firedragon
Veteran Member
Right. So what do you think is a "creator being"? It was I think you who first spoke these words "creator being". So what did you mean by that?
-
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
Right. So what do you think is a "creator being"? It was I think you who first spoke these words "creator being". So what did you mean by that?
I meant that it's a problem for the approach that you suggested: establishing that God exists by establishing that "Messengers of God" really were sent by God.
As far as I can tell, there's no rational way for a person to arrive at belief in your God. Not with the parameters you've put on it, anyhow.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I think what confuses people, is that you seem to argue both for an against yourself at the same time
Meaning you present some arguments that seem contradictive and will try to elaborate on that based on what you have answered, so will jump a bit around in your reply.So from this we should be able to agree on the following, that absolutely no amount of evidence will ever result in him being able to proof that his claim is correct about God. Which means that it will natural follow that it is also impossible to establish that he is a messenger of God. And therefore we won't be able to prove it, so it has to be based on faith.
We both agree to this statement being logically correct, based on the claim "That no one can ever prove God".
This is a circular and contradictive statement, based on what we agreed on above.
If no one can prove God, then the Messengers can't provide that proof through any means. Therefore it is contradictory when you then say that we need the messenger to demonstrate God.
This will become circular reasoning, because in order to establish the validity of the Messengers claim, we have to demonstrate God first, because this rely on God being real, if God is not real then obviously they can't be Messengers of God, because he wouldn't exist, but in order to demonstrate God, we need the Messengers, and again to do that we need to demonstrate God and we can keep going like this... This is what circular reasoning is.
So to break this circle, we have to figure out which claim we need to establish first in order to do this. And it makes sense to break it at God, because the messenger rely on him being true.
Therefore we can solve this circular issue, but approaching the claims in the following order:
1. Demonstrate God
2. Demonstrate the claim that these are Messengers of said God.
But we then run into the problem of the statement we agreed on. "That no one can ever prove God". So we can't demonstrate (1.) which means that we won't be able to demonstrate (2.) either.
Which means that we will never be able to provide proof, but we can throw faith into the machine and say that "We have faith that (1.) is true, that God exist." and if that is true, then "We can have faith in (2.) also being true"
That is the furthest you can ever come in this scenario, if you want to get passed circular reasoning and the statement that "No on can ever prove God"
Very important, doesn't mean that these statements ain't true, we simply have no way to verify them as being so. This idea is build into most religious claims and why no one have ever been able to demonstrate any of these claims as being true.
It is not the atheists fault or us being unreasonable, it is a logical trap or what to say, that all religious claims make use of and why they are based on faith. Or said in another way, why they require people to accept certain things without proof, if they do, then this whole setup will make sense.
Exactly as the example of the Aliens, if we elaborate that a bit. If I make the claim that Aliens are true and they are like this and that. The moment you accept that Aliens are true, without me providing you with evidence for them. You can potentially start talking about whether they look like this or that, where they live, did they visit us here on Earth and so forth. Which only make sense when you are no longer asking the question or demanding me to provide proof that these even exist to begin with.
This can't be the case, its impossible given the statement we agreed on, "That no one can ever proof God", because then he won't be able to establish any truth or it would contradict that statement. You might have faith in it being so, but it is not truth, because it can never be a proof, its simply impossible.
Its like having a circular square, its contradictory and will not work, you can't reason like that. And it has nothing to do with religion, its a logical impossibility.
Yes, but the keyword in what you write is "The way I see it if He was a Messenger of God..." and that is what we want to verify. But we can't, as I explained above. So its irrelevant of whether everything he said is true or not, IF he was in fact a messenger of God or not, because we can't establish that to begin with, because again, we are going to end up in circular reasoning.
But these evidence are weak ones at best and again requires you to start out by accepting something without proof. And that is basically from what I can see, exactly how you "break" the circular reasoning as I pointed out above, you accept that God exist based on faith. But you seek to strengthen this, by focusing on claims that Baha'u'llah made. Sort of in the same way as in my example with the aliens, that you seem to shift to focusing on the color and purpose of them, which is then used to further feed the validity of these aliens being true, because obviously them having color and purpose, are "evidence" for them being true, but there is no foundation for this in the first place, its only because you have faith in the aliens being true.
This is what faith is, that is what this verse calls for, blind faith in God. Of course you are going to believe in my aliens, if you approach it having faith in it being true. The moment you don't have faith in my claim, you won't find the aliens.
Its perfectly fine to believe in God and find value in the teachings of Baha'u'llah, but it shouldn't come at the cost of logical reasoning. And it doesn't matter whether its religion or something else. Im not trying to convince you that you shouldn't believe or even have faith, but you have to be logical consistent or you will end up trapping yourself in circular reasoning without being able to get passed it.
Last edited:
Then your God does not want us to believe in him. We don't choose what we believe in.
And since those are bot evidence........
And there's your answer, there is no evidence.
And there's no way of knowing that those are messengers of God since there's no evidence of God's existence.
So what is the evidence for the existence of the dementors from Harry Potter?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is so sad when one tries to use a dictionary and fails.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The concept of Brahman itself is the Hindu part. The other part is 'dharma' (duties, that is karma too). Are we fulfilling our duties? Righteous action is a duty. I strongly stand for that. 'Dharma' (fulfillment of our duties in all circumstances) is the base of Hinduism.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Alhumdulillah, he does not wear a crown of thorns.Great! This guy is called Inri Cristo:
He claims to be Jesus Christ reincarnated.
What evidence do you have he is a con man?
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your beliefs failing even that abuse of a dictionary definition. This is a very short video that explains knowledge as applied to a religion:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
It's mostly you tuberculosis that brings up the Baha'i Faith and sometimes some people ask you about the Baha'i Faith.
That would be weird. But no. That's not what I asked.
What did you mean by TB in "this" context?
(Context is everything)
firedragon
Veteran Member
Wrong person mate.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I don't think she got it.. You might have to break it down further for her.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
You didn't mean to quoted me?
Edit
How you commented/quoted me looked like you were correcting me (and trailblazer). Since you replied, than I figure you knew what TB was in relation to CGs reply.
I caught it now but still at a lost to why I was quoted in all cases since I was never in their conversation.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He was not the one that quoted you. There was a post where quite a few people were quoted. Including me and you. They were all responding to @Trailblazer , or "TB". He only explained who " TB" was. He was not the person that made that quote.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
It popped up on my notifications.
Post 563. Me and pegged trailblazer as well.
Verify
1. to prove the truth of, as by evidence or testimony; confirm; substantiate
So there is no evidence or testimony for the existence of God. Got it.
PureX
Veteran Member
It's the 'logic' of a philosophical materialist paradigm. A failed philosophical paradigm. But you can't see this because you are looking out from within that failed paradigm and seeking only to defend it.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Of course it isn't. The burden of proof has nothing whatsoever to do with materialism or science.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I think you will have to explain what you mean by philosophical and methodological to this gentleman PureX.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I noticed SZ.
Then what's the point of the OP if that's what you already believe about atheists?
That's not illogical. What's illogical is saying that God can't be verify, then say that there is evidence for God. It's illogical because evidence verifies that something exist. So you're contradicting yourself when you say that God can't be verify but then say that you have evidence for God's existence.