I think people need to spend a hell of a lot more time thinking hard about this idea of "truth."
Agreed. There seems to be two categories of statements that different kinds of people call truth. For the critical thinker, truth is that which can be shown to be correct beginning with relevant evidence and applying valid reasoning to it to arrive at sound conclusions. For many others - probably most - it's whatever feels right. They trust their intuitions to lead them to truth. That's the kind of thinking the critical thinker calls faith, and calls things believed by faith unjustified by those empirical criteria. In the language of logic, the belief is a non sequitur - it cannot be derived from what preceded it - and it is not a sound conclusion. In lay language, it's a leap of faith
When Einstein had finally completed his equations describing General Relativity, he realized -- much to his dismay -- that those equations meant that the universe was not stable and unchanging. And he, like everyone of his era, could simply not conceive of a universe that was unstable. Therefore, he introduced into his equations something he called a "cosmological constant." Later, when Hubble demonstrated that not only was the universe expanding, it is increasing its rate of expansion over time. Einstein, on learning of this, called his cosmological constant "my greatest blunder."
Yes, a good example of a leap of faith. Einstein trusted an intuition that was later shown to be demonstrably incorrect. His work up to that blunder was derived from the application of reason to empirical fact. From that, he deduced two great theories that were empirically demonstrated to be correct (Eddington and the 1919 solar eclipse). But then, he took a leap of faith, an ad hoc addition to his work not derived from reason applied to evidence - just gut feeling, the other definition of truth above, which the empiricist rejects, and which failure to reject led to this blunder. It's why we should require sound conclusions derived from evidence before belief, since these are always demonstrably correct by definition, and unjustified belief (faith) is essentially guessing as Einstein did.
There is only one path to truth as I described it - empiricism. Other ideas do not get called truth by me, nor knowledge, just unjustified belief, guess, or faith.
Theists might not be saying overtly that we must accept their reasons for belief, but it certainly is implied given the repetition of their beliefs/claims
Agreed. You might have noticed this comment from one of the Baha'i: "Probably you should just stop talking to this guy and arguing with him. He won't listen." He thinks he and the other Baha'i should be heeded, and he is frustrated that his words convince nobody. He calls it not listening as if paying more attention would lead to belief. He must think his arguments are compelling because they convinced him. But he just doesn't understand what it takes to convince a critical thinker, because he's never learned to think critically himself, and so offers what convinced him unaware that that is insufficient for belief by this other standard that is a mystery to him.
But critical density is not the only cosmic coincidence known to trouble physicists. The triple alpha process, and the precise values of energy levels in carbon nuclei, have been cited elsewhere.
This video (22 minutes) is an excellent review of that topic, right up your alley. It also mentions the carbon forming fusion problem and Hoyle' role in its solution, and introduces a new "coincidence" - the very small density of dark energy. It also distinguishes between the weak and strong anthropic principles. I believe your post referred to the weak one. There are arguments in this video that the universe must have had life in it: "Carter distinguished the WAP from the
strong anthropic principle (
SAP), which considers the universe in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and
sapient life
emerge within it."
When Baha'is learn to actually promote unity between people with different beliefs
Look at their net effect on RF. We have two groups of people that largely agree withing themselves and disagree between groups. And the Baha'i have introduced an emotional element. They are offended by the critical thinkers' words, and some seem bruised by debate.
If their claims are not the evidence, what exactly is the evidence that they are a Messenger
You probably already suspect that you will never get a direct or responsive answer, just vague answers like the evidence, or the message, or the life off the messenger. You will never be shown a specific passage that isn't something that a human being couldn't have written, nor any aspect of that life that isn't something that the rest of us couldn't have done, yet this will be called evidence in support of their beliefs.
So you don't want to find out or seek to see if there is a God
The empiricist does that by studying reality. There is no other path to truth. If there is a god and that fact is knowable, it will be known by examining the cosmos including the facts of our daily lives, not by intuition. Ask Einstein, who got to test his intuition and falsify it. God beliefs aren't falsifiable, and can only be held by faith, however compelling the intuition may be.
the Biggest Question of all - how did the universe create itself when it didn't exist, and why.
How about a bigger question - why does anything at all (including a god or gods) exist? Your question is answered by supernaturalist with a claim about a god existing, but my question can't even be answered with that.
