Where should the "I don't know" go?

[LuisDantas]

That would depend on the agenda behind seeking that clarity.

Is that really what you think you're doing?

It seems to me that YOU should have some issues with that.

Really? I often wonder what you mean and where it would come from, but this time it is particularly weird.

I mean what I say.

I tell it as it is.

No idea why you would question or doubt it.

Frankly, I expect you to do the very same that I do. I expect anyone really.

It is only fair.

 

[Trailblazer]

Iranians also believe in Imam Gayaba (in their view the disappeared rightful descendant of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, Muhammad al-Mahdi, the one who never appeared before people and even now is supposed to be in occultation since 941 CE). So their belief in Bahaollah being a manifestation of their Allah is not surprising. They believe in weird things.

Just because some Iranian beliefs are weird that does not mean all Iranian beliefs are weird.
To say that would be the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

As for mercies, we do not require any, and are perfectly OK without any.

You can speak for yourself. Maybe you do not require any mercy from God but I do.

 

[PureX]

Really? I often wonder what you mean and where it would come from, but this time it is particularly weird.

I mean what I say.

I tell it as it is.

No idea why you would question or doubt it.

Frankly, I expect you to do the very same that I do. I expect anyone really.

It is only fair.

Yes. You are a true believer in your own beliefs. And so you can't imagine how anyone else could believe anything else. To do so would be just plain 'wrong'. And so those that do believe something else must be corrected. By you. And by those who believe as you do, because your beliefs are the truth. The only truth. There can be no question of that.

 

[Trailblazer]

That communicates nothing to me.

'So there you have it' means that you are aware of no method by which a person could acquire such data.

You are aware of no method by which a person could acquire such data because there is no method, other than getting that data from the messengers of God.

[shrug] You have gone on and on about your notions on the subject for years and years on this forum alone. Getting hung up on the word "passionate" is ignoring the point.

Yes, I am passionate about my religion since I have very strong feelings about it and a strong belief in it.
I am passionate about it because I think it is important to know about God and religion, as I said before.

Which is the same reason that I do not take Homer seriously. Nor Bahá'u'lláh. Nor Paul. Nor Sun Myung Moon.

That's your choice.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes. You are a true believer in your own beliefs. And so you can't imagine how anyone else could believe anything else. To do so would be just plain 'wrong'. And so those that do believe something else must be corrected. By you. And by those who believe as you do, because your beliefs are the truth. The only truth. There can be no question of that.

@PureX , pal... I hope for your own good that you eventually learn to value what you believe and what you say more.

It is a bit sad to have to disregard what you say so casually and so often. But you leave me little choice.

Are you sure you even believe there are people fitting this odd hat that you are projecting into me?

Me, I can only care to wonder to a certain extent. A long gone extent.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think that how people choose to conceptualize God can help them with those kinds of issues, a lot. And that's why so many people choose to characterize and conceptualize the God ideal as they do. But how much does any of this help answer the question of God's actual existence?

Certainly some.

I disagree. I would argue that theistic beliefs and religion have very little to do with the existence of gods. After all, if it was discovered that a specific god exists, that would contradict (or at least significantly challenge) most, if not all, theistic religions. That is why so many of them avoid, and even put up barriers to, the idea of proving or supporting the existence of their god or gods.

I emphasised "God himself" in my post deliberately. For an actual god to help me, that god would obviously need to exist. For a beliefs about a god to help me, their existence wouldn't actually matter either way.

 

[bobhikes]

The question of whether something is true or real often gets framed by the believers in the thing... e.g. monotheists set the question as "does God exist?"

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

For me it's about interest, if anything that I don't know is told to me, I am curious. Depending on my curiosity I then decide whether I need to investigate it. How much time I put into it depends on how interesting the investigation becomes. If it doesn't interest me then I just state, I don't care. I know about it, but I just don't care to investigate its truth. That does give me annoyed looks by some, but I also don't care what others think.

 

[Trailblazer]

I disagree. I would argue that theistic beliefs and religion have very little to do with the existence of gods. After all, if it was discovered that a specific god exists, that would contradict (or at least significantly challenge) most, if not all, theistic religions.

If you mean that theistic beliefs and religion do not prove the existence of gods I would have to agree.

I also agree that if it was discovered that a specific god exists, that would contradict (or at least significantly challenge) most theistic beliefs about that god.

That is why so many of them avoid, and even put up barriers to, the idea of proving or supporting the existence of their god or gods.

No, I do not think that is why so many of theists avoid, and even put up barriers to, the idea of proving or supporting the existence of their god or gods. I don't speak for other theists but I have supported the existence of the God that I believe in, but I always say that there is no way to prove that God exists, because there is no way to prove that.

I emphasised "God himself" in my post deliberately. For an actual god to help me, that god would obviously need to exist. For a beliefs about a god to help me, their existence wouldn't actually matter either way.

Obviously, for an actual god to help you, that god would need to exist, but the fact that god does not help you is not proof that god does not exist.

I agree that for beliefs about a god to help you, their existence wouldn't actually matter either way.
Likewise, I might believe that I will remarry someday, and that belief might help me feel better, but that does not mean I will remarry.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. I would argue that theistic beliefs and religion have very little to do with the existence of gods. After all, if it was discovered that a specific god exists, that would contradict (or at least significantly challenge) most, if not all, theistic religions. That is why so many of them avoid, and even put up barriers to, the idea of proving or supporting the existence of their god or gods.

I emphasised "God himself" in my post deliberately. For an actual god to help me, that god would obviously need to exist. For a beliefs about a god to help me, their existence wouldn't actually matter either way.

I think you are way jumping the gun, here.

What "God" exists in what way?
"Does God Exist?" is an absurdly vague and inarticulate question.

There is no doubt that "God" exists or we would not be discussing it. The problem here is that almost no one ever bothers to articulate the various way something can exist, because they have no idea how to defend the one way they want to designate while rejecting all the others.

"God" as an idea exists. That idea is "real" (as all ideas are real). The idea of God effects the way we see and interact with the world and with each other (even atheists). Those effects are real. And those effects create further effects far beyond the human that is generating and operating via the god-idea. And in fact this is true of ALL our ideas. They are all real, and they are all effecting how we see and interact with the world. The idea of God no more or less so than the idea of "objectivity" that the atheists are all so enamored with.

The reality of the "God" ideal and the reality of "objective reality" ideal are functionally equivalent. Both are conceptual meta-myths that no human can ever know directly access. But I will assert that as a meta-myth, the God ideal is the far more versatile and effective.

 

[ppp]

You are aware of no method by which a person could acquire such data because there is no method, other than getting that data from the messengers of God.

I am aware of no method by which a person could acquire such data. Period.

Kindly don't shove your beliefs into my words.

Yes, I am passionate about my religion since I have very strong feelings about it and a strong belief in it.
I am passionate about it because I think it is important to know about God and religion, as I said before.

Still ignoring my point.

That's your choice.

Incorrect.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am aware of no method by which a person could acquire such data. Period.

Fair enough.

Still ignoring my point.

In post #44 you said: [shrug] You have gone on and on about your notions on the subject for years and years on this forum alone. Getting hung up on the word "passionate" is ignoring the point.

I addressed that point when I said:
Yes, I am passionate about my religion since I have very strong feelings about it and a strong belief in it.
I am passionate about it because I think it is important to know about God and religion, as I said before.

Incorrect.

I am not going to argue about free will and whether you have a choice or not.

 

[ppp]

In post #44 you said...

Not the point you are ignoring. You're lost. Don't worry about it.

I am not going to argue about free will and whether you have a choice or not.

Until you can show me how to will myself, free or otherwise, into the conviction that 2+2 = 5 in a base 10 system, you are not equipped to argue free will with me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Since intuition of one person differs from another, we have religious conflicts. This God or that God, one God or many, this messenger or that, etc.

So? I like the diversity. I prefer the meadow to have many different kinds of flowers.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why wouldn't the starting point be where we have common ground? If it's a common belief for good reasons, then we should be able to get from "questions like "is this thing coherent?" and "is it reasonable to take this thing seriously?" to questions like "does the thing exist?" very quickly.

We aren't talking about reasoning. We are talking about instinctual intuitions that people have no control over. There are some people who perceive God, and other who don't. Perception is not a rational thing.

So until we turn on the basement light, we have to entertain the possibility that someone's feeling of dread at the top of the basement stairs is because there's really a monster down there?

If you are out in the forest and a bush starts rustling, and your intuition jumps to the conclusion that it is a wild animal that will attack you, you really are best off running. Here is why. In most cases is will not be a dangerous animal and your instinct is mistake; however, there is no harm done by running away. On the flip side, if you tell yourself, "Don't be scared, it's probably just a small harmless animal or the wind" when in fact it IS a dangerous wild animal, by not running, you are toast. So yes, our intuition evolved because it helps us avoid harm and death, even though it is usually incorrect.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, I am passionate about my religion since I have very strong feelings about it and a strong belief in it.
I am passionate about it because I think it is important to know about God and religion, as I said before.

I am not going to argue about free will and whether you have a choice or not.

You won't argue about God, free-will, life after death, the Bahai heaven of nearness with Allah, or Bahaollah being or not a manifestation of Allah. You have decided your way and you are passionate about it. The evidence you provide satisfies only Bahais and is completely insufficient for all others. You are welcome to your views.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So? I like the diversity. I prefer the meadow to have many different kinds of flowers.

You have a meadow with flowers colored only in red (the color of blood). Mark my words, there will be more red flowers tomorrow.

 

[gotti]

The question of whether something is true or real often gets framed by the believers in the thing... e.g. monotheists set the question as "does God exist?"

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

Asking the question in the first place defeats the purpose of contemplating god.

It sounds like a contradiction because it is.

The answer is in just living your life in its entirety; if you're open, you'll notice that these questions present a variety of different answers over time and were never meant to be considered on an empirical or scientific basis at all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The answer is in just living your life in its entirety; if you're open, you'll notice that these questions present a variety of different answers over time and were never meant to be considered on an empirical or scientific basis at all.

It is a shame that they are not considered on an empirical or scientific basis and are decided upon by centuries old books written by no-one-knows-who.
And even if one knows who wrote that, it does not exclude it from being considered on an empirical or scientific basis.
Don't sacrifice truth at the altar of any God.

 

[gotti]

It is a shame that they are not considered on an empirical or scientific basis and are decided upon by centuries old books written by no-one-knows-who.
And even if one knows who wrote that, it does not exclude it from being considered on an empirical or scientific basis.
Don't sacrifice truth at the altar of any God.

I never said it excluding it being considered on an empirical or scientific basis.

I just think some forms of truth are removed from science and what can be verified by humans.

I don't sacrifice truth by suffocating it by human instruments in the same way that you might consider doing so by the human invention of our conception of a god.

They're both man-made instruments.

 

[HonestJoe]

... but I always say that there is no way to prove that God exists, because there is no way to prove that.

That is literally an example of putting up barriers, unilaterally declaring that (your) God can't be proven to exist.