Who is the one who must "prove"

[ChristineM]

We are not mind readers.....but still we are sent to impart the message....to 'plant the seed'.

It isn't us who determines where the seed lands.....

Matthew 13:3-9....
"Then he told them many things by illustrations, saying: “Look! A sower went out to sow. 4 As he was sowing, some seeds fell alongside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 Others fell on rocky ground where there was not much soil, and they immediately sprang up because the soil was not deep. 6 But when the sun rose, they were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them. 8 Still others fell on the fine soil, and they began to yield fruit, this one 100 times more, that one 60, the other 30. 9 Let the one who has ears listen."

Who determines where the seed grows?

1 Corinthians 3:6-7.....
"I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow, 7 so that neither is the one who plants anything nor is the one who waters, but God who makes it grow."

If God 'draws' you, (John 6:44).....the seed that was planted, will germinate......and it is a fairly irresistible force....like a magnet, you come to him, sometimes even against your will.....there is something that just gets into your psyche and won't leave you alone......it has to be experienced.....it is not at all unpleasant...sort of like unwrapping a gift that has many layers.

A person's history with religion is known by God before we call.....we don't do it to annoy anyone. I am sorry if it stirs up bad memories for you.....from our perspective, we have wonderful news about the future....so needed in such a troubled world.

So, "we don't know how you feel,you don't know what pains you have suffered at the hands of religion so we will call anyway"

And what good is all your red text to those who don't believe in your interpretation of god?

 

[firedragon]

He could stop natural calamities and diseases. He could make amputees regrow their parts. He could stop crimes like murder and rape. Can't God do this? Why has he made the world like this? If he ever does that, I will gladly bow to him.

And when he sends a prophet / son / messenger / manifestation / mahdi, then he could make a general announcement in the skies in every ones language that he is sending someone. Or otherwise he could send his message individually to all people in a way that they can understand it. As even the theists (Bahais) say that Allah has chosen a faulty method to get his message to people.

What if Gods plan is something you do not understand?

Let me give an example. Do you really think that according to evolution species are becoming what they are to become because the environment is hunky dory? So lets say God made it all hunky dory like you suggest, how will it all take place? Can you ponder over it and respond?

 

[firedragon]

Doesn't the Quran teach more than just the existence of Allah though? It also covers how followers should behave and some of that behaviour will inevitably impact others, sometimes significantly. That will be when you might be asked the reason behind that behaviour and, if you give that reason as Allah, asked to support and prove that reasoning. In general, I see it as a fundamental difference between a personal belief and a structured religion.

I think that's a good question. There is definitely some structure to the theology of the Qur'an. But there is also a lot of room to reason and act. If read the Qur'an, it does not tell you how to exactly behave when you meet a man from another race. As in the exact behaviour of greeting, shake hands, wiggle your ear or wink. But it tells you that there is no racism. So that's the platform. It is us to use our reason to think and behave within the framework stipulated. Whats the framework? "No Racism".

So you are absolutely right. Yet also a little more exploration is on the list.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Why do you say it must be Allah specifically who created everything and not a similar but different god instead? By your argument, wouldn't you have exactly the same responsibility to disprove every other propose creator and anyone else would have to disprove yours?

I understand your question. But you have not understood the theology.

You asked about another God. Tell me, in order to make this understandable, what do you understand about Allah? you think its what type of God? You see, the word Allah means THE GOD. The concept is that there is One God. The God.

So the question about another God is a logical impossibility. If you understand the theology of the Quran that is.

That being said your last statement about the burden of proof matter is kind of correct. But its worded wrong looking at it from the point of view of the theology. What should be disproven is a "model of God", or "model of Allah or iLah", not your God and my God. Because there is only God, there is no other.

 

[ChristineM]

Do you believe that the monitor in front to you that you are reading this on, is there independent of you as the monitor itself?
If yes, that requires belief and faith.

I can see, feel, measure and weigh the monitor. No faith required for reality

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you really think that according to evolution species are becoming what they are to become because the environment is hunky dory?

Hunky-dory for none. Even a lion does not happen to get his prey all the time. Life has always been a struggle for an overwhelming majority of beings.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"No Racism".

But trouble and torture unbelievers or even those who may be Muslims but belong to a sect different from your own if you get the chance till they surrender, leave or are killed.

 

[firedragon]

Hunky-dory for none. Even a lion does not happen to get his prey all the time. Life has always been a struggle for an overwhelming majority of beings.

Exactly.

 

[firedragon]

But trouble and torture unbelievers or even those who may be Muslims but belong to a sect different from your own if you get the chance till they surrender, leave or are killed.

Well, that's how you view it. Thats not the theology so its not valid.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is because of the Theists weakness brother. Let me explain if you dont mind.

For a theist it sounds silly when a non-theist comes and tells him "God doesnt exist". The same way an atheist would find it silly when a theist goes and tells him "god exists". For both of them the default position is their "ism", be it theism or atheism.

The problem with theists is brother that when an atheist makes this claim that God doesn't exist and tells him "if he exists, prove it" the theist reacts and gets into an argument. But you have identified the weakness and commend you for that. The weakness is that the theist more frequently doesn't respond with the "Burden of proof fallacy claim".

If an atheist is claiming that God doesnt exist, its his burden of proof to prove he doesnt. He thinks his position of "No God" is the default position. So it is your responsibility to make him understand that "it is your default, not mine" so make him understand that its his burden of proof. It works both ways. Vise Versa.

Peace.

Here is how I see it. Proof and all these other related words are in a sense not natural like say the word "gravity". Apparently if you remove humans there would be no proof and what not, but gravity would still be there.
So when someone ask for proof, they are in effect themselves using a cognitive belief system and some of those who demand proof believe that it works on all aspects of the everyday world. It doesn't. It is easy to test:

First we need a test of something, which is apparently as the world functions at least for now universal. No human in earth gravity can fly unaided only using their own individual body. Call that test or method proof #1.
Now test if proof #1 applies to all situations. It doesn't because of cognitive, cultural and moral relativism. So when someone asks for proof #1, I only accept it if it is relevant.
It is not relevant for metaphysics, morality, what matters and is useful, and aesthetics. Now some people regardless of religion or not believe that they can use a strong version of proof, that is universal for all humans, when they can't.
That is easy to test, just check if you can believe, behave and act differently.

So I started my personal journey as an adults as an atheist, but I discovered that I couldn't remain non-religious. I believe things about the world for which I have no strong proof and I in effect judge other humans without proof.
That includes all the versions of metaphysics and so on as stated above, so I made the choice to give up on being non-religious. I believe things about the world including metaphysics and the rest for which I don't have proof, evidence, objective reasons, objective rationality and what not as some people believe they do.

In fact there is a subset of non-religious people, who are in effect True Believers like some religious people. They don't understand the limits of human cognition and reasoning and believe they have proof and what not for metaphysics and all the rest. As for this subset they use a variant of empiricism that doesn't hold up. They are absolutists, because they believe in a version of objectivity, that can be falsified simply by being different, but they don't accept that, because they have an absolute and universal methodology of all aspects or some. But what they have in common, is that they all know what the world really is in the strong sense for all or some of these aspects.

So to me, it is not about religion or not. It is about if you accept relativism when it comes to some accepts of the everyday world or you in effect believe that you have the correct objective, rational, true, real, with proof, logic and what not method for all aspects or some aspects of the above: Metaphysics, morality, what matters and is useful, and/or aesthetics.
Are you in the end a subjective relativism or an objective believer in proof and what not?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can see, feel, measure and weigh the monitor. No faith required for reality

Not in itself, because that includes your experience of it. I am asking for the objective version as per having reality independent of your mind and thus the monitor in itself. Is it there as itself and not something else and if yes, then evidence, proof or what not.

 

[ChristineM]

Not in itself, because that includes your experience of it. I am asking for the objective version as per having reality independent of your mind and thus the monitor in itself. Is it there as itself and not something else and if yes, then evidence, proof or what not.

Nope, my experiences are mine, not the monitor. The monitor is a device, the only faith i have for it is whether it will turn on in the morning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope, my experiences are mine, not the monitor. The monitor is a device, the only faith i have for it is whether it will turn on in the morning.

If there were no humans would say water as water still be there as water. I mean what we call the physical, natural properties of water would they still be there without humans. If yes, please explain how you know that?

 

[ChristineM]

If there were no humans would say water as water still be there as water. I mean what we call the physical, natural properties of water would they still be there without humans. If yes, please explain how you know that?

If there were no humans then H2O would still exist, what other animals called it does not really matter, it is made up of the first and third most abundant elements in the universe and appears to be one of the most abundant "chemicals" in the universe.

In a study of over 4000 exoplanets 1/3 appear to contain H2O

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am asking for the objective version as per having reality independent of your mind and thus the monitor in itself. Is it there as itself and not something else and if yes, then evidence, proof or what not.

Reality independent of my mind. There is physical energy with which we started at the time of Big Bang. Yeah, it is there by itself, whether there is a world or not or whether there are humans or no. We(Hindus) term it as Brahman. Evidence - things that we see are composed of atoms and atoms are nothing other than concentration of energy. Simpl philosophy. Find any fault with it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If there were no humans then H2O would still exist, what other animals called it does not really matter, it is made up of the first and third most abundant elements in the universe and appears to be one of the most abundant "chemicals" in the universe.

In a study of over 4000 exoplanets 1/3 appear to contain H2O

How do you know that?

 

[ChristineM]

How do you know that?

Spectroscopy

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Reality independent of my mind. There is physical energy with which we started at the time of Big Bang. Yeah, it is there by itself, whether there is a world or not or whether there are humans or no. We(Hindus) term it as Brahman. Evidence - things that we see are composed of atoms and atoms are nothing other than concentration of energy. Simpl philosophy. Find any fault with it?

There is no simple philosophy.
So here it is for knowledge as the world apparently works. Knowledge requires a human, i.e. it is based on human experience. But you are saying that independent of your experience you know something. That is a contradiction, because you claim you can know something based on your experience(knowledge require experience), which do not require experience.
You can't know reality independent of your mind(experience), because you only know through your mind(experince) and that is not independent of your mind(experience).

I don't accept, what you say is knowledge, because it is not. You are a believer and you believe in something without proof or evidence. So I am, I just admit. Where as you don't apparently.
So stop doing philosophy based on a cultural belief system. It is not that simple.
So you could start here and stop treating philosophy as simple. That is to simple.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Spectroscopy

That is not an answer. You haven't explain what knowledge is and how it works.

 

[ChristineM]

That is not an answer. You haven't explain what knowledge is and how it works.

It is the answers to the question "How do you know that?" All the rest is fluff