Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is the only evidence of Jesus Christ so it is the only evidence for Christianity.
Whether it is circular or not does not matter, it is still the only evidence.

When you say that the Bible is not evidence for Christianity until it is proven to be reliable what you are really saying is that it is not evidence for you unless it meets your standards of reliability. However, the Bible is still evidence for Christianity even if you do not consider it reliable evidence.

Since you are so interested in the Bible I suggest you read this excerpt from a longer article:

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Let’s start with perhaps the most famous bad example of a circular argument:

God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists.

It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. It’s also a bad argument from a logical standpoint, as logical arguments tend to be formulated in “if A than B”, and this formulation is missing here. This emphasizes the other weak aspect of this argumentation: both claims have a rather low prior probability.

Let’s see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:

If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments because they are circular? No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.

http://www.timvanderzee.com/circular-arguments/

I don't think that you understand what it means when it is pointed out that a circular argument is being used. And yes, those are failed circular arguments. Using a circular argument does not automatically make one wrong. A circular argument only means that the argument itself is worthless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone we are not looking for validation, recognition or glory, but only offering hope to those like yourself

It sure looks that way to me. What evidence do you have for your beliefs? It looks like you are just bluffing here. That is something that a person only looking for validation would do...

 

[Trailblazer]

Was it accurate? Not exactly. It was off a bit.

I will grant number 2 since this was a claim of a prophet of Bahai'

Was it 3, precise and unambiguous? Not at all.

How about 4? That we would continue to invent more powerful explosives is not all that surprising.

I will grant number 5.

So you have two out of 5 with an iffy on number one. I would not say that it is totally failed but it is far from being a reliable prophecy.

I do not agree with the criteria and I already told you why.

The reason why most of these criteria are worthless is because all but one is a subjective call.

It must be accurate. Who determines whether it is accurate?

It must be in the Bible. That is valid.

It must be precise and unambiguous. Who determines whether it is precise and unambiguous?

It must be improbable. Who determines whether it is improbable?

It must have been unknown. Who determines whether it could have been known?

When you say it is far from being a reliable prophecy then you have to ask what the prophecy is being used for -- reliable for what?-- and that was related to my third question:

The third question is fail to do what? None of the predictions that Baha'u'llah made were intended to be used as proof that He was a Prophet/Messenger of God. They were either things He knew were going to happen that He told other people or they were warnings to the kings and rulers and religious leaders if His time.

I will now add to that that a prophecy is not intended to be used as an accurate scientific prediction.

 

[Trailblazer]

Using a circular argument does not automatically make one wrong. A circular argument only means that the argument itself is worthless.

A circular argument is not worthless because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

Are all circular arguments invalid?

No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound. It should be more clear now that this line of reasoning is perfectly valid.Aug 18, 2017

Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not agree with the criteria and I already told you why.

The reason why most of these criteria are worthless is because all but one is a subjective call.

It must be accurate. Who determines whether it is accurate?

The people evaluating the prophecy must do so. And yes, it is "subjective" but based upon evidence.

It must be in the Bible. That is valid.

It must be precise and unambiguous. Who determines whether it is precise and unambiguous?

Again, the people evaluating it. Some prophecies have built in time limits. An open ended prophecy is never very convincing. Do you know why?

It must be improbable. Who determines whether it is improbable?

Really? Again, the people evaluating it. Why is this so hard for you?

It must have been unknown. Who determines whether it could have been known?

There are dates to the discoveries of many things. You tried to use an unknown in your nuclear bomb prophecy. Unfortunately it was not precise enough to limit it to nuclear explosions.

When you say it is far from being a reliable prophecy then you have to ask what the prophecy is being used for -- reliable for what?-- and that was related to my third question:

The third question is fail to do what? None of the predictions that Baha'u'llah made were intended to be used as proof that He was a Prophet/Messenger of God. They were either things He knew were going to happen that He told other people or they were warnings to the kings and rulers and religious leaders if His time.

I will now add to that that a prophecy is not intended to be used as an accurate scientific prediction.

Of course not. They fail almost every time if one puts a reasonable limitation on them.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is your problem, this is NOT a true premise. That some people claim to be messengers of a god is NOT evidence itself that they are being truthful. You're assuming they are telling the truth.

Now if you had a high standard test to determine that these messengers most certainly were sent by a God, then you would have an argument. You haven't, so we throw it out.

I said “if the premise Messengers are the evidence that God exists is true, the conclusion God exists must be true.”

I never said that the premise could be proven to be true, and as such it cannot be used as a premise in a logical argument.

There is no high standard test that would meet your standards in order to determine that these messengers most certainly were sent by a God, so you can throw it out of you want to. I do not have the same standard test as you do so I won’t be throwing it out.

Yet you have not demonstrated either premise true. You assume a God exists, and you assume messengers are from a god. These are both assumptions that you are treating as fact. They aren't fact. Your claims fail as a result.

I was only speaking hypothetically and I never claimed I could demonstrate my premise to be true.

I do not assume anything at all. I did my own research and I determined that God exists, and that the Messengers are from God.

I am not treating my beliefs as facts. I know they are beliefs, but that does not preclude them from being true.

Then your claims fail.

Only for you and those who think like you.

You know WHAT you believe. But you don't know that what you believe is factual.

I know that the facts that surround the Revelation of Baha’u’llah are factual because they were recorded in history.

You've decided it is for your own personal meaning, not because there is a rational conclusion.

It was the rational conclusion for me.

Then you open the door for more critique because this part of the Bible is certainly not shown to be true.

Nor has it shown to be false. Critique away, that won’t change reality.

This is why religion isn't knowledge, but a framework of meaning that any arbitrary person can decide is true for them. This means it's not true objectively, and thanks for admitting it.

It is not knowledge according to your definition of knowledge, but that does not mean it is not knowledge and it does not mean it is not true.

“Know verily that Knowledge is of two kinds: Divine and Satanic. The one welleth out from the fountain of divine inspiration; the other is but a reflection of vain and obscure thoughts. The source of the former is God Himself; the motive-force of the latter the whisperings of selfish desire. The one is guided by the principle: “Fear ye God; God will teach you;” 29 the other is but a confirmation of the truth: “Knowledge is the most grievous veil between man and his Creator.” The former bringeth forth the fruit of patience, of longing desire, of true understanding, and love; whilst the latter can yield naught but arrogance, vainglory and conceit.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 69

“We have forbidden men to walk after the imaginations of their hearts, that they may be enabled to recognize Him Who is the sovereign Source and Object of all knowledge, and may acknowledge whatsoever He may be pleased to reveal. Witness how they have entangled themselves with their idle fancies and vain imaginations. By My life! They are themselves the victims of what their own hearts have devised, and yet they perceive it not. Vain and profitless is the talk of their lips, and yet they understand not.” Gleanings, pp. 204-205

So you are assuming atheists have the same needs as you do? Why?

Did I say anything about needs? I said I believe that atheists would be better off if they believed in God, but that does not mean they need to believe in God. I do not need to believe in God either, but I know I am better off believing in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course you are. You have two concepts, and you are switching the concepts to provide two different "arguments". One is that "God exists and it sends messengers" and the other is "Messengers from God exist so that proves God". Neither of these are arguments, they are claims. The concepts supposedly prove the other, this is why it's circular.

You had the first one right but the second one wrong. One is "God exists and it sends Messengers" and the other is "Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists.”

So what if it is circular? That is just a ploy that atheists use to try say that it cannot be true, but it won’t work because......
“if the premise Messengers are the evidence that God exists is true, the conclusion God exists must be true.”

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

And the fact that it can never be proven to be true to everyone does not mean it is not true, because proof is not what makes anything true; proof is just what people want to believe something is true. For example, if a man killed his wife and there was no proof of that, he still killed his wife. Likewise, if God exists and there is no proof of that, God still exists. The upshot is that reality simply exists and it is not contingent upon proof.

As you have admitted your decision that all this is valid to anyone is for personal reasons, not because it's factual and objectively true, so I'm not sure why you keep talking about evidence.

No, I never admitted that at all, and I have the evidence to prove it right on this post:

adrian009 said: Does historical fact matter or should religious myth be accorded the same status as fact? We’re discussing religion after all. How important are facts to you within your religious belief or worldview? Does it really matter? Why or why not?

Trailblazer said: Facts are more important to me than anything else, and that is why I became a Baha'i in the first place. The first thing I did when I heard of Baha'u'llah back in 1970 was look in the Encyclopedia Britannica to find out of Baha'u'llah was a real person. After that I read whatever books had been published about the Baha'i Faith at that time and I read the Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, but what really convinced me that the Baha'i Faith was true was Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era because there were a lot of facts in there.

Emotions can be very misleading so I rely upon facts. As I always tell people, I never had any mushy-gushy feelings towards God or Baha'u'llah; I just know that the Baha'i Faith is the truth from God for this age because of the facts surrounding the life and mission of Baha'u'llah and because the theology is logical.

#22 Trailblazer

If you are going to claim all this is objectively true and everyone should accept it as true because it's rational, then you would have a good reason to continue presenting your case. Plus you know we non-believers have a high (scientific/legal) standard of fact and evidence.

Did I ever say that everyone should accept it as true because it's rational? I do believe it is rational but I never said that anyone should accept it as true. I know that non-believers have a scientific/legal standard of fact and evidence but I consider that ludicrous since religion is not science or law and as such the standards for evidence are different.

Ah, there's your concession. So you're saying he's not a messenger from God. Isn't what messengers say true BECAUSE they are messengers from God?

No, that is not what I was saying. I was saying that just because Baha’u’llah wrote that He was a Messenger of God that does not prove that he was a Messenger if God. Anyone can write a book where they claim to be a Messenger of God but that does not prove anything at all. It is the other evidence I listed that proves it.

So you're admitting that a person has to put together a bunch of ideas and then decide if it's true. It's dangerous to pin any credibility on Bible prophesy since those are very vague and often disputed.

I should not have said that in order to determine if Baha’u’llah was the Messiah and the return of Christ we have to read the Bible prophecies because Baha’u’llah never told us the prophecies are the evidence. They are evidence to Christians, but not for anyone else unless they believe in the Bible. Below is what Baha’u’llah said about proof and evidence and there is nothing about Bible prophecies or Baha’u’llah’s predictions being used as evidence in this paragraph.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

 

[F1fan]

Religious truth does not come through the senses.

Then we can't distinguish religious truth from the imaginary.

 

[Trailblazer]

It must be accurate. Who determines whether it is accurate?

The people evaluating the prophecy must do so. And yes, it is "subjective" but based upon evidence.

But what if the prophecy is not subject to being proven with evidence? That would apply to most Bible prophecies, and since these criteria were being used to evaluate Bible prophecies I cannot see how criteria #1 can be used to evaluate Bible prophecies.

It must be precise and unambiguous. Who determines whether it is precise and unambiguous?

Again, the people evaluating it. Some prophecies have built in time limits. An open ended prophecy is never very convincing. Do you know why?

The title reads Criteria for a true prophecy, not Criteria for a convincing prophecy.

An open-ended prophecy can be true yet not convincing. In other words, what was predicted came true so it was a true prophecy.

It must be improbable. Who determines whether it is improbable?

Really? Again, the people evaluating it. Why is this so hard for you?

No, they cannot always determine if it was improbable. That is a subjective call. However, that is a moot point because it does not matter if it was improbable (not likely to happen). In fact, if it was not likely to happen as it was written why would it have been prophesied? Thus this criterion cannot be used for events that were predicted in the Bible that were supposed to happen as predicted. Do you see the problem with this?

It must have been unknown. Who determines whether it could have been known?

There are dates to the discoveries of many things. You tried to use an unknown in your nuclear bomb prophecy. Unfortunately it was not precise enough to limit it to nuclear explosions.

“Baha'u'llah noted the rush by Western civilization to develop ever-more-deadly weapons of war. Explaining the urgency of His call for world unity and peace, He declared:

Strange and astonishing things exist in the earth but they are hidden from the minds and the understanding of men. These things are capable of changing the whole atmosphere of the earth and their contamination would prove lethal.141 “

The prophecy does not have to be precise enough to limit it to nuclear explosions; the point is that Baha’u’llah knew that something existed in the earth that was capable of changing the whole atmosphere of the earth and their contamination would prove lethal. That came to pass as He wrote. How would it have been known to Baha’u’llah before it was known to science?

Of course not. They fail almost every time if one puts a reasonable limitation on them.

That the prophecies fail to convince you is irrelevant. They did not fail to predict what would happen in the future and that is all that matters. That is what makes a true prophecy, because the prophecy came true. All of the criteria except #2 are superfluous.

The criteria title should read Criteria for a convincing prophecy, not Criteria for a true prophecy because it does not matter if you are convinced; it only matters if the prediction came true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Religious truth does not come through the senses.

F1fan said: Then we can't distinguish religious truth from the imaginary.

I can even if you can't. I know the truth by the bounty of the Holy Spirit.

There are only four accepted methods of comprehension—that is to say, the realities of things are understood by these four methods.

The first method is by the senses—that is to say, all that the eye, the ear, the taste, the smell, the touch perceive is understood by this method. Today this method is considered the most perfect by all the European philosophers: they say that the principal method of gaining knowledge is through the senses; they consider it supreme, although it is imperfect, for it commits errors. For example, the greatest of the senses is the power of sight. The sight sees the mirage as water, and it sees images reflected in mirrors as real and existent; large bodies which are distant appear to be small, and a whirling point appears as a circle. The sight believes the earth to be motionless and sees the sun in motion, and in many similar cases it makes mistakes. Therefore, we cannot trust it.

The second is the method of reason, which was that of the ancient philosophers, the pillars of wisdom; this is the method of the understanding. They proved things by reason and held firmly to logical proofs; all their arguments are arguments of reason. Notwithstanding this, they differed greatly, and their opinions were contradictory. They even changed their views—that is to say, during twenty years they would prove the existence of a thing by logical arguments, and afterward they would deny it by logical arguments—so much so that Plato at first logically proved the immobility of the earth and the movement of the sun; later by logical arguments he proved that the sun was the stationary center, and that the earth was moving. Afterward the Ptolemaic theory was spread abroad, and the idea of Plato was entirely forgotten, until at last a new observer again called it to life. Thus all the mathematicians disagreed, although they relied upon arguments of reason. In the same way, by logical arguments, they would prove a problem at a certain time, then afterward by arguments of the same nature they would deny it. So one of the philosophers would firmly uphold a theory for a time with strong arguments and proofs to support it, which afterward he would retract and contradict by arguments of reason. Therefore, it is evident that the method of reason is not perfect, for the differences of the ancient philosophers, the want of stability and the variations of their opinions, prove this. For if it were perfect, all ought to be united in their ideas and agreed in their opinions.

The third method of understanding is by tradition—that is, through the text of the Holy Scriptures—for people say, “In the Old and New Testaments, God spoke thus.” This method equally is not perfect, because the traditions are understood by the reason. As the reason itself is liable to err, how can it be said that in interpreting the meaning of the traditions it will not err, for it is possible for it to make mistakes, and certainty cannot be attained. This is the method of the religious leaders; whatever they understand and comprehend from the text of the books is that which their reason understands from the text, and not necessarily the real truth; for the reason is like a balance, and the meanings contained in the text of the Holy Books are like the thing which is weighed. If the balance is untrue, how can the weight be ascertained?

Know then: that which is in the hands of people, that which they believe, is liable to error. For, in proving or disproving a thing, if a proof is brought forward which is taken from the evidence of our senses, this method, as has become evident, is not perfect; if the proofs are intellectual, the same is true; or if they are traditional, such proofs also are not perfect. Therefore, there is no standard in the hands of people upon which we can rely.

But the bounty of the Holy Spirit gives the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable. This is through the help of the Holy Spirit which comes to man, and this is the condition in which certainty can alone be attained.
Some Answered Questions, pp. 297-299

 

[F1fan]

I said “if the premise Messengers are the evidence that God exists is true, the conclusion God exists must be true.”

I never said that the premise could be proven to be true, and as such it cannot be used as a premise in a logical argument.I was only speaking hypothetically and I never claimed I could demonstrate my premise to be true.

Great, well since you admit you can't prove it you have no reason to bring this up.

There is no high standard test that would meet your standards in order to determine that these messengers most certainly were sent by a God, so you can throw it out of you want to. I do not have the same standard test as you do so I won’t be throwing it out.

Sure there is, the standard that works in science and law. You just can't meet it.

I do not assume anything at all. I did my own research and I determined that God exists, and that the Messengers are from God.

And as you admit you can't prove either exist, so your standard is low and irrelevant to anyone else.

I am not treating my beliefs as facts. I know they are beliefs, but that does not preclude them from being true.

You're contradicting yourself. Above you wrote this "I do not assume anything at all. I did my own research and I determined that God exists, and that the Messengers are from God." You admit you can't prove any of this which means it's not knowledge, so it's belief. So you aren't treating these ideas as if fact?

Only for you and those who think like you.

No, your claims fail because you can't meet an adequate burden of proof.

I know that the facts that surround the Revelation of Baha’u’llah are factual because they were recorded in history.

That is being questioned.

It is not knowledge according to your definition of knowledge, but that does not mean it is not knowledge and it does not mean it is not true.

I'm using it defined properly as a set of statements that describe true events, phenomenon, and facts. Dogma isn't included.

Did I say anything about needs? I said I believe that atheists would be better off if they believed in God, but that does not mean they need to believe in God. I do not need to believe in God either, but I know I am better off believing in God.

So how would atheists be better off than we are now? Arguably we can say that a person coping with trauma is better off being medicated because they are distracted from reality, yes? But that is no way to live life, nor a need.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure there is, the standard that works in science and law. You just can't meet it.

No, because religion is not science or law. Please tell me if you consider it logical that the same standards of evidence should apply to religion as to science and law.

And as you admit you can't prove either exist, so your standard is low and irrelevant to anyone else.

I do not care if it is relevant to anyone else, although it is relevant to believers because believers do not expect or need the kind of proof that atheists require.

You're contradicting yourself. Above you wrote this "I do not assume anything at all. I did my own research and I determined that God exists, and that the Messengers are from God." You admit you can't prove any of this which means it's not knowledge, so it's belief. So you aren't treating these ideas as if fact?

It is knowledge that I possess but it is not factual knowledge and that is why I cannot prove it is true to other people.

Knowledge;

1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

knowledge means - Google Search

No, your claims fail because you can't meet an adequate burden of proof.

I said: “The only supporting evidence of God existing is the Messengers because the only way to know anything about God is from what the Messengers of God reveal about God.” That is not a claim, that is a belief.

I have no burden since I make no claims. Baha’u’llah made the claims and He met His burden.

That is being questioned.

Question all you want to.

I'm using it defined properly as a set of statements that describe true events, phenomenon, and facts. Dogma isn't included.

God-related Knowledge does not include religious dogma because that is man-made.

So how would atheists be better off than we are now?

You might not be better off in this world, but you will definitely be better off in the next world, and since this world is only a short span of years the next life is forever, hopefully you can do the math…

It is called eternal life, ever heard of it?

Arguably we can say that a person coping with trauma is better off being medicated because they are distracted from reality, yes? But that is no way to live life, nor a need.

That analogy doesn’t fly because the reality is that there is a God and the fantasy is that there is no God, and that is no way to live, running away from reality, because it always catches up with you in the end. It is just all a matter of where you want to spend eternity, because it is not as if you have a choice since the soul eternal.

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths...”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

 

[F1fan]

A circular argument is not worthless because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

So the premises need to be demonstrated true. And since this is logic then the highest standard of evidence is required.

 

[F1fan]

You had the first one right but the second one wrong. One is "God exists and it sends Messengers" and the other is "Messengers of God are the evidence that God exists.”

So what if it is circular?

It is circular, and neither are true. So they are worthless.

That is just a ploy that atheists use to try say that it cannot be true, but it won’t work because......

False, you seem to be playing victim here. No one owes you anything. You can't demonstrate your assertions/bel;iefs/claims are true. That is your problem.

And the fact that it can never be proven to be true to everyone does not mean it is not true, because proof is not what makes anything true; proof is just what people want to believe something is true.

Until we know it's true, we don't pretend it's true.

No, I never admitted that at all, and I have the evidence to prove it right on this post:

Ironically you do present evidence here, but it doesn't prove that you provided credible evidence for your basic claims in this discussion.

Did I ever say that everyone should accept it as true because it's rational?

No you haven't, and it's a problem. Claims are valid because they are rational.

I do believe it is rational but I never said that anyone should accept it as true. I know that non-believers have a scientific/legal standard of fact and evidence but I consider that ludicrous since religion is not science or law and as such the standards for evidence are different.

People don't decide religious concepts are true through reason and facts.

No, that is not what I was saying. I was saying that just because Baha’u’llah wrote that He was a Messenger of God that does not prove that he was a Messenger if God. Anyone can write a book where they claim to be a Messenger of God but that does not prove anything at all. It is the other evidence I listed that proves it.

This is why we reject your messenger. No convincing evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

So the premises need to be demonstrated true. And since this is logic then the highest standard of evidence is required.

"A circular argument is not worthless because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."

I did not say that the premises need to be demonstrated true. I said: if the premises are true.

The premise Messengers are the evidence that God exists cannot be "demonstrated" true to anyone except oneself....

That is why Baha'u'llah wrote: “For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”Gleanings, p. 143

 

[Trailblazer]

It is circular, and neither are true. So they are worthless.

If you are asserting that as true then it 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. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

False, you seem to be playing victim here. No one owes you anything. You can't demonstrate your assertions/bel;iefs/claims are true. That is your problem.

What I said is not false. I said circular reasoning is a ploy that atheists use because it is a ploy that atheists have been using on me for about eight years. That is why I have an entire folder full of Word documents on the subject. I do not feel like a victim and I never said that anyone owes me anything. I was just stating my experiences. I have been going around this block for years.

Until we know it's true, we don't pretend it's true.

And you shouldn’t pretend, as that’d be foolish.

Ironically you do present evidence here, but it doesn't prove that you provided credible evidence for your basic claims in this discussion.

What is credibility? What is credible to me is not credible to you.
It would be a step in the right direction of you could at least understand what I mean.

No you haven't, and it's a problem. Claims are valid because they are rational.

What is rational? What is rational to me is not rational to you, and the beat goes on.
It would be a step in the right direction of you could at least understand what I mean.

People don't decide religious concepts are true through reason and facts.

How do you know that? If you think believers are a uniform group that is the fallacy of hasty generalization. I cannot speak for other believers but I know why I came to believe in the Baha’i Faith and I know why I have continued to believe. It never had anything to do with “wanting” to believe, obviously, because I spent most of my life ignoring the religion and either ignoring or being angry at God. I am this not the typical believer who has mushy gushy feelings towards God. Much of the time I wish God would take a hike, and like you, I cannot pretend I love God.

This is why we reject your messenger. No convincing evidence.

You cannot even imagine how many times I have heard that over the last eight years, or how many times I have said “that’s fine by me.” Although I wish that people would recognize Baha’u’llah for their own sake, it is not going to make any difference to me personally and I know I am not responsible for anyone except myself. My job is finished after I have delivered the message, unless people have questions.

 

[F1fan]

No, because religion is not science or law. Please tell me if you consider it logical that the same standards of evidence should apply to religion as to science and law.

Absolutely. Whether it's science, law, religion, or where you told your wife where you were last night the truth is important. Do you disagree?

I do not care if it is relevant to anyone else, although it is relevant to believers because believers do not expect or need the kind of proof that atheists require.

If that's true I'm curious why you've been so passionate about all this. You keep repeating yourself, yet fail to provide the evidence asked of you. You know this, but keep repeating your claims as if you think we need to hear it over and over and over.

It is knowledge that I possess but it is not factual knowledge and that is why I cannot prove it is true to other people.

There's no knowledge that isn't factual. You can post a chapter of the Hobbit, and we can know what that chapter says. We won't know that what the chapter is telling us a true adventure of a Hobbit. You seem to enjoy blurring this distinction where it comes to your unverified religious beliefs.

I said: “The only supporting evidence of God existing is the Messengers because the only way to know anything about God is from what the Messengers of God reveal about God.” That is not a claim, that is a belief.

I have no burden since I make no claims. Baha’u’llah made the claims and He met His burden.

It's a belief until you tell everyone on a debate forum, then it's a claim. This isn't fellowship.

God-related Knowledge does not include religious dogma because that is man-made.

There's no such thing as "God related knowledge".

You might not be better off in this world, but you will definitely be better off in the next world, and since this world is only a short span of years the next life is forever, hopefully you can do the math…

It is called eternal life, ever heard of it?

Yes, it's a religious claims that has no basis in reality. Yet you're presenting it's real.

That analogy doesn’t fly because the reality is that there is a God ...

Prove there's a God.

 

[F1fan]

"A circular argument is not worthless because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."

I did not say that the premises need to be demonstrated true. I said: if the premises are true.

The premise Messengers are the evidence that God exists cannot be "demonstrated" true to anyone except oneself....

That is why Baha'u'llah wrote: “For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”Gleanings, p. 143

OK, prove your premises are true.

 

[F1fan]

If you are asserting that as true then it would be an argument from ignorance.

Sorry, your assertion is circular, and neither concepts are true.

What I said is not false. I said circular reasoning is a ploy that atheists use because it is a ploy that atheists have been using on me for about eight years. That is why I have an entire folder full of Word documents on the subject. I do not feel like a victim and I never said that anyone owes me anything. I was just stating my experiences. I have been going around this block for years.

Anyone can observe your assertions are circular.

And you shouldn’t pretend, as that’d be foolish.

I don't pretend there is a God, nor that there are messengers from God.

What is credibility? What is credible to me is not credible to you.
It would be a step in the right direction of you could at least understand what I mean.

What is rational? What is rational to me is not rational to you, and the beat goes on.
It would be a step in the right direction of you could at least understand what I mean.

Yes, we know your standard is low, while ours is high. Just another reminder.

How do you know that? If you think believers are a uniform group that is the fallacy of hasty generalization. I cannot speak for other believers but I know why I came to believe in the Baha’i Faith and I know why I have continued to believe. It never had anything to do with “wanting” to believe, obviously, because I spent most of my life ignoring the religion and either ignoring or being angry at God. I am this not the typical believer who has mushy gushy feelings towards God. Much of the time I wish God would take a hike, and like you, I cannot pretend I love God.

I know that religious people don't decide their beliefs are true through facts and reason because they don't explain that they arrived at their beliefs through facts and reason. It's quite simple. They have no facts, and don't use reason. It's what we see them say and do. That's how we know.

You cannot even imagine how many times I have heard that over the last eight years, or how many times I have said “that’s fine by me.” Although I wish that people would recognize Baha’u’llah for their own sake, it is not going to make any difference to me personally and I know I am not responsible for anyone except myself. My job is finished after I have delivered the message, unless people have questions.

When you make claims and don't have facts or reason then people will point it out.

 

[Trailblazer]

Absolutely. Whether it's science, law, religion, or where you told your wife where you were last night the truth is important. Do you disagree?

Yes, I agree that the truth is important but I do not believe you are going to discover the truth about God by requiring a specific kind if evidence.

Look at all the different kind of evidence listed here. Each has their place and purpose.

20 Types of Evidence You May Encounter as a Paralegal

If that's true I'm curious why you've been so passionate about all this. You keep repeating yourself, yet fail to provide the evidence asked of you. You know this, but keep repeating your claims as if you think we need to hear it over and over and over.

I could ask you the same question, couldn’t I? Why do you keep asking for evidence you already know I don’t have? I answer my posts out of courtesy, but as soon as you and others stop asking I will stop answering.

So why do you keep asking for evidence you know I do not have?

There's no knowledge that isn't factual. You can post a chapter of the Hobbit, and we can know what that chapter says. We won't know that what the chapter is telling us a true adventure of a Hobbit. You seem to enjoy blurring this distinction where it comes to your unverified religious beliefs.

Why do I keep getting that over and over again, even after I posted the definition of knowledge?
Factual knowledge is only one kind of knowledge.

3 Ways to Know Something

There are 3 main ways.

1. Experiential (Empirical)

With experiential, you know something because you’ve “experienced” it – basically through your five senses (site, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.)

2. Cognitive (Rational)

With cognitive, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it, argued it, or rationalized it.

3. Constructed (Creational)

With constructed, you know something because you created it – and it may be subjective instead of objective and it may be based on convention or perception.

3 Ways to Know Something

It's a belief until you tell everyone on a debate forum, then it's a claim. This isn't fellowship.

No, it is not a claim unless I claimed it, and after I have said that it is not a claim umpteen million times I consider it somewhat disrespectful to keep telling me it is a claim. I do not claim anything for myself because there is nothing to claim; I simply believe in the claims of Baha’u’llah.

There's no such thing as "God related knowledge".

Is that an assertion? It sure sounds like one. If so I would be careful not to commit the Argument from ignorance. I did not make an assertion, I stated a belief, so I am in the clear, and my belief is just as likely to be true as your assertion.

Yes, it's a religious claims that has no basis in reality. Yet you're presenting it's real.

I am presenting it as a belief that I believe is true. I know in my own mind that it is true but how I know is not something you can understand.

For you to say my belief has no basis in reality is another argument from ignorance, unless you can proven that is true.

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

Prove there's a God.

Nobody can prove there is a God except to themselves so I suggest you get cracking if you want to know if there is a God.