Evidence

[muhammad_isa]

Lies and delusions are your words. Mine is that the Qur'an is the thoughts and words of men, and not correct. Why they claim otherwise doesn't matter to me.

..Ahh .. so you admit that you don't particularly care whether they are right or not .. you just assume they are not.

He didn't support his claims..

oh?
..and what would you expect to see if he had, according to you, that is?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not accurate, imo.
Almighty God favoured the children of Israel, as they were being oppressed by Pharaoh.
Almighty God is on the side of the oppressed.

He always has been, and always will be.
If any "nation" turns away from God, and is no longer righteous, then God can guide another nation who WILL be righteous.

Almighty God does not favour ANYBODY just because they are a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim .. or "insert your religion here".

Deuteronomy 14:2
For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ahh .. so you admit that you don't particularly care whether they are right or not .. you just assume they are not.

That's not what I said. I care about any and all truth. And I don't assume that the Qur'an or any other holy book is wrong. I just have insufficient reason to think it's correct, so I don't believe its words.

what would you expect to see if he had, according to you, that is?

At a minimum, I would expect claims that ordinary men should not have been able to make without divine intervention that are demonstrably correct. What I see are words that I could have written.

 

[muhammad_isa]

At a minimum, I would expect claims that ordinary men should not have been able to make without divine intervention that are demonstrably correct. What I see are words that I could have written.

Yeah, I'm not surprised..
..you are the one that claim you could have made a better job of creating the universe, if I recall correctly..
..not much point in arguing with you, I reckon.

It's all "pie in the sky"

 

[F1fan]

..Ahh .. so you admit that you don't particularly care whether they are right or not .. you just assume they are not.

The logical default is that claims or propositions are false until thy are demonstrated true. So of course critical thinkers will not believe you automatically when you make fantastic claims of Gods and magic. We might accpt your claim of eating a ham sandwich for lunch, and that is because ham sandwiches are known to exist, people eat them for lunch, and it is not a controversial claim.

If I wrote that "all Muslims are terrorists, we can't trust them, and we should should round them up and keep them confined for national security" do you think that should be a claim the majority of Americans, members of congress, and law enforcement should agree with and enforce without debate? Or would you want to see Muslims defended with facts and data that they don't pose a threat as a category?

If Hindus posted on these forums that their gods are real, and the God of Abraham is a complete fiction, should we take their word for it? Shouldn't you take their word for it? Or do you just assume they are wrong?

The logical default is indifference to claims and beliefs until they can be shown to be true, or at least, likely true, and that means plausible. As it is religious concepts are inconsistent with what we understand as reality, as the way the universe functions, and they lack credible evidence of HOW these concetps work with a material universe and facts, and als establishes facts of these religious concepts being true.

Even if there was a remarkablke consistency of religions beliefs worldwide, that would still not mean the concepts are plausible. The facts that there is a huge diversity of religious belief is damning for any specific belief. But it's also bad for the Abrahamic religions that they are fragmented and divided to the extremes they are. Even the religions themselves are fragmented, and this suggests no single truth behind any of it.

So of course the only rational reaction to religious claims is NOT assuming them correct. How can anyone assume all of them are correct, and that be rational?

Yeah, I'm not surprised..
..you are the one that claim you could have made a better job of creating the universe, if I recall correctly..
..not much point in arguing with you, I reckon.

I could make the universe better. I wouldn't have created fatal diseases, especially those that harm children and young adults. I would not create deadly bacteria and virus. I would not create such an unstable environment like hurricanes and tornadoes, earthquates, floods, etc.

oh?
..and what would you expect to see if he had, according to you, that is?

This has already been answered by numerous people. Your ongoing indifference to debate suggests you have some disruptive motive. This is a rule violation.

 

[Alien826]

I go by this definition:

religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
religion means - Google Search

From wiki: Scientology beliefs and practices - Wikipedia

Scientologists affirm the existence of a deity without defining or describing its nature. L. Ron Hubbard explains in his book Science of Survival, "No culture in the history of the world, save the thoroughly depraved and expiring ones, has failed to affirm the existence of a Supreme Being. It is an empirical observation that men without a strong and lasting faith in a Supreme Being are less capable, less ethical and less valuable." Instead of defining God, members assert that reaching higher states of enlightenment will enable individuals to make their own conclusions about the Supreme Being.[52]

Among the basic tenets of Scientology are the beliefs that human beings are immortal, that a person's life experience transcends a single lifetime, and that human beings possess infinite capabilities.

If that's not a religion, it's pretty close.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you are the one that claim you could have made a better job of creating the universe, if I recall correctly.

No. I don't know how to make universes even badly. What I said was that I could have made this universe a better one for man and the other animal life on earth. But that's not a special skill. I think you could have as well. I wouldn't have the made animals dependent on eating one another. No zebra would die in horror and pain with a lion at its neck. And no human would deliberately harm anybody or anything. Nobody would burn alive trapped in a fire. Nobody would burst an aneurysm in the brain and become paralyzed and bedbound. I think you'd like it better than this world.

And yes I understand that such thoughts are unthinkable to the believer, who is afraid that his god might deem it blasphemy, and that these words will madden him and cause him to deem me arrogant, but I don't live under that cloud, so I'm merely saying what is obvious to those who will permit themselves to consider such matters. The problem for the believer is that everything he has chosen to believe is the work of a perfect god can be improved upon, especially scripture. I see ordinary prose of little value, and you see the mind of a god.

 

[Alien826]

The Truth is never obvious to everyone. In fact, few people find it.

The vast majority of truth (lower case "t") is totally obvious to everyone. If I was in your presence, I would push you (gently) and ask if you had any doubt about what I did. If it was raining, I'd suggest we stand outside and ask you how sure you were about that.

The problem with "Truth" (upper case "t") as in religious beliefs is that it generally has little correspondence to anything we personally experience. If I see someone die, then hang around long enough to watch the body decay and note that it doesn't exhibit any characteristics of life, I tend to conclude that death is final. If you tell me that the "Truth" is that an immortal spirit just left the body and is still alive in some other plane of existence, that won't seem obvious to me at all. At that point I'll ask you to demonstrate this "Truth", and I don't think that is unreasonable.

No wonder few people "find" this Truth. It's counter intuitive in most cases and requires a lot more than words to be convincing.

That's why I keep saying that God should give us more evidence. Without it the leap of faith required to believe becomes too great for many people.

That doesn't mean the stated "Truth" is necessarily false of course. Just requiring evidence, which brings us back to the subject of this thread.

 

[F1fan]

The vast majority of truth (lower case "t") is totally obvious to everyone. If I was in your presence, I would push you (gently) and ask if you had any doubt about what I did. If it was raining, I'd suggest we stand outside and ask you how sure you were about that.

The problem with "Truth" (upper case "t") as in religious beliefs is that it generally has little correspondence to anything we personally experience. If I see someone die, then hang around long enough to watch the body decay and note that it doesn't exhibit any characteristics of life, I tend to conclude that death is final. If you tell me that the "Truth" is that an immortal spirit just left the body and is still alive in some other plane of existence, that won't seem obvious to me at all. At that point I'll ask you to demonstrate this "Truth", and I don't think that is unreasonable.

No wonder few people "find" this Truth. It's counter intuitive in most cases and requires a lot more than words to be convincing.

That's why I keep saying that God should give us more evidence. Without it the leap of faith required to believe becomes too great for many people.

That doesn't mean the stated "Truth" is necessarily false of course. Just requiring evidence, which brings us back to the subject of this thread.

Good explanation. And to counter what any believer has said, they don't experience the Truth any more than skeptics do. They adopt a Truth due to their social experience and what they learn from others in a cultural tradition. What theists learn in a Shinto tradition will not be like what theists in a Christian tradition learn. How do any of us reconcile the differences? Why isn't there a consistent religious Truth among different cultural traditions?

What theists claim about their gods and Truth there should be a remarkable consistency of Truth. The fact is we don't even see consistency among Christians, or Muslims about Truth, so why are skeptics targeted for being wrong while theists of other traditions seldom mentioned? I would think the Truth of Hindus to be more of a direct threat than those who have doubts of any religious claims.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The logical default is that claims or propositions are false until thy are demonstrated true..

Evidence given by a witness, is not "demonstrated true" by the witness .. the evidence has to be heard or read, and evaluated.

So of course the only rational reaction to religious claims is NOT assuming them correct. How can anyone assume all of them are correct, and that be rational?

It depends what you mean by "correct".
One creed may be identical to another, except for one tenet.

I could make the universe better. I wouldn't have created fatal diseases, especially those that harm children and young adults. I would not create deadly bacteria and virus..

You mean you wouldn't have created a mortal world?
Do you think that you know better than God?
Ridiculous !

 

[muhammad_isa]

I wouldn't have the made animals dependent on eating one another..

I remember a computer simulation on the first PC's .. I think it was fox v rabbit.
It showed how the population was stable, and waxed and waned.
i.e. it is IN BALANCE

Your claims are all very well .. you just claim that omnipotence means that you can create an illogical world, which is mortal, but no suffering etc.

..more "pie in the sky".

The problem for the believer is that everything he has chosen to believe is the work of a perfect god can be improved upon, especially scripture. I see ordinary prose of little value, and you see the mind of a god.

I see that this world is a temporary world, that is mortal to test us.
The next creation we will find ourselves in, will not be mortal .. Almighty God has created this world for a purpose .. it is all disposable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I remember a computer simulation on the first PC's .. I think it was fox v rabbit.
It showed how the population was stable, and waxed and waned.
i.e. it is IN BALANCE

Your claims are all very well .. you just claim that omnipotence means that you can create an illogical world, which is mortal, but no suffering etc.

..more "pie in the sky".


I see that this world is a temporary world, that is mortal to test us.
The next creation we will find ourselves in, will not be mortal .. Almighty God has created this world for a purpose .. it is all disposable.

Where, why and how do you see this? These are all claims. I would have hoped for a little more depth in your response to that well thought and written post. This is basically just a hand-waving dismissal of it instead.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Where, why and how do you see this? These are all claims. I would have hoped for a little more depth in your response to that well thought and written post..

Huh .. have you addressed any of the points I raise?
No .. but I replied to some of his.

 

[Trailblazer]

The vast majority of truth (lower case "t") is totally obvious to everyone. If I was in your presence, I would push you (gently) and ask if you had any doubt about what I did. If it was raining, I'd suggest we stand outside and ask you how sure you were about that.

The problem with "Truth" (upper case "t") as in religious beliefs is that it generally has little correspondence to anything we personally experience. If I see someone die, then hang around long enough to watch the body decay and note that it doesn't exhibit any characteristics of life, I tend to conclude that death is final. If you tell me that the "Truth" is that an immortal spirit just left the body and is still alive in some other plane of existence, that won't seem obvious to me at all. At that point I'll ask you to demonstrate this "Truth", and I don't think that is unreasonable.

I was with you until the last sentence. I mean I agree with everything you said, that the "truth' is obvious to everyone, such as whether it is raining or not. However, "Truth" as we find in religious beliefs generally has little correspondence to anything we personally experience, so it is not that obvious to everyone. I think you are onto something here, but when you ask a believer to 'demonstrate Truth' that is illogical, since Truth is not demonstrable, since it is not physical, such as the rain coming down outside the window. You cannot see religious Truth with your physical eyes, you can only recognize it with your mind (soul).

It is the "Truth" that an immortal spirit leaves the body and is still alive in some other plane of existence. Yes, the body decays, but some people have witnessed the soul leave the body at the deathbed of a loved one. They "see" something with their physical eyes and they try to describe what they saw to other people.

No wonder few people "find" this Truth. It's counter intuitive in most cases and requires a lot more than words to be convincing.

Unfortunately, all we have are words to explain things to other people. Some of us have experienced things personally but we still only have words to describe it to others and they don't usually believe us, since they have never experienced what we experienced. I never experienced anything paranormal myself, not until last year after the death of my late husband, but since I already believe in the paranormal it was not difficult to believe.

That's why I keep saying that God should give us more evidence. Without it the leap of faith required to believe becomes too great for many people.

God has given us evidence, through the Messengers that He sent. God is not a man who can "show up" on Earth and bring the evidence Himself. That is why God sends Messengers as Representatives.

Initially, a leap of faith is required to entertain the 'possibility' of an "unseen God," but after that, if we use our rational mind to reason, we can figure out that there is a God, using the evidence that was provided by the Messengers. Once that is accomplished, faith is no longer needed because at that point we know there is a God, we not only believe.

That doesn't mean the stated "Truth" is necessarily false of course. Just requiring evidence, which brings us back to the subject of this thread.

What is evidence to one person is not evidence to another person, since all people are coming from different angles.
What people see evidence for and end up believing is influenced by combination of factors, such as childhood upbringing, education, and adult experiences. All of these are the reasons why we choose a belief or no belief at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Huh .. have you addressed any of the points I raise?
No .. but I replied to some of his.

I did. You made claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

What theists claim about their gods and Truth there should be a remarkable consistency of Truth.

No, it makes absolutely NO logical sense that there would be consistency of what believers consider to be Truth, which is their beliefs. Since different theists believe in different religions that were revealed by different Messengers in different ages it makes sense that there would be no consistency. Beliefs will be different, but Spiritual Truth is consistent across the ages, so we will see the same Spiritual Truth revealed in all the religions.

 

[F1fan]

Evidence given by a witness, is not "demonstrated true" by the witness .. the evidence has to be heard or read, and evaluated.

So you DO understand that when a Muslims claims what Muhammed wrote in the Quran is true, we require material evidence. When a Baha'i claims the texts written by baha'u'llah is true, we require material evidence. When a Mormon claims what Joseph Smith wrote is truth, we require material evidence. No one gets a free pass. What has been offered as evdeicne by believers? Just the texts. It is explained why this is insufficient for rational minds. Even you aren't convinced that Baha'u'llah is correct, otherwise you would become a Baha'i yourself.

It depends what you mean by "correct".
One creed may be identical to another, except for one tenet.

Why is the word "correct" confusing to you? Creeds are not automatically correct just because they are creeds, and believed true by some folks. Many claims are neither correct or incorrect. When a Christians tells you, a Muslim, and me, an atheist, that we are both going to hell because we don't believe in jesus as lord and savior, we are not impressed, are we? Is the claim incorrect? We can't say for certain, can we? Alkl we can say is that we aren't convinced they ARE correct.

You mean you wouldn't have created a mortal world?

I said no such thing.

Do you think that you know better than God?
Ridiculous !

Absolutely. I can see the suffering of people due to diseases, and to my mind these diseases serve no purpose in your kind of religious worldview. In my workldview, that of no intention, no deliberate design in a creation, no moral absolutes, it does make sense, because the universe, which includes ebvolution, does not care if we are humans or worms. It is a lottery of life across the board.

Do you really think my suggestion of there being no fatal diseases of children is ridiculous? Do you support your creators design of genetic faults that cause fatal diseases in an apparently random pattern?

 

[F1fan]

No, it makes absolutely NO logical sense that there would be consistency of what believers consider to be Truth, which is their beliefs.

Quite the contrary, Truth is by definition absolute, not subjective as you admit here, By your admission you know Truth isn't true objectively, and any odinary slob can believe anything they want and call it Truth TM.
That means it isn't Truth, so why do believers insist it is?

Since different theists believe in different religions that were revealed by different Messengers in different ages it makes sense that there would be no consistency. Beliefs will be different, but Spiritual Truth is consistent across the ages, so we will see the same Spiritual Truth revealed in all the religions.

This would only make sense if there are different Gods, otherwise the Messengers would be representing what one true God says through all ages, which was my point, they don't. If anything, the one true God suffers from a multiple personality disorder, and given that diagnosis I recommend no one believe anything any Messenger says.

 

[John53]

That's merely your uncorroborated belief, and has been rebutted, which rebuttal you failed to address. You have been told repeatedly what evidence for a god is, and what you offer isn't that.



And you have been told just as many times that what you offer is not evidence in support of your belief and why it falls short. You don't seem interested in addressing any of that. You just keep making the same rebutted claim. It's still wrong for the same reason previously given that still have never refuted.



Then they shouldn't believe it if they can't find reasons of their own.



I've seen all of the evidence you and others have presented as evidence of a god. True to form, your claim when it is examined and rejected, is that it was never seen. You apparently consider your evidence so powerful and compelling that one only need look at it, and that those who don't believe must not have looked. You use the word arrogance a lot.



Shouldn't you be able to answer that? Apparently, you think a book millions could have written and a life millions have equaled or surpassed is that.





Then what is failed evidence to you?

I should mention here that the phrase failed evidence has no meaning to me. How can evidence fail? Faile to do what? Evidence is what is evident. People can fail to understand it, but evidence can't fail or do any of a number of other things like drink a beer or sing Karaoke or run for public office. It's a category error.



Then that belief is not based in evidence as you claim.

This is one of the best posts I've read on RF. I wish I had your ability to get thoughts from my brain into written words.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why is the word "correct" confusing to you?

I'm not confused by it..
You said: "How can anyone assume all of them are correct, and that be rational?"

It could be that 2 creeds are identical, except one creed says God is everywhere, and another that He is in heaven.
..so they be might be correct, apart from that one detail.

I can see the suffering of people due to diseases, and to my mind these diseases serve no purpose in your kind of religious worldview..

You are assuming that you know what "my worldview" is.

In my workldview, that of no intention, no deliberate design in a creation, no moral absolutes, it does make sense, because the universe, which includes ebvolution, does not care if we are humans or worms..

..so the cosmos doesn't care, but you DO .. funny that.

Do you really think my suggestion of there being no fatal diseases of children is ridiculous?

Why do you single out children?
..because they are innocent, right?

Unfortunately, in a mortal world, it is not only those people who are guilty of inequities that suffer.

Do you support your creators design of genetic faults that cause fatal diseases in an apparently random pattern?

It is not random..
I've already agreed with you in another thread, that there are genetic, behavioural and environmental causes.
Stop telling "porkies"