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

[samtonga43]

Sorry, that is not my argument so I am not illogical.
Better luck next time.

Didn't you say that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Argumentum ad populum fallacy, well done...

You're slipping .. you forgot to call me out on my "bare claim"

 

[muhammad_isa]

The rationality of any idea, claim or belief is not dependant on any belief..

Yes it is..
It is just that our beliefs are different.

..or maybe you believe that you have all the answers?

 

[Sheldon]

Didn't you say that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true?

She did, and your example unequivocally demonstrated her claim to be wrong. She seems to have quickly and desperately Googled a fact about logic to defend her use of yet another known fallacy, and is using it out of context, namely the conclusion must be true if the premises are true, but she has clearly failed to grasp this is only true if the argument is valid.

Her premise assumed her conclusion, making here argument a circular reasoning fallacy, and thus it was not valid, and is of course irrational, as you and others have tried to explain.

All of this to try and justify an unevidenced claim she made, that "the whole bible was evidence for a deity".

 

[Sheldon]

You're slipping .. you forgot to call me out on my "bare claim"

No I didn't, amazingly you just still don't understand what the fallacy entails. It is a bare appeal to numbers. Maybe if you laminated it on a card, it is a sentence with 7 words in it after all.

 

[Trailblazer]

Didn't you say that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true?

No, Wikipedia said that. I just quoted Wikipedia:

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

 

[Sheldon]

Yes it is..
It is just that our beliefs are different.

..or maybe you believe that you have all the answers?

I believe you just used yet another straw man fallacy. Accepting the efficacy of logic requires a belief, but the efficacy of logic is not dependant on you accepting it. It's a nuanced idea, for now maybe you could focus on not making up straw man claims, as a simple first step?

 

[Trailblazer]

but she has clearly failed to grasp this is only true if the argument is valid.

No, I never failed to grasp that. Often logically valid means they are not always logically valid.

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.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

Her premise assumed her conclusion, making here argument a circular reasoning fallacy, and thus it was not valid, and is of course irrational, as you and others have tried to explain.

I have said repeatedly that I have no premise or conclusions because religious beliefs can NEVER be proven using a logical argument, since the premise can never be proven true.

All of this to try and justify an unevidenced claim she made, that "the whole bible was evidence for a deity".

No, I made no such claim and such a claim could never be proven to be true. I believe that the Bible is evidence for a deity, but not the whole Bible.

 

[Sheldon]

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

That was precisely what you argued...

If (A) the bible was divinely inspired.
Then (B) The bible is evidence for a deity.

The conclusion (B) is assumed in the premise (A).

 

[Sheldon]

I have said repeatedly that I have no premise or conclusions

No, that is not what it means because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

 

[Sheldon]

All of this to try and justify an unevidenced claim she made, that "the whole bible was evidence for a deity".

No, I made no such claim

The whole Bible is evidence of a deity.

Good grief woman....

 

[night912]

But it is not true. Anyone can accuse someone of a fallacy, but actually showing how it was committed is another matter.

Agree. And a good example of this would be someone accusing another person of committing a fallacy followed by copying and pasting what the fallacy means without actually pointing out where and why it was a fallacy. Trailblazer have been known for doing this on numerous occasions.

 

[samtonga43]

Agree. And a good example of this would be someone accusing another person of committing a fallacy followed by copying and pasting what the fallacy means without actually pointing out where and why it was a fallacy. Trailblazer have been known for doing this on numerous occasions.

This fiasco is truly astonishing.

 

[Sheldon]

Trailblazer said: ↑
But it is not true. Anyone can accuse someone of a fallacy, but actually showing how it was committed is another matter.

Agree. And a good example of this would be someone accusing another person of committing a fallacy followed by copying and pasting what the fallacy means without actually pointing out where and why it was a fallacy. Trailblazer have been known for doing this on numerous occasions.

That is demonstrably untrue, and the method for determining if a known logical fallacy has been used is Logic. Not only has TB relentlessly used known logical fallacies and denied the fact, she has repeated the same logical fallacies after they have been pointed out, and explained exhaustively. On top of which the childish semantics she has used are beyond risible, making claims, then trying to claim that they are not claims but beliefs, as if the two are mutually exclusive, or as if anyone with a basic command of English and access to a dictionary can't see the claim is errant nonsense. Worse still, she then falsely accused me of playing word games.

a good example of this would be someone accusing another person of committing a fallacy followed by copying and pasting what the fallacy means without actually pointing out where and why it was a fallacy.

I have only done this after I have repeated the fallacy repeatedly, and for the sake of brevity. Though all one would have to do is Google the fallacy and learn what it means, and if they then can or don't want, to see they have used it, well there is little one can do. The tit for tat and false accusations of using a fallacy that TB has used are in various threads for all to see. What anyone hopes to gain from that is baffling?

 

[Sheldon]

This fiasco is truly astonishing.

I'd agree with you of course, but in the decades I have been having such discussions, I have seen this behaviour too often to register any surprise.

The real irony is in the pretence of being rational? What can one possibly hope to gain from that I simply do not know. I was in my mid thirties before I knew what an informal logical fallacy was, and only then because I unknowingly used one, I went to find out if I'd been wrong, and I was, since then I simply tried to avoid deliberately making irrational claims. One cannot hope to always be right, but one can at least denying the facts when one is demonstrably wrong.

Whatever else one believes, one can avoid using known logical fallacies, or sulking when they are pointed out.

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe that the Bible is evidence for a deity

I can see why fundamentalist Christians and some other believe it is evidence for God, because they believe it is the inspired word of God. Therefore, what it says is true. Some Christians go even further and say it is the inerrant and infallible word of God. I don't think Baha'is would ever claim such a thing. So, for Baha'is, it is something less than inerrant and infallible. But... can Baha'is even say that the whole Bible is divinely inspired? I don't even know why Baha'is would call it a "sure" spiritual guide.

Of course, there's been some exceptionally spiritual Christians, but, for the most part, what kind of spiritual guide has the Bible been for people? Especially when we add in the NT? It's guided people toward the belief in Satan, in Jesus being God, in people thinking they've inherited sin from Adam, that the world was completely flooded about 4000 years ago etc. But then, along with believing all those things, some might follow things like, love thy neighbor. But do they love their neighbor?

Lots of Christians believe everybody is lost in sin, including themselves. The only difference is that they believe the Christian Bible when it says to believe in Jesus and your sins will be forgiven. And that's what they've done. They've confessed to God that they are hopelessly lost sinners and that they need Jesus. Even then they believe Satan is constantly trying to get them to fall back into sin. So, if the Bible is going to be evidence for God, why not evidence for Satan also? And why not evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. And evidence that the world and people and all the animals were created, and didn't evolve, just a few thousand years ago?

For Baha'is, I think they should agree with your views of the Bible. It's just stories... fictional stories. So, if you weren't a Baha'i, would you ever come to believe in the God of the Bible? If not a Baha'i, what in the Bible would you even believe is true?

 

[CG Didymus]

That is demonstrably untrue, and the method for determining if a known logical fallacy has been used is Logic. Not only has TB relentlessly used known logical fallacies and denied the fact, she has repeated the same logical fallacies after they have been pointed out, and explained exhaustively. On top of which the childish semantics she has used are beyond risible, making claims, then trying to claim that they are not claims but beliefs, as if the two are mutually exclusive, or as if anyone with a basic command of English and access to a dictionary can't see the claim is errant nonsense. Worse still, she then falsely accused me of playing word games.



I have only done this after I have repeated the fallacy repeatedly, and for the sake of brevity. Though all one would have to do is Google the fallacy and learn what it means, and if they then can or don't want, to see they have used it, well there is little one can do. The tit for tat and false accusations of using a fallacy that TB has used are in various threads for all to see. What anyone hopes to gain from that is baffling?

What's sad is... what if there is a God and the Baha'i Faith is God's newest teachings for humankind? That it's the very thing we need to fix all of our problems and make the world a peaceful place? By how Baha'is present their message, are they helping or hurting their cause?

I don't see them being any better than any other religion that is told to "go out and preach the word". They all claim/believe what their religion offers is the truth. But they are all offering different things. Like those Christians that say, "You're a sinner and need Jesus. He's coming soon and going to judge the world and cast all those that have rejected him into a fiery pit." Then Baha'is, "The Christ has come. His name is Baha'u'llah and he has brought with him God's plan for peace and unity." And how many variations of those types of things are there amongst all the religions and sects within a religion. They all have "The Truth". And it's all different. And they all come down to, "Well our prophet said so."

One thing is certain, Baha'is say they don't proselytize... or is it that they try to do it, but they just don't do it very well? I don't know... why would God leave his message in the hands of people?

 

[Trailblazer]

This fiasco is truly astonishing.

and hopefully it's almost over, or the show will have to go on without me, since I got so bored here that I decided to return to the forums from whence I came and I only come back here to check alerts.

Hasta luego, Duty calls, as I have a boatload of atheists and agnostics to respond to on two other forums.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, for Baha'is, it is something less than inerrant and infallible. But... can Baha'is even say that the whole Bible is divinely inspired? I don't even know why Baha'is would call it a "sure" spiritual guide.

No, I should not have said "the whole Bible" because I never meant everything in the Bible is inerrant and infallible, I meant the Bible as a whole is a testimony from God. As Baha'u'llah wrote, the Bible is “His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89

But I view the Bible as a spiritual guide through the swamp we call life, as long as we do not get caught in the weeds.

For Baha'is, I think they should agree with your views of the Bible. It's just stories... fictional stories. So, if you weren't a Baha'i, would you ever come to believe in the God of the Bible? If not a Baha'i, what in the Bible would you even believe is true?

I really have NO IDEA, since I became a Baha'i back in 1970, before I had ever read even one page of the Bible.

 

[Tiberius]

If God had planned on stepping in God would not have allowed free will in the first place.

Non sequitur.

Stepping in to intervene is still consistent with free will.

God seems to think what’s best for us is to leave us to ourselves to make choices, be they good or evil.

That is not the way someone treats those who he professes to love.

It would not make sense for God to step in and live our lives for us because then we would just be like robots programmed by God to do what God thinks we should do. We have to make our own choices so we can learn from them and suffer the consequences for them, be they rewards or punishments. The unfortunate consequence of free will is that evil people cause good people to suffer.

Do you have children? Does a parent making their child have a bath turn the child into a robot? If the child said, "You can't make me have a bath, because that would prove you don't care about me having free will," do you think that's just cause for the parent to let the child remain dirty?

You already know the answer to that.

I take it that it's just your "evidence" that can't be verified in any objective way, then.

So not evidence at all.

That is true, but that does not mean the everyone who heard the voice of God was imagining things. To conclude that because some people were imagining things that all people were imagining things would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.

True.

So please tell me, how do we determine the difference?

If a person hears a voice that they believe is from God, what can we do to find out if it really is from God or if it's just a hallucination?

We do see those things in religious texts...

Oh, come off it. I gave a specific example of this and you went on about how it wasn't meant literally!

Or are you going to say that those parts of religious texts that make specific claims about what religion could do are all meant in vague, wishy washy ways, like "religion can make you feel better"?

...and we do see Messengers of God that have no possible natural explanation.

No we don't.

Of course, if you disagree, give an example, being sure to explain in detail how you have determined that there is no possible natural explanation.

He could if He wanted to but since He is all-powerful He does ONLY what He chooses to do.

Funny how what he chooses to do is exactly the same thing that we'd expect to see if he didn't exist at all, isn't it?