Claims vs. Beliefs

[Trailblazer]

It's quite simple, really.

If you are telling someone that there is any empirical truth to your beliefs, then you are making an claim, and the burden of proof lies with you.

I never said that there is any empirical truth to my beliefs. If there was empirical truth, they would be facts, not beliefs.

Definition of empirical truth
: exact conformity as learned by observation or experiment between judgments or propositions and externally existent things in their actual status and relations. — called also actual truth, contingent truth.
Empirical truth Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Regardless, I am not making any claims so I have no burden of proof.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How about the Bhagavad Gita or the Dhammapada? Do they not have meaning, even to an atheist such as yourself?

1. I discard all those verses which talk of Krishna being the Supreme God, and accept only the secular verses.
2. I do not have much problem with Buddha's sayings because he does not talk about God or claims being a messenger from any God. But he sings too much about sorrow. I do not think life is just sorrow.

 

[viole]

No, it is not circular.

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

I did not say God exists because Baha’u’llah is a Messenger of God and I did not say Baha’u’llah is a Messenger of God because God exists.

Logically speaking, one has to look at the Messenger in order to know if He was a Messenger
That's why I said that the best evidence by which we can judge an alleged Messenger is the following:

1) Their Person (their character, as demonstrated by the life they led)
2) Their Revelation (the history, which is what they accomplished on their mission from God)
3) Their Words (the words that were attributed to them in scriptures, or what they wrote)

Of course the scriptures were written after the fact. How could they have been written before the fact?
Baha'u'llah wrote His scriptures after He received communication from God.

Well, them tell me why a messenger from the flying spaghetti monster could not enjoy the same plausibility:

1) she drinks lots of beers
2) she admires and wears like a pirate

Etc.

of course, my question is relevant only if believe your claims deserve more plausibility than the claims from a believer in the flying spaghetti monster.

if not, you can decline responding to this.


Ciao

- viole

 

[Aupmanyav]

I find plenty of evidence for a divine designer. .

Natural. You are a Christian, I am a strong atheist.

 

[sun rise]

Sorry, but the ineffable is forever limited to mere belief. One may have a very strong belief, but that does not make it real.

That is the natural atheist perspective but it's not mine. What is belief to you is real to me. And, of course, neither of us will change the other person's mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

But then you're making a claim that what you're saying is your opinion.

No, saying something is not a claim.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
say means - Google Search

Claims are assertions that require evidence or proof.
If I say something is my opinion that does not require evidence or proof.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

 

[Aupmanyav]

These are all imaginary phenomena, ... in the sense that they are unobservable.

Unobservable by naked eye does not mean imaginary. That way even the Corona virus will be imaginary. Have you seen it?

 

[SalixIncendium]

No, saying something is not a claim.

This is also a claim.

 

[Aupmanyav]

These false messiah claimants have no evidence to support their claims and that is why I deny their claims.

Even the so-called true prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis did not provide any evidence.

That's true, but not everyone attacks other people's beliefs. Some people are actually polite and respectful even if they do not agree with my beliefs. It's all about the person.

They say respect has to be earned. Saying that all old religions are corrupted and out-dated is not going to earn you any respect.

 

[Trailblazer]

Real has no objective referent. It is an irrational subjective word in your mind without objective evidence.

Quite the contrary. Real means there is objective evidence of the entity that is real.

 

[sun rise]

Boltzmann Brain

I learned something new today on the internet and even stranger on RF!

 

[sun rise]

You are simply wrong. Science isn't about facts or proof, but working theories.

That's incorrect. Working theories are one tool of science but experimental facts which prove those theories are what science is about.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure, the discourse becomes toxic when people make absurd claims, quote meaningless writings and never provide any evidence worth the name. So who is to blame? the one who reacts to such claims or those who continuously go on making such claims?

Who is to blame? People who keep asking for evidence over and over and over again, after the evidence has been presented.

I make no claims. I only have beliefs.
Nobody has the right to tell another person what they are "doing." This is so disrespectful.
To tell a person "you are making a claim" after they have said they are not making a claim is so arrogant.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You are simply wrong. Science isn't about facts or proof, but working theories. Do some research.

Yep. You’re absolutely right.

Now go learn what a scientific theory is.

 

[sun rise]

As several posters here have pointed out when anyone makes a claim they have a burden of proof.

Even the so-called true prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis did not provide any evidence.

Of course part of the argument is what constitutes evidence. I've read posts that assert evidence of one sort or another. And I've read posts asserting that is not acceptable evidence or even evidence at all.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Who is to blame? People who keep asking for evidence over and over and over again, after the evidence has been presented.

I make no claims. I only have beliefs.
Nobody has the right to tell another person what they are "doing." This is so disrespectful.
To tell a person "you are making a claim" after they have said they are not making a claim is so arrogant.

You are ultimately responsible for what you say.

Do you believe in the premise of the simple statement above, or no? Are you not responsible for propagating a lie, for example, if someone else told you the lie in the first place? Do you have no culpability in that scenario? Should there be zero onus on you to fact-check your statements before making them?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Unobservable by naked eye does not mean imaginary. That way even the Corona virus will be imaginary. Have you seen it?

Elementary particles, like wave function dynamics, are in a sense metaphors for an underlying fundamental reality which continues to defy our comprehension. And while entities can be both real and imagined, quantum theory is undecided as to what, at the quantum level, can be regarded as real.

Viruses are detectable under a microscope.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are just of of those, who believe you are special.

In what way, if I may ask?
You will perhaps agree that all things are different from each other, even two stones of the same kind.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That's it? You are likely to be wrong so you run away? That is not cool.

Your answer sums it up, you don’t know why though, right? Why would you imagine I would run away? You can think that but it’s not it

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Elementary particles, like wave function dynamics, are in a sense metaphors for an underlying fundamental reality which continues to defy our comprehension. And while entities can be both real and imagined, quantum theory is undecided as to what, at the quantum level, can be regarded as real.

And yet you will still need to (for example) drink water or face termination of your existence for lack of it. Isn't that interesting? Is the drinking of water just symbolic, do you think? Another metaphor? Or does the substance of your person have actual needs that must be met with real, physical elements that you are literally enslaved by your body to seek out and consume?

Point being - regardless at which level you would still like to try and insert "ambiguity" such that you might still be able to go on proposing that certain supernatural or "spiritual" elements could yet exist in these less-well-known or ambiguous spaces, you still simply must acknowledge the over-arching reality presented to you, and if you are being rational, admit that it doesn't contain the things you keep wanting to insert at the fringes of our knowledge.