The Exclusivity of Christianity

[PureX]

Faith is the method of acquiring unjustified belief.

No, it's not. Faith is a method of obtaining a course of action when we have no "belief" that the said course of action will result in a hoped for outcome, but have only the hoped for outcome, and an undetermined possibility of achieving it.

One word spelled that way does mean a religion. The Jewish faith is the Jewish religion.

Dictionaries only capture word usage; ignorant and illogical usage, and logical and intelligent usage. Being such a critical thinker as yourself, I would assume that you'd have picked up on this and recognized that "faith" does not mean "religious belief" when "religious belief" already means "religious belief".

No, I'm doing the opposite. I'm teasing these different words apart and emphasizing their distinctions, warning about equivocation due to carelessness in their use. Remember this? :

All you're doing is repeating over and over that "faith" is an "unjustified religious belief". Which is patently false and stupidly biased. Especially when the only criteria for justification that you will accept is empirical, when we humans have a whole array of reasonable and effective alternatives to use.

 

[F1fan]

But that does not mean that the claims are not true.

It means there is no rational reason to think they are true. The reasons you offer are not reasoned. You can believe anything you damn well please, but if you are going to argue them in open debate you need to use reasoned arguments with adequate evidence.

Maybe some people hold religious beliefs for the sake of belonging and conformity. For example most people in the United States claim to be Christians but I don't think all of them really believe. Maybe some Baha'is believe because they like to belong to a group, but not me. Baha'is do not believe for the sake of conformity becaue we are noncomformists.

There are no religious concepts I have been exposed to tat can be argued to be true or likely true with the evidence believers offer. All of these claims make broad assumptions to fill in the absense of evidence. That is not good enough.

And given this, what other reason would citizens of a community end up believing a common religious view in that community if not for social learning and influence? Lee Strobel, famous for his poorly reasoned book The Case For Christ, told Hank Hanegraaf that the reason he became Christian was because his fiance was a devout believer and if he didn't conform to Christianity she would not go through with the marriage. He relented and became a big believer himself, and not due to a reasoned conclusion, but because he surrendered any intellectual integrity to pressure from his fiance who would not feel comfortable marrying a guy who didn't match her beliefs.

What reason is there to believe the other people are right?

Their reasoning and the evidence they provide, just like in court.

Why should we listen to them unless they can prove we are wrong and they are right?

Because they lack evidence that is adequate to support a claim, which is why we reject your claims. We see people believe in all sorts of non-rational concepts, and they do so for various reasons. Many people learn that they need to believe in something, and you seem to be one of these, and Baha'i is your something. Your belief in Baha'i concepts satisfies some need you have, and like other believers you don't examine this need. Critical thinkers are, and you push back on it.

We can learn from other people and still do our own work. No, we cannot all be correct, but we are responsible to ourselves for what we end up believing, so it has to be our own decision, what we believe is true.

We have to be pretty smart and wise already to understand how to recognize who has something to teach us and who doesn't. Creationists have nothing to teach me because I recognize their thinking is highly biased and baseless. I do pay attention to a number of posters, like Ella and that guy who now lives in Mexico, and if his predictions were correct had peking duck last night with another couple. I have learned quite a bit from them in recent weeks, and that is because they have taken time to educate themselves in ways I haven't. I know this because they show their work.

As individuals, ware all each accountable to God so we cannot tell God that we believed what John believed because John believed it.

This claim is an example of an unfounded assumption, and you don;t seem aware you are making an assumption. You seem to really think this statement is true, but then will admit you can't prove God exists. That is your inconsistent, Jeckl and Hyde personality in these debates. You are not being self-aware of what you think and write.

And how can anyone be accountable to a religious character that can't be confirmed as existing? Do you understand that I can't be accountable to an imaginary character?

What you consider weak evidence I consider strong evidence and thus the beat goes on.

We don't care what you believe. And that is why your thinking fails at the highest standard. That's fine in your life, but terrible in debate.

What I meant is that we should look for evidence based upon facts and then we can form a judgment.

That's what critical thinkers do, and what you don't do. Your low standard for evidence is insufficient for critical analysis.

The knowledge (facts and information) about the religion can be shared with others but not everyone will believe it means that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or that God exists.

Yup, we can look what Baha'i is as a religion and learn all the facts about it, but there in no evidence the claims it is built on are factual and true, namely that baha'u'llah is a messenger of God. That little bit is not believable given the lack of adequate evidence for skilled thinkers.

No matter how adequate the evidence is, evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence, and there is not and never will be any way to verify that God exists or sends Messengers.

I don't understand why you keep using the word "proof" when it is ambiguous. At best you seem to mean it is substantial and verifiable evidence, which you admit you can't offer. You should just use those words and avoid "proof".

That is why faith coupled with evidence is necessary to believe.

Why is religious belief important? Why do you need to believe anything with inadequate evidence? Critical thinkers have no such need.

Knowledge about Messengers of God and thus God is not proof that Messengers were sent by God or that God exists.
Baha'is don't have proof and no religion has proof, since religion cannot be proven true (or false.)

That's why we reject this claim. The default is to not believe.

Knowledge of God comes through revelations that come from God through Messengers. It is not factual knowledge since nobody can verify that it is true.

It's not knowledge. You can learn the concepts, but as you admit this is inadequate for belief. You want to believe and to get there you use faith, which is an excuse for the mind. The question you should ask yourself is why you need to believe, and why you can't reject these concepts like critical thinkers easily do.

Proof is not what makes God exist. Proof is just what atheists want in order to believe that God exists.

The same is true in law and court. Do you think it's OK to convict a person for a crime that lacks evidence they did it? If not then this high standard is useful in society. Your low standard is a threat.

Proof is not required in order to have knowledge. Awareness and understanding bring knowledge.

Yes it is. There is no knowledge without verifiable evidence.

Definition of knowledge

1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

Again you post definitions and cherry pick your way through the list. You don't acknowledge the whole list.

It doesn't matter if it is irrelevant to beyond my religion. Relevancy does not equate to truth. The religion is true or not.

The default is that unverifiable claims are not true. They are judged true in proportion to the evidence.

You are no more skilled than we are. You only believe you are more skilled.

This is observed false.

 

[F1fan]

A faith-based thinker begins by looking at the evidence that leads to the belief and faith in the belief.
Evidence leads to Belief on faith and evidence.

That is why it is unreliable, biased, and to be avoided if a person wants a truthful understanding of reality.

There is no bias since they looked at the evidence with an open mind, and without prejudice.

It's bias because they want a conclusion that evidnce doesn't lead them to, and they make the conclusion from desire, not evidence.

That's true that imaginary beings cannot be shown, but just because God cannot be shown that does not mean that God is imaginary.

Gods are in the same category as imaginary characters. If anyone finds evidence any gods exist them we will reassess the argument and conclusions.

All existent things cannot be shown. Only existent things in this world can be shown. God does not exist in this world.

We care about what we can know and confirm. Uncertainty is still uncertainty.

If Bigfoot hunters find DNA of an animal that has no known profile that is related to humans but not the same profile, then that is excellent evidence that what is called Bigfoot actually exists. Until then it is dubious. I'm not convinced a Bigfoot exists. There are many Bigfoot hunters that are convinced.

God's grace is what allows us to know that God exists. There is nothing circular about it.

This declaraction of faith is devoid of fact, thus meaningingless. That you state this as if a fact shows your contempt for those you are debating.

No, because I have evidence.

Nothing that impresses skilled thinkers. You have contempt for skilled thinking, too.

 

[F1fan]

No, it's not. Faith is a method of obtaining a course of action when we have no "belief" that the said course of action will result in a hoped for outcome, but have only the hoped for outcome, and an undetermined possibility of achieving it.

Sounds desperate.

Dictionaries only capture word usage; ignorant and illogical usage, and logical and intelligent usage. Being such a critical thinker as yourself, I would assume that you'd have picked up on this and recognized that "faith" does not mean "religious belief" when "religious belief" already means "religious belief".

So your gripe is with linguists and the history of language. Should definitions be wiped from dictionaries because you personally feel anxiety about certain uses? I guess if you were God you could make it happen. Alas, a poor mortal nevigating a world that does not care about your personal meaning. You have the freedom to adjust, if you allow yourself the freedom from belief.

All you're doing is repeating over and over that "faith" is an "unjustified religious belief".

Because that is a true definition of faith. You have a problem with it, which it YOUR problem.

Which is patently false and stupidly biased. Especially when the only criteria for justification that you will accept is empirical, when we humans have a whole array of reasonable and effective alternatives to use.

You have a problem with forming a factual conclusion about what we can know of reality. I understand you don't think it's a problem. Like with other believers that is fine for you personally, but in debate? No.

 

[GardenLady]

This means that all salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body. Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her. At the same time, thanks to Christ and to his Church, those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation.

I would argue that many of those who heard of the Church in the context of being conquered (by Conquistadors and clergy accompanying conquerors in Americas and Asia and Africa) and who were pressed at the point of a sword, did not hear the actual gospel.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Faith is a method of obtaining a course of action when we have no "belief" that the said course of action will result in a hoped for outcome, but have only the hoped for outcome, and an undetermined possibility of achieving it.

You're defining hope. Faith is different. A critical thinker can have hope, but not faith, which is the path to unjustified, unexamined belief.

"faith" does not mean "religious belief" when "religious belief" already means "religious belief".

That was in response to, "One word spelled that way does mean a religion. The Jewish faith is the Jewish religion." Careful. In the next comment, you call my thinking stupid. You don't think that that comment qualifies as stupid? Forget that it's a straw man. No such claim was made. Nevertheless, do you consider the straw man a stupid comment?

All you're doing is repeating over and over that "faith" is an "unjustified religious belief". Which is patently false and stupidly biased.

Still not what I said. Why can't you read an idea and successfully reproduce it without transforming it a little or a lot? What I said is that faith is unjustified belief. It need not be religious. One can have faith that an election was stolen, action it, and end up in jail. One can have faith that Trump and Carlson know more about vaccines than Fauci, act on it, and end up dead because of it.

You haven't tried to rebut the claim that faith is identical to unjustified belief. You've dissented and offered your own definitions, but you haven't tried to falsify my claim (rebut it). To do that, you'd need to show why it cannot be correct, not just what you believe instead. You'd need an argument that if correct makes mine incorrect, without which, I have no reason to modify my position, and without which, the debate is over and the matter resolved in favor of the last plausible, unrebutted claim.

Why? Because the purpose of dialectic is to resolve differences in opinion using critical analysis. With two critical thinkers, it's a cooperative process, and because they use the same method to determine which statements are correct, both will agree on the last plausible, unrebutted conclusion. With only one, the process usually ends after a post and its rebuttal, the original poster then dropping the ball and doing what you're doing here - dissenting without rebutting - which is the end of the debate. A correct statement cannot be successfully rebutted.

Now tell me why you say that my claim is "patently false and stupidly biased." Show me falsity or stupid bias, or apologize. Or neither if neither is possible for you.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yup, we can look what Baha'i is as a religion and learn all the facts about it, but there in no evidence the claims it is built on are factual and true, namely that baha'u'llah is a messenger of God. That little bit is not believable given the lack of adequate evidence for skilled thinkers.

I'm sure most of us have been confronted by those Christians that tell us we must put our faith and trust in Jesus in order to be saved. They tell us about God's plan and Satan's plan. They give us the reasons and what they believe is proof that Jesus is who he claimed to be and how we can trust the Bible. Some of us have been raised believing those things and some of us were told the story and gave Christianity a try. And now the Baha'i Faith contradicts most all of those claims made by those born-again/fundy Christians. And what was the problem? Baha'is will tell us those beliefs and doctrines are false and not based on facts but on wrong interpretations of things said in the Bible.

Lucky for us, the Baha'is will tell us the true interpretation of those things said in the Bible. And that true interpretation just so happens to point directly to the Baha'i Faith and to their prophet, Baha'u'llah, as being the true one sent from God. Amazing.

So again, we are promised a world where peace and justice will prevail as long as we put our faith and trust in Baha'u'llah. Who wouldn't want that? Well... for the same reasons many of us have rejected Christianity... We are asked to commit ourselves completely to this religion and to believe everything it tells us. And the number one thing they expect us to believe is that an unknowable, invisible God, that is impossible for them to prove really exists, is real.

Yes being "saved" from hell and receiving eternal life in some paradise sounds great. Or... a world where all people leave together in peace and unity would be incredible. All we have to do is put are trust and faith in them and their religion... Two religions that contradict each other. With either one, what are we really committing ourselves to? Lots of unprovable beliefs. What's so wrong with wanting something more than that to base our beliefs on? And, with the Baha'is, a religion that says that religion and science must go hand and hand, can't provide the proof and evidence that any of their claims are real.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Let’s look at some of his claims. What is in red text is from the article, and my comments are below.

But on the face of it, it’s impossible that Christianity is true and other religions are true. This is the basic law of reason called the law of noncontradiction. Just from a rational standpoint, the law of noncontradiction is, “A cannot be non-A at the same time in the same way.”

That is correct. If Christianity is true that means that all other religions are false, given Christians believe that Jesus is “the Only Way” to God.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Jesus did say that but Jesus did not say: “No one will ever come to the Father except through me.” I believe that what Jesus said in the New Testament applied to the Christian Dispensation, but it was never intended to apply to all of time.

If Yahweh is the one and only living and true God, there is no other god

That is logically true, and I believe it is true because it is in the Bible and all the Abrahamic religions teach that there is only one true God.

If the Bible is the one true revealed revelation of God, there is no other revelation.

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the one true revealed revelation of God and there is no other revelation? I believe that the Bible was written to cover only the Christian Dispensation, and it was never intended to apply to all of time.

Of course, Christians believe that the Bible is the Only Word of God and that it will apply for all of eternity. Only 33% of the world population are Christians. So the loving God Christians believe in has denied 67% of the world population from any access to God?

Dispensation

1. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
2. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
3. a divinely appointed order or age:

e.g. the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Definition of dispensation | Dictionary.com

There is no logical reason to assume that all revelation ended with the Christian Dispensation.
Moreover, the Bible does not say that. Christians say that and they try to find verses in the Bible to support that belief by misinterpreting those verses.

If the Son of God is Jesus, who is alone Lord and alone King, there is no other lord.

The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, but it does not say that Jesus is Lord and King and there is no other lord but Jesus.

Jesus never claimed to be Lord and Jesus never claimed to be King. Jesus disclaimed being a king when He replied to Pilate and said why He came into the world.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

If Jesus Christ is the only Savior from sin and eternal judgment, there is no other savior. If sinners can be saved only by the gospel of Jesus Christ, then they can’t be saved by any other means.

Even if Jesus was a Savior, which I believe, that does not mean that no other religions are true, because there is much more to religion than being saved.

If people can only escape hell by trusting in the person and work of Christ, they cannot escape hell by any other avenue. If sinners will be in hell forever if they reject Christ, there is no other way for them to escape.

Even if we need to believe in Jesus to avoid hell, that does not mean that we have to be a Christian in order to escape hell. For example, other religions such as Islam and the Baha’i Faith teach that Jesus was a Messenger of God so we do not reject Jesus.

If the sole work that saves sinners is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then no other work can save sinners.

Jesus said that His death saved sinners but who is to say that it did not save all of humanity, including non-Christians?

Jesus never said that His resurrection saves sinners. Jesus said that the cross sacrifice saved sinners. The ‘belief’ in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is totally unnecessary for salvation.

If the gospel is the only saving truth and all other claims are lies, if there is only one true religion, then all others are false.

Even if the gospel is the only ‘saving truth’, meaning it is the only religion that offers salvation, that still does not mean it is the one true religion, and all other religions are false. Religion is about more than being saved.

Obviously, if Christianity is the 'only truth' from God, then all other religions are false, but what reason is there to believe that Christianity is the 'only truth' from God?

If there is only one true God, who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—the triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit—then there is no other God. So you get the idea.

That would be true if there was only one God who is a triune God, but nowhere in the Bible is there any triune God. The Trinity is a man-made Christian doctrine.

And because it is such an offense, people cave in, and rather than be faithful to that gospel, they come up with ridiculous things like, “You can get to heaven by any religion.” A lie from the devil. Deuteronomy 4:35 says, “The Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” That’s the exclusivity of the true God. Deuteronomy 4:39, “The Lord, He is God in heaven [alone] and on the earth below; there is no other.” First Kings 8, verse 60, “The Lord is God; there is no one else.”

Even if that is true that the Lord is God and there is no other besides Him, which I believe, so what?
Jesus is not the Lord God so Christianity has no claims on God. Other religions also revealed the Lord God.

Jesus is called Lord in the Bible out of reverence to His exalted station but Jesus never claimed to be the Lord God.

Jesus never referred to Himself as the Lord God. Jesus continually said to worship the Lord God and serve Him only. Jesus never said “you shall serve me only.”

Matthew 4:10 Then said Jesus unto him, “Get thee hence, Satan! For it is written: ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’”

Finally, Jesus never said that there would never be any more religions revealed after Christianity. That is a Christian belief, not anything Jesus ever said. Galatians 1:8-9 says not to preach any other gospel, but a new revelation from God that starts a new religion is not another gospel.

The Bible says:
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

But then the New Testament was an addition to the Old Testament, wasn't it?
So Jesus came with a new Revelation from God and added to what Moses revealed.

And the Bible says:
Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

But the Holy Qur’an and the Revelation of Baha'u'llah were not "another gospel." Only Jesus had a gospel.

Islam and the Baha'i Faith are new Revelations from God that came ‘after’ the New Testament, just as the New Testament was a new Revelation from God that came ‘after’ the Old Testament.

Your position is based on a political one not a religious one, which I will concede is not easy to differentiate because of how people are. Islam and Baha'i believe in the same Abrahamic God the Christians do, however due to their political and historical differences they have created distinct albeit unnecessary barriers between them. I am all for new revelation as you would see in my faith description. When Biblical followers of Christ refer to One Church and One Faith, they are referring to the unity that will happen when Jesus returns accepting the reality that it doesn't yet exist but should and will. There are many Christians that don't understand this, but I think you have pointed out many evidences in the scriptures. Religion and scripture is a human interpretation of God's will, therefore there is not a perfect religion.. Yet. Religion is still very important, because it is evident that without standing for something you will fall for everything. Religion allows people to better align their cognitive reality to understand the world and life they are given. If done seriously and genuinely people are able to understand that there is more to life than just an inevitable death. Christianity Islam Judaism Hinduism Buddhism, etc. all bring to their understanding a 'higher power'. Christianity interprets this higher power as Jesus Christ and God the Father and the Holy Ghost. Islam and Judaism interprets this as God, Hinduism and Buddhism interpret this as Universal Energy. They all however fit in a Venn Diagram of God. As a Christian however I have found that Jesus Christ answers every realm of divinity. He is the way the truth the life. I don't have to go to Buddha for some things, Mohammad for others, Moses for others, I have the full definition with Jesus and if I look to him for any issue I have about any religion or theology, I have an answer. He literally incorporates what and who God is for any definition out there.

Edit P.S. This doesn't mean that learning from other religion is wrong. If there is something that clarifies a doctrine that Jesus has taught, as a Christian, I believe we should seek after it.

 

[PureX]

Sounds desperate.

Welcome to the human condition ... having to act on hope because we lack actual knowledge of the outcome

So your gripe is with linguists and the history of language. Should definitions be wiped from dictionaries because you personally feel anxiety about certain uses?

It's easy to spot the fools among us by how they misuse words to try and defend their ignorance and bias. That's the interesting thing about language: that we use it to obscure the truth as often as we use it to clarify. It's up to you who you want to be in that regard. But I know the difference between faith and religious belief. I know the difference between faith and belief in general. In much the same way as I know that homosexuals are not especially "gay" or that gay men are not particularly likely to be homosexual, ... in spite of what the dictionary or a lot of ignorant, biased fools in this world have to say about it. All I have to do is apply some reason to the subject and clarity will usually follow. All you ever had to do was realize that faith is the actual methodology by which religious "believers" choose to adopt their state of "belief". It was never the belief, itself. Religious or otherwise. Just as faith is the actual methodology by which atheists achieve their state of "unbelief". Because neither the theist not the atheist has any actual knowledge upon which to base their desired "belief". Hence, they both has to use faith-action, instead.

 

[PureX]

You're defining hope. Faith is different.

Faith is the act of choosing to act on behalf of a hoped for outcome. I have stated this many, many, many times. Yet you deliberately misunderstand so you can continue arguing.

 

[Trailblazer]

They all however fit in a Venn Diagram of God. As a Christian however I have found that Jesus Christ answers every realm of divinity. He is the way the truth the life. I don't have to go to Buddha for some things, Mohammad for others, Moses for others, I have the full definition with Jesus and if I look to him for any issue I have about any religion or theology, I have an answer. He literally incorporates what and who God is for any definition out there.

I feel the same way about Baha'u'llah, and as far as the spiritual teachings are concerned I feel the same way about Jesus, because I can look to Him for any spiritual teachings I need.

Baha'u'llah's purpose was not to upstage Jesus but rather it was to bring the "many things" that humanity was not ready to hear back when Jesus walked the earth. Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah was the Spirit of truth, and he did everything it says in the following verses, including glorifying Jesus.

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The spiritual teachings of Baha'u'llah are essentially the same as what Jesus taught, although they are stated a little differently. I am not sure exactly what the "many things" Jesus was referring to, but Baha'u'llah brought new social teachings, a new system of government, and a new Book of Laws.

Edit P.S. This doesn't mean that learning from other religion is wrong. If there is something that clarifies a doctrine that Jesus has taught, as a Christian, I believe we should seek after it.

I believe that the Baha'i Faith clarifies many doctrines of Christianity, but those are not exactly what Jesus taught. The actual teachings of Jesus do not have to be clarified, although I think we should study them and try to understand what they mean.

 

[Trailblazer]

Lucky for us, the Baha'is will tell us the true interpretation of those things said in the Bible. And that true interpretation just so happens to point directly to the Baha'i Faith and to their prophet, Baha'u'llah, as being the true one sent from God. Amazing.

It is amazing if it is true, but nobody can prove it is true. We have to believe on evidence and faith, but not everyone recognizes the evidence as evidence and not everyone is willing to have faith in what cannot ever be proven, the existence of God.

With either one, what are we really committing ourselves to? Lots of unprovable beliefs. What's so wrong with wanting something more than that to base our beliefs on? And, with the Baha'is, a religion that says that religion and science must go hand and hand, can't provide the proof and evidence that any of their claims are real.

There is nothing wrong with wanting proof to base your beliefs on, just don't ever expect to get proof that God exists, or proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, since these can never be proven as facts. All we have is the evidence that indicates to 'some of us' that this was the case and causes 'some of us to' believe, but evidence is not the same as proof.

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

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

There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

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

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Hopefully the next world won't be as bad as I think it could be.

You think the spiritual world, being close to your family, your prophets and God is less desirable than the physical world? I'm shocked that you'd even consider an afterlife that is worse than this. Knowing how people are, they'll give you everything you want, and even things you didn't knew you wanted. I am very much looking forward towards the next life, the next body, the next chapter of my existence, but if I don't exist now, they might not know what to do with my energy after it dissipates from my body. Each day I imagine a slightly different afterlife for myself, an afterlife I know will eventually come to pass. But I think human life is so miraculous as it is that we can't even really imagine the exact life we'll have when we come back, but whatever it is, all I see are good things for all of us. If the God of the Baha'i Faith is the same, then I have no doubt that we'll all want to be close to that God - even if we currently aren't right now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you deliberately misunderstand so you can continue arguing.

Misunderstand? I've misunderstood nothing. I'm debating. You're just arguing. You dissent without debate. You disagree but never rebut. And I've explained to you the significance of that. It's a concession. The debating part ended when I successfully rebutted your claim and you failed to address the rebuttal, as you are about to do again

Faith is the act of choosing to act on behalf of a hoped for outcome. I have stated this many, many, many times

Yes, you have, and it's still incorrect. Faith isn't action. Faith is unjustified belief. Here's a typical dictionary definition, which I consider the definition of religious faith: "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." As I've said, it need not be a belief in gods, and based on spiritual apprehension can be changed to without sufficient evidence. But with or without my generalization to non-religious beliefs, the verb is believe, not act.

Now that's a rebuttal. It is a direct contradiction of your claim. We can't both be right. If you're right, I'm wrong and vice versa. That's what's missing from your posting. You don't rebut. You won't make an argument to explain why you consider me wrong as I just did. You'll just repeat your already-rebutted claim like nothing happened, the behavior that is responsible for the acronym PRATT - points refuted a thousand times, or in your words, "many, many, many times." I'm sure that you'll go ahead and say it again and again and again - maybe a thousand times - rather than rebut.

You've conceded long ago. You just don't understand that. When both parties are engaging in dialectic, they agree that they have reached the end of the process when one makes an argument that the other cannot rebut. Because they are engaging in good faith and cooperatively, they both recognize the last plausible, unrebutted statement to be the correct one, since they understand that correct statements cannot be successfully rebutted, and that statements like yours above which can be successfully rebutted are incorrect.

But these are not your ways. And so you are stuck in an endless loop of making already-rebutted comments while never yourself rebutting. I would repeat your words that this is you deliberately misunderstanding so you can continue arguing, but I don't think you actually understand any of this or you would raise your game to the level of dialectic (debate) and begin considering what the other person says in order to either find the error there or failing that, recognizing that recognizing that you are wrong and agreeing rather than just dismissing it without counterargument so that you can pointlessly repeat yourself "many, many, many times."

 

[Trailblazer]

Nor need I.

No, you don't need to prove either one.

Believing by faith is a logical error.

Believing on faith alone is a logical error, but believing on faith and evidence is not a logical error, since it does not abandon reason.
Moreover, no amount of reason can disprove the conclusion I have come to, although reason cannot prove it either.

What is the logical fallacy appeal to faith?

Description: This is an abandonment of reason in an argument and a call to faith, usually when reason clearly leads to disproving the conclusion of an argument. It is the assertion that one must have (the right kind of) faith in order to understand the argument.

Appeal to Faith - Logically Fallacious​

That is incorrect. And how would you know if a conclusion were sound?

How would you know if a conclusion is sound?

I don't criticize you. I point out errors. Another person might welcome that.

That is an oxymoron. When you point our what you believe are errors that is criticism.
I would welcome it if they were really errors, but you cannot prove they are errors so all you have is a personal opinion.

Lots of times I welcome it when people point out my errors when they are based upon actual knowledge, but a personal opinion is not knowledge.

Where's the loss?

You will not realize what you have lost until you die, but by then it will be too late.

Incidentally, once one chooses critical thought over faith, he does not choose what to believe. Only sound conclusions should be believed.

When you tell God that you chose critical thought over faith and you did not have a choice that will not cut the mustard. Since God gave everyone free will to choose we are all responsible for what we choose to believe or disbelieve.

This is why I asked about how you could recognize which arguments are sound. Believing by faith is a logical error. Such a belief is a non sequitur, the opposite of a sound conclusion.

As I said above, believing on faith alone is a logical error, but believing on faith and evidence is not a logical error, since it does not abandon reason.

A sound argument is a valid argument that has true premises. As I have said repeatedly on this forum, I cannot make a logical argument to prove that God exists or that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God since I cannot prove the premises are true. Since I cannot prove the premises are true I cannot assert that the conclusions are true. But that does not mean that the premises and conclusions are not true, since proof is not what makes them true. Proof is only what some people require to believe they are true.

 

[Trailblazer]

@PureX said: Faith is the act of choosing to act on behalf of a hoped for outcome. I have stated this many, many, many times

@It Aint Necessarily So said" Yes, you have, and it's still incorrect. Faith isn't action. Faith is unjustified belief. Here's a typical dictionary definition, which I consider the definition of religious faith: "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." As I've said, it need not be a belief in gods, and based on spiritual apprehension can be changed to without sufficient evidence. But with or without my generalization to non-religious beliefs, the verb is believe, not act.

Faith is what believers choose to have in the absence of proof.

The dictionary does not say that Faith is unjustified belief. You say that.
That is just another one of your personal opinions yet you state it as if it was a fact.
You say that because you believe that faith without proof is unjustified, which is only your personal opinion, not a fact.

Believers believe that faith without proof is justified, so we have a difference of opinion.
Can you rebut that with anything more than a personal opinion?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Believing on faith alone is a logical error, but believing on faith and evidence is not a logical error, since it does not abandon reason.

Faith is the abandonment of valid reasoning.

Moreover, no amount of reason can disprove the conclusion I have come to, although reason cannot prove it either.

Nor need it. Why do you keep posting that? Why do you think that's important?

What is the logical fallacy appeal to faith?

Description: This is an abandonment of reason in an argument and a call to faith, usually when reason clearly leads to disproving the conclusion of an argument. It is the assertion that one must have (the right kind of) faith in order to understand the argument.

Not applicable here, or maybe you think I made that assertion. That's an idea that would never come from me.

How would you know if a conclusion is sound?

By evaluating its argument according to the laws of reason and rules of inference and finding no error. If one hasn't learned that skill, he cannot distinguish sound arguments from specious or fallacious arguments, and must consider them equivalent and nothing more than opinion.

When you point our what you believe are errors that is criticism.

That's a different meaning of the word than what you were complaining about. You were complaining about personal attack, not criticism in the neutral sense like what peer review does.

When you tell God that you chose critical thought over faith and you did not have a choice that will not cut the mustard. Since God gave everyone free will to choose we are all responsible for what we choose to believe or disbelieve.

A god that thought like that couldn't create a rational universe. Actually, if I encountered such a god, I'd have to assume that it wasn't the creator. Maybe the creator's baby brother, who was given a universe to rule as a gift. I understand that you consider it blasphemous and arrogant to say such things, but any competent thinker could teach such a deity how to think properly, or try anyway. It might be unteachable.

The dictionary does not say that Faith is unjustified belief. That is just another one of your personal opinions yet you state it as if it was a fact.
You say that because you believe that faith without proof is unjustified, which is only your personal opinion, not a fact.

Feel free to rebut the claim if you think it's wrong. Mere dissent doesn't persuade.

 

[Trailblazer]

You think the spiritual world, being close to your family, your prophets and God is less desirable than the physical world? I'm shocked that you'd even consider an afterlife that is worse than this. Knowing how people are, they'll give you everything you want, and even things you didn't knew you wanted.

No I don't think that the spiritual world is less desirable than the physical world, quite the contrary. I am simply apprehensive about it becaue I have a fear of the unknown, kind of like I would be afraid to take a vacation to Europe since it is unknown to me given I have never been there.

The difference between the spiritual world and Europe is that I can get brochures about Europe and look at pictures but there are no brochures or pictures of the spiritual world. The other difference is that I can buy a round-trip ticket to Europe so I can come back from Europe to my home, whereas I can never come back from the spiritual world to my home on earth. (As you know, Baha'is do not believe in reincarnation, but even if we did, I would not want to come back to this world.)

I am very much looking forward towards the next life, the next body, the next chapter of my existence, but if I don't exist now, they might not know what to do with my energy after it dissipates from my body. Each day I imagine a slightly different afterlife for myself, an afterlife I know will eventually come to pass. But I think human life is so miraculous as it is that we can't even really imagine the exact life we'll have when we come back, but whatever it is, all I see are good things for all of us.

I am glad you are looking forward to the next life. I also look forward to the next life even with the apprehension I noted above.

You just made me think if this quote:

“A friend asked: “How should one look forward to death?”

‘Abdu’l-Bahá answered: “How does one look forward to the goal of any journey? With hope and with expectation. It is even so with the end of this earthly journey. In the next world, man will find himself freed from many of the disabilities under which he now suffers. Those who have passed on through death, have a sphere of their own. It is not removed from ours; their work, the work of the Kingdom, is ours; but it is sanctified from what we call ‘time and place.’ Time with us is measured by the sun. When there is no more sunrise, and no more sunset, that kind of time does not exist for man. Those who have ascended have different attributes from those who are still on earth, yet there is no real separation.” Abdu’l-Bahá in London, pp. 95-96

If the God of the Baha'i Faith is the same, then I have no doubt that we'll all want to be close to that God - even if we currently aren't right now.

I think that people who are close to God in this life will want to be close to God in the next life, since I believe that the person we are in this world is the person we will be in the next life. That makes me doubt that people who were not close to God in this life will want to be close to God in the next life. Why would they have a sudden change of heart? The only chance I see of that happening is if God caused them to change by His mercy and grace.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Why would they have a sudden change of heart? The only chance I see of that happening is if God caused them to change by His mercy and grace.

If they found out that their beliefs were incorrect this entire time, and were atheists here on Earth, I would think they would change their ways and try to be as close to God as possible in the afterlife. Besides a few Satanists and Luciferians, I don't think anyone really wants to send themselves to Hell. But if there is ample amount of evidence of God in the afterlife, I would think everybody would be drawn towards that source of light and inspiration, even if they proclaimed atheism here on Earth.

If I am wrong about the afterlife and I get sent somewhere I don't want to be because of my syntheism and Earthseed beliefs, I will be very surprised, but as soon I know that I was wrong about the whole thing, I would try my best to make it up towards this monotheistic God. And if I am right, you will still get your Abha Kingdom and still be spiritually close to your late husband, your cats and God, because humans will ultimately have the ability to make conditions like this for your afterlife.

I tend to favor ideas of the afterlife that I think people will want to have, rather than force external forces upon than that they can't control. Maybe even the worst people in society can and will be corrected and stop hurting others and themselves in the meantime. In the meantime, I don't want to be the one to tell people that their spiritual beliefs are wrong and they are going to end up somewhere bad because they don't think like me. That isn't in my power to control and ultimately I don't believe that's going to happen to them anyways.

And yes, I know there's Christians who say, "if you believed here you'll be saved, if you believe in the afterlife it'll be too late", this sounds like some kind of spiritual pyramid scheme where neither God nor I can change my mind after I'm dead. And it's not like I don't believe in God, I just find more natural ways to understand God than most people, who place certain people and events on pedestals like nothing else matters. I get that Baha'u'llah was trying to solve the crisis of unity amongst people, but after he existed there's been two world wars, the Cold War and the War on Terror. Your bar has to be really low if you think he solved the problem of unity on Earth.

But I am not saying that I don't respect Baha'u'llah and the other prophets. They are all very influential and inspiring figures to attend to. But we need to look forward and correct the problems we have now rather than looking back hundreds of years for people to fix the problems we ought to fix ourselves.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No I don't think that the spiritual world is less desirable than the physical world, quite the contrary. I am simply apprehensive about it becaue I have a fear of the unknown, kind of like I would be afraid to take a vacation to Europe since it is unknown to me given I have never been there.

The difference between the spiritual world and Europe is that I can get brochures about Europe and look at pictures but there are no brochures or pictures of the spiritual world. The other difference is that I can buy a round-trip ticket to Europe so I can come back from Europe to my home, whereas I can never come back from the spiritual world to my home on earth. (As you know, Baha'is do not believe in reincarnation, but even if we did, I would not want to come back to this world.)

I am glad you are looking forward to the next life. I also look forward to the next life even with the apprehension I noted above.

As your friend and as a medium, I wish I could calm your fear and reassure you about crossing over into the spirit world. While I don't know what will happen in the spirit world, I don't feel fear or anxiety based on the feelings I get from my spirit guides and whenever a spirit is ready to cross over and sees the light. I don't see the light myself because I'm not crossing over, but it always gives me a sense of peace and comfort. That alone reassures me.