• 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

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
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.
Totally understand. I had some very long and detailed posts disappear too (not on this thread). I'm really reluctant to redo it all, at least until the server migration is complete.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Totally understand. I had some very long and detailed posts disappear too (not on this thread). I'm really reluctant to redo it all, at least until the server migration is complete.
According to my understanding the server migration is complete;
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
According to my understanding the server migration is complete;
Good news. But I note there is no word on missing posts and if/when they may be restored...
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Sorry for the delay. Real life and all that has been occupying me lately.
I don't think the staff is going to bring back all the posts that were lost in the server migration, so I decided to answer this again. It probably won't be as good as what I had before but I'll do my best.
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 agree that just because one can't prove or provide evidence that something is true does not stop it from being "something that actually exists; reality; truth" (according to the definition of fact previously cited).

Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact

But below is what I said before:
Trailblazer said: There is no contradiction. Everything that exists in reality has not yet been proven to exist so it cannot be considered a fact yet.

When I said that I was thinking of a fact according to the definitions below.

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

So just because one can't prove or provide evidence that something is true does not stop it from being "something that actually exists; reality; truth" but it cannot be considered a fact unless proof exists/it has been proven true.
Which isn't evidence at all.
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.
Evidence *indicates* that something is true.
Evidence might contain facts but evidence does not have to be factual. Only proof has to be factual.

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

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
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.
So here is my perfectly valid circular argument.

It's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.

Premise: Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God
Conclusion: God exists


This argument is valid but not sound because I cannot prove that the premise is true no matter what I add to the argument before drawing the conclusion.

In short, since I cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I cannot conclude that God exists.
And that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.
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.
I agree. Beliefs are not automatically false just because they have not been proven true. To say that would be 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.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
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.
That is possible if you have your own definition of God, but if God is All-Knowing and Infallible that is not possible.
If God is All-Knowing and Infallible that means that whatever God did to communicate to humans had to be the 'best method' of communication.
Because it hides its message amongst human-made false messages and other superstitions.
Nothing is hidden. The latest messages from God can all be found in the Baha’i Reference Library:

Baha’i Reference Library (old version)
Baha’i Reference Library (new version, downloadable)

The fact that there are many false messengers does not mean there have been no true Messengers of God. To say that would be the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:
  1. messenger a was not a true messenger of God
  2. messenger b was not a true messenger of God
  3. messenger c was not a true messenger of God
  4. messenger d was not a true messenger of God
Therefore, messenger d (in this case Baha’u’llah) was not a true messenger of God.

It is true that the world is full of men who claimed to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there were not one or more Messengers who did speak for God.
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.
You said: "an omniscient and omnipotent god would know a perfect way and would be able to implement it. "
Of course that means that if such a God exists whatever had been implemented is 'the perfect way' to accomplish what God wants to accomplish.
It also means there could be no 'better way' because if there was a better way the omniscient God would have implemented it.

You are making the assumption that God wants to convince people everywhere, but there is no reason to assume that and every reason to believe it is not the case. For one thing, if an All-Powerful and All-Knowing God wanted to convince people everywhere He could have done so long ago, so the fact that atheists exist is proof positive that God does not want to convince people everywhere. For another thing, if God wanted to 'convince people' God would not have given people free will to make their own choices.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was only by the grace of God that I was able to redo this post and because I have a will made of iron. :D
And I actually like it better than the previous post since I have made some embellishments.
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I don't think the staff is going to bring back all the posts that were lost in the server migration, so I decided to answer this again. It probably won't be as good as what I had before but I'll do my best.
Probably right. Although I understand it wasn't the staff but the owners.

So just because one can't prove or provide evidence that something is true does not stop it from being "something that actually exists; reality; truth" but it cannot be considered a fact unless proof exists/it has been proven true.
You have been contradicting yourself ever since I cited this definition of a fact. First you accepted it and then started going back to the other senses of the word that require it to be known.

Evidence *indicates* that something is true.
Evidence might contain facts but evidence does not have to be factual.
How on earth do you think something that isn't factual is going to indicate the truth of anything?

Only proof has to be factual.
On the contrary, (absolute) proof is necessarily abstract, which is why it's only available in mathematics and pure logic. You are never going to absolutely prove anything about the real world.

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument.
Which is as pointless as my time travelling toasters. The real problem is that you have no objective evidence either.

Nothing is hidden. The latest messages from God can all be found in the Baha’i Reference Library
Begging the question again. Just to make this clear, to a impartial observer, the Baha’i Reference Library does not stand out from all the other religious texts in the world, or any other form of superstition or magical thinking, for that matter. There is no prima facie reason to think it contains the truth. Hence, if it is actually the truth, it has been hidden.

It is true that the world is full of men who claimed to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there were not one or more Messengers who did speak for God.
Of course, but there's also no reason at all to think that there are any genuine messengers. So why would one go to all the effort of checking everything when it might well be a fruitless task?

Of course that means that if such a God exists whatever had been implemented is 'the perfect way' to accomplish what God wants to accomplish.
It also means there could be no 'better way' because if there was a better way the omniscient God would have implemented it.
Well, strictly speaking, being omniscient and omnipotent, doesn't logically rule out also being an idiot and/or incompetent., and it certainly doesn't guarantee benevolence and not playing cruel games of hide and seek.

You are making the assumption that God wants to convince people everywhere, but there is no reason to assume that and every reason to believe it is not the case. For one thing, if an All-Powerful and All-Knowing God wanted to convince people everywhere He could have done so long ago, so the fact that atheists exist is proof positive that God does not want to convince people everywhere.
Of course, but why would I want to bother with a god that doesn't want to convince me?

For another thing, if God wanted to 'convince people' God would not have given people free will to make their own choices.
Leaving aside the logical problems with free will (because we've been there and just ended up going in circles), giving people free will is useless if you then withhold facts from them.



It was only by the grace of God that I was able to redo this post and because I have a will made of iron. :D
Well done :thumbsup:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Whoever is evaluating the evidence.
The evidence is objective but whether it is good enough or not is subjective.

I think the evidence presented is sufficient for belief for many logical reasons.
What are the logical reasons why you consider the evidence insufficient?

I don't see how that is relevant to my point that 93% of people believe in God because there is evidence that God exists.
All those people did not just decide that believing in God was a good idea absent any evidence.
The number of people that believe in a claim has no bearing on the veracity of the claim. That's the thing. If we went with your line of thinking, then we'd have to believe Santa Claus is also real, based on the huge number of kids that believe in him.

It seems to me that the majority of people believe in god(s) because they were raised to believe in gods, by parents and a society that largely believes in gods and positively reinforced that belief.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The number of people that believe in a claim has no bearing on the veracity of the claim. That's the thing.
Of course not. That would be that fallacy of ad populum.
If we went with your line of thinking, then we'd have to believe Santa Claus is also real, based on the huge number of kids that believe in him.
My line of reasoning is not that you should believe in God just because many or most people believe in God. That is not a good reason.
That would be akin to me believing in Christianity because many or most people in the Western world are Christians.

How many adults believe in Santa Claus? Adults do not believe in Santa Claus because there is not evidence that indicates that Santa Claus exists.
Children believe in Santa Claus because their brains have not yet developed enough to differentiate what is real from what is imaginary.
It seems to me that the majority of people believe in god(s) because they were raised to believe in gods, by parents and a society that largely believes in gods and positively reinforced that belief.
That is probably true for the majority, but that does not mean there is no evidence for God. If there was never any evidence for God nobody would have believed in God back through history, passing their belief on down through the generations. The Bible is evidence for God although I would not bank on it since it is not the best evidence. Given all the problems that exist in the Bible, inaccuracies and contradictions, I can see why there are so many atheists. I could not believe in God if the Bible was the only evidence. I would just be confused and lost.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
If there was never any evidence for God nobody would have believed in God back through history, passing their belief on down through the generations.
Sorry but this is just silly. People did, and often still do, believe all sorts of things without a scrap of real evidence. Many of the older ideas survive to today in the large variety of religions, versions of god, or gods, superstitions, things like astrology, 'traditional' or 'alternative' medicine, fortune telling, tarot, etc. And we are even adding new baseless myths in the modern world. Think of all the daft conspiracy theories, for example, the revival of flat-earthers, QAnon, antivaxers, all the crackpot 'science' we get here, the paranormal, I could go on...
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You have been contradicting yourself ever since I cited this definition of a fact. First you accepted it and then started going back to the other senses of the word that require it to be known.
The problem with the definition that you cited is that something can exist in reality and be true even though it is not known as a fact.

Fact:
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact

A case in point is the planet Pluto. Before 1930 it was not known as a fact that Pluto existed, but later it was discovered and then it was a fact.
So, God could exist in reality even though God is not known as a fact. I believe that will be known after we die, but it is better to find out before that.

Facts are known. Here is another definition that is more thorough and it contrasts an opinion with a fact.
A religious belief (that God exists) is an opinion, not a fact, since it is not verifiable.

Fact or Opinion? - Tutor Hints
A fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven to be true or false through objective evidence.
An opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief.
It is a statement that is neither true nor false. Or it may feel true for some, but false for others.

A FACT:
- can be proven true or false through objective evidence.
- relies on denotative language.
- frequently uses measurable or verifiable numbers, statistics, dates and measurements.

AN OPINION:
- cannot be presently verified.
- relies on connotative language.
- can mean different things to different people.
- uses value judgment words and comparisons such as “best,” “most,” etc.

How on earth do you think something that isn't factual is going to indicate the truth of anything?
All I am saying is that something can be true even if it cannot be proven to be true. I thought we agreed that?

ratiocinator said: 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.
On the contrary, (absolute) proof is necessarily abstract, which is why it's only available in mathematics and pure logic. You are never going to absolutely prove anything about the real world.
That's a good point. How then do you think anyone could ever prove that God exists -- as a fact that everyone would accept, not just believe?
Which is as pointless as my time travelling toasters. The real problem is that you have no objective evidence either.
Of course I have no objective evidence for God. If I had objective evidence of God, God would be a fact (see definition above).
God is unknowable, except through His Messengers, so they are the evidence for God. Of course that is only my opinion, my belief. ;)
Begging the question again. Just to make this clear, to a impartial observer, the Baha’i Reference Library does not stand out from all the other religious texts in the world, or any other form of superstition or magical thinking, for that matter. There is no prima facie reason to think it contains the truth. Hence, if it is actually the truth, it has been hidden.
You are correct. It remains 'hidden to you' until you look at it and find it. Not everyone will find it because not everyone will see the same thing in those texts, since all humans are thinking and processing information with their own mind, and every mind is different from other minds. Everey human mind contains all the knowledge they have acquired to date and includes any and all biases they might have against religion from their past experiences. That is why most people won't even look at the Baha'i Writings and thus discount them before ever looking at them.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103
Of course, but there's also no reason at all to think that there are any genuine messengers. So why would one go to all the effort of checking everything when it might well be a fruitless task?
There's no reason at all for you to think that there are any genuine messengers because you already have the thought in your mind that there cannot be any true Messengers. Do you understand what I mean?

I never heard of the concept of a Messenger of God before I became a Baha'i at age 17 because I was not raised in any religion or with any belief in God, so I went into my investigation of the Baha'i Faith with an unbiased mind, and it made sense to me after I read all the books.

I am not suggesting that you check everything in all the older religions. If you were looking for a vehicle that would get you across the country on a long trip, would you buy an old vehicle that had seen its day?
Well, strictly speaking, being omniscient and omnipotent, doesn't logically rule out also being an idiot and/or incompetent., and it certainly doesn't guarantee benevolence and not playing cruel games of hide and seek.
Being omnipotent doesn't logically rule out also being an idiot and/or incompetent, but being omniscient rules out God being an idiot, and being Infallible rules out God being incompetent.

You are correct, Being omniscient and omnipotent doesn't guarantee benevolence. That God is benevolent is a faith-based believe, it can never be proven.

Do you think it is possible that you only 'believe' that God is playing hide and seek and that is not actually the case?
Just because God is not visible to everyone that does not mean God is hiding. When the sun is hidden by a solar eclipse does that mean the sun no longer exists?
Of course, but why would I want to bother with a god that doesn't want to convince me?
A better question is why you would expect God to convince you, given you have a brain and free will to convince yourself.
God has no need to convince anyone that He exists because God does not need anyone's belief, since God is self-sufficient and has no needs.
Humans are the ones who have needs so they need to convince themselves that God exists, if they want to believe in God.
Leaving aside the logical problems with free will (because we've been there and just ended up going in circles), giving people free will is useless if you then withhold facts from them.
God has not withheld anything from humans. Through the Messengers, God has revealed all that humans need and are capable of understanding in every age in history.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Sorry but this is just silly. People did, and often still do, believe all sorts of things without a scrap of real evidence. Many of the older ideas survive to today in the large variety of religions, versions of god, or gods, superstitions, things like astrology, 'traditional' or 'alternative' medicine, fortune telling, tarot, etc. And we are even adding new baseless myths in the modern world. Think of all the daft conspiracy theories, for example, the revival of flat-earthers, QAnon, antivaxers, all the crackpot 'science' we get here, the paranormal, I could go on...
That's true. People did, and often still do, believe all sorts of things without a scrap of real evidence. However, that does not mean there is no evidence for God's existence. Whether or not there is evidence is a matter of personal opinion, and we could argue about it till the cows come home and still end up in the same place, because what is evidence to some people is not evidence to other people.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The problem with the definition that you cited is that something can exist in reality and be true even though it is not known as a fact.
And...? Accordion to the definition of fact as "something that actually exists; reality; truth:", there are facts we have no idea about, that was the point.

All I am saying is that something can be true even if it cannot be proven to be true. I thought we agreed that?
Now you're confusing evidence with the things you're trying to provide evidence for. Evidence, quite obviously, has to be factual and known to be true, otherwise it can't indicate the truth of something else. If your evidence is isn't known to be factual (at least to a high level of confidence), it's worthless as evidence. What's more you've jumped back into using 'proof' which really isn't relevant to matters of fact about reality.

Of course things can be true that we haven't got evidence or reasoning for, but we have to have high confidence of the truth of evidence itself, otherwise it's worthless.

How then do you think anyone could ever prove that God exists -- as a fact that everyone would accept, not just believe?
I've never asked for, or expected, proof. The reason we believe most things about the world is that we have strong evidence that they are true. The same standard needs to be applied to any proposed god. Instead, when we look for any sound reasoning or objective evidence, we end up with a big fat nothing.

There's no reason at all for you to think that there are any genuine messengers because you already have the thought in your mind that there cannot be any true Messengers. Do you understand what I mean?
I see no reason to think there are any genuine messengers. That doesn't mean that there definitely aren't, but the idea sits amongst a vast amount of other ideas and proposals that are possible, but I see no reason at all to take seriously, i.e. to think they are remotely probable.

Do you think it is possible that you only 'believe' that God is playing hide and seek and that is not actually the case?
I don't believe that there is any god to play hide-and-seek. However, if there is a real (omni type) god and it has any interest in us and its message is in one of the world's religions, then the obvious conclusion is that it's playing hide-and-seek, or doing something equally bizarre, like seeking out people with a predisposition to believe without evidence, or something. It would certainly not be a straightforward attempt to communicate.

A better question is why you would expect God to convince you, given you have a brain and free will to convince yourself.
Why would I want to do that, even if I could? In fact, belief isn't really a choice, you are either convinced by something or you aren't. And, of course, I don't believe I would have any meaningful free will with respect to a god.

Through the Messengers, God has revealed all that humans need and are capable of understanding in every age in history.
Cunningly disguised as just another human-made superstition. :rolleyes:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Of course not. That would be that fallacy of ad populum.
Yes, it would. Glad to know that's not your argument.
My line of reasoning is not that you should believe in God just because many or most people believe in God. That is not a good reason.
That would be akin to me believing in Christianity because many or most people in the Western world are Christians.
Okay, I'm with you so far.
How many adults believe in Santa Claus? Adults do not believe in Santa Claus because there is not evidence that indicates that Santa Claus exists.
Children believe in Santa Claus because their brains have not yet developed enough to differentiate what is real from what is imaginary.
Also because belief in Santa Claus stops being reinforced at some point in a child's life. Religion isn't like that - it continues to be reinforced by family members and peers all throughout adult life.
That is probably true for the majority, but that does not mean there is no evidence for God.
Well, no, of course not.
If there was never any evidence for God nobody would have believed in God back through history, passing their belief on down through the generations.
I think that's debatable. People believe things on very little evidence or faulty reasoning all the time.
The Bible is evidence for God
I disagree with that. The Bible contains claims about god, but not the evidence.
although I would not bank on it since it is not the best evidence.
That's for sure.
Given all the problems that exist in the Bible, inaccuracies and contradictions, I can see why there are so many atheists. I could not believe in God if the Bible was the only evidence. I would just be confused and lost.
Agreed.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Also because belief in Santa Claus stops being reinforced at some point in a child's life. Religion isn't like that - it continues to be reinforced by family members and peers all throughout adult life.
Agreed. Reinforcement does have an effect on most people since most people are connected to friends and family.
I think that's debatable. People believe things on very little evidence or faulty reasoning all the time.
That's true.
I disagree with that. The Bible contains claims about god, but not the evidence.
The Bible contains claims, but it is also the evidence for Christian claims and Jesus' claims, circular though it be.
It is not very good evidence since the historical events are not verifiable and the authors are unknown, but sadly, it is the only evidence we have. :(
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It doesn't but there isn't.
It doesn't but there is.
It shouldn't be, if the evidence is any good.
It always will be the case since all people think about and process evidence differently. There is no way around that, so even if God circled the earth and spoke to everyone on earth from the sky and said "I am God and I exist" not everyone would consider that evidence for God's existence. Some people might believe it was God, some people would believe it was a hoax, and others might think it is aliens from outer space!

It is for this reason that one type of evidence won't convince everyone that God exists.

For example, many believers see creation as the best evidence for God's existence, but I don't see it that way, since creation could have come into existence without a God. I consider the Messengers of God the best evidence for God since God sent them as evidence, and we should look at what God sent. By contrast, God did not create the earth with the intention of it being evidence of His existence.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It doesn't but there is.
So why can't you actually provide any? Circular reasoning can't be evidence, and that's all you've given.

It always will be the case since all people think about and process evidence differently. There is no way around that, so even if God circled the earth and spoke to everyone on earth from the sky and said "I am God and I exist" not everyone would consider that evidence for God's existence. Some people might believe it was God, some people would believe it was a hoax, and others might think it is aliens from outer space!

It is for this reason that one type of evidence won't convince everyone that God exists.
I'm happy to admit that it's going to be difficult to provide evidence that something is unambiguously and definitely evidence for an omni god, but evidence for something way beyond human abilities should be trivially easy. Even evidence for a creator of the universe should be possible. You provide a message and encode the same thing on some process that is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

The thing is that we don't have a single scrap of objective evidence at all that even points to anything that isn't entirely the result of human minds. Nothing.

For example, many believers see creation as the best evidence for God's existence, but I don't see it that way, since creation could have come into existence without a God.
That would be a fundamental mistake about the nature of evidence.

I consider the Messengers of God the best evidence for God since God sent them as evidence, and we should look at what God sent.
But that's just circular, as we've already discussed, and therefore literally worthless as evidence because you basically have to assume that a god exists in the first place, and that's what we're looking for evidence for.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So why can't you actually provide any? Circular reasoning can't be evidence, and that's all you've given.
The evidence is the Messengers of God because that is what God has provided as evidence. God was not thinking "Oh gee, I won't send Messengers because that would be circular." Circular reasoning CAN be evidence is the premise is true, since that means that the conclusion has to be true. As such, the mission, should you choose to accept it, is to determine if the Messenger really spoke for God. It's that simple.
I'm happy to admit that it's going to be difficult to provide evidence that something is unambiguously and definitely evidence for an omni god, but evidence for something way beyond human abilities should be trivially easy. Even evidence for a creator of the universe should be possible. You provide a message and encode the same thing on some process that is a fundamental aspect of the universe.
Even if that could be done, why do you think everyone would believe that message?
The thing is that we don't have a single scrap of objective evidence at all that even points to anything that isn't entirely the result of human minds. Nothing.
Whether we have that or not is all a matter of opinion. I believe we have that since I believe that the Messenger of God does not speak with a human mind, He speaks with a divine mind. Of course that is not subject to proof. How could anyone ever prove something like that?
That would be a fundamental mistake about the nature of evidence.
It would be a mistake for the reason I gave. Creation is not 'necessarily' evidence for a God.
But that's just circular, as we've already discussed, and therefore literally worthless as evidence because you basically have to assume that a god exists in the first place, and that's what we're looking for evidence for.
Messengers of God are not 'worthless as evidence' for God just because it's circular.
No, you absolutely do not have to assume that a God exists in the first place in order to believe in Messengers. In fact, you would never want to do that. You would have to believe Messengers are evidence of God before you would believe there is a God, and that is the whole point of God sending Messengers!
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
I do not think that belief in God is magical thinking....
It makes no sense that the 93% of people who believe in God are all into magical thinking.
It seems to me that those believers are into rational thinking and the atheists are the ones who cannot think rationally since they deny all the evidence for God that everyone else sees.
It absolutely makes sense that people who believe in a god are all into magical thinking.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It absolutely makes sense that people who believe in a god are all into magical thinking.
It makes no sense that people who believe in God are all into magical thinking, not unless you can prove that God does not exist.
If you are claiming that God does not exist because it has not been proven that God exists then you are into fallacious thinking.
The fallacy is called 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
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
It makes no sense that people who believe in God are all into magical thinking, not unless you can prove that God does not exist.
I dont see a logical entailment there. What about "people who believe in a god are into magical thinking" requires that one "prove that a god does not exist. " That is an interesting pair of assertions, but I do not see a chain of logical statement that go from A to B. Seems like magical thinking.
 
Last edited:
Top