• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Sheldon said:
No true Scotsman fallacy, you really need to look up what that means, unless you're content to make irrational assertions like that of course, which is your choice.
Click to expand...
No true Scotsman
No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly. Wikipedia

What is the counterexample that was excluded improperly?
 
Tiberius

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said:
I can and do know, with my seeing eyes and my heart and my mind.
But there is no proof that will EVER be sufficient for those who have no eyes to see or ears to hear and that is why it can never be considered factual knowledge.... it is spiritual knowledge.

Only if they have eyes to see and ears to hear will they recognize it as the truth. If you don't see it you don't see it.
There are no shoulds, you either recognize the truth or you don't.
Click to expand...

it would be a lot more convincing if there weren't so many different "truths" out there.

When it comes to objective facts, there is only one truth. The only time we get multiple different truths is when it's a subjective opinion.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Tiberius said:
I agree.

Do not let it be said, @Trailblazer, that you never commit logical fallacies.

This is a begging the question fallacy because you are assuming your conclusion (that God exists and gave us the ability to reason) as one of your premises.
Click to expand...
I was not making a logical argument so there were no premise or conclusions.

Even if I was making a logical argument it would not be begging the question because the premise that God exists and created us with a rational mind does not lack support just because it is unproven.

Begs the question is a term that comes from formal logic. It's a translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii, and it's used to mean that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support.
Begging the question - Wikipedia

It does not matter if God gave you a mind and the ability to reason. You STILL have a mind and the ability to reason even if there is no God, so my original point still stands.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Tiberius said:
it would be a lot more convincing if there weren't so many different "truths" out there.

When it comes to objective facts, there is only one truth. The only time we get multiple different truths is when it's a subjective opinion.
Click to expand...
It's true that religion would be more convincing to nonbelievers if there were not so many religions with different beliefs, but that is unavoidable, since we cannot suddenly make all the religions unite into one religion so that there is agreement on one Truth. The uniting of religions under one common banner will happen in the future, as I explained to my friend @Nimos in this post #33, but it won't happen any time soon.
 
Tiberius

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said:
I was not making a logical argument so there were no premise or conclusions.
Click to expand...

While I agree that your argument was not logical, you were most certainly using an argument that used premises and conclusions.

Even if I was making a logical argument it would not be begging the question because the premise that God exists and created us with a rational mind does not lack support just because it is unproven.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does lack support, because by your own admission, supernatural claims can not be supported. You are using your conclusion (that God exists) as one of your premises (that God made people's brains).

Begs the question is a term that comes from formal logic. It's a translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii, and it's used to mean that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support.
Begging the question - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what it means. This is another example of you wasting time. I know what it means, you know what it means, everyone knows what it means. And if they DIDN'T know what it means, then they could have simply clicked on the link that Sheldon provided, who found a way to provide the information without using a huge cut 'n' paste info dump.

It does not matter if God gave you a mind and the ability to reason. You STILL have a mind and the ability to reason even if there is no God, so my original point still stands.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do have the ability to reason. That's how I know you were using a logical fallacy.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Tiberius said:
While I agree that your argument was not logical, you were most certainly using an argument that used premises and conclusions.

Yes, it does lack support, because by your own admission, supernatural claims can not be supported. You are using your conclusion (that God exists) as one of your premises (that God made people's brains).
Click to expand...
Trailblazer said: I suggest you use the mind God gave you for thinking.

I believe that God created you with a mind so you should use it. I am not asserting anything so there is no premise or conclusion so there is no logical fallacy.
 
Tiberius

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said:
It's true that religion would be more convincing to nonbelievers if there were not so many religions with different beliefs, but that is unavoidable, since we cannot suddenly make all the religions unite into one religion so that there is agreement on one Truth. The uniting of religions under one common banner will happen in the future, as I explained to my friend @Nimos in this post #33, but it won't happen any time soon.
Click to expand...

Cool story. Let me know when it happens. Honestly, your claim here is about as convincing as this: Clip from: Road to Europe
 
Tiberius

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said:
Trailblazer said: I suggest you use the mind God gave you for thinking.

I believe that God created you with a mind so you should use it. I am not asserting anything so there is no premise or conclusion so there is no logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should use the mind evolution by means of natural selection with no intervention by a deity of any description gave you for thinking.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Tiberius said:
Cool story. Let me know when it happens. Honestly, your claim here is about as convincing as this: Clip from: Road to Europe
Click to expand...
It is not a claim, it is a belief. Claims can be proven, beliefs cannot be proven.

I do not care if it is convincing because I am not trying to convince anyone, I am just sharing. It is best that you start to understand the difference between sharing and convincing.

“Consort with all men, O people of Bahá, in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and good-will. If it be accepted, if it fulfil its purpose, your object is attained. If anyone should refuse it, leave him unto himself, and beseech God to guide him. Beware lest ye deal unkindly with him. A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men. It is the bread of the spirit, it clotheth the words with meaning, it is the fountain of the light of wisdom and understanding….”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 289
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Tiberius said:
Then perhaps you should use the mind evolution by means of natural selection with no intervention by a deity of any description gave you for thinking.
Click to expand...
I use the mind that developed through evolution. God did not literally give me a mind, God set the process of evolution in motion and let it roll. At some point during the process of evolution God instilled man with a rational soul, which distinguishes man from the other animals. It is our rational soul that allows humans to think and do things that other animals cannot do. That is a belief, not a claim.

“The human spirit which distinguishes man from the animal is the rational soul, and these two names—the human spirit and the rational soul—designate one thing. This spirit, which in the terminology of the philosophers is the rational soul, embraces all beings, and as far as human ability permits discovers the realities of things and becomes cognizant of their peculiarities and effects, and of the qualities and properties of beings.” Some Answered Questions, p. 208

55: SOUL, SPIRIT AND MIND
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Tiberius said:
It would be evidence for the claim that what is true MUST be measurable and testable. How Do We Know What Is True? | RealClearScience
Click to expand...
Scientific facts MUST be measurable and testable in order to be proven true.

What you are referring to is not evidence, it is proof. Evidence is not proof. If you expect evidence for a religion to be scientifically verifiable that is an illogical expectation since religion is not science (fallacy of false equivalence).

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top