Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Trailblazer]

So there's no objective evidence for the truth of your faith and the reality of your god (as I've been saying all along). It's not about how we view the evidence it's about what it is evidence for.

There is evidence for the truth of my faith and the reality of my God (as I've been saying all along).
Evidence is evidence regardless of how we view it.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is evidence for the truth of my faith and the reality of my God (as I've been saying all along).

Nonsense. It is evidence for your criteria and you have no objective connection between them and the truth of your faith and the reality of your god.

Evidence is evidence regardless of how we view it.

But it isn't evidence for the truth of your faith and the reality of your god, it's only evidence for your arbitrary and subjective criteria.

This isn't rocket science, a child could understand it. You can't claim that evidence for one thing is evidence for something else entirely just because you have some subjective and baseless opinion that the two things are connected.

 

[samtonga43]

And I made it abundantly clear why that was a bogus request and that I would not be fulfilling it.
Your claims of deflection were false. You made a bogus request. It was explained to you. You acted like a spoiled child that was denied candy and started making false claims.

And once again, when asked for evidence of these false claims ............. none is forthcoming. You are becoming very predictable, SZ.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And once again, when asked for evidence of these false claims ............. none is forthcoming. You are becoming very predictable, SZ.

Your posts are still there. It now appears that simple reasoning is beyond you. There was no deflection. That is a claim that you would have to prove. Again, your shtick appears to be shifting the burden of proof. You make a claim and then demand that others to show that you are wrong. It does not work that way and I am not playing your silly games. Find a claim of mine that needs support. So far you have failed at that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nonsense. It is evidence for your criteria and you have no objective connection between them and the truth of your faith and the reality of your god.

But it isn't evidence for the truth of your faith and the reality of your god, it's only evidence for your arbitrary and subjective criteria.

This isn't rocket science, a child could understand it. You can't claim that evidence for one thing is evidence for something else entirely just because you have some subjective and baseless opinion that the two things are connected.

What criteria? I never said it was evidence for my criteria, I said it is evidence that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God and that Baha'u'llah is evidence that there is a God since He was a Messenger of God. That is all I ever said.

Objective connection? What would you expect to see if God existed? How would we know?

 

[ratiocinator]

What criteria?

The ones you came up with an listed in #3179 and which we've been talking about since then. If you can't even remember what you yourself have been arguing about, then what's the point?

I never said it was evidence for my criteria, I said it is evidence that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God and that Baha'u'llah is evidence that there is a God since He was a Messenger of God.

But none of the evidence is evidence of this. All you've gone on about is evidence for those criteria.

You even admitted directly that you had no objective evidence for god (even if for a spurious reason):-

I know, atheists want objective evidence of God, but there can never be any such thing because nobody has ever seen God, not even the Messengers of God.

What would you expect to see if God existed? How would we know?

We've actually talked about this at great length before but it really isn't up to me to imagine the evidence. You have made a claim that there is a god so the burden of proof is clearly on you to come up with some reason to take your claim seriously. So far you have failed to do that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't believe a suffering Muslim equates to a Jewish Passover lamb. He most likely did not celebrate Passover.

Have you undertaken an honest and just search of the Bab to draw conclusion?

2 Timothy 2:15 "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

The ones you came up with an listed in #3179 and which we've been talking about since then. If you can't even remember what you yourself have been arguing about, then what's the point?

Yes, I remember that list of criteria. Those were the minimum criteria that would need to be satisfied for a true Messenger of God.

But none of the evidence is evidence of this. All you've gone on about is evidence for those criteria.

You even admitted directly that you had no objective evidence for god (even if for a spurious reason):-

According to my beliefs the Messengers of God are the evidence of God's existence because that is what God provides as evidence. The way we can determine if a man was a Messenger of God or not is by looking to see if He fulfilled the minimum criteria. That is a starting point in our investigation. A false messenger will not be able to meet the minimum criteria.

Spurious reason? There can never be objective evidence for God because God can never be known except through His Messengers. The ONLY objective evidence for God are the Messengers of God. The only way we can ever know that God exists is through the Messengers of God who come to represent God in this world.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

We've actually talked about this at great length before but it really isn't up to me to imagine the evidence. You have made a claim that there is a god so the burden of proof is clearly on you to come up with some reason to take your claim seriously. So far you have failed to do that.

I do not claim there is a God, I believe that there is a God. I believe that because Baha'u'llah claimed it.

Baha'u'llah and the other Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists and there can be no other evidence since God has provided no other evidence. You can take it or leave it, I don't care. You can think I am wrong, I don't care. All I have done is presented my position.

My position is as logical as the day is long because there would be NO other way for God to communicate to humans except by using a Messenger who is both human and divine. I have asked atheists for another way God could prove that He exists and they have never come up with anything that is the least bit logical.

At least try to understand the concept. God has conferred upon the Messengers of God a twofold nature that other humans do not possess. They are not only human, they are both human and divine, and that is why they can act as a go-between, a mediator between God and man.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

 

[samtonga43]

Your posts are still there. It now appears that simple reasoning is beyond you. There was no deflection. That is a claim that you would have to prove.

You could not (or as you said, "you could not be bothered to") provide evidence for your positive claim that you always see foolish tests proposed by theists.
So, as is your wont, you tried to save face by accusing me of not supporting my beliefs. That is called deflection.

 

[samtonga43]

Have you undertaken an honest and just search of the Bab to draw conclusion?
2 Timothy 2:15 "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."
Regards Tony

The assumption being that the Bab has the word of truth?
No, no. Jesus IS the Word of Truth.
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

 

[samtonga43]

There is evidence for the truth of my faith and the reality of my God (as I've been saying all along).
Evidence is evidence regardless of how we view it.

What criteria? I never said it was evidence for my criteria, I said it is evidence that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God and that Baha'u'llah is evidence that there is a God since He was a Messenger of God. That is all I ever said.

Circular reasoning as usual.

 

[samtonga43]

My position is as logical as the day is long because there would be NO other way for God to communicate to humans except by using a Messenger who is both human and divine.

MrB. is divine? How do you know?

 

[Trailblazer]

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

“Our purpose is to show that should the loved ones of God sanctify their hearts and their ears from the vain sayings that were uttered aforetime, and turn with their inmost souls to Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation, and to whatsoever things He hath manifested, such behavior would be regarded as highly meritorious in the sight of God…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 172

“No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 183

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The assumption being that the Bab has the word of truth?
No, no. Jesus IS the Word of Truth.
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

Then again, have you read what the Bab offered? A judgement made without pursuing the Bab's testimonials is what happened to Jesus.

You are repeating a Truth of Christ.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

You could not (or as you said, "you could not be bothered to") provide evidence for your positive claim that you always see foolish tests proposed by theists.
So, as is your wont, you tried to save face by accusing me of not supporting my beliefs. That is called deflection.

No, it is actually an informal challenge. This may be a reading comprehension problem. It points out that no one, at least never to my, has come up with a rational test. This is not a formal debate, it is merely a discussion. You used a bogus term in another thread and I asked what you meant by it. It appears to be a concept that creationists have used in the past but have never been able to support at all. That is something that needs to be supported. My post was more of a general observation. It would take only one rational test to refute my claim. You in effect asked me to provide a failed test. This was a poorly thought out demand. Now that it is beginning to sink in you are trying to change the argument.. Do you want me to quote you where you tell someone that their test is not valid? What good would that do? That would satisfy your demand.

 

[Tiberius]

It was evidence, the best evidence available, if people really want to believe in God.

The Surgeon's photograph was for a long time considered the best evidence if people wanted to believe in the Loch Ness monster.

Just because something is the best thing to support a particular point of view, doesn't mean that the particular point of view is valid.

 

[Tiberius]

There is evidence for the truth of my faith and the reality of my God (as I've been saying all along).
Evidence is evidence regardless of how we view it.

You seem to flip between the position that there is evidence for God and there is no evidence for God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was evidence, the best evidence available, if people really want to believe in God.

Oooh! I missed this line. This may be the root of your problem. People should not "want to believe in God". And also people should not "want to not believe in God". What people should be doing is searching for the truth whatever it is. If one cannot find reliable evidence for the existence of God that is not make it okay to accept poor quality evidence because one wants a specific belief.

When it comes to religion there are two main ways that we seem to become religions. I am sure that there are more. The first , by a longshot, is that we are born into the religion that we follow. If it was good enough for dear old Mom and Dad it is good enough for me. The second occurs to some when they leave their religion. They find a religion that appeals to them. personally. They will often be very forgiving to the errors of that religion as a result.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Surgeon's photograph was for a long time considered the best evidence if people wanted to believe in the Loch Ness monster.

Just because something is the best thing to support a particular point of view, doesn't mean that the particular point of view is valid.

That's right..... My mistake, I was on the run when I wrote that.

I said: It was evidence, the best evidence available, if people really want to believe in God.

What I should have said is "It was evidence, the only evidence available, if people really want to believe in God."

 

[Trailblazer]

You seem to flip between the position that there is evidence for God and there is no evidence for God.

No, my position has always been that there is evidence for God.