Evidence

[Secret Chief]

Good, what is the Zen belief about rebirth? If it is still returning into a human body, Baha'is still don't believe it. They say that people only get born once, then die and move on to some other spirit world where the soul continues to progress. Again, stuff they can't prove. Yet they know they are right and the other beliefs in the other religions, if different, are wrong. And that ties in with their belief that the teachings of the other religions got corrupted. So, they don't believe that the Buddha taught such a thing, but that his followers added that in.

Depends which Buddhist you ask! A Buddhist teaching is a teaching founded on the acceptance as true the seals of existence (of which there are three or four!) and so beyond this I think even within schools there can be differing interpretations of rebirth. I think all schools/traditions agree that no-self (one of the seals is that all phenomena are empty) means there is no abiding soul to survive death (and hence no reincarnation as the word is commonly used). I consider rebirth to be moment by moment. It's dangerous to lift quotes from longer sections but here is one: A founder of Soto Zen, Dogen said: "Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death." (In context: it is part of his examination of what in English might be called being-time). Given Theravada Buddhism considers that there is rebirth (but no soul!) into other planes of existence after this human death, it can all get a bit knotty; Buddhism is not a revealed religion and (I would say) not frozen in time nor meant to be just swallowed uncritically. There have been 2000 years since the death of the Buddha and many people, such as Dogen and Nagarjuna (and even Secret Chief ) consider his words with a critical eye. Sheesh tl;dr.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Truer words were never spoken.
Atheists call themselves logical but most of them can't even figure that out.

Please, you supported the OP off and on.

One more time, the only reason that atheists are asking for evidence for God is because the OP and sometimes you and others have claimed that there is evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because I believe that Jesus was a Manifestation of God does not mean I believe all the stories that men wrote about Jesus. What Jesus purportedly did in those stories are not what made Jesus a Manifestation of God.

Okay, more nonsensical inconsistencies.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Whether something is reasonable doesn't depend on who, in their personal opinion, thinks it is reasonable.
Just like whether something is logical doesn't depend on who, in their personal opinion, thinks it is logical.
This is what 'some atheists' simply do not grasp, since they think they are always right, based upon nothing but a biased ego-driven personal opinion.

No atheist on this thread has told a single person what they ought to do or believe.

The thread, however, was started by a religious person who wanted to have a debate, not on what to do but whether there is evidence for what that person believes. And that is what we are doing -- debating, on the side that says, "No, there isn't, if by evidence you mean what evidence would usually mean when testing the truth."

 

[PearlSeeker]

What do you mean by unreliable? Unreliable for whom?

Unreliable for common sense and experience with sources - for people who don't take everything for granted, who evaluate the sources. It's called source criticism:

Source criticism - Wikipedia

 

[PearlSeeker]

F1fan said: This is why critical thinkers rely on the highest standard used in science, law, logic, etc.

No, of course the Messengers don't present the same kind of evidence that is used in science and law.
Try to think about why that is not the case.

If the Messengers don't know God by direct empirical evidence why call them Messengers? If they just rely on old traditional narratives they are not more knowledgeable than other believers.

 

[Polymath257]

Whether something is reasonable doesn't depend on who, in their personal opinion, thinks it is reasonable.
Just like whether something is logical doesn't depend on who, in their personal opinion, thinks it is logical.
This is what 'some atheists' simply do not grasp, since they think they are always right, based upon nothing but a biased ego-driven personal opinion.

Exactly. it does NOT depend on personal opinion. There are very clear rules about what is and what is not logical and reasonable.

For example, you don't get to use the existence of something before you demonstrate that existence.

 

[Polymath257]

Good luck finding that kind of evidence for the existence of God. Please let me know when you find it.

And that is precisely why atheists are not convinced of the existence of God. The lack of that sort of evidence is *exactly* why it is reasonable to not believe in such a being.

I am not going to name names or get into a debate about this.
I will only say that I think it is illogical and unreasonable to expect to have evidence for God when that evidence does not exist.

But it is also illogical and unreasonable to believe in the absence of such evidence. So the fact that such evidence is impossible is *precisely* the best reason to not believe.

The logical thing to do, when presented with evidence that believers offer, is not to say "that's not evidence."
The logical thing to say is " that evidence you offered is not good enough to compel me to believe."
At that point there is nothing more that needs to be said. The party is over and we can all go home.

More accurately, that evidence is not sufficient to compel belief at all.

Look at this thread. I just posted post #1900, and all people have been doing is arguing about what is and is not evidence for God. It is only a battle of egos.

Not at all. You have admitted that proper evidence of God is impossible. And that is precisely why it is unreasonable to believe.

 

[Polymath257]

Tell God, not me. I am not the one who is in charge of providing evidence.

Once again, until the existence of God has been demonstrated, telling such a creature anything is unreasonable and illogical. Existence needs to be demonstrated *first*. Then, and only then, can that existence be used to explain things.

 

[Polymath257]

F1fan said: This is why critical thinkers rely on the highest standard used in science, law, logic, etc.

No, of course the Messengers don't present the same kind of evidence that is used in science and law.
Try to think about why that is not the case.

The most obvious reason is that such evidence is impossible. And the most obvious reason for that is that no deity exists.

 

[Polymath257]

I said in post #1746

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

You call them opinions when they are fact.

You left out the first line:
"subjective depends on the person."

That *you* like guns is not subjective.

That Bob does not like guns is not subjective.

Those are two objective facts about the opinions that you and Bob hold.

But what *is* subjective is whether guns are good things.

You think they are. Bob thinks they are not. Those are subjective and are thereby *opinions*.

I can prove that Bob does not like guns by pointing to his actions. I can prove that you like guns by pointing to yours.

But when you ask who is right, we enter into the realm of opinions. There is no fact of the matter.

 

[Alien826]

Sometimes the irony is so thick you can taste it.

Mmmm, strawberry flavor!

John, what is the bird in your avatar pic? The beak looks like a budgerigar (Australian ground parrot) but I've never seen such bright colors in that species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mmmm, strawberry flavor!

John, what is the bird in your avatar pic? The beak looks like a budgerigar (Australian ground parrot) but I've never seen such bright colors in that species.

@John53 cheats, he is an excellent photographer of birds and other critters so his image may be his own rather than a stock one. But my Google fu indicates that this is the Eastern Rosella:


Eastern rosella - Wikipedia

 

[F1fan]

F1fan said: This is why critical thinkers rely on the highest standard used in science, law, logic, etc.

No, of course the Messengers don't present the same kind of evidence that is used in science and law.
Try to think about why that is not the case.

Frauds use low standard evidence as well. Your Messenger has more in common with frauds than critical thinkers.

If you are going to claim a messenger actually has communiucation with God then what they will attain as knowledge will be exceptional. What Baha'u'llah writes is not exceptional.

That is what my thinking realizes.

 

[F1fan]

i don't want to get involved in arguments about evidence, but hoping against hope people would end arguing already and end this thread. Never mind, it is hopeless. It is stupid of me to from time to time try to stop arguing forever here when everybody should have made their points by now. This is post number 1929. This is ridiculous.

This thread, perhaps more than others, is an opportunity for theists, and especially Baha'i, of the weakness of the core beliefs of their religion. What are they really built on, it isn't facts. Why do you believe at all?

Your handle is "Truthseeker" yet you seem opposed to the process that allows us to discern truth from falsehoods. If believers were really interested in finding truth they would learn to be critical thinkers, not ways to reinforce established beliefs with tortured thinking.

 

[Ella S.]

Good luck finding that kind of evidence for the existence of God. Please let me know when you find it.

I am not going to name names or get into a debate about this.
I will only say that I think it is illogical and unreasonable to expect to have evidence for God when that evidence does not exist.

The logical thing to do, when presented with evidence that believers offer, is not to say "that's not evidence."
The logical thing to say is " that evidence you offered is not good enough to compel me to believe."
At that point there is nothing more that needs to be said. The party is over and we can all go home.

Look at this thread. I just posted post #1900, and all people have been doing is arguing about what is and is not evidence for God. It is only a battle of egos.

I partially agree. I do think many people say that there is "no evidence" for something when what they really mean is that the available evidence is weak or that there is stronger contradictory evidence. That can muddle conversation.

For the sake of this thread, I would say that you eventually did provide evidence. As far as I'm concerned, that could be the end of the thread right there, since this thread seems to have become mostly about whether or not there is evidence.

However, I think that when two people disagree on whether evidence is compelling or not, then there are three explanations; one of them is misinformed, one of them is ignorant, or one of them is being illogical.

With the proper application of logic and the same set of data, we should be able to agree on what is true every time. Disagreement means that one of these elements is out of place.

I do think that we should all come to such a disagreement with the implicit notion that we might be the one that's misinformed, ignorant, or illogical, otherwise we won't be able to learn when we are. And we will be every now and then, because we're all limited humans.

I think the disagreement about whether evidence is compelling or not should be the beginning of productive debate, not the end of it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

such beliefs can be right or wrong with no way to determine which.

I'm sure you already know most ofthis, but to repeat, purely metaphysical assertions, by which I mean claims about entities outside of experience that do not project into experience - things that affect nothing and this can't be confirmed or falsified even in principle - probably shouldn't be thought of in terms of correct or incorrect, but "not even wrong." Those are descriptions of things for which there is no discernible difference.

Consider the deist god, which deists believe exists or existed, yet will never manifest in reality. That's a completely useless idea even if there were a way to get out of consciousness and see beyond to proposes entities that will never pierce the veil of the theater of conscious content and answer it. Nothing changes either way. This describes the set of proposed noninterventionist god, and it the bases for what some call apatheism. From Wiki: "An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or rejecting any claims that gods exist or do not exist. The existence of a god or gods is not rejected, but may be designated irrelevant."

I was responding to what you said you had -- and that I would be interested to see it. Are you now telling me you were being disingenuous and don't actually have it?

I hope that that was a rhetorical question.

"distributed negative"

Interesting term. I Googled it but found nothing related to this usage, which seems to refer to a limited space small enough to rule out the elephant in your example. Where does this term mean to you? The same?

I have to smile when yet another atheist presents his well worn argument that he is so sure will convince them.

I think most critical thinkers posting here have long ago been disabused of the conceit that he might ever make an impact in any faith-based thinker's belief set. I have seen one or two learn something I believe, but that might just be wishful thinking. We all have other reasons for being here and doing this, which reason also cannot be taught. As you see, this activity is described in terms of it being a fight and a battle of egos. Tell them otherwise until you're blue in the face and they'll still hold that position.

Personally I have found many Gems of wisdom in the given evidence, that have proofs and facts of faith for me.

I could ask you to share some of that wisdom, but as I just indicated to Alien826, I already know that that will never happen. Most of my posting is actually intended for the other critical thinkers. What I would point out here is that wisdom has no meaning in this context. It means basically anything you read that you like. I have a clear and concise definition of wisdom, and it's related to my definition of intelligence, which relates to learning facts and problem solving - something the beasts do. If intelligence is knowing how to get something, wisdom is knowing what to get to be happy. So, I would say that advice to abandon attachment is wisdom, because if one can do it, he will be happier than if he cannot. That may be in your book, but I suspect that there is no other idea there that I would call wisdom - certainly none in the thousands of characters believers have posted in these threads from their book.

Faith besets a useful understandings of words like fact, truth, reason, knowledge, and wisdom, repurposing those words to describe faith-based beliefs that can do none of the things that that which the critical thinker labels with such terms can do, namely, be shown to be correct and be used to anticipate outcomes. This is the point I am making, and obviously, it isn't intended for the believer, who will gain nothing reading those words. I would love to be able to help you and the others as well, but they're having none of it, and neither are you. Your defenses - what is commonly called a faith-based confirmation bias - are impenetrable. You're simply not interested in anything such people have to say to you. You might say the same about someone like me who also cannot be reached with what you have to offer, and that is correct - my currency of belief is compelling evidence, which you do not have - but I still find your words endlessly fascinating. Was it in this thread that I mentioned viewing this exercise as a kind of humanist school with lecture and lab? Only those people will learn and teach, albeit one another, but they will also learn by observing faith-based thought.

Feel free to rebut any of that if you can are so motivated, but that's not going to happen either, is it? The most I expect is hand waiving in flowery platitudes. I've never gotten more from you. And that, too, is among the things we can learn here.

God is not contained within any part of creation, God is outside of creation.

This is an incoherent thought. There is only nature, and if something cannot be detected interacting with things that exist, the collection of which we call nature or reality, then it cannot be said to exist. Your claim is used to try to call something that is never seen to interact with nature in any time or place real anyway. It is used to excuse an imagined god from having to meet any criteria for existence, yet be said to exist. Usually, we are also told that God is outside of time and space, and transcending physical law and reason, all in the service of trying to explain why this god exists and yet is undetectable and does nothing that wouldn't be seen in a godless universe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If one makes up something and attributes it to Buddha, it is false evidence. That is a key to consider when one starts walking the minefield that is now called Buddhism.

You have the wrong minefield. He was talking about lies the Baha'i tell about Buddha. His words were, "Baha'is don't believe some of the things that Buddhists believe these days, so they will make up their own beliefs about the Buddha and tell their people that those are the things Buddha really taught. Like one God and no reincarnation."

Did you want to apologize to the Buddhists now?

I guess you will have to research the available evidence yourself

Why do you keep reposting that? To my knowledge, there is nobody on this thread that has not seen and rejected your evidence except other Baha'i. You seem to be unable to assimilate that, instead referring them back to your book for another look. This is the kind of thinking that fascinates me. Why does it never change whatever words you read? Rhetorical question now. I know why. They don't ever get past the confirmation bias to be considered dispassionately and objectively.

I learned a lot about that phenomenon from a young earth creationist named Glenn Morton, who became a geologist, and then on old earth creationist. He describes what that was like using an anthropomorphizing of the bias as demon sitting at the portal into the reasoning mind and choosing what get in for consideration and what doesn't the way Maxwell's demon with gas molecules to thwart entropy. He calls it Morton's demon. I find his account very credible, and very instructive. Critical thinkers might find this instructive. Others won't even be able to consider this essay seriously and will glean nothing from it for reasons desribed within: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002 (talkorigins.org)

Baha'u'llah has said that with one word all can be made to believe, thus one word can prove God to all humanity.

And you probably believe that. That's the kind of idea the demon welcomes. It need not be thought about before doing that. That's the demon's job, and it approves.

Whether something is reasonable doesn't depend on who, in their personal opinion, thinks it is reasonable.
Just like whether something is logical doesn't depend on who, in their personal opinion, thinks it is logical.
This is what 'some atheists' simply do not grasp, since they think they are always right, based upon nothing but a biased ego-driven personal opinion.

And you never learn that this not about excessive ego. It is in your estimation, because you remain unaware that people can know things through critical analysis that are known to be correct if one can do it, but are just another opinion to those who can't and are unaware that critical thinking is even a thing. There are those who haven't mastered the skill but are aware of what it is and what it can do, and defer to other for that kind of knowledge, but as we saw during the vaccine controversy, huge swathes of people couldn't even do that, suggesting that they are of the "It's only your opinion" school. It's also why such people call those who can do it and make claims about such knowledge arrogant and ego-driven. What else can they think given what they know?

Addition is an exercise in pure reason. Those that are unaware that it exists and that following its rules leads to demonstrably correct sums every time would call all answers to an addition problem as valid as any other. And when they put their guess on their math test and it was graded wrong, would think the teacher arrogant to insist on his answer.

I just posted post #1900, and all people have been doing is arguing about what is and is not evidence for God. It is only a battle of egos.

You have no concept of the inner life of those with whom you dispute, and nothing can change that. You have chosen to see it that way, and are uninterested when others tell you that you are wrong. That's your demon at work, choosing what you will never see.

of course the Messengers don't present the same kind of evidence that is used in science and law. Try to think about why that is not the case.

We know why.

You yourself have a big ego, and don't even realize it, unless you are being disingenious. You love to argue, and that evidence of ego for me.

Yes, evidence of a healthy ego, one that is confident. If you are unaware of why that is justified, you will see it an overinflated ego. But that's your world. You've chosen to inhabit it, and in so doing, are cut off from theirs. They can't reach you. I can't reach you. You can be disagreed with 100 times about what actually motivates the critical thinker's posting and you will never consider that you might be wrong, meaning that when you are, you can never learn that.

i don't want to get involved in arguments about evidence, but hoping against hope people would end arguing already and end this thread.

Why? I find the activity quite productive. Sorry that it's like a fist fight for you, but that was your choice to frame it thusly. It's not how I experience it. That's on you. Your choices are to reconsider and adapt - maybe ego and belligerence is not what motivates them - choose not to participate, or go on feeling beset.

 

[CG Didymus]

And that is the thing. You believe. That is fine. But to say that it is based upon anything even close to reliable evidence would be incorrect. It might strike a chord with you. It may appeal to your reasoning, but even you appear to realize that it is not reliable evidence. The OP is claiming that they are but refusing to do his homework.

If it appeals to you and works for you that is fine. No one is saying that you should quit believing. It is just rather annoying when someone claims to have reliable evidence and obviously does not.

And no, this is not about egos. Unless yours is harmed when it is pointed out that you are following a concept that is not well supported and at times is self contradictory.

She is only going by her Baha'i beliefs. Christians have "evidence" in the Bible of God speaking audibly and God sending angels, the angel of the Lord and Gabriel to people. It doesn't sound as if Baha'is believe those stories. If not, then they are rejecting the Bible "evidence" that Christians provide. But it's even worse for Baha'is if they say that those stories are true, because it would mean that God does communicate to people, and not just "manifestations".

Like you say, if they want to believe it, no problem. But the claim is that it is the absolute truth, and God has told them to tell others about that truth. And that makes it our problem. It puts us in a situation to where we need to check it out and see if what they claim is true. If some of us need more evidence and proof, because we don't think the "evidence" they provide is good enough, isn't that reasonable?

I think it makes absolute sense, since not one of the other religions, according to Baha'i beliefs, has it exactly right. Why should a person believe any of them without knowing for sure. And since none of them can be known for sure, why believe in any of them? All of them expect their followers to take somethings on faith, meaning just because they say it's true. But are any of them true? I can't trust them just because they say so. And many of them give "evidence" as to why the others are wrong. Even Baha'is, who say, "They all used to be right, but now they're wrong. And we, the Baha'is, are the only ones that have the truth for this day and age." Maybe, let's see. What else you got besides... "Baha'u'llah said so."

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is an incoherent thought. There is only nature, and if something cannot be detected interacting with things that exist, the collection of which we call nature or reality, then it cannot be said to exist. Your claim is used to try to call something that is never seen to interact with nature in any time or place real anyway. It is used to excuse an imagined god from having to meet any criteria for existence, yet be said to exist. Usually, we are also told that God is outside of time and space, and transcending physical law and reason, all in the service of trying to explain why this god exists and yet is undetectable and does nothing that wouldn't be seen in a godless universe.

There is much that can be discussed as to how God's interaction in creation is manifested, which is contained within the given evidence. We would talking about the Spirit that is the cause of creation when we talk of God, it needs logic and reason to discuss this, not the lack of.

In saying that, the interaction of God is manifested in creation which can resonate with humanity, and this interaction is manifested in many ways, humanitarian efforts are born from that interaction.

All that divides humanity is born from the neglect of that interaction.

That is not this OP, as it has never been the intent to provide proofs of God, just the line of evidence we need to pursue, if there is going to be meaningful discussions about God.

The only evidence where the existence of God can be proved by logical and rational thought, is via the evidence provided as noted in this OP.

The evidence doee provides the key lines of investigation needed.

Unless people are willing to consider that faith also requires critical and analytical thought and reasoning, I doubt we will ever be able to discuss these matter's, yet our goals are for the good of all humanity.

Regards Tony