Default position

[wellwisher]

So how do you reconcile these things are not real until proven so versus don't make the claim that God or gods doesn't exist, simply that we see no evidence for this being the case?
Can you expand more on thing not real versus things don't exist?

All innovation, starts out without any hard proof, but may only be an embryonic idea or hunch. Those who need to see to believe, never believe anything new can appear, even though they can will believe it after it comes to fruition. The innovator has inner vision and conviction, with inner vision outside the Philosophy of Science.

Science believes in life on other planets, even with no hard proof that anyone can see. They are growing closer to what the religious do all the time, which is innovating and renewing the mind and heart for fruition. It is not the goal that is the joy of life, but the quest. The quest places you at the cutting edge, where not all can see. Anyone can see the goal after the quest is done. To me the goal is anti-climatic, and means it is time for a new quest.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Science believes in life on other planets, even with no hard proof that anyone can see.

Uh huh. Now, anyways. When I was a kid and just getting into science there were very few scientists who would discuss it as a possibility. But we've learned much, found a handful or so of Earth-like planets, and based on what we know now it has become more mainstream for even highly revered scientists to discuss alien life as a possibility.
It's nothing like religion because religion is static and the alien discussion is based on evidence. Amd, no, it doesn't believe aliens do exist but acknowledges they are likely to exist while still allowing for the possibility they don't exist. It's more accurate to say science is agnostic but optimistic about it.

 

[ratiocinator]

All innovation, starts out without any hard proof, but may only be an embryonic idea or hunch. Those who need to see to believe, never believe anything new can appear, even though they can will believe it after it comes to fruition. The innovator has inner vision and conviction, with inner vision outside the Philosophy of Science.

Your ignorance of science shows from the very first few words that talk about "hard proof". Innovation doesn't pop out of thin air "outside the Philosophy of Science". Producing new hypotheses is very much at the heart of what science does, and they are pretty much always start with informed and educated speculations. Even revolutions like Einstein's theories of relativity didn't come from some isolated "inner vision", they were very much based on what came before. Special relativity was, at least in part, based on Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.

Science believes in life on other planets, even with no hard proof that anyone can see.

No, science doesn't 'believe in' life on other planets like some sort of religious faith (and the use of "hard proof" again shows ignorance). That life on other planets is probable, it a conclusion based on the available evidence.

They are growing closer to what the religious do all the time...

Nothing remotely like it.

 

[Audie]

Your ignorance of science shows from the very first few words that talk about "hard proof". Innovation doesn't pop out of thin air "outside the Philosophy of Science". Producing new hypotheses is very much at the heart of what science does, and they are pretty much always start with informed and educated speculations. Even revolutions like Einstein's theories of relativity didn't come from some isolated "inner vision", they were very much based on what came before. Special relativity was, at least in part, based on Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.


No, science doesn't 'believe in' life on other planets like some sort of religious faith (and the use of "hard proof" again shows ignorance). That life on other planets is probable, it a conclusion based on the available evidence.


Nothing remotely like it.

Nothing remotely. Opposite really.
No matter how many religiinists chant that.

A huge difference is, religions are just made up.
The great raven did it. Grand canyon is from flood.
Volcanoes. a gods anger.

And our creationists are right in there, making
things up. Stating them as fact. Presenting them as lessons!

What kind of mind does that?

 

[Trailblazer]

It's interesting to me when religious people say that you can choose your beliefs. I certainly can't choose what I believe.

'Hypothetically' one can choose their beliefs since we have free will to choose, but 'in actuality' one cannot choose their beliefs.

One either sees evidence for a religion being true or not. It is all in how we think about what we know and how we process that knowledge.
For example, I could not choose to be a Christian or any other religion other than a Baha'i becaue I am not convinced they are fully true.
I also cannot choose to suspend my belief in the Baha'i Faith since I am convinced by the evidence that it is fully true.

If an atheist sees no evidence for God's existence then they cannot choose to believe in God.
Conversely, since I see evidence for God's existence I cannot choose to suspend my belief in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Information?
What information?

Information about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Audie]

Information about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith.

Disinformation is a type of info

 

[Trailblazer]

Disinformation is a type of info

Facts don't lie.
How you interpret those facts is up to you.

 

[Audie]

Facts don't lie.
How you interpret those facts is up to you.

What people who lie say is fact

 

[Trailblazer]

What people who lie say is fact

Something is not a fact unless it is known or proved to be true.

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

 

[Audie]

Something is not a fact unless it is known or proved to be true.

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to e dxist, 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

As if I need your vocabulary lessons.

Or dont know that people ( notably those starting cults)
LIE, a lot.
People are fool enough to believe them and
think it's all facts. Scams galore.

Ever read " Joseph Smith tells his own story"?
About how he found the gold tablets? Book of Mormon?

You believe them facts? Why or why not?

 

[Trailblazer]

You believe them facts? Why or why not?

Because they are known to have happened and there is information about them.

 

[Audie]

Because they are known to have happened and there is information about them.

Same with j smith.

Witnesses signed before god that they saw it all.

Do you think you have proof of god?

Your vocabulary lessons are annoying.

I know English better than you do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you think you have proof of god?

Of course not. I have said over and over and over again on this forum that there is no proof that God exists, only evidence.

 

[Audie]

Of course not. I have said over and over and over again on this forum that there is no proof that God exists, only evidence.

Where did your supposed prophet get his facts

 

[Trailblazer]

Where did your supposed prophet get his facts

He did not get facts, He got a revelation from God.

A revelation from God

 

[Trailblazer]

This seems to be a statement of blind faith.

No, it is based upon knowledge of what the Messengers revealed.

No only do we only have the word of people with a vested interest in this interpretation, but, even if it's true, it's an object lesson in what a mind-numbingly stupid idea it is to use 'messengers' to communicate with fallible humans.

Humans are fallible so no matter how God communicated the same issue would arise.
Besides, you have never presented a *better way* for God to communicate to humans, a way that would actually work.

Given that creator God would also be responsible for creating humans who are that fallible, the whole thing collapses into nonsense.

Of course humans are fallible. It would make no sense for God to create infallible humans. If humans could not makes mistakes and learn from them there would be no purpose for this earthly existence, which is to learn and grow spiritually.

The only way in which any facts indicate that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of a real God that you've presented, would rely on worthless circular reasoning.

No, it would only rely upon reasoning.

You have presented no objective facts that are consistent with the truth you claim about God and are not at least equally consistent with the non-existence of God, or the truth of any other faith, for that matter.

None.

No evidence at all.

The facts about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith are the facts. Those facts constitute evidence.
What you make of them, whether or not you think they indicate nonexistence of God, is entirely up to you.

Objectivity is everything when it comes to evidence.

You can try to be objective about the facts but subjectivity will always enter in since people have personal opinions about the facts.
There is no way around that.

Not obvious at all (your usual circular reasoning aside).

It is obvious to anyone with a logical mind that the standards of evidence for a Messenger of God can never be the same standards of evidence used in science and law because religion is not science and religion is not law.

No, I do not. I think is means that you have provided no reason to accept the proposition that there are messengers from a real God. Do you see the difference?

I have given you reasons, you just don't accept the reasons since you view the evidence differently. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

You're simply not paying attention.

Beliefs are not automatically false simply because they are based upon circular reasoning.
That is a fact, not an opinion. You just don't like it.

Your statement is logically worthless, useless, not worth the electrons used to store it. You might as well say "If God exists, then God exists." No kidding Sherlock!

This is not brain science, it is simple logic.

If Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, then God exists.

Any logical person could figure out that what needs to be determined is if Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or not, and that is determined by looking at claims and the evidence that supports His claims.

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

 

[Ella S.]

'Hypothetically' one can choose their beliefs since we have free will to choose, but 'in actuality' one cannot choose their beliefs.

One either sees evidence for a religion being true or not. It is all in how we think about what we know and how we process that knowledge.
For example, I could not choose to be a Christian or any other religion other than a Baha'i becaue I am not convinced they are fully true.
I also cannot choose to suspend my belief in the Baha'i Faith since I am convinced by the evidence that it is fully true.

If an atheist sees no evidence for God's existence then they cannot choose to believe in God.
Conversely, since I see evidence for God's existence I cannot choose to suspend my belief in God.

And, in my opinion, you shouldn't. Nobody should feel the need to pretend to hold positions they don't or not hold positions that they do. By having a diversity of perspectives constantly intermingling, we're able to make progress in our understanding through comparison. That's why argument is so important.

While I do positively believe that God does not exist, I wouldn't want someone who believes in God to feel like they need to pretend to not believe in God. Ideally, I'd prefer us to reach agreement through mutually respectful discussion, and whether that agreement is my position, their position, or some third position neither of us thought of before our conversation doesn't matter so much to me. I only want to get closer to the truth, but to do that I have to make the best case for my position that I can so that those who disagree might find counter-points against it.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, it is based upon knowledge of what the Messengers revealed.

Form where? Take Christianity, are you saying you have direct evidence that the message of Jesus was distorted later (and I don't mean the unverifiable claims of Baha'u'llah, or anybody else, for that matter), I mean actual evidence?

Humans are fallible so no matter how God communicated the same issue would arise.

In your view, who created humans and determined their abilities?

Besides, you have never presented a *better way* for God to communicate to humans, a way that would actually work.

Untrue. #447.

It would make no sense for God to create infallible humans. If humans could not makes mistakes and learn from them there would be no purpose for this earthly existence, which is to learn and grow spiritually.

All looks like another utterly pointless and rather cruel game to me.

No, it would only rely upon reasoning.

Where is this (non-circular) reasoning?

The facts about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith are the facts. Those facts constitute evidence.

So, be specific. Name some objective facts that are consistent with the hypothesis that Baha'u'llah was a genuine messenger of a real God, and inconsistent with him being just another sincere but mistaken religious leader, delusional, or lying.

What you make of them, whether or not you think they indicate nonexistence of God, is entirely up to you.

If they are open to interpretation, then they can't be good evidence. They can be evidence that isn't strong enough, in somebody's view, but if it's possible to say that they simple don't even indicate the truth of your hypothesis, then they are not evidence at all.

It is obvious to anyone with a logical mind that the standards of evidence for a Messenger of God can never be the same standards of evidence used in science and law because religion is not science and religion is not law.

Non sequitur. I can, for example, apply the legal concept of 'proof' to science and, for example, say the some theory is proved (legal sense) beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities. Being a different subject area is not a reason to dismiss ideas of evidence from others.

Beliefs are not automatically false simply because they are based upon circular reasoning.
That is a fact, not an opinion. You just don't like it.

So, you didn't even bother to read what I said about this. What's the point of this if you aren't going to read what I post? Please pay attention:

I agree. Beliefs are not automatically false simply because they are based upon circular reasoning (or any other fallacy).​

Has that sunk in now?

A fallacious argument (such as circular reasoning) tells us nothing at all about the truth or otherwise of its conclusion. However, if fallacious reasoning is all that is offered to support a conclusion, then there is no reason to accept it. Not accepting a proposition is not the same as claiming its negation is true. I do not accept your claims about God but I cannot say that they are definitely false.

 

[Audie]

He did not get facts, He got a revelation from God.

A revelation from God

And the "revelation" contained no facts?