Evidence

[Polymath257]

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.

If the evidence isn't validated, it is irrelevant. It is also something that must change the probabilities that something is true or false (you can have evidence either way).

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

And if something indicates the truth or falsity of something, it has to change the likelihood that the thing is true or false by some amount.

The strength of the evidence is related to how much it changes the likelihood.

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

Which cannot happen unless the fact (evidence) is verified and changes probabilities.

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

No, verifiable evidence is not proof of the subject. It is only proof that the piece of evidence is related and valid.

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

Which cannot happen unless the evidence is verified and is relevant.

Fact

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

And how do we know it has happened? because it was observed.

Fact

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

Which requires strong evidence, which requires observation.

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

Which means the existence is not a fact. And the lack of verifiable evidence means it is irrational to believe the claim.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Let's put it this way. A collection of writings that contain stories that are otherwise unbelievable is NOT evidence for anything..

Of course it isn't.
..but 50% of the world's population are Christians and Muslims.
..which implies that they find it believable.

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

If a person doesn't wish to believe, they won't believe.
Evidence becomes irrelevant.

It's easy to claim that I would believe if...
..it's relatively meaningless.

Whether my thoughts are recorded seems irrelevant to the discussion...

It's not.

If a person thinks they can lie to themselves or others, whether knowingly or unknowingly, and the "cosmos" would be none the wiser, I think not. Nothing can be hidden.
It's a bit like the police listening in on a mobile phone call.

You may claim it's all fiction, but I think otherwise.
No proof necessary.
We can all believe what we wish.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

Evidence does not prove, it only *helps to prove.*
Evidence *indicates* that something is true.
Evidence might contain facts but evidence does not have to be factual. Only proof has to be factual.

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

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.
There is no proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, since there is no verifiable evidence that He received
any communication from God. There is only evidence that indicates that was the case.

I sure hope we got this squared away this time.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Oh, easy!

Okay, folks, listen up! This is what God wants, and if you don't do it ... shazzam, you'll die on the spot.​

Then we can just sit back and watch the fireworks.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

I have read the Bible, but not the Qur'an (except in pieces).

Well, from reading the Biblical stories are not reliable in regards to time and place of the events, or even the events themselves. For example, the Exodus simply didn't happen.

It is also clear that much of the Old Testament is propaganda promoted by the priestly class to promote their power.

Jesus and Mohammad gave their opinions. But from the moment they talked about deities, their words were in need of independent verification. That no such verification can be found makes their statements unreliable.

And this is even assuming that the stories as written are accurate accounts of what they said. That is also very much in dispute, even among scholars.

What sort of explanation are you looking for?

Well, any statement that is consistent with both a claim and its negation is not an explanation for either.

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

Many people live in a delusion. Everyone lives believing many falsehoods and ignorant of many truths.

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

Only if the reasoning is based on solid observations and is subject to testing later to verify the claims.

[QUOT
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.[/QUOTE]

Which is only relevant if those verses are reliable.

i.e. One can use logic and reason, or claim that God is beyond reason etc. etc.

And if one uses logic, there are inherent limitations until observations are made to give basic information upon which the logic can work.

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.

I disagree. It seems clear to be that the basis is belief is not logic and reason, but rather post-hoc justification and confirmational bias.

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.

Precisely why the ideas need to be testable and tested. Why skepticism is required in any investigation into truth. This is precisely why the scientific method is what it is: it realizes and acknowledges that people can be wrong, can misinterpret, have biases, etc and gives a way to *fix* those problems over time. It is also why taking the writings of those who are equally or more ignorant needs to be done with a LOT of caution and care.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

Evidence does not prove, it only *helps to prove.*
Evidence *indicates* that something is true.
Evidence might contain facts but evidence does not have to be factual. Only proof has to be factual.

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

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.
There is no proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, since there is no verifiable evidence that He received
any communication from God. There is only evidence that indicates that was the case.

I sure hope we got this squared away this time.

Okay, sure! All squared away.

So, could you just sum up for us, how the proposed "evidence" does what is required?

There's somebody that says "I'm a Messenger."
He says, "Here is my message."

Now, all you need to do is show us,

a) how we know he's a "Messenger," and
b) how we know he's a "Messenger" from God and not from his own deluded mind, and
c) how we know (not believe) the "message" is true.

I tell all members truly, I am getting to the point where I am willing to cave in to @muhammad_isa and say "yes, I accuse you all of being irrational." And more than that, I accuse you all of being so irrational that you cannot even see your own irrationality.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course it isn't.
..but 50% of the world's population are Christians and Muslims.
..which implies that they find it believable.

Which is also not evidence for the truth.

If a person doesn't wish to believe, they won't believe.
Evidence becomes irrelevant.

And if a person wants to believe, they will. Evidence is then also irrelevant.

The question is what will happen when someone honestly tries to find the truth. What sorts of evidence will such a person accept?

It's easy to claim that I would believe if...
..it's relatively meaningless.

And all I say is that the evidence I have seen isn't convincing. it is of poor quality and not the type that would serve to prove its claim.

It's not.

If a person thinks they can lie to themselves or others, whether knowingly or unknowingly, and the "cosmos" would be none the wiser, I think not. Nothing can be hidden.
It's a bit like the police listening in on a mobile phone call.

You may claim it's all fiction, but I think otherwise.
No proof necessary.
We can all believe what we wish.

And if the universe is 'listening in', there is nothing different that I would say or do.

The ability to lie to ourselves is common to all people. That is why we need to be skeptical and require evidence of the sort that would serve to actually prove the claims made.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is no proof that God exists, since there is no verifiable evidence of God's existence.
There is no proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, since there is no verifiable evidence that He received
any communication from God. There is only evidence that indicates that was the case.

I sure hope we got this squared away this time.

But most of all, this ^^^^^^^^^^^

And you've left yourself completely wide-open and unarmed.

You are correct: there's no proof that God exists, and there's no proof that Baha'u'llah (or anyone else) was a "Messenger of God," and there's therefore no proof that we even have a communication from God. But (like the mother who said "my son couldn't do that") you say there's an "indication." So, you will believe your "indication" as you would (I must presume) believe the mother, and let a heinous criminal walk away scott free.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Christians ask me to put my faith in Jesus. The proof and evidence are that he was born of a virgin. That he performed several healings, including bringing a couple people back to life. That he walked on water. Stopped a storm. That he was killed but later came back to life and appeared to many people and then in front of some people he ascended into the clouds.

If I believe all of that, I will have my sins forgiven and will be able to spend eternity in heaven and avoid being sent to hell. Yet, why do I doubt it? What is the proof and evidence other than the gospel stories? And does the Baha'i Faith back up those gospel stories? Especially that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven? I don't think the Baha'i Faith does, am I correct or am I off in thinking that?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So, having anonymous writings of someone saying they had a vision is NOT evidence.

I would agree, that as humans we are not likely to see truth so easily, that we do not need greater clarification, that is why all 3 aspects are submitted as evidence, and not each individually.

I can offer on the other hand, all individual aspects are reliable evidence in their own right.

All depends what we are looking for in the evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And if a person wants to believe, they will. Evidence is then also irrelevant.

The question is what will happen when someone honestly tries to find the truth. What sorts of evidence will such a person accept?

This is a neat and tidy summation of this entire, over-lengthy and over-wrought thread.

People either really do want to know the true answers to questions that are important to them, or they want the answers they have already accepted somehow validated for them. The problem with true answers is that they are very often uncomfortable. But having your prejudices confirmed can be quite pleasurable.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

Yes, and she is indeed wonderful.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

If the evidence isn't validated, it is irrelevant. It is also something that must change the probabilities that something is true or false (you can have evidence either way).

It might be irrelevant to you but it is not irrelevant to me. Evidence cannot always be validated, because some things like God can never be validated. Even in court, some evidence cannot be validated, but the jury is still instructed to come up with a verdict.

Yes, evidence changes the probabilities either way.

And if something indicates the truth or falsity of something, it has to change the likelihood that the thing is true or false by some amount.

The strength of the evidence is related to how much it changes the likelihood.

That's true.

Which cannot happen unless the fact (evidence) is verified and changes probabilities.

Which cannot happen unless the evidence is verified and is relevant.

That's not true. Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. The evidence does not have to be verified in order to cause me to believe that something is true.

And how do we know it has happened? because it was observed.

Which requires strong evidence, which requires observation.

God can never be observed.

Which means the existence is not a fact.

No, of course God's existence is not a fact, since it can never be proven.

And the lack of verifiable evidence means it is irrational to believe the claim.

Irrational for you, rational for me, since I have all the evidence I need.
Some of the evidence for Baha'u'llah is verifiable, although God is not verifiable.

 

[CG Didymus]

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?

Is it really "icing" on the cake? Which sounds like it is supporting that Baha'u'llah was who he claimed to be. The Jewish Messiah, the return of Christ, the return of Krishna as the Kalki Avatar, as the Maitreya of Buddhism, as Isa or the Mahdi or both of Islam and some other "promised" ones of some other religions. Easy to look at the prophecies and see how the Baha'is claim that those prophecies were fulfilled. Evidence? Icing on some cake? Or vague, out of context things that Baha'is claim are fulfilled prophecy? Unfortunately, I think they are too vague to be of any value for the Baha'is. So no, no icing... just more claims that only satisfy the Baha'is and very few others.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, could you just sum up for us, how the proposed "evidence" does what is required?

There's somebody that says "I'm a Messenger."
He says, "Here is my message."

Now, all you need to do is show us,

a) how we know he's a "Messenger," and
b) how we know he's a "Messenger" from God and not from his own deluded mind, and
c) how we know (not believe) the "message" is true.

As I have already said umpteen million times, it cannot be shown (proven) that a man is a Messenger of God.
All we have is evidence that indicates that was the case.

If we look at all the evidence and we strongly believe it, then it becomes proof to us that He was a Messenger of God.
It is at that point that we know.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

Yes, the evidence needs to be examined.

Also skill is indeed needed to examine that evidence.

We can ask, what skills are required when it comes to examining spiritual evidence?

It is reasonable and logical that the skills will lay outside the material senses.

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

And if a person wants to believe, they will. Evidence is then also irrelevant..

It might be .. it depends on what we claim to believe and why.

And all I say is that the evidence I have seen isn't convincing..

..and there is a reason for that, just as there is a reason why I am convinced.

The ability to lie to ourselves is common to all people..

Absolutely..

That is why we need to be skeptical and require evidence of the sort that would serve to actually prove the claims made.

I agree that we require evidence, but not empirical proof.

Almighty God does not need us to believe. He has provided evidence, and many people take heed of His guidance.

The universe is finite, and our lives are mortal.
He knows that many of us will not obey Him.
It is our choice .. we can acknowledge sin, or we can deny it,
and turn away.

 

[Polymath257]

God can never be observed.

No, of course God's existence is not a fact, since it can never be proven.

Both of which are incredibly good reason to not believe.

Irrational for you, rational for me, since I have all the evidence I need.
Some of the evidence for Baha'u'llah is verifiable, although God is not verifiable.

What do you call someone who believes something that they acknowledge is not a fact, has no evidence for it, and yet says they have all the evidence they need?

If it was a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would you say it was irrational?

 

[Polymath257]

It might be .. it depends on what we claim to believe and why.

Same for those that do not believe.

..and there is a reason for that, just as there is a reason why I am convinced.

]

Yes. I require a standard of evidence that is at least as good as I would require for anything else. You do not.

Absolutely..


I agree that we require evidence, but not empirical proof.

Almighty God does not need us to believe. He has provided evidence, and many people take heed of His guidance.

And, again, this is a claim with no evidence to back it up. I don't believe there is a God at all. and yes, a non-existent being does not need anything.

The universe is finite, and our lives are mortal.

I don't know whether the universe is finite or not. But I am sure that we are all mortal.

He knows that many of us will not obey Him.
It is our choice .. we can acknowledge sin, or we can deny it,
and turn away.

I think the of 'sin' is an invention made by people to control others.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Both of which are incredibly good reason to not believe.

No, that is not a good reason to disbelieve.
Everybody knows that we cannot prove that God exists .. but 50% of the population believe despite that.

They acknowledge that this life is a test, and that they will return to their Maker.