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

[Tiberius]

My faith teaches (not tells me to believe) that there were previous Messengers from God and I believe it... So what?

Is there any functional difference between the two?

There are claims in the Writings of Baha'u'llah and I believe they are true... So what?

So you were wrong when you said, "All of the Writings of Baha'u'llah are not claims but I believe they are all truth." Post 1987. Because in that post you said they were NOT claims and now you are saying they ARE. This is another example of you changing your position. And I bet at some point in the future you are going to go back again & claim that his writings are not claims...

 

[Sheldon]

I do know, and there is not a damn thing you can so about it.

Yet you can demonstrate no knowledge that represents objective evidence for your beliefs and claims. One can claim to know anything, but this is not evidence for the claim, and the last part of the sentence is very telling. What I and others can "do about it" is examine any objective evidence offered in support of it, if none is offered we can disbelieve it.

 

[Sheldon]

My faith teaches (not tells me to believe) that there were previous Messengers from God and I believe it... So what?

Is there any functional difference between the two?

Clearly not, it is an attempt to assert knowledge, but without demonstrating anything to objectively support the claim, it's little more than semantics and sophistry.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yet you can demonstrate no knowledge that represents objective evidence for your beliefs and claims. One can claim to know anything, but this is not evidence for the claim, and the last part of the sentence is very telling. What I and others can "do about it" is examine any objective evidence offered in support of it, if none is offered we can disbelieve it.

So lets play wrong as "someone is wrong". Please present objective evidence for that using a peer-reviewed scientific source. Not your claim, but actual objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

So lets play wrong as "someone is wrong". Please present objective evidence for that using a peer-reviewed scientific source. Not your claim, but actual objective evidence.

Straw man fallacy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Straw man fallacy.

So you have never in any thread claimed that another person is wrong? Okay. We disagree.

 

[Sheldon]

So you have never in any thread claimed that another person is wrong? Okay. We disagree.

(another facile) Straw man fallacy

 

[Sheldon]

Straw man fallacy

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

Facile
adjective

1. ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

Sophistry
noun

1. The use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

(another facile) Straw man fallacy

Yeah, A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Straw man fallacy

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

Facile
adjective

1. ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

Sophistry
noun

1. The use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

Being wrong is known through objective evidence as per science. I know! Now do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Random capital letters in the middle of a sentence usually have alarm bells ringing for me.



Gibberish.

You are new to the forum so of course it looks like gibberish to you. But after you have been here for some time you will understand that it is gibberish. But well meaning gibberish. I tend to skim over his posts, but once in a blue moon I am shocked and he seems to make just a little sense. At least he is not pushing a harmful agenda.

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

You're following your straw man claim, since I never made it, you did, confirming it is true is pure sophistry, and of course a circular reasoning fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're following your straw man claim, since I never made it, you did, confirming it is true is pure sophistry, and of course a circular reasoning fallacy.

But that's the best kind!!

 

[Sheldon]

You are new to the forum so of course it looks like gibberish to you. But after you have been here for some time you will understand that it is gibberish. But well meaning gibberish. I tend to skim over his posts, but once in a blue moon I am shocked and he seems to make just a little sense. At least he is not pushing a harmful agenda.

All fair points, I just try to read and understand everyone's posts, as a matter of curtesy, though of course I am at least as capable of error as anyone else. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're following your straw man claim, since I never made it, you did, confirming it is true is pure sophistry, and of course a circular reasoning fallacy.

Now, please show with science as peer-reviewed and not a blog or journalism that science is the best method we have.
Do you understand? I want a link to actual science that proves your claim. Not that science works, but that it is the best method. Not your words, but actual science. Not a blog or whatever. Start with Google scholar.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But that's the best kind!!

Yeag, you could help him. Show with scientific evidence how another human can be wrong. E.g give the scientific measurement standard for wrong.

 

[Sheldon]

Being wrong is known through objective evidence as per science. I know! Now do it.

(another) Straw man fallacy, look up the word facile. I'll give you a clue, stating a claim as an absolute and out of context misrepresents it, and thus defeating your own dishonest version, rather than addressing honestly and accurately what I've specifically said, is a logical fallacy called a straw man.

I can't tell whether it's deliberate sophistry of course, or a failure in comprehension, nonetheless...you will have to address what I have actually said before we can find out.

 

[Sheldon]

Now, please show with science as peer-reviewed and not a blog or journalism that science is the best method we have.
Do you understand? I want a link to actual science that proves your claim. Not that science works, but that it is the best method. Not your words, but actual science. Not a blog or whatever. Start with Google scholar.

Doubling down on a different topic, in your experience do people usually let you bully them with this kind of sophistry?

Address specifically what I've said please, and in context.

 

[Sheldon]

Show with scientific evidence how another human can be wrong.

It's odd you can't see the hilarity of that assertion.

I will let a little rope out. it's sophistry involving a straw man to change the context from someone being wrong about a word definition, to pretend it was a claim they were wrong in a scientific context, but you knew that right?

Just like it's sophistry to pretend the assertions that something is the best or most successful method, means there are no other successful methods, but you knew that right?

Address precisely what I have said please and in context, I've given you a lot of latitude as I am new, but my patience is not endless for this kind of sophistry.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's odd you can't see the hilarity of that assertion.

I will let a little rope out. it's sophistry involving a straw man to change the context from someone being wrong about a word definition, to pretend it was a claim they were wrong in a scientific context, but you knew that right?

Just like it's sophistry to pretend the assertions that something is the best or most successful method, means there are no other successful methods, but you knew that right?

Address precisely what I have said please and in context, I've given you a lot of latitude as I am new, but my patience is not endless for this kind of sophistry.

So all contexts are not science and for those contexts not science, science is not the best method we have. I agree.

See, here is how it works. You have a worldview and that contains of different behaviors. Some scientific and some not. That is the same for me. I just admit that everything I do, is not science and in some cases I can't use science.
Now that wasn't that hard.

Science is a good, but limited method that can't be used on all aspects of human life, only some.
For the other aspects I use different methods from human science(Danish definition of a form of non-hard science), philosophy, politics, everyday life and even religion. Now no one method is the best, because which is the best depends on context.
So there it is. Yes, science works, but in a limited sense and it is not the best method for all contexts.

In effect you above admitted that. Context, context, context, ...
See, it is not that hard.