There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Trailblazer]

Fine. Toss out all of the self-declarations. Including the "small" part that includes everything about being a messenger. Would you still be Baha'i?

No, because I would not know who Baha'u'llah was!
The self declarations are a necessary 'part' of the Writings of Baha'u'llah because otherwise nobody would know who Baha'u'llah was claiming to be.

"The Baha’i Faith is a world religion whose purpose is to unite all the races and peoples of the world.
Members of the Baha’i Faith are called Baha’is which means “follower of Baha’u’llah”."

What is the Baha’i Faith? | Baha'i Blog

What is the Baha’i Faith?

www.bahaiblog.net

 

[RestlessSoul]

Since you you are unwilling to own your own position, speaking directly with your own words, I will do so with mine. Disagreeing with you, @RestlessSoul, is not what closed-minded means. You are eschewing candor and ownership of your own thoughts in favor of passive-aggressive innuendo about others.

Holding fast to a particular position is not evidence of a closed mind - though how firmly you cling to that position may itself be an indicator. Refusing even to consider the possibility that other positions are worthy of investigating, clearly is evidence of a closed mind.

But you don’t have to take my words for it, or Herbert Spencer’s. Ask yourself, Am I willing even to consider the possibility that some underlying creative intelligence, some spirit of the universe, is responsible for my existence and for everything I see about me? If you can ask yourself this question sincerely, and answer it honestly, your answer will tell you whether or not your mind is open or closed.

 

[Audie]

Holding fast to a particular position is not evidence of a closed mind - though how firmly you cling to that position may itself be an indicator. Refusing even to consider the possibility that other positions are worthy of investigating, clearly is evidence of a closed mind.

But you don’t have to take my words for it, or Herbert Spencer’s. Ask yourself, Am I willing even to consider the possibility that some underlying creative intelligence, some spirit of the universe, is responsible for my existence and for everything I see about me? If you can ask yourself this question sincerely, and answer it honestly, your answer will tell you whether or not your mind is open or closed.

That goes both ways.

 

[metis]

Again, my view, it would have to be guided! As I learn more about the body and its intricacies, not only guided but rushed through for it would have to be more than just millions of years to fulfill all its capacity. (again, in my limited knowledge and whatever thought process I can muster up in my age)

But millions of years is a long time and I remember them well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

“why the fixation on God if one doesn’t believe in one”.

Are you suggesting that I'm fixated on gods that I don't believe in? My "fixation" is on not accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs through critical thought. Gods are just one of the many things this method can be used to consider. It's also useful for evaluating and rejecting the faith-based beliefs people hold outside of religion, although these don't have the penetration and permanence that god beliefs have had. This method also allows me to reject faith-based claims about vaccines and elections, for example.

You have a cancer that spontaneously disappears. You don’t know the mechanism and you view it as simply “spontaneous”. I could view it as a God intervention.

If you think that it might have been a divine intervention, then your thinking is essentially the same as mine - maybe a god was involved if such a thing exists, but I have no reason to think that happened, and maybe it was some naturalistic mechanism involving the immune system perhaps. If you exclude the naturalistic possibility and conclude that it was a god, then you have a faith-based belief. If I conclude that it was not a god, then so do I.

you are using the natural and believing that it applies to spiritual

It does. My spiritual experiences are generated by my brain naturally. If you are referring to spirits, if they exist, they are discernible directly or through their actions. Some ideas correlate with experience, that is, they have real referents. There is something outside of the mind that this idea maps the way an accurate roadmap maps the roads, and this map can be used to arrive at a desired destination. They are facts, or knowledge. They can be used to successfully predict future experience.

Other ideas are fantasies. They correspond to nothing real - nothing outside of minds. They have no external referent and therefore cannot be used to anticipate reality. Spirits probably fall into that category. People that hold those beliefs anyways object to the criteria empiricists use and want their own criteria to be applied as you seem to want. That's fine for you, but not for me. You can use whatever method you like to decide what's real, but you shouldn't expect the empiricist to respect those beliefs the way you do or honor the exemption you grant yourself in defense of them. So when you say, "you are using the natural and believing that it applies to spiritual," my answer is "yes, and so should you."

Refusing even to consider the possibility that other positions are worthy of investigating, clearly is evidence of a closed mind.

Open-mindedness is the willingness to consider evidence and to be convinced by compelling evidence. It characterizes empiricism. The opposite characterizes religious belief. The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." You have one example each of open- and closed-mindedness there.

Here's more closed-mindedness. These people are proud of the fact that they're immune to evidence. They esteem this kind of thinking and consider it virtuous:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

“When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris

"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right" - William Lane Craig

 

[RestlessSoul]

That goes both ways.

Of course

 

[Audie]

Of course

As someone once asked, " Could anything
change your mind?"

 

[RestlessSoul]

As someone once asked, " Could anything
change your mind?"

My mind changes like the weather. My heart however, is steadfast and resides in God

 

[Audie]

My mind changes like the weather. My heart however, is steadfast and resides in God

Which god?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Which god?

The one that goes by many names

 

[Audie]

The one that goes by many names

It's ok to just not answer at all.

 

[Kenny]

Are you suggesting that I'm fixated on gods that I don't believe in? My "fixation" is on not accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs through critical thought.

Not at all… The context was about my premise and I thought that was what we were referencing. (May have lost that understanding through our dialogue) Wasn’t trying to infer that you personally were doing it. My apologies if it came across as such.

Gods are just one of the many things this method can be used to consider. It's also useful for evaluating and rejecting the faith-based beliefs people hold outside of religion, although these don't have the penetration and permanence that god beliefs have had. This method also allows me to reject faith-based claims about vaccines and elections, for example.

I’m not sure how your are connecting the dots here. I agree that there are evaluations that can then be used to accept and reject a proposition (such as a flat-earth position) However, evaluating and rejecting can still be subjective in that you are rejecting according to your evaluation and in the area of faith, your evaluation could be wrong although right in your eyes.

If you think that it might have been a divine intervention, then your thinking is essentially the same as mine - maybe a god was involved if such a thing exists, but I have no reason to think that happened, and maybe it was some naturalistic mechanism involving the immune system perhaps. If you exclude the naturalistic possibility and conclude that it was a god, then you have a faith-based belief. If I conclude that it was not a god, then so do I.

This is good. It shows how both of us can “evaluate” an event and come to a different conclusion. One can exclude the naturalistic possibility as one can also exclude a divine intervention (or accept both as possibilities). I can have a faith-based belief and still also believe in natural remedies.

It does. My spiritual experiences are generated by my brain naturally.

Notice that this is an opinion… as you could say mine would be. My spiritual experiences are generated by my spirit and not my brain. My brain will evaluate, sense, interpret et al… but it isn’t the originator (as per my signature)

If you are referring to spirits, if they exist, they are discernible directly or through their actions. Some ideas correlate with experience, that is, they have real referents. There is something outside of the mind that this idea maps the way an accurate roadmap maps the roads, and this map can be used to arrive at a desired destination. They are facts, or knowledge. They can be used to successfully predict future experience.

Other ideas are fantasies. They correspond to nothing real - nothing outside of minds. They have no external referent and therefore cannot be used to anticipate reality. Spirits probably fall into that category. People that hold those beliefs anyways object to the criteria empiricists use and want their own criteria to be applied as you seem to want. That's fine for you, but not for me. You can use whatever method you like to decide what's real, but you shouldn't expect the empiricist to respect those beliefs the way you do or honor the exemption you grant yourself in defense of them. So when you say, "you are using the natural and believing that it applies to spiritual," my answer is "yes, and so should you."

Again… this can be labeled as your viewpoint.

Open-mindedness is the willingness to consider evidence and to be convinced by compelling evidence. It characterizes empiricism. The opposite characterizes religious belief. The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." You have one example each of open- and closed-mindedness there.

Here's more closed-mindedness. These people are proud of the fact that they're immune to evidence. They esteem this kind of thinking and consider it virtuous:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

“When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris

"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right" - William Lane Craig

I think we are going too far and too wide. One can find a quote on just about anything that supports ones position. If I start dissecting this one (there are points in these quote I don’t agree with and points I do agree with).

But I would say, “Couldn’t I also say you are close-minded to the extent that until it meets your standard of being convinced - you are not convincible?” There are so many degrees of “close-mindedness” and depending on where one is at will determine how close or open one is.

PS

Your last quote here shows great effort on your side. It is not unnoticed and sincerely appreciated.

 

[ppp]

No, because I would not know who Baha'u'llah was!

The context of our discussion was your having read his words. Apparently we have come to the point where you feel the need to pivot and squirm. Adios.

 

[Audie]

The context of our discussion was your having read his words. Apparently we have come to the point where you feel the need to pivot and squirm. Adios.

Finally

 

[Trailblazer]

The context of our discussion was your having read his words. Apparently we have come to the point where you feel the need to pivot and squirm. Adios.

No pivoting or squirming, only clear communication which apparently you do not understand.

 

[ppp]

Holding fast to a particular position is not evidence of a closed mind - though how firmly you cling to that position may itself be an indicator. Refusing even to consider the possibility that other positions are worthy of investigating, clearly is evidence of a closed mind.

You claimed that I made an unsupported assertion. What was that assertion?

 

[Muffled]

What a guy. Do believe what is wild fantasy and magic,
like flood,but show you mounds of evidence and solid reasoning, and ...you don't believe it.

You really think you understand things better than the finest minds, that you know so much ( with zero education) that you know more than any researcher on
Earth, compared to you their work is childish fantasy?

You've drifted too far from shore, my friend.

I believe the finest minds in the world once thought the world was flat.

 

[Muffled]

Well that is just silly because the evidence for evolution is endless. It is regularly used in biology to make predictions for various fields. You appear to have a superstitious belief and those never trump reality.

Instead of accusing others of your sins you should be asking yourself "How can i rationally support my religious beliefs?"

Mounds of evidence and yet I have never seen anything near convincing. I do believe in extinction but I don't consider that evolution. I suppose natural selection might describe why some species survive and others do not but I do not see that as evolution even though it is included in the theory.

 

[Muffled]

And some people believe the world is flat. So what. Demonstrate something about evolution is fantasy.

Picturing what people looked like from skulls is fantasy. It is fairly well informed fantasy but it still is not a real picture of the person.

 

[Audie]

I believe the finest minds in the world once thought the world was flat.

And the stupidest.

Fine minds are able to learn from mistakes.

Delusional ones think they know better than
anyone who has actually studied, say
heart surgery. Or how to fly an F16. Or physics / biology. Geology etc.

The finest minds didn't know, a thousand years ago.

The thinking people today won't think they know better than the pilot just because nobody did a thousand years ago.

If you have such a fine mind you should be able to
understand more than the superstitions of the dark ages.