Evidence

[TransmutingSoul]

It is rather obvious to everyone that you did. When one starts a thread and cannot answer reasonable questions about the topic that is considered a failure.

All the questions that related to the OP were answered.

I see quite a few agreed that it is evidence, even if they thought it was weak evidence, or that it was evidence that contained no proof.

So my guess is we will never get 100% agreement, with any topic.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have read what followers of Baha'u'llah claim are his most compelling writings and have not found them to be any more convincing than any other claims made by other professed messengers from god. Was he a liar, crazy, or deluded? I don't know. He could have been all or none of the above. All I know for certain is that if such messengers are the best evidence this god being has for itself then it's a very ineffectual god being.

This OP was about evidence. Thank you, you see it as weak evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

The evidence is there for all of us to pursue.

Regards Tony

Yes, and we all do. That is look at the evidence for the kinds of things religions teach and see if they make sense. Some religions, again like fundy Christianity, depend greatly on their belief that the Bible is the inerrant and literal word of God. It becomes their proof. The Bible says it and they believe it. But we all know that what they believe is their interpretation of the Bible. And those beliefs work just fine for them. But do Baha'is believe them? No, Baha'is don't. Again, Baha'is say Jesus is not God, that there is no Satan and Jesus didn't physically rise from the dead. They have different beliefs.... A different focus. But they still have the same kinds of proofs and evidence that the Baha'is have for their beliefs.

 

[F1fan]

I do not see any Baha'is giving you push-back, except perhaps for failing to do a thorough investigation. When you say that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are the evidence that is not a thorough investigation.

That bolded bit is the pushback, as we showcase our reasoning on these threads over and over and over again. You not liking our reasoning is pushback, and you all actually fail to show how we fail to do thorough investigation. You show us no failing at all. You just push back in protest.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, and we all do. That is look at the evidence for the kinds of things religions teach and see if they make sense. Some religions, again like fundy Christianity, depend greatly on their belief that the Bible is the inerrant and literal word of God. It becomes their proof. The Bible says it and they believe it. But we all know that what they believe is their interpretation of the Bible. And those beliefs work just fine for them. But do Baha'is believe them? No, Baha'is don't. Again, Baha'is say Jesus is not God, that there is no Satan and Jesus didn't physically rise from the dead. They have different beliefs.... A different focus. But they still have the same kinds of proofs and evidence that the Baha'is have for their beliefs.

This OP was about the evidence, the material where on finds the proofs, not about proving a Messenger from that evidence.

How to read the evidence is really how faith is born.

Regards Tony

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That bolded bit is the pushback, as we showcase our reasoning on these threads over and over and over again. You not liking our reasoning is pushback, and you all actually fail to show how we fail to do thorough investigation. You show us no failing at all. You just push back in protest.

In all fairness, I may not agree with @TransmutingSoul 's methods, and I didn't read every post..... but it seems like the question was whether the Baha'i writings would be considered evidence, and that was it. It kind of sounds like the OP wanted to stick with that, and cover greater subjects later on.

If that's the case, I do that sometimes, too. Start small, and work from there. Though I haven't asked about how to read things as evidence, yet.

 

[CG Didymus]

I might need an Australian section or something that starts simpler. I don't even know how to pronounce Baha'i or Baha'u'llah. And I've stumbled on the first paragraph of the page as I've never searched the depths of the oceans....

Whoso hath searched the depths of the oceans that lie hid within these exalted words, and fathomed their import, can be said to have discovered a glimmer of the unspeakable glory with which this mighty, this sublime, and most holy Revelation hath been endowed.”

— Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh

Let me translate that for you. "Hey, this is profound stuff. Better listen up. Just dive right in and check it out. This is like God talking here, so you best pay attention."

 

[Subduction Zone]

All the questions that related to the OP were answered.

I see quite a few agreed that it is evidence, even if they thought it was weak evidence, or that it was evidence that contained no proof.

So my guess is we will never get 100% agreement, with any topic.

Regards Tony

No, they really were not. You may believe that but the answers were far from complete. So far you have only reinforced the claim that there is no evidence for the Baha'i faith.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

No, they really were not. You may believe that but the answers were far from complete. So far you have only reinforced the claim that there is no evidence for the Baha'i faith.

Actually, some of us do believe that the Baha'i writings are evidence, or at least evidence of something. We just didn't call them strong, undismissable evidence, and didn't say they proved the Baha'i faith correct.

 

[CG Didymus]

I keep in mind that much of what is written in the Holy Scriptures is pertaining to the nation of Israel. Yes, there is before and after, but much of it is in reference to concentrating on the history of the Jews (the covenanted).

You know this evidence of the Baha'is includes proving that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ and is the Jewish Messiah. So, if the Baha'i claims are true, then Christians are just as bad off as everybody else if they reject the Baha'i prophet. Christ returned and Christians, for the most part, rejected him. Or the Baha'i prophet is not the return of Christ.

 

[CG Didymus]

Actually, some of us do believe that the Baha'i writings are evidence, or at least evidence of something.

What are you thinking it is evidence of? Because the claim is that Baha'u'llah is the return of every promised one of every religion. Is there evidence of that?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What are you thinking it is evidence of?

I'm thinking that it's evidence of the words of Bahaullah, and that's it. Though if you asked me if that proved anything, I'd say no.

Because the claim is that Baha'u'llah is the return of every promised one of every religion. Is there evidence of that?

Not that I'm aware of. But it seems we've gone for 35 pages, when all the OP wanted was a definition of evidence (which may of course vary from one poster to the next).

 

[CG Didymus]

It's amazing to me how many times the "God must be true because so many believe in God" claim has been put forward as evidence. They seem to forget that these people don't believe in their God. If there were only 1 God to believe in it might be valid evidence as it stands your place of birth is the most likely reason you believe in a particular God.

I'd imagine 100% of the Aztec people believed in their God. Then Catholic Christians told them that their Gods were not real, but the real God was God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost. How real is that God? Not even, if we go by the Baha'is definition of who God is.

So, what are Baha'is going to tell those people now? "You believed in a Sun God, a fertility God and many other Gods. Then you believed the Christians that told you Jesus was God. Now we've come to tell you Jesus is not God. He is a manifestation of God. And those Christians told you that Jesus was going to come back in the end-times. He is not. But another person, a different manifestation, Baha'u'llah has come. And he is the true one from God. He is the return of the spirit of Christ."

Of course, this time, what they are being told is the truth... not like before.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Okay, I've been brushing up on my Dictionary definitions.

And the definition seems complicated. And slightly varies from one Dictionary to another.

What I take is that evidence isn't proof, but something that can be used as proof.

But it still leads to the question of, "Proof of what?"

 

[CG Didymus]

It is simple. Here's a random (and typical) example appertaining to Buddhism:

"The founder of Buddhism was a precious Being Who established the oneness of God"

It is simply wrong. (My evidence is this quote )

- Search – Authoritative Writings and Guidance | Bahá’í Reference Library

From the link...

Bahá’u’lláh made no mention of Buddha, and if it had not been for ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá’s statement we would not have been in a position to state definitely that Buddha had been a Manifestation of God.​

 

[CG Didymus]

I'm thinking that it's evidence of the words of Bahaullah, and that's it. Though if you asked me if that proved anything, I'd say no.



Not that I'm aware of. But it seems we've gone for 35 pages, when all the OP wanted was a definition of evidence (which may of course vary from one poster to the next).

To me it sounds like evidence for God would be provided. But whatever. Tony's threads are always interesting.

This OP is to finalise once and for all what is Evidence of God. After this OP there will be no need for anyone to demand evidence, as it will have been provided.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

To me it sounds like evidence for God would be provided. But whatever. Tony's threads are always interesting.

Actually, if he can prove that Bahaullah is God (and I'm not sure how he can do that), he can then point to the Baha'i writings and say that they're evidence of God. Where I disagreed with people, was I thought Tony was saving the "proving Bahaullah is God" stuff for a much later time.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Actually, if he can prove that Bahaullah is God (and I'm not sure how he can do that), he can then point to the Baha'i writings and say that they're evidence of God. Where I disagreed with people, was I thought Tony was saving the "proving Bahaullah is God" stuff for a much later time.

There's also one additional subject that would need addressed to convince some of the posters here. It's:

Is there even a God at all?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

There's also one additional subject that would need addressed to convince some of the posters here. It's:

Is there even a God at all?

A third subject which "may" come up is, if we get past those two, is....

"Why believe in a God and/or acknowledge it even if there is one?"

 

[Ella S.]

Okay, I've been brushing up on my Dictionary definitions.

And the definition seems complicated. And slightly varies from one Dictionary to another.

What I take is that evidence isn't proof, but something that can be used as proof.

But it still leads to the question of, "Proof of what?"

For my part, evidence is closely linked with empiricism and logic. I'll give an example from a deductive categorical syllogism:

Premise 1: All cats in my room are white.
Premise 2: This cat is in my room.
Conclusion: This cat is white.

Notice how, in the example I've given, the premises are sensory perceptions. If you can see the whole room, then you can see all of the cats that are in it and affirm that they are white empirically. This becomes evidence for the conclusion "This cat is white." When paired with Premise 2, it becomes a logical proof that "This cat is white."

The issue with the OP is that it isn't giving premises. A messenger from God would be evidence of the existence of God. Writings from that messenger could be evidence for that messenger's existence.

The issue is that there is an implicit premise here that the writings are actually from a messenger of God, which is just a claim. In other words, it's a conclusion that we do not have the premises to, and thus it is not evidence.

Worse than that, the entire argument is circular. If we could prove that the writings were from a messenger of God, then we would have already proven God. Which means that even the supposed evidence stated earlier isn't actually evidence, either, because it affirms the consequent in the premises.

Affirming the consequent is when your conclusion is the same or implied by one of your premises, such as:

Premise 1: I am immortal.
Premise 2: Immortal beings cannot feel pain.
Conclusion: I am immortal.

It doesn't logically follow, so the premise "Immortal beings cannot feel pain" isn't proper evidence for the claim "I am immortal" in this context.

I hope this helps. I apologize for the length.