Why should a Christian even look into Islam as a Possible true Faith?

[Trailblazer]

It is absolutely very possible. How wise is humanity overall anyways.

Anything is possible, but it is unlikely that everything that Christians and Muslims believe is wrong.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

That would mean that 55% of people in the world are following false religions. How likely is that to be true?

That is an appeal to popularity; more formally known as an argumentum ad populum ….
The fallacy of claiming the majority is always correct.

You know better than that.
To answer your question; “how likely is that to be true?”
Personally I would say very likely.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is an appeal to popularity; more formally known as an argumentum ad populum ….
The fallacy of claiming the majority is always correct.

You know better than that.
To answer your question; “how likely is that to be true?”
Personally I would say very likely.

I know that fallacy like the back of my hand but that is not what I am saying.
I am not saying that it is true because many or most people believe it is true.
I am questioning how likely is that 55% of people in the world are all following false religions.

Why do you think it is very likely?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

But, if we can start based on the assumption that Jewish Faith is true,

This concerns some of my original questions…
Why start with the presupposition that the Bible is accurate?

if one was to reject the Bahai Faith, then they cannot prove their own faith is also the truth, whether its Islam, Christianity, or other faiths, if they were to examine there own Faith with the same standard that they examined Bahai Faith.

It seems you are basing all these faiths on assumptions.
Why should anyone assume any of them are true?

You say you can’t prove Baha’i Faith to be true…
Can Judaism, Christianity, or Islam be proven to be true?
It seems you are basing all of these faith on assumptions.

As I asked previously;….
Why start there?

Where have you considered your question in relation to you….
Do you consider that, your beliefs could just be based on Geographical location or family, and that from childhood you were brainwashed to believe Baha’i Faith is true? Maybe you were brainwashed, how do you know?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Why do you think it is very likely?

Since nobody has ever provided objective evidence that supports objective belief in any of them.
Therefore they are all, along with the other 45% that are not Christian or Muslim, (that also lack objective evidence to verify them) lacking any objective reason to assume they are not false.

 

[Ebionite]

Since nobody has ever provided objective evidence that supports objective belief in any of them.
Therefore they are all, along with the other 45% that are not Christian or Muslim, (that also lack objective evidence to verify them) lacking any objective reason to assume they are not false.

The perception of objective evidence is itself subjective. Our internal model of reality is not the same as reality itself.

 

[Trailblazer]

Since nobody has ever provided objective evidence that supports objective belief in any of them.
Therefore they are all, along with the other 45% that are not Christian or Muslim, (that also lack objective evidence to verify them) lacking any objective reason to assume they are not false.

You are correct in saying there is no objective evidence that supports belief in any of them, but if there was objective evidence it would not be an objective belief, it would be a fact.

All religious beliefs are subjective since none of them can be proven to be true. However, that does not mean that a belief or beliefs are not true, since proof is not what makes anything true. A belief is either true or false, although it cannot be proven to be true or false. Proof is just what some people WANT in order to justify their belief.

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence. https://askinglot.com/what-does-objective-evidence-mean

You are saying that there is no reason to assume that all religions are not false because they have not been proven true by objective evidence.
That is an argument from ignorance if you are saying that all religions are false because they have not yet been proven true.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You are saying that there is no reason to assume that all religions are not false because they have not been proven true by objective evidence.
That is an argument from ignorance if you are saying that all religions are false because they have not yet been proven true.

Perhaps your getting lost in your triple negative statement.

Your question was;
“How likely is that to be true?” — that 55% of people in the world are following false religions.
That 55% being Christianity and Islam….combined.

Since those religions contradict each other, they can’t both be right.
Now we’re down to roughly 1/3 or 33% at most if considering Christianity.
Less if considering Islam….
Assuming one of those is accurate (not false),
leaving 66 - 75% of the world’s population which would be not accurate.
This would mean more than 55% would be following a religion that is not accurate (false).

Of course there is no reason to assume that either Christianity or Islam (or any other religion for that matter) is accurate until such time as some objective evidence comes along.

Thus in my estimate it is very likely at least your 55% are following a false religion.

As far as…

That is an argument from ignorance if you are saying that all religions are false because they have not yet been proven true.

That is plainly not what I said.
I said exactly what I mean;

Since nobody has ever provided objective evidence that supports objective belief in any of them.
Therefore they are all, along with the other 45% that are not Christian or Muslim, (that also lack objective evidence to verify them) lacking any objective reason to assume they are not false.

I plainly said they lack an objective reason to assume they are not false.
If you prefer…they lack an objective reason to assume they are true.

i.e. there is no objective reason to believe they are true until there is objective evidence that they are true.

Wouldn’t you say that’s different from saying
“they are false because they have not yet been proven to be true.”
So no, no argument from ignorance on my part.

The implied argument from ignorance is that they should be assumed to be true until such time as they are proven false.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The perception of objective evidence is itself subjective. Our internal model of reality is not the same as reality itself.

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as objectivity?

 

[Ebionite]

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as objectivity?

The role of the observer as part of the observation is recognised in quantum mechanics.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This concerns some of my original questions…
Why start with the presupposition that the Bible is accurate?


It seems you are basing all these faiths on assumptions.
Why should anyone assume any of them are true?

No body should assume anything.
Making beliefs based on assumptions, and considering them as truth, is a wrong idea.

You say you can’t prove Baha’i Faith to be true…

I cannot prove it to others. But it is proved to me. There is a difference. Only I can help others start seeing it is true, if they are willing to consider it could be true. That is what I meant by assuming. By "assuming" I mean, assuming it can be true, rather than, starting with the position that, "I already know it is definitely false"

Can Judaism, Christianity, or Islam be proven to be true?
It seems you are basing all of these faith on assumptions.

I dont think they can be proven they are true now, unless one have proved it to himself that the Bahai Faith is True.

As I asked previously;….
Why start there?

Where have you considered your question in relation to you….
Do you consider that, your beliefs could just be based on Geographical location or family, and that from childhood you were brainwashed to believe Baha’i Faith is true? Maybe you were brainwashed, how do you know?

I have considered these questions. Then after investigating without bias, i came to conclusion that the Bahai Faith is true.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Since those religions contradict each other, they can’t both be right.

That's because Truth is a living Truth.
Cosider Tuesday vs Wednesday. Things that happen on Tuesday are different than things happening on Wednesday. So if you compare them, according to the conditions of the time, Tuesday and Wednesday are different. But, Tuesday and Wednesday are the same, as both are a Day. Both started by the Sunrise and ended with Sunset. So, both of them are "Day" and the same.
Religion is a living Truth, not a dead truth.

 

[2ndpillar]

The doctrine of the word made flesh comes from the gospel of John. Only this gospel has the account of a spear being used at the crucifixion, and only this gospel refers to the pierced word of Zechariah 12.

And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
John 19:37

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.
Zechariah 12:10

Also, the gospel of John refers to the Caiaphas' proposal to kill Yeshua as being prophecy:

And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
John 11:49-51

What is your point? Zechariah 12 is about all the "nations"/Gentiles being "injured" who lift a hand to Judah/Jews, and Judah will be like a fire brand among the "surrounding peoples", which at this time, is still behind the door (Mt 24;33), at least until the Israeli war of 1967, and the prophecy of John 11:49-51 is with respect to the "house of David". John 11:49-51 doesn't refer to a crucifixion, which is the symbol and basis of your false gospel.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The role of the observer as part of the observation is recognised in quantum mechanics.

This doesn’t answer the question asked;
Are you suggesting there is no such thing as objectivity?

Yours is a common misinterpretation of what an “observer” is in qm.
The “observer” is not associated with a conscious being, but is a physical process that interacts with a quantum particle…. any instrument that interacts with the particle.

Completely objective.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I cannot prove it to others. But it is proved to me. There is a difference.

Yes, the difference between objective and subjective.

Where I pointed out your questions are along the lines of “the outsider test for faith”,….
the trick is to as objectively as posible look at your own faith as though you have not already accepted it; more like someone from “outside” would view it.

People tend to be much more objective in their assessment of “other faiths” and fail to understand their subjective confirmation biases when assessing their own faith.
It kind of the whole point of “the outsiders test of faith”.

By "assuming" I mean, assuming it can be true, rather than, starting with the position that, "I already know it is definitely false"

There, in my opinion, is your first mistake.
Why make either assumption?

Why assume it can be true before any objective evidence indicates that it may be?
Why claim to “know it is definitely false”?
Wouldn’t the better alternative, be to not assume either until such time as some objective evidence comes along to determine if one or the other is likely true?

I have considered these questions. Then after investigating without bias, i came to conclusion that the Bahai Faith is true.

Without objective evidence otherwise, how did you determine your own question of…..

Maybe you were brainwashed, how do you know?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

That's because Truth is a living Truth.
Cosider Tuesday vs Wednesday. Things that happen on Tuesday are different than things happening on Wednesday. So if you compare them, according to the conditions of the time, Tuesday and Wednesday are different. But, Tuesday and Wednesday are the same, as both are a Day. Both started by the Sunrise and ended with Sunset. So, both of them are "Day" and the same.
Religion is a living Truth, not a dead truth.

I doubt you realize how your analogy actually works against your idea.

Sort of the same questions I had to your OP.
Why stop there?
Why start there?
If you are going to compare things according to the conditions of time why start at sunrise and end at sunset?
What happened to everything at night.
What happens at another location on earth where it’s Wednesday for you and Tuesday for there?
All of which is merely manmade systems (similar to religions) to understand local conditions of a far greater whole concerning the rotation of the earth, where neither Tuesday (at one location) nor Wednesday (at another location) are special in any way.

 

[Ebionite]

John 11:49-51 doesn't refer to a crucifixion, which is the symbol and basis of your false gospel.

You don't think that the idea that Yeshua should die for the nation has anything to do with the crucifixion?

And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
John 11:49-51

 

[Ebionite]

The “observer” is not associated with a conscious being

Wigner and von Neumann argued that consciousness led to collapse of the wavefunction.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Wigner and von Neumann argued that consciousness led to collapse of the wavefunction.

You mean the argument that never gained acceptance among physicists and Wigner himself rejected later?

Still haven’t answered my question.

 

[Ebionite]

You mean the argument that never gained acceptance among physicists and Wigner himself rejected later?

Science is based on the assumption that there objective observers exist, so it can't accept that experiments exist that show that consciousness can directly affect physical systems.

https://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Consciousness-and-the-double-slit-interference-pattern-Six-experiments.pdf