Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What exactly is the philosophical component of science that your alluding to?Science is a philosophical system and there is a reason it is done as methodological naturalism.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What exactly is the philosophical component of science that your alluding to?Science is a philosophical system and there is a reason it is done as methodological naturalism.
What exactly is the philosophical component of science that your alluding to?
Okay, I should have said that you have not shown or explained how messages can be evidence for god and I see no why in which they could be. In the end, however, it is you how have made the claim that 'messages' are evidence for god, so it's your burden of proof. What's more you have subsequently flatly contradicted yourself by saying:Unless you can prove that they ARE NOT the evidence for God that God has provided, that is only your personal opinion, just as it s only my belief that they ARE evidence.
There is no logical way to reconcile that with this:There is not and never will be objective evidence for God.
If evidence is not objective, it is not evidence. If there is no objective evidence for god, there is no evidence for god, therefore, the so called messengers cannot possibly be evidence for god because you've already said there is no such evidence.Messengers are the evidence for God.
This is the big problem with a god with all the omni-s. Omnipotent and omniscient creators of everything, cannot avoid omni-responsibility.Now it is God's fault for the way you think.
Okay, good. Now, an omnipotent, omniscient god, would, in effect, have decided (as universe design choices) on every single one of those factors.Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these can be considered causes or reasons why we choose one thing or another.
Argumentum ad consequentiam. We would be "pre-programmed robots" from the POV of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. It would have effectively decided on all the factors that go into our choices. Free will works okay from a human point of view (compatibilism) but not from a god's.However, we can make choices because otherwise we would just be pre-programmed robots.
I'm not in the least bit interested in evidence for the so called messengers. Only interested in evidence for god, which you have already ruled out.As I said in a prior post, the evidence for the Messengers is objective.
I know exactly what it means, and your statements could be textbook examples. Let's take "The Bible is evidence [for] God since it was inspired by God." It can't possibly have been inspired by god unless there is a god, so your argument that the bible is evidence for god has an implicit premiss that god exits. Are you seriously not able to see the problem with this?Begs the question is a term that...
Yes, like showing evidence which is no evidence whatsoever. Just what some people claim. Which is something everybody can do.I already have, dozens of times...
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
More words... If you can somehow make it relevant to the OP!
It wouldn't help, which is why I wouldn't do it, aside from the fact that I cannot post entire books on a forum.
Unless you can prove that they ARE NOT the evidence for God that God has provided, that is only your personal opinion, just as it s only my belief that they ARE evidence.
...
That is not true. Things happen in this world that God does not desire because humans desire them and do them.Things happen in this world only if your omni-potent and omniscient God desires it. Can anything happen in the world without God desiring it?
God is not punishing me. I was punished by a human. Now I have to pray for God's assistance in getting over it.Why is he punishing you, what for, what sin have you committed? He certainly does not seem to love you.
No, my standard of evidence is not my personal opinion, it is what Baha'u'llah offered as evidence for God.Yes and that is also the case with you. Your standard of evidence is your personal opinion.
All Baha'u'llah offered was his personal opinion.No, my standard of evidence is not my personal opinion, it is what Baha'u'llah offered as evidence for God.
No, my standard of evidence is not my personal opinion, it is what Baha'u'llah offered as evidence for God.
“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
I'm really not that smart. I just have a deep-rooted interest in religion and theology and I don't accept any religion, or theological belief, blindly. Not even Earthseed. In fact, I'm starting to realize that my theology is more grounded in Realism rather than Earthseed or process theology, because I want to encapsulate God into not just change but also what contains all changes: reality. My views and how I understand them are evolving, changing, as I understand the nature of reality better. I'm still trinitarian panentheist: The Omniverse, Entropy and Extropy are the Godhood of my beliefs, but what contains all three now in a very general sense is just one thing - Reality.How'd you get to be so smart at such a young age? Many people study religions for years and years until they are twice your age, and still haven't figured what you have. That includes Baha'is some of whom think they know so much. I think the problem is that thye are so entrenched in scriptures that they cannot understand basic human psychology and the differences between humans, so if I say I cannot believe God s loving for example, thye seem perplexed! Just reead what Bahaulalh wrote, many respond. Maybe if they had my life they would understand why I cannot believe that God is loving. There are days when I don't know how much longer I can go on like this but the only answer I will ever get from a Baha'i is "read the Writings."
:Winner:....one could in theory say that the belief that reality exists is a default position, but whether reality is or isn't God is up to each individual as he or she may understand it.
*OPTIMISTIC*And my position is not mine. It is the Objective Truth as based on philosophy. Just read Any Rand, Objectivism. It is clearly so and you are mistaken and can't see the Truth.
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."—Ayn Rand Lexicon
The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.aynrandlexicon.com
In fact, you have contradicted yourself and you have evicted yourself from reality. That is the Truth. And it can't be doubted unless you want to evict yourself from reality. Do you really want to evict yourself from reality???
See, that was easy. I have the correct text because it says so and yours is the wrong one. That is a clear as day.
*OPTIMISTIC*
That's fine. That is all we can do.Right back at you. You have your understanding based on what makes sense to you. I do the same as what makes to me.
That's fine. That is all we can do.
I never claimed that messages are evidence for God, I said I believe that Messengers are evidence for God.Okay, I should have said that you have not shown or explained how messages can be evidence for god and I see no why in which they could be. In the end, however, it is you how have made the claim that 'messages' are evidence for god, so it's your burden of proof.
What's more you have subsequently flatly contradicted yourself by saying: There is not and never will be objective evidence for God.
Sorry for the confusion. I meant that there is no objective evidence of God, since God can never be observed. I did not mean that there is no objective evidence for God. The Messengers are the objective evidence for God.There is no logical way to reconcile that with this: Messengers are the evidence for God.
If evidence is not objective, it is not evidence. If there is no objective evidence for god, there is no evidence for god, therefore, the so called messengers cannot possibly be evidence for god because you've already said there is no such evidence.
Omnipotent and omniscient does not imply responsibility. Humans are responsible for themselves.This is the big problem with a god with all the omni-s. Omnipotent and omniscient creators of everything, cannot avoid omni-responsibility.
Where did you ever get such a hokey idea, that an omnipotent, omniscient God, would have decided human free will choices?Okay, good. Now, an omnipotent, omniscient god, would, in effect, have decided (as universe design choices) on every single one of those factors.
Explain why an omnipotent, omniscient creator would have effectively decided on all the factors that go into our choices.Argumentum ad consequentiam. We would be "pre-programmed robots" from the POV of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. It would have effectively decided on all the factors that go into our choices. Free will works okay from a human point of view (compatibilism) but not from a god's.
The evidence for God is the Messengers since that is what God has provided. You can take it or leave it.I'm not in the least bit interested in evidence for the so called messengers. Only interested in evidence for god, which you have already ruled out.
I know full well what the problem with this is since I have posted about it extensively. It is a circular argument.I know exactly what it means, and your statements could be textbook examples. Let's take "The Bible is evidence [for] God since it was inspired by God." It can't possibly have been inspired by god unless there is a god, so your argument that the bible is evidence for god has an implicit premiss that god exits. Are you seriously not able to see the problem with this?
Why do we all need to be doing the same thing?Well, you do more. Because you have the One True God, so we are not doing the same thing.
What a crazy thing to do! First allow humans to do things and then punish them for it! Is it some game?God allows human free will but God does not desire what some people do with it.
God is not punishing me. I was punished by a human. Now I have to pray for God's assistance in getting over it.