samtonga43
Well-Known Member
You have faith that there can be proof? Can you explain how this is possible?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.
- Thread starter infrabenji
- Start date
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
Are you certain that there is no such thing as objective evidence? Maybe you should think about this for a couple of minutes...
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Not for a Messenger of God.
What is objective evidence concept?
Objective evidence is evidence that we base on provable facts. In other words, we can prove the facts by measurement, analysis, and observation. It is possible to evaluate and examine objective evidence. It means the same as 'compelling evidence. '
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I don't have faith that there can be proof. I know there is proof because Baha'u'llah said so.
“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No assumptions were made. I have an evidence-based belief.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
It's potentially provable, that's why it's an objective truth belief. Unless if you really want it to be a subjective truth belief. Because it's a subjective, it's meaningless. And since it's meaningless, why continue to argue and defend it? Someone only need to say that Baha'u'llah was not a messenger of God, and the conversation should just end at that.
Basically it all comes down to the belief that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God is equivalent to believing that chocolate icecream is the best icecream.
So now the question is, why are you talking about Baha'u'llah being a messenger of God so much? It should be treated like how we treat someone's continuously rant about chocolate icecream being the best icecream.
BTW,
Since the belief that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God is subjective, then you are in fact, making a claim. So every time that you say that it's not a claim, you are in fact wrong every single time. Now that all of this has been cleared up, one would expect that you will no longer keep on denying that it's not a claim. But obviously, that belief will never be true.
Wrong. You have an unjustified true belief because you made it clear that you've logically accept that there is no evidence for the claim that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God.
And no, I'm not putting words in your mouth. What I'm doing is simply stating the facts from observing, in this case, it's simply reading what you wrote.
What cannot be potentially proven to be true, has no evidence whatsoever to support it as being true. Here is an example for better clarification:
1. Claim X is false, therefore it's logically impossible for it to be true due to the law of non-contradiction. To freshen up the memory, here is that law:
In logic, the law of non-contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Source
2. "Evidence" is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
3. If it's impossible for claim X to be potentially true, then it's also impossible for it to have information indicating that it is potentially true.
4. If any evidence do exist, it would negate the the whole concept of "impossible," res
Conclusion:
Since claim X is false, we can conclude that it's impossible for evidence that support claim X as being potentially true, to exist.
With all that being said, since the claim in "Baha'u'llah being a messenger of God," is impossible to prove that it's true, it's also impossible for the existence of evidence that supports this claim.
So what does this all mean? It means that all those, in the past and/or the present who claimed that there is evidence to support that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God, are all wrong. And all those, in the past and/or present, who stated that there is no evidence supporting the claim that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God, are all correct.
Whether you like this or not or whether you accept it or not, it does not change the fact that this is logically valid and sound.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I used to be a believer, and now I'm not. Did I just "choose" to disbelieve?
In any case, even if I grant your premise (which I don't), how can a person just "choose" to believe in something? Could you "choose" to believe in fairies? Could you "choose" to believe in an invisible elephant living in your living room?
No, the problem is that you assume that God exists, then you decide that since science can't show any evidence for God or religion, that some other tool must be required. This other tool, naturally, has no way of checking the validity of its results, so it can be used to reach any conclusions you want it to reach, and if anyone says you are wrong, you can rest assured that they can never actually PROVEyour conclusions are incorrect.
I can do the same thing with anythiing that doesn't exist. For example, since science can't be used as a tool to show that Hogwarts doesn't exist, we need to use another tool. We'll call iot "magic." I know that Hogwarts is real because I have felt its magic. I can't prove it to you, because what is proof to me may not be proof to you. But I know it exists.
That's the same exact logic you are using, and yet I'm sure you would agree that it's not valid reasoning. And yet you seem happy to use it to support your own religious beliefs.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Yes it will.
I can show ANYONE the evidence that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. That evidence is objective fact. It can be tested and verified by anyone. If people do not accept it, it is not a fault with science, it is a fault with the person.
If someone views ACTUAL evidence (not opinion) differently, then they are wrong, as I explained above.
Nah, it's not magic. It's called SCIENCE.
And people have been making the "Oh, you just wait. One day, everyone will realise we were right all along" claim for literally centuries. Never hapopened yet, so you'll understand if I put very little faith in it when you make the same claim.
Yes, it's very illogical of me to reject a method of finding things out about the universe that is not checkable in any way whatsoever. SO illogical... *Rolls eyes*
If ther is valid evidence, yes. I am open to anything.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Are you open to the idea that you are wrong? What would it take to show you that you are wrong?
I am currently just as critical of Christianity as I have always been.
Yes there is.
If you count the corners of a particular shape and see there are four, then that is obecjtively true. It is not possible for you to count four and for me to count five. You can measure the angle of each corner, and if you measure it to be 90 degrees, that is likewise objectively true. And if you measure the length of each side and find that they are all equal, then that is also objective. And it is an objective fact that the shape is a square. It is nopt a square for you and a circle for me.
You have said that it does. "Something is evidence to me because it indicates to me that my beliefs are true." Your post 2058.
Again, you are contradicting something you have said before.
I don't. I dismiss it because there is no support, and thus it is not evidence.
Still an opinion, not evidence.
You don't test it to see if it is evidence. You test it to see if it is CORRECT.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Isn't that exactly what you'd expect to see if people had subjective opinions that were different for each of them and assumed that all these different subjective opinions were accurate reflections of reality?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
We all see the world subjectively. The closest we are able to come to an understanding of objective reality, is by confirming our subjective observations with each other. If several people observe an event or process, and all agree on what they have witnessed, then we call this objective reality. But is it? Or is what we observe a function of a particular perspective, which we all happen to share?
For centuries, all people believed the stars and sun rotated round the earth - because, from our perspective here on earth, that’s what our ancestors collectively witnessed. When Copernicus first suggested this was not the case, he had a hard time convincing his contemporaries that what they had been witnessing was in illusion brought on by perspective.
Last edited:
Ironic how you posted the two definitions for the word, "evidence." Those definitions actually show that you are wrong. Someone can look at the information that you called evidence, and determine that it actually isn't evidence according to the two definitions you posted. So according to your two definitions, none of the information you presented that you called "evidence," are actual evidence for your claims. So your claim that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God, have no evidence to support it as being true. And as I recall, your evidence for the existence of God is the existence of the messengers of God.
If you want to keep calling it evidence, you're free to do that. Of course, this means that your beliefs are not evidence based, therefore logic dictates that you have unjustified true beliefs. And because of that, it would make you qualify as being irrational when it comes to some of your beliefs regarding religion, especially those claims made by Baha'u'llah that you believe are true.
So since those of us who are being rational about all of this (and this does not mean all atheists and/or theists), it's only logical to conclude that as of now, Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God because there are no evidence to support that claim. Therefore, we also cannot logically conclude that the God of the Baha'i religion exist, since there's also no evidence to support that claim.
BTW,
The claims made by Baha'u'llah does not help prove that he was a messenger of God. Someone's claims are not evidence for those exact same claims. Just sharing some information on logic to those who are ignorant of logic.
Have a happy and wonderful day.
But he had evidence that supported his claims, not just simply more claims trying to pass it as if they were actual evidence.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Maybe, but, as with Christian "witnessing", Baha'is that were "teaching" the Faith, pretty much have to present it as being the absolute truth. So they are going to get asked, "How do you know he is the return of Christ?" Or similar questions. And they did bring up Bible prophecies. But the people that actually listened and cared, were not strong Christians. In fact a lot of them didn't think much of Christianity, because, most of the time, it was forced on them when they were young. So they cared more about what the Baha'i Faith taught about racial, religious and gender equality.
The problem, if they joined, was that they really didn't know much. The Baha'i teachers went back home, so these new Baha'is were left in the hands of the few local Baha'is. Sometimes they didn't even have an LSA. So it wasn't like when a Christian witnesses to a person and there are several churches in the town... And plenty of Christian TV shows. And there was definitely a difference in a community that had a charismatic person in it. The fireside meetings were way more interesting. While others weren't that good. I don't know how many firesides I went to where the person was not a good speaker and started their talk with, "In 1844 The Bab, which means the Gate, declared that the promised one was coming..." I guess they thought a little bit of the history was a good place to start.
And there you go. "He didn't"? So why wouldn't someone ask, "How do you know he didn't?" And how do you answer that, "Because my religion says that he didn't. And I believe my religion is teaching the truth. And there religion is wrong"? You can't get out of having to back up what you just said. It don't matter if it is just your belief, a claim or whatever. You said it as if you know for a fact that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. How can you then say, "No, I never said it was a fact. It is my belief"?
Either way, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, all that stuff about an empty tomb and them seeing, touching and eating with Jesus is BS. There is nothing in the way the gospels are written that would indicate that all of a sudden they were speaking allegorically. So, for me, what a Baha'i has to show is how and why they think it is allegorical. And they've tried. They say, "Because dead people don't come back to life." And, "People can't ascend into the sky and live." Yeah, so I'd agree and say, "Yes, therefore, it is all a made up lie." And the Baha'is says, "No, it is just not literally true. The story was meant to be taken symbolically."
So how do they know this? It really comes down to that is how the Baha'i Faith teaches it. It is allegorical. They can't give any good reason why or how all four gospels writers would all of a sudden go from an actual historical event, then, without changing their writing style, go right into Jesus rising from the dead. So same problem. Baha'is can't prove it, but they believe it because Abdul Baha' said. I wonder if Baha'u'llah said it also?
So sure, whacked out and nuts to think a dead person can come back to life. But that is only one of the impossible to believe gospels stories. So because they are all over the place in the gospels, I think the writers juicing up the story. A miracle here a miracle there. A person rising from the dead here and then the ultimate coming back to life story of Jesus himself coming back to life. I don't think they can be explained as all being "allegorical". Those things were written into the story as if they happened. So call it fiction. Call it myth. Say he didn't rise from the dead, but why call it "true"... "allegorically" true, not "literally" true? But you know that I know why. Because Christianity can't be a false, made up religion. It has to be true. And the things that Baha'is don't want to be true are then made, symbolic.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
What is chapter 7 of Isaiah about?
It appears to be foretelling the events before and after the birth of Jesus.
It appears to be saying that before Jesus is accepted another 2 religions "Kings" of that land will be rejected.
These passages are difficult to put meaning to, much knowledge of the past and of Baha'u'llah's Message would be needed, but more importantly a heart such as Abdu'lbaha had.
Regards Tony
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Yes, the people that believe those people. Christians get people to believe that the Bible is true. Then, whatever the Bible says must be true. The Bible says Jesus did something, then he must have done it. That's why I think charismatic leaders are important in any religion. They come off as trustworthy. I've heard Bill Sears and a couple of other Hands of the Cause speak. I've heard a few Christian preachers and seen a few on TV. They speak as if they "know".
They'll even say things like, "I know the Bible is the truth." But, some charismatic speakers are lying conmen. Like even our last President. Some think he's telling the truth. Some think he's full of it. But he knows how to get his followers worked up and believing.
So with the Bible, those miracles are made to come alive and be relevant for people living today. Are those preachers telling the truth or are they conmen? We know some of them were conmen, because they got caught cheating the people out of money. What about the others? Some are totaling committed to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and is God in the flesh. If that is not true, then we have to believe that somehow, they got taken in. Somehow, they got convinced that something that isn't true is true? How does that happen? People read, listen and trust others and get convinced. But, as we all know, not all of what people believe is really true. So shouldn't there be a way to prove it? That a belief is really true? I mean other than to oneself.