Claims vs. Beliefs

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am tired of being accused of making claims. I am not making any claims because I have nothing to claim since I am a nobody.

The Messengers of God made claims in their scriptures. The main things they claimed were that:

1) They were sent by God
2) That God communicated to them
3) That God exists

I believe their claims but I am making no claims since I have nothing to claim.

Atheists assert that I am making claims so they can say that I have the burden of proof, but I am making no claims just because I believe the claims of the Messengers of God, so I have no burden of proof.

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. The Messengers of God made the claims so they were responsible to meet the burden of proof. I believe that the true Messengers of God met their burden by providing evidence that supports their claims.

The evidence that supports the claims of any alleged Messenger of God is as follows:

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)

Anyone who wants to know if an alleged Messenger of God is a true Messenger of God is responsible to do their own research and look at the evidence that supports the claims of the alleged Messenger. I can point to where the evidence for Baha’u’llah resides but I am not responsible for doing other people’s homework.

According to my beliefs, God wants everyone to do their own homework and come to their own determinations because we are all responsible for our own beliefs. Baha’u’llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone else because we are each accountable to God for our own beliefs on Judgment Day.

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

All this makes logical sense if people could only remove their bias and think about what I just said. Of course, it would require atheists to think differently than they have always thought about claims and evidence and see another point of view that they had never considered.

1. the burden of proof rests on the claims. Repeating someone else's claims doesn't absolve that burden of proof.

2. when you express a belief, you implictly make a claim: "I believe god exists" ==> embedded is the claim "god exists".
When you make a claim, you implicitly express belief in said claim: "god exists" ==> a claim, which you believe.

It's that simple to me..........


Consider this:
Suppose a person claims to have been abducted by aliens. No evidence is given.
I believe the claim and someone asks me what the evidence is on which I base that belief.
I reply with "hey, don't ask me, ask the guy who made the claim - I just believe the claim..."

Would that make sense to you?
Do you really think that the claim of alien abduction is completely freed of any burden of proof, simply because I "merely believe" a claim made by someone else?

Off course not.

In essence, when I express belief in the claim made by that claimed alien abductee, I am actually repeating said claim.

Because as we have seen earlier: you can NOT express a belief in claim X without at least implicitly making claim X. The burden of proof rests upon X. Regardless of who is expressing (belief in) X.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why is that a shame? What is wrong If one criticizes totally indefensible beliefs of evangelists bereft of any evidence?^^^

It’s a shame when the tone of a discourse becomes toxic, as it often does online in a way it rarely does in person.

Once two parties become entrenched in their respective positions, and begin lobbing verbal grenades at each other, mutual understanding becomes impossible. And that is a shame, to my mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

"I believe X is true".

How does that not qualify according to the definitions you just gave here?
And keep in mind that "to believe" means "to accept as true / accurate / fact"
So when you express belief in X, you are literally saying that you think X is true / accurate / fact.

Sounds an awful lot like "saying that something is true or is a fact, although you can not prove it and other people might not believe it"

 

[rational experiences]

O a planet.
O earth isn't a belief. You own feelings.

You feel your life existing.

You feel the planet.

You know you are separate from it.

You live. You feel yourself

You get buffeted by wind so you know a heavens exists. You are made cold or heated by heavens.

So you are taught you are separate.

Not a belief. It's real.

You are a human.

You ask a human who said God was the name of earth.. science theists a choice of humans said so.

Pretty basic advice.

So a human the man says to the woman I have invented science.

Not a belief it's what you wanted.

Therefore you believe what you claim.

I wanted.

Want is what it is. A human's motivation.

Once you wanted me to believe animals were gods.

Once you wanted me to believe a man was a God.

I have a choice.

You said CH terms are man's theories about forms angles and gases.

None of which can be stated unless you choose to apply human only inference.

So you discuss abstract human reasoning not about how you live a human life. But only by what you want.

How are you correct?

The advice CH said by science human themes says it's not what a human is.

As a human is discussing the past.

We live in the present.

Your choice not mine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nobody has to believe in science because science is based upon facts that can be proven.

Yup.

When you have evidence, you don't need mere "beliefs".
Exactly right.

 

[ElishaElijah]

And often times those scriptures were written hundreds of years after said prophet lived, with none knowing them directly, who wrote Their "words" down. Jesus comes to mind.

I found the Scriptures were written much earlier and at the time when the apostles were alive.
Timeline: When Was the New Testament Written?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you make the claim that the claims of these 'messengers' should be investigated?


If *all* you are doing is saying you are convinced by their claims, then you have no burden of proof. If, however, you want to say that others should take these claims seriously, then you do.

Yeah, but if you claim that it is no interisting that there is no proof of objective reality, then what is your evidence for that. Or are you just subjective like that rest of us, be'ut you just believe that your subjectivity must be accepted by the rest of us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yup.

When you have evidence, you don't need mere "beliefs".
Exactly right.

There is no objective evidence for what objective reality is independent of the mind. That also goes for truth, proof or what ever. If you have a claim about objective reality other than being independent of the mind, then that is in the end faith and nothing else. Some people believe in relgion and others in the natural world. But neither have evidence, proof, truth or what ever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're claiming to believe they are true, right there.

Yeah, that also apply to you and your belief based on faith in the natural world.

Come on, solve the problem of objective reality and you will be greater than Einstein.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I did not say that. Nobody should ever believe a Messenger is real until they do their homework.

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

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What, according to you, would make it a claim?

It is an interesting problem of when a belief becomes a claim. Let's us say I believe in human rights and some other beliefs and based on that I believe a person needed to go to prison for a crime. I don't demand that you believe like me and I accept that you believe differently but if enough people believe like me, the person will go to jail. If you consider the example you will notice I don't have to claim that the person is wrong or what not. But rather that I believe that I don't like what the person did and I would use force to place the person in prison.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no objective evidence for what objective reality is independent of the mind.

The world is perceived to exist by others after one is dead is the proof that something is causing this perception.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The world is perceived to exist by others after one is dead is the proof that something is causing this perception.

Yes, but what the something is other than not being you is unknown. It could be a god, the Matrix, the natural world or whatever. You could even be in a Boltzmann Brain universe

 

[Aupmanyav]

It’s a shame when the tone of a discourse becomes toxic, as it often does online in a way it rarely does in person.

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?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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 make such claims?

Well, there is no objective evidence for what you believe that something is. But that goes for us all. You are just of of those, who believe you are special. And that is not limited to religion or philosophy. There are also some atheists, who believe that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So if both theists and atheists have beliefs, and atheists are wrong because all they have is beliefs, then theists are wrong in their beliefs too.


Oops, no. Educated people (including many theists) accept the results in science because science shows its work.


But most people don't choose to believe in their cultural beliefs. Cultural beliefs are mostly adopted through life experiences, including religions.

No one has to accept the belief of their culture.
Therefore they choose it or not.
And science doesn't claim proof of anything.
So you decide if it's correct.
And I didn't say atheist are wrong because all they have is belief. They are wrong when they try to pretend they have more.

 

[stvdv]

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

.I like creativity

And I can live with that claim. I hope others too

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, but what the something is other than not being you is unknown. It could be a god, the Matrix, the natural world or whatever. You could even be in a Boltzmann Brain universe

"If no cosmological constant exists, and if the presently observed vacuum energy is from quintessence that will eventually completely dissipate, then infinite Boltzmann nucleation is also avoided."
"The measurement problem in cosmology also grapples with the ratio of normal observers to abnormally early observers. In measures such as the proper time measure that suffer from an extreme "youngness" problem, the typical observer is a "Boltzmann baby" formed by rare fluctuation in an extremely hot, early universe."
"Theoretically, over an extremely large but not infinite amount of time, by sheer chance, atoms in a void could spontaneously come together in such a way as to assemble a functioning human brain. Like any brain in such circumstances (the hostile vacuum of space with no blood supply or body), it would almost immediately stop functioning and begin to deteriorate."
Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia

It is something like atoms coming together to form a rock which then starts moving upwards all by itself. I do not think I am such a Bolzmnn brain. My brain has been around for close to 80 years now and is working all right. Trying to frighten me with Boltzmann brain? Are you a Boltzmann brain?

 

[Aupmanyav]

And I didn't say atheist are wrong because all they have is belief. They are wrong when they try to pretend they have more.

Atheists like to go by evidence, and there is none for God or prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"If no cosmological constant exists, and if the presently observed vacuum energy is from quintessence that will eventually completely dissipate, then infinite Boltzmann nucleation is also avoided."
"The measurement problem in cosmology also grapples with the ratio of normal observers to abnormally early observers. In measures such as the proper time measure that suffer from an extreme "youngness" problem, the typical observer is a "Boltzmann baby" formed by rare fluctuation in an extremely hot, early universe."
"Theoretically, over an extremely large but not infinite amount of time, by sheer chance, atoms in a void could spontaneously come together in such a way as to assemble a functioning human brain. Like any brain in such circumstances (the hostile vacuum of space with no blood supply or body), it would almost immediately stop functioning and begin to deteriorate."
Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia

It is something like atoms coming together to form a rock which then starts moving upwards all by itself. I do not think I am such a Bolzmnn brain. My brain has been around for close to 80 years now and is working all right. Trying to frighten me with Boltzmann brain? Are you a Boltzmann brain?

Your proof or whatever rests on the assumption that you can trust your subjective experience of objective reality. In the formal sense you haven't solved these assumptions:
"...
The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality.".[50] "As an individual we cannot know that the sensory information we perceive is generated artificially or originates from a real world. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. ... The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them."[51] "Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws.[48][49] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knoweable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[50] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[53]
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[48][49] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[52] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[50]

..."
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia