If we ask God for Proof we must be content with one proof.

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is not a fact might be true.

For example, before the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930, it was not a fact that Pluto existed, but Pluto existed was true.
Likewise it might be true that God exists and sends messengers is true even it it is not a fact.

What a worthless argument.

Pixies existing not being a fact doesn't mean it's not true either.
Completely worthless statement when it comes to plausibility and rational justification for belief.

Here's a fact: before Pluto (or the gravitational field it exerts) was discovered, there was no rational justification to believe it existed.
The time to believe something, is when it can be sufficiently supported by evidence.

Your statement is just another way of saying "well, it can't be shown wrong". This is called an argument from ignorance.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Not for a critical thinker. A critical thinker will always come up with a way to question any offered proof and seek to test it in numerous scenarios.

Though I suppose if a God came along who was able to pass every possible test of divinity that could possibly be thrown at them, even a critical thinker may grudgingly start to accept their divinity.

I do not think that would ever work, because grudgingly should never enter the option, and as the OP suggests, we should be satisfied with the one proof.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Has he ever helped people? What about people in Ukraine or Gaza? What about people who have suffered in tsunamies, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, droughts, typhoons, tornadoes, diseases like Covid?

You would have to ask them.

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe that is the proof you can ask of God.

I see logic and reasoning are required.

Regards Tony

You are not behaving as if you actually believe that God is proven.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You are not behaving as if you actually believe that God is proven.

The whole of creation is proof of a Creator. It did not get here by itself.

There are many logical and reasonable arguments for God the creator and there is really no logical reason to state there is no intelligence behind creation.

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The whole of creation is proof of a Creator. It did not get here by itself.

A new tack. Interesting. Begging the question in a new way.

Step through that argument, please. Please tell us how "the whole of creation" is proof of the existence of something that could reasonably be called "God."

There are many logical and reasonable arguments for God the creator and there is really no logical reason to state there is no intelligence behind creation.

If that were true, there would also be no logical reason why you couldn't give us one of the "many logical and reasonable arguments for God the creator" that you find convincing.

 

[Nakosis]

I do not think that would ever work, because grudgingly should never enter the option, and as the OP suggests, we should be satisfied with the one proof.

Regards Tony

Then unfortunately, critical thinkers are all...

 

[Trailblazer]

What a worthless argument.

It was not an argument. I was just pointing out a principle.
x can be true even if it is not known as a fact.

Here's a fact: before Pluto (or the gravitational field it exerts) was discovered, there was no rational justification to believe it existed.

I was not suggesting anyone believe with no rational justification to believe it.

The time to believe something, is when it can be sufficiently supported by evidence.

I agree.

Your statement is just another way of saying "well, it can't be shown wrong". This is called an argument from ignorance.

I am not suggesting that anyone should believe in God or messengers of God because it cannot be shown to be wrong.
You read into what I said and assumed I was making an argument, when all I was doing was pointing out that something can be true even if it has not been proven as a fact.

It was not an argument from ignorance because it was not an argument at all.

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.

I am not saying that God/messengers exist is true because it has not yet been proven false.
If you are saying that God/messengers is false because it has not yet been proven true, you making an argument from ignorance.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You would have to ask them.

Refer to: If we ask God for Proof we must be content with one proof.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What is not a fact might be true.

For example, before the planet Pluto was discovered in 1930, it was not a fact that Pluto existed, but Pluto existed was true.
Likewise it might be true that God exists and sends messengers is true even it it is not a fact.

True. But do not accept it as fact till it is proved.

 

[Trailblazer]

True. But do not accept it as fact till it is proved.

I do not accept God exists and sends messengers as a fact because it is not a fact. It is a belief so I accept it as a belief.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Then unfortunately, critical thinkers are all...

View attachment 96966​

I consider a critical thinker embraces both science and religion to find truth.

Those that choose to reject either, have already limited truth and are not truly critical thinkers.

With logic and reason, we find the truths inherent in this material world and within our spiritual selves.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

A new tack. Interesting. Begging the question in a new way.

Step through that argument, please. Please tell us how "the whole of creation" is proof of the existence of something that could reasonably be called "God."

The word creation denotes a creator, if there was no creator, there is no creation.

The word love denotes that there is love, without the word, love does not exist.

Every word is a creative word. Letters and words build communication and our capacity in our rational mind.

Without words, we are ignorant, no way of building anything. Words do not need to be in spoken form, but they need a rational mind to be brought into realisation.

If there was no capacity of mind, the word Love is not known and thus is not practiced. We are considering love beyond the animal instinct, Love that transcends animal and becomes a sacrificial choice.

This all indicates that we are drawing from a source of knowledge, as all this indicates there is an educator, as without education we remain ignorant of the capacity of those words.

There is mountains of rational proofs and arguments for a source of knowledge, and the fact a source has been made known to us, then it is not unreasonable to consider what those sources have offered.

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The word creation denotes a creator, if there was no creator, there is no creation.

Yes, that was the question-begging I was talking about. You assume - for no reason that you've shared with us - that the universe is a "creation" and then use that to infer a creator (and then jump to the conclusion that this creator is your god).

Do you understand how this tactic is dishonest?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Has he ever helped people? What about people in Ukraine or Gaza? What about people who have suffered in tsunamies, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, droughts, typhoons, tornadoes, diseases like Covid?

Refer to: If we ask God for Proof we must be content with one proof.

Why has humanity not made the choice to help each other, to be one people, on one planet, living in harmony with the environment?

I see God Loves and will look after all humanity. Part of that is education and God allows us to learn.

All the guidance to prevent war and conflict and to balance natural events has been given to us, we reject it and then cry foul.

Stand up and take ownership of one's own mistakes, stop the God blame game, it does not work.

The current suffering is not of God, it is of our choices and inerrant ways of living with our environment and the way we treat it.

We are not able to control natural disasters, but we can live in harmony with them. We are currently assisting the severity of their effects.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, that was the question-begging I was talking about. You assume - for no reason that you've shared with us - that the universe is a "creation" and then use that to infer a creator (and then jump to the conclusion that this creator is your god).

Do you understand how this tactic is dishonest?

There is absolutely no dishonesty in the process. The process requires us to be open minded. There was rational deductions made on given sources that enable that statement to be made, that information comes from a source.

There is no jumping to conclusions, as one must use their rational mind and balance all findings with honesty and justice in mind.

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is absolutely no dishonesty in the process. The process requires us to be open minded.

Begging the question - as you've repeatedly done in this thread - implies closed-mindedness.

There was rational deductions made on given sources that enable that statement to be made, that information comes from a source.

Which source?

There is no jumping to conclusions, as one must use their rational mind and balance all findings with honesty and justice in mind.

Then you do have reasoning to get from a generic "creator" to your specific god?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If that were true, there would also be no logical reason why you couldn't give us one of the "many logical and reasonable arguments for God the creator" that you find convincing.

I have given this information, it maybe that one does not except that the information given as valid.

The most logical reason is that from time to time since our capacity of mind has been recorded, some Men have claimed to give a Message from God. These Men are, one and all, the foundations of anything we know of God.

So logically they were either telling the truth, or telling a big fib. So now it is our turn, these Men ask to be judged with honesty and justice in mind.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Then you do have reasoning to get from a generic "creator" to your specific god?

Yes, the reasoning is there is only One God, one source of creation.

Consider, is science yet to find a source?

I see we have been shown the source is the "Word".

Regards Tony

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have given this information, it maybe that one does not except that the information given as valid.

The most logical reason is that from time to time since our capacity of mind has been recorded, some Men have claimed to give a Message from God. These Men are, one and all, the foundations of anything we know of God.

Just so I'm clear: your argument is:

1. if people have believed something for a long time, the belief must be correct.
2. people have believed in God for a long time.
3. therefore, belief in God is correct

So logically they were either telling the truth, or telling a big fib.

Those aren't the only possibilities, but how did you decide that they couldn't have been lying?

So now it is our turn, these Men ask to be judged with honesty and justice in mind.

How fortunate that you're here to speak for them.