Evidence for God

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not difficult. That isn the main reason theism is mooch more widespread than atheism.

Ciao

- viole

No, but both are natural. You see if everything is natural, then that I am mocking you with that, is natural. All the positives and negatives as true/false, right/wrong, rational/irrational and so on are all natural.
It is all natural even to deny that it is all natural.
I mean I love ontological naturalism as an example for how not to do it. To me it is as meaningless as theism and atheism.
And yes, I know it is without evidence, but it is still natural.

 

[viole]

No, but both are natural. You see if everything is natural, then that I am mocking you with that, is natural. All the positives and negatives as true/false, right/wrong, rational/irrational and so on are all natural.
It is all natural even to deny that it is all natural.
I mean I love ontological naturalism as an example for how not to do it. To me it is as meaningless as theism and atheism.
And yes, I know it is without evidence, but it is still natural.

Do you think that what you just said is rational?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you think that what you just said is rational?

Ciao

- viole

No, but it is natural. The joke is that if everything so is the not rational. That is rational btw.

 

[viole]

No, but it is natural. The joke is that if everything so is the not rational. That is rational btw.

It is not rational to claim it is natural, either. Unless you claim that some statements are rational, and some are not. So, I am not sure what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not rational to claim it is natural, either. Unless you claim that some statements are rational, and some are not. So, I am not sure what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

Are statements natural or not natural? Is rational natural or not natural? Is irrational natural or not natural?
Is it rational to ask these questions? Are these questions natural?

 

[Heyo]

I am not sure what you mean by 'what a god is.'

Defining attributes. A triangle is a shape in the Euclidean plain with three points that are not in line and the points pairwise connected by (strait) lines. - Identifies each triangle and excludes every non triangle.

I believe the only way we can know what God's attributes are is through what the Messengers of God reveal about God, and the Messengers also reflect some, but not all, of God's attributes.

That is a claim without evidence and a claim that will be contested by many god believers. You stumble at the first hurdle of epistemology, even before you have given any attributes.

 

[viole]

Are statements natural or not natural? Is rational natural or not natural? Is irrational natural or not natural?
Is it rational to ask these questions? Are these questions natural?

You tell me. If you refute rationality, then everything I say, or you say, is not rational.
When you say something is natural, I cannot possibly take that seriously, because by your own admission, there is no rationality.
And therefore your claim "something is natural" is not rational. Could be true, could be false, and there is no rational way to ascertain that.

Which basically means, with all due respect, that everything you will write here, is the equivalent of throwing a coin, when it comes to determine its true value.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You tell me. If you refute rationality, then everything I say, or you say, is not rational.
When you say something is natural, I cannot possibly take that seriously, because by your own admission, there is no rationality.
And therefore your claim "something is natural" is not rational. Could be true, could be false, and there is no rational way to ascertain that.

Which basically means, with all due respect, that everything you will write here, is the equivalent of throwing a coin, when it comes to determine its true value.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, I said before and I will say it again. Rationality is a limited human behavior.

So if you can move around in a limited sense, does that refute that you can move around, or show that it is limited behavior'?

 

[Trailblazer]

That is a claim without evidence and a claim that will be contested by many god believers. You stumble at the first hurdle of epistemology, even before you have given any attributes.

It is not a claim, it is a belief. Baha'u'llah wrote about the attributes of God and I believe what He wrote because I believe He was a Messenger of God.
I do not claim that my belief is true since I cannot prove it is true.

I guess you mean a claim without proof. Evidence is not proof. There is evidence that Baha'u'llah is who He claimed to be, but there is no way to prove that it is, thus what I believe is not subject to proof.

Sure it will be contested, but so what?

 

[Heyo]

It is not a claim, it is a belief. Baha'u'llah wrote x and I believe x. I do not claim that x is true since I cannot prove x.

I guess you mean a claim without proof. Evidence is not proof. There is no way to prove x, thus what I believe is not subject to proof.

Sure it will be contested, but so what?

So you believe - you do not know.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you believe - you do not know.

You quoted that before I finished editing it.

I don't want to argue about the difference between believe and know. Been there, done that.
Suffice to say I know that what I believe is true, but how I know that is not something anyone is going to accept unless they are a Baha'i, because it is associated with my belief.

 

[Heyo]

You quoted that before I finished editing it.

I don't want to argue about the difference between believe and know. Been there, done that.
Suffice to say I know that what I believe is true, but how I know that is not something anyone is going to accept unless they are a Baha'i, because it is associated with my belief.

So, the usual theist tactic. If I re-define "knowledge", I can claim to know. I expected more from you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you believe - you do not know.

Well, if you go by the old definition of knowledge, then JTB has never been done. So science moved off JTB and thus also proof. And we got axiomatic assumptions for at least one version of knowledge.
But the problem with axiomatic assumptions, is that they are not true or proven. They just make sense.
And depending on what axiomatic assumptions you accept you can get beliefs and evidence like some religious people use or even truth.

And here is the problem.
We can all claim some limited different versions of beliefs and get away with that. That is as neutral as I can state it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, the usual theist tactic. If I re-define "knowledge", I can claim to know. I expected more from you.

The problem is that a definition of X is Y, doesn't mean that X is Y is a fact.
So non-religious do the same and even with some variation.
Is knowledge as per Popper or is it truth as per correspondence or something else?
That is not limited to theists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I came up with a new idea while out on my daily two hour walk last night. Here is my analogy:

Some of the greatest minds in the the history of our species have wrestled with this question over the millennia, and you came up with a new idea while out on a two hour walk. Perfect.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I am looking for people who are logical with whom I can have a logical discussion. Personal opinions mean nothing unless they are based upon logical reasoning.

The first thing we have to establish is if the law of non-contradiction has a limit.
That is in end where the meat is.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, the usual theist tactic. If I re-define "knowledge", I can claim to know. I expected more from you.

The usual atheist tactic: You don't know because you don't have proof, but such is not the case since proof is not the only way one can know.

I do not have to redefine knowledge in order to claim to know.

Definition of knowledge

1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

I also don't have to redefine the word know in order to claim to know.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself(3): to recognize the nature of : discernb(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of
knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

 

[Trailblazer]

Some of the greatest minds in the the history of our species have wrestled with this question over the millennia, and you came up with a new idea while out on a two hour walk. Perfect.

Using the analogy to try to make a specific point was a new idea for me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Using the analogy to try to make a specific point was a new idea for me.

Yeah, but the problem of knowledge is close to as old as the idea of one God.
So you are doing nothing new as such.
There is a joke about knowledge as per Plato as per knowledge.
All western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato.

We are covering old ground.

 

[Heyo]

The usual atheist tactic: You don't know because you don't have proof, but such is not the case since proof is not the only way one can know.

I do not have to redefine knowledge in order to claim to know.

Definition of knowledge

1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

I also don't have to redefine the word know in order to claim to know.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself(3): to recognize the nature of : discernb(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of
knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

And on which definition of "know" (or knowledge) do you base your epistemology?
And especially, how can I know that you know and not only claim to know?