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

[Trailblazer]

So instead of being a circle joining two points, it's a circle joining three. It's still circular.

What I actually did in order to come to my beliefs is not circular in any way, as I just explained in the previous post.

If you continue to misrepresent my position you won't be hearing from me again. Your choice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what it means...

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

The circularity does not reduce the validity of these argument in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.

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 we can never prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then we can never assert the conclusion God exists is true based upon that premise, and that is why my circular argument is not a sound argument and that is why the Messenger of God cannot be used to try to prove that God exists in a logical argument.

However, that does not mean that the Messenger of God is not proof that God exists, it only means one has to be cautious because the argument is circular.

Close but definitely no cigar. An argument made with circular reasoning is not valid. It could be true, it could be false. There is no way to tell. That is why it is a failed argument.

What needs to be done is to test whether Baha is a messenger of God. And @Transmuting Soul proposed such a test, or at least implied it. The problem is that it does not look good for Baha.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Trailblazer , perhaps you have a problem with people pointing out when you continuously use logical fallacies because you think that they are claiming that you are wrong. They are not doing that. They are pointing out that you did not support your beliefs at all. When a person uses a logical fallacy it does not mean that what they are posting is wrong. It only means that the logic behind their post is incorrect so what they think that they proved was not proved at all. It is a nice way of telling you that you just wasted your time.

That is why so many are trying to you learn how to use rational arguments where the logic is at leash coherent. Baha could be a messenger of God, but you have not supported that idea at all.

 

[CG Didymus]

And you accept the evidence because you believe the Baha'i faith is true, and you believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because you think it is true and you think it is true because of the evidence and you accept the evidence because you believe the Baha'i faith is true, and you believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because you think it is true and you think it is true because of the evidence and you accept the evidence because you believe the Baha'i faith is true, and you believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because you think it is true and you think it is true because of the evidence and ...

Tell me again it's not circular.

But the evidence proves it. His character. His mission. His writings. All plain as day to someone that believes it is true. And they believe it is true because of his character and his mission and his writings... and that he fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions is just icing on the cake. You know those prophecies that have been clearly proven because Bill Sears said so in his book.

I don't know what's wrong with just saying, "I know it might sound silly to you, but I believe his claims. He said look at my character, my mission, my writings... and I did and they ring true. Maybe I'm a fool, but I believe him." Then we could all say, "Yes, you're being a fool" and move on.

Oh, and is this thread circular? But really, I'm so disappointed in Baha'is. They are the ones that are going lead us into a new world order of peace and unity? With love and respect for all people no matter their beliefs? They're just another one of those religions that thinks they are the only ones right. Even though they say the others ones used to be right, but then they say the others all got corrupted by their religious leaders.

 

[Tiberius]

That is an even BIGGER STRAW MAN than last one. Why are you making an effort to misrepresent me? Either you are doing it to embarrass me or because you have to be right or because you are have not understood a thing I have been saying for many months, which would make you lacking in mental abilities.

So which is it?

I did not accept the evidence because I believed the Baha'i Faith was true, and I did not believe that the Baha'i Faith was true because I thought it was true. I looked at the evidence and then I accepted the evidence that proved the claims of Baha'u'llah were true and then I believed that the Baha'i Faith was true...

There is NOTHING circular about what I actually did. Rational people look at evidence in order to determine if a belief is true or not, and then if the evidence indicates that the belief is true they believe it is true. That is what rational people do.

Irrational people say "that's not evidence" when it is the ONLY evidence God provides because they expect God to provide testable evidence, as if the Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe, is at their beck and call. They are like small children who whine because mommy gave then vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate.

So you start out by looking at some evidence which convinces you that parts of it are true, and since you already believe parts of it, you are more likely to accept other parts are true, and you keep going like this until KABLAM you believe the whole kit and kaboodle.

 

[Trailblazer]

Once again you are trotting out the tired old, "I'm not making any claims!" excuse to hide from the burden of proof. You are presenting the claims as fact, so you have taken the burden of proof onto your own shoulders!

Once again, Baha'u'llah is the one who made the claims so He is the one who had the burden of proof!
I have no burden of proof because I made no claims. I just believe the claims.

Given how unreliable it is, I don't see how you can claim that it gave you any knowledge at all.

It is perfectly reliable because God gave us all a rational mind for cognitive reasoning. With cognitive reasoning, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it.

I can say the exact same thing as a reason to believe in the magic that allows me to turn into an eagle.

You can say any silly thing you want to say. It is still unrealistic and illogical to expect religious beliefs to be testable and verifiable the same way scientific things are since religion is DIFFERENT from science.

Messengers of God have no evidence at all to back up their claims that they have any kind of relationship with God.

Messengers of God provide evidence to back up their claims that they received communication from God.

Then people take it as a claim, and if you do not want people to take it as a claim, you must specify that it's not a claim.

I do not have to specify that my belief is not a claim but if people want to believe that it is their own business.

Wow, you really have no idea about what science is.

Why, because I believe there are other theories about what causes disease that do not attribute diseases to germs?

"Towards the end of Louis Pasteur’s life, he confessed that germs may not be the cause of disease after all, but may simply be another symptom of disease. He had come to realize that germs seem to lead to illness primarily when the person’s immune and defense system (what biologists call “host resistance”) is not strong enough to combat them. The “cause” of disease is not simply a bacteria but also the factors that compromise host resistance, including the person’s hereditary endowment, his nutritional state, the stresses in his life, and his psychological state. In describing one of his experiments with silkworms, Pasteur asserted that the microorganisms present in such large numbers in the intestinal tract of the sick worms were “more an effect than a cause of disease.” (1)

With these far-reaching insights Pasteur conceived an ecological understanding of infectious disease. Infectious disease does not simply have a single cause but is the result of a complex web of interactions within and outside the individual.

https://homeopathic.com/a-homeopath...isease-effective-alternatives-to-antibiotics/

I would try to explain it to you, but you've already shown that you'll refuse to listen to any attempt to correct your flawed views, so I'm just not going to bother.

Please don't bother.

Once again, you have invented a method of measuring something before you've even shown that there's anything there to measure.

God cannot be measured because God is not a physical entity. Because God is not physical God can NEVER be shown or known directly. God can only be shown and known through His Messengers.

A person has a belief, and they claim to have verified their belief by carefully examining it for themselves. However, there is no evidence that they can share with anyone else. It's simply that each person must examine the evidence for themselves and come to their own conclusion. But if a person verifies it for themselves (despite the fact that they can not get anyone else to check their own verification), then that's good enough and a person is perfectly justified in accepting it as factual.

That's the argument that you have used, and that's the same argument that I am using.

I never said anything about accepting a belief as factual. Beliefs can never be factual since that would make them facts, not beliefs. The rest of what you said accurately represents my position.

I've given my reasons. It's not my problem if you ignore what I say.

No, you did not tell me why the 3 ways of knowing is rubbish.

*Looks at what section of the forum this thread is in.*

Religious DEBATES.

That's a funny way of spelling ENTERTAINMENT.

It's almost like the people who run this site intended for this section to contain DEBATES, and not fun and games...

Hmmmmmmm.....

This is just entertainment for me unless I have somebody who wants to know what I believe and we can debate about if it is true or not. Obviously that is not the case with you since you already have your mind made up so it has devolved into entertainment for me. It is not as if I am going to become an atheist from debating with you.

If I was going to become an atheist it would not be for the reasons you are an atheist, it would be because I have issues with God. There is no question in my mind as to whether God exists or not, I am sure of that, I just don't like God that much. My husband always tells me that I should become an atheist but he gets the same answer every time. I cannot become an atheist because I know that God exists and I know that God exists because of Baha'u'llah.

You can call it evidence as much as you like, but it won't actually be evidence until you can demonstrate it to other people.

That is illogical but that is what I have come to expect with atheists. Evidence does not become evidence because I can use it to prove that God exists to other people. Evidence is just evidence. Evidence is evidence regardless of whether not prove anything to anyone A detective gathers evidence for the prosecutor who presents the evidence to the jury. It was evidence as soon as it was gathered, it did not suddenly BECOME evidence after the jury looked at it and it proved that the defendant was innocent or guilty.

Everyone has to look at the evidence and demonstrate that God exists to themself. Nobody can prove to other people that God exists. If you ever bothered to think it through you would know why, but since you think there is some kind of testable evidence that does not exist that is why you expect someone to be able to prove to you that God exists.

Then there's bias, which renders it invalid.

An opinion is not a bias unless it is a biased opinion. Recognizing the evidence that proves the Baha'i Faith is true and then becoming a Baha'i is not a biased opinion.. I could just as easily say you have a biased opinion towards atheism because you don't see any evidence for God but I would never say that because it makes no sense at all ans it is based upon distorted thinking.

As long as your thinking remains the same this is just going to keep going in circles. That is not a debate, it is just you continuing to hold your ground and nothing ever changes. We just keep going around in circles.

 

[Trailblazer]

Close but definitely no cigar. An argument made with circular reasoning is not valid. It could be true, it could be false. There is no way to tell. That is why it is a failed argument.

Are you saying that the following websites are incorrect?

Are circular arguments valid or invalid?

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. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Circular_reasoning
Search for: Are circular arguments valid or

Can a circular argument be sound?

In general, circular arguments are valid, and if their premises are true, then they're sound. However, circular arguments are fallacious and therefore, bad arguments. Validity and soundness are properties of deductive arguments.Jan 30, 2018

Validity, Soundness, and Cogency | Highbrow - GoHighBrow

What needs to be done is to test whether Baha is a messenger of God. And @Transmuting Soul proposed such a test, or at least implied it. The problem is that it does not look good for Baha.

Personally I do not think that there is any such test that could either prove or disprove Baha'u'llah's claims but let's see what Tony can come up with. Imo, whether we believe He was a Messenger or not is a subjective call.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer , perhaps you have a problem with people pointing out when you continuously use logical fallacies because you think that they are claiming that you are wrong. They are not doing that. They are pointing out that you did not support your beliefs at all. When a person uses a logical fallacy it does not mean that what they are posting is wrong. It only means that the logic behind their post is incorrect so what they think that they proved was not proved at all. It is a nice way of telling you that you just wasted your time.

That is why so many are trying to you learn how to use rational arguments where the logic is at leash coherent. Baha could be a messenger of God, but you have not supported that idea at all.

Sorry, I do not see anyone calling me out on logical fallacies and explaining which logical fallacies they are and explaining how I committed them. I consider it unjust to accuse me of a crime if I don't know what the crime was or how it as committed because I cannot defend myself from a crime if I don't even know what it was or how it was committed.

As an atheist, you only see the atheist perspective. From my perspective as a believer I have called out many logical fallacies that atheists have committed and I always explain what the fallacies were called and how they were committed. If you think I am wrong you are free to try to refute me but so far nobody has. To say you have refuted me is not the same thing as actually doing it. That would be like saying you won the football game when you never even went out on the playing field.

I never claimed that I could prove that God exists or that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God with a logical argument and in fact many times I have said that would be impossible, so maybe these is a misunderstanding on your part.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you start out by looking at some evidence which convinces you that parts of it are true, and since you already believe parts of it, you are more likely to accept other parts are true, and you keep going like this until KABLAM you believe the whole kit and kaboodle.

No, that is not what happened at all. There is no point having a discussion that is based upon your misconceptions so I want to set the record straight right now. I alone know how and why I became a Baha'i, nobody else knows but me (and God of course).

It is late here so I don't have time to explain how I became a Baha'i, but I have written it up and posted it several times on this forum and I have all these posts saved in Word documents so I will copy/paste one of these stories that is the most recent, posted on April 1, 2021.

Facts are more important to me than anything else, and that is why I became a Baha'i in the first place. The first thing I did when I heard of Baha'u'llah back in 1970 was look in the Encyclopedia Britannica to find out of Baha'u'llah was a real person. After that I read whatever books had been published about the Baha'i Faith at that time and I read the Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, but what really convinced me that the Baha'i Faith was true was Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era because there were a lot of facts in there.

Emotions can be very misleading so I rely upon facts. As I always tell people, I never had any mushy-gushy feelings towards God or Baha'u'llah; I just know that the Baha'i Faith is the truth from God for this age because of the facts surrounding the life and mission of Baha'u'llah and because the theology is logical.

It was only 43 years after I had become a Baha'i that I connected with the Writings of Baha'u'llah on both an intellectual and an emotional level when I read Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh for the first time with serious intent, and that is when I realized without a doubt that Baha'u'llah was speaking for God. My life has never been the same since. Before that I had believed in God and I knew Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God; after that I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that God existed and Baha'u'llah was His Representative for this age.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that the following websites are incorrect?

Are circular arguments valid or invalid?

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. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Circular_reasoning
Search for: Are circular arguments valid or

Can a circular argument be sound?

In general, circular arguments are valid, and if their premises are true, then they're sound. However, circular arguments are fallacious and therefore, bad arguments. Validity and soundness are properties of deductive arguments.Jan 30, 2018

Validity, Soundness, and Cogency | Highbrow - GoHighBrow

Personally I do not think that there is any such test that could either prove or disprove Baha'u'llah's claims but let's see what Tony can come up with. Imo, whether we believe He was a Messenger or not is a subjective call.

LOL! That website agrees with me. You also edited it. improperly. When you add bolding to a quote you are supposed to note that. And you also quote mined. You left out the start of the sentence. Components may be logics valid, if the claim is correct. But you have no way of knowing that. It clearly states that it is a logical fallacy in the first sentence.

This was an epic fail on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I do not see anyone calling me out on logical fallacies and explaining which logical fallacies they are and explaining how I committed them. I consider it unjust to accuse me of a crime if I don't know what the crime was or how it as committed because I cannot defend myself from a crime if I don't even know what it was or how it was committed.

As an atheist, you only see the atheist perspective. From my perspective as a believer I have called out many logical fallacies that atheists have committed and I always explain what the fallacies were called and how they were committed. If you think I am wrong you are free to try to refute me but so far nobody has. To say you have refuted me is not the same thing as actually doing it. That would be like saying you won the football game when you never even went out on the playing field.

I never claimed that I could prove that God exists or that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God with a logical argument and in fact many times I have said that would be impossible, so maybe these is a misunderstanding on your part.

It has been done to death. How could you not remember?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Trailblazer , you keep claiming that God is not physical so he can't be detected. So how does he communicate with his messengers? For humans communication is a physical process. Even if God can communicate directly with a brain that would have to be a physical process.

You just contradicted yourself again.

 

[samtonga43]

No.

Here's what you said:
"But that does not mean I am wrong, nor does it mean I am right. That is just how I came to know".

SO...
Tb knows.
Tb's knowledge does not mean that Tb is right.

Please explain the logicality of this.

 

[samtonga43]

I understand the fallacy like the back of my hand.

Straw man
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Wikipedia

@Tiberius misrepresented my argument and built a straw man.

Tiberius said: Yes, it is circular.

Why do you believe the religion? Because you think it's true. Why do you think it's true? Because you believe it. Why do you believe it? Because you think it's true. And so on ad infinitum.

None of that is my real position. I believe that the Baha'i Faith is true because I think it is true and I think it is true because of the evidence. There is nothing circular about that.

Tb's real position.
The B.man says the Baha'i Faith is true.
∴ Tb thinks the Baha'i Faith is true.
∴ Tb believes the Baha'i Faith is true...

and so on, ad infinitum.

 

[Trailblazer]

LOL! That website agrees with me. You also edited it. improperly. When you add bolding to a quote you are supposed to note that. And you also quote mined. You left out the start of the sentence. Components may be logics valid, if the claim is correct. But you have no way of knowing that. It clearly states that it is a logical fallacy in the first sentence.

This was an epic fail on your part.

Do you think I was trying to prove something by posting those definitions? No, I was not. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. That is not even my style. From MY perspective I am not in a debate with anyone, this is just a discussion.

I would be careful when making assumptions. I did not edit anything, I did a Google search and posted those as is. I did not add the bolding, it was already there. You won't see that if you click on the link, only if you do a Google search. Type in 'are circular arguments valid' and 'are circular arguments sound' into the Google search and you will see that I am telling the truth.

I did not leave out anything, I just posted what I got when I did the Google search. Do the search and you will see.

I am not denying that circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. As I said, only if the premise is true can the conclusion be true and since I cannot prove any of my premises are true I cannot claim that my conclusions are true and that is why I am not foolish enough to try to make any 'formal' logical arguments for God or Baha'u'llah.

Now can we please put this circular argument fallacy to bed?

 

[Trailblazer]

It has been done to death. How could you not remember?

I don't know what "it" is. I cannot remember something if I don't know what "it" is.

In a court of law, does the prosecutor get upon the stand and say "the defendant has done it?

This is what I mean by obfuscation. That never wins any case.

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe reincarnation simply means re-entering a body after having left one. Karmic reincarnation is its own thing. The fact is that the Spirit of God in Jesus left the body and then returned to it when the body was brought back to life. Since it can be seen that a spirit can enter a body after leaving then it is possible for a spirit to enter the body of a conceived child. In Christianity the process is different: the spirit does not get to choose but God judges what is best for the spirit. Sometimes God will grant the favor of choosing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know what "it" is. I cannot remember something if I don't know what "it" is.

In a court of law, does the prosecutor get upon the stand and say "the defendant has done it?

This is what I mean by obfuscation. That never wins any case.

Corrections of your logical fallacies. You make them quite often. I am not the only one that has explained them to you.

Let's start with a recent example. Do you understand how you abused the Wiki article that supported me, not you?

 

[Muffled]

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.


What are you referring to?

This best done in a new post which I will start because this one is long now.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer , you keep claiming that God is not physical so he can't be detected. So how does he communicate with his messengers? For humans communication is a physical process. Even if God can communicate directly with a brain that would have to be a physical process.

You just contradicted yourself again.

Do you really think that God is a physical being? I guess you don't read your Bible. God is a spirit being.
God communicates to His Messengers through the Holy Spirit. That is made clear from reading the Bible or the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

You said: "For humans communication is a physical process. Even if God can communicate directly with a brain that would have to be a physical process."

There is no physical process occurring on God's behalf because God is not a physical being, but there is a physical process occurring in the brain of the Messenger because he is a physical being. There is also a spiritual process occurring in the Messenger's soul because he is a spiritual being.

To say that because human to human communication is a physical process that means that God to human communication would also be a physical process is the fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a physical being so God does not communicate physically. God is a spirit being so God communicates spiritually.

God has a mind but it is not physical because God is not physical.

These are not claims, they are beliefs.