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

[Spirit of Light]

@Seeker of White Light ...and if you ask @Sheldon to back up his claims, he tells you google it... and continues

So true

 

[rational experiences]

There isn't any god being.

Science of man said man as a human first was with God...his earth science terms theories maths space zero. Heavens never owned a zero.

Attacked changed consciousness is pretty basic.

Humans all sex created beings are liars as human theists. Always were and were named as Satanists.... as humans who didn't support the belief of the presence God.

God was defined by human men as all types and all terms. God. Satanisms are defined as satanisms not God.

The cloud angel of God being a state the clouds was God first. Then Satan of god as men changed the God cloud image as the cloud.

Pretty basic advice.

Humans who used biological human mind coercion knew the study of it was between two humans.

As one human are all humans in terms i invented maths science yet in biology two natural humans existed.

Science studied it. Theories copying for the intent purpose the human group. Broadcasted the communicative system so changed natural heavens as only a few human minds owned the achievement.

Now possessed by that choice preach we are devil alien human crop circles that a one human biological being all humans a baby born first as human adults looks at.

We are two human's yet one human by species. Human Satanists...are scientists. Get your own human only facts right liars. You wrote in full knowledge no man is God.

Terms God not a being.

Human life recordings are by heavenly conditions both a human voice and a human image. Already proven.

What a human liar is a theist who pretends non human existence is allowable for machine practices.....and is group supported to make the claim.

The theme of I'm allowed to use the machine pretending no human existed first ....then I invented life by my machine hence I can't remove life.

Is actually thought by the human theist by intention.

Question.....where is your reactive want gain of a resource then if you say machine transmitters invented my living biological presence first?

Real answer I intended not to allow any life to exist as I only want the resource.

Sophism...the human used cunning contrivance warned.
versus the writing a holy law book that said no man was God.

Nuclear fuel...
Nuclear weapons....oh don't forget electricity nothing like nuclear.

Earth mass not God...coal. As it's not rock.

Dust ...also not rock.

Teaching God is the rock knowing lying human satanic scientists behaviours and coercions ....

Why a scientist is a satanist as only natural equal humans are first.

 

[firedragon]

Yea, my education about the Bible first came from my church which didn’t really do a good job. Then my education turned into self education, which is what it still is. I read books and research what I can online, no special education.

Dont take me wrong. Christian scholarship is pretty fantastic. I am still pondering on who really invented Christian scholarship. Atheists or true Christians. When I say scholarship or scholars I dont mean church fathers or priests per se, I mean bible scholars who engage in, and/or invented scholarship or technical methods like criticism. Its astonishing really, and is truly amazing.

 

[an anarchist]

What I intended to create with this thread

What I created

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yea, my education about the Bible first came from my church which didn’t really do a good job. Then my education turned into self education, which is what it still is. I read books and research what I can online, no special education.

Churches often do not like the history of the Bible. It's history is quite different than if one reads it literally. Much of it was written during the Babylonian captivity. Parts are older than that, but not very much. And many of the prophetic books were history written as if they were prophecy.

 

[firedragon]

What I intended to create with this thread
View attachment 62849

What I created
View attachment 62850

Lol. Excellent.

 

[rational experiences]

When one human as a human being the human and just a self owns an ego.

Then a human self says when a human once never existed..... says it as one self a human. The human owning the mind life body conditions human. Knowing one day they die as the self as a thinker as theist human.

Fully informed.

Is a human who ignorantly says when a human once never existed meaning yourself in the thought. Yet always infers it ignorantly about other humans.

As you do exist. All human's exist. If you say when a human never existed nor did you. Therefore you can't human theory. As when a human didn't exist you are the subject.

What arrogant ignorant human egotism was taught about versus human family mutual spirituality.

Self destructive human personalities have used this human condition against us for a very long time. Owning no respect for any other life except themselves.

Join groups of humans who all behave the same.

How a group of humans can have all life destroyed on earth.

Human behaviours only.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Even if I could *first* show that God exists that would not prove that God sent any Messengers.

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.

You need to know that Messengers exist in order to know that God exists since they are the only evidence that God exists.

It would not be any less circular if we knew that God exists and then claimed that the Messengers were sent by God.

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

No, it does not require lack of circularity to be evidence, not at all.
Evidence is evidence. The fact that you do not *like* that it is circular does not negate the evidence.

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.

There is no way to *prove* that the premise is true because nobody can ever prove that a Messenger was sent by God. All we have is the evidence that indicates this was the case.

The circle cannot be cut because Messengers are the evidence of God. It does not need to be cut because a circular argument can be logically valid.

Are all circular arguments invalid?

No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound. It should be more clear now that this line of reasoning is perfectly valid. Aug 18, 2017

Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?

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.

That is correct. God could still exist though.

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.

Again, it cannot be proven that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, all we have is the evidence that indicates that was the case.

There need not be any assumption that God exists *before* we investigate the claims of Baha'u'llah and come to believe that God exists, based upon what He revealed about 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.

Again, it does not matter if it is a logical fallacy. The premises are either true or false and that is all that matters. You will never be able to locate God and prove He exists and that is why we have to look at the Messenger. The way to go about determining if God exists is to look at the Messenger's claims and the evidence he provided to support those claims, because if the Messenger's claims are true, God exists.

 

[viole]

Not sure exactly what you are trying to say.

But, why?


Romans 10: Now how can they call on one in whom they have never believed? How can they believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how can they hear unless someone proclaims him? And who will go to tell them unless he is sent? As the scripture puts it: ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the Gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!’



We don't "proselytize" IMO. We share... Jesus accepts everybody unless someone simply doesn't want him - he respects people's free will. For our faith, people just need to connect the Creator with the Savior and thus we share. I'm sure everybody has their reason for sharing their faith or positions.

Well, imagine someone who never had any access to the Bible, or never heard of Jesus and stuff. Say, an Indian, in pre-columbian America.
According to Romans, he had no excuse, anyway. The question is what it is meant by that.

1) No excuse for not having believed in a God like, the gods people believed back then, while they should have? That would indicate that having believed in Tlatolteotl would have been an excuse. Which I read like "being saved", anyway.

2) If not, then the expectations are that our old Indians would infer the entire Christian theology by observing nature, creation, whatever. The question is how, unless you can show me how to infer that from observing trees, animals, the sky, etc. And she had no excuse if she did not see that. Which I read as "not saved".

I would like to know what scenarios did Paul have in mind (assuming he knew there was a world beyond the relative little area where he preached). Because we have a dilemma:

If 1) holds, then Christianity is not needed. You can be saved by believing in any God. And in that case, missioning is counterproductive, since it will require possibly saved people to swap religion and lose their status of safety if they don't, once they heard the so-called good news. So, better to know nothing of Jesus and all, for their own sake. But that, of course, would contradict all claims that you need to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour to get to heaven.

If 2) holds, then missioning is superfluous, since people are expected to infer the right theology without any help. Help that, if needed, would create unfairness for what concerns the eternal destiny of humans depending on sheer accidents of birth outside their control. IOW: turning the salvation game into a lottery.

So, what of the two scenarios apply?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if I could *first* show that God exists that would not prove that God sent any Messengers.

You need to know that Messengers exist in order to know that God exists since they are the only evidence that God exists.

It would not be any less circular if we knew that God exists and then claimed that the Messengers were sent by God.

No, it does not require lack of circularity to be evidence, not at all.
Evidence is evidence. The fact that you do not *like* that it is circular does not negate the evidence.

There is no way to *prove* that the premise is true because nobody can ever prove that a Messenger was sent by God. All we have is the evidence that indicates this was the case.

The circle cannot be cut because Messengers are the evidence of God. It does not need to be cut because a circular argument can be logically valid.

Are all circular arguments invalid?

No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound. It should be more clear now that this line of reasoning is perfectly valid. Aug 18, 2017

Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?

That is correct. God could still exist though.

Again, it cannot be proven that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, all we have is the evidence that indicates that was the case.

There need not be any assumption that God exists *before* we investigate the claims of Baha'u'llah and come to believe that God exists, based upon what He revealed about God.

Again, it does not matter if it is a logical fallacy. The premises are either true or false and that is all that matters. You will never be able to locate God and prove He exists and that is why we have to look at the Messenger. The way to go about determining if God exists is to look at the Messenger's claims and the evidence he provided to support those claims, because if the Messenger's claims are true, God exists.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, by definition it cannot produce evidence.

 

[rational experiences]

Remove the premise the human who lives to own human death....no God.

A human teaching I was witness to humans paranormal phenomena. By gods terms of O circular reasoning I thought upon. As I inferred the circle in maths O only said man by giving it a number.

Not owning O earth in that description and not owning heavens in the description..description exact to the theme just the circle.

No man human so no God terms by the man human. O the circle.

Previous life status men owned practiced ced machine technical science.

O planet exact unnamed.
Planet heavens exact unnamed. No human to name it.

Unnamed as humans name names so express God as a non present human first,. .means no names.

If a human said I speak about God there is no name first. As you aren't present to discuss natural mass.

Human man living present everything not named first,. .no names.

If you clarify truth. As you can't say planet or earth or heavens as a human only applied meaning. When you say I speak truth.

A human man hence inherited gained a cause of his man science causes to remind him science was previously proven wrong.

As in his bahuallah gain advice no scientific human science machine or practice existed. Phenomena had been seen above as paintings proved it was still seen.

Ground fall inherited by star fall Jesus returned prediction from 0AD to 1000 year timed approximation.

Two of Jesus. One was spiritual DNA life body of human healed aware by evolution of heavens cooling status. The other gained returned star burning life sacrifice. Shroud Turin evidence.

Ground fall.

As science is Satanism was practiced as humans by humans theoried by human men as maths inventor.

 

[rational experiences]

The taught term human father direct from eternal God spirit body first....not man brothers agreed maths I got attacked Adam even balances heavens that I changed.

Bible was science of man's theist confession changes he caused by maths predictions only he calculated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since you offered that contrast as evidence for a god, let me explain to you why it is evidence of something else to me.

It is my experience here on RF and elsewhere that the more religious a person's thinking, the worse for them. The secular humanist is the gold standard and control group. The theists who most resemble them in their critical thinking seem to be the best educated and most decent theists. These are people you wouldn't know were theists if they didn't tell you, and in whose posts the skeptics find nothing they wouldn't have written themselves. As people become more visibly ensconced in religion, it has an increasingly undesirable effect as an unbeliever would judge it, until you get to the other end of the spectrum, where the believer seems to have learned little about what he's arguing, can't make a valid argument or even answer a post addressed to him responsively, and often starts thread after thread either offering another specious proof of God, or telling us why evolution must be wrong even as they understand little of it, or why atheists are bad people. How are we to interpret that except as somebody in cognitive dissonance caused by his religious beliefs, which leaves him with an itch he can't scratch.

Yes, I understand how comforting such beliefs are to many, but that's not evidence for a god, either.

I would give this multiple winner ratings if possible.
Or a "standing ovation applause"-rating if such existed.
Or a "golden buzzer" if it were a "<insert country>'s got talent" show.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have presented proofs in other threads. If they don't convince, it's your choice.

Arguments being convincing or not, is not a matter of "choice".

And every one of your supposed "proofs" were infested with logical fallacies, as has been pointed out in every one of your threads.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What I intended to create with this thread
View attachment 62849

What I created
View attachment 62850

Okay, evidence and its limits.

In short, there is evidence for the everyday world, that some people are religious. So it is a fact about how a part of the world works. So how to deal with that, is not a fact, because it is an ought. We are playing the Is-Ought problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Clearity in seeing the actual truth of existence is one sign.

Translation: you believe it, because you believe it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Arguments being convincing or not, is not a matter of "choice".

And every one of your supposed "proofs" were infested with logical fallacies, as has been pointed out in every one of your threads.

Well, it is cognitive and/or emotional, so if I can use my brain differently, then so can you. Now what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists hate God, and it's obvious just by the tone they discuss the topic about him and proofs related to him.

See, it's dishonest points such as this one that underpins all your "proofs" and that is why they are worthless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Translation: you believe it, because you believe it.

Yes, that is a fact of how it works in a limited sense. Religious believer don't actually do something supernatural, so you are complaining about something that is a fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

See, it's dishonest points such as this one that underpins all your "proofs" and that is why they are worthless.

They are worthless to you and others like you.