Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[samtonga43]

The following is the Baha'i position on science and religion which is markedly different from the Christian position.

What IS the Christian position on science and religion, Tb?

 

[Sheldon]

They commit these fallacies whenever they 'assume' that the Baha'i Faith is just like Christianity or any other religion.

If you are trying to say that the Baha’i Faith is no different from Christianity

Ironically you seem to be using those very fallacies about me here, and I made no such comparisons. I was responding to a general comment, that simply made a claim about religion, and did not specify any particular religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The most reliable early history was compiled by early Baha'i, so it would not be lost, in a book called the Dawn Breakers, Nabils Narrative. That is of the time of the Bab. So it gives the story from those who had faced the attempt to silence them.

So yes, Persian Islam records were aimed at the elimination of the faith, so are highly unreliable.

There are other external sources.

Regards Tony

Perhaps. But they would almost certainly be as biased for the movement as Muslims would be biased against it. I would go over the verifiable evidence. And it appears to be a mix. I don't think that one can fault him for coming from a wealthy family. And as I said from what I found he spent a significant time in jail because of his beliefs. That does indicate that he really believed what the said. But unfortunately the mini dynasty existed as well. He did appoint his son to take over for him and he appointed his son. That does not look good.

 

[Trailblazer]

What IS the Christian position on science and religion, Tb?

I don't know exactly and I am sure it varies among Christians but it is not the same as the Baha'i position.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ironically you seem to be using those very fallacies about me here, and I made no such comparisons. I was responding to a general comment, that simply made a claim about religion, and did not specify any particular religion.

You said: So your metaphor about two wings of the same bird is pretty hilarious, sorry. I've debated too many creationists to believe religions value the integrity of science, they value it for what it can give them, then deny it when it contradicts their beliefs in any way.

So you seemed to be implying that just because creationists who are typically Christians do not value the integrity of science you think that Baha'is do not value science. If that is not what you were implying, why did you say metaphor about two wings of the same bird is pretty hilarious? What is hilarious about it?

 

[Tiberius]

It is a fact to me because it is known to me but it cannot be considered a fact since it is not known to everyone.

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

Given that you are incapable of providing proof or evidence about it, and given that it is entirely unrepeatable by anyone else, I'd say it's a deeply help opinion, not a known fact.

It is a belief I hold, not an opinion.
If you really want to know where I stand now and how I got there I suggest you read what I just posted to @CG Didymus:

#4000 Trailblazer

I see nothing there which defines the difference between belief and opinion. Beliefs are a subset of opinion, since both are based on no objective evidence at all.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course not! You already knew the answer to that. That's why you asked the question.

So your assumption that Mr B was specifically referring to nuclear processes when he wrote that copper can be turned into gold is just a guess, isn't it? For all you know, his alleged knowledge on how to do it was completely different.

Just another case of fitting the religion into science in order to make the religion appear more respectable. Just remember, the respectability is always science's. What religion is doing is no different to a child dressing up in her mum's Sunday best dress and pretending she is off to the cotillion.

 

[Tiberius]

Because reason tells me that there can NEVER be any verifiable evidence for God, and it logically follows that there can NEVER be any verifiable evidence for Messengers of God. Reason also tells me it is unreasonable to expect what I can never have and don't even need.

Seems to me that in such a case, reason should lead you to the conclusion that there is no God at all.

Rational people know there can never be testable evidence for Messengers of God so they seek other kinds of evidence.

Rational people do not decide that something is true and then go and seek evidence for it.

Rather, rational people look at the evidence and base the conclusions on that.

I have my reason, Messengers. Jesus would have been enough, but of course he is not the only Messenger or the latest one.

Many people have claimed to be messengers, yet you reject them. I see no reason why we shouldn't reject all the others as well.

No, I did not just decide without checking it out. I am a very thorough person. I verified the evidence and I could verify even more evidence if I had time, but I have seen enough to know that the Baha'i Faith is true.

Ah yes, this different kind of verification that you can't demonstrate to anyone else.

The wheat accept the evidence that God provides, which is the rational thing to do. The chaff think that God is a short order cook who is going to cook up some special evidence just for them because they don't like what God has provided for everyone else.

The wheat accept the evidence for magic that allows people to turn into eagles that I have provided, which is the rational thing to do. The chaff think that I am a short order cook who is going to cook up some special evidence just for them because they don't like what I have provided for everyone else.

 

[Tiberius]

No!

Let me explain:
Definition of REALITY

First off, I use that rule that if you don't specify a definition, you use the standard one, so above is a standard one.

So here is the test of the difference between the everyday world and reality:
The question is: Can everything be measured using science and expressed in scientific terms?
And that is simple, because you answer yes and I answer no.
So back to reality as : the true situation that exists : the real situation.
The real and true situation, that exists, are 2 situations:

We think differently, but both cases are a part of the everyday world and at least since last time I checked, I still haven't found any measurement expressed in scientific terms, that for the fact, that you can answer yes and I can answer no, those are not both true and real situations.

Let me be very precise. Science can examine humans, but the methodology of science can't settle if 2 or more humans disagree and there are more than one set of behavior possible.
So atheists don't believe in gods.
And theists believe in a God.
Both are real and true situations, that exists. You can using observing to confirm both ones, but you can't use science to express that you accept one of the cases and disagree with the other, because that is not science.

Wait...

Do you think reality and truth are two different things?

Reality is true. Truth is real.

If something is real, then it is true. If the elephant in my living room is real, then it is true that there is an elephant in my living room.

Truth is literally defined as what is real.

I don't know what idea you are going on about, but makes no sense at all to me.

 

[Tiberius]

So you see it is right to go with the misinformation and not with the reliable recorded history about the life of Baha'u'llah.

The world has forgotten justice, but Baha'u'llah has foretold that will happen.

Regards Tony

I don't see where anyone has claimed that any documented event of Mr B's life did not happen.

 

[Trailblazer]

Given that you are incapable of providing proof or evidence about it, and given that it is entirely unrepeatable by anyone else, I'd say it's a deeply help opinion, not a known fact.

It is a belief, not a known fact.

I see nothing there which defines the difference between belief and opinion. Beliefs are a subset of opinion, since both are based on no objective evidence at all.

Beliefs are derived from religion whereas opinions are derived from a person. That is why they are called personal opinions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just remember, the respectability is always science's. What religion is doing is no different to a child dressing up in her mum's Sunday best dress and pretending she is off to the cotillion.

"the respectability is always science's"
That is an excellent example of a personal opinion, a very biased personal opinion.
You prefer science to religion so you are biased towards science.

 

[Tiberius]

It is a belief, not a known fact.

Belief is a subset of opinion.

Beliefs are derived from religion whereas opinions are derived from a person. That is why they are called personal opinions.

I can name many beliefs that are not religious in nature.

In this definition of belief, five specific examples are made. Of them, four of them reference non-religious beliefs.

belief

belief
noun [ C or S or U ]

UK

/bɪˈliːf/ US

/bɪˈliːf/

feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:

• His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
• Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.

believe:

• All religious and political beliefs should be respected equally.
• [ + that ] It is my (firm) belief that nuclear weapons are immoral.
• He called at her house in the belief that (= confident that) she would lend him the money.

 

[Tiberius]

"the respectability is always science's"
That is an excellent example of a personal opinion, a very biased personal opinion.
You prefer science to religion so you are biased towards science.

Nah, I'm just going by the track record.

Science has produced more reliably accurate results than religion ever has.

In any case, you agree with me. If you didn't agree with me, you wouldn't be so quick to grab a hold of science for support in those cases where you can say it agrees with your religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Seems to me that in such a case, reason should lead you to the conclusion that there is no God at all.

Reason tells me that I need to check out the Messenger of God to determine if He was really sent by God, IF I ever want to know if God exists, since that is the only way I can ever know.

Rational people do not decide that something is true and then go and seek evidence for it.

Rather, rational people look at the evidence and base the conclusions on that.

That is correct.

Many people have claimed to be messengers, yet you reject them. I see no reason why we shouldn't reject all the others as well.

The reason we reject the others is because they fail to meet even the minimum criteria for a Messenger of God.
A claim is no reason to believe that a person is a Messenger because anyone can make a claim. It is the evidence that supports the claim that gives us a reason to believe someone is a Messenger.

Ah yes, this different kind of verification that you can't demonstrate to anyone else.

That's right because that is how God set it up since God wants everyone to verify the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusions rather than believing something just because someone else verified it to be true.
Religion is not like science where consensus matters, it is the exact opposite.

The wheat accept the evidence for magic that allows people to turn into eagles that I have provided, which is the rational thing to do. The chaff think that I am a short order cook who is going to cook up some special evidence just for them because they don't like what I have provided for everyone else.

The wheat accept the evidence that God provides, which is the rational thing to do. The chaff think that God is a short order cook who is going to cook up some special evidence just for them because they don't like what God has provided for everyone else.

The wheat are logical because they know that God is all-powerful so God is the one who will decide what evidence humans will get. The chaff are illogical so they think they can tell an all-powerful God what evidence He should provide.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nah, I'm just going by the track record.

Science has produced more reliably accurate results than religion ever has.

In any case, you agree with me. If you didn't agree with me, you wouldn't be so quick to grab a hold of science for support in those cases where you can say it agrees with your religion.

There is no contest between science and religion as to which one is better because both are vitally necessary.

Science can only produce results for what it is designed to do, and religion can only produce results for what it is designed to do, Religion and science are not designed to do the same things but what they each do are vitally necessary for human existence and continual progress.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed..........

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...”

Paris Talks, pp. 141-143

From: FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE

 

[Trailblazer]

Belief is a subset of opinion.

If belief is a subset of opinion, what are the other kinds of opinions in the set?

Religious beliefs come from religions and opinions about religions are personal opinions.

In this definition of belief, five specific examples are made. Of them, four of them reference non-religious beliefs.

belief

belief
noun [ C or S or U ]

UK

/bɪˈliːf/ US

/bɪˈliːf/

feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:

• His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
• Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.

believe:

• All religious and political beliefs should be respected equally.
• [ + that ] It is my (firm) belief that nuclear weapons are immoral.
• He called at her house in the belief that (= confident that) she would lend him the money.

That is true, not all beliefs are religious beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

So you seemed to be implying that just because creationists who are typically Christians do not value the integrity of science you think that Baha'is do not value science.

No. that's just an assumption you made. While accusing me of making fallacious assumptions.

What is hilarious about it?

Everything, I dislike woolly meaningless metaphors that demsonrate nothing tangible in the way of objective evidence.

As I said, the scientific method works without recourse to any deity or any religious beliefs, that's just a fact.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The issue was that the RCC assigned itself as the sole arbiter of god's truth on earth.

When Galileo challenged that authority with scientific facts that were at odds with church doctrine and dogma, they subjected an old man to the Inquisition. Shown the instruments of his torture of course Galileo recanted, but the Pope was taking no chances and he sentenced to house arrest for the rets of life.

Galileo's evidence in support of the ideas of Copernicus, didn't need religion, religious beliefs, or any deity to explain and evidence them.

So your metaphor about two wings of the same bird is pretty hilarious, sorry. I've debated too many creationists to believe religions value the integrity of science, they value it for what it can give them, then deny it when it contradicts their beliefs in any way.

I don't care if religions value or work with science, I'm just glad they don't have the power to directly threaten or supress science and scientists anymore.

The RCC got some things right and some things wrong. Rejecting Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah were big mistakes, but that is foretold, as those that followed Muhammad also departed from what Muhammad asked of them.

What you may not have considered is that the Baha'i have a different argument, based in science and reason.

So what happened to Galileo was not what Jesus the Christ would have done, it is what men that had forgotten Jesus teachings did that to Galileo.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Perhaps. But they would almost certainly be as biased for the movement as Muslims would be biased against it. I would go over the verifiable evidence. And it appears to be a mix. I don't think that one can fault him for coming from a wealthy family. And as I said from what I found he spent a significant time in jail because of his beliefs. That does indicate that he really believed what the said. But unfortunately the mini dynasty existed as well. He did appoint his son to take over for him and he appointed his son. That does not look good.

Maybe it does not look Good, unless you know of the life of Abdul'baha, who as a young child recognised who his father was an requested that he be able to serve him. Abdul'baha was the one who fully understood his Fathers Message, what better person to be given the task of establishing a faith destined to be practiced globally? The same is true for Shoghi Effendi.

So have a look at the life of Abdul'baha, there is really not many people that can be seen to have lived such a life, entirely devoted to service and the implementation of peace.

Regards Tony