• 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

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I wonder who will be running around screaming alien invasion

And there are many other officers who are coming forth




And Trump's space force ( scared him) - will they unite with the 200 million from China that is going to March against the Lord when he comes down

Two more prophecies and when those two begin with all the rest of them that are being fulfilled no one will jest any day now. They'll be too busy receiving the mark of the beast _ *microchipped*

You might want to look up what the "U" stands for in UFO.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I think you just contradicted yourself. If I chose that means I have free will to choose.
No. Computers make choices.

I already told you that I believe free will is deterministic in the sense that it is 'determined' by many factors.
I am using deterministic in the mathematical sense, which is why I keep linking to: deterministic system.

Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences, which come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these are the reasons why we choose one thing or another.
And that process either involves randomness or is deterministic (see definition from link above).

How does an omniscient God restrict our free will?
It doesn't. The same process happens it's just it makes a sort of sense to say we have "free will" from our POV (compatibilism) but a god could see how it all works.

Determinism is the belief that all actions and events result from other actions, events, or situations, so people cannot in fact choose what to do.
See above for the sense in which I am using the word.

Everything has a cause.
How do you know? It appears that certain events in quantum theory do not actually have specific causes. There is literally no cause for a particular radioactive atom decays at a particular time. There is just a probability that it might.

I'll buy that, but that does not mean that everything that exists in reality can be considered a fact. Something can be a reality and truth without being able to be proven as a fact. In other words, everything that is true cannot be considered factual. It is only factual if it can be proven as a fact.
You started by saying that you'd accept the definition, then contradicted yourself and went back to your preferred definition. :rolleyes:

You can't check facts about Jesus but you can check the facts about Baha'u'lalh.
And, for what seems like about the 100,000th time, evidence of the so called 'messengers' is not evidence of god. It is utterly worthless. I'm not interested. I'm not going to make the blind faith leap from them to a god. Please understand this.

If a man was actually a Messenger from God, how would we know that?
No idea. Not my problem.

Messengers and there is no way we can determine of they are Messengers, what would be the point of God sending them?
No point at all.

How just and fair would it be for God to send Messengers if we can never recognize them as Messengers?
Not at all. Just another reason to conclude no such god exists.

Objective evidence consists of facts, but that does not mean that evidence is the same as proof.
I never once said that evidence is the same as proof. It's you who seem all confused about "validated evidence", objective evidence, and proof. I've pointed out multiple times what I mean by evidence and proof.

Subjective evidence...
Is not really evidence. I disagree with your link. The fact that somebody says something is evidence (witness statements, for example) but it's a very weak form of evidence and is notoriously unreliable.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Is not really evidence. I disagree with your link. The fact that somebody says something is evidence (witness statements, for example) but it's a very weak form of evidence and is notoriously unreliable.

Yep. This is why just about all people who were wrongfully convicted for crimes they never committed, they were convicted based on witness testimony only.

And if and when they were freed afterwards, the initial conviction is usually overturned by actual objective evidence, like DNA.

Go figure.

A single piece of contradicting objective evidence can, and will, dismiss hundreds of "witness testimonies" easily.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
All of your definitions are in line with evidence being data that either supports or contradicts a hypothesis / model / theory / proposition / claim.
No, not all of my definitions are in line with evidence being data. Only #2 is in line with that.

1. Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

2. Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

2. 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
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
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.
Really? Strange conclusion. We do believe in the independent search for truth, you know. Sorry if I didn't word this very well.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
No. Computers make choices.
No. People make choices.
I am using deterministic in the mathematical sense, which is why I keep linking to: deterministic system.
A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state.

So what? That does not mean choice are not made using free will.
And that process either involves randomness or is deterministic (see definition from link above).
Choices are not random. Choices are determined by our desires and preferences, which come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these are the reasons why we choose one thing or another.
It doesn't. The same process happens it's just it makes a sort of sense to say we have "free will" from our POV (compatibilism) but a god could see how it all works.
This world is like a giant chessboard that God created and people are like the pieces moving around and making the plays on the chessboard.

God is all-knowing so God has foreknowledge of the past, present, and future. As such, God knows everything that has ever happened in the past, everything that is happening now, and everything that will ever happen in the future - to every person on earth.

However, there is no logical connection between what God can see and what humans are doing. God is transcendent, independent of all His creatures, so what God knows does not affect our actions in any way. God is not moving anyone around on the chessboard.
How do you know? It appears that certain events in quantum theory do not actually have specific causes. There is literally no cause for a particular radioactive atom decays at a particular time. There is just a probability that it might.
Every phenomenon has a cause, which it invariably follows; and from this are derived other invariable sequences among the successive stages of the same effect, as well as between the effects resulting from causes which invariably succeed one another.

Universal causation - Wikipedia

You started by saying that you'd accept the definition, then contradicted yourself and went back to your preferred definition. :rolleyes:
fact
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence: Compare question of fact, question of law.
Definition of fact | Dictionary.com

I said: I'll buy that, but that does not mean that everything that exists in reality can be considered a fact. Something can be a reality and truth without being able to be proven as a fact. In other words, everything that is true cannot be considered factual. It is only factual if it can be proven as a fact.

Please note that (#1) says: something that actually exists; reality; truth.
Something can be a reality and truth without being able to be proven as a fact (#3).
That was the point I was making in my response to your definition.
And, for what seems like about the 100,000th time, evidence of the so called 'messengers' is not evidence of god.
I'd be careful what you say. If you are claiming that messengers are not evidence of God because that has never been proven to be the case, that is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.​

You do not know that messengers of God are evidence of God or not, and neither do I, which is why I am not making a claim. I am only stating my belief. So you can say that you believe that messengers are not evidence of God, but you cannot say you know, because it is unknowable.
It is utterly worthless. I'm not interested. I'm not going to make the blind faith leap from them to a god. Please understand this.
Of course I understand. I know it is utterly worthless for you, and I am not expecting you to believe what I believe.
No idea. Not my problem.
No, it is not your problem unless you want to know if a man was actually a Messenger from God.
No point at all.
But if there is a way we can determine if they are Messengers of God then there is a point of God sending them.
Not at all. Just another reason to conclude no such god exists.
It is not a reason to conclude that no God exists, since most people can and have recognized Messengers as having been sent by God.
(P.S. I am not saying that God exists because many or most people believe that God exists, so this is not the fallacy of ad populum.)
I never once said that evidence is the same as proof. It's you who seem all confused about "validated evidence", objective evidence, and proof. I've pointed out multiple times what I mean by evidence and proof.
And I have pointed out multiple times what I mean by evidence and proof.
Is not really evidence. I disagree with your link. The fact that somebody says something is evidence (witness statements, for example) but it's a very weak form of evidence and is notoriously unreliable.
I did not say that subjective evidence is evidence we should be looking at. I said it is evidence we cannot evaluate. We cannot evaluate the claims of Baha'u'llah to be a messenger of God so we should never accept such a claim without looking at the objective evidence that supports the claim. That was my point.

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.​
We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are facts surrounding the person, life, and mission of Baha'u'llah, so in that sense we have objective evidence.​
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No. People make choices.
Computers do too.
Code:
if(a > b)
{
  ...
}
else
{
  ...
}
Choices are not random.
No, but it remains a logical possibility that they involve some random elements. Otherwise they are deterministic.

Choices are determined by our desires and preferences, which come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these are the reasons why we choose one thing or another.
This is clearly going over your head. We are back pretty much where we stared.

Every phenomenon has a cause, which it invariably follows; and from this are derived other invariable sequences among the successive stages of the same effect, as well as between the effects resulting from causes which invariably succeed one another.

Universal causation - Wikipedia

As the link says universal causation is a proposition. It is not an established fact and quantum theory suggests it might not be the case.

I said: I'll buy that, but that does not mean that everything that exists in reality can be considered a fact.
Same old self-contradiction. :rolleyes:

If you are claiming that messengers are not evidence of God because that has never been proven to be the case, that is an argument from ignorance.
You're getting silly now. The argument from ignorance is about propositions. You can't go about claiming that something is evidence for some proposition when it isn't at all clear how it is evidence. I could say that the existence of seahorses is evidence that there is no god, how would you prove that it wasn't, especially if I offered no reasoning?

To be clear: the so called evidence that you have provided does not appear to be evidence to me. It is possible that in some obscure why that it might be but since you've never offered an explanation, it remains something that has not been demonstrated, so you have failed to make your case. If you claim that it should be taken as evidence because I can't prove it isn't, then you would be using an argument from ignorance.

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are facts surrounding the person, life, and mission of Baha'u'llah, so in that sense we have objective evidence.
What good would that be unless you finally get round to pointing out the connection between facts about a person and the existence of a real god?
 

SDavis

Member
You might want to look up what the "U" stands for in UFO.
I don't have to look it up I already know it stands for unidentified just like when Christ comes he will be unidentifiable to unbelievers (another u.)
And that comment insinuates you know what he looks like.
The Bible clearly says we will see him as he is - so nobody knows what he truly looks like.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I don't have to look it up I already know it stands for unidentified just like when Christ comes he will be unidentifiable to unbelievers (another u.)
And that comment insinuates you know what he looks like.
The Bible clearly says we will see him as he is - so nobody knows what he truly looks like.
If nobody knows what he looks like how could he be identified by believers?

 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Computers do too.
True.
No, but it remains a logical possibility that they involve some random elements. Otherwise they are deterministic.
Yes, that is logically possible, even probable.
This is clearly going over your head. We are back pretty much where we stared.
What is going over my head? Now I don't even remember where we started.
As the link says universal causation is a proposition. It is not an established fact and quantum theory suggests it might not be the case.
Okay maybe you are right. When you talk about quantum theory you are talking over my head.
Same old self-contradiction. :rolleyes:
There is no contradiction. Everything that exists in reality has not yet been proven to exist so it cannot be considered a fact yet.
You're getting silly now. The argument from ignorance is about propositions. You can't go about claiming that something is evidence for some proposition when it isn't at all clear how it is evidence. I could say that the existence of seahorses is evidence that there is no god, how would you prove that it wasn't, especially if I offered no reasoning?
Conversely, you can't go about claiming that something is not evidence for some proposition when it isn't at all clear how it is not evidence.

You have said that Messengers are not evidence for God but you cannot say Messengers are not evidence for God simply because it has not yet been proven true that they are evidence for God. That is an Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia since it is unknown whether or not Messengers are evidence for God.

I think I have already told you why I believe it is evidence. The reason I believe it is evidence because I believe that God sent Messengers as evidence. While I cannot prove that any more than you can prove that the existence of seahorses is evidence that there is no God, there is evidence that backs up my proposition.
To be clear: the so called evidence that you have provided does not appear to be evidence to me. It is possible that in some obscure why that it might be but since you've never offered an explanation, it remains something that has not been demonstrated, so you have failed to make your case. If you claim that it should be taken as evidence because I can't prove it isn't, then you would be using an argument from ignorance.
I know that Messengers do not appear to be evidence to you. All I can do at this point is try to use reason and ask you to use your imagination and your analytical skills: If God existed, how do you think God would make that known to us?

Yes, it would also be an argument from ignorance if I said that Messengers are evidence for God simply because that has not been proven false, but that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I believe they are evidence for God because there is evidence that backs up their claim to be Messengers.
What good would that be unless you finally get round to pointing out the connection between facts about a person and the existence of a real god?
That is a very good point. It would do no good unless we could make the connection. We would have to figure out how those facts would indicate that Messenger claimant is a Messenger of God. That would require an unbiased investigation of the facts coupled with logical reasoning.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
know that Messengers do not appear to be evidence to you. All I can do at this point is try to use reason and ask you to use your imagination and your analytical skills: If God existed, how do you think God would make that known to us?
This is begging the question.

You can't make a valid argument for God that assumes God's existence as one of its premises.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
This is begging the question.

You can't make a valid argument for God that assumes God's existence as one of its premises.
I am not making an argument for God's existence so there is no premise.
I was just asking what he thinks God would do if God existed, hypothetically speaking.
I said "If God existed, how do you think God would make that known to us?" so I am not assuming God exists.
 
Top