Evidence -- making it useful

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do not expect (or hope) that this thread will reach anything like the length of the late thread titled just "Evidence." However, I think it's time that we began having some discussion, since @TransmutingSoul seems determined not to discuss how evidence might be used or evaluated in his thread. (Why do I think it won't be so long? Because I do not anticipate the evidence insisters in the other thread to participate very much. From what I've seen, they don't have much to contribute.)

A bullet casing, found lying in the street, may well be "evidence" of something, and that something may well be a crime. Then again, it could be almost anything else, too: a relic dropped by accident, a deliberately placed clue in a private game about which we know nothing because we're not playing. So that bullet casing, while it might be "evidence," is entirely useless "as evidence" unless somebody starts asking -- and answering -- questions about it.

I think, for purposes of this thread, however, we should stick to those pieces of "evidence" provided in the other thread. For reference, these are:

1)The Person - Known as a prophet, or, messenger, or manifestation
2) The Revelation they give - Given to transform society, changes the direction of humanity
3) The Word - The Message given becomes the standard and guidance for the growth of humanity.

I'll begin with my first, most obvious thoughts:

1. How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?
2. Would it not be necessary to show that "The Revelation" they give could not have been given unless it were provided by God? And can it be shown, before whatever transformation and change is intended actually occurs, that that transformation will be for the betterment of humanity?
3. Would it be necessary to show that "The Word - The Message" could not have been written or articulated by a mere human, without divine assistance? How would that be accomplished? And, like the writings of Karl Marx, sitting in the British Museum, can they be demonstrated to be certain to give the desired results? It does not appear, after all, that Marx's words did.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The preface to this thread, by the way, should have been a quote from George Carlin:

“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”​

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not expect (or hope) that this thread will reach anything like the length of the late thread titled just "Evidence." However, I think it's time that we began having some discussion, since @TransmutingSoul seems determined not to discuss how evidence might be used or evaluated in his thread. (Why do I think it won't be so long? Because I do not anticipate the evidence insisters in the other thread to participate very much. From what I've seen, they don't have much to contribute.)

A bullet casing, found lying in the street, may well be "evidence" of something, and that something may well be a crime. Then again, it could be almost anything else, too: a relic dropped by accident, a deliberately placed clue in a private game about which we know nothing because we're not playing. So that bullet casing, while it might be "evidence," is entirely useless "as evidence" unless somebody starts asking -- and answering -- questions about it.

I think, for purposes of this thread, however, we should stick to those pieces of "evidence" provided in the other thread. For reference, these are:



I'll begin with my first, most obvious thoughts:

1. How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?
2. Would it not be necessary to show that "The Revelation" they give could not have been given unless it were provided by God? And can it be shown, before whatever transformation and change is intended actually occurs, that that transformation will be for the betterment of humanity?
3. Would it be necessary to show that "The Word - The Message" could not have been written or articulated by a mere human, without divine assistance? How would that be accomplished? And, like the writings of Karl Marx, sitting in the British Museum, can they be demonstrated to be certain to give the desired results? It does not appear, after all, that Marx's words did.

Don't forget that that 'person' (manifestation, etc.) is infallible, and an infallible person can't possibly be wrong, by definition.

Certainly Marx has had far more effect than the latest 'manifestation'. There is clear evidence that some social democratic societies got a few of their ideas from Marx. The collapse of the Chinese Imperial system is proof of that. Whether viewed as positive or negative by society as a whole, it certainly was change.

 

[Nakosis]

I do not expect (or hope) that this thread will reach anything like the length of the late thread titled just "Evidence." However, I think it's time that we began having some discussion, since @TransmutingSoul seems determined not to discuss how evidence might be used or evaluated in his thread. (Why do I think it won't be so long? Because I do not anticipate the evidence insisters in the other thread to participate very much. From what I've seen, they don't have much to contribute.)

A bullet casing, found lying in the street, may well be "evidence" of something, and that something may well be a crime. Then again, it could be almost anything else, too: a relic dropped by accident, a deliberately placed clue in a private game about which we know nothing because we're not playing. So that bullet casing, while it might be "evidence," is entirely useless "as evidence" unless somebody starts asking -- and answering -- questions about it.

I think, for purposes of this thread, however, we should stick to those pieces of "evidence" provided in the other thread. For reference, these are:



I'll begin with my first, most obvious thoughts:

1. How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?
2. Would it not be necessary to show that "The Revelation" they give could not have been given unless it were provided by God? And can it be shown, before whatever transformation and change is intended actually occurs, that that transformation will be for the betterment of humanity?
3. Would it be necessary to show that "The Word - The Message" could not have been written or articulated by a mere human, without divine assistance? How would that be accomplished? And, like the writings of Karl Marx, sitting in the British Museum, can they be demonstrated to be certain to give the desired results? It does not appear, after all, that Marx's words did.

With religion, people are wanting to get something out of it.
If they get it, that is all the evidence they need.

How can you tell someone else they are not getting what they need if they feel they are?

What do you get out of religion?
A feeling of purpose,
A feeling of someone watching over you,
A feeling of belonging to something higher,
Answers to questions about the universe they can't otherwise get.

These things are the evidence that the religion is delivering as promised.

Some people don't need these things but that is what religion has to offer.
Take it or leave it.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I'll begin with my first, most obvious thoughts:

How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?

You can't. It's entirely subjective. But that doesn't mean other people can't believe them, though.

Would it not be necessary to show that "The Revelation" they give could not have been given unless it were provided by God? And can it be shown, before whatever transformation and change is intended actually occurs, that that transformation will be for the betterment of humanity?

"Love thy neighbor" and "unity" seems to be powerful messages that have helped our society. The Internet is global and is an example of unity among nations, allowing people of different nations to talk to each other. The transformation you talk about is usually self-evident. In Christianity, loving thy neighbor and turning a blind eye has allowed people to give others second chances, and the unity people have allowed places like RF to exist. Now, whether or not we could perceive these transformations and focus on them without a prophet to call for it, well, it's obvious that these concepts existed before prophets used them. They just exemplified the examples of such.

Would it be necessary to show that "The Word - The Message" could not have been written or articulated by a mere human, without divine assistance? How would that be accomplished? And, like the writings of Karl Marx, sitting in the British Museum, can they be demonstrated to be certain to give the desired results? It does not appear, after all, that Marx's words did.

If people want to start a religion, they claim their message comes from God. If people want to start anything else, they don't credit God for their discovery. If Baha'u'llah never declared himself a Manifestation, but still wanted people to focus on unity, there would be no religion of the Baha'i Faith, but rather an organization focusing on the unity of the human civilization we're in. But because people claim God is part of it, it strays into the realm of religion. Typically, I find people call things religious when they really, really, really want to focus on a concept. That's why the term, "being religious about something" exists. If Baha'u'llah would have just focused on unity and not divine unity, not as many people would have taken him as seriously to bring people together.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

With religion, people are wanting to get something out of it.
If they get it, that is all the evidence they need.

How can you tell someone else they are not getting what they need if they feel they are?

What do you get out of religion?
A feeling of purpose,
A feeling of someone watching over you,
A feeling of belonging to something higher,
Answers to questions about the universe they can't otherwise get.

These things are the evidence that the religion is delivering as promised.

Some people don't need these things but that is what religion has to offer.
Take it or leave it.

You know, I understand all that. But oddly, it is precisely those things that quite turn me off religion. Think about it:

If I get, from a belief in God, a "feeling of purpose," whose purpose is it? Is it mine? No, I can create that on my own. Okay, if my purpose is something that exists only in God's mind, what the heck do I know about it? Nothing -- only that there's supposed to be one. Maybe my "purpose," to God, is to be an amusing plaything. Maybe it's a grand experiment in how "spirit" infused into meat (the brain) always goes wrong? Who knows? God knows. Unfortunately, I don't.

I'm not sure I always want someone "watching over me." It's like the story of the nun, who, when asks why she always bathes wearing a cotton shift that comes down below her knees. When reminded that, in the privacy of her bath, nobody can see her, she points up and say, "you forgot the Big Guy." What is it she imagines? That God, who can satisfy his prurient interests by seeing throught the three floors above where she's bathing, is stymied by a bit of cotton? Oh, please -- it is to laugh!

As to a feeling of "belonging to something higher," I don't want to belong to anything at all. I wish to be free; free to be myself, free to make my own choices, and my own mistakes. And I don't know what "higher" means, except that it always includes the conseqence that I must then think of myself as "lower." That may make some people feel good. It does nothing whatever for me.

And lastly, on the subject of "answers to questions about the universe they can't otherwise get," I don't want answers unless I have some hint that they may be true, that the may represent the reality. Give me one -- just one -- real answer about the nature of the universe that you can get from religion that could not be discovered through real learning and science. And if you happen to have one, and it couldn't be discovered through science, how would you actually know it's true? That can only mean you just want answers, and are not interested in whether they are true or not. Sorry, that could never satisfy my thirst for knowledge.

 

[George-ananda]

1. How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?

You can use your own judgment and consider the quality of the message and the quality of the person.

[*]Would it not be necessary to show that "The Revelation" they give could not have been given unless it were provided by God? And can it be shown, before whatever transformation and change is intended actually occurs, that that transformation will be for the betterment of humanity?

If the message is found good and helpful then it should be accepted.

1. Would it be necessary to show that "The Word - The Message" could not have been written or articulated by a mere human, without divine assistance? How would that be accomplished? And, like the writings of Karl Marx, sitting in the British Museum, can they be demonstrated to be certain to give the desired results? It does not appear, after all, that Marx's words did.

1. One piece of evidence might be knowledge not reasonably learned through normal channels suggesting inspired words.

 

[Brian2]

I'll begin with my first, most obvious thoughts:

1. How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?
2. Would it not be necessary to show that "The Revelation" they give could not have been given unless it were provided by God? And can it be shown, before whatever transformation and change is intended actually occurs, that that transformation will be for the betterment of humanity?
3. Would it be necessary to show that "The Word - The Message" could not have been written or articulated by a mere human, without divine assistance? How would that be accomplished? And, like the writings of Karl Marx, sitting in the British Museum, can they be demonstrated to be certain to give the desired results? It does not appear, after all, that Marx's words did.

Fulfilled prophecies could help.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

As I expected, everyone so far in this thread has seemingly responded with not claiming there is objective evidence, but instead based on if religion makes a person feel comfortable and if it gives them a purpose, if it feels right to them, if it makes sense to them. And in my opinion that reason to believe makes perfect sense. I agree, and that is why I believe.

You know, I understand all that. But oddly, it is precisely those things that quite turn me off religion. Think about it:

If I get, from a belief in God, a "feeling of purpose," whose purpose is it? Is it mine? No, I can create that on my own. Okay, if my purpose is something that exists only in God's mind, what the heck do I know about it? Nothing -- only that there's supposed to be one. Maybe my "purpose," to God, is to be an amusing plaything. Maybe it's a grand experiment in how "spirit" infused into meat (the brain) always goes wrong? Who knows? God knows. Unfortunately, I don't.

I'm not sure I always want someone "watching over me." It's like the story of the nun, who, when asks why she always bathes wearing a cotton shift that comes down below her knees. When reminded that, in the privacy of her bath, nobody can see her, she points up and say, "you forgot the Big Guy." What is it she imagines? That God, who can satisfy his prurient interests by seeing throught the three floors above where she's bathing, is stymied by a bit of cotton? Oh, please -- it is to laugh!

As to a feeling of "belonging to something higher," I don't want to belong to anything at all. I wish to be free; free to be myself, free to make my own choices, and my own mistakes. And I don't know what "higher" means, except that it always includes the conseqence that I must then think of myself as "lower." That may make some people feel good. It does nothing whatever for me.

And lastly, on the subject of "answers to questions about the universe they can't otherwise get," I don't want answers unless I have some hint that they may be true, that the may represent the reality. Give me one -- just one -- real answer about the nature of the universe that you can get from religion that could not be discovered through real learning and science. And if you happen to have one, and it couldn't be discovered through science, how would you actually know it's true? That can only mean you just want answers, and are not interested in whether they are true or not. Sorry, that could never satisfy my thirst for knowledge.

There are religions that are strict with tenets, creating an uncomfortable life for those who follow it. Not all things are perfect, and so some religions are flawed like that: someone is trapped in a religion that negates the quality of their life because of being raised into it or for whatever other reason they are involuntarily part of the religion.

But this is where freedom of religion (when practiced correctly) comes into play. With the freedom of religion, and the ability to think for oneself, you are able to open yourself up to belief systems that you feel most at home with. Religious teachings do provide meaningful insights and can be useful, there's no one shoe size that fits all.

Some people need exterior meaning to make them feel whole, and it makes sense to me that there could be many psychological reasons for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fulfilled prophecies could help.

Too bad that just about every religion is lacking in those. Here let me post an article that should help The standards in this article are aimed at Christianity ,but changing the words slightly would make it apply to almost any religion:

Biblical prophecies

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You can use your own judgment and consider the quality of the message and the quality of the person.

Are you suggesting that my judgment (and yours, and Donald Trump's, and George Santos's, and Marjorie Taylor-Greene's, and Haibatullah Akhundzada's, and Vladimir Putin's) is sufficient to be able to tell whether someone delivering a message that pleases me, and because I generally like them as a person, should be enough to know that this message is from God?

If the message is found good and helpful then it should be accepted.

And does this tell us anything about the provenance of the message? If your stock broker gives you good and helpful advice that adds millions to your portfolio, do you accept that as necessarily being from God? Would that same message be as useful to somebody who doesn't actually have any money to invest in the market?

One piece of evidence might be knowledge not reasonably learned through normal channels suggesting inspired words.

Give me one example -- and I'll leave it completely open: from any scripture, or from any other source that you can think of -- of knowledge that has been given through such "Messengers" that could not reasonably be learned through normal, human channels.

No pressure -- I'll take anything.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Fulfilled prophecies could help.

Got any? (Of course, I mean unambiguous fulfilled prophecies, and prophecies that were made before they were fulfilled -- so rule out Daniel.)

One example, of course, might be Jesus's prophecy that he'd return while some around Him were still living. I have to presume, if that's to be fulfilled, that there at least a person or two who have been waiting around for 2 millenia.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Got any? (Of course, I mean unambiguous fulfilled prophecies, and prophecies that were made before they were fulfilled -- so rule out Daniel.)

Nor can one quote mine the Old Testament. The prophecy has to be a prophecy.

 

[George-ananda]

Are you suggesting that my judgment (and yours, and Donald Trump's, and George Santos's, and Marjorie Taylor-Greene's, and Haibatullah Akhundzada's, and Vladimir Putin's) is sufficient to be able to tell whether someone delivering a message that pleases me, and because I generally like them as a person, should be enough to know that this message is from God?

And does this tell us anything about the provenance of the message? If your stock broker gives you good and helpful advice that adds millions to your portfolio, do you accept that as necessarily being from God? Would that same message be as useful to somebody who doesn't actually have any money to invest in the market?

More what I'm saying is that this 'from God' is vague. I kind of think more the essence of God is in all of us and can produce greatness.

I am not a traditional Abrahamic God believer, but I believe in divine or higher power inspiration still that can inspire people.

Give me one example -- and I'll leave it completely open: from any scripture, or from any other source that you can think of -- of knowledge that has been given through such "Messengers" that could not reasonably be learned through normal, human channels.

No pressure -- I'll take anything.

Well, if it is something we can verify then you can argue it's learnable.

Let's take Mohammed as a classic example. One can argue he showed a knowledge of language and history not reasonably learned in conventional ways by an illiterate merchant of his time and place. One can make the argument that the information was 'revealed' to him through a higher source.

 

[Nakosis]

You know, I understand all that. But oddly, it is precisely those things that quite turn me off religion. Think about it:

If I get, from a belief in God, a "feeling of purpose," whose purpose is it? Is it mine? No, I can create that on my own. Okay, if my purpose is something that exists only in God's mind, what the heck do I know about it? Nothing -- only that there's supposed to be one. Maybe my "purpose," to God, is to be an amusing plaything. Maybe it's a grand experiment in how "spirit" infused into meat (the brain) always goes wrong? Who knows? God knows. Unfortunately, I don't.

I'm not sure I always want someone "watching over me." It's like the story of the nun, who, when asks why she always bathes wearing a cotton shift that comes down below her knees. When reminded that, in the privacy of her bath, nobody can see her, she points up and say, "you forgot the Big Guy." What is it she imagines? That God, who can satisfy his prurient interests by seeing throught the three floors above where she's bathing, is stymied by a bit of cotton? Oh, please -- it is to laugh!

As to a feeling of "belonging to something higher," I don't want to belong to anything at all. I wish to be free; free to be myself, free to make my own choices, and my own mistakes. And I don't know what "higher" means, except that it always includes the conseqence that I must then think of myself as "lower." That may make some people feel good. It does nothing whatever for me.

And lastly, on the subject of "answers to questions about the universe they can't otherwise get," I don't want answers unless I have some hint that they may be true, that the may represent the reality. Give me one -- just one -- real answer about the nature of the universe that you can get from religion that could not be discovered through real learning and science. And if you happen to have one, and it couldn't be discovered through science, how would you actually know it's true? That can only mean you just want answers, and are not interested in whether they are true or not. Sorry, that could never satisfy my thirst for knowledge.

Like I said, some of us aren't interested in what religion has to offer.
Maybe that makes it hard for us to understand each other's motivation.

 

[rational experiences]

The evidence. What a human witnessed.

Gods Inheritor in heavens owns formed images that return in position the white body clouds.

The cloud mass body returns them and reforms them. I know I watch and see it.

Okay what's gods image then?

Errrrrummmmm.....clear unseen first. Waters spirit blue. Cloud mass fluffy white like cotton.

As I Infer comparative reasons to gardens nature my own survival.

God says a human hence isn't oberservable. As the term a belief an entity.

Only the Inheritor is seen. Image.

I see lots of images inherited including animals men and women and objects. As God inherited images.

So I know it's Inheritance only as a cause effect. Laws. Laws about God.

 

[Ella S.]

Fulfilled prophecies could help.

How? What does fulfilled prophecy have to do with the existence of a God?

I'm not sure it has anything to do with one. Even if someone made hundreds of thousands of extremely precise and accurate predictions, far beyond what they should be capable of through normal means, are there not countless other possible explanations for this? Many of which that posit fewer assumptions than the existence of God?

For instance, what if they could just see the future? No God necessary.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I do not expect (or hope) that this thread will reach anything like the length of the late thread titled just "Evidence." However, I think it's time that we began having some discussion, since @TransmutingSoul seems determined not to discuss how evidence might be used or evaluated in his thread. (Why do I think it won't be so long? Because I do not anticipate the evidence insisters in the other thread to participate very much. From what I've seen, they don't have much to contribute.)

A bullet casing, found lying in the street, may well be "evidence" of something, and that something may well be a crime. Then again, it could be almost anything else, too: a relic dropped by accident, a deliberately placed clue in a private game about which we know nothing because we're not playing. So that bullet casing, while it might be "evidence," is entirely useless "as evidence" unless somebody starts asking -- and answering -- questions about it.

I think, for purposes of this thread, however, we should stick to those pieces of "evidence" provided in the other thread. For reference, these are:



I'll begin with my first, most obvious thoughts:

1. How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?
2. Would it not be necessary to show that "The Revelation" they give could not have been given unless it were provided by God? And can it be shown, before whatever transformation and change is intended actually occurs, that that transformation will be for the betterment of humanity?
3. Would it be necessary to show that "The Word - The Message" could not have been written or articulated by a mere human, without divine assistance? How would that be accomplished? And, like the writings of Karl Marx, sitting in the British Museum, can they be demonstrated to be certain to give the desired results? It does not appear, after all, that Marx's words did.

Your question is highly interesting, but also very difficult to answer in a good way.

1: from their actions, words and thoughts. (If the said prophet can not live by their own teaching and in the same time strive to better themselves they might not be a prophet after all.)

2: it comes down to how the believer have faith in the teaching (in my understanding) and do the said prophet live by what He or She teaches themselves.

3: again this comes down to faith and belief from the listener to the words of the said prophet.

My reply may not answer your question in the way you wanted it

 

[muhammad_isa]

1. How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?

There is no one paragraph answer.
One has to study Divinity to a reasonable level, in order to discern between a son of God and an ordinary man.
eg. Are they pious? What are they claiming?

The Greatest Commandment of all must not be transgressed.
i.e. no hint of idol worship or ascribing partners to the Most High

The law [other commandments] should not be "cancelled" in its entirety, and replaced with something else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no one paragraph answer.
One has to study Divinity to a reasonable level, in order to discern between a son of God and an ordinary man.
eg. Are they pious? What are they claiming?

The Greatest Commandment of all must not be transgressed.
i.e. no hint of idol worship or ascribing partners to the Most High

The law [other commandments] should not be "cancelled" in its entirety, and replaced with something else.

Amazing, more comments claiming that God is terribly incompetent From what I have seen from many that study divinity is that they have only learned bad arguments and no how to fool themselves better than that average person.