Default position

[an anarchist]

Sorry, but there is evidence for Messengers of God.

Sigh....

Let's do this once again.

What are you talking about? Feel free not to respond because you answered me answer last time I asked. But like, I think what people want is evidence that makes it clear and obvious that one is a messenger for the literal god. You have yet to provide this I think.

I'm more willing to accept that mystics have a line to god. The reason being that I have a line to god. I think I understand their methodology. Why don't you believe me? Is it simply because I'm not pointing to some ancient book as evidence of my claims? (which you yourself admit is not a perfect book)

I am a messenger of god! Follow me instead.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, so what are the other factors that finally resolve it?

Do you mean what makes people choose a instead of b? I don't think anyone really knows.

That they change over time is not an issue. That can be deterministic or not too.

It could be but I don't believe it is.

Sorry but this is a logical argument, a god that you can't back up is not relevant.

Okay. Thought experiment: If we could rewind time to the point at which you made a choice in your life, is it possible that you could make a different choice? Bear in mind that literally everything will be exactly the same. You will have no memory of the last time, all your internal thoughts, feelings, and everything else about your state of mind will be exactly the same, as well as all the external circumstances.

If you say 'no' (you couldn't make a different choice), then you are effectively saying you are deterministic. Your choice was entirely fixed by the state of the world and your mind at the time.

If you say 'yes', then you are admitting to randomness. Why? Because there can be no difference that causes the choice to be different (everything is exactly the same), and something with no cause, must be random.

The same argument can be equally applied to every event in the universe and everything that has happened in your life. There is simply no 'room' for something called 'free will'.

Nobody knows if a different choice could have been made, but even if under the same circumstances one would have made the same choice that does not mean they were not free to choose what they chose when they chose it, so that is not an argument for determinism.

Everything has a cause, even things that seem to happen at random.

I do wish you'd keep track of what you've said. You said: "When did I ever say that spiritual reality or God's existence is factual?" Not the evidence, not whether it's provable or not, but "God's existence" itself.

Yes there are things that cannot be proved that are factual, that wasn't what you said though. A god might be a fact and we might not be able to prove it, or, more to the point (since nothing about reality can be proved) find any evidence, but that doesn't stop them from being factual.

No, there are not things that cannot be proven that are factual, because what makes things factual is that they have been proven.

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

However, there are things that are true that cannot be proven.

Spiritual reality and God's existence can never be considered factual because facts have been proven, and spiritual reality and God can never be proven, but that does not mean they do not exist.

It there is no factual evidence, there is no evidence.

You are wrong about that because all evidence is not factual evidence. Only verifiable evidence is factual, but all evidence is not verifiable so not all evidence is factual.

I pray to God that someday you will realize the difference between evidence and proof -- evidence indicates something is true and proof proves it is true as a fact.

No. If you don't have anything better, then you have no evidence. You have no objective facts that support the idea that your god is real.

No, I have no objective facts that support the idea that God is real, nothing could be more absurd than such a request.
There are objective facts about the Messenger of God, but there are no objective facts about God, only revelation through Messengers.

Still not my problem.

Not my problem either. I am sitting pretty because I already know that God exists. I am only here for the entertainment.

You're descending into nonsense here. Evidence consists of facts that either support a given hypothesis or falsify it. Nothing you have posted about the 'messengers' fits the bill. All of it is equally well explained by them just being humans who held religious convictions Hence it cannot support the hypothesis that a real god exists, so it is not evidence.

You want proof that God exists but you are never going to get proof. If there was proof then nobody would have to believe in God because God would be a fact! The ONLY WAY that could ever happen is if God showed up on Earth, since nothing else could ever verify God's existence. Try to think about why.

You are just plain wrong. Evidence does not consist of facts that either support a given hypothesis or falsify it. Only proof consists of facts. Verifiable evidence is proof since it consists of facts, but not all evidence is verifiable. That is why it is called evidence instead of proof. That is why we have two words.

Proof and evidence have related meanings, but they are not the same thing. Proof proves something is true, while evidence is like a clue. The difference between evidence vs proof lies in how conclusive it is. Jul 7, 2022​

Proof vs Evidence: What's the Difference? - ProWritingAid​

 

[Trailblazer]

What are you talking about? Feel free not to respond because you answered me answer last time I asked. But like, I think what people want is evidence that makes it clear and obvious that one is a messenger for the literal god. You have yet to provide this I think.

It is clear and obvious to me and other believers in the messengers but it won't be clear and obvious to everyone because everyone is thinking with a different brain. It does not matter what I provide because everyone is assessing what I call evidence with a different brain so they will not come to the same conclusions. Please tell me you understand that.

I'm more willing to accept that mystics have a line to god. The reason being that I have a line to god. I think I understand their methodology. Why don't you believe me? Is it simply because I'm not pointing to some ancient book as evidence of my claims? (which you yourself admit is not a perfect book)

I absolutely do not believe that mystics have a 'line to God.' What evidence do they have that they have a line to God? - zero, zilch, nada.
What evidence do you have to back that claim? Why should I believe you?

 

[an anarchist]

It is clear and obvious to me and other believers in the messengers but it won't be clear and obvious to everyone because everyone is thinking with a different brain. It does not matter what I provide because everyone is assessing what I call evidence with a different brain so they will not come to the same conclusions. Please tell me you understand that.

Alright, now apply that logic this.

I absolutely do not believe that mystics have a 'line to God.' What evidence do they have that they have a line to God? - zero, zilch, nada.

They have different brains than you, so obviously that's the reason you don't believe them.

If you had evidence that had objectivity, then people's "different brains" wouldn't matter.

Watch this
It is clear and obvious to me and other believers in the mystics but it won't be clear and obvious to everyone because everyone is thinking with a different brain. It does not matter what I provide because everyone is assessing what I call evidence with a different brain so they will not come to the same conclusions. Please tell me you understand that.
I absolutely do not believe that "messengers" have a 'line to God.' What evidence do they have that they have a line to God? - zero, zilch, nada.

 

[an anarchist]

@Trailblazer inb4 you say evidence can't have objectivity...

If your evidence is completely subjective, just stop acting like it's good evidence.

 

[an anarchist]

Why should I believe you?

Because I'm right. Now that's an objectively good reason.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you had evidence that had objectivity, then people's "different brains" wouldn't matter.

It would matter because everyone would interpret the objective evidence subjectively since they would be thinking with a different brain.

 

[Trailblazer]

If your evidence is completely subjective, just stop acting like it's good evidence.

My evidence is not subjective at all, it is objective.

Messengers are the evidence for God, but they are not subjective evidence, they are objective evidence.

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

Subjective evidence is subjective evidence because it is personal and we cannot evaluate it for ourselves.
That is all that mystics have, subjective evidence. It is personal to them and nobody else can evaluate it.

Messengers are objective evidence since we can examine and evaluate the Messengers for ourselves.

For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because I'm right. Now that's an objectively good reason.

That's a subjectively good reason.

 

[Truthseeker]

So.... the ominipotent creator of the universe is unable to communicate by another other means other than speaking in the mind of some allegedly semidivine humans?

Well, one way to look at it is that only a Manifestation of God fully comprehends what is revealed by God. If God whispered to me, would I understand the meaning of what he was saying? Also, a possible problem is knowing when God "talks" to me and distinguishing that with a hallucination or other mistaken impressions that God talked to me. It is better, in my opinion, to not have God talk to us at all and make it clear that if we think we hear God talk to us, it's an illusion.

They should in no wise allow their fancy to obscure their judgment, neither should they regard their own imaginings as the voice of the Eternal.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 337)

It's just a different point of view we have, and not worth arguing about.

 

[Truthseeker]

Tiger is not seen by everyone. So existence of tiger is not validated?
You have to visit the forest and wait patiently to see the tiger. But if you do not go, you will not see. That is certain. What fraction of the people have tried the path laid down by the mystics of their religious tradition? Have you? Unfortunately some people have been taken in by false claims by some self appointed messengers that they, and their organization is the only true conduit to God! What arrogance of these messengers! To restrict God in this manner! It is one of the fundamental flaws of human being...they wish to own and sell other things that are given freely as gifts from nature and the reality behind it. Owning lands, creating borders, owning water and selling water, owning animals, even humans in the recent past. And they wish to own and sell copyrights to God as well! Buy into my tradition and get access to God! The absurdity!

You just have different points of view. I think it best to leave it alone by now, and go your separate ways.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I believe in a higher power. It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

That’s a rational view, imo.

There are a LOT of gaps!

 

[Truthseeker]

Excuse me? What arrogance is it for "messengers" to claim they have heard from God with absolutely no proof other than their personal experience. You can believe they have a conduit to God if you want to but you have absolutely no evidence...

There is evidence if you look at the evidence. There is no evidence if you don't look at it only superficially, or look at it unfairly, which only the persons looking responsibility. God has given each one of us the capacity to look at evidence fairly.

 

[Truthseeker]

What are you talking about? Feel free not to respond because you answered me answer last time I asked. But like, I think what people want is evidence that makes it clear and obvious that one is a messenger for the literal god. You have yet to provide this I think.

This evidence is available online, and cannot be summarized in any satisfactory way here.

 

[Truthseeker]

I absolutely do not believe that mystics have a 'line to God.' What evidence do they have that they have a line to God? - zero, zilch, nada.
What evidence do you have to back that claim? Why should I believe you?

What we have here is an impasse. He just believes what he wants to believe about mystics. He is not a logical person, but seems to go by his gut.

 

[Truthseeker]

Alright, now apply that logic this.

They have different brains than you, so obviously that's the reason you don't believe them.

If you had evidence that had objectivity, then people's "different brains" wouldn't matter.

Watch this
It is clear and obvious to me and other believers in the mystics but it won't be clear and obvious to everyone because everyone is thinking with a different brain. It does not matter what I provide because everyone is assessing what I call evidence with a different brain so they will not come to the same conclusions. Please tell me you understand that.
I absolutely do not believe that "messengers" have a 'line to God.' What evidence do they have that they have a line to God? - zero, zilch, nada.

Why are you guys still talking to each other? There is an unbridgeable impasse here. You are wasting each others time. I'm wasting my time right now. This is precisely what I don't like about debate threads. I should just stick to discussion threads, which I was mostly doing for a while.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I never said that was evidence. What they did was the evidence.

What they did was generally talk, talk and write (Many did more than that, they made wars). As I said, for me, what someone said or wrote does not represent evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What we have here is an impasse. He just believes what he wants to believe about mystics. He is not a logical person, but seems to go by his gut.

If @an anarchist believes that mystics have a line to God, he is not logical; and when you people believe that Bahaollah had a line to some God, you are logical. I wonder at your logic. Mystics also did just the same thing as Bahaollah did, said and wrote. There is no evidence either for the mystics or Bahaollah.

There is evidence if you look at the evidence. There is no evidence if you don't look at it only superficially, or look at it unfairly, which only the persons looking responsibility. God has given each one of us the capacity to look at evidence fairly.

Very smart of you. We (those who do not agree with you) must compulsorily agree with you. If we differ from you then either we have not read the evidence carefully or have looked at it unfairly. You would not give us freedom to analyze the evidence in our way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If @an anarchist believes that mystics have a line to God, he is not logical; and when you people believe that Bahaollah had a line to some God, you are logical. I wonder at your logic. Mystics also do just the same thing as Bahaollah did, said and wrote. There is no evidence either for the mystics or Bahaollah.

The problem is not that even I have a line to God as I do it. The problem is when I claim it is The Line to The One True God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If God whispered to me, would I understand the meaning of what he was saying? Also, a possible problem is knowing when God "talks" to me and distinguishing that with a hallucination or other mistaken impressions that God talked to me. It is better, in my opinion, to not have God talk to us at all and make it clear that if we think we hear God talk to us, it's an illusion.

The same problem is with Bahaollah as well. Was he hallucinating or was he intentionally trying to fool others?
Why do you presume that if God spoke to me, I would not understand him? Let him talk to me, I will put him right.