Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You have that all backwards. Just because God allows it that does not mean God desires it.
That human desired it so that human did it. God allowed it because God allows human free will choices.
-
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!
Default position
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
That human desired it so that human did it. God allowed it because God allows human free will choices.
That is correct.
In the same way as one might say one is an A-fairist or A-Unicornian etc.
The default position is a negative one and these things are not real until proven so, it is the most rational position one can hold. But for some reason, a lot of religious people do not seem to apply this logic to their own belief, while having no issue saying that they don't think that unicorns exist and that this is a perfectly rational position to take and the same apply to all the religious gods of other religions that one does not believe in either.
The majority of atheists don't make the claim that God or gods doesn't exist, simply that we see no evidence for this being the case.
You must be able to see the failure in logic here with what you are writing?
"I have no proof of.. unicorns.. I believe in.. fantasy creatures.. It would have to be proven to me that.. unicorns.. does not exist.."
That is not a rational position to take and fails on several levels.
1. If you have no proof of unicorns, why on earth would you believe that fantasy creatures exist then?
2. That fantasy creatures exist, based on something that you admit you have no proof of, but then use that conclusion to demand someone or yourself, to demonstrate that unicorns don't exist in order for you to change your mind, is a formal fallacy or a complete neglect of the burden of proof.
That is a catastrophic failure in reasoning
If I make a claim "Invisible Smurfs rules the Universe", and then tell you that as long as you cannot prove that my claim is not true, then it is an equally valid and rational position to hold and therefore we as a society should follow the doctrine of the invisible Smurf overlords to not **** them off. Hopefully, you would also protest again such reasoning.
It follows the standard rules of "burden of proof"
1. You make a claim
2. You have the burden of proving or to demonstrate that the claim is true.
3. Everyone else that declines your claim is being perfectly rational in doing so.
You are obviously free to do this. But the answer to the question is. No, it doesn't make sense, given what you have written.
‘Siberian unicorn’ walked Earth with humans
An extinct giant rhinoceros, sometimes described as a “Siberian unicorn,” lived on the planet much longer than scientists previously thought, new research shows.
www.thearchaeologist.org
True _ atheist requires proof. It is and will be easier for them to believe in Aliens / extraterrestrials as the world calls and view them as now than to believe in a supernatural being / beings who created this universe and life on this Earth and is referred to as God because of what he has demonstrated his power to be to the ancients.
Atheist refer to him as the magical God from the sky - as the imagination of ignorant people (they may not have had the technologies of today but they were smarter).
And if one reads the Bible - the angels are not from or of the Earth _ God is not from or of the Earth, he is Spirit _ with the exception of Jesus who is of heaven born in a flesh body. He ascended back to heaven and is coming back down from the clouds in the sky with his Holy Angels following him.
Magical or actually returning to render judgement on this planet. Governments over the world are already watching the skies and wondering what's going on up there - sooner than later the world just may know and have their proof.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
And yet:-
Seriously, what am I supposed to make of this? Either you can back up the latter claim or you can't. If you can, then please do so. if you can't, there is no point in further discussion.
So what, exactly do you think is the difference between evidence 'of' something and 'for' something?
There are all sorts of things that we have very convincing evidence for/of that can't be directly observed. Quarks, for example. I'd be perfectly happy with that quality of evidence but I haven't seen anything remotely like that. Actually, I haven't even even an objective hint in the world that there is a real god.
No way you can logically sustain that. An omnipotent, omniscient creator has fully decided all of our nature, nurture, and experience. That is what makes all of us who we are and drives all of our choices (as you described before).
I know. I am saying free will is impossible in any way that makes sense from the POV of a god.
So you keep asserting. It's a worthless statement unless you can explain in what way they provide said evidence.
Yes, a circular argument is often valid, in the technical sense:
Validity (logic) - Wikipedia
Soundness - Wikipedia
Okay, so we're back to the total lack of evidence....
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Calling something a unicorn doesn't make it one. In the same way, a Komodo dragon is not categorized as a dragon‘Siberian unicorn’ walked Earth with humans
An extinct giant rhinoceros, sometimes described as a “Siberian unicorn,” lived on the planet much longer than scientists previously thought, new research shows.
If you had read the very first line in the link, it says this:
An extinct giant rhinoceros, sometimes described as a “Siberian unicorn,” lived on the planet much longer than scientists previously thought, new research shows.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, they are unknown, until evidence is given.
And just for the fun of it.
As for proof, that is irrational as it is philosophy. Only science is rational and the evidence that science is rational, is because I say so. In fact it is proven that I am the rational standard for being a human, because it makes no sense to me, if I am irrational, so that is proof that I am rational.
In fact if you deny that, I can show with the true and correct philosophy of proof, that you are not in reality. Here:
"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
Learn to differentiate between real and unknown. In fact if I prove something, that makes it real, right?
Balthazzar
Christian Evolutionist
One person understands human fault, while the other blames God. Which is most likely true? You say God desired that one human punish another. I've learned that humans pervert judgment and a sense of justice is often lacking. I've also learned that humans are very much unknowing and without understanding, and for this reason we often destroy ourselves. You suggest God desires that humans punish other humans making God the orchestrator of unjust punishment thrust on others by faulty humans. We learn as we go and if God exists, I'd suggest it's the learning and development that is desired as opposed to the punishment and infliction some humans force on others for whatever reason they choose to. Correction and learning discipline vs. punishment these are far removed from each other although they are often confused.
Yes, and that is appropriate. If we had evidence of a superhuman presence, extraterrestrials who arose naturalistically within the universe are more likely to be the explanation than supernatural deities according to Occam's parsimony principle, since that hypothesis only requires that nature exists, whereas the other requires other realities exist as well.
I think you have it backward. The unprepared mind can't see what critical thought reveals.
Critical thinkers have developed a better way of seeing. Most of the world are unskilled at that, and most are unaware that such a thing exists or what it can do, so their opinions are of little value to those who do. You used the expression "garbage in, garbage out," which accurately describes all other thinking about what is true about the world. These other people aren't properly applying the rules of evidence. You aren't every time you claim that the writings of the messengers are good evidence of a god. No, they're not, but then you aren't using the same rules of inference as the trained logician, so whatever conclusions you come to about those messages will be unsound.
It's exactly analogous to addition. There are rigid rules of inference that generate correct sums every time if properly applied, and if you use any other method - if it deviates even by one rule - say, change 2+2=4 to 2+2=5 - then the process fails, and garbage out obtains. Faith gives us permission to make these changes and believe the results, hence a world of theists.
Disagree. You seem to be saying that we can't conceive of something without it existing. That might be correct in your case, especially regarding the existence of gods, which you seem to have trouble discussing in the hypothetical. Your conditional comments (If ...) have a shelf life of about one sentence before immediately collapsing into assertions that assume that god's existence.
I don't think anybody is disputing that claim. What they dispute is that you assume that this god exists, and call that absence of evidence evidence for a god who behaves that way.
Not to a critical thinker. To him, the Bible is evidence that it was written and not much else. It's not evidence that anything in it is correct, nor even that what was written was believed by the writers, much less that a god exists.
There is no need to disprove the claims of messengers to reject them. Like you say, they're only the messenger's personal opinion, and not convincing.
If those words were ever valid, they still are. They haven't changed. What you are saying is that YOUR religion is the arbiter of what beliefs in these other religions are misinterpretations, probably wherever they contradict what you believe.
We probably are robots. There is no evidence that we are the authors of our wills. Our brains are, and their circuits deliver imperatives to consciousness which, as best we can tell, the self-aware self has no choice but to obey.
Nobody questions that people calling themselves messengers for a god exist. The evidence for that is compelling even if the messages aren't.
Pretty poor plan. Of course, you don't go from evidence to conclusion. You go from faith-based premise to evidence, which always supports your beliefs according to private, tortured reasoning. So for you, it is a given that whatever happens is part of an extremely wise plan.
Same thing to me. I'm trying to understand your words in a way that makes them make sense - what distinction you imagine exists between those two phrases that evidence could be one and not the other. Maybe you mean no direct evidence of a god like a visible face by "of God" but that indirect evidence like messages is "for God." If so, that's a distinction I don't make except to say that you have one but not the other, and the one you have doesn't support the conclusions you believe it does.
Those are your values, or as you are fond of saying, "just your opinion" - not those of the humanist. Imagine a mother taking that attitude about her young children.
What's the use of the god you describe? It's indistinguishable from nonexistent, so why should anyone care whether it exists or not?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It is not a claim, it is a belief. Baha'u'llah made the claim and I believe His claim.
You either believe it or you don't, based upon the evidence He provided to back up His claim.
There is no objective evidence of God, since God can never be observed.
There is objective evidence for God's existence which can be observed, the Messengers of God.
That's right. God cannot be directly observed but there is evidence for God, the Messengers of God.
That is patently absurd. If God decided everything we would be and do we would be programmed robots. Who are parents were decides what our heredity (nature) will be and our parents also determine what out nurture (upbringing) will be. God has no part in determining our heredity or our experiences in life.
That is patently absurd since it is God who gave us free will. As I explained before there are constraints on our free will, but we can still make our own choices. God does not make any choices for us.
The Messengers are the evidence of God's existence since God provided them as evidence of His existence.
The Messengers provide evidence that backs up their claims to be Messengers of God.
That's true. Didn't I tell you that?
I said I had a valid circular argument but I did not say it was sound. It is not sound because I cannot prove that the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true.
What determines if an argument is sound?
Sound: an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains only true premises.
Unsound: an argument that is not sound.
Validity and Invalidity, Soundness and Unsoundness
No, there is not a lack of evidence, there is a lack of proof, since nobody can prove that a man was was a Messenger of God.
There is evidence but there is no proof. If there was proof it would be a fact and not a belief.
Unless you understand the 'difference' between evidence and proof we will just keep going in circles.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
Only verifiable evidence can be validated. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search
Fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search
There is no proof that God exists, since there is no verifiable evidence of God's existence.
There is evidence that Messengers received communication from God, but there is no proof. How could that claim ever be proven given nobody can prove that God exists? Think about it.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
To lead us unto all Truth about Life and Death.
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
So why believe in (your very specific version of) God?
Okay, bear with me. But I've been reading a lot of your posts for like a while and I still haven't the faintest clue what evidence you are talking about. Maybe I missed it. What is the evidence? Please be clear. How is it convincing?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Because I do not need proof when I have good evidence.
Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings). There is other evidence but this is the best evidence. Whether it is convincing or not varies among individuals.
“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
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
When you post "The Messengers are the objective evidence for God", you are making a claim. If you want to state a belief it is customary to say something like "I believe...". I'm not actually interested in your beliefs unless you can back them up with evidence, anyway, so the distinction is all but irrelevant. There is no point in telling me what you believe unless you can back it up with evidence.
I haven't seen any evidence. You keep on telling me it exists but won't say what it is. Just saying the 'messengers' are the evidence is meaningless unless you explain in what way they are supposed to evidence.
Still makes no sense and you didn't answer the question: what on earth do you think the difference is between evidence 'of' and evidence 'for'?
Another argumentum ad consequentiam.
Look, either the universe is deterministic or it isn't. If it's deterministic, then (assuming a god) everything was decided at the moment of creation. If it isn't deterministic, then that directly leads to true randomness, and god would be playing dice with our destiny. Free will is not a third option. Free will, as many people think of it, is logically impossible, for the reason that (just like the universe) our minds must either be deterministic or not.
Then WHERE IS IT!? Just saying it's the 'messengers' is not an answer.
Verifiable evidence is not proof. Non-verifiable evidence is not evidence.It is you who seem confused here.
Of course it isn't. There is simply no such thing as proof as far as matters of fact about external, objective reality is concerned. There was (and is) endless, easily verifiable evidence for Newtonian mechanics and gravitation but we now know that it's wrong.
Okay. What is that evidence?
[Edited for typo]
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
So Baha’u’llah didn't understand what evidence (let alone proof) means.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
There is no us. You are not an us and I am not that, but you still claim you are an us. And you don't get that you are not.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So Baha’u’llah didn't understand what evidence (let alone proof) means.
A lot of of people don't get the limitations of that category of universal, how ever that is done in practice. So I just do variation differently and leave it at that as long as somebody do it differently for regularity and variation.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
See Mikkel's posts on every other thread on the forum to read exactly the same thing hundreds of times.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
See Mikkel's posts on every other thread on the forum to read exactly the same thing hundreds of times.
Yeah, you do the same for science in effect.
I can do science if you like and its limits. The social and its limits. The individual and its limits. Logic and its limits. Everything and its limits.
We just do it differently and you use emotions just like anybody else.
So that is where it ends for you only doing science. I just point it out and admit I do it too. Where as you do emotions and don't consider that relevant the same way I do. That is all.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I do try to make my comments directly relevant to the posts I'm responding to. The emphasis is on detailed science sometimes, or just logic and evidence as is the case here. I really do wish you'd do the same, is all, and not just pop up all over to make the same 'point' time and time and time again.Yeah, you do the same for science in effect.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The point is for the universe as such if it is fair, real, orderly and knowable, that even that is too simple. If you don't like that and want to focus on a part of it, feel free to do so, but if you in do so and neglect a part of the picture as for the universe as such, I can simply point it out.
So for the broad one, science is, but what we ought to do with that, is not science as natural science. Simple.
So yes, dogmatic fundamentalistic theists are a part of it, but not all of it. And even if we remove that variant, it is not the only variant and your variant is not the only other one. Do you understand that???