Default position

[Trailblazer]

As far as I can tell, you've given no logic to understand.

Okay then, do you understand my line of reasoning, why I ask atheists what I ask them?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay then, do you understand my line of reasoning, why I ask atheists what I ask them?

No, I don't.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I don't.

Okay, I give up.

 

[Truthseeker]

That is what I have done, and it rejects God, prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations, mahdis completely.

Well, that's what independent investigation produces sometimes. We come to different conclusions.

Yes, as a Baha'i I am biased in thinking that if all investigated fairly that would become a Baha'i like I am.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Otherwise they are deterministic.
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.

IMHO, it is deterministic without being pre-determined,
We do not know anything about why non-existence is not a norm and why there is existence. Or whether they are related in any way. So, this question should be left for future generations.

Do you understand my logic?
If an atheist says what a God has not done to prove His existence (i.e., sent messengers) then I want to know what that atheist thinks God would do instead.

You can make an imaginary entity do whatever you want. Godzilla could attack London instead of Tokyo or New York. I do not think Godzilla has done that till now. Did it? That is how God sent prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis or the flood.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no contradiction. Everything that exists in reality has not yet been proven to exist so it cannot be considered a fact yet.

Except you said that you accepted the definition whose first sense was "something that actually exists; reality; truth".

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.

This is just beyond silly. You didn't prove to me that seahorses are not evidence that god does not exist, so why won't you accept your god is disproved? Because claiming that something is evidence without explaining why, is absurd, and people are right to dismiss it on the grounds that you have provided no link between the facts you presented and the truth of the proposition you claim them to be evidence for.

The reason I believe it is evidence because I believe that God sent Messengers as evidence.

Circular reasoning.

...there is evidence that backs up my proposition.

Where?

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?

Not by hiding it away in the minds of a few selected individuals that appear to be nothing more than humans with religious beliefs.

That's really the end of it. I don't believe that a just and fair god would do that, so I don't believe such a god exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except you said that you accepted the definition whose first sense was "something that actually exists; reality; truth".

That's right, but there is still no contradiction.

This is just beyond silly. You didn't prove to me that seahorses are not evidence that god does not exist, so why won't you accept your god is disproved? Because claiming that something is evidence without explaining why, is absurd, and people are right to dismiss it on the grounds that you have provided no link between the facts you presented and the truth of the proposition you claim them to be evidence for.

I am not saying that seahorses are not evidence that God does not exist since I cannot prove that. Likewise you cannot say that God does not exist based upon the evidence I have presented since you cannot prove that.

I have explained why I believe that Messengers of God are evidence for God, it is because God sent them as evidence. I cannot prove that which is why it is a belief and not a fact.

Circular reasoning.

So what? it can still be true, because if the premise is true the conclusion must be true.

Where?

Been there, done that.

Not by hiding it away in the minds of a few selected individuals that appear to be nothing more than humans with religious beliefs.

You are telling me what you think God would not do, but I asked you to use your imagination:
If God existed, how do you think God would make that known to us?

That's really the end of it. I don't believe that a just and fair god would do that, so I don't believe such a god exists.

I already know what you believe God would not do, I was asking you what you think God would do, if God existed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

No. My comment rather exposes the used argument from ignorance.

But as expected, the point flies so high over your head that you don't even see it.

 

[SDavis]

No. My comment rather exposes the used argument from ignorance.

But as expected, the point flies so high over your head that you don't even see it.

Wow - calling me ignorant and stupid typical of you all.

Whatever your point is it makes no sense in it's only sensible to you and yours.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wow - calling me ignorant and stupid typical of you all.

No, I didn't call you any of those things.

Whatever your point is it makes no sense in it's only sensible to you and yours.

Sorry, it is very sensible to point out arguments from ignorance.
It is however not sensible to use such arguments and certainly not to double down on them.

 

[ratiocinator]

That's right, but there is still no contradiction.

Of course there is. Think about it.

Likewise you cannot say that God does not exist based upon the evidence I have presented since you cannot prove that.

I didn't say that god did not exist. I said you haven't made the case that it does.

So what? it can still be true, because if the premise is true the conclusion must be true.

In circular reasoning the premiss is basically logically the same as the conclusion, so it's just a baseless, pointless assertion.

You are telling me what you think God would not do, but I asked you to use your imagination:
If God existed, how do you think God would make that known to us?

What I think such a god would do is the same as what I imagine a god might do. I find your position nothing short of bizarre. You seem to imagine a god that acts in utterly ridiculous ways.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have explained why I believe that Messengers of God are evidence for God, it is because God sent them as evidence. I cannot prove that which is why it is a belief and not a fact.

And thus not evidence. Also: blatant circular reasoning

So what? it can still be true, because if the premise is true the conclusion must be true.

"so what?" ??!?!

You acknowledge to be using circular reasoning and your response is "so what"?
LOL!

Using logical fallacies renders your argument worthless. "so what?".... well, it means we get to reject it at face value, that's what.
It means it's invalid as evidence. That's what.

Here's your circular statement again:

"I have explained why I believe that Messengers of God are evidence for God, it is because God sent them as evidence. "

Since you think using such circular drivel is valid and "so what" is a proper response to having it pointed out, then allow me to reply in kind and make an equally "valid" statement:

"I don't believe that messengers of god are evidence for a god because god doesn't send them as evidence".

I bet you'll instantly recognize it as invalid the second someone uses such retarded logic against you.

If God existed, how do you think God would make that known to us?

100 million dollars deposited in a Swiss bank account under my name and a super exclusive Bugatti delivered to my house in about 10 minutes.

Well, you did ask to use imagination, right?

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course there is. Think about it.

You are making the claim that there is a contradiction so explain why there is a contradiction.

I didn't say that god did not exist. I said you haven't made the case that it does.

I have made my case, and I have the best evidence that there is. If that is not good enough then I guess you will have to remain an atheist.

In circular reasoning the premiss is basically logically the same as the conclusion, so it's just a baseless, pointless assertion.

The premise is not the same as the conclusion, and if the premise is true the conclusion must be true.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

Beliefs are not automatically false simply because they are based upon circular reasoning.
So here are some circular arguments. Notice how the premise is not the same as the conclusion.

If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.
If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, nobody can ever prove that the Bible is true or that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, and that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

What I think such a god would do is the same as what I imagine a god might do. I find your position nothing short of bizarre. You seem to imagine a god that acts in utterly ridiculous ways.

It is the same because I am asking you to think, and all you can do is use your imagination since you cannot know what a God would do to make itself known to us, all you can do is imagine what it would do.

Can you explain what is ridiculous about God sending a Messenger to reveal its existence and will to man?
I was asking you to try to imagine 'a better way' for God to accomplish that, since apparently you think that is ridiculous.

 

[Trailblazer]

And thus not evidence. Also: blatant circular reasoning

And thus they are evidence. Messengers of God are evidence for God because God sent them as evidence.
How else could we ever have evidence for God if God did not provide it?

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

Beliefs are not automatically false simply because they are based upon circular reasoning.

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, nobody can ever prove that the Bible is true or that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, and that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

"so what?" ??!?!

You acknowledge to be using circular reasoning and your response is "so what"?
LOL!

Using logical fallacies renders your argument worthless. "so what?".... well, it means we get to reject it at face value, that's what.
It means it's invalid as evidence. That's what.

But I am not trying to make a logical argument to prove that God sent Messengers of God as evidence for God, since I could never prove the premise (see above).

It is invalid for making a logical argument but that does not mean that God did not send Messengers. That could be true or false, or it could be unknown to be true or false or it could be unknowable. It is not automatically false just because a logical argument cannot be used to prove it is true. That in itself is illogical because it is an argument from ignorance. Below I explain why it is illogical.

You do not know that the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is false, but if you are asserting it is false because it has not been proven true, that is an argument from ignorance. I am not asserting it is true because it has not been proven false so I am not committing the 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.​

​

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia​

Here's your circular statement again:

"I have explained why I believe that Messengers of God are evidence for God, it is because God sent them as evidence. "

Since you think using such circular drivel is valid and "so what" is a proper response to having it pointed out, then allow me to reply in kind and make an equally "valid" statement:

"I don't believe that messengers of god are evidence for a god because god doesn't send them as evidence".

I bet you'll instantly recognize it as invalid the second someone uses such retarded logic against you.

What you said: "I don't believe that messengers of god are evidence for a god because god doesn't send them as evidence".
is perfectly valid since you have a right to believe whatever you want to believe.

I said: "I believe that Messengers of God are evidence for God, it is because God sent them as evidence. "
Did you not notice that I said "I believe?"

If I had said:
"Messengers of God are evidence for God, it is because God sent them as evidence."
that would have been a claim and not a belief, but I would never say that since I cannot prove such a claim.

100 million dollars deposited in a Swiss bank account under my name and a super exclusive Bugatti delivered to my house in about 10 minutes.

Well, you did ask to use imagination, right?

How would that prove that God exists?
Unless you have something 'better' than Messengers of God you don't have anything to debate with.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Okay, I give up.

It's fun to debate and it helps you understand your own beliefs more than it is to change anyone else's opinion. Just today my talk with @The Sum of Awe helped me clarified myself and why I think the way I think, and it also helped me realize that while both he and I are panentheists he doesn't ascribe to process theology. I felt like it was productive even though neither of us changed our opinions on the matter.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's fun to debate and it helps you understand your own beliefs more than it is to change anyone else's opinion. Just today my talk with @The Sum of Awe helped me clarified myself and why I think the way I think, and it also helped me realize that while both he and I are panentheists he doesn't ascribe to process theology. I felt like it was productive even though neither of us changed our opinions on the matter.

I never debate with the intention of changing anyone else's opinions or beliefs. I do it for fun and to learn more about other peoples' beliefs and why they think the way they do. Explaining my religion to others also helps me learn more about my own beliefs and understand why I believe in my religion.

The irony is that the more the atheists push back, the stronger my faith becomes, because in explaining why I believe I am forced to look at why I believe, so they are actually doing me a favor!

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's fun to debate and it helps you understand your own beliefs more than it is to change anyone else's opinion. Just today my talk with @The Sum of Awe helped me clarified myself and why I think the way I think, and it also helped me realize that while both he and I are panentheists he doesn't ascribe to process theology. I felt like it was productive even though neither of us changed our opinions on the matter.

I find it's simple fun to talk about this stuff.

 

[Trailblazer]

I find it's simple fun to talk about this stuff.

Sometimes it is simple and fun, but sometimes it is complicated and not so much fun.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sorry for the delay. Real life and all that has been occupying me lately.

You are making the claim that there is a contradiction so explain why there is a contradiction.

Because just because you can't prove or provide evidence that something is true does not stop it from being "something that actually exists; reality; truth", the definition of 'fact' that you accepted.

I have made my case, and I have the best evidence that there is.

Which isn't evidence at all.

If that is not good enough then I guess you will have to remain an atheist.

It's not good enough because it's just not evidence. You have provided no facts that support your hypothesis and no other alternative ones.

The premise is not the same as the conclusion, and if the premise is true the conclusion must be true.

And yet, you then quote:

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Which is basically what I said.

The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

Whereas the lack of validity undermines any argument, logical validity alone is worthless. Here is a logically valid deduction:

All toasters are items made of gold.​

All items made of gold are time machines.​

Therefore all toasters are time machines.​

It's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Are you convinced? Would it make you do anything other than instantly dismiss it as the total nonsense it obviously is? What you need to be convincing is a sound argument.

Beliefs are not automatically false simply because they are based upon circular reasoning.

Beliefs are not automatically false no matter how hopeless the attempts at justifications are. Hopeless, inept arguments for something say exactly nothing about the conclusion's truth or falsity.

It is the same because I am asking you to think, and all you can do is use your imagination since you cannot know what a God would do to make itself known to us, all you can do is imagine what it would do.

Of course I cannot know, I never claimed that I could. It's possible that a god might also be an idiot and/or a hopeless communicator and/or play unjust and cruel games of hide-and-seek.

Can you explain what is ridiculous about God sending a Messenger to reveal its existence and will to man?

Because it hides its message amongst human-made false messages and other superstitions.

I was asking you to try to imagine 'a better way' for God to accomplish that, since apparently you think that is ridiculous.

I've already answered this. I don't know a perfect way, just some easily better ones, but an omniscient and omnipotent god would know a perfect way and would be able to implement it. A way that would convince people everywhere.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry for the delay. Real life and all that has been occupying me lately.

No problem. I understand all about real life.
I replied to this post and now my reply is gone because of the server migration. I am not a happy camper because that reply took a long time.
I will try to reply again when the forum settles down.