But religious claimants are a dime a dozen. They're everywhere, and people always find 'reasons' and 'evidence' to support their claims.
What they don't have is hard evidence; evidence that can be investigated and tested by anyone interested, like we have for the claims of biology, chemistry or physics.
If the evidence were there, wouldn't there be common agreement, like there is for scientific claims?
There is evidence, but not the same kind of evidence that can be tested like scientific evidence can be tested.
Atheists are always telling me that there is no objective evidence for the claims of Baha'u'llah but there is objective evidence for those claims (see 1-4 below). This evidence can be investigated by anyone interested, but there will not be common agreement like there is for scientific claims, because everyone will view this evidence differently and come to different conclusions about what it indicates about Baha'u'llah.
The following evidence (1-4) is objective evidence according to the definition because
it can be examined and evaluated:
1. The character of Baha'u'llah
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah
What does objective evidence mean?
Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation.
One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.
What does objective evidence mean?
