Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I already offered the evidence many times so I will not offer it again.
You can disbelieve anything you want to because you have free will. Why would you think I care?
Happy trails.
-
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
You can disbelieve anything you want to because you have free will. Why would you think I care?
Happy trails.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No you didn't, though you keep asserting you did, but what you offered was not evidence, merely bare assertion.
No, free will is something of a misnomer, however I seem to have some autonomy of thought, that is bound by my intellect of course, as it must be.
Where did I claim you cared? I just responded to a question you asked in a public debate forum.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Same tactics on any forum.
I don't know he says. I must experiment about the cosmic theme but I only build machines inside earths heavens. Wait a minute I will send a machine outside to experiment.
Oh is your machine the big bang thesis then?
No he says I don't know. You female are mother maths space you female healer of my life continuance tell me science.
I will berate you to try to get new advice.
Sorry healing is about life not science.
True reading why you do it.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science says light constant for formula.
Thesis only.
Light sits naturally in void vacuum. Owns clear gas burning.
Two states science said is life supported balances.
Man thinks I am safe by immaculate cannot theory about it.
But you do.
Your claim I know gas advice by the presence as the heavens. God the fusion doesn't own it.
Thesis first. I must invent it.. so you take God mass convert mass to obtain it. Yet you burn convert the stone.
Makes no sense at all science.
As you don't own any presence but man's life in natural purpose to compare anything first.
Man with God is not comparable anywhere else.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I am not claiming that I know. I am saying that I know.
Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=say+means
I can just as easily say you KNOW that Baha'i is false but you cannot claim you know that unless you can prove it. If you claimed/asserted that you KNOW you would be committing an argument from ignorance since you cannot prove that you know.
Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
- true
- false
- unknown between true or false
- being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
Okay, fair enough.
I am not concluding that it is a valid argument against Baha'i. I was just citing it as a source that is not a Baha'i source.
Of course it is not a balanced viewpoint, it was written by Christian who believes that Jesus is the Only Way, a wolf in sheep's clothing pretending to be unbiased. It was a rather pathetic attempt but it mixes truths with falsities in an attempt to fool the unsuspecting reader. If you were not well-versed in the history you might actually believe him.
That completely flew over your head. I was not referring to the existence of politics. I said that people discuss and disagree about religions (which ones are best) just as they discuss and disagree about politics (which political party is best).
In other words, people can discuss politics or religion and disagree. That has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.
As I have told you that does not work in religion because we have to test and verify it for ourselves. Why would someone else's opinion be any more likely to be accurate than our own opinion, but that is not the main point. the man point is that we accountable to God for our beliefs so they have to be what we tested and verifies for ourselves.
What Baha’u’llah wrote in The Kitáb-i-Íqán (The Book of Certitude) on the very first pages is vitally important. The following is part of the last sentence of a longer paragraph, the part I want to point out and explain.
“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4
What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people think.
What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves.
How to Independently Investigate the Truth
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, there is a big difference. A teaching of a religion is a teaching of a religion. Nobody is telling me to believe the teaching, I chose to believe the teaching.
Read this carefully. I said:
"There are claims in the Writings of Baha'u'llah and I believe they are true... So what?"
I did not say that "All of the Writings of Baha'u'llah are claims." I said "There are claims in the Writings of Baha'u'llah."
In other words, the Writings of Baha'u'llah contain claims, meaning that some of the Writings are claims. However. All of the Writings of Baha'u'llah are not claims and in fact very little if the Writings are claims.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
There is no objective difference. A statement of knowledge is a claim, no matter if you use tortured semantics to deny it. I'm still at a loss as to why you insist on denying anything so obvious?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Mr. Aron Ra?Hmm, that phrase does sound familiar
Of course I copied it from another source myself.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
It was the same context and same discussion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes. Though I prefer my definition of evidence. I use the definition of scientific evidence .
This is a strawman. No skeptic expects you to have any evidence at all. To say that they do and to call them ridiculous for it is a classic strawman.
What the skeptic says is that he needs compelling evidence to believe anything, including claims about gods. The believer then makes an argument for believing by offering as evidence that which does not support the claim, which the skeptic explains. The theist interprets this as the skeptic asking for evidence, and in frustration, asks what evidence would the skeptic accept, as you have done when you started this thread.
I never ask for evidence from believers, because after years of reading their words, I know that they have none. Why would I ask for more bad arguments?
Don't forget that to an empiricist, that which is undetectable and that which don't exist are indistinguishable and can be treated as the same thing. Why? Because nothing causally disconnected from our reality has any reality here. That's what undetectable means - incapable of modifying physical reality in any way. It doesn't mean invisible, because many invisible things are detectable. To be undetectable means to have no connection with reality.
To the skeptic, inability to produce evidence generally means somebody believes something untrue, not that they're correct but just can't show it. That's pretty much how we distinguish correct ideas from useless ones - evidence. Correct ideas can be empirically demonstrated to be correct, whereas incorrect ones cannot. Evolution is correct, and biblical creationism is incorrect, based on one aligning with compelling evidence and the having none.
Probably until you adopt coherent definitions for those words. I still don't know what they mean to you if you don't consider an expressed belief a claim. People aren't merely disagreeing with your beliefs. They don't understand what they are when you use language the way you do. It's seems incoherent that you say that you believe something, but make no claim. You seem to equate claiming anything with claiming to have proof.
In logic, the distinction is made between an adequately evidenced and soundly argued claim, which is called a sound conclusion, and what appears to be a conclusion not supported by evidence or argument, which is called a bare claim. These are also called justified and unjustified belief. As Hitchens noted, the latter can be dismissed out of hand as nothing more than an expressed opinion. In the context of this thread, you have offered evidence for your belief that a god exists and that Baha'u'llah is His messenger, the evidence (in part) being that message.
That's a claim to everybody but you. It's a statement of what you believe to be true, and that is sufficient to make it a claim, an unsupported one in this case. It doesn't matter that you can't prove your belief to the question of whether it is a claim. It's merely enough that you assert that it is true to you.
Compare hypothesis with belief or claim. The first asks (I wonder if this idea is true, let's test it to see), the other assets.
And here we go again. You call the writings of Baha'u'llah evidence that a god is writing through him, then make a semantic argument about whether that is telling you what to believe. You apparently think that he is advising you what to believe, which is what others mean by "telling you," and you want to quibble over whether this word means something closer to ordering you to believe, another deflection.
Why do you even bother telling people what you believe if you aren't promoting the belief or answering in response to a question about what you believe? You routinely make these posts, then spend the rest of the thread running from them when others question them. You and I are doing that now on the homeopathy thread. You express a belief then spend the rest of the thread explaining that you're no there to discuss those beliefs. I understand that you have such beliefs, but what interest are they to skeptics if that's all you have to say about them? OK, that's what Trailblazer believes.
With all due respect, how is that of value to others? How is it of value to you? Has this thread accomplished anything for you apart from getting you into discussions you don't want to have? Perhaps a discussion board isn't the best place to post opinions that you don't want to discuss. You can expect this to happen every time, since it takes awhile to determine that you're using words idiosyncratically and not interested in defending your claims, because you don't consider them that if you're not also claiming that you have proof - a private definition of the word discovered inductively over dozens of posts by multiple posters.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Then why do they keep asking me for evidence, over and over and over and over and over again? Hundreds of times atheists have asked me for evidence. The only other reason I can think of for them asking for evidence is as a game to show me that I have no evidence. If that is the reason they ask I consider that childish, and I don't have time for games.
I did not CALL anyone ridiculous. I said I think that the expectation (to have objective evidence of God) is ridiculous, given that God is not objective.
Why indeed would you keep asking for evidence as other atheists do, when you already know what theists have and know it is insufficient? As the old saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Maybe that is logical to you as an empiricist, but as a believer I do not consider that logical. Just because God is not detectable that does not mean God is causally disconnected from the physical reality.
It all boils down to what you consider evidence. What I consider evidence is not what atheists consider evidence and I accept that.
That's right. What contradicts proven scientific facts cannot be correct. However, everything is not within the purview of science as science does not address matters of God and religion.
A belief is not a claim unless I am claiming it is true. Believing it is true is not claiming it is true. A person can believe something yet not claim it is true. I am not claiming that my beliefs are true because I cannot prove that they are true to anyone except myself. I might be able to convince somebody they are true but that is not the same thing as proving they are true as a fact. Beliefs are not factual.
Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=claim+means
Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim
Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search
Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief
Religious beliefs are not subject to logical proofs. I realized that a long time ago and I have told people that I am not going to make a logical argument for my beliefs since they cannot be proven true or false. That does not mean that my beliefs are not logical in the sense that my religious beliefs make logical sense, it only means that they can never be proven to be true.
The Writings of Baha'u'llah are 'part' of the evidence but the claims of Baha'u'llah are not the evidence.
Baha’u’llah’s Two Bold Claims
All of which leads us back to Baha’u’llah, who made two very bold claims. First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:
Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth.
https://bahaiteachings.org/what-did-bahaullah-teach?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Below is a list of the primary categories of evidence that support the claims above.
1. His character (His qualities).
That can be determined by reading about Him in books such as the following:
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4
2. His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth, i,e., the history of the Baha'i Faith).
That can be determined by reading about His mission in books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.
3. His Writings which can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh
4. Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies that refer to the return of Christ and the promised Messiah. That proves to me He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book:
William Sears, Thief in the Night
5. Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah
No, my belief is not a claim (see definitions above) because I am not asserting that it is true just because I believe that it is true. Atheists want to make my belief into a claim so they can say I have a burden of proof but I have no burden of proof because I am making no claims, nor am I trying to prove anything.
Have you been following this thread? I run from nobody. I answer all the questions about what I believe.
I am not trying to accomplish anything, I just respond to posts. I do not want to have repetitive discussions that lead nowhere, or the constant I am right and you are wrong, but I want to have respectful discussions that benefit both parties.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Well I can't speak for others, but for me it is because you keep claiming to have evidence "over and over and over and over and over again".
Sheldon
Veteran Member
You are confusing a legitimate request with the expectation of a positive result. just as you keep confusing claimed, evidenced, and belief. A belief is the affirmation of a claim, and a belief stated publicly can and should be challenged if it is relentlessly offered as evidence when it is offered in the absence of any evidence, as your claims have been.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Hahahahaha do you think we won't notice you've clipped some of the definition of belief?
Belief
noun
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Oh look, I've accidentally linked that to the dictionary definition, silly me showing evidence your claim is errant nonsense, I know how you hate that.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Then why not challenge it? Talk is cheap. Put your money where your mouth is.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
That is exactly what I and other posters have been doing, including requests for you to demsonrate some objective evidence for your claims. It is you who is making the claims, and therefore it is for you to "put your money where your mouth is" so to speak.
We Never Know
No Slack
Where in your link does it say "especially one without proof".
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I clipped nothing, just click on the link below and you will see that, but I see that you clipped what I posted. to @It Aint Necessarily So
Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, they haven't been doing anything but sitting on their asses, waiting for me to prove to them that God exists to them so they won't have to DO anything for themselves.