Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

Yes. But here, we aren't talking about a proposition.

It was a response to a statement of you that said "nobody has shown me how my statements are irrational". And I just replied that plenty of people have done exactly that.

That is a proposition. You were implying that many people believe x so x must be true.
Why would it matter how many people believe my statements are irrational if that is not true?
If you do not want to be illogical all you have to do is say that the fact that plenty of people say I am irrational means nothing at all. I might still be rational.

Sure. But that's not what is happening here.

Yes, that is what is happening here on this thread.
People are saying that many or most people do not think my beliefs are true, so that means my beliefs are untrue.
To say that is fallacious because my beliefs are either true or false and how many people believe that is irrelevant.

 

[Trailblazer]

There's nothing fallacious about an analogy that illustrates a flaw in reasoning.

The problem is that it does not show a flaw in MY reasoning, it shows a flaw in YOUR reasoning, and I explained why.

I said: God can never be proven as an objective fact because God does not want to be known as an objective fact.

You said: The fairy that never lies can never be proven as an objective fact because the fairy that never lies does not want to be known as an objective fact.

You were trying to say that God is equivalent to a fairy because neither one can never be proven as an objective fact, but that is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.

The reason that a fairy cannot be proven as an objective fact is because fairies don't exist, but that does not mean that the reason that God cannot be proven as an objective fact is because God does not exist. You made a hasty generalization without considering all the variables (which would explain why God cannot be proven as an objective fact).

God IS equivalent to a fairy in terms of verifiability of its existence.

You are correct in saying that God IS equivalent to a fairy in terms of verifiability of its existence but the reason God cannot be verified is different from the reason that a fairy cannot be verified. In short, the fact that God cannot be verified does not mean that God does not exist, it simply means that God does not want to be verified.

As a loose analogy, let's say that a murderer fled the country to evade prosecution and he could not be found. Does that mean the murderer does not exist? No, he is just in hiding, just like God is in hiding.

I'm not comparing the entities to each other. I'm comparing the evidence in support of them.
You can replace "god" in your statement by anything your imagination can produce and which is unfalsifiable. And the merit remains just the same.

The evidence to support them is not the same because there is evidence to support the existence of God whereas there is no evidence to support the existence of fairies.

Nope. That "conclusion" is not the point.
Here's the actual conclusion:

You can say whatever you want about unfalsifiable entities, because there is no way to verify it and it is thus impossible to differentiate a true statement from a made up one.

And that indeed goes for gods as well as for fairies, unicorns, centaurs, santa claus, etc etc etc.
What is being compared is the total lack of evidential support and falsifiability / verifiability.

And that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

That is not exactly true. There is no way to know anything about fairies, unicorns, centaurs, santa claus etc but there is a way to know about God, even though God's existence cannot be verified, and therein lies the difference.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except that it is.
What else do you have, besides "prophets" and alike making claims that were written down in religious scripts and "believers" who make claims about "divine encounters" and what-not?

We have the evidence that supports the claims of these Prophets. The evidence is nit just the scriptures and it is not what believers say about the Prophets. It is what the Prophets actually did on their missions and who they were as people. Try to think about any other way we could know if they were Prophets or not.

You misunderstand that statement.
"for ourselves" here, means independently verifiable.

The "evidence" for your faith, consists only of other people making unverifiable claims.
Which means it can not be evaluated. You either believe it or you don't.

No, that is not true at all.
It is a common misconception that the "evidence" for my faith, consists only of other people making unverifiable claims. Claims are not evidence at all. Evidence is what supports the claims.

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves thus it is independently verifiable objective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it's not a fact, then it isn't known. Then it's just believed.

I am not going to argue about the meanings of words. That is childish and arrogant.

I ill just say that I can know what I believe is true, but not as a fact.
I am aware of the truth of it and convinced and certain of it.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

Those "revelations" are claims.
And you either believe them or you don't.
There's no independently verifiable evidence for these claims.

That's true. The claims of Messengers of God to have received revelations cannot be verified.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. It's all about evidence.
That evidence being no more or less then people making unverifiable claims and them believing it.
Your "evidence" consists of nothing but people making claims and you believing them.
That evidence being no more or less then people making unverifiable claims and them believing it.

No, that is not what evidence is. I already explained that in my last post so there is no need for me to repeat it here.

My position rather is "there is zero reason to think they are correct".
And considering everything we know about the world, there is much reason to think they are incorrect.

My basis is independently verifiable evidence. Always.
Unfalsifiable claims made by "messengers" aren't independently verifiable. So to me they are utterly useless.

This is certainly not my first rodeo.
I already know what atheists need, but they are not going to get it so there is no point discussing it any further.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have not. I have presented claims and then piled on claims and pretended the additional claims are evidence of the first claims.

No, that is a straw man. I have presented the claims and the evidence that backs up those claims.
It is all in this post that I posted a long time ago and I have posted it over and over since then.

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

Happy trails!

 

[ppp]

I said: God can never be proven as an objective fact because God does not want to be known as an objective fact.

Begging the question: Statement assumes the conclusion. That God exists.

 

[Sheldon]

Why would there be candle makers in the land of the blind?

Scented?

Sorry, I'll get me coat....

 

[Sheldon]

I took a group of Cub scouts camping once. It rained one day , and snow the next. And we had to wait way too long for the campground to deliver firewood. Those kids were paragons of reason in comparison to some of the people on that discussion.

I'll take the unfiltered truth of children any day. Though I'm getting a bit long in the tooth for camping in the snow...sadly.. or maybe not quite yet?

 

[ppp]

Scented?

Sorry, I'll get me coat....

lolol. Yank Candle is everywhere!

 

[Trailblazer]

Begging the question: Statement assumes the conclusion. That God exists.

I do not assume it, I believe it.

It is not begging the question because I am not assuming the conclusion of an argument because I am not making an argument that God exists. I would never be so foolish since I know that God cannot be proven to exist.

To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within the premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.[1]
Begging the question - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

So every time you claimed you have evidence for a deity, it's just subjective opinion you're talking about, at least you admitted it finally.

Just because there is no DIRECT objective evidence for a deity that does not mean all I have is a personal opinion.
That is a non sequitur.

 

[Sheldon]

I do not assume it, I believe it.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you're saying it's not an objective fact that the earth is not flat? That's just a matter of perspective and subjective opinion then?

I'm afraid I shall have to disagree.

That is not what I said.
I said: Everything is influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

It is an objective fact that the earth is round but there are still flat earthers who hold the opinion that the earth is flat.
Flat Earthers: What They Believe and Why

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
So every time you claimed you have evidence for a deity, it's just subjective opinion you're talking about, at least you admitted it finally.

Just because there is no DIRECT objective evidence for a deity that does not mean all I have is a personal opinion.
That is a non sequitur.

You said all evidence is subjective, do I need to quote you?

Everything is influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Ipso facto, your belief in the religion you have chosen, is influenced by personal feelings and opinions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Objectively nothing then.

Nope, nothing that is verifiable.

 

[Trailblazer]

"I, the person that believes that there can be no legitimate evidence for the existence of God because God doesn't exist, will now stand in judgement of what is and is not evidence. So go on silly theist, and present me with your evidence" ... **chuckling**

A proposition worthy of "Q".

Atheists would not see the evidence for God it it hit them square in the face.
I mean it is staring them in the face and they still do not see it.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon
So you're saying it's not an objective fact that the earth is not flat? That's just a matter of perspective and subjective opinion then?

That is not what I said.

Everything is influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Oh yes it absolutely was.

I said: Everything is influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Ipso facto the shape of the earth is not an objective fact then, but "influenced by personal feelings or opinions."

It is an objective fact that the earth is round but there are still flat earthers who hold the opinion that the earth is flat.

Indeed, but that is not what you said, you said that EVERYTHING is influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Not that some people deny objective facts. So which is it?

1. The earth's shape is an objective fact, that some people deny?

or

2. The shape of the earth is not an objective fact, but
influenced by personal feelings or opinions, as you claimed?

 

[Trailblazer]

You said all evidence is subjective, do I need to quote you?

Please do. After all, if you are going to make an assertion you need to produce some evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ipso facto, your belief in the religion you have chosen, is influenced by personal feelings and opinions.

That's true, and I never denied that.
Likewise your non-belief in the atheism you have chosen is influenced by personal feelings and opinions.