Evidence

[CG Didymus]

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.

Is there evidence for the falsity of Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God? Some people have pointed out that some of the scientific things he said are wrong. I look at his claim that Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses were manifestations and, especially with Adam, I don't believe that is true. And I believe it is very likely that Adam isn't even a real, historical person but just a myth. So, is his character all that good when he is possibly making things up about Adam and those others? Naturally, Baha'is believe what Baha'u'llah says about them is true and that the Bible stories aren't accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you not understand its evidence for "them"!

Its not about you or what you accept. Its about them and what they accept.

Not according to the OP. He apparently thought that it was evidence for everyone. And one thing that it is not is rational evidence. Or reliable evidence. What they should be trying to present is objective evidence. Unfortunately they do not even have a working definition of "evidence".

 

[We Never Know]

Not according to the OP. He apparently thought that it was evidence for everyone. And one thing that it is not is rational evidence. Or reliable evidence. What they should be trying to present is objective evidence. Unfortunately they do not even have a working definition of "evidence".

Trailblazer isnt the poster of the OP. So your point?

 

[Valjean]

I am sure we do. There is human knowledge that comes from man's book-learning in college and then there is knowledge of God that comes to man from scriptures revealed by a Messenger of God, and these two kinds of knowledge are very different.

Good point. One is observable, reproducible and testable, the other faith based.

There are tens of thousands claiming to be messengers of God. I met several of them during my psych rotation at Sheppard Pratt hospital, in fact.
If their claims were consistent I might give them some weight, but they are not. A dozen prophets all making conflicting claims can't all be right.

How does one decide: gut feeling, or scientific investigation of testable facts? Only one of these approaches yields consistent, testable, reproducible results.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

And is there evidence and proof of people believing religious and spiritual things that are definitely not true? Even Baha'is would agree with that and one of the main religions they say that about is the world's largest religion, the Christians. The biggest error that Baha'is say about Christians is that many of them believe Jesus is God. Why? Because they are told the Bible teaches that? And those Bible verses are the "proof".

 

[John53]

Do you not understand its evidence for "them"!

Its not about you or what you accept. Its about them and what they accept.

Do you not understand it's a debate forum?

 

[CG Didymus]

Good point. One is observable, reproducible and testable, the other faith based.

There are tens of thousands claiming to be messengers of God. I met several of them during my psych rotation at Sheppard Pratt hospital, in fact.
If their claims were consistent I might give them some weight, but they are not. A dozen prophets all making conflicting claims can't all be right.

How does one decide: gut feeling, or scientific investigation of testable facts? Only one of these approaches yields consistent, testable, reproducible results.

And that is something we can investigate. Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Jesus and all the others... was the message consistent?

 

[We Never Know]

Do you not understand it's a debate forum?

Sure I do. But a good debate isn't just about saying you are wrong because I disagree.
We all see the world and everything in it differently. What is beautiful to me may be ugly to you.
Which one of us is right?

 

[CG Didymus]

One has to search the evidence to find the facts and proofs to determine the Truth.

That is why it is provided. We all get the chance to examine it and judge, True or False.

Free will.

Regards Tony

Yes, we can all investigate it. But what are the reasons some believe the claims are true, while others don't? And that is what we have. Do the people that don't believe Baha'u'llah's claims are true have good reasons?

 

[Trailblazer]

Quite so -- radically different. One has a good chance of being true, the other a good chance of satisfying a fantasy.

Both are true, but one is man's knowledge and the other is the Knowledge of God.
Both kinds of knowledge are necessary and each serves different purposes. Man's knowledge is necessary order to navigate the waters of this life in the material world, but the Knowledge of God will be necessary to navigate the waters of eternal life in the spiritual world, or fantasy-land, if that is what you choose to call it.
I sure hope there are no computers up there because I need a rest.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Sure I do. But a good debate isn't just about saying you are wrong because I disagree.
We all see the world and everything in it differently. What is beautiful to me may be ugly to you.
Which one of us is right?

In my opinion, debates are about being convincing, or trying to present a convincing side. I suppose there is also some element of "winning", but that's pretty unclear as it's decided by the crowd.

There are DIRs for talking about "what's evidence according to a certain group".

Just my personal opinion.

But with the subject of "Is the Baha'i writings/scriptures evidence?"... some will say it is, some will say it isn't, few will say it's "good evidence"... and I predict such a debate topic could go on for another 100 or 200 pages.

 

[F1fan]

Do you not understand its evidence for "them"!

Of course, I guess you missed the many times I noted their evidence is weak and a low standard, so not sufficient to make a reasoned conclusion. I also point out their standard is below the normal (legal) high standard like used in the legal system and academics.

Its not about you or what you accept. Its about them and what they accept.

Why are you biased for them? They accept weak evidence. Why aren't you advocating for objectivity, and the normal, high standard for evidence? If you were on trial for some crime you didn't do would you be OK with being convicted on weak evidence?

 

[John53]

Sure I do. But a good debate isn't just about saying you are wrong because I disagree.
We all see the world and everything in it differently. What is beautiful to me may be ugly to you.
Which one of us is right?

Exactly why people debate and all sides are are able to have their say. Freedom of speech.

 

[We Never Know]

Exactly why people debate and all sides are are able to have their say. Freedom of speech.

You didn't answer my question....

What is beautiful to me may be ugly to you.
Which one of us is right?

 

[John53]

You didn't answer my question....

What is beautiful to me may be ugly to you.
Which one of us is right?

I answered. Exactly why people debate.... maybe I should have put that's after exactly.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You didn't answer my question....

What is beautiful to me may be ugly to you.
Which one of us is right?

Neither of you, per se. Though if a winner has to be picked, it should be by the observers of the argument of you two.

 

[John53]

Neither of you, per se. Though if a winner has to be picked, it should be by the observers of the argument of you two.

Is the winner or the loser ugly?

 

[We Never Know]

Of course, I guess you missed the many times I noted their evidence is weak and a low standard, so not sufficient to make a reasoned conclusion. I also point out their standard is below the normal (legal) high standard like used in the legal system and academics.


Why are you biased for them? They accept weak evidence. Why aren't you advocating for objectivity, and the normal, high standard for evidence? If you were on trial for some crime you didn't do would you be OK with being convicted on weak evidence?

"I guess you missed the many times I noted their evidence is weak and a low standard"

To you but not to them. They differ from you.


"Why are you biased for them"

I am not biased for them. If they want to believe in a god, that's their choice and their life. Why should I be a dick and talk to them as if they are stupid ONLY because I don't have/share their view?

 

[Valjean]

Is there evidence for the falsity of Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God?

Argument from ignorance?

Some people have pointed out that some of the scientific things he said are wrong. I look at his claim that Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses were manifestations and, especially with Adam, I don't believe that is true. And I believe it is very likely that Adam isn't even a real, historical person but just a myth. So, is his character all that good when he is possibly making things up about Adam and those others? Naturally, Baha'is believe what Baha'u'llah says about them is true and that the Bible stories aren't accurate.

I believe Baha'u'llah said that when there was a conflict between science and religion, to go with the science. Sounds like reasonable advice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trailblazer isnt the poster of the OP. So your point?

The thread is about that. According you you she is just making "So what?" arguments. Even if she is right it makes no difference. And of course she has at times tried to claim that their is evidence for her beliefs, and by context she did not mean just "evidence for her".