Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That is just one true. You can call it a Gish, but then you need to explain why at least one of the failed. What I have seen is that after they failed the JW's always have tried to reinterpret the failure after the fact. Changing your story after the fact does not mean that one did not predict the end of the world.
I interpret the verses symbolically.
Thanks. This brings another unsolvable contradiction between Bahai Faith and Quran. The following I believe make Bahai Faith impossible to be true.
Show me there's a "real god" and I'll believe in it.
Has anyone ever seen Satan? If not, how can you know Satan is a real entity rather than figurative?
Yes, but don't want to go to details. But aside from me seeing him, the Quran explains it in a way that can only be literal.
I do not know enough about the Qur'an to respond to this, but my friend @Truthseeker has read and studied the Qur'an so perhaps he can help me out.
You have seen Satan?
Many things. Truth, my life, my future, my past, persons in my care, persons asking for help.
Faith transcends spiritual matters. Anyone who ever planted a seed in the soil did so by faith. Anyone who ever accepted a job and went to work for another person did so by faith. We act by faith constantly. Anytime you do a thing because you understand there to be the promise of a certain outcome attached to doing it, you are exercising faith.
The context of what people believed about their gods and what belief in Jinn and Angels and God are all wrapped together.
Nah. That's an equivocation fallacy. You're using the same word to mean two different things. As I've already pointed out when another poster in this thread tried that one.
I disagree that it is an equivocation fallacy. I have not changed the meaning of the word or concept, relative to the posts I have made in this thread. My understanding of the concept has been consistent and I have responded consistently.
When one plants a seed one can test it multiple times and demonstrate reliable success. There is a major concept where this is done regularly on a wholesale scale. It is called."agriculture ". You may have heard of it. There is nothing in theological beliefs that comes even close. That is how we know that you used an equivocation fallacy.
No, I do not agree.
Thanks for explaining. I must conclude that you have not understood what I have said about the nature of faith. If you understand that there is a distinction between "religious" faith and whatever other kind of faith one might assert, then your response makes sense. I do not believe there is such a distinction. I understand faith to be only one thing, applicable in all situations on the same basis. Not "this way" for spiritual matters and "that way" for other matters.
I am claiming that it is a logical error to claim that a living cell, for example, is too complex to exist undesigned and uncreated by an intelligence, and then proposing the most complex entity imaginable - a deity that knows everything including how to create the exceedingly complex cell - as existing undesigned and uncreated. If you'd like to explore this concept here - maybe you disagree, maybe you don't understand the argument - you'll need to address the argument to explain why you think it's wrong if you do, not merely dismiss or ignore it.
Yes, but that is a metaphorical use of the word code, and different from a literal code, which does require an intelligent designer, since it is the substitution of one conventional set of symbols and agreed upon meanings for another. DNA is NOT that. If you don't address that distinction and my explanation of why it makes your insistence that codes need designers moot, we are done with that line of inquiry, and I consider the matter resolved if you don't attempt rebuttal (falsification).
No, it doesn't.
Or until they find a god. Science is open to any possibility that cannot be ruled out empirically or logically.
This is an incredulity fallacy as stated. Translate: I just don't see how it could have happened without a designer, so it didn't.
The opposite is true. Invoking a god that explains and predicts nothing is adding complexity without improving over the naturalistic hypothesis.
Yes, it can. We don't need to go into the past. We look at the evidence available now to determine what must have come before, but has to have an educated and prepared mind to do that. Detectives can do that. They can look at forensic evidence in a car today and determine that a specific person had been in it in the past.
This describes rogue "logic."
I'm somebody who knows what constitutes justification in the academc sense. I've studied and learned the technique, and made it a habit of thought. It doesn't matter how many people are unfamiliar with this method or that it alone can generates sound (correct) conclusions about reality. Go ahead and use whatever rogue method you choose to connect whatever evidence you offer to your beliefs, but if it's not the one used in science and courtrooms, then those opinions are not sufficiently justified.
The study demonstrates that prayer is inefficacious except as placebo, and even then, not always a beneficial placebo. If you think that that statement is wrong and care to try to falsify it, please do. Remember, a correct statement CANNOT be falsified.
I don't. I have eliminated belief by faith from my repertoire. You seem to think that's impossible, but it's not. It's a habit of thought one can cultivate, like always looking both ways before crossing a street.
Science has never made a comment about gods. It simply hasn't found any, nor anything that needs a god to account for it. And science will never find fictional creatures. They appear like the results of the STEP study.
Or maybe, as you have been told repeatedly, the one who waits to believes in gods needs a reason and doesn't have one. Maybe the one who refuses to even consider that possibility doesn't because he doesn't want to consider it.
No, it is apt analogy. Real thinks: the sun, wolves. Imaginary things: Krypton's red sun (Superman's fictional birthplace), werewolves. What the first two have in common is that one can see them. The exist in space and time. They interact with other real objects allowing their detection. For the last two, it's all the opposite. Yu place gods in the first category. I place them in the second, and this offends you even though gods and werewolves have exactly the same qualities: none at all.
Justified belief means zero faith.
Some people care about holding only correct beliefs, not false of unfalsifiable ones. It is the theist who worships an idol, and there is no real god to any human being's knowledge. Such a belief can only be held by faith, and worshiping it ifit isn't real is worshiping a false idol.
What I have been questioning is the existence of an evil being callled Satan. I do not question the existence of Angels.
In this case the "evidence" is that one can show a past history that seeds germinate and sprout. You may not have crossed over into a strawman argument. You may have conflated a justified belief that there are very good odds of a seed sprouting with an absolute belief that a seed will sprout. No one that you are arguing with is claiming an absolute belief that a particular seed will sprout. We can show that with a large enough sample size a certain percentage will sprout within a margin of error.
