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

[Sheldon]

You ever heard the phrase “A legend in his own mind”?

Do you think resorting to petty ad hominem fallacies is going to convince me your arguments were in fact compelling and sound all along, and I have simply failed to reason properly? Dear oh dear...a minute ago you no longer cared what I said, now you care enough to resort to petty insult, but not to engage in cogent meaningful debate.

 

[Viker]

In philosophy the Truth is the idea of the correct (set of) methodology(ies) that always for all cases gives the correct positive answer. I.e. total knowledge.

So, the word needs to be capitalized? How can one person and one creed monopolize truth? Seems solipsistic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, the word needs to be capitalized? How can one person and one creed monopolize truth? Seems solipsistic.

Do you mean a variant of psychological solipsism? Well, then not really. The idea is that it is for all humans, because once we have it, we have no problems.

 

[Luchito Prays]

Why do theists believe this kind of circular reasoning fallacy, has any meaning at all?

Blind faith takes you nowhere.

But, when you acquire knowledge... you know what? ... forget knowledge alone... that is for atheists... when you acquire wisdom... yes, that is the word... when you acquire wisdom, then you see the God... not with your eyes... but you know He is there.

If you don't have wisdom, then you only can hear others telling you about the God, but only thru wisdom you can see it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Blind faith takes you nowhere.

But, when you acquire knowledge... you know what? ... forget knowledge alone... that is for atheists... when you acquire wisdom... yes, that is the word... when you acquire wisdom, then you see the God... not with your eyes... but you know He is there.

If you don't have wisdom, then you only can hear others telling you about the God, but only thru wisdom you can see it.

Well, you have your wisdom and I have mine.

 

[Sheldon]

Too bad you couldn’t bring yourself to see the humor and truth to the comment.

I though you didn't care what I or @Subduction Zone thought or said?

ElishaElijah said: ↑
Doesn’t matter to me what you assume or what you say at this point or @Sheldon or @Subduction Zone.

For the record, I definitely see the humour in that statement. Albeit unintentional.

 

[Sheldon]

when you acquire wisdom... yes, that is the word... when you acquire wisdom, then you see the God... not with your eyes... but you know He is there.

I am dubious sorry, what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support this claim? There are plenty examples of people who have wisdom, who do not have theistic belief. Or perhaps you disagree?

If you don't have wisdom, then you only can hear others telling you about the God, but only thru wisdom you can see it.

Oh it appears you genuinely are using a no true Scotsman fallacy. In that case your claim is firstly irrational, and secondly it is demonstrably wrong, since wisdom does not lead to theism necessarily, nor is it confined to theists of course.

Blind faith takes you nowhere.

On that at least, we can agree.

 

[Trailblazer]

Correct. But to know that the Messengers are *from* God, you need to know God exists first.

That the people you call Messengers existed is not at issue. The issue is whether they were from God. And to know that requires first knowing that God exists.

To know if God exists you need to look at the Messengers who claim to be the Voice of God.
The Messengers are the *best* evidence that God exists.

Correct: that is the nature of circular reasoning: all aspects of the circle are only proved by other aspects of the circle.

And that is why it is a logical fallacy: the circle does not establish the truth of *any* of the things in the circle.

In order to actually establish that something in the circle (and hence everything in the circle) is true, you need to give a reason *outside* of the circle.

People believe in God for all kinds of reasons so you are free to look for evidence that God exists aside from Messengers. Good luck.

And this is where you are wrong. A circular argument is fallacious: it is unreliable. To get evidence the claims in the circle are true, you need to go *outside* of the circle and establish them.

People believe in God for all kinds of reasons so you are free to look for evidence that God exists aside from Messengers. Good luck.

What evidence? If the evidence is that some man did a few things, that is hardly close to being evidence that the man was a messenger from God.

Baha'u'llah did not just do 'some things.' Who He was as a Person, what He did on His Mission, and what He wrote is evidence but it is not proof. There can never be any proof that God communicated to anyone. Only the Messengers know what happened to them so we either believe their claims or we do not. The reason we check them out is in order to determine if their claims are worthy of belief.

The claims in the circle *can* be valid, but the circle cannot establish that. To establish the claims in the circle are true, you need to go *outside* of the circle and provide a non-circluar (or otherwise fallacious) argument.

Not necessarily, but you can go outside the circle by researching and finding out what other people say about Baha'u'llah.

The circular argument is invalid. The claims made may be true for other reasons.

No, not all circular arguments are invalid.

No, the reasoning in a circular argument is NOT perfectly valid. it is possible for the claims made in a circular argument to be true, but to show that requires doing something other than a circular argument.

Yes. And to show that requires something outside of the circle.

People believe in God for all kinds of reasons so you are free to look for evidence that God exists aside from Messengers. Good luck.

Except that you have never presented any evidence.

So there is nothing.

I have presented evidence many times.

You have to believe he was truthful when he spoke about God. Which means you need to *first* know there is a God.

That makes no sense at all. I do not *first* need to know that there is a God.
It is impossible to *know* that there is a God, that can only be believed on faith and evidence.

And if the Messenger's claims are false, then God may not exist.

That is correct and that is why it is so important to try to ascertain if the Messenger's claims are true.

So the question is what supports the claims of the Messenger when it comes to claims about God. What evidence does the Messenger give to support the existence of God?

That evidence is presented in the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Luchito Prays]

I am dubious sorry, what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support this claim? There are plenty examples of people who have wisdom, who do not have theistic belief. Or perhaps you disagree?

Name them.

Oh it appears you genuinely are using a no true Scotsman fallacy. In that case your claim is firstly irrational, and secondly it is demonstrably wrong, since wisdom does not lead to theism necessarily, nor is it confined to theists of course.

You must be using a counterfeit Chinese dictionary, because your definition of wisdom appears to be so close minded.

 

[ElishaElijah]

To me there is no The Truth,

Is that true?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is that true?

Yes, for now, E.g. if you look at truth in philosophy there at least 3 major and different version of truth and then 2 more. And no one is the Truth.
Then there is logic and proof, but that is also not the Truth.
So let me explain it, The idea of the Truth is in a sense over 2000+ years old and it goes like this. Find a methodology(ies) which enables all humans for all cases to find an universal correct answer.
So how I know there is no such thing. Because we can still disagree and find different answers to how we live individual parts of our lives.

So again.
If you claim the Truth, I just test if I can do it differently. But so can you, if I claim the truth. It works in both direction.
So when you in effect say that to you Jesus Christ is the meaning of and with life, I just do it differently, But you also do differently than me.
Once you understand this, you can then try to figure out how the world works for all of us. What we share, what is similar and what is different. And you won't be alone. But there will be other like you.
And you can still be religious, but not as you used to be.

 

[Sheldon]

Name them.

So you get to make ludicrous and sweeping unevidenced claims, that only theists have wisdom, and when I point out what a spectacularly stupid claim it is I have to name all the atheists who possess wisdom? Hilarious, you do know that atheism is far among scientists and university post graduates, and much higher among elite scientists? How about Einstein, he not a theist, he was pretty disparaging about the bible and Abrahamic religions.

You must be using a counterfeit Chinese dictionary, because your definition of wisdom appears to be so close minded.

Wisdom
noun

1. the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgement; the quality of being wise.

Try again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not scientific logic no. But spiritual practice does have a form of logic too, just very different from a "physical existence only logic "

There is no "scientific" logic, or "your" logic, or "my" logic, or "spiritual" logic. There is just logic.
You're just making up "spiritual" logic so you don't have to recognize that your are being irrational, which you've already basically admitted to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no "scientific" logic, or "your" logic, or "my" logic, or "spiritual" logic. There is just logic.
You're just making up "spiritual" logic so you don't have to recognize that your are being irrational, which you've already basically admitted to.

Well, I get what he is saying. He is talking about the existential meaning of life. And there neither science nor formal logic will do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, I get what he is saying. He is talking about the existential meaning of life. And there neither science nor formal logic will do.

The existential meaning of life is up to each individual to determine for him/herself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The existential meaning of life is up to each individual to determine for him/herself.

Correct, and that is what he is doing in his way.

 

[Kenny]

Me? I am a naturalist. I don't believe I need any excuse whatsoever towards entities that are for me as plausible as Pinocchio.

But, you seem to give up. Wise decision . Despite abandoning the sick to her destiny

Ciao

- viole

LOL... no, I simply see the naturalistic "there is no answer that will satisfy me"

Jesus said come to me if you are thirsty and when I see someone isn't thirsty, I stop. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, as they say.

 

[Kenny]

That's pure assumption, not very compelling argument.



Several assumptions in there, that either deity imagined is real, that they are ostensibly the same deity, which is not remotely borne out by the evidence, and that the deity you imagine is real, is the one everyone else and all other religions have somehow missed. Again bare subjective assumptions are not very compelling.



You have no way of knowing what Jesus did or did not say, it's pure second and third hand hearsay, and the earliest written versions were decades after the alleged events.



Another bare subjective assertion, again these are not very compelling.



Again you have no way of knowing this, since not one word written about Jesus can be verified independently of the bible and your religion, it's all subjective hearsay, compiled long after the alleged events.



Once again then, you have no way of knowing this, since not one word written about Jesus can be verified independently of the bible and your religion, it's all subjective hearsay, compiled long after the alleged events.



That's just your subjective opinion, hardly a compelling argument. Most religious beliefs are little more than an accident of people's geographical birth. You'd in all likelihood be as devout a Muslim as you are a Christian, if you'd been born in many parts of the world, or a Hindu, or Sikh, Buddhist etc etc etc...

Mostly, your positions are subjective. I didn't find a compelling argument to respond.

 

[Polymath257]

Prayer by definition is a conversation with God. It's not a one way conversation.

I guess that depends on who is doing the definition.

Most people pray and don't expect a response.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I guess that depends on who is doing the definition.

Most people pray and don't expect a response.

How would you know?
Let's face it, you just claimed repeatedly that the only sane people on earth are atheists.