Evidence for God

[danieldemol]

In my analogy, the investigators 'do know' what an airplane is so they could identify an airplane at a crash site.
It is the natives who 'don't know' what the investigators are talking about since they don't know what an airplane is.

That's the difference between the investigators in your analogy and missionaries.

In my opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But I don't know how everyone else knows what they claim to know about God.

Yeah, but you claim it is true as actually happening in the world that people have free will and choose wrong/have a disorder.

That is not about God. That is on you as you to show for this world.
That it actual happens. That is from your definition that you use as a positive for what evidence is.

You can believe as you do as you. But the moment you start claim something about other humans in this world, it doesn't matter what you believe as you and just you, because there are not other humans.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you see the contradiction?

No, because a logical reasoning process is not necessarily a formal logical argument.

logical

Logical describes something that comes from clear reasoning. Using a fire extinguisher to put it out a fire is a logical step. Trying to put it out with gasoline is not.

The adjective logical is rooted in the Greek word logos, which means "reason, idea, or word." So calling something logical means it's based on reason and sound ideas — in other words, thought out with mathematical precision and removed from emotion. Sounds strict and boring, but it's the orderliness and consistency of logic that helps you write a great argument or figure out how to solve a problem.

Logical - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

You have now a step in your logical reasoning process that is neither an axiom nor proven or in evidence.
Your logic has a hole.

Just because a reasoning process is logical that does not mean it is being presented as a formal logical argument.
Let me explain by citing an example.

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

However, since I can never prove the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, I cannot conclude that God exists is true.

And that is why I am not presenting a formal logical argument.

 

[Heyo]

No, because a logical reasoning process is not necessarily a formal logical argument.

logical

Logical describes something that comes from clear reasoning. Using a fire extinguisher to put it out a fire is a logical step. Trying to put it out with gasoline is not.

The adjective logical is rooted in the Greek word logos, which means "reason, idea, or word." So calling something logical means it's based on reason and sound ideas — in other words, thought out with mathematical precision and removed from emotion. Sounds strict and boring, but it's the orderliness and consistency of logic that helps you write a great argument or figure out how to solve a problem.

The problem with informal logic is that it is sloppy. It is not mathematically precise and emotions and unfounded assumption can easily enter the associative thought process. If informal logic was based on sound ideas, it could be transformed into formal logic and still hold up.
Formalizing a seemingly rational thought process is a way to find the faults and holes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem with informal logic is that it is sloppy. It is not mathematically precise and emotions and unfounded assumption can easily enter the associative thought process. If informal logic was based on sound ideas, it could be transformed into formal logic and still hold up.
Formalizing a seemingly rational thought process is a way to find the faults and holes.

Yeah, but that has a limit in practice because of in the end how negatives and positives work.
Just as the human ability to move around has limit and is neither totally true not totally false in all cases, rationality is the same.
The problem is that rationality is linked to the objective parts of the world, but everything is not objective in practice.

 

[Trailblazer]

If informal logic was based on sound ideas, it could be transformed into formal logic and still hold up.

It could be, but as I said a logical argument cannot be used to 'prove' that God exists or that Messengers are from God.

 

[PearlSeeker]

He is change and that's just the way I understand God and divine. Remember what I keep saying? "I know God exists because while things exist, everything has a chance of raising or lowering it's divinity"? Well, for me, it's abundantly true with humans.

If you say God is change then you have no raising and lowering because it doesn't matter in which direction you change (it's only that you change).

Evolving (raising and lowering) requires a constant standard. What is the standard? It can't be change itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It could be, but as I said a logical argument cannot be used to 'prove' that God exists or that Messengers are from God.

But according to your definition of evidence what you claim is true or has actually happened, so it is true that God has actually happened.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I came up with a new idea while out on my daily two hour walk last night. Here is my analogy:

Let’s say there are natives who live deep in the jungles of Africa and they have never seen or heard anything from the outside world. Let’s say that an airplane crashed in that jungle and some men went to investigate the crash site. For the sake of argument let’s say that these natives can speak and understand English. So, the investigators ask the natives if they have seen any ‘evidence’ of the airplane that crashed in the jungle. The natives say they have no idea what the investigators are talking about since they have no idea what an airplane is. How would the natives know if there was any evidence for that airplane crash if they don’t even know what an airplane is or what it looks like? Airplane is only a word to them.

Who in this analogy are the Messengers and who are those who believe them?

The junglemen know flying and they know objects. The investigators could easily say to them: Have you seen an (unknown) flying object?

 

[Heyo]

It could be, but as I said a logical argument cannot be used to 'prove' that God exists or that Messengers are from God.

Which wasn't your intention in the first place. You said you could know about certain attributes a god must have.
But if that knowledge rests on the assumption that messengers have knowledge of god and you can't know (prove) that, then your knowledge is build on sand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which wasn't your intention in the first place. You said you could know about certain attributes a god must have.
But if that knowledge rests on the assumption that messengers have knowledge of god and you can't know (prove) that, then your knowledge is build on sand.

The problem is that the words evidence, true, actually happened, proof and logical are connected and some people are playing with those words.
Though that is not limited to theists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who in this analogy are the Messengers and who are those who believe them?

There are no Messengers or believers in my analogy.

The junglemen know flying and they know objects. The investigators could easily say to them: Have you seen an (unknown) flying object?

In my analogy the junglemen did not know anything about flying or objects.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which wasn't your intention in the first place. You said you could know about certain attributes a god must have.
But if that knowledge rests on the assumption that messengers have knowledge of god and you can't know (prove) that, then your knowledge is build on sand.

No, my knowledge is built on faith coupled with the evidence for Baha'u'llah.
I have proven it to myself over and over again by looking at the evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, my knowledge is built on faith coupled with the evidence for Baha'u'llah.
I have proven it to myself over and over again by looking at the evidence.

Yeah, but with that standard your version is not the only one as actually happened and/or true as per your definitions used.
The problem is that you use those and they are versions related to proof.
You are playing with words.

 

[Heyo]

No, my knowledge is built on faith coupled with the evidence for Baha'u'llah.
I have proven it to myself over and over again by looking at the evidence.

You may have evidence for Baha'u'llah but for you to know about attributes of gods, you also need evidence or proof that Baha'u'llah (and other "messengers") knew about the gods. And that, by your own admission

The steps in my logical process are that Messengers knew because they got their knowledge from God through the Holy Spirit.
Don't ask me to prove that because it is a claim that is not subject to 'factual proof'...

you can't (or won't) present.

So your claim to knowledge is "I read it in a book".

Some attributes of Harry Potter are a scar in form of a lightning on his forehead and being short sighted.
I know because I read it in a book.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You may have evidence for Baha'u'llah but for you to know about attributes of gods, you also need evidence or proof that Baha'u'llah (and other "messengers") knew about the gods. And that, by your own admission

you can't (or won't) present.

So your claim to knowledge is "I read it in a book".

Some attributes of Harry Potter are a scar in form of a lightning on his forehead and being short sighted.
I know because I read it in a book.

Yeah, it is said/written, therefore it actually happens as not just said/written. That is the version of true used in the definition of evidence. But that is proof by other words but are the same in effect.

 

[Trailblazer]

You may have evidence for Baha'u'llah but for you to know about attributes of gods, you also need evidence or proof that Baha'u'llah (and other "messengers") knew about the gods. And that, by your own admission

I told you I cannot prove that Baha'u'llah or the other messengers heard from God. Such a claim can never be proven since we were not the one who heard from God. That is where faith comes in.

you can't (or won't) present.

It is not that I won't, it is that I can't.

So your claim to knowledge is "I read it in a book".

No, I told you how I know that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be. I was guided by God to recognize Baha'u'llah.

 

[PearlSeeker]

My basis for saying I have evidence is my belief in who God is, and that determines what kind of evidence we could have for God.

And your belief in who God is is based on the same evidence. That's circular reasoning.

 

[viole]

All I have is what the Messengers claim since that is the only way to know anything about God.

And you call that evidence? You've got nothing, I am afraid.

Look: I know a lot about Superman, and I can easily transmit his message to you. For I am his messenger. Ergo, Superman has also evidence. Right?

Is that really so easy?

Therefore, the claims of the atheists is well justified. There is zero evidence of God. Just some hearsay that everyone can make up.

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is zero evidence of God. Just some hearsay that everyone can make up..

..and that is purely an assumption.