There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Polymath257]

They are not Messengers *of God.* They are Messengers who are sent by God. They are evidence that God exists since they are sent *by God.*

But only if you can demonstrate that they are sent by God. And to do that
requires that you *first* show that a God exists.

No, it is not possible to *first* show that God exists since the only way to know that God exists is the Messengers that are sent by God.

And that is precisely why the whole argument is circular. You need to know that God exists to know the messengers are sent by God, and you need to know they are sent by God to have evidence that God exists.

It does not matter if it is circular because that does not mean it is not true.

But it does mean that there is no evidence. To be evidence requires lack of circularity.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

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

Yes, but you need a way to show the premises are true that doesn't involve the circular argument. At some point, the circle needs to be cut.

And if the premise that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is false, then the conclusion that God exists need not be true. So you need some *independent* way to show that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God that does not require the previous assumption that there is a God.

Notice that circular reasoning *is* a logical fallacy. The only way to break it is to *independently* prove one of the premises in the circle.

 

[Polymath257]

Not that I can recall.
Now all theists are insane?

Most theists don't believe they were actually in communication with God.

Wow, the 4 percent of atheists in the world are the only sane people? That's highly unlikely.

I never claimed that. There are many sane theists that don't think that God talks to them or that Jesus appears in toast.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Most theists don't believe they were actually in communication with God.

Really? How many religions include some kind of praying?
There are approximately 2.1 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Islam, 1.1 billion nonreligious believers and 376 million Buddhism. The total world population is estimated to be 7 billion. The remaining religions, including African traditional religions, Sikhism, Judaism, Spiritism, Baha'i, to name a few claim the remaining number of people on earth.

Based on these statistics, it's safe to say that over 87% of the world believes in some form of prayer.
According to you, they are all insane.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because then there would be nothing.

And why wouldn't we just be able to say "if the bread didn't bake itself, there would be nothing"?

 

[nPeace]

Well I’ve read through the thread (a lot to wake up to!). I noticed I didn’t get much answers from theists as to why they believe in god. Got a couple good ones, but more of the thread has been dedicated to the topic of proof of god.
I figure I should give my answer to why I believe in God, as a possible deist and auto theist.
It is a powerful belief, auto theism. At least for me. The belief that I have a soul which is an omniscient deity will allow me to achieve my ambitions. I look inward, and at the very least the power of the creative mind will answer me and show me the way. I have felt this deity’s power before. I also clinically suffer from delusions of grandeur, so the belief that I am a god makes sense.
And deism because with my current cosmological frame that I have in my head, god is necessary for my auto theism.
So in short, I believe in god because I am delusional yet, this belief in god will empower me. Belief in god has been pragmatic as humans evolved. As soon as one idea of god was obsolete, it was discarded and a new god took its place.
The goddess of Mother Nature was around when humans were mastering agriculture, but eventually faded away.
For me, theism was no longer pragmatic for what is necessary for my ambitions, rather, auto theism is my pragmatic choice.
So I am being pragmatic with my belief god, without it I would be weaker.
Delusional and pragmatic.
Edit - I am open minded I think and possibly could let go of the belief of god altogether one day. Idk, maybe if it was pragmatic for me.

Well if you post that question on a forum Atheist have their radar on, and converge as a swarm, at the first response, what would you expect.

I mean, I posted the second, after the OP, and before the day ended (I assume, because I went to sleep) the thread had nearly 5 pages, and more than 3 responses to my post... I assume with the same response basically (I didn't read them, as I know the gist of the responses... same ole.)

I mean, Atheists here are the most posters when there is a question on God. You only have to look at the Atheist with the most posts on the thread. He responds to every post, by a believer in God... with the same thing.

If you want more theists to respond, as suggested, the religious discussion forum may be the place, with some alteration to the title, imo.

 

[nPeace]

And why wouldn't we just be able to say "if the bread didn't bake itself, there would be nothing"?

Because the bread can't bake itself.

 

[Polymath257]

Really? How many religions include some kind of praying?
There are approximately 2.1 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Islam, 1.1 billion nonreligious believers and 376 million Buddhism. The total world population is estimated to be 7 billion. The remaining religions, including African traditional religions, Sikhism, Judaism, Spiritism, Baha'i, to name a few claim the remaining number of people on earth.

Based on these statistics, it's safe to say that over 87% of the world believes in some form of prayer.
According to you, they are all insane.

And old joke:

If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you are insane.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because the bread can't bake itself.

But you're saying that the bread can bake itself when the bread is God.

Which is it?

 

[nPeace]

But you're saying that the bread can bake itself when the bread is God.

Which is it?

What? Lol.
I am saying the bread cannot bake itself because the bread is not a product of undirected processes. Lol. You guys slay me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What? Lol.
I am saying the bread cannot bake itself because the bread is not a product of undirected processes. Lol. You guys slay me.

So you think gods are the product of undirected processes?

 

[nPeace]

So you think gods are the product of undirected processes?

No. For a process to exist, there needs to be something.
How can a process exist if there is nothing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. For a process to exist, there needs to be something.
How can a process exist if there is nothing?

You're the one suggesting that it can, so you tell me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Would like to evaluate your data, please show that.

I will only if you promise to support your with a valid source the next time that you are challenged.

 

[nPeace]

You're the one suggesting that it can, so you tell me.

I am? No, you must be reading something other than what I wrote.
I find it's rather simple.
Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

The beginning is not a process. Any process that exists, would only start after the beginning.
If unguided, it would be that God started it... and then left it. There must be a start of any process.
If guided, God started, and controls or directs it... like the baker.

So there is bread, because the "baker" exists.
If the baker did not exist, there would be no process; no bread.
You need the mover... regardless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am? No, you must be reading something other than what I wrote.
I find it's rather simple.
Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

The beginning is not a process. Any process that exists, would only start after the beginning.
If unguided, it would be that God started it. There must be a start of any process.
If guided, God started, and controls or directs it... like the baker.

So there is bread, because the "baker" exists.
If the baker did not exist, there would be no process; no bread.
You need the mover... regardless.

Who started the baker?

 

[an anarchist]

Who started the baker?

Was just about to ask...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Was just about to ask...

He'll probably respond to you anyway. I think he is intimidated by me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who started the baker?

Excellent question, but they never understand how the answer that they give can always be applied to the universe or cosmos as a whole.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He'll probably respond to you anyway. I think he is intimidated by me.

And me.

 

[nPeace]

Was just about to ask...

The beginning does not have a starter. How is that possible? The beginning is always the starter. Nothing comes before the beginning... and from nothing comes what? Nothing.