• 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!

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
That is not true.

What you are saying is that the fact that a lot of people believe that the Bible and/or Qur'an are not made-up stories, does not make them right.
I would agree with that.

..but it is NOT a reason in itself, that they are wrong, either.

I never said it was. This is a dishonest Strawman attack on your part.

I was responding to someone saying that many people consider specific claims a form of evidence as a counter-argument to me explaining why something wasn't evidence in 2 ways. There was not actually a counter-argument to either of the ways I listed; they merely made an appeal to the masses.

It's interesting how none of the actual points made by anyone rebuting the OP's post's claim about having evidence have actually been addressed in 15 pages of this thread, to the point that you have to Strawman my actual positions. If that's how you convince yourself that you're not wrong, fine, but it's not a rational line of thought.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
If you inquire with sincerity, God comes to you. If God doesn't come to you, you must have not been sincere, because if you are sincere God comes to you. How do we recognize sincerity? By whether God comes to you.

Do you not see the illogicality of that?
No, I don't..
We all know what "sincerity" means .. well, I assumed so.
It means that we seek for truth, without reservation .. not conditional. Deflating our ego.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
I never said it was. This is a dishonest Strawman attack on your part.
It was not intended as "an attack".
I am merely explaining my point of view.

It's interesting how none of the actual points made by anyone rebuting the OP's post's claim about having evidence have actually been addressed in 15 pages of this thread, to the point that you have to Strawman my actual positions..
If I misunderstood you, I apologise.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Before you can refer to any God as existing you need to demonstrate that it exists as a fact. Since you haven't this statement above is by default rejected.

We know people exist, and they write revelations with messages. We can't assume any of it comes from any God until you can demonstrate facts that suport your claims. Until then we reject what you claim.

Great, I have no issue with your rejection of the evidence.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
I don't care if the entire world except for me accepts it as evidence. Anyone who sees it as evidence is incorrect. That's all there is to it.

If you had the Word of God, then I'd agree that it was evidence of God. You don't have the Word of God.

All you have are the words of men putting words in the mouth of God and your insistence that rationality is mindlessly taking their claims at face value. That's not rationality. That's gullibility.

All the best.

Regards Tony
 

Exaltist Ethan

Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
Evidence is not enough. Pantheists believe nature is God. Does nature exist? Of course it does. But the irreligious and atheists don't consider nature to be God. Not only do you have to prove that it does exist, something which is the supernatural cannot be falsifiable or tested by any measures. Even if you were able to prove that a supernatural monotheist God does exist, you would still have to prove to other people that the God is worth recognizing or validating, in accordance to the evidence you provide. There are plenty of people out there who do believe that God exists but still wish to distance themselves from honoring or worshipping that God. Myself included. I am a Synverse Shaper, the God I have learned exists is The Synverse, and instead of worshipping or praying to it, I actively do my part to develop and shape parts of it myself, making it more divine as I go along.

You know that the Baha'i Faith actively says that work itself is a way humans can worship God, I just go one further by explaining that it is our good works that makes God divine. i can demonstrate my concept of the Synverse as an explanation of the natural world, but I cannot force other people to use that word, or for others to consider that they are shaping that God, developing its divine traits. Yet we are all doing this nonstop every day as part of being alive as human beings. Demonstrating God is infinitely more difficult when God itself doesn't wish to reveal itself to the natural world, is what the monotheists claim. Saying that some people have the gift to communicate with God and others don't hurts your credibility. On the other hand, the the concept of the Synverse is ambiguous and can mean a lot of different things to different people. The Synverse is both personal and impersonal, it can be measured, observed and tested, and people can even change the Synverse.

Yet telling an atheist, or a member of the Baha'i Faith that the Synverse is God isn't going to do much help because not many people even know what my concept of a Synverse is. A Synverse is any point where creation happens; THE Synverse is the point where the creator and the creation are one and the same, and THE Synverse will exist after The Omniverse's development creates a breaking point which it itself becomes both the creator and the creation; the painter and also the work of art you see before you. I can demonstrate various Synverses and predict the upcoming and ongoing Synverse that is the human evolutionary race, through our DNA.

But unfortunately only me and the other Earthseed and Syntheist shapers really know or understand this God that will soon develop. The saddest part about this is by the time The Synverse is created, so many synverses will already be made that people will have a hard time identifying that is God - but nonetheless it shall be. Nature will be human and human will be nature. That is our role in reality: to anthropomorphize it.

Most people just haven't caught on to that trend yet. Hindsight will catch up to them, one day.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
So, if I understand you, you are saying anything that is offered as evidence is evidence, even if it is false.

Given that, I agree that what you present is evidence, by your definition.

Now, how did we manage to go on for 13 or more pages?

No, I do not offer a banana as evidence of a Messenger of God. God has defined what is Evidence. That is the bounty of being omnipotent.

So now we have to go back to what is provided as evidence of God.

The Messenger
The Revelation
The Word.

Regards Tony
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Of course it means something !
Not in regards to demonstrating a God exists, it means nothing. And that is what we are talking about.

Are you trying to say that these people are all stupid, or do not care one way or another about what is true? :rolleyes:
No, people don't believe in religious lore because they have looked at evdience and come to a rational conclusion. They believe due to the evolution of the human brain to be conformist, and the social learning that most are exposed to as they develop. No one comes to a rational conclusion that any of thre many gods exists via reason, it is via social learning and conformity to norms. The norm is to believe, as some members have pointed out.

We all know about Arg, pop. -- that should not just be used as an excuse, for non-significance.
Arg, pop merely states that a proposition is not necessarily true because many people believe it. That is all .. nothing more .. nothing less.
It is a fallacy that theists use. It will be pointed out.

The Bible and Qur'an DO exist.
You reject them, if you reject the existence of God.
The books exist. They include stories with some historical references. What they say about God isn't confirmed as true, so we reject it by default.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
No, people don't believe in religious lore because they have looked at evdience and come to a rational conclusion..
There you go again with your sweeping brush..
You cannot know why any particular person believes .. you just assume.

They believe due to the evolution of the human brain to be conformist,.
Is that why you believe in the evolution of the human brain .. because the human brain evolved to believe in evolution?
No! thought not. :)
 

Exaltist Ethan

Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
The Bible and the Qur'an are literature synverses. A long time ago people didn't and couldn't find evidence for the world to be over six-thousand years old, or that a flood didn't happen. The written word can convince anyone of anything and they are literary synverses. We have learned beyond the scope of what people wrote a long time ago and understood the world very differently now, but, for some people the impact of that synverse impresses and impacts them enough to be truthful amongst its many deceptions.
 
Top