Evidence

[Polymath257]

Ok. Let say you think blue is the best color.
I disagree with how you see colors and say its red.

Using mathmatics, tell me which of us is right

And that is the whole point: you can't.

You *can* determine the wavelength of the blue or red light. Those wavelengths are facts.

But which color is 'best' is a matter of *opinion*.

Now, we could ask which color is best *for a certain goal* and *that* may become a question of fact. But which goal is best would then be a matter of opinion.

 

[Polymath257]

Lets say you think your child is gifted, beautiful and great.... If I disagree.. Should I...
1. Let you be happy with what you think
OR
2. Tell you your kid is lost, ugly and sucks

It depends. Are you wanting to discuss the truth of the matter? Or are you trying to give comfort?

If you are a gifted services coordinator, or an interviewer for a modeling agency, I would expect a factual account. If I am a friend that is concerned that you will make bad decisions based on your beliefs, then I would give a factual account.

If I am giving comfort and nobody would be hurt by my lie, I might paper over the truth momentarily.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes that is the hypothesis that darwinist propose......how do you know is true? How do you know for example that the eye is a result of that mechanism?

It's demonstrably true that natural selection applied to genetic variation results in biological evolution. Biological evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population's gene pool. All one need for that to occur is for new genomes to be tested by nature with those that promote their own proliferation better eventually outnumbering those that don't do that as well.

I don't know that the eye formed that way. It is logically possible that it was intelligently designed. If evolutionary theory is ever falsified, that will become my default position.

a good debate isn't just about saying you are wrong because I disagree.

Agreed. In fact, that isn't a debate at all by formal standards. That's dissention, but debate is a prescribed manner of dissenting, the one that uses rebuttal (dialectic). A rebuttal is a counterargument to a claim that falsifies the claim if valid. Two people simply in discussion saying what they believe is not debate. In fact, if even one does that, the debate ends as soon the first plausible rebuttal is not addressed, which when in discussion with those not attuned to this is usually following the first rebuttal. Somebody makes a claim, a critical thinker rebuts it, and then the rebuttal is not addressed, just dismissed.

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

How many times do you need to read the same words before there is evidence that you have?

Nobody can tell me what I know vs. what I believe

If you give your reasons and they don't support your conclusions, then one can say that you hold unsupported belief, which some people do not consider knowledge. I reserve the word for the world of demonstrably correct propositions, not faith-based belief, which is what all other belief is.

I would say it is irrational if it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since there is NO evidence for the FSM.

The evidence for the FSM is as strong as the evidence for any other god. First, you have messengers proclaiming the divinity of his noodliness. Have you seen Baja-noodle's message, the Putanescene Creed? From II Romano 3:16 - "Born of extra virgin olive oil, delivered by Little Caesarean (in 30 minutes or less), cast out of the Olive Garden, then snagged by a giant twirling fork wielded by the Antipasto, Our Savory was flung onto a wall where he stuck and dried for our sins and salivation. Cheese's Crust, how grated thou art! May there be pizza on earth and gouda will toward men."

But there is more. Life itself is evidence of the FSM, or did you think that that was all one big accident. As if!

And then there's the arguments from pure reason. If you can even conceive of a perfect wad of noodles greater than all other gods, it must exist. Plus, morality exists, which would be impossible without him. Convinced yet?

Religious truths will never be 'ruled in' since they cannot be proven to be true, but that does not ean they aren't true.

In my world, it's not enough that something hasn't been disproven to call it true. Your standards may vary.

My beliefs are not guesses.

I guess your standards do vary.

My standards are higher than the standards of the atheist thinker who calls everything he believes by the critical thinking method truth.

No, you have no standard for belief or for the use of the words truth or knowledge except that it feels right to you.

My reasoning is not fallacious.

Yes it is. The specific fallacies have been identified repeatedly.

I do not need evidentiary support for my beliefs by your standards which you call critical thinking.

And here comes one of those fallacies right on schedule. Your fallacy is non sequitur. Your claims don't derive from what preceded them if evidentiary support isn't involved.

My claim that my religious belief is supported by the evidence I offer in its support has never been rebutted, it has only been disagreed with.

No, it's been rebutted several times. You fail to acknowledge the argument made whenever it goes by.

you have only ever said what is NOT evidence for God.

I have said what would constitute evidence of an intelligent designer, but since that need not be a supernatural universe creator, is only evidence for a superhuman presence in the universe. How many times have I told you what that message and life need to be to suggest that they were of superhuman provenance? And if I tell you again, you'll just tell me again that you thought the evidence was good enough for you without explaining what you find godlike about it.

I do not recall you answering when I asked if, hypothetically speaking, if Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, what would we have for evidence that would prove that.

I know.

You don't bother because you can't show me even one person that led a life that equaled or surpassed is the life of Baha'u'llah.

Yes, I can and have. If you want to keep making these claims, perhaps you should keep notes on what you've read.

It is your SUBJECTIVE personal opinion that the words of Baha'u'llah were ordinary.

OK. Now refute that. Not merely dissent with handwaving, but the actual words that you or I could not have written. If you could do that, you would have that counterargument that if sound makes my claim wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

subjective depends on the person.

Its a fact I like guns. Its a fact Bob doesn't like guns. Both are true

No. Both are opinions. There is a difference.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

The contents of a book do not establish that its claims are empirically correct. Euclid's Elements can be verified using pure reason and no physical observation, but that is because they are pure reason, not claims of empirical truth.

You can only accept absolute proof of God's existence, which you know is impossible

My standard for belief is supporting evidence, and the degree of that belief is proportionate to the quality and quantity of that evidence. I consider some of my beliefs likely or probable, some very likely, and some beyond reasonable doubt. None are 100% certain even when there is no psychological doubt - a stance called philosophical doubt (understood but not felt.)

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

Did I say that? I'm usually careful not to word it that way. The evidence you provided doesn't support your conclusion by the rules of reason applied to evidence.

No .. have you read the Bible and Qur'an? Why do you think that they are unreliable?

You've got it backward. Why would I consider them reliable without empirically testing their claims? Do you consider strangers you meet on the street reliable? Would you let that hot dog vendor over there across the street keep an eye on your wallet for you? Do consider him reliable? If not, why?

what is an "unreal" world?

How about one described as existing outside of time and space and not detectable even in principle?

People will be human. They believe what they want to believe, rather than what the evidence points towards.

It stuns me to read this after what has been argued previously. Did you just now come to understand that?

50% of the world's population are Christians and Muslims...which implies that they find it believable.

Yes, they do. Did you already forget your last comment?

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

*I* can't. I can't make myself believe that holy books are accurate or that gods exist, but the people you just described can and do.

We employ reason, in deciding that the Bible is true, for example.

You've shown this reasoning, and it is fallacious. This is why believers' beliefs are called irrational

a person with sound religious knowledge, can tell you why their claims are false.

Sound religious knowledge? I've given you my take on theology. And if you mean sound in the technical sense, nothing sound can be derived from the assumption that a god exists - an unshared and unestablished premise.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I was a Christian for 30 years, and as far as I'm concerned, Christianity is mainly a religion of fear, shame, and guilt trips. It's normally based on the fear of God's wrath against sin, the fear of going to hell for disobeying and sinning against God, and guilt trips and personal shame for sinning against God.

I don't think guilt and fear of hell is the Christian ideal. I've read a book The Way Of The Pilgrim where the Pilgrim met a man who began to fear hell and had lived a very ascetic life since then. The Pilgrim tried to help him:

So with the object of helping this brother and doing all I could to strengthen his faith, I took The Philokalia out of my knapsack. Turning to the 109th chapter of Isikhi, I read it to him. I set out to prove to him the use-lessness and vanity of avoiding sin merely from fear of the tortures of hell. I told him that the soul could be freed from sinful thoughts only by guarding the mind and cleansing the heart, and that this could be done by interior prayer. I added that according to the holy Fathers, one who performs
saving works simply from the fear of hell follows the way of bondage, and he who does the same just in order to be rewarded with the kingdom of heaven follows the path of a bargainer with God. The one they call a slave, the other a hireling. But God wants us to come to Him as sons to their Father; He wants us to behave ourselves honorably from love for Him and zeal for His service; He wants us to find our happiness in uniting ourselves with Him in a saving union of mind and heart.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think guilt and fear of hell is the Christian ideal. I've read a book The Way Of The Pilgrim where the Pilgrim met a man who began to fear hell and had lived a very ascetic life since then. The Pilgrim tried to help him:

So with the object of helping this brother and doing all I could to strengthen his faith, I took The Philokalia out of my knapsack. Turning to the 109th chapter of Isikhi, I read it to him. I set out to prove to him the use-lessness and vanity of avoiding sin merely from fear of the tortures of hell. I told him that the soul could be freed from sinful thoughts only by guarding the mind and cleansing the heart, and that this could be done by interior prayer. I added that according to the holy Fathers, one who performs
saving works simply from the fear of hell follows the way of bondage, and he who does the same just in order to be rewarded with the kingdom of heaven follows the path of a bargainer with God. The one they call a slave, the other a hireling. But God wants us to come to Him as sons to their Father; He wants us to behave ourselves honorably from love for Him and zeal for His service; He wants us to find our happiness in uniting ourselves with Him in a saving union of mind and heart.​

It would depend upon the sect of Christianity that one is brought up in. Some sects are very heavily into the fire and brimstone of hell, some teach that it does not exist. Christianity is not monolithic.

 

[F1fan]

I am not assuming, I am believing it is true. It cannot be verified, that is IMPOSSIBLE.
I believe it is true since I believe that Baha'u'llah was infallible.

This is not a sound conclusion. There are things in his writings that are wrong, therefore he's not infallible, thus your belief is dead wrong. Your beliefs are not built on facts and reason, so you have justified your beliefs with other motives. You don't seem to care about this.

It is unlikely *to you* that He was. It is obvious *to me* that He was.
These are just personal opinions, not facts. Why not just agree to disagree?

Because we aren't confused over equal options here. We aren't split on painting the room red or blue. You have accepted the scenario that Baha'u'llah is infallible and has actually communicated with a God, and that is hugely unlikely. It is vastly more likely he made up the content in his texts.

I don't understand why you continue with your posting since you have exhausted anything you can bring to this discussion. You stated your beliefs, you lack adequate evidence to convince critical thinkers, and you have nothing more. And my approach is not personal feelings like yours, as I am defering to the normal standard of logic, debate, and evidence. You're not unique, theists of any tradtion struggle to argue their beliefs, and routinely fail.

No rational mind would expect to have facts about an unknowable God.

Then rational minds will have no reason to believe in any Gods.

Why isn't your priority to be a rational mind instead of a believer in implausible concepts? Have you even pondered this? Don't you have an interest in knowing what is true about the universe over some religious illusion?

I never said it is objective. All assessment of religions is subjective.

Evidence HAS to be objective. Theists in these debates fail by offering their beliefs and sloppy thinking, and it is not acceptable for critical analysis. Bias and subjective belief and interpretations are weeded out as they aren't relevant to determining what is true about the universe.

It is extraordinary to me. It is not extraordinary to you.

No, it is not extraordinary because it is subjective and relies on your assumptions, not facts. You assume )I know you hate this, but it is true) that Baha'u'llah is infallible, but he isn't. There are errors in his texts, and there is no way to massage out these errors. He should have nown better, but he didn't. These errors are grounds for reasonable doubt that he was infallible.

Extraordinary evidence isn't factual.

False, all evidence MUST be factual. Extraordinary evidence means there is substantial evidence that informs us an extraordinary claim (like some fellow communicating with a God, that you admit isn't factually existent) is true. Extraordinary evidence would be some predictions in the Baha'i texts that are detailed and unambiguous. There isn't. It's the same fatal flaw in all religious prophesy. Extraordinary evidence would be some confirmed miracles occurring. You asked me what what would prove a God exists to me, and I said if all children no longer suffered from cancer. THAT would be impressive and be extraordinary. Your standard for extraordinary is very ordinary and mundane. Mine is actually extraordinary. Wouldn't my suggestion of a miracle impress you?

 

[PearlSeeker]

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

That's easy. It's called progressive revelation.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think your concept of "proof" is way wider than ours.
...and what is this evidence you speak of?

I'm sure one of the Baha'is must have gone through the reasons why they think Baha'u'llah's character, his mission, his writings and revelation are evidence or proof to them. But I don't remember.

I'm sure, to them, he was a great guy, wrote incredible amounts of material that sounded, to them, spiritual and profound, and that he gave his life to his cause of spreading, what Baha'is believe, to be the truth about God and the truth from God.

One of my main complaints is that his message contradicts the messages given in the other religions. It is nowhere near the beliefs of Hinduism and Buddhism and greatly contradicts Christianity. So, for Baha'u'llah's message to be true, Baha'is have to make those other messages wrong. And they do. Which leaves only the Baha'i message as the only true and accurate message from God.

Yes, them and every other religion believes theirs is better and truer than everybody else's. A Muslim or a Christian can agree with Baha'is on a thread like this and say, "Yes, there is a God and there is evidence God is real", but, as we all know, they're not talking about the same God... especially those trinitarian Christians.

 

[CG Didymus]

Perfect timing.

That's how you see it. Others don't have to agree or accept it but its how you see it.

Good timing? Or a way to not have to go through their supposed evidence that proves there is a God, and that Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God?

 

[CG Didymus]

That's easy. It's called progressive revelation.

But that is what I'm questioning... Have the messages of the different religions been "progressive" or different and contradicting? For example... Did Christianity compliment Judaism and then did Islam compliment Christianity? They each might think they do, but it seems to me more like each believes it is correcting the older religion and clearing up beliefs those older religions had misinterpreted.

 

[CG Didymus]

I would offer one can look at the evidence with different frames of references, outside the box one might say!

And what happens when the "evidence" is put into the Baha'i box? Can we go outside that box and evaluate it?

What is the Baha'is evidence that God exists? What is the Baha'i evidence that Baha'u'llah is God's manifestation? Any assumptions made? Anything that must be just taken on "faith"? If there is, and I think there is, then sure, it's all downhill from there. The Baha'i box looks pretty good. Peace, unity, all religions are one and all the rest of all that good stuff. What possibly be keeping people from believing it all? Maybe the assumptions and those things that can't be proven and must just be taken on faith and believed?

 

[CG Didymus]

To me that denies pure logic and reason, it is not intelligence when we deny there is higher intelligence behind our mind.

But is that "higher" intelligence the God that Baha'is believe in? Again, different religions describe their Gods or God different than how the Baha'is describe God. Why are they wrong and the Baha'is right?

 

[CG Didymus]

I give up. You simply do not know the difference between knowledge and belief, and apparently are not ever going to. In this way, at the very least, some religious minds do not operate rationally.

Yet, it was only one "messenger" that got her to believe in God. Why didn't any of the others? Maybe because the messages sounded irrational and weren't logical? And sounded like fairy tales about mythic Gods and God/men?

 

[CG Didymus]

No .. you said yourself, that many people are driven away from faith, on account of depictions of hell.

It is not about forcing people to believe, it is a warning that if we disobey God, there will be consequences of our own making.

In other words, the fear of God is part of faith .. it saves .. it is part of our salvation.
It is a personal thing, until our deeds affect other people in a negative way .. then it becomes a community issue.

But if the Baha'is are correct there is no physical hell. That would make a big part of the Christian message false. How about with Islam?

 

[We Never Know]

No, the question is what it is reasonable to accept.

"what it is reasonable to accept"

For who?

 

[We Never Know]

No. Both are opinions. There is a difference.

I own 14 guns. I enjoy hunting and target plinking. I also carry one.
Fact is I like guns.

Bob owns no guns. Thinks no one should own guns. Started a petition to try to ban all guns.
Fact is Bob doesn't like guns.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is not a sound conclusion. There are things in his writings that are wrong, therefore he's not infallible, thus your belief is dead wrong. Your beliefs are not built on facts and reason, so you have justified your beliefs with other motives. You don't seem to care about this.

And that's a problem. The claim is that Baha'u'llah speaks for God and is infallible. What do we do when some of the things he says don't seem true? I think we must question whether or not he is really speaking for some all-knowing God.

One thing for sure Baha'u'llah's opinion of homosexuals didn't go over very well. But what can Baha'is say? They must believe that their God told Baha'u'llah to say that, and that it is the infallible truth. But why must others? They don't have to believe it. They can evaluate it, and like me, maybe come to the conclusion that those words aren't coming from a God but from a man.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Until we start arguing the difference between belief and knowledge in an epistemological sense, we are doomed never to make further progress.

Here's a challenge to participants, a little "thought experiment:" Imagine that you have somehow managed to put together an absolutely impartial jury, with no preconceived notions of religion, nor of religious skepticism. What "evidence" would you put before that panel that would convince them that your religious beliefs represent the truth, or on the other side, what evidence would you put before them to convince them that religious beliefs can never be shown to be the truth?