Claims vs. Beliefs

[Trailblazer]

It absolutely is, or are you seriously expecting us to believe that when you keep asserting (for example) that there is sufficient evidence for messengers from a deity, it was false? Though of course it would ironically still be a claim, just one you knowingly made despite it being false

I say that there is evidence for messengers from a deity. Obviously it is sufficient for me to believe in the deity but I never said it was sufficient for everyone to believe in that deity.

It is not a claim because I am not asserting it is true since I cannot prove it is true.
If you assert that it is false, isn't that a claim?

 

[Trailblazer]

You just did? Not being able to prove a claim doesn't mean it is not a claim, wherever did you get such a preposterous idea?

I "accept" that God exists is true is not a claim, not by any stretch of the imagination. It is a belief.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
https://www.google.com/search

Not just deities, all claims carry a burden of proof.

They do, and that is why I am not making any claims about what I know I cannot prove.

That's a claim, and a pretty bold one, as you have (perhaps unintentionally?) expressed it as an absolute. How can you claim to known what might or might not be demonstrated ever?

Nobody can ever prove that God exists is not a claim. It is a statement based upon the fact that nobody HAS ever proven that God exists.

My belief is that nobody can ever prove that God exists since God is inaccessible, so the only way we can ever have proof of God's existence is from what God offers us. I believe God has offered us Messengers as proof.

None of that is a claim, it is a belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why not? What makes some expressed beliefs claims but not others?

If I am not making a claim when I express my beliefs why would my expressed belief be a claim?
If someone is making a claim when they express their beliefs then their expressed beliefs would be a claim.

You seem to have said that the difference is that you only consider some of your beliefs true, and these become claims when expressed.

No, I consider all my beliefs true, otherwise I would not believe them, but they are not claims when expressed unless I am claiming they are true.

I'm still looking for a rule from you that will allow me to know which expressed beliefs you don't consider claims. I can't discern one.

An expressed belief is not a claim unless I am claiming it is true. Saying I believe it is true is not a claim.

For example, it seems to me that you would call your statement that the proof of God is in the life and words of Baha'u'llah a claim, but not that Baha'i is a correct religion, but maybe you consider them both claims or neither. I'd like a clear understanding of how you decide as I have given you. You know that if I make either of those statements, I consider them claims of fact: for me, the evidence supports belief and makes the religion correct. I still can't do that with you.

It all depends upon what I said within the context of the conversation. If I say I believe that one proof of God is in the life and mission and words of Baha'u'llah and I believe that the Baha'i Faith is a true religion that was revealed by God through Baha'u'llah that is a statement of my belief, not a claim. Again, I don't claim that because I cannot prove it, and I don't make claims about what I cannot prove (even if you and others do).

OK, but I just want to say that in my mind, and perhaps many others, those two statements are interchangeable. Everybody who says that the Baha'i Faith is a true religion of God believes that if he is not knowingly lying. So, whatever rule I would use for deciding what is a claim and what is not, either both of these or neither would be a claim, but not only one. I'm beginning to think that the answer to my question is this simple rule: "When I explicitly say I believe something, it is no longer a claim."

I agree that everybody who says that the Baha'i Faith is a true religion of God believes that.
The simple rule: When I explicitly say I believe something but I am not claiming it is true, it is no longer a claim.

Now I'm lost again. I thought that if you called it a belief, it ceased to be a claim for you.

No, the simple rule: When I explicitly say I believe something but I am not claiming it is true, it is no longer a claim.

Maybe saying that something might not be true makes it not a claim to you. That is also implied in every claim I make, just like, "I believe." Philosophical doubt is the understanding that even when psychologically certain, one may be mistaken.

No, saying that something 'might not be true' is not what ceases to make it a claim for me.
I would not make a claim that 'might not be true', I would also not make a claim unless I could prove that what I am claiming is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh Lord!!

President Trump was the greatest President ever, and Mike Lindell tells us why. . . . Prove it? I don't need to prove it, That is just a belief. Of course Mike Lindell knows why, but I don't have to prove what he says either since that is his claim, but either way he is the reason that it is rational to belief that Trump was the greatest President ever. Don't you try to go putting no burden of proof upon me. All I have are beliefs. Supported by irrefutable sources that I will not support either.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An expressed belief is not a claim unless I am claiming it is true. Saying I believe it is true is not a claim.

OK. I still have trouble knowing when that is. Do the words, "This is true" have to be there, and if they appear as, "This is what I believe is true" then it is no longer a claim?

Whatever the answer, by now you should be aware that you have a private definition of the word that will give you trouble here indefinitely. It doesn't need to be that way, but for as long as you use this word atypically, and for as long others don't know that you have a private definition, and for as long as you continue to treat being told you made a claim as an affront to you, you will have these fruitless discussions that seem to annoy you. Don't you agree? I'd like to see you avoid that, but it's your call.

 

[Pudding]

I am tired of being accused of making claims. I am not making any claims because I have nothing to claim since I am a nobody.

The Messengers of God made claims in their scriptures. The main things they claimed were that:

1) They were sent by God
2) That God communicated to them
3) That God exists

I believe their claims but I am making no claims since I have nothing to claim.

Atheists assert that I am making claims so they can say that I have the burden of proof, but I am making no claims just because I believe the claims of the Messengers of God, so I have no burden of proof.

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. The Messengers of God made the claims so they were responsible to meet the burden of proof. I believe that the true Messengers of God met their burden by providing evidence that supports their claims.

The evidence that supports the claims of any alleged Messenger of God is as follows:

1) Their Person (their character, as demonstrated by the life they led)
2) Their Revelation (the history, which is what they accomplished on their mission from God)
3) Their Words (the words that were attributed to them in scriptures, or what they wrote)

Anyone who wants to know if an alleged Messenger of God is a true Messenger of God is responsible to do their own research and look at the evidence that supports the claims of the alleged Messenger. I can point to where the evidence for Baha’u’llah resides but I am not responsible for doing other people’s homework.

According to my beliefs, God wants everyone to do their own homework and come to their own determinations because we are all responsible for our own beliefs. Baha’u’llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone else because we are each accountable to God for our own beliefs on Judgment Day.

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

All this makes logical sense if people could only remove their bias and think about what I just said. Of course, it would require atheists to think differently than they have always thought about claims and evidence and see another point of view that they had never considered.

In other words, you want everyone who's not a member of your religion (not just atheists) to join your religion and pay the membership fees to your religion. And you want everyone to obey whatever your religion's leader says whatever a book says whatever God says whatever everyone must obey.

If anyone don't join your religion, pay membership fees to your religion and obey whatever your religion says whatever God says whatever everyone must obey, then some bad consequences are waiting for them in judgement day.

And somehow you think that you're free of burden of proof for all of that.

"Give your money to my religion, otherwise judgement awaits you!"
"Obey whatever my religion says whatever God says whatever you must obey, otherwise judgement awaits you!"
"I have no burden of proof for the above statements!"

You want money and members for your religion, but you don't want to prove your case. That's some nice daydream you have there.

Also similar statements can be found from some other abrahamic religions too.

Like some of those jehovah's witnesses or catholics etc. who say we'll be roasted for eternity or something else, if we don't give their respective religion our money and if we don't obey whatever they say whatever God says whatever we must obey.

You guys can have fun blackmailing each other. I wish you guys have a nice dream that one of you guys will succeed one day, good night.

 

[Sheldon]

I’ve already received something from God that is a guarantee for something in the future. The promise God made to me is Eternal Life so that does take faith/trust that God who cannot lie will fulfill His promise.

God just told me you're mistaken, and not just about the correct spelling of fulfil.

Now I'm failing to see how my bare unevidenced claim, is any more or less compelling than your bare unevidenced claim?

 

[Sheldon]

I say that there is evidence for messengers from a deity.

Obviously it is sufficient for me to believe

It is not a claim because I am not asserting it is true

You don't think those 2 claims are true? You just asserted to believe them? A belief is the acceptance that something is true.

 

[Sheldon]

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true

Obviously it is sufficient for me to believe in the deity

It is not a claim because I am not asserting it is true

wow!!!

 

[Sheldon]

They do, and that is why I am not making any claims about what I know I cannot prove.

You are, but I am prepared to accept that just maybe, you genuinely still don't see it, but that is not an easy thing to accept.

I am inclined to believe you have painted yourself into a corner, and so the prospect of admitting your error is too daunting for you to accept, but trust me, this thread is far more embarrassing than saying: "You know what, I may have made a mistake here." Or even letting it go quietly, instead of starting a thread solely dedicated to endlessly repeating this basic error.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
That's a claim, and a pretty bold one, as you have (perhaps unintentionally?) expressed it as an absolute. How can you claim to known what might or might not be demonstrated ever?

Nobody can ever prove that God exists is not a claim. It is a statement based upon the fact that nobody HAS ever proven that God exists.

Seriously? So if something has never been demonstrated as true, it can't ever be?

Perhaps you could explain how you think humans know things to be true now, that we once didn't?

 

[Wildswanderer]

We have, at least better than the God hypothesis.
"Many-World IInterpretation's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of an infinite or undefinable amount or number of increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds. Sometimes dubbed Everett worlds, each is a consistent and actualized alternative history or timeline."

Totally speculation with no evidence whatsoever. Isn't that what you all claim religion is? You have to take that bizarre theory on blind faith and it still doesn't explain why anything exists.

 

[Nimos]

Nobody can ever prove that God exists is not a claim. It is a statement based upon the fact that nobody HAS ever proven that God exists.

No, it is a claim

And you are actually committing an argument from ignorance fallacy here as well in what you write. Simply because no one have been able to prove that God exist yet, doesn't mean that no one will or can't in the future.

Here is a quick explanation:

 

[Nimos]

In other words, you want everyone who's not a member of your religion (not just atheists) to join your religion and pay the membership fees to your religion. And you want everyone to obey whatever your religion's leader says whatever a book says whatever God says whatever everyone must obey.

If anyone don't join your religion, pay membership fees to your religion and obey whatever your religion says whatever God says whatever everyone must obey, then some bad consequences are waiting for them in judgement day.

And somehow you think that you're free of burden of proof for all of that.

"Give your money to my religion, otherwise judgement awaits you!"
"Obey whatever my religion says whatever God says whatever you must obey, otherwise judgement awaits you!"
"I have no burden of proof for the above statements!"

You want money and members for your religion, but you don't want to prove your case. That's some nice daydream you have there.

Also similar statements can be found from some other abrahamic religions too.

Like some of those jehovah's witnesses or catholics etc. who say we'll be roasted for eternity or something else, if we don't give their respective religion our money and if we don't obey whatever they say whatever God says whatever we must obey.

You guys can have fun blackmailing each other. I wish you guys have a nice dream that one of you guys will succeed one day, good night.

Wow how on Earth did you reach that conclusion from what she wrote?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Science has said no such thing.

Show me evidence from science for the multi- verse. The rest of your post was just opinion.

 

[Sheldon]

Totally speculation with no evidence whatsoever. Isn't that what you all claim religion is?

Well you could present some objective evidence if you think there is any?

You have to take that bizarre theory on blind faith and it still doesn't explain why anything exists.

No I don't, at all, and appealing to mystery and magic doesn't explain anything at all.

 

[Nimos]

No, I consider all my beliefs true, otherwise I would not believe them, but they are not claims when expressed unless I am claiming they are true.

I understand what you mean, but I think you have to be a lot more careful with what you write to avoid confusion

I agree with what you are writing, that if we believe something we also assume it is the most likely explanation, otherwise we would believe something else. What you should have written to avoid confusion is this:

No, I consider all my beliefs true, otherwise I would not believe them, but they are not claims when expressed unless I am claiming that they have been proven or are facts.

Because you have just said that you consider them true, and then that you don't claim them to be so. You basically made that argument to start with yourself and there is nothing wrong with that. Because obviously you consider them to be true.

So If someone ask you what you mean by them being true, you can simply answer, that it is because you find them it to be the best explanation. And then obviously one could continue having a talk about why you consider it the best explanation, etc.. etc.

I think the reason you tend to get up in these "heated" debates is because you write a bit to fast rather than being more careful about using the correct words to express what you actually mean. Because im correct that what I wrote above is what you actually mean, right?

 

[ElishaElijah]

God just told me you're mistaken, and not just about the correct spelling of fulfil.

Now I'm failing to see how my bare unevidenced claim, is any more or less compelling than your bare unevidenced claim?

So you do believe in God?

 

[Sheldon]

Show me evidence from science for the multi- verse. The rest of your post was just opinion.

Is a multiverse an accepted scientific theory? I have to say I'd be very surprised to learn this, especially on an internet forum chatroom.

 

[Sheldon]

So you do believe in God?

That would be very strange for an atheist, however this doesn't negate my point, why would one subjective unevidenced claim be anymore compelling than another? If you believe one, then this can only be close minded bias, and if you believe them all then inevitably you will end up accepting contradictions.