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

[Tiberius]

No, her logic is also invalid and incorrect. But all epistemological rationalism fails in the end. The world is neither logical nor illogical. Logic is a process in brains and computers and no a fundamental feature of the world.

I know her logic is invalid and incorrect. I was trying to show her that by presenting a different example with the same logic that she would claim is incorrect.

Although I do disagree with you about the world not being logical. Can you show anything in the real world that is illogical?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know her logic is invalid and incorrect. I was trying to show her that by presenting a different example with the same logic that she would claim is incorrect.

Although I do disagree with you about the world not being logical. Can you show anything in the real world that is illogical?

No, I but can show the limit of logic. Logical, illogical and not logical are the 3 relevant cases.
The real world is neither logical or illogical. It is not logical as the logic has a limit.
Do you want me to go on or do you already know this?

 

[Tiberius]

Baha'u'llah and His Mission is the evidence that God exists.

“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

No, that's the claim, not the evidence.

Just because Trumpsters believe he won with no evidence that does not mean I believe in Baha'u'llah with no evidence. To say that would be to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization.

I'm not talking about you believing that Mr B existed. Hell, even I believe he existed, and I'm not even a Baha'i!

I'm talking about you believing that Mr B's claim of God is accurate. You have no actual evidence for that. You just have your belief that Mr B was right.

Yes, it can be both, just like what you believe about Baha'u'llah NOT being a Messenger of God is also your opinion.

As long as you agree that it's a belief.

Even if people have facts people believe the facts and have opinions about the facts. The point is not to be swayed by emotions.

Irrelevant. That does not change the facts. I'm not claiming that a person's opinion about a fact is objective.

What I believe about the Baha'i Faith can shown to be real by presenting facts and evidence from the real world, instead of having to rely on emotional appeals.[/quote]

But that's exactly what you do. That's why it's called faith, after all. I agree that there is evidence for some of the things Baha'i faith teaches, but that does not mean that God is real. There is evidence, after all, for some of the things Star Trek says, but that doesn't make Klingons real.

People will have different opinions about those facts because no two people think and process information the same way.

Irrelevant. It is an objective fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is 299792458 meters per second. That does not turn out different for different people just because they think and process information differently.

It would be completely illogical to say that if the Baha'i Faith was true, everyone would view that evidence the same way and come to that conclusion.

Why would that be illogical. When we look at anything that is objectively true, such as my previous example of the speed of light, everyone DOES view the evidence the same way and they DO all come to the same conclusion.

However, that does not mean that the Baha'i Faith is not true.

You are correct in that it does not, by itself, show that Baha'i is untrue. However, it is entirely consistent with Baha'i being untrue.

 

[Tiberius]

By believing that those claims as true, I have taken on no burden of proof.

So you say you have never presented those claims to anyone as true?

Because I've seen you present them lots of times.

 

[Tiberius]

No, I but can show the limit of logic. Logical, illogical and not logical are the 3 relevant cases.
The real world is neither logical or illogical. It is not logical as the logic has a limit.
Do you want me to go on or do you already know this?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. An example would be extremely helpful, which I have already asked for.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. An example would be extremely helpful, which I have already asked for.

Okay.
It is about the law of non-contradiction. For P any case of P is either at given limited time, space or sense or for several cases as relevant you can reduce away time and space and look for the same sense.
The problem is that there is no sets of only same sense(s) for all cases of sense(s).
"... contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time."
So if I can act differently in a different sense for a different time and space, it is not a contradiction if you act differently for another time, space and sense.
That can be tested. It is simple. Can we both do something differently and get away with it in both case for different times, space and sense?

So here are 2 answers for that question:
You answer: No or yes.
And I answer with the other one.
It is that simple.

That is in part what is always going on. Remove different time and space and only focus on one sense. Here is an absurd version:
I am me and since you are not me, you are wrong, because you are in the wrong sense. The joke is that it works in both directions for its psychology, but doesn't work in practice. We are still both here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God is infallible so God cannot make mistakes so God cannot set up a faulty system.
Humans are fallible so humans make mistakes so humans are to blame for everything that happens in this system.
That is logic 101.

That's just a cop out explanation. Also, it doesn't fit with what you've just described about this God creating a faulty system in the first place. Infallible beings don't mess up, by definition.

That's not logic. What's logical is that the being who created the faulty system in the first place - knowing full well how everything would play out - is the one responsible for it. The buck stops there.
If someone created a computer program that didn't work properly, it's not the user's fault that it keeps messing up. It's the creator's fault.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you have a point to make? General Religious Debates is not a place to discuss Covid.

There is a place on this forum to discuss Covid-related issues: COVID-19

Yes, the point was that VAERS isn't a good source for good data on vaccines. The point was for you to read the CDC's disclaimer. You mentioned it, so I thought I'd address it because it you seemed to have an inaccurate view of what VAERS is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But some people only have physical eyes and ears so they cannot see or hear spiritual things.

And some people like to just declare that "spiritual" things exist without presenting any good evidence for them.

 

[Muffled]

There was nothing illogical about his statement and more rambling on your part also supports that your logical reasoning abilities may need some help. By the way were you serious about Bridey Murphy being "evidence" of reincarnation?

Bridey Murphy is scientific. Isn't that what is considered a good source for evidence?

 

[Muffled]

That entirely misses the point. If I claim that things falling to the ground are evidence of invisible 'gravity' elves that pull them down, then, by your 'logic', this is correct because all the other (more sane) ideas do not rule out the elves.


So where is the evidence of this? Where is the objective fact that I can check?

There are scientific ideas about gravity but none have been proven yet as far as I know. So an elven idea is as good as any when speculating about the unknown. However when one investigates elves one does not see a great deal of power so I would consider the odds of that idea to be less. My theory is that gravity is a larger form of magnetism.

I believe I am the evidence of God you can check.

 

[Muffled]

Please cite any verses in the Bible that support a belief in reincarnation.

Mat 19:28 “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold3 and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

I believe a resurrection is a reincarnation.

 

[ratiocinator]

There are scientific ideas about gravity but none have been proven yet as far as I know. So an elven idea is as good as any when speculating about the unknown. However when one investigates elves one does not see a great deal of power so I would consider the odds of that idea to be less. My theory is that gravity is a larger form of magnetism.

From which I conclude that you appear to be scientifically illiterate. Might explain why you don't understand what evidence is.

I believe I am the evidence of God you can check.

How do I check?

 

[Muffled]

Well, the response is to a Baha'i. They agree with you. They believe the Bible is truth but that not all of it is literal... or a lot of it. And, that it is not all correct. Funny, though, what is truth and what is correct is what they tell you is true and correct. A big thing that is not literal for them is the resurrection of Jesus.

And, Baha'is do believe in Hinduism and Buddhism, but they don't believe in reincarnation. So Baha'is have a non-literal interpretation about any verse that suggests that reincarnation is true.

I, personally, like the idea of a soul or spirit, which ever it is, coming back and experiencing life in a different body in a different situation.

I believe the Baha'is have a problem figuring out what is literal and what is not. The story of Lazarus and the beggar is not literal. It is a parable.

 

[Muffled]

From which I conclude that you appear to be scientifically illiterate. Might explain why you don't understand what evidence is.


How do I check?

I believe your assumption that I am scientifically illiterate reveals just what the word says when broken out.

I believe you check by asking what I am referring to.

 

[Muffled]

And some people like to just declare that "spiritual" things exist without presenting any good evidence for them.

I believe Jesus put this into perspective. We detect the spirit by what it does just as we detect the wind by what it does and one of my favorites we detect electricity by what that does.

 

[ratiocinator]

I believe your assumption that I am scientifically illiterate reveals just what the word says when broken out.

It wasn't an assumption, it was entirely based on what you said about gravity. You appeared to know nothing about science in general or theories of gravity in particular.

I believe you check by asking what I am referring to.

What are you referring to?

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe a resurrection is a reincarnation.

That would only be true if our body died and our soul then came back to this world to live in another body.
I do not believe that resurrection is the same thing as reincarnation. Below is an apt description of what I believe happens when we die and what resurrection means. It means continuation of life and entrance into eternal life in the spiritual world (heaven).

The Resuscitation of Man from the Dead and His Entrance into Eternal Life

421. When the body is no longer able to perform the bodily functions in the natural world that correspond to the spirit’s thoughts and affections, which the spirit has from the spiritual world, man is said to die. This takes place when the respiration of the lungs and the beatings of the heart cease. But the man does not die; he is merely separated from the bodily part that was of use to him in the world, while the man himself continues to live. It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life. Heaven and Hell, p. 351

 

[Tiberius]

Okay.
It is about the law of non-contradiction. For P any case of P is either at given limited time, space or sense or for several cases as relevant you can reduce away time and space and look for the same sense.
The problem is that there is no sets of only same sense(s) for all cases of sense(s).
"... contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time."
So if I can act differently in a different sense for a different time and space, it is not a contradiction if you act differently for another time, space and sense.
That can be tested. It is simple. Can we both do something differently and get away with it in both case for different times, space and sense?

So here are 2 answers for that question:
You answer: No or yes.
And I answer with the other one.
It is that simple.

That is in part what is always going on. Remove different time and space and only focus on one sense. Here is an absurd version:
I am me and since you are not me, you are wrong, because you are in the wrong sense. The joke is that it works in both directions for its psychology, but doesn't work in practice. We are still both here.

It's three o'clock in the morning here. Could you give me a specific example instead of a definition?

 

[Trailblazer]

It's three o'clock in the morning here. Could you give me a specific example instead of a definition?

I guess you live in Australia.
It is about 9 am here.