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

[Tiberius]

I have explained what I meant by that more than once. I am not making a formal logical argument with a premise and a conclusion because I can never prove that my premise is true.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

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

Of course, since I cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists. And that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

However, that does not mean it is not logical to believe that God exists, even if it cannot be proven as a fact. There are good reasons to believe that God exists and there is evidence that indicates that God exists therefore it is logical to conclude that God exists.

But that's still rather meaningless. It's like saying that if I can change shape into an eagle, then human metamorphosis into animals is possible. It may be valid logic, but tells us nothing of any actual value because it relies entirely on a very VERY large and unsupported IF. And you've come out and said that it never can be supported. So your entire position is unfalsifiable and thus is of no actual use at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

But that's still rather meaningless. It's like saying that if I can change shape into an eagle, then human metamorphosis into animals is possible. It may be valid logic, but tells us nothing of any actual value because it relies entirely on a very VERY large and unsupported IF.

The very large IF is why logical arguments cannot be used to prove that God exists. Even though the IF is supported with evidence it cannot be proven to be a fact.

And you've come out and said that it never can be supported. So your entire position is unfalsifiable and thus is of no actual use at all.

No, I never said it cannot be supported. It is supported with the evidence. It does not matter if it can never be proven false, because that does not mean it is not true. It only matters if it is true, and everyone has to determines that for themselves by looking at the evidence....

Now that you understand why logical arguments cannot be used to prove religious beliefs are true we are right back to square one with what I said about evidence and the capacity everyone has to recognize it.

 

[Trailblazer]

]If you have to go looking, especially in what looks like just another superstition, then they are hidden.

I don't know what you mean by superstition but you cannot know if it is superstition unless you look at it.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

That's kind of the point. So does every other religious person, leaving the rest of us with no reason to take any of them seriously.

Why would the fact that all religious people adhere to their own religion lead you to not take any religion seriously? That could mean all religions are true, or that some are truer than others, or that some religions are false, but it does not mean all religions are false. It is not logical to conclude that no religions are true even if some religions are false. That would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.

I said it's "not clearly a message from a real god", I did not say "it's not a message from a real god". There is no prima facie reason to believe it is. The world is full of messages that claim to be from a real god, and the burden of proof is on those who propose that they are. Not that that's relevant to the point that there is no obvious and clear message from any god(s).

Again, that would be the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because the world is full of messages that claim to be from a real God that are not from the real God, that means that there are no messages from the real God in the world. There may or may not be any messages from the real God, but it you never look you will never know.

The burden of proof is on the Messenger who made the claim to bring a message from God, the burden is not on the believers who believe in the Messenger. All we can do is tell you what he claimed and what the evidence is that supports His claim but you have to look at the evidence for yourself, not take my word for it.

That doesn't stop it being circular and hence fallacious. If the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, then the Great Green Arkleseizure exists.

It does not matter if it is circular and fallacious because that does not preclude it from being true. This is what you atheists miss in your obsession with circular reasoning. It could be true or false and you cannot assert that it is false unless you can prove it is false as that would be to commit an argument from ignorance.

Likewise, the Bible could be proof that God exists because If the bible is true then God exists. The problem with that argument is that we cannot prove the premise the bible is true so we cannot conclude that God exists based upon the bible being true. How could we ever prove that the bible is true?

It is easier to prove that the Baha'i Faith is true because there is more evidence and it exists in contemporary history so it is verifiable whereas we have no such evidence for the bible and we don't even know how much of it is historically accurate. Most historians agree that Jesus existed and the He was crucified but that is all they agree on. Certainly the story of Adam and Eve cannot be verified as historical, nor can Noah's flood or Exodus or other bible stories be verified. By stark contrast, the history of the Baha'i Faith is well-documented by people who lived during the lifetime of Baha'u'llah.

It makes more sense to approach it this way -- (a) If the Bahai Faith is a true religion then God exists -- than to approach it this way -- (b) If Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God then God exists. The obvious reason that (a) makes more sense is because the premise in (a) is easier to prove than the premise in (b). Then once one has proven to themselves that (a) is true, then they can go on to investigate Baha'u'llah. By the way, this is how I went about my investigation, I read about the Baha'i Faith with no thought as to whether Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or God existed. I other words, I looked at the fruits of the tree \rather than the tree.

What you're still not getting is that either reality is deterministic (in which case all these things and the resulting choice were effectively decided at creation) or it isn't. This is a yes/no question. If it isn't, then some things must happen for no reason and therefore be random. Randomness cannot give us freedom, nor can we be responsible for it.

Human choices are not decided at creation but rather they unfold throughout our lives, so the answer is no. Some things are not chosen, they seem to happen for no 'apparent' reason. I do not believe we are responsible for these things because we did not choose them. As an atheist you might think they are just random occurrences that happen for no reason at all, but I attribute them to fate and believe God is responsible for our fate. We are only responsible for our own choices.

I've given you reasoning. You haven't even tried to address it, you've just kept on making the same baseless assertion. I suggest that you need to try to understand.

I think we were talking past each other because I was making assumptions about what you I thought you were saying that were not true. I think I understand what you are saying now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know what you mean by superstition but you cannot know if it is superstition unless you look at it.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

Why would the fact that all religious people adhere to their own religion lead you to not take any religion seriously? That could mean all religions are true, or that some are truer than others, or that some religions are false, but it does not mean all religions are false. It is not logical to conclude that no religions are true even if some religions are false. That would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Again, that would be the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because the world is full of messages that claim to be from a real God that are not from the real God, that means that there are no messages from the real God in the world. There may or may not be any messages from the real God, but it you never look you will never know.

The burden of proof is on the Messenger who made the claim to bring a message from God, the burden is not on the believers who believe in the Messenger. All we can do is tell you what he claimed and what the evidence is that supports His claim but you have to look at the evidence for yourself, not take my word for it.

It does not matter if it is circular and fallacious because that does not preclude it from being true. This is what you atheists miss in your obsession with circular reasoning. It could be true or false and you cannot assert that it is false unless you can prove it is false as that would be to commit an argument from ignorance.

Likewise, the Bible could be proof that God exists because If the bible is true then God exists. The problem with that argument is that we cannot prove the premise the bible is true so we cannot conclude that God exists based upon the bible being true. How could we ever prove that the bible is true?

It is easier to prove that the Baha'i Faith is true because there is more evidence and it exists in contemporary history so it is verifiable whereas we have no such evidence for the bible and we don't even know how much of it is historically accurate. Most historians agree that Jesus existed and the He was crucified but that is all they agree on. Certainly the story of Adam and Eve cannot be verified as historical, nor can Noah's flood or Exodus or other bible stories be verified. By stark contrast, the history of the Baha'i Faith is well-documented by people who lived during the lifetime of Baha'u'llah.

It makes more sense to approach it this way -- (a) If the Bahai Faith is a true religion then God exists -- than to approach it this way -- (b) If Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God then God exists. The obvious reason that (a) makes more sense is because the premise in (a) is easier to prove than the premise in (b). Then once one has proven to themselves that (a) is true, then they can go on to investigate Baha'u'llah. By the way, this is how I went about my investigation, I read about the Baha'i Faith with no thought as to whether Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or God existed. I other words, I looked at the fruits of the tree \rather than the tree.

Human choices are not decided at creation but rather they unfold throughout our lives, so the answer is no. Some things are not chosen, they seem to happen for no 'apparent' reason. I do not believe we are responsible for these things because we did not choose them. As an atheist you might think they are just random occurrences that happen for no reason at all, but I attribute them to fate and believe God is responsible for our fate. We are only responsible for our own choices.

I think we were talking past each other because I was making assumptions about what you I thought you were saying that were not true. I think I understand what you are saying now.

Do you remember how I told you that you do not understand what a logical fallacy is? You just demonstrated it again.

A logical fallacy does not mean that the claim is false. One can use a logical fallacy and by luck have the right answer. What it means is that your argument is not valid. It does not lead to that conclusion due to a flaw in the logic.

Do you understand? Once again when an argument is logically fallacious it does not mean that one is automatically wrong. Odds are fairly high that one is wrong, but it does not mean that was the case.

I used to do really well in college science classes. In a chemistry final I had one question marked wrong that confused me because I had the right answer. The prof showed me where I screwed up and I saw it immediately. I was willing to let it go there. But he could see that I did at least at that point understand the problem so he ended up giving me full credit for it. He was more concerned that students learn than get the "right answer" on the test. You may be correct. But you are not showing that at all with the arguments that you are using.

 

[Tiberius]

The very large IF is why logical arguments cannot be used to prove that God exists. Even though the IF is supported with evidence it cannot be proven to be a fact.

Then your argument, even if the logic is internally consistent, proves nothing and there's no way you can use it as the basis for a view of the real world.

No, I never said it cannot be supported. It is supported with the evidence. It does not matter if it can never be proven false, because that does not mean it is not true. It only matters if it is true, and everyone has to determines that for themselves by looking at the evidence....

Now that you understand why logical arguments cannot be used to prove religious beliefs are true we are right back to square one with what I said about evidence and the capacity everyone has to recognize it.

Again, you seem to be going back and forth between two different and opposite positions. If your position is based on an IF that can never be shown, then you don't have evidence. Going back to my "I can change shape into an eagle" comparison, that's like you asking for proof that I can turn into an eagle and I show you an eagle, saying, "I have proven that I exist, and now I have proven that eagles exist. That is evidence that I can turn into an eagle. But I can never provide proof, because that has to be determined by each person looking at the evidence."

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you remember how I told you that you do not understand what a logical fallacy is? You just demonstrated it again.

A logical fallacy does not mean that the claim is false. One can use a logical fallacy and by luck have the right answer. What it means is that your argument is not valid. It does not lead to that conclusion due to a flaw in the logic.

Do you understand? Once again when an argument is logically fallacious it does not mean that one is automatically wrong. Odds are fairly high that one is wrong, but it does not mean that was the case.

I used to do really well in college science classes. In a chemistry final I had one question marked wrong that confused me because I had the right answer. The prof showed me where I screwed up and I saw it immediately. I was willing to let it go there. But he could see that I did at least at that point understand the problem so he ended up giving me full credit for it. He was more concerned that students learn than get the "right answer" on the test. You may be correct. But you are not showing that at all with the arguments that you are using.

I do know what a logical fallacy is. As I said and as you said, when an argument is logically fallacious it does not mean that one is automatically wrong. So we are on the same page.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do know what a logical fallacy is. As I said and as you said, when an argument is logically fallacious it does not mean that one is automatically wrong. So we are on the same page.

You have used logical fallacies in quite a few of your arguments here.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then your argument, even if the logic is internally consistent, proves nothing and there's no way you can use it as the basis for a view of the real world.

I don't know what you mean by "use it as the basis for a view of the real world." Use what argument as a basis for a view of the real world? What do you mane by the real world?

Again, you seem to be going back and forth between two different and opposite positions. If your position is based on an IF that can never be shown, then you don't have evidence. Going back to my "I can change shape into an eagle" comparison, that's like you asking for proof that I can turn into an eagle and I show you an eagle, saying, "I have proven that I exist, and now I have proven that eagles exist. That is evidence that I can turn into an eagle. But I can never provide proof, because that has to be determined by each person looking at the evidence."

My position is based on an IF that can never be shown as a fact that everyone will accept as true, but I do have evidence that demonstrates to me that it is true.

I can never provide proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or that God exists, because that has to be determined by each person looking at the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have used logical fallacies in quite a few of your arguments here.

Such as?
If I am not making an argument how can I be using fallacies?

 

[Tiberius]

I don't know what you mean by "use it as the basis for a view of the real world." That is rather vague.

I thought it was quite clear. You can not assume your idea is an accurate description of reality (such as the claim that God exists) if it relies on an unsupported assumption.

My position is based on an IF that can never be shown as a fact that everyone will accept as true, but I do have evidence that demonstrates to me that it is true.

If you can't show it as a fact, then you have to admit that it's your opinion, and nothing else.

I can never provide proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or that God exists, because that has to be determined by each person looking at the evidenc

When something is actually objectively true, this doesn't happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Such as?
If I am not making an argument how can I be using fallacies?

Just look back as some of the times that people have pointed them out to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

I thought it was quite clear. You can not assume your idea is an accurate description of reality (such as the claim that God exists) if it relies on an unsupported assumption.

A belief that is backed up with evidence is not the same as an unsupported assumption.
I believe it is an accurate description of reality but I do not claim that because I cannot prove it.

If you can't show it as a fact, then you have to admit that it's your opinion, and nothing else.

Beliefs are not the same as personal opinions. It is my belief and nothing else, not my opinion and nothing else.

When something is actually objectively true, this doesn't happen.

What do you mean by objectively true?

 

[Trailblazer]

Just look back as some of the times that people have pointed them out to you.

Some people have pointed out circular reasoning, special pleading, and begging the question but I already responded to that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But that's still rather meaningless. It's like saying that if I can change shape into an eagle, then human metamorphosis into animals is possible. It may be valid logic, but tells us nothing of any actual value because it relies entirely on a very VERY large and unsupported IF. And you've come out and said that it never can be supported. So your entire position is unfalsifiable and thus is of no actual use at all.

Let do some basic logical analysis:

P1: your entire position is unfalsifiable
C: thus is of no actual use at all
That is not a valid deduction, so would you be so kind and add more Ps.

 

[ratiocinator]

I've dealt with most of your points before and am getting bored of going in circles...

It does not matter if it is circular and fallacious because that does not preclude it from being true. This is what you atheists miss in your obsession with circular reasoning. It could be true or false and you cannot assert that it is false unless you can prove it is false as that would be to commit an argument from ignorance.

Of course a fallacious argument doesn't mean that the conclusion is false, it just means that we haven't been given a reason to take it seriously. The burden of proof has not been met.

Human choices are not decided at creation but rather they unfold throughout our lives, so the answer is no. Some things are not chosen, they seem to happen for no 'apparent' reason. I do not believe we are responsible for these things because we did not choose them. As an atheist you might think they are just random occurrences that happen for no reason at all, but I attribute them to fate and believe God is responsible for our fate. We are only responsible for our own choices.

You still don't seem to have got the point. It's not about what's apparent or what we know of reasons, it's about whether we live in a deterministic reality or not. We don't know the answer to that question but it can only be yes or no. If you're saying no, then randomness is inevitable. Neither determinism nor randomness can create free will with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It all comes down to credentials, and Jesus's streed cred is off the scale, for example his arrival was foretold multiple times in the Old T-
"All things about me in the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44)

And people could see God's power flowing through him-
"..even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38)

"Come on out of there Lazarus mate"
View attachment 56329

Do you have anything to offer other than just preaching?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But I am not debating it or promoting it here, I am just responding to posts. It might seem like a debate to you but from my perspective it is not a debate since I am not trying to prove anything and I do not care if anyone take me seriously. For me it is just a discussion.

None of these are claims I made. I make no claims since I have nothing to claim. Baha'u'llah made the claims and I just pass along to you what He claimed.

No, that is not a claim, that is what I believe. -- "Baha'u'llah made claims and He supported His claims with evidence."
I have presented the evidence and I have explained that it is only evidence, not proof, because nobody can prove that a man is a Messenger of God as a fact, they can only prove that to themselves.

You are literally in a forum called "General Religious Debates."

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is nobody's fault.... Scriptures were conveyed differently back in the days of old, but it is all history now as this is a new Day of God.

Who cares how accurate it is? I don't care because it is history and as far as I am concerned God does not want us to be referring to it anymore.

“Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder.” Gleanings, p. 171-172

“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, p. 172

Since God sends updates in every new age, the most current is the most accurate.

Then it's God's fault for setting up such a faulty system to begin with.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Messenger system never failed because the messages were always delivered. What humans did with them AFTER that is not God's responsibility.

We don't even know how accurate the stories about the lives of some of those ancient "messengers" was, let alone their message. Because...

As I said before, the Bible is not the original message from any Messengers because it was not written by any Messengers of God. It was written by men who claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and since it came to us by way of oral tradition it cannot be exactly what any Messengers ever said. But that is the way God wanted it

Even you say it wasn't written by the "messenger". So even you say the message can't be exactly what the messenger said. So there is no "original" unflawed message, only the message written by the followers of the messenger.

What are the "messages" that got delivered? We don't know, because the messenger didn't write them down. His fault or God's fault?

So I ask who's fault is that? God's? You say no. The messenger then? He could have written them down but didn't. Almost like the stories are myths and legends about Gods and prophets. So then I say...

Ah, but there were oral traditions about the message and at some point those got written down. But who knows how accurate that is? And it must have been the way God wanted it?

Even you say they weren't necessarily accurate. So the message failed to get delivered accurately? Yes or no? I can't see how you can answer this with anything but a "no". The message did not get delivered accurately. And no matter what you think, all we have is the account written by people... which you say is inaccurate.

“Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder.” Gleanings, p. 171-172

“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, p. 172

Who's he talking about? Which "traditions" rest on no foundation? Is he talking about the flawed Scriptures that were written by people or the flawed commentaries and interpretations of those flawed Scriptures?

Then it's God's fault for setting up such a faulty system to begin with.

Where does the buck stop? It has to be with God. What did he tell the messenger, "Go tell the people this message, but don't write it down. I want them to write it down from memory to see how screwed up they can make it. That way I can blame them for not listening." Or, ancient people do what ancient people do and make up myths about the Gods.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just because other medical treatments also carry risks does not mean I want the risks of Covid vaccines and I am certainly not the only one who feels this way.

That is not science.

No I looked at the VAERS data.

How do you know any more than me, you are no scientist. You just take their word for it.
I do not claim to understand the vaccines and I don't put things into my body that I do not understand just because someone tells me it is "safe and effective" like a mantra.

That is meaningless vaguery, understand the science. You understand everything and I don't understand anything. What is that called? I know but you probably don't.

Of course I decided to believe it but that does not mean it was not evidence. take a course in logic.

I claimed nothing.

You did not do anything at all and you know it. You never even researches the Baha'i Faith so how could you put it to any test?

Conflating science and religion again and committing the fallacy of false equivalence.

No, the only reason anyone says that is because it is logic 101.
Conflating science and religion as if one can use the same method to prove them true is completely illogical.
But on on ahead, I don't care what you believe or disbelieve.

Did you not see the disclaimer the CDC has posted about VAERS data?

"VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to VAERS. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA's multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as "safety signals." If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine."
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Request

Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:

• Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause.
• Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
• The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
• VAERS data are limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available.
• VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.

VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.