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

[Subduction Zone]

It was serious.

It is circular but it cannot be used to make a logical argument since the premise cannot be proven to be true, and since we cannot prove the premise is true we cannot know if the conclusion is true.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

However, just because the premise cannot be proven to everyone that does not mean the premise is not true. It could be either true or false.

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true

Your problem is that you cannot prove that God exists without the Messenger, because the Messenger is the only proof that God exists.

You are correct. Using a logical fallacy does not automatically make something wrong. But it does make a claim of "knowing" wrong. Mr. B may be a Messenger of God. No one has ever even tried to refute that in this thread. But he could also be just some regular Joe Schmoe that was handy with a pen. He is not evidence of your God. You would have to prove that he is a messenger of god to do that.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have not shown that at all. You have merely claimed it.

How can you prove that you are from Magic Island if you can't even prove that Magic Island exists in the first place?
Merely saying "Of course it exists, I am from it" is just more circular logic.

I said: "All I have to do is prove that the Messenger was sent by God and I have done so."

I do not claim it, I believe it.

I have not shown it to you or anyone else because that is not my job, but I have shown it to myself.

"How can you prove that you are from Magic Island if you can't even prove that Magic Island exists in the first place?"

The Messengers were sent to prove that God exists. that was not the only reason they were sent, but that is one reason. Who they were, what they did on their mission from God, and what they revealed in scriptures is the proof.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, my parents were just typical parents and the only mistake (a well-meaning one) that they made was to send me to a snobbish grammar school in town, whereas I would have preferred to have gone to the secondary modern school just down the road with my mates.
My 2 years at GS were the unhappiest of my life, the teachers were no good and the whole place was oppressive and Dickensian.
Eventually my parents realised it was having a bad effect on me and contacted the school; and the headmaster called me into his study and said the sweetest words I've ever heard- "I think you'd be happier at another school".
So I transferred to the bright and breezy sec mod and joined my mates..

Well you seem to have had the opposite experience to me, when I would have no doubt been better off at the grammar school (I had at least one mate who went there), and where according to any intelligence test I should have gone there. I might have failed the 11+ or just not enough places being available, but my attitude to exams hardly awakened until well after I left school, such that this did no doubt determine my later life somewhat. But such is life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said: "All I have to do is prove that the Messenger was sent by God and I have done so."

I do not claim it, I believe it.

I have not shown it to you or anyone else because that is not my job, but I have shown it to myself.

"How can you prove that you are from Magic Island if you can't even prove that Magic Island exists in the first place?"

The Messengers were sent to prove that God exists. that was not the only reason they were sent, but that is one reason. Who they were, what they did on their mission from God, and what they revealed in scriptures is the proof.

Correct. You only believe that Mr. B was a messenger of god. And that means that you can only have a belief in that god. You cannot know it. The basis of your belief is not based upon knowledge. Knowledge tends to build open existing knowledge. It cannot be based upon a belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

What if they were lying, or delusional?

It is our job to determine if they were or if they weren't. It is possible to determine that if we do proper research on the Messenger. The information is readily available for everyone to read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is our job to determine if they were or if they weren't. It is possible to determine that if we do proper research on the Messenger. The information is readily available for everyone to read.

And perhaps that means that one could claim that one has a reasonable belief. Unfortunately his works are sound more like babble than wisdom to me. They have been poorly translated into English. On purpose. That is not a good sign.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is our job to determine if they were or if they weren't. It is possible to determine that if we do proper research on the Messenger. The information is readily available for everyone to read.

The problem is that it really is not. Poor translations simply make the claims look false. Excessively poetic lines make it too open to translation. That it is not written in clear English can be taken as evidence against it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course you have claims. Many of them.
This is getting silly.

What is silly is calling beliefs claims. I have nothing to claim because I did not do anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is silly is calling beliefs claims. I have nothing to claim because I did not do anything.

All too often you have stated your beliefs as claims. Don't blame others for that.

 

[Trailblazer]

All too often you have stated your beliefs as claims. Don't blame others for that.

No, I never said I was claiming anything. Some of you just mistook my beliefs for a claim. Don't blame me for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I never said I was claiming anything. Some of you just mistook my beliefs for a claim. Don't blame me for that.

You don't have to say that you are claiming something. The way that you write things make them a claim. If you want to claim that you it was a claim you need a qualifier in your post. Without a qualifier it does become a claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

When did someone demonstrate that spirits exist?

Sorry, that's not demonstrable.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've read these about 12 times now, since you keep posting them over and over.
I still don't see any evidence there, just more claims.

Maybe you do not know what the definition of evidence is. There is plenty of evidence, according to the definitions of evidence.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘

Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you do not know what the definition of evidence is. There is plenty of evidence, according to the definitions of evidence.

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘

Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

An understanding based upon just a dictionary definition is going to be very shallow and as a result is likely to be wrong. Why don't you find a better source? Have you forgotten your failure using the dictionary definition of "knowledge" already?

 

[Trailblazer]

NO, people that call themselves "Messengers of God" exist. That does not mean that there are Messengers of God.

That is logically correct, but it also does not mean there are no Messengers of God. There might be Messengers of God or there might not be Messengers of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is logically correct, but it also does not mean there are no Messengers of God. There might be Messengers of God or there might not be Messengers of God.

And though you may not like it you were the one that kept claiming that Mr. B was a messenger of God. You did not include the needed qualifiers. That is where you took on a burden of proof but never supplied it. People kept pointing out the problems with your claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

If Baha'u'llahs writings are objective evidence of a God, why is this poem not also objective evidence for Santa?

Because Santa was not a Messenger of God.

But the people you are debating with do not hold that belief, and they are telling you why the God you propose exists has the same ontological status as anything else which it is claimed exists, but cannot be demonstrated.

It has been demonstrated, just not to your satisfaction.

I'm confused about where you see a god in all of this. I see a man and his words. Do the words reveal this God to you? If so, how?

I already believed that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God from extensive research before I read His words, but after I read His words that further confirmed what I believed and then I knew. That happened in June 2014.

Is it because you consider them wise beyond what a human being could write without the help of a deity? If not, why are you calling it objective evidence for God?

The Writings of Baha'u'llah are not the only evidence. Below is what He wrote about evidence and note that the Writings were the third piece of evidence we are enjoined to look at, if the first two pieces of evidence were insufficient.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

How do you propose to prove that a man was sent by a God that might not exist just by looking at the man or his words?

I don't propose to do that as that would be very foolish. I looked at ALL the evidence, not just His Writings.
Below is a list of the primary categories of evidence.

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities).
That can be determined by reading about Him in books such as the following:
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause).
That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies which is like icing on the cake. That proves to me he was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night

Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is more icing on the cake. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

 

[Trailblazer]

Messengers of God aren't known to exist either.
You're just asserting they do.
I believe magical pixies exist and I'm telling you I'm one of their Messengers.

Messengers of God have not been proven to everyone to exist and thus they are not known to everyone.
I am not asserting they exist, I believe they exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course you do and you've made plenty of them in this thread.
This is getting silly.

You've claimed repeatedly that there are Messengers of God, for example.

I never made any claims. You have taken what I have said about what I believe and in your mind that constitutes a claim.
I have SAID I believe there are Messengers of God, I never claimed that there are Messengers of God.

Now can we move on to discuss something that really matters?

 

[Trailblazer]

This doesn't make sense, as I noted in the post you're responding to. Responding with big blocks of text that don't address my point is pointless.

Predestination and free will contradict each other.

No, they do not contradict each other because some things are subject to free will and some things are not. the things that are not are the things that are predestined, things we have no control over. Let's say I go out and get in a car accident. I did not choose to have a car accident, that was just my fate. Or if I got cancer, I did not choose to get cancer, that was just my fate.

I hold God fully responsible for these bad things that happen to us over which we have no control ~~ But this is another subject and a complicated one.

But God is not responsible for our moral choices, we are responsible for them since we have free will to choose. Let's say I was mas enough at my husband to murder him. I can choose to murder him or not murder him.

This clarifies nothing and still doesn't make sense. And its contradictory.

What is contradictory about it?