The Exclusivity of Christianity

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you claimed to eat a ham sandwich for lunch we might take your word for it. Ham sandwiches actually exist and sandwiches are a common thing to eat at lunch. But when the claim is something not known to exist or be true, like gods and messengers for gods, then that is an extraordinary claim and we require extraordinary evidence.

Agreed. This is analogous to saying that if you say a guy named Jesus walked the Levant in the first century preaching, one can accept that that very well may have happened, or even that it probably did, but when you throw in resurrection, well then no, that almost certainly didn't happen. When you say take her word for it, I think you mean assign a high probability for truth. The fraction of people who claim to have eaten a ham sandwich and did nothing like it or were mistaken about what they did do must be vanishingly small.

But unlike faith-based belief, we don't conclude that it (definitely) happened when we say we believe it. We believe it tentatively, always ready to revise that estimate if new evidence surfaces justifying we do that, such as the knowledge that the claimant was a pathological liar. Now, the likelihood falls to a lower number. Likewise, if we witness a bona fide resurrection from the dead, the odds on Christ's resurrection improve considerably from extremely unlikely to reasonably likely.

This is obvious and trivial to the critical thinker, but seems to elude many of our apologist friends, even though it comports perfectly with the definition of relevant evidence being anything that increases or decreases the likelihood of a proposition being correct or incorrect.

 

[PureX]

You keep making the claim, but you don't even try to support it.

That's because it's self-evident to anyone willing to actually consider it. How do you think artists make art? "Empirically"? Or via a combination of logic, reason, imagination, intuition, wishful thinking, magical thinking, chance, and faith? I can tell you from much personal experience that it involves a whole array of these various methods of cognating and interacting with reality. How do you think we are capable of recognizing humor in life? "Empirically"? Or via that whole array of various other methods available to us? And try following your own mind's methodology for just one hour on any given day, and count how many decisions you make based on instinct, intuition, wishful thinking, and any of these other methods besides empirical analysis, and you will be shocked by how little of your life's behavior is actually beholding to empirical analysis.

Why have you become SO biased against all these other methods that we humans use to congnate and interact with the world around us that you can't admit you use them yourself? Do you really hate God and religion that much? Why are you continually trying to paint all these other cognitive methods as being at best ineffectual and at worst self-deceptive to the point of being dangerous? Clearly this is not the case or we humans would never have survived this long since none of us are actually being the empirical thinkers that you seem to think we all must be to avoid total insanity.

Having an empirical approach to reality denies zero possibilities except false belief by faith.

"False belief by faith" is an incoherent collection of words. We either choose to believe because we (think we) know, or we choose to act on faith because we know that we don't know. Faith is not belief, false or otherwise.

Navigating life effectively is what opens doors, and to do that, one must understand how one's world works.

No, one must not. And thank God, because none of us does. We're all negotiating the world via a variety of methods based on both faith and on the pretense of our very limited knowledge.

 

[F1fan]

Agreed. This is analogous to saying that if you say a guy named Jesus walked the Levant in the first century preaching, one can accept that that very well may have happened, or even that it probably did, but when you throw in resurrection, well then no, that almost certainly didn't happen. When you say take her word for it, I think you mean assign a high probability for truth. The fraction of people who claim to have eaten a ham sandwich and did nothing like it or were mistaken about what they did do must be vanishingly small.

But unlike faith-based belief, we don't conclude that it (definitely) happened when we say we believe it. We believe it tentatively, always ready to revise that estimate if new evidence surfaces justifying we do that, such as the knowledge that the claimant was a pathological liar. Now, the likelihood falls to a lower number. Likewise, if we witness a bona fide resurrection from the dead, the odds on Christ's resurrection improve considerably from extremely unlikely to reasonably likely.

This is obvious and trivial to the critical thinker, but seems to elude many of our apologist friends, even though it comports perfectly with the definition of relevant evidence being anything that increases or decreases the likelihood of a proposition being correct or incorrect.

I'm really curious about the inner thoughts and feelings of the two other members I responded to in why they continue a pattern of posting that is not effective, yet they keep repeating the efforts as if there will be a sudden breakthrough to critical thinkers. To post at all in a forum suggests posters understand that words and meaning can sway others and their thinking, understanding, wisdom, knowledge, etc. Most all are aware of the tools of reasoning, but it is aparent many don't really understand the function and application in regards to their own beliefs and positions. To declare that god concepts are exempt from logic is an extreme measure that seems a desperation at work.

Sometimes I feel a little guilty to keep rebutting the true believers, but we are all adults and have to be responsible for what we do. One reason I post is to look for cracks in the ideological armor that certain posters ut up. I look to see if any argument and reasoning works. I see the true believer very good at rushing to defend any attack, as if they are the Alamo or Rourke's Drift, both failure and success. I see any appeal to faith as the final redoubt, the last stand for the believer as the rational onslaught hammers them. Often they sign out for a short break. The stress must be incredible, and enjoyment minimal.

 

[F1fan]

That's because it's self-evident to anyone willing to actually consider it.

Except I for one have considered religious claims. There is nothing self-evident to objective minds seeking truth. And once again here you are blaming objective seekers for not agreeing with what you believe.

Notice you offer no facts that support your claims and suggestions. And there is no reason to decide they are true from a rational approach. I am not motivated to believe for the sake of ego or meaning either, so that is out. Even if I was motivated for ego or meaning I am aware of this temptation and wary of belief in non-rational concepts to live in an illusion. Believers can't explain their experiences are anything more than illusion. I understand that what theists claim and describe are not illusions, but part of the religious illuson is that the illusion isn't an illusuon. That is the trap theists find themselves complicit in with the social pressure to conform to religious thinking.

Has it occurred to you that proper debate is a material process, but you dislike materialism? Don't you have a magical process to use instead of debate?

 

[PureX]

Except I for one have considered religious claims. There is nothing self-evident to objective minds seeking truth. And once again here you are blaming objective seekers for not agreeing with what you believe.

I'm not talking about religious claims. I don't care about anyone's religious belief-claims. I'm talking about closing ourselves off to the various cognitive possibilities that other people find effective in their life, for no honest reason.

Notice you offer no facts that support your claims and suggestions.

The fact is that billions of humans are using these "other" methods of cognating and negotiating with their existence, and are doing so, successfully. And we hmans have been doing so from our beginning.

And there is no reason to decide they are true from a rational approach.

"Truth" is a trophy for the fools that think they can possess it. What matters is what works best in the circumstance.

I am not motivated to believe for the sake of ego or meaning either, so that is out.

Of course you are. We all are. Everyone has an ego and everyone succumbs to it eventually.

Even if I was motivated for ego or meaning I am aware of this temptation and wary of belief in non-rational concepts to live in an illusion. Believers can't explain their experiences are anything more than illusion. I understand that what theists claim and describe are not illusions, but part of the religious illuson is that the illusion isn't an illusion. That is the trap theists find themselves complicit in with the social pressure to conform to religious thinking.

"Believing" IS the illusion. Once we get that clered up in our minds we can finally begin letting go of that bad habit.

Has it occurred to you that proper debate is a material process, but you dislike materialism? Don't you have a magical process to use instead of debate?

I don't "dislike" materialism. I just understand that it's a nonsensical, self-eviscerating concept.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why would you read their words? Why should others?

The mind of God is how God's mind operates. Nobody knows the mind of God, not even the messengers of God.
However, the messengers know the will of God and they convey that information to us through scriptures.

No, they are only evidence that they existed and claimed to speak for a deity. The claim is rejected based on the lack of supporting evidence.

They are evidence that they existed and claimed to speak for a deity. The claim is accepted by me and others based on the supporting evidence.

You were the one who said the second clause, not him. If by God you mean the Abrahamic god, it's ruled out by other means. Few atheists positively assert that gods in general don't exist, since there is no way to rule out noninterventional gods like the deist god. But that doesn't apply when deities are said to have communicated to us, and the Commnication is incorrect or incoherent (self-contradictory).

There is no way to rule in or rule out any kind of God with proof, but we have evidence of the theist God since He communicates through messengers.

No, it is illogical to assume that a god that can create universes, life, and minds couldn't make itself understood.

It is not about what God can do. Humans were not created to understand God directly. God could have created humans that way but He didn't.

Back to evidence again I see. If you say that faith is required, you're saying that the evidence you cite as support is insufficient.

No, that is not true at all. Faith is necessary for what can never be proven. God can never be proven to exist, so if we are going to believe in God it requires faith.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Evidence is not proof. There is sufficient evidence to believe in God, but since God can never be verified, there is no proof that God exists.

No, faith is never rational. It is always a logical error. Always.

So, having faith that your spouse will not cheat on you is never rational? Having faith that you won't get in an accident driving to the store is never rational?

They'd probably be stunned, since the feat would be considered impossible for man before the twentieth century. That's the point of a miracle, and why a message introduced by a miracle would be more effective than one introduced by a man alone.

It does not matter what would have been impossible before the twentieth century, it is not impossible now, so there would be no reason to believe it came from God.

Your argument is terrible.

Why can't you answer my question? What good would it do except for a few atheists who might come to believe that God exists?

Nor need it.

What do you need then? What good would it do to believe that God exists if you know nothing about God or God's will for you?

Why wouldn't a god do things that people want even before they ask? I do things I think my wife and dogs would want me to do even without being asked. We took them out for a ride Sunday as we do every Sunday, because they love it so much. you worship a god that isn't even that nice or caring.

Why should God do things that people want? If God does not do them it is for the good of those people because the all-knowing God knows more than any human regarding what is best for that human. I want certain things right now, but I accept that I am not going to get them by my free will alone. If I get them, it would have to be the will of God, and thus my fate.

Why would I do that? Furthermore, this god is not patient. If it exists, it's indolent. It does nothing.

God rules and maintains all of existence and sends messengers, that's not nothing.

Then there must be a better way for a deity to communicate, maybe one that doesn't depend on people.

Please let me know when you come up with a reasonable alternative.

And they tell me the opposite. We can't both be interpreting that evidence properly.

That is correct, one of us has to be misinterpreting the evidence. You can believe it is me if you want to, it makes no difference to me.

There is no point in worshiping a god that is indifferent to our problems and in all other ways indistinguishable form a nonexistent god and is .

God is not indifferent to our problems, as God He sent Baha'u'llah to reveal exactly what humanity needs to solve its problems, the whole kit and caboodle.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's because it's self-evident to anyone willing to actually consider it.

No, you need to make your case. A claim is not good enough.

How do you think artists make art?

I know how artists make art, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. I reject belief by faith. Faith is not a path to truth or knowledge. You keep calling empiricism materialism and scientism as if you have some better or other way to determine what is true about the world, but you don't.

How do you think we are capable of recognizing humor in life? "Empirically"?

Yes. That's how I decide if something is funny. It's also how I decide if something appears beautiful to me or tastes good. I experience it.

Why have you become SO biased against all these other methods that we humans use to congnate and interact with the world around us that you can't admit you use them yourself?

I'm not biased against any method discussed so far except belief by faith. I use empiricism to decide what is true, and never faith. I use the others for a different purpose. I've explained this to you before. Empiricism allows me to optimize my situation and multiply my options, such as creating or enjoying art. Faith is counterproductive to that task. You seem to not understand this. You seem to confuse the learning part with the enjoying part, which is why you imagine empiricists as lacking an inner life, thinking that the learning part is all that there is. Do you recall the horse and rider metaphor, with the rider being the intellect and the horse the passions? How about reason being the brush and the passions being the color palette? You imagine the empiricist as a rider without a horse or a painter without color because I'm only discussing those two when I talk about reason and empiricism.

Do you really hate God and religion that much?

I find both concepts useless to me. What I am criticizing is deciding what is true using faith.

"False belief by faith" is an incoherent collection of words.

What's the part you can't reconcile? Do you think beliefs can't be false? Do you think that false beliefs can't be held by faith. If your answer is no to both, then you understand the comment.

No, one must not. And thank God, because none of us does. We're all negotiating the world via a variety of methods based on both faith and on the pretense of our very limited knowledge.

I had written. "Navigating life effectively is what opens doors, and to do that, one must understand how one's world works." We're not all negotiating the world by faith, and it's fine that knowledge be limited as long as it's useful. It's amazing that you disagree with my comment, especially in light of all of your political and economic posting about how the world works and why you think it's important to understand that, and I agree, but that's because I consider such knowledge useful. And the ones that fall through the rabbit hole include those who decide such matters by faith such as the Capitol insurrectionists and those who refused a vaccine and died needlessly. All of Jim Jones' and David Koresh's people made their foolish choices based in faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

Verification refers only to deductive proofs, like in mathematics. I am not asking for verification. I am asking for justification. I want you to demonstrate that you have sufficient evidence to form a logically strong argument justifying a conclusion that God exists.

As I have said before, it cannot be proven that God exists using a logical argument. Here is why.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

So here are some perfectly valid circular arguments:

If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Similarly, 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 that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists is true.

The same applies to the Bible. It can never be proven to be true, so it cannot be used to assert that God exists is true.

And this is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

Currently, all you've said is that the messengers have done some impressive things. There is no way to extrapolate the conclusion that God exists from people doing impressive things. It doesn't logically follow.

First of all, it is not only that they did impressive things that makes them messengers of God, but that is another subject.

I'm guessing you have some implicit premises getting you from "the messengers are impressive" to "God is real" but if they rely on the ideas about God that the messengers reveal then it's a circular argument and therefore fallacious and therefore illogical. You cannot use properties of God to prove that the messengers are genuine in the same argument that you're using the messengers to prove that God exists, because God has not been demonstrated to be true yet. That's affirming the consequent, which is another fallacy.

As I noted above, it is a fallacious argument, but it is often logically valid. However, messengers cannot be used to prove that God exists since it can never be proven that messengers were sent by God.

I think you need to relinquish the idea that God can be proven to exist using logic, because that is impossible, for the reason I noted above.
God can never be proven to exist, all we have is evidence that God exists. Evidence is not proof and that is why faith is necessary to believe in God, faith coupled with the evidence we have.

Because you cannot even give a logical argument showing why the messengers being impressive leads to the conclusion that God exists, you technically haven't even provided any evidence for the existence of God. You don't even have a strong argument for one, much less a cogent argument for one.

I'm not asking you to verify your conclusion. I'm asking you to justify it.

What Baha'u'llah did on His mission, what He wrote, and who He was as a person (His character) leads me to the conclusion that He was a Messenger of God and thus I believe that God exists. There is no logical argument that can prove any man was a Messenger of God since there is no logical argument that can be used to prove that God exists. We need to look at the evidence for the Messenger, and we either come to the determination that He was sent by God or we don't. There is objective evidence but the determination is subjective.

What is subjective and objective evidence?

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah. The Writings of Baha'u'llah are also part of the objective evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, if this tri-omni god exists and it chooses messengers to communicate, then that is its preferred method (but still no to that being an effective method). But that's as far as others are willing to go with you. You've been using that as part of an argument that this god actually did those things because you have a message, which you also offer as your evidence that the god exists. In so doing, you've gone off the reason reservation into the world of faith.

Firstly, it is an effective method of communication since most people in the world believe in God because of messengers.

Secondly, my argument is not that this God actually did those things because I have a message, and I do not offer the message as my evidence that God exists. Regarding proof and evidence, please see what I said in #368 above.

Any statement can be subjected to logical analysis including the one I'm answering.

However, God can never be proven to exist using a logical argument for reasons I stated in #368 above.

You should already know by now that that evidence doesn't support your beliefs by the standards of rational, empirical inquiry. Multiple qualified posters have told you that. You seem to have a private standard for belief that is not theirs, and all other standards for belief are some variation of faith (insufficiently justified belief).

Multiple qualified posters have pointed out what the evidence is for Baha'u'llah, and the evidence supports and sufficiently justifies the belief.

I certainly do have a standard for belief that is not your standard or the standard of other atheists, just as you and the other atheists have a standard for non-belief that is not mine.

I think many people already realize that they'll never get anything from this god or any of the others. The Baha'i neither, apparently. It won't lift a finger to help spread Baha'ism.

Lift a finger, lol. God is not a man so God has no fingers, but the main point is that God is in no way responsible to do what He has entrusted humans to do, to spread the Baha'i Faith.

If only you had been provided an exceptional holy book or a miraculous occurrence such as sky writing all over the world's skies in the local language before it was technically feasible. Here's where you probably want to come to the defense of this inaction. Somehow, it must be what a tri-omni god would do, because it's what's happened.

I do not need to come to the defense of God's choices because an omnipotent God needs no defense from humans. Nothing could be more illogical.

An omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do.
God did not write in the sky because God chose not to write in the sky.
God sent Messengers because God chose to send Messengers.

Sending Messengers must be what God would do, because it's what's happened.

 

[Kathryn]

Before I converted to Catholicism, I was baptised over and over again, as an infant, as a child, as an adult- over and over and over. It made a world of difference to become Catholic and to hear that I didn't have to be baptised again...because of the "one baptism" thing. As long as it was Trinitarian in nature, it was fine. I was like "Good, because I am SO covered!" LOL

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why do you keep repeating your beliefs when you can't offer adequate evidence? We debate because we can argue for the rationality of whatever position we have, and that success is dependent on the evidence we have.

I do have adequate evidence, evidence that is adequate for me and others who believe as I do.
If it is not adequate for you then don't ask me again, since you are not going to get any different reply.
There is no point playing the childish back-and-forth game -- "no, that's not evidence!"

If you claimed to eat a ham sandwich for lunch we moght take your word for it. Ham sandwiches actually exist and sandwiches are a common thing to eat at lunch. But when the claim is something not known to exist or be true, like gods and messengers for gods, then that is an extraordinary claim and we require extraordinary evidence.

I am not claiming that messengers exist or that God exists since I cannot prove it. I believe it based upon the evidence.
The evidence is what it is, you can take it or leave it.

This is a freedom I take seriously. I refuse to believe in fantastic ideas that are unlikely, and lack evidence.

I only believe in what I have evidence for and I am free to believe it just as you are free to disbelieve what you do.

And what you believe is likely imagined true since your evidence is insufficient and relies heavily on assumptions. You offer no rational process for how you came to a sound conclusion. You keep repeating your beliefs as if that means something.

I have offered the rational process by which I came to my conclusions. It is called independent investigation of truth.
Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true.

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."

Independent Investigation of Truth

I see you write posts that look logical, but then claim god concepts are exempt from logic. Who says? Is it an excuse to brush away logical rebuttals to your posts? That is my suspicion.

God can never be proven to exist using a logical argument for reasons I stated in #368 above.

You made judgments based on what you think is adequate. But for critical thinkers your evidence is insufficient. That you admit belief in God is not subject to logic admits no one should believe and claim to be rational.

Proof of God is not subject to logic for reasons I stated in #368 above.

You claim to have evidence, which is required in logic, but then say your judgment can't be logical. So why mention evidence if you aren't going to be logical in how you assess ideas about a god?

I am logical in the way I assess ideas about God because I go about my assessment in a logical fashion, as I look at my evidence.

It is when you engage in debate and make claims about what you believe. We explain how we require higher levels of evidence that you don't have, and that is why we reject your position. Being stuborn isn't a debate tactic.

The higher level of evidence you require is verifiable evidence, which would be proof that God exist, and I have explained why proof is impossible.
God can never be verified. Why not just accept that reality and move along the road?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Firstly, it is an effective method of communication since most people in the world believe in God because of messengers.

Most people in the world have no idea who Baha'u'llah is or what his message was. How old is that message now? The warning about Covid coming and then arriving spread much more effectively, but then, it relied on something better than a guy with a piece of paper wandering Persia to do that, or we'd still never have heard of it. And that's the point. Your guy's method was ineffective.

I do not offer the message as my evidence that God exists.

You have in the past. If I recall, you listed three things, but it only sounded like two, the other being the life of the prophet.

Multiple qualified posters have pointed out what the evidence is for Baha'u'llah

Do mean what the evidence signifies? If so, I agree. And many who aren't qualified critical thinkers have offered other opinions.

 

[PearlSeeker]

How could you ever know it was God you were experiencing rather than just your imagination?
Thus the problem of verification still exists.

Maybe if the experience would be more common we could gain some knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

Most people in the world have no idea who Baha'u'llah is or what his message was. How old is that message now?

Whether Messengers are an effective methodd of communication or not has nothing to do with how many people have accepted Baha'u'llah to date. I already listed the seven reasons why not more people believe in Baha'u'llah yet, so I am not going to post those again.

Messengers are an effective method of communication since most people in the world believe in God because of messengers.

84 percent of the world population has a faith and because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are holy men who founded the religions, so they are intermediaries between God and man. Sure, there are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm.

The point is that with no men who act as "intermediaries" between God and man very few people would believe in God.

The warning about Covid coming and then arriving spread much more effectively, but then, it relied on something better than a guy with a piece of paper wandering Persia to do that, or we'd still never have heard of it. And that's the point. Your guy's method was ineffective.

To compare a message from God to the warning about Covid coming and then arriving is illogical since it is the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

News that affects people's life and death cannot be compared to a message from a new Messenger of God. Nobody is going to die if they don't get the message. Most people in the world already have a religion so they already have a belief in God to sustain them.

Moreover, it is possible to get the news about Covid out through the media and believed by most people in the world, since lives are at stake, but it is not possible to get a message from a new Messenger of God out and believed by many people. That has nothing to do with the method of delivery being ineffective, it is all about the message being spread by the Baha'is and the receptivity of people to the message.

You have in the past. If I recall, you listed three things, but it only sounded like two, the other being the life of the prophet.

The message itself is not the evidence that the Messenger is from God because that would be circular reasoning.
There are three main things I have listed, and they are embedded in the following post.

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

Do mean what the evidence signifies? If so, I agree. And many who aren't qualified critical thinkers have offered other opinions.

I meant that there are multiple Baha'is posting here who are qualified to look at the evidence and see that it supports and sufficiently justifies the belief.

Citing atheists as the only ones who are qualified to assess the evidence, because they alone are critical thinkers, does not add to the discussion.
The 'us and them' mentality brings nothing but divisiveness.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe if the experience would be more common we could gain some knowledge.

Maybe, but it would not be verifiable knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm really curious about the inner thoughts and feelings of the two other members I responded to in why they continue a pattern of posting that is not effective, yet they keep repeating the efforts as if there will be a sudden breakthrough to critical thinkers.

I'm really curious about the inner thoughts and feelings of the two members I respond to, why they continue a pattern of posting that is not effective, yet they keep repeating the efforts as if there will be a sudden breakthrough to believers.

 

[Ella S.]

As I have said before, it cannot be proven that God exists using a logical argument. Here is why.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

So here are some perfectly valid circular arguments:

If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Similarly, 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 that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists is true.

The same applies to the Bible. It can never be proven to be true, so it cannot be used to assert that God exists is true.

And this is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

First of all, it is not only that they did impressive things that makes them messengers of God, but that is another subject.

As I noted above, it is a fallacious argument, but it is often logically valid. However, messengers cannot be used to prove that God exists since it can never be proven that messengers were sent by God.

I think you need to relinquish the idea that God can be proven to exist using logic, because that is impossible, for the reason I noted above.
God can never be proven to exist, all we have is evidence that God exists. Evidence is not proof and that is why faith is necessary to believe in God, faith coupled with the evidence we have.

What Baha'u'llah did on His mission, what He wrote, and who He was as a person (His character) leads me to the conclusion that He was a Messenger of God and thus I believe that God exists. There is no logical argument that can prove any man was a Messenger of God since there is no logical argument that can be used to prove that God exists. We need to look at the evidence for the Messenger, and we either come to the determination that He was sent by God or we don't. There is objective evidence but the determination is subjective.

What is subjective and objective evidence?

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah. The Writings of Baha'u'llah are also part of the objective evidence.

Fallacies are specific kinds of errors in logical inference, so something cannot be fallacious and logical. Evidence must be analyzed logically in order to draw conclusions from it.

If you are admitting that logic cannot justify your belief, then you are also admitting that there is no evidence for it.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not talking about religious claims.

It isn't? Then what is this clandestine thing you are talking about so vaguely? It's not consistent with materialism so it isn't factual.

I don't care about anyone's religious belief-claims. I'm talking about closing ourselves off to the various cognitive possibilities that other people find effective in their life, for no honest reason.

Cognitive possibilities? What does that mean? Give examples, and explasin how people close themselves off from it. And be sure to explain how it offers those who do it a better life

The fact is that billions of humans are using these "other" methods of cognating and negotiating with their existence, and are doing so, successfully. And we hmans have been doing so from our beginning.

Describe these other methods and how they offer an advantage over those not using these other methods.

Which beginning, as we evolved some 200,000 years ago, before we had language or concepts? Or the beginning of permanent settlements which allowed humans time to advance in many ways?

"Truth" is a trophy for the fools that think they can possess it. What matters is what works best in the circumstance.

Religious and philosophical "truth", yes. Actual truth, no. Actual truth is related to materialism since both rely on fact and reason.

Of course you are. We all are. Everyone has an ego and everyone succumbs to it eventually.

The difference I am pointing out is how people adopt religious frameworks as truth, and then as they are absorbed in it the dogma is integrated into ego and identity. For some that can be highly detrimental. It's one thing to have ego issues that are self-centered, yet another that is built on the illusion that gods, angels, demons, etc. exist for the believer.

"Believing" IS the illusion. Once we get that clered up in our minds we can finally begin letting go of that bad habit.

You defininately are some sort of theist/believer that doesn't want to be associated with these categories or labels. Your vague statement are not factual in any way, and more related to religious concepts, yet you work to be so vague as to have degree of deniability. I asked you questions above for clarity, but that's just not your thing and I have little confidence you will make any effort. We will see

I don't "dislike" materialism. I just understand that it's a nonsensical, self-eviscerating concept.

Kinda sounds like dislike. If you claimed you don't beat your wife, you just use sufficient physical force so she will learn her lesson, it is still a beating.

 

[F1fan]

As I have said before, it cannot be proven that God exists using a logical argument. Here is why.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

So here are some perfectly valid circular arguments:

If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Similarly, 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 that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists is true.

The same applies to the Bible. It can never be proven to be true, so it cannot be used to assert that God exists is true.

And this is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

So the logical default and natural position is: not convinced a God exists. Thus the idea of God is irrelevant.

 

[F1fan]

I do have adequate evidence, evidence that is adequate for me and others who believe as I do.

Believers of any religion will claim adequate evidence for their belief. None can show it is adequate for others outside the tribes.

If it is not adequate for you then don't ask me again, since you are not going to get any different reply.

I will keep asking as you keep brining up your personal belief in these discussions. What you believe is not relevant. In discussions we argue for why our view is correct, and there are cognitive tools to do this correctly and effectively. While you argue and argue you insist you aren't trying to persuade anyone. Then why argue?

There is no point playing the childish back-and-forth game -- "no, that's not evidence!"

Yet you keep on going, and offer no evidence that you know is necessary for the process.

I am not claiming that messengers exist or that God exists since I cannot prove it. I believe it based upon the evidence.
The evidence is what it is, you can take it or leave it.

It's weak compared to the extraordinary claims you make. You are treating an extraordinary claim as if it is mundane.

I only believe in what I have evidence for and I am free to believe it just as you are free to disbelieve what you do.

We know this already. You seem upset that you have to play by the rules of proper debate.

I have offered the rational process by which I came to my conclusions. It is called independent investigation of truth.

It's nothing of the sort. If it was critical thinkers would be agreeing with your presentation. Your thinking is highly flawed and driven by assumptions.

Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true.

Catholics could have the same method and "surprize" they conclude Catholicism is true and correct. That Baha'is have a process to "investigate" whether it is true or not is absurd. A religion has no interest in any process that could show it untrue. If you had atheists investigating your truth and they found out Baha'i was true, then that would be impressive. The truth is that non-Baha'i don't find any truth in it.

God can never be proven to exist using a logical argument for reasons I stated in #368 above.

Proof of God is not subject to logic for reasons I stated in #368 above.

I am logical in the way I assess ideas about God because I go about my assessment in a logical fashion, as I look at my evidence.

The higher level of evidence you require is verifiable evidence, which would be proof that God exist, and I have explained why proof is impossible.
God can never be verified. Why not just accept that reality and move along the road?

Then there is no reason to assume or believe a God exists. If the only reliable tool is off limits, then you have no way to believe as a rational person.

It's like someone says you can come collect $10,000,000 and it is 10 miles away, but you have to be there in 10 minutes or less. You can walk or drive, but the car is off limits to you. Good luck.