But in that case it is not a proof, but rather a conviction or belief.
Look at the definition of proof:
1. Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
I never said that I have proof in the sense that it can be established as a fact, I only ever said that I have evidence.
Evidence is anything that you see, experience,
read, or are
told that causes you to believe that something is true or has
really happened. ‘
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
So A can present a lot of evidence, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily establish the truth, either because these evidence can't be verified in such way that we are certain that they actually explain the truth. Such as whether or not Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God, given that we can't verify that God exist to begin with. Therefore it opens up for the possibility that Baha'u'llah is lying or mistaken. And we can't rule out these options, which means that the evidence can't established the truth as you also say. But in order to call something a proof, the evidence need to established that as the definition say.
I never claimed to have
proof. I am not calling it proof, I am calling it
evidence..
So it doesn't make sense to say that you have proven it to yourself, since you can't establish the truth. Again, either Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God or he is not. It doesn't differ from you to me whether that is true. So if you can't establish the truth for me, then its impossible or meaningless to say that you can do it for yourself.
I do not agree. I can establish that it is true for myself, but I cannot establish it as a fact that everyone else will accept as true.
There is no other way to do it, but the conclusion is not that you have proven it to yourself, but rather that you have reached the conclusion that you believe that it is true or are convince that it is. Again doesn't mean that you are not correct, but it simply hasn't been proven.
It has not been proven to anyone else but I have proven it to myself.
If you misinterpret the evidence then you can prove it to yourself, that is why you need others to verify it. And again, you simply can't rule out that Baha'u'llah is lying or simply mistaken, there is no way to do it, since we can't verify God's existence.
I do not need other people to verify the evidence because there is no reason to think that their opinion of the evidence would be any more accurate than my opinion. Millions of people could look at the same evidence and conclude that the evidence means nothing at all but that does not prove anything since they could also be just as wrong as I could be. People are all responsible to God for their own beliefs so they have to verify the evidence for themselves, not go by what other people think.
I don't think you have done anything wrong, except in regards to the conclusion you are drawing. That these things somehow result in a proof for you. Because you seem to use the word wrong as if it is possible for there to be several truths regarding the same claim. And it is simply not possible in this case, the claim doesn't allow it. Its either true or false, no other options.
Proof is just a word, why get all hung up on a word? I could also say I know it is true and then atheists say I don't know, but I do know, according to the definition of know (
2a). The definition says 'truth
or factuality of' so I can be aware of a truth that cannot be proven as a fact.
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
I completely agree. If you don't make the claim then you have no burden of proof. But then you should also stop referring to is as being a proof. Because it doesn't work with the definition, it is merely a belief.
It is
a belief that I believe is true. I never said that I could prove it to anyone except myself. I am not making a claim that it is true so I have no burden of proof.
Claim:
2. God created the Universe
We have no evidence to demonstrate that. Therefore the conclusion is that we do not know.
No difference between how we approach the claims, the difference is in the conclusion, because we do not have any evidence to back up the claim that God created the Universe.
That is right,
we do not know, so we can only believe.
I told you that religion is about faith, and they have had thousands of years trying to figure out how to establish the truth of their claims, but they haven't made any progress at all, so who other than the religions can you blame for this?
I believe that Baha'u'llah established the truth of His claims, but that doesn't mean everyone will believe that.
“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106
Atheists simply say that we see no evidence for there being a God(s). So as above we reach the conclusion that we don't know, and therefore see no reason to assume it is true.
I do not think that anyone should ever
assume God exists, I think people should look at the evidence and then decide what to believe.
Im sorry, but it is not logical, when its a circular argument trying to establish truth. That is what me and others are trying to explain to you.
The argument you have been given or have accepted, doesn't allow for you to ever reach a sound conclusion, that is the way it is structured. And its nearly impossible to convince you of this, because you don't ask the correct questions. You accept certain things, which allow for this circular argument to make sense, which is a logical fallacy.
Please try to watch this video somewhere in the beginning the guy uses the words "Claim Y" and "Claim X", in your case try to replace the following:
Claim Y - "The messengers proof God"
Claim X - "God send messengers"
That is a claim, lots of people disagree with you on that and don't accept your view on the messengers. That is why we need to establish the truth or simply admit that it is just a belief.
The thing is that I am NOT making a
claim that God sends Messengers, I have only ever said that I believe that is true.
However, I suggest you read this.
Are all circular arguments invalid?
No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these
arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with
circular argument, although this does not mean that
all circular arguments are valid and/or sound. It should be more clear now that this line of
reasoning is perfectly valid.Aug 18, 2017
Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?
Circular arguments are perfectly valid
18th August 2017 by
Tim van der Zee
You have likely heard the claim that circular arguments are wrong or incoherent. In this short post I will outline why this is
not the case. Circular arguments are perfectly fine; in fact, they can be quite convincing!
Let’s start with perhaps the most famous bad example of a circular argument:
God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists.
It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. It’s also a bad argument from a logical standpoint, as logical arguments tend to be formulated in “if A than B”, and this formulation is missing here. This emphasizes the other weak aspect of this argumentation: both claims have a rather low prior probability.
Let’s see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:
If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.
While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments
because they are circular? No.
The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that
all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.
http://www.timvanderzee.com/circular-arguments/
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because
if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia
So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:
If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.
Of course, since I can never
prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists. The same applies to the Bible, it can never be proven to be true, so it cannot be used to assert that God exists.
And that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.
