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

[Subduction Zone]

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

It is? I looked into it and it seemed to have been debunked.

But since it is "scientific" please show me. Quote and link scientific sources that support your claims. But once again the one ones that were at all scientific that I saw explained how her story failed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Yes.
Person 1: I know that I am right and the correct thing to do is treat humans rights as based on Objectivism and not otherwise, thus you are wrong.
Person 2: I know that I am right and the correct thing to do is treat humans rights as based on Communism and not otherwise, thus you are wrong.

Since human rights are subjective or shared subjectively among several limited humans, there is no contradiction in that we humans as such have different understandings of human rights. Each case is at a given limited time, space and sense and the other cases are a different times, spaces and senses.
You can't use logic to show that other understandings of human rights are as such wrong. You can show that they are not objective, but if I believe in a different sense in them than you then you can't resolve that with logic.

Of course you could go reductive physicalist and objective reality on me and claim humans right are not real. But that won't stop me from believing in my subjective version of them and acting on it.
Notice I didn't claim that gravity and those similar cases are subjective. They are not. But everything is not objective nor logical. Some human behavior is subjective and not subject to logic in some cases. Other cases yes, then logic applies.

If you want to, we can agree that logic applies in that someyhing at the same time, space and sense can't be subjective and non-subjective or objective and non-objective and in that sense, yes. In that cases logic applies to all of the world. But you can't use logic to show of that 2 different subjective senses at different time and spaces, one of them are wrong.

So here is what you have been waiting for. In the cases of religion or other world views, then is nothing illogical in them as long as you know how methodological naturalism and logic works and you understand the limits of science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Or if you like how the objective part of the world works in practice.

I can be a believer and have faith as long as I don't confuse objective, subjective, evidence, opinion and how logic works.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

What I said just flew right over your head. Let's try this again.....

If God exists God is infallible so God cannot mess up.
We all know that humans are fallible and they mess up all the time.

You cannot make God in your image; rather, God made you in His image, so your logic is backwards.

It is only your ego that makes you think that you know more than God which is what you are saying whenever you say that God created a faulty system because in effect you are saying you could have created a 'better' system.

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.

God is only responsible for how He created the world, that is logic.

It is only your ego that says that the system is not working properly. In reality, the system is working as God designed it to work and that is the proper way because an all-knowing God knows more than you an ever know about system design.

Moreover, after design completion, God bears no responsibility for what humans do with the design because God was out of the game after creation. It is like God created a chessboard and we are chess pieces moving around on it by our own will. God does not interfere with how we play the game. God allows us to mess up if we choose to mess up and lose the game.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

What do you think would be evidence for spiritual things? Where would we obtain such evidence?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Great so how do we detect spirits and how do we know that Jesus actually said anything?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What I said just flew right over your head. Let's try this again.....

It actually flew into my head and stuck there as another contradictory claim that you've made.

If God exists God is infallible so God cannot mess up.
We all know that humans are fallible and they mess up all the time.

But this God did mess up, as you've explained. He created a system that is faulty from the get-go. That's a mess up.
Humans didn't create the system. God did (supposedly).

You cannot make God in your image; rather, God made you in His image, so your logic is backwards.

So this God (supposedly) made us along with this whole faulty system. Humans didn't make up this system whereby we are doomed to fail. That was (supposedly) God.

It is only your ego that makes you think that you know more than God which is what you are saying whenever you say that God created a faulty system because in effect you are saying you could have created a 'better' system.

Um nope, I don't believe in God.

I'm purely going on the words and arguments you are making here, as there is no God around to discuss anything with. YOU pointed out how this God made a faulty system whereby human beings were doomed to fail.

God is only responsible for how He created the world, that is logic.

Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about when I reference the "faulty system" we find ourselves in. So you agree with me. Great!

It is only your ego that says that the system is not working properly. In reality, the system is working as God designed it to work and that is the proper way because an all-knowing God knows more than you an ever know about system design.

Please stop trying to dump the failures in your arguments on me with all these silly claims about my ego. It seems it is your ego getting in the way here.

If the system is working as "God designed it to work" and the system is faulty, then it is God's fault that the system is faulty. This God could have created a system that wasn't faulty, but didn't, apparently. An all-knowing God would know that the system he was designing would be faulty in the long-run, and yet still went ahead and designed the system that way.

Moreover, after design completion, God bears no responsibility for what humans do with the design because God was out of the game after creation. It is like God created a chessboard and we are chess pieces moving around on it by our own will. God does not interfere with how we play the game. God allows us to mess up if we choose to mess up and lose the game.

Nonsense. This God designed this faulty system knowing full well how it would play out, since as you say, "He" knows all. Even if "He" just created the system and took off forever afterwards, "He" is still responsible for creating the system. "He" messed up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What do you think would be evidence for spiritual things? Where would we obtain such evidence?

I have no idea since it's not my claim, nor my burden of proof. I don't even know what "spiritual things" is supposed to mean, exactly.

I don't actually see any evidence for the spiritual things you are talking about, hence the reason I don't accept the claims. I'm also not the one claiming that I know that "spiritual things" exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet your are unable to tell us how.

I have told you and others how many many times when I posted the following.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“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

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

Actually, you've made endless claims, not least about what is 'logical' and what isn't.

I have never said that anything is logical or illogical without explaining why.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.https://www.google.com/search

I keep trying but you don't seem to get it. There is no third category called 'chosen' that exists in addition to determinism and randomness. Choice happens at a much higher level than I'm talking about. The same logic about determinism applies to the human mind as it does to anything else that varies over time; it must either be a deterministic system or not be a deterministic system (and hence involve randomness).

When you assert that it must be either a deterministic system or a random system and there are no other possibilities that is the all or nothing fallacy.

all or nothing fallacy. Definition: When an inference is made based on two options (many times extreme) are given as if they were the only ones when other options exist (which are many times more probable than the two presented), then the resulting error in reasoning is known as the all or nothing fallacy.

Accident, ad hominem, all or nothing, equivocation and ...

It is also the black or white fallacy because you presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

If everything (including minds) is deterministic, then a creator god would have chosen everything (including human choices) at creation (unless it later intervened), otherwise, any variation from determinism is random, which doesn't help with free will or human responsibility.

You are making 'assumptions' with facts not in evidence. You are assuming that everything is either deterministic or random and you are also assuming that if it is deterministic than a creator God would have determined what our choices would be.

Deterministic: relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=deterministic+means

Firstly, there is no reason to think that only two options exist, determinism or randomness; and secondly even if some things are predetermined (by our heredity or past experiences or by God), that does not mean all things are predetermined; and thirdly, you are assuming that God would have chosen everything including human choices.

The fly in the ointment is that God created humans with free will with the intention of delegating choice to humans. As I said before there are some things that happen to us that are not by choice, such as accidents and injuries and diseases, and things other people do to us because they also have choices that affect us, such as a rape or a murder, but aside from those we have free will to make choices, given what is available to us and what our means and capacities are. We cannot choose anything we might want to choose; for example, I cannot just fly to Europe tomorrow just because I want to, but I can make moral choices. If that was not the case nobody could ever be held accountable in a court of law. The entire justice system is predicated upon free will so it is undeniable that humans can choose between right and wrong.

I suggest that you read this article: Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System

We effectively have free will, from a human point of view, in the compatibilist sense because our choices do reflect who we are, but who we are is the result (as you said) of nature, nurture, and a life of experience, and from a god's point of view, that is all its doing.

There is some truth to what you just said. We cannot choose our parents so we cannot choose what we inherit and what our childhood will be like. That is our predetermined fate for which God is responsible. Have you ever heard the saying "to those who much has been given much is expected?" We are only responsible for what we have been given.

We are only responsible for what we have the capacity for and the knowledge of. As example of capacity, given my childhood, I did not have the emotional capacity to have children and I knew that so I didn't have any. However, given my heredity I had the capacity for higher education so I spent much of my early and middle adulthood attending various colleges and acquiring several degrees. As an example or being responsible for what we know, God does not hold us accountable for believing in Baha'u'llah if we never heard of Him, but God does hold us accountable for living according to the Golden Rule, since everyone has heard of Jesus.

The greater the effort exerted to use what we have been given the more successful we will be in utilizing the capacity and knowledge that we have. We cannot blame God for not using what we have been given even if we can be unhappy with God for not giving us what we could have been given.

“From the exalted source, and out of the essence of His favor and bounty He hath entrusted every created thing with a sign of His knowledge, so that none of His creatures may be deprived of its share in expressing, each according to its capacity and rank, this knowledge. This sign is the mirror of His beauty in the world of creation. The greater the effort exerted for the refinement of this sublime and noble mirror, the more faithfully will it be made to reflect the glory of the names and attributes of God, and reveal the wonders of His signs and knowledge. Every created thing will be enabled (so great is this reflecting power) to reveal the potentialities of its pre-ordained station, will recognize its capacity and limitations, and will testify to the truth that “He, verily, is God; there is none other God besides Him.”… Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 262

It is also true that everything has been preordained by God but what has been preordained can only be played out in this world as the result of our own will which leads to our actions.

“And now, concerning thy question regarding the creation of man. Know thou that all men have been created in the nature made by God, the Guardian, the Self-Subsisting. Unto each one hath been prescribed a pre-ordained measure, as decreed in God’s mighty and guarded Tablets. All that which ye potentially possess can, however, be manifested only as a result of your own volition. Your own acts testify to this truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 149

 

[ratiocinator]

I have told you and others how many many times when I posted the following.

None of which is even evidence of the truth of his claims, let alone proof.

When you assert that it must be either a deterministic system or a random system and there are no other possibilities that is the all or nothing fallacy.

No, you misunderstood. It can easily be a mixture (obviously the world isn't entirely random), however, to the extent some event is not entirely the inevitable result of previous events (determinism), it must involve randomness.

This is easy enough to see; if you consider all the things that could possibly determine or influence an event or choice (and I don't mean that this is a practical thing to do, I mean in principle), and they do not fully determine the outcome, then there is nothing left that can possibly determine between the remaining possible outcomes, so the final choice between the possible outcomes must be for no reason, and something that happens for no reason must be random.

It's even in the definition of a deterministic system; "...a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What I said just flew right over your head. Let's try this again.....

If God exists God is infallible so God cannot mess up.
...

If God exists
Therefore/then God is infallible.

That is not given that if God exists, then God is infallible.

You are defining God in your brain and even that has some limits. Read Rene Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy.
The answer is that you have to have faith in that God is good and all the rest. You can't prove what God is in your brain and you can't use your external senses. Off course his answer is faith, in that God is what makes the world real. He can't prove it. He simply takes for granted that God is good.
But you can't prove that God is good, because you are not the mind of God. If there is a God, then you are a result of God but only if. And that if can't be proven, rather it is an act of faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

But this God did mess up, as you've explained. He created a system that is faulty from the get-go. That's a mess up.
Humans didn't create the system. God did (supposedly).

So this God (supposedly) made us along with this whole faulty system. Humans didn't make up this system whereby we are doomed to fail. That was (supposedly) God.

God did create us and the system, but there is no reason to think the system is faulty.

Where you make your mistake, as humans do, us in assuming that humans are doomed to fail. Humans are not doomed to fail; they fail because they follow their own egos instead of following the teachings of the Messengers of God.

Um nope, I don't believe in God.

I'm purely going on the words and arguments you are making here, as there is no God around to discuss anything with. YOU pointed out how this God made a faulty system whereby human beings were doomed to fail.

I did not point out how this God made a faulty system whereby human beings were doomed to fail. That is coming from your own ego -- "God failed because *I* do not like what *I* see."

NOTHING could be more illogical than a God failing since God is INFALLIBLE.

God gave humans everything that we need in order to succeed but when humans reject God's Messengers they are bound to fail and they can't justly blame God for that since we all have free will to choose.

Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about when I reference the "faulty system" we find ourselves in. So you agree with me. Great!

You keep saying the system is faulty.... What do you think is faulty about the system?

Please stop trying to dump the failures in your arguments on me with all these silly claims about my ego. It seems it is your ego getting in the way here.

If the system is working as "God designed it to work" and the system is faulty, then it is God's fault that the system is faulty. This God could have created a system that wasn't faulty, but didn't, apparently. An all-knowing God would know that the system he was designing would be faulty in the long-run, and yet still went ahead and designed the system that way.

You are ignorant of how the system is designed to work. I already explained that regarding the chess board and pieces moving around. It is not my ego because I am just explaining how the system is designed to work.

Nonsense. This God designed this faulty system knowing full well how it would play out, since as you say, "He" knows all. Even if "He" just created the system and took off forever afterwards, "He" is still responsible for creating the system. "He" messed up.

God's knowledge does not cause anything to happen in this world. Humans have free will and humans act on their will and thereby cause things to happen so humans are FULLY responsible for what happens in this world. This is logic 101.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

“Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?

Answer.—The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God.......

Therefore, the knowledge of God in the realm of contingency does not produce the forms of the things. On the contrary, it is purified from the past, present and future. It is identical with the reality of the things; it is not the cause of their occurrence........

The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Surely this discovery does not cause the eclipse to take place. This is, of course, only an analogy and not an exact image.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 138-139

 

[Trailblazer]

I have no idea since it's not my claim, nor my burden of proof. I don't even know what "spiritual things" is supposed to mean, exactly.

It is not my claim either, it is just my belief, so I have no burden of proof.

I don't actually see any evidence for the spiritual things you are talking about, hence the reason I don't accept the claims. I'm also not the one claiming that I know that "spiritual things" exist.

You cannot find evidence for spiritual things unless you look in the right places. As soon as you reject religion you close the door.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But you can't prove that God is good, because you are not the mind of God. If there is a God, then you are a result of God but only if. And that if can't be proven, rather it is an act of faith.

The human mind can not know God, the human mind can see proof of God, as the only way we can know of God, is via God's given Manifestation.

Thus the proof that God is good, is the Manifestation and that is what I see Trailblazer has offered in this post many times.

It is their person, their life and the given Message that is the proof that God is Good and the proof of God.

So it is logical, if we do not look at and accept that is the proof of God, then we can not know of God and that God is Good.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The human mind can not know God, the human mind can see proof of God, as the only way we can know of God, is via God's given Manifestation.

Thus the proof that God is good, is the Manifestation and that is what I see Trailblazer has offered in this post many times.

It is their person, their life and the given Message that is the proof that God is Good and the proof of God.

So it is logical, if we do not look at and accept that is the proof of God, then we can not know of God and that God is Good.

Regards Tony

You don't see it as see. You think/feel it. Show me a cat is not the same as show me your thoughts on God. You are conflating two usages of see, that are not the same.
I accept your belief, but I can't see God. If I had faith in God, I could only feel and think of it.

 

[Tiberius]

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

Yup, Sydney.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You don't see it as see. You think/feel it. Show me a cat is not the same as show me your thoughts on God. You are conflating two usages of see, that are not the same.
I accept your belief, but I can't see God. If I had faith in God, I could only feel and think of it.

Yes and only to the capacity we have seen it in the Messenger.

That is also why we look in all people for all good is from God and we are told we are created in that image, the Image of the Manifestation.

Regards Tony

 

[Tiberius]

Yes.
Person 1: I know that I am right and the correct thing to do is treat humans rights as based on Objectivism and not otherwise, thus you are wrong.
Person 2: I know that I am right and the correct thing to do is treat humans rights as based on Communism and not otherwise, thus you are wrong.

Since human rights are subjective or shared subjectively among several limited humans, there is no contradiction in that we humans as such have different understandings of human rights. Each case is at a given limited time, space and sense and the other cases are a different times, spaces and senses.
You can't use logic to show that other understandings of human rights are as such wrong. You can show that they are not objective, but if I believe in a different sense in them than you then you can't resolve that with logic.

Of course you could go reductive physicalist and objective reality on me and claim humans right are not real. But that won't stop me from believing in my subjective version of them and acting on it.
Notice I didn't claim that gravity and those similar cases are subjective. They are not. But everything is not objective nor logical. Some human behavior is subjective and not subject to logic in some cases. Other cases yes, then logic applies.

If you want to, we can agree that logic applies in that someyhing at the same time, space and sense can't be subjective and non-subjective or objective and non-objective and in that sense, yes. In that cases logic applies to all of the world. But you can't use logic to show of that 2 different subjective senses at different time and spaces, one of them are wrong.

So here is what you have been waiting for. In the cases of religion or other world views, then is nothing illogical in them as long as you know how methodological naturalism and logic works and you understand the limits of science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Or if you like how the objective part of the world works in practice.

I can be a believer and have faith as long as I don't confuse objective, subjective, evidence, opinion and how logic works.

I have no idea how we got to this.

I was simply saying that TB was using what I believed to be flawed logic. To demonstrate this, I used the same logical process to "prove" a claim that she would almost certainly disagree with.

And now we are here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes and only to the capacity we have seen it in the Messenger.

That is also why we look in all people for all good is from God and we are told we are created in that image, the Image of the Manifestation.

Regards Tony

Please keep me out of that "we". I accept that you believe in that "we". Can you accept that I don't?

 

[Trailblazer]

None of which is even evidence of the truth of his claims, let alone proof.

All of it is evidence for the truth of His claims. Why don't you think it is evidence? What do you think would be evidence of the truth of His claims?

No, you misunderstood. It can easily be a mixture (obviously the world isn't entirely random), however, to the extent some event is not entirely the inevitable result of previous events (determinism), it must involve randomness.

This is easy enough to see; if you consider all the things that could possibly determine or influence an event or choice (and I don't mean that this is a practical thing to do, I mean in principle), and they do not fully determine the outcome, then there is nothing left that can possibly determine between the remaining possible outcomes, so the final choice between the possible outcomes must be for no reason, and something that happens for no reason must be random.

How do you think that you can know that anything happens for no reason? if you consider all the things that could possibly determine or influence an event or choice and they do not fully determine the outcome, then what is left that can possibly determine between the remaining possible outcomes is fate. In other words, what was not determined by our choices or anything else we can think of must have been fated by God. Of course if you do not believe in God you are going to say it was random chance.

It's even in the definition of a deterministic system; "...a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system."

If I believed that everything that happens to us is predetermined by God than I would believe in predetermination and that all choices that humans make are really predetermined by God, but I do not believe that. I believe that our choices are determined by childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and past and present life circumstances, but what is not within our control and what we do not choose is what seems to happen at random, but it is really explained by fate and predestination.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no idea how we got to this.

I was simply saying that TB was using what I believed to be flawed logic. To demonstrate this, I used the same logical process to "prove" a claim that she would almost certainly disagree with.

And now we are here.

If something is illogical/not logical and the world is logic, where is the first ones and how do they exist?
Where is flawed logic, if the world is logical?