Evidence

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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?

Good luck with that. You'll never get anything more specific than 'the words and the life.' Others have tired and failed.

Agreed upon convention would be an example of specified

Agreed.

if I type your birthday In this post, you would conclude that it was an intelligent designer, who knew when your birth date is, this has nothing to do with conventions (you objectively where born that day)

A birthday is a convention, just as the terms that specify it (mm/dd/yyyy) are.

You know that text below in red is designed, because it is complex (many characters) and has a pattern (despite the fact that there is no convention on what is the meaning of that text)

0-00—000----0000-----00000------

The best evidence that it originates from an intelligent source is the comment above the string of characters.

So even though “nature” can type keyboards (a mouse crawling for example) it would be unlikely that of all the possible combinations of letters the mouse would happen to type words and sentences that have meaning in English

Agreed.

the creationist argument is that Amino acids (or the building blocks) like mice, don’t “try” to create proteins that code for traits and biological systems.

That's also the scientific position.

there are many combinations in which the building blocks can organize, and “nature” doesn’t try to organize them in the correct order.

Nature does it by subjecting undirected genetic variation to natural selection.

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

You responded to, "billions do NOT find it [Qur'an] rational, they find it believable." I found it to be correct and useful. He's indicating that belief needn't be due to reason

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

We're not telling ourselves. We're telling the believers who claim that their faith-based beliefs are derived from reason.

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

My position is that one cannot come to the conclusion "therefore God" using any sound argument.

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

I'm only interestedin the why.

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?

Yes, and no (you are not missing anything). Empirical "proof" (certitude beyond reasonable doubt) means sufficiently evidenced.

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

That gods exist is a guess if one states it as fact.

Testimony is not physical.

Yes, it is. If it weren't, you couldn't hear or read it.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Anything submitted can be presumed to be evidence. It is ONLY evidence when it is relevant and verified. A murder weapon from a different crime that you are investigating isn’t relevant to your case. The same applies to what you’re trying to do with this thread. You have materials that are not verified evidence, but you want them treated as if they are. That is not truthful. Some could call it fraud.

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.

No, the knife is presumed to be evidence. The claim is that it IS the murder weapon. The examination determines who is correct.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, it is. If it weren't, you couldn't hear or read it.

..in that context, yes.

..but you also say "Empirical proof (certitude beyond reasonable doubt) means sufficiently evidenced."

..so the "physical evidence" of a book is not "sufficiently evidenced" whatever it contains, by your reasoning.

You can only accept absolute proof of God's existence, which you know is impossible .. so it is just a game.
Almighty God knows what is in our minds.

..whereupon you say "you have provided no evidence for the existence of God".

..so you have a mind .. and you think that your thoughts are "not recorded".
I believe otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

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

So what else do you have?

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

And how do you determine their reliability? By determining whether they agree with other things we know from science.

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

Sure, it is 'useful' for comfort. it is useful to feel special. But it is useless for any actual explanation.

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.

But unless the logic is based on observation, it is useless to determine anything about the real world. For example, mathematics is useful only to the extent that the models based on it are tested by observation.

Theology can't use statistics without some way to determine the probability distribution of the possibilities. And there is no way outside of observation to do that.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

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.

Based on my experiences and knowledge as a medium and an experienced paranormal investigator, I can confirm that there are earthbound human spirits that roam freely or are attached to specific places, objects, or a specific person. I can also confirm that there are non-human entities that lurk in specific locations or are seen in places where they are not normally thought to reside.

As a psychic medium, I often attract spirits wherever I go, and I have to be discreet when I'm out in public to avoid the appearance that I'm standing around talking to myself. To be honest, the presence of multiple spirits around me can be overwhelming at times, to the point where I have to leave. However, there are advantages to being a medium and a sensitive. Being a medium and sensitive, for example, is useful when I'm investigating a suspected haunted location or a well-known haunted location. Being an empath is also beneficial to me because it allows me to assess a person's emotional openness to receiving a message from a deceased loved one.

I can't remember how many times I've quietly whispered, "Not now!" while I'm in a crowded restaurant or while I am shopping in a busy store. It's also difficult to avoid this happening to me when I'm in a hospital, a nursing home, or when I'm attending a funeral in a funeral home or at a cemetery. I experience the same thing most of the time at a well-known haunted site or a historical site, such as a Civil War battlefield. But this is my life every single day, and it is what it is. I've been able to see human spirits since I was 6 years old, and I was 21 when I saw my first non-human entity. My very supportive husband once asked me if I ever got a break, and I told him not really. I can't turn it off, so I've accepted it and adapted my life to it. My husband will often ask me, "What do you see?" And then he'll ask me to describe what I see to him whenever he sees me standing still and I seem to be gazing off into the distance. I was like that when we were sightseeing in Boston in early June. Of course, I've seen plenty of earthbound spirits from different historical eras (such as the spirits of Union and Confederate soldiers at Civil War battlefields; the spirits of pioneers and Native American spirits at burial mounds; and the spirits of sailors in decommissioned WWII submarines that are open to the public), but seeing many spirits from the 18th century colonial era was a first for me. We visited the Paul Revere House and the Old North Church, and then we went to the USS Constitution. I immensely enjoyed the first two locations because of the spirits I saw, but I could only use my ghost hunting equipment at the Old North Church because cameras weren't allowed inside the Paul Revere House. I was disappointed about that.

And although I had a good experience at both of these locations, I especially liked going to the USS Constitution. I enjoyed it so much, in fact, that my husband and son left me there by myself for more than an hour so I could document more of my experiences as well as have more time to interact and communicate with the spirits onboard. We went to the Salem Witch Museum the next day, but the museum was too crowded and loud for me to document my experiences while I was there. I posted a thread (click here) about my experiences at these locations, as well as some evidence that I documented at the Old North Church and the USS Constitution. As a medium, I've seen and interacted with some very interesting earthbound spirits; however, the most memorable earthbound spirit I've ever encountered was one I never anticipated seeing and wasn't prepared for. I was simply in the right place at the right time. I have no doubt that I would have missed the encounter if I hadn't been present at that premise moment. I described this rare encounter a few months ago, and you can read the post here. I'd like to reiterate that I won't debate others about my abilities or my experiences.

 

[Polymath257]

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

And none has actually been given. No pointer to such evidence has been given except very vague generalities.

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

Which is useless for determining the truth of their beliefs.

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.

That is a question of social history: where and how beliefs spread. Again, that says little about their truth. It *can* say something about how much it appeals to people's egos.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The same applies to what you’re trying to do with this thread. You have materials that are not verified evidence, but you want them treated as if they are. That is not truthful. Some could call it fraud.

OK, it is evidence that is not verified by a minority of people.

Finally, the OP has fulfilled its intent.

Regards Tony

 

[Polymath257]

..in that context, yes.

..but you also say "Empirical proof (certitude beyond reasonable doubt) means sufficiently evidenced."

..so the "physical evidence" of a book is not "sufficiently evidenced" whatever it contains, by your reasoning.

The physical evidence of a book is the paper (or velum, or parchment, etc) and the ink used. That can say something about the resources of the person who wrote the copy. The mere existence can say something about the beliefs or motivations of the person to wrote the copy.

But that says very little about the validity of what was written. Even in historical writings, a great deal of work into the motivations of the people who paid for transcription, those who actually did the transcription, of those who decided which writings would be preserved and which destroyed needs to be done.

NO historical book should be taken at face value.

You can only accept absolute proof of God's existence, which you know is impossible .. so it is just a game.
Almighty God knows what is in our minds.

No, I don't require absolute proof. Something anywhere close to as good as that for dark matter would be enough to take it seriously. Something as good as that for fusion at the core of the sun would be quite convincing.

..whereupon you say "you have provided no evidence for the existence of God".

..so you have a mind .. and you think that your thoughts are "not recorded".
I believe otherwise.

Let's put it this way. A collection of writings that contain stories that are otherwise unbelievable is NOT evidence for anything. To the extent that those stories can be independently verified, that external evidence is evidence that some aspect is at least a matter of legend.

But what it would take to even *be* evidence of a God is far, far, far more than a mere book could give.

Whether my thoughts are recorded seems irrelevant to the discussion. We can talk about that separately and see what evidence you have to support your belief. But if it is as poor as the evidence for any deity, then it will also be dismissed as useless.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And none has actually been given. No pointer to such evidence has been given except very vague generalities.

Notice how fast some OP's and replies disappear when we start to talk about proofs and facts.

Heck this OP even struggled to stay alive and it had zero attempt at Proselytizing, it was just aimed as establishing what is evidence that can be examined when we talk about God.

Evidence is what can be used to examine Facts and Truths that could provide some proofs to some people.

After all Christians and Muslims represent a large selection of humanity that have examined the evidence and have discovered some facts and truth, relative to their understandings.

Regards Tony

 

[Polymath257]

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

Well, if you think that logic qualifies as evidence for a deity, it seems to fall within this thread.

eg. The One God is three persons

Unless a God has been shown to exist, this isn't something even worth discussing.

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 !

Of course. But witness statements are inherently unreliable as shown by any studies. Which established fact is violated is also relevant. So, for example, anything that violates conservation of energy can be immediately dismissed.

 

[Polymath257]

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

it can't be valid evidence if the evidence hasn't been validated.

 

[Polymath257]

Evidence is what can be used to examine Facts and Truths that could provide some proofs to some people.

OK, I disagree with that. Evidence is a fact that can change the probability that some statement is true or false.

If it is not a fact, it isn't evidence. if it doesn't change a probability, it isn't evidence.

And the word 'proof' here is misleading at best. Convincing someone is not the same as a proof. People can be convinced because of their biases, because they refuse to look a alternatives, because they don't want to think any further, etc.

Proof is a much stronger criterion.

Let me give another criterion: if it wouldn't be evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it isn't evidence for anything else. And, if it *is* evidence, its quality doesn't change between the two scenarios.

So, having anonymous writings of someone saying they had a vision is NOT evidence. Whether the author is kind and has a good heart is irrelevant. How many people believe it is irrelevant.

Unless someone demonstrably has access to some information, their opinion is irrelevant. So, what Augustine said about Jesus is irrelevant unless he had access to some true statements about Jesus. And the truth of those statements has to be justified *before* the relevance of Augustine's statements can be evaluated.

So, what sort of thing *could* be evidence for a God? Well, it depends on what you mean by 'God'. if you mean a creator of the universe, then something at a universal scale would be required. if you mean a creator of the Earth, then something at the scale of the Earth would be required. if you mean a creator of humans, then you need to have something reliably from a time period when humans arose and that is relevant to the formation of humans. If you mean something supernatural, you need some previous evidence that there *is* anything supernatural.

And none of this is out of line: it is precisely how the existence of *anything* else would be determined.

 

[F1fan]

OK, it is evidence that is not verified by a minority of people.

Finally, the OP has fulfilled its intent.

Regards Tony

Really? So if the police find a knife in your car with your fingerprints and a majority of people think that’s the murder weapon and they think they verified that it is a murder weapon. Would you accept that? Would you go to jail because the evidence was not properly examined?

Or do you want people who have skill at examining evidence to determine whether that is a verified murder weapon?

you can’t just decide that your evidence is verified. Verification of evidence has been through a rigorous examination, and you haven’t done that. You just want to short cut and bypass any sort of critical analysis that your evidence is been verified. That is not acceptable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

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

I would hope so. NASA, for instance, just recently deflected an asteroid out of its orbit millions of miles from earth, using nothing but Newton's Laws. Thus, this is a reason to believe Newton's Laws work -- which the mere fact that Newton wrote them is not.

Now, all you have to do is demonstrate that the Bible, or the Qur'an, or any other scripture you can name, can be used to do anything at all based upon what it says. Did the mountain come to Muhammad? Okay, do it again. Did Buraq fly Muhammad to Jerusalem and to heaven? Okay, do it again. Did Jesus say that He would return in glory before some of the people he was speaking to died? Well, who are those still-living, decrepit oldsters, and where are they hiding?

And while you find it impossible to imagine a universe either has existed eternally or came into existence on its own somehow (and I admit I have no idea if or how either could be the case), you have absolutely zero problem imagining that an all-powerful, intelligent, purposeful being could do exactly that. None whatever. Is this not an astounding inconsistency in your thinking?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Evidence

Regards Tony

You do realize that that was a meaningless thing to say, I hope?

 

[Trailblazer]

it can't be valid evidence if the evidence hasn't been validated.

All evidence cannot be validated, but it is still evidence by definition. Evidence does not prove, it only *helps to prove.* Evidence *indicates* that something is true.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Only verifiable evidence can be validated. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

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 is no proof that God exists, since there is no verifiable evidence of God's existence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Welcome back.

I'll second that. Welcome back Tony aka @TransmutingSoul.
Is that your lovely wife in your avatar?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..And how do you determine their reliability? By determining whether they agree with other things we know from science..

No .. have you read the Bible and Qur'an?
Why do you think that they are unreliable?
What is it that Jesus or Muhammad is reported to have said that you do not like, or find unreliable?

..it is useless for any actual explanation..

What sort of explanation are you looking for?

But unless the logic is based on observation, it is useless to determine anything about the real world..

What real world?
..and what is an "unreal" world?

Theology can't use statistics without some way to determine the probability distribution of the possibilities. And there is no way outside of observation to do that.

One can use reasoning to determine things, while not in an absolute manner, to some degree of probability.

A trinitarian will say that One God can be comprised of many parts .. and the trinity is a mystery etc.

The probability of that is very small, as we have many verses that contradict such a belief.
i.e. One can use logic and reason, or claim that God is beyond reason etc. etc.

An atheist will claim that it is all based on faith, and has nothing to do with logic and reason.
That is false. The evidence is clear.

People will be human. They believe what they want to believe, rather than what the evidence points towards.
That is because humans are complex, and denial is part of our psychology.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

If you think 'something else' would be 'better evidence' in determining the validity of the claims of Messengers, I am all ears.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Sounds like me.

That is my weakness.

No, it is your strength, because you love God and Baha'u'llah.