Revelation)

All Faiths have that line of Evidence.

This OP is not about validation of the Evidence, it is to establish what is used as evidence.

I do not think many people are ready for the validation of spirirual evidence using logic and reason from the given evidence. I see many on RF actively discourage it, at times.

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Those are your words, and not what I said. If you are going to misrepresent what I say, then you are not debating in (how should I say it?) good faith.

I am very, very clear on why I believe many of the things that I do: evolution, the efficacy of vaccines, the utility of Newton's laws (in spite of the fact that they are superceded by Eintein's), that I can live without an appendix or a kidney, but not without a liver or heart. I can provide or point to mountains of very real evidence that demonstrate why I believe those things.

Not once, so far in over 1500 posts in this thread, has anyone give a reason for their belief in God, except what they were told by others: parents, other believers, or the writings of long-dead believers. Not once.

We even have one contributer who claims to be able to contact those who have "crossed over into the spirit world" -- that same "spirit world" where God is supposed to be and which we are also told cannot be contacted. This is a blatant contradiction, isn't it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What one believes is of little value or interest to the critical thinker..

That is just arrogant rhetoric..
You imply that a believer is not capable of using logic and reason, to evaluate their beliefs.

I am always interested in what others believe, and why.
I wouldn't be here otherwise.

Reason.

You said ".if he wants to claim that what he believes is fact supported by evidence, I will probably tell him I disagree.."

..and that would be because you use "reason" to evaluate it?

I doubt it very much. The only "reason" that you employ, is that God's existence cannot be empirically proved?
..or am I missing something?

If you believe it based in just that, it is a guess..

It is more than a guess.
The Bible & Qur'an are not based on a guess.

Evidence is always physical - better word than material..

Testimony is not physical.

Yes, I know, but faith is not a path to truth..

On the contrary, in my experience it is.

"knock, and you will be answered"

"knocking" without faith is futile.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That is what the OP has indeed demonstrated.

Welcome back.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

So we can agree it is evidence, but you see it is evidence that does not contain facts or proofs.

This OP is not about proofs or validation of the evidence.

I am happy to be corrected, but if one was to attempt to give from the evidence facts and proofs, does not RF then consider that as Proselytizing?

Regards Tony

 

[Ella S.]

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

I see that this linked post mentions prophecy, which could be evidence of something, although you call these prophecies "icing on the cake" which might imply that they aren't the main evidence.

It seems like your main evidence, according to this post, has something to do with Baha'u'llah's character, accomplishments, and writings.

Perhaps we could focus on whatever you think is the strongest specific evidence that Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God. For example, could you give a specific accomplishment of his that he couldn't have achieved if he wasn't a messenger of God?

 

[F1fan]

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.

And you claim this based on your interpretation of stories in ancient books. So questionable.

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

The problem is mature and responsible people behave themselves, whether theists or not. Immature and naive people will misbehave. There are many who suffer from mental illness or disorders and can’t help but get into trouble. So my question is why your God made so many people who are incapable of behaving themselves no matter how often they are punished. If your God created a world of Stable, rational, and balanced humans there would not be so much turmoil and chaos. So that’s a big issue.

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."


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.

All in a world your God created. If your God wanted a better outcome it should have created people more capable of reasoning and wisdom.


[quite]It's not due to Islam .. it's due to inequality and envy.[/QUOTE]
Terrorism by Islamic extremists is due to envy and inequality? Then why doesn’t the Quran address these problems? Why are Muslims murdering people in the name of Allah and getting away with it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Faith is supported by the Evidence. (All Faiths, true and false)

The Messenger (Person)
The Revelation (From God or Self)
The Message (What was given via the Revelation)

All Faiths have that line of Evidence.

This OP is not about validation of the Evidence, it is to establish what is used as evidence.

I do not think many people are ready for the validation of spirirual evidence using logic and reason from the given evidence. I see many on RF actively discourage it, at times.

Regards Tony

You have put yourself in the position of deciding "what the appropriate evidence is," and you do that based entirely on your belief. That much is obvious because you provide no other reason for saying that those things constitute evidence that is of value in determinng the validity of a claim.

Criminal cases in court can presented with lots of "evidence:" for instance the claim of the accused's mother than "Ralph is a good boy, he would never do such a thing, and this is the only evidence you need to listen to." In the same way, such cases must also evaluate presumed evidence that contradicts other presumed evidence: the finding of 2 different DNA signatures, or 2 different sets of fingerprints, which must be sorted out or thrown out.

Thus, there are many different "revelations" out there, and members have mentioned many of them. Can you list all the scriptures of the world? Do you know all the people who have claimed to be "messengers" and have you evaluated what they say they say was "revealed" to them? If you have, then you must know that most of them (at minimum) must be thrown out.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Testimony is not physical

I would add, that is does have physical ramifications. The word after all, is creation, it is what supports life.

Yet one has to pursue the evidence to enable rational and logical thought on that topic.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Welcome back.

I was trying not to return, did not even last a full week.

That is my weakness.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

So we can agree it is evidence, but you see it is evidence that does not contain facts or proofs.

First, proof is the same as evidence. Second, evidence has to be true and factual. Third, there is no such thing as evidence that isn’t factual.

Let’s say there was a murder on 3rd street, the guy was stabbed. On 4th street the cops find a knife with blood on it. It’s a fact they found a knife. Is it a fact it is the murder weapon?

The crime lab does tests and find the size of the knife doesn’t match the wounds. The blood is tested and found to be from a cow.

Is that knife evidence of being used to kill someone? No. It was collected as evidence but under scrutiny it was found NOT to support what it was believed to be.

This OP is not about proofs or validation of the evidence.

Evidence is only valid if it is validated. Otherwise it means nothing. But the bloody knife could be assumed to be the murder weapon if it wasn’t examined and validated. It failed, so not valid evidence.

I am happy to be corrected, but if one was to attempt to give from the evidence facts and proofs, does not RF then consider that as Proselytizing?

If you want to present what you think is evidence it will be examined and scrutinized whether you like it or not. That is how humans arrive at truth. If you have valid evidence you have nothing to fear.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You have put yourself in the position of deciding "what the appropriate evidence is," and you do that based entirely on your belief. That much is obvious because you provide no other reason for saying that those things constitute evidence that is of value in determinng the validity of a claim.

Criminal cases in court can presented with lots of "evidence:" for instance the claim of the accused's mother than "Ralph is a good boy, he would never do such a thing, and this is the only evidence you need to listen to." In the same way, such cases must also evaluate presumed evidence that contradicts other presumed evidence: the finding of 2 different DNA signatures, or 2 different sets of fingerprints, which must be sorted out or thrown out.

Thus, there are many different "revelations" out there, and members have mentioned many of them. Can you list all the scriptures of the world? Do you know all the people who have claimed to be "messengers" and have you evaluated what they say they say was "revealed" to them? If you have, then you must know that most of them (at minimum) must be thrown out.

This OP was never about supplying proof from the evidence.

The OP, though based in writings of a Faith, is also fully supported by Logic and Reason as to what is Evidence of a Claim.

To have a Claim first there must be

1) Person - The Person making the Claim.
2) Revelation- What has Inspired them to make the Claim
3) Word - The details of the Revelation.

All this 3 aspects become the Evidence a claim has been made.

Remove any one of these aspects and there is no claim.

Are you able to debate the Logic of that Evidence?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Evidence is only valid if it is validated. Otherwise it means nothing. But the bloody knife could be assumed to be the murder weapon if it wasn’t examined and validated. It failed, so not valid evidence.

It is only evidence when it is submitted as evidence, otherwise there is no case to be determined, nor does the knife need to be examined and validated unless it is applicable to a case presented for examination.

Thus in relation to this OP the knife is the Claim. The evidence that needs to be examined for a claim is what the OP and many previous replies have stated.

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am very, very clear on why I believe many of the things that I do: evolution, the efficacy of vaccines, the utility of Newton's laws (in spite of the fact that they are superceded by Eintein's), that I can live without an appendix or a kidney, but not without a liver or heart. I can provide or point to mountains of very real evidence that demonstrate why I believe those things..

..and I expect that I believe all those things for the same reasons that you do.

Not once, so far in over 1500 posts in this thread, has anyone give a reason for their belief in God..

We have .. Bible .. Qur'an .. universe didn't create itself etc.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This OP was never about supplying proof from the evidence.

The OP, though based in writings of a Faith, is also fully supported by Logic and Reason as to what is Evidence of a Claim.

To have a Claim first there must be

1) Person - The Person making the Claim.
2) Revelation- What has Inspired them to make the Claim
3) Word - The details of the Revelation.

All this 3 aspects become the Evidence a claim has been made.

Remove any one of these aspects and there is no claim.

Are you able to debate the Logic of that Evidence?

Regards Tony

Yes, the mother of the suspected rapist-murderer.

1. She is a person, she is making a claim
2. What inspired her to make her claim? That her son has been accused of a crime, and since she has known him all of his life (literally) she finds herself unable to believe that he could be guilty
3. The details of her "revelation" are as above: "I have know him all his life. Nothing that he has ever done gives me any cause to think he did this-- more than that, I've known him to do a lot of very nice things, for a lot of people. This whole accusation is impossible and a charade! He is being set up!"

However, the DNA found in the semen inside the victim is a perfect match for the suspect. More than that, only his fingerprints are on the knife that killed her, and even worse, he has some of her DNA (from bits of skin) under his fingernails.

There, I've given you all three:

1) Person - The Person making the Claim.
2) Revelation- What has Inspired them to make the Claim
3) Word - The details of the Revelation.

And then I provided some evidence from the real world, in which the events actually occurred, not evidence from the isolated and closed mind of the mother.

And guess which evidence I believe...

Now, further to your question about "Messengers," I say again that I have the evidence of a very real, very vibrant world all around me. And that evidence invariably contradicts the "evidence" provided by any of the so-called "Messengers" of whom I am aware.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If you have valid evidence you have nothing to fear.

I have to correct your misunderstanding that Evidence and Proof are the same thing. Just Goggle it, really you need to do this.

Try this one.

Proof vs Evidence: What's the Difference?

Proof requires evidence, but not all evidence constitutes proof. Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true.

Personally, I will offer I have nothing to fear but my own self.

The evidence is sound. This OP is not about providing proofs or facts to determine the truth of the evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, the mother of the suspected rapist-murderer.

1. She is a person, she is making a claim
2. What inspired her to make her claim? That her son has been accused of a crime, and since she has known him all of his life (literally) she finds herself unable to believe that he could be guilty
3. The details of her "revelation" are as above: "I have know him all his life. Nothing that he has ever done gives me any cause to think he did this-- more than that, I've known him to do a lot of very nice things, for a lot of people. This whole accusation is impossible and a charade! He is being set up!"

However, the DNA found in the semen inside the victim is a perfect match for the suspect. More than that, only his fingerprints are on the knife that killed her, and even worse, he has some of her DNA (from bits of skin) under his fingernails.

There, I've given you all three:

1) Person - The Person making the Claim.
2) Revelation- What has Inspired them to make the Claim
3) Word - The details of the Revelation.

And then I provided some evidence from the real world, in which the events actually occurred, not evidence from the isolated and closed mind of the mother.

And guess which evidence I believe...

Now, further to your question about "Messengers," I say again that I have the evidence of a very real, very vibrant world all around me. And that evidence invariably contradicts the "evidence" provided by any of the so-called "Messengers" of whom I am aware.

Evidence

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

..my question is why your God made so many people who are incapable of behaving themselves no matter how often they are punished..

Human beings are what they are .. God or no God.
There are reasons why people might misbehave .. we sometimes "cut off our nose to spite our face"..
God knows why !

If your God wanted a better outcome it should have created people more capable of reasoning and wisdom..

You keep on repeating these hypotheticals..
..blame anything other than us .. pointless.
We have to try to behave .. God forgives whomsoever He wills, and punishes whomsoever He wills.
..but God is not a person, so how this happens is more complex.
We reap what we sow.

Why are Muslims murdering people in the name of Allah and getting away with it?

We all have to answer to God [and also others in this world].
Nobody is given a free-pass to enact inequities.

There is a difference between terrorist acts on a civilian population, and military warfare.

Do not confuse politics with religion.
People of all religions and none are guilty of inequities.

..and God knows best what is the cause of enmity between nations.