-
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?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
1. You have said that evidence that the B.man was a Messenger of God.
2. Furthermore, you have said that you understand the significance of this evidence.
You have said that because of 1. and 2. your conclusion is that the B.man was a Messenger of God.
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
Please explain why.That is a big fat....
Sheldon
Veteran Member
That is a big fat....
Are you sure, it seems an accurate description of your position from your posts so far?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
All of that is true, but it is not a logical argument, although I consider it to be logical.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Tiberius said: Your premise: all the things Mr B could only have been done by a messenger from God.
Your conclusion: Mr B was a messenger from God.
It is a straw man because it is not my argument.
I did not conclude that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger from God because all the things that Baha'u'llah did could only have been done by a Messenger from God. I concluded that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger from God because of the evidence, what Baha'u'llah actually did.
Moreover, what @Tiberius posted is a non sequitur because the conclusion does not even follow from the premise. The conclusion could be either true or false because there is a disconnect between the premise and the conclusion, but the argument asserts the conclusion to be true and is thus fallacious.
I would never make such an argument.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I have stated those things but that is not MY argument, and that is why it is a straw man on the part of @Tiberius.
See what I said to @samtonga43 regarding the matter: #5186 Trailblazer, 26 minutes ago
Sheldon
Veteran Member
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
That is a big fat....
You have claimed many times that the things Mr B did serve as evidence that he is a messenger from God.
So how is this a strawman?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
This is nothing more than hiding behind wordplay.
Tell me, TB, if Mr B did NOT do things that only a messenger from God could have done, what is it that he did that convinced you that he was a messenger from God? I mean, you have here said that you concluded he was a messenger from God SPECIFICALLY because of what he did, yet you also claim that he did not do things that only a messenger from God could have done.
So, how do you conclude he must have been a messenger from God if he never did anything that only a messenger from God could have done, and whatever he did could have been done by anyone, even if they were NOT a messenger from God?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I guess you do not understand logical thinking is not always incorporated into a logical argument.
What is meant by logical thinking?
What is logical thinking? Logical thinking is a skill that involves using reasoning in a way that allows an individual to come to a viable solution. ... Logical thinking requires several reasoning skills and the ability to look at a situation objectively and work towards a solution based on the facts at hand.Jun 29, 2021
Logical Thinking at Work - Glassdoor Career Guides
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Something can be logical without being incorporated into a logical argument.
See what I said above:
#5192 Trailblazer, A moment ago
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I explained why it is a straw man to @samtonga43 in my post above:
#5186 Trailblazer, Today at 11:26 AM
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Oh, I see you found the post. No, I am not hiding behind anything. I was just pointing out that you made a straw-man and explaining why. The conclusion does not follow from the premises because more premises are needed to draw the conclusion.
In other words, the premise "all the things that Baha'u'llah did could only have been done by a Messenger from God" is not enough to support the conclusion that "Baha'u'llah was a Messenger from God."
More is needed to support that BOLD CONCLUSION. In other words, I did not SAY to myself: All the things that Baha'u'llah did could only have been done by a Messenger from God, so that is enough for me to reach the conclusion that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.
Yes, one reason that I concluded that He was a Messenger from God is because of what He did, because He did things that only a Messenger from God could have done.
- I am not concluding that He never did anything that only a Messenger from God could have done.
- I am concluding that He did what only a Messenger of God could have done.
- I am not concluding that whatever He did could have been done by anyone, even if they were NOT a messenger from God.
- I am concluding that whatever He did could NOT have been done by anyone unless they were a Messenger from God
Last edited:
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I guess you do not understand logical thinking is not always incorporated into a logical argument.
Except you claimed it was not a logical argument?
Then bizarrely claimed you considered it to be logical. Though how one could create a logical argument without logical thinking is equally bizarre, what exactly would one use, illogical thinking? That might explain a lot actually.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I said I was not making a logical argument because logical thinking is not always incorporated into a logical argument. In other words, I was not making a ‘formal’ logical argument that consists of premises and conclusions.
I did not say I could create a logical argument without logical thinking, I said I was not making a logical argument because logical thinking is not always incorporated into a logical argument that consists of premises and conclusions.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
You have never provided any evidence that rationally leads to the conclusion that Mr B was a messenger from God.
There is nothing that he did that could not also have been done by a non-Messenger.
So if what he did does not count as any evidence for him being a Messenger, why did you bring it up? Are you just wasting our time?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
O entity one planet. Self owned entity the planet and it's body in space womb.
Human theist a thinker as a human says mother space womb holding its rock stone baby. God earth. Mother of God with God. Planet.
God first with mother of God once. One only.
Heavens said the thinker was inside the entities body.
Pretty basic answers for human thinking liars
So in fact O earth is the God. With space.
No science whatsoever the teaching advice. Ignored because human men theists are liars.
Pretty basic two types of humans
Humans who live balanced lives in nature on earth. The other human thinker destroyer.
We now observe the destroyer humans life reality.
Human theist a thinker as a human says mother space womb holding its rock stone baby. God earth. Mother of God with God. Planet.
God first with mother of God once. One only.
Heavens said the thinker was inside the entities body.
Pretty basic answers for human thinking liars
So in fact O earth is the God. With space.
No science whatsoever the teaching advice. Ignored because human men theists are liars.
Pretty basic two types of humans
Humans who live balanced lives in nature on earth. The other human thinker destroyer.
We now observe the destroyer humans life reality.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, there is nothing that He did that could not also have been done by a non-Messenger.
Yes, what He did does count as evidence for Him being a Messenger.
I was editing that post and I just finished so please go back and see how I changed it to make it more clear.
#5195 Trailblazer, Today at 4:51 PM
Last edited: 4 minutes ago