WHY do you believe?

[Valjean]

"Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong" Dire Straits.

The racoon is my favorite animal of all time. As a kid I read Sterling North's Rascal. I raised an orphan kit into the wild on two different occasions growing up.

Sterling North “Rascal “

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

www.youtube.com

LOL -- I once acquired a troop of orphaned, baby raccoons. They followed me around everywhere. Very cute and playful. They're challenging pets when grown, however; into everything.
Now I have a cat feeder in my back yard. Neighborhood strays make up the day shift, raccoons the night shift.

 

[Valjean]

uh, no, not IMHO.

Is it a matter of opinion, or evidence?
An opinion is only as good as the evidence it's based on.

 

[Kathryn]

But is the doctrine ontologically true, or have they just perfected an inspiring ritual?

I believe the doctrine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If it's been proven, why isn't it universally accepted, like heliocentrism or the germ theory?

Well, the fact is this. If something is in effect subjective as longs as it says subjective, part of that is that it can be subjectively believed to be objective.
Regardless of whether the belief is that the universe is created by God or is natural. Note that a lot of people believing something subjective doesn't make it objective. Both for God and natural in effect.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Has anyone informed Diogenes?

I am not that well read. What are you refering to?

 

[Trailblazer]

Objective, generally observable, reproducible, testable, falsifiable.

The only kind of evidence for God that is observable and reproducible is the Messengers of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. ACCEPTED it!

You accepted Christianity after reading the Bible?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What seems reasonable to accept as true could change but I see no reason to worry about that until the reasonable-ness comes to pass.

People have different ways of measuring reasonable-ness. I do not find scriptures reasonable. Instant or six-day creation.
In theist Hinduism, creation is instant. God desired, and it was so.

 

[Valjean]

I am not that well read. What are you refering to?

Diogenes was a Greek philosopher and one of the founders of the school of Cynicism. He made a virtue out of poverty, and was often depicted as wandering around with a lamp "looking for an honest man."

 

[Nakosis]

A belief may be well evidenced or not. It's a neutral word.

I'm usually dragged into the acceptance of what can be shown to be consistently reliable.
Not comforted into acceptance.

Reality exists against my will or at best regardless of my will. If something seems to support what I believe, I generally distrust it.

 

[Valjean]

The only kind of evidence for God that is observable and reproducible is the Messengers of God.

How are they either observable or reproducible? Sure, when alive they can be interviewed, but how can their claims be verified? Anyone can make any claims they want, but without independent observation and testing, how are they to be verified? Until they're objectively verified, mere claims don't qualify as real evidence.

 

[Nakosis]

People have different ways of measuring reasonable-ness. I do not find scriptures reasonable. Instant or six-day creation.
In theist Hinduism, creation is instant. God desired, and it was so.

I don't find a human concept of "God" reasonable. Humans, imo, are not cognizant enough about reality to have that knowledge.
I go with the idea that God is unknowable and accept man's unknowingness of such a being.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why didn't the universe always exist?

How did it came to exist? We do not know the answer. So we should keep searching.

I go with the idea that God is unknowable and accept man's unknowingness of such a being.

That is the problem. You have already gone with an idea. What evidence is there for you to say that A God exists? Why not a hundred Gods and Goddesses? Or that this God is unknowable.
Rather than having views which have no evidence, we should keep searching.

 

[Trailblazer]

How are they either observable or reproducible? Sure, when alive they can be interviewed, but how can their claims be verified? Anyone can make any claims they want, but without independent observation and testing, how are they to be verified? Until they're objectively verified, mere claims don't qualify as real evidence.

They are observable since they come in the form of a man.
They are reproducible since they come one after another...

I never said that their claims can be verified. It is up to each individual to determine if their claims are true.

As for independent observation of the Messengers of God only those who saw them when they were alive could observe them.

As for testing the Messengers, below explains the way we test them.

Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men. The tests He proposed are the same as those laid down by His great predecessors. Moses said:—
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.—Deut. xviii, 22.

Christ put His test just as plainly, and appealed to it in proof of His own claim. He said:—
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. … Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.—Matt. vii, 15–17, 20

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 8-9

 

[Nakosis]

How did it came to exist? We do not know the answer. So we should keep searching.

That is the problem. You have already gone with an idea. What evidence is there for you to say that A God exists? Why not a hundred Gods and Goddesses? Or that this God is unknowable.
Rather than having views which have no evidence, we should keep searching.

Why not go searching for a teapot in orbit around Venus instead?
No evidence there is not one. If you need something to keep yourself busy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why not go searching for a teapot in orbit around Venus instead?
No evidence there is not one. If you need something to keep yourself busy.

Many problems in this search.
1. There is no evidence that a tea pot orbiting Venus is possible. Who created it? Who put it there?
2. If there is a tea pot orbiting Venus, it does not affect us.
3. The search has no cost-benefit to us even if we find one orbiting Venus.
4. Even getting on Moon has been difficult and perhaps not of much value. None has been tried after 1972 Apollo program for 52 years.
5. There have been 46 missions to Venus, not many after 1980s (9 since 1990's). No mission has reported a teapot orbiting Venus.

List of missions to Venus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Religion and different beliefs in an imaginary unevidenced super entity are important to us. These views lead to conflicts. Eradicating superstitious beliefs which have no evidence is more important to humanity.

 

[Nakosis]

Many problems in this search.
1. There is no evidence that a tea pot orbiting Venus is possible. Who created it? Who put it there?
2. If there is a tea pot orbiting Venus, it does not affect us.
3. The search has no cost-benefit to us even if we find one orbiting Venus.
4. Even getting on Moon has been difficult and perhaps not of much value. None has been tried after 1972 Apollo program for 52 years.
5. There have been 46 missions to Venus, not many after 1980s (9 since 1990's). No mission has reported a teapot orbiting Venus.

List of missions to Venus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't suppose you understand the parallels here.

Religion and different beliefs in an imaginary unevidenced super entity are important to us. These views lead to conflicts. Eradicating superstitious beliefs which have no evidence is more important to humanity.

If they did happen to come across a teapot in orbit around Venus, then it would become very important.

 

[Valjean]

Many problems in this search.
1. There is no evidence that a tea pot orbiting Venus is possible. Who created it? Who put it there?
2. If there is a tea pot orbiting Venus, it does not affect us.
3. The search has no cost-benefit to us even if we find one orbiting Venus.
4. Even getting on Moon has been difficult and perhaps not of much value. None has been tried after 1972 Apollo program for 52 years.
5. There have been 46 missions to Venus, not many after 1980s (9 since 1990's). No mission has reported a teapot orbiting Venus.

List of missions to Venus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Religion and different beliefs in an imaginary unevidenced super entity are important to us. These views lead to conflicts. Eradicating superstitious beliefs which have no evidence is more important to humanity.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Valjean]

I believe the doctrine.

I'm asking why? What evidence is your belief based on?

 

[Kathryn]

I'm asking why? What evidence is your belief based on?

I haven't researched every little thing but everything that I HAVE researched pans out. I finally gave up because it was too much for me. In everything I did research, Tradition didn't contradict the bible and vice versa.