What "if" you are wrong

[Trailblazer]

You're describing the pathway to motivated reasoning (confirmation bias),

I said: "Then we go looking for the evidence. " No confirmation bias is involved because we should go looking for the evidence with no preconceptions.

which follows when one believes something but the evidence doesn't support him. It's important when evaluating evidence to have no preconceptions about what it signifies and be able to deduce sound conclusions from it, to go where the evidence takes an experienced critical thinker.

That's what I just said above.

Now look at your words above again in the light of that. You're saying that in order to see evidence for a god, you need to believe it exists first.

No, I never said that. One should not believe God exists without any evidence, so how could one believe God exists first, before having evidence for God? That makes no sense. However, we do need to suspect that there might be a God as otherwise we would not spend our time looking for evidence. Would an investigator go looking for evidence that a murder had been committed if he did not suspect that a murder had been committed?

I believe that if you look at that evidence AFTER choosing to believe that it supports one's belief that a god exists, that's what you'll see.

I don't believe that one should look at that evidence AFTER choosing to believe that the evidence supports one's belief that God. That is backwards. I believe that one should look at that evidence BEFORE choosing to believe that God exists..

Now, read what I said again:
I believe that God will reward those who earnestly seek Him by helping them find the evidence they need to believe.

That's also motivated reasoning. No, they cannot know that they have heard from a god for a fact, although they might say so and even believe so. But if they believe that can happen, then that's what they see happening.

Manifestations of God (Messengers) are not like ordinary humans so they don't have motivated reasoning.
They can know they have heard from a God because God ensures that They know that. It is the rest of us who cannot know that They head from a God, so we have to believe Them, or not...

The belief shapes one's interpretation of events, which is why one is exhorted to believe FIRST, then interpret experience, which is the reverse of the proper order. The review of the evidence needs to precede belief and needs to be evaluated open-mindedly according to the principles of valid reasoning to acquire knowledge about oneself (what makes one happy and what makes him unhappy) and nature around us (how things are and how they work).

That is correct.
The review of the evidence needs to precede belief and needs to be evaluated open-mindedly according to the principles of valid reasoning.

However, that only applies to would-be believers. It does not apply to Manifestations of God (Messengers). They do not have to review any evidence because They ARE the evidence. Unlike the rest of us They do not have to believe because They know.

If you assume that a god exists and channels messages only through certain people, then you'll also believe that those people must not be like us. They're not "ordinary human beings" and you'll believe their message.

In response to @PearlSeeker's question I said: "I believe that Manifestations of God are a different order of creation than ordinary humans because they have a 'twofold nature' that ordinary humans do not have. Ordinary humans only have one nature, a human nature."

Before I did the necessary investigation and CAME to that believe that I did not assume that a God exists and channels messages only through certain people.

But if one begins by looking at the people making these claims and their messages without preconceptions, one sees ordinary people writing and speaking ordinary words.

That is what YOU see, that is not what I see, and not what other religious people see.

the messengers are channeling a god, then they must be different

The Messengers must not be any different from who They are.....
The Messengers only have to be different from who They are in order for YOU to believe that They are Messengers.
The Messengers do not have to be any different from who they are in order for believers to believe that They are Messengers.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I never said that. One should not believe God exists without any evidence, so how could one believe God exists first, before having evidence for God?

These are the words of yours to which I responded:

"Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him. ​

​

​

"Believing in God requires faith since no man has ever seen God. Then we go looking for the evidence. I believe that God will reward those who earnestly seek Him by helping them find the evidence they need to believe."​

To me, that says the one needs to have faith in a god's existence before he'll see evidence of that.

Manifestations of God (Messengers) are not like ordinary humans

I disagree. The people you call messengers are very ordinary to me. They're no different from other religious people exhorting others to be pious and faithful. The citations you have posted from messengers could have come from any televangelist, for example, who see themselves as messengers of their god as well.

They can know they have heard from a God because God ensures that They know that.

They know they have heard from God because God assured them? That's a circular argument. They don't know a god assured them. They don't even know that a god exists. You say they do, but they don't. They and I use the same senses and nervous system, and I can vouch for the fact that none of that can detect a deity. If it could, we'd all have detected it, and we'd all be in agreement regarding the sensible characteristics of what we detected, as with the sun. We can all agree that it appears round, yellow when high in the sky and redder when near the horizon, is bright and generates warmth, and appears to move through the sky every day and then disappears. Ask people what their gods are like, and it's apparent that they have detected nothing but their own minds.

That is what YOU see, that is not what I see, and not what other religious people see.

Agreed, but we process evidence differently, which is why I'm an atheist and religious people are not. Critical thought only permits one rational position: agnostic atheism. That's the logical conclusion of somebody who realizes that he lacks evidence to rule gods in or out, and understands that because of that, he should neither believe they exist nor say that they don't. If you choose a different path, one which admits faith-based beliefs, you'll come to a different position.

 

[Trailblazer]

These are the words of yours to which I responded:

"Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him. ​

​

​

"Believing in God requires faith since no man has ever seen God. Then we go looking for the evidence. I believe that God will reward those who earnestly seek Him by helping them find the evidence they need to believe."​

To me, that says the one needs to have faith in a god's existence before he'll see evidence of that.

To me that verse says three things:

1. It is impossible to please God without faith in God, so God wants our faith.
2. Anyone who approaches God must believe that God exists.
3. God will reward those who earnestly seek Him.

If we look at that verse in its entirety what it is saying is that God wants us to have faith and believe that He exists and God will reward those who earnestly seek Him. That verse says nothing about evidence

"Believing in God requires faith since no man has ever seen God. Then we go looking for the evidence. I believe that God will reward those who earnestly seek Him by helping them find the evidence they need to believe."

What I said in italics above was my personal spin on the verse according to what I believe that we should do and what I believe God will do.
It is not what the verse actually says. It is what I believe according to the Bible and what Baha'u'llah wrote:

“Whoso maketh efforts for Us,” he shall enjoy the blessings conferred by the words: “In Our Ways shall We assuredly guide him.””
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 266-267

I disagree. The people you call messengers are very ordinary to me. They're no different from other religious people exhorting others to be pious and faithful. The citations you have posted from messengers could have come from any televangelist, for example, who see themselves as messengers of their god as well.

Of course, I already know that from past discussions.

They know they have heard from God because God assured them? That's a circular argument. They don't know a god assured them. They don't even know that a god exists. You say they do, but they don't.

You do not know for a FACT that any of that is true, so all you have is a personal opinion, just as all I have is a religious belief.

Moreover, what you are trying to do is apply logic to that which is far above and beyond human logical reasoning.

According to my beliefs, Messengers of God know that they have heard from God, but not because God assured them. Assuring is a thing that humans do. To assure is to tell someone something positively or confidently to dispel any doubts they may have. Messengers have no doubts so they don't need assuring. Messengers have twofold nature, one nature human the other divine. It is not the human nature of the Messenger that hears the voice of God, it is their divine nature. In their divine nature they are infallible, just as God is infallible, and that is how they know that it is God speaking to them, which God does through the Holy Spirit.

If they are Messengers of God of course they know that God exists for reasons stated above, but if they are just ordinary men they could only believe that God exists, just like the rest of us.

They and I use the same senses and nervous system, and I can vouch for the fact that none of that can detect a deity.

Again, you are stating that as if it is a FACT, but it is not a fact since you cannot prove it. Again, all you have is a personal opinion, a theory.

You do not know for a FACT that Messengers cannot detect a deity, not any more than I know for a FACT that they can, but the difference between you and me is that I am not stating my beliefs as a fact, I am stating them as beliefs.

If it could, we'd all have detected it, and we'd all be in agreement regarding the sensible characteristics of what we detected, as with the sun.

We would not all detect what a Messenger detects, not unless we were Messengers of God.

My belief is that a Messenger of God is not like an ordinary human because He has a human nature and a divine nature and in His divine nature he can detect communication from God. Ordinary humans do not have a divine nature so they cannot detect communication from God.

We can all agree that it appears round, yellow when high in the sky and redder when near the horizon, is bright and generates warmth, and appears to move through the sky every day and then disappears. Ask people what their gods are like, and it's apparent that they have detected nothing but their own minds.

Yes, we can all agree on that because we are all humans, even the Messengers, so we all have physical eyes and physical sensations and a mind, but only the Messengers have a divine mind that can detect communication from God.

Agreed, but we process evidence differently, which is why I'm an atheist and religious people are not.

Tell me something I don't know.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is and never will be proof that God exists.
If God wanted to prove that He exists He could easily do so, but instead all God offers is evidence.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

What evidence for that shady character (God)? What evidence for the shady messengers, only their claim. Any charlatan or mentally disturbed person can make such claims (and many do).
I am not one to be impressed by what is written in 2,000 year old religious books of uneducated middle-eastern people. What rewards? Shady promises for after-life? No evidence for that too.
What you believe is immaterial. There is no evidence that your beliefs are true.

 

[Aupmanyav]

“Whoso maketh efforts for Us,” he shall enjoy the blessings conferred by the words: “In Our Ways shall We assuredly guide him.”” Bahaollah

Why should I make any effort for that 19th Century pompous (We!) uneducated Iranian?
I do not need any guidance. I have a brain to think about things. This is for brainless people.

 

[Trailblazer]

What evidence for that shady character (God)? What evidence for the shady messengers, only their claim. Any charlatan or mentally disturbed person can make such claims (and many do).
I am not one to be impressed by what is written in 2,000 year old religious books of uneducated middle-eastern people. What rewards? Shady promises for after-life? No evidence for that too.
What you believe is immaterial. There is no evidence that your beliefs are true.

You already know what I believe the evidence is because I have told you so many times before.
I already know what you think of my evidence because you have told me many times before.
I think this is a closed case.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why should I make any effort for that 19th Century pompous (We!) uneducated Iranian?
I do not need any guidance. I have a brain to think about things. This is for brainless people.

When did I ever say that you should make any efforts?
All Baha'u'llah ever said is that IF people make efforts He and God will guide them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

All Baha'u'llah ever said is that IF people make efforts He and God will guide them.

Well, thanks. I would not look for advice from an uneducated 19th Century Iranian (initially a Shia Muslim with their record of belief in Imams) who claimed to be a messenger of Allah, and even a sender of messengers of Alllah.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe they know for a fact the God exists since God communicated to Them and they knew it was God.
How they know is not something that we can understand since we are not Them.

So you just believe them.

They could be lying, they could be schizofrenics, they could be tricked by the devil into thinking it's god,...
Any number of "explanations" could apply.

Shouldn't you need some type of verifiability before you just believe them?

 

[1213]

You need a bible to know it's wrong to murder?

It was to show one example of things that I don't think depends on is God real or not. And I think you agreed that it does not change. I think there are many things in the Bible, that don't change, even if God would not be real.

The bible also says it's ok to stone disobedient children, that there are "contexts" where it is ok to engage in genocide / infanticide, that it's ok to keep slaves, that gay people who engage in sexual relations need to be killed,.....

Having said that, when you say "the bible is truthful" then it seems a tad dishonest to then cherrypick things everybody would agree on while ignoring all the nasty bits - including the claims about god in a context where we assume god doesn't exist.

I think it is dishonest to cut parts out of context.

The don't murder is what it is, because it is repeated and it has clear meaning. "Stone someone" is related to the context, which makes it little different. I mean with this, the second highest rule in the Bible is that people should love others. That supersedes any other rule. "Don't murder" fits to that well. If you love others, you don't murder them. But, obviously there is death penalty for certain things. The problem with that is, for those who desire to kill others, that not everyone is a judge set by God. And for those who are judges, God gave certain rules, which is why even a judge, can't kill people arbitrarily, without just reason.

Obviously you could think that in no case is death penalty right. I think it is not bad, if God kills evil, unrighteous people. God has given life, therefore He has right to decide how long life He gives. I think even a short life is a great gift. And I hope people use it wisely, and don't do stupid things.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If they are Messengers of God of course they know that God exists for reasons stated above, but if they are just ordinary men they could only believe that God exists, just like the rest of us.

Let's stipulate to the fact that the messenger's god exists, and the messenger knows that he has heard from it. How do you know that? How do you distinguish the genuine messenger from the ordinary guy who claims that he heard from a god but didn't? In the past, your answer has been his words and his life. Which words and which acts distinguish the true messenger from the false one for you?

what you are trying to do is apply logic to that which is far above and beyond human logical reasoning.

Who taught you to believe that our minds are inadequate to decide such matters? If that were the case, one should have no opinions about gods and just stop thinking about them. What's the use of applying an inadequate tool to the task?

Here's a quote from a guy named Pat Condell that says how I feel about that claim as well:

"Faith-peddlers like to put themselves beyond question by claiming that their faith transcends reason, the very thing that calls it to account. How convenient. Yes, faith transcends reason the way a criminal transcends the law. The word "transcendent" is very popular with religious hustlers because they never have to explain precisely what they mean by it, other than some vague superior state of understanding more profound than mere reason, which is crude and simplistic next to the subtleties and profundities of belief without evidence. If you hear a senior clergyman (and you will) using the word “transcendent" to explain the nonsense he claims to believe, then you know two things: one: he doesn't know what he's talking about, and two: he doesn't want you to know what he's talking about either."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, the saying is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And the expression is incorrect. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It just isn't proof of absence.

How do you think they determine whether a species is extinct? I'm pretty sure I've asked you this question several times and you've never engaged with it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

The way I word it, you're both right. Absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. If no evidence would be expected, then finding none is not itself evidence of absence, but when evidence ought to exist but doesn't, that's significant, as with an employee who claims that he worked last Tuesday, but his coworkers don't recall seeing him and his timecard isn't stamped. He probably won't be paid based in the absence of the evidence that ought to there for him if he had worked that day.

 

[F1fan]

When did I ever say that you should make any efforts?
All Baha'u'llah ever said is that IF people make efforts He and God will guide them.

Yet the "effort" is just a suspension of reason, and ignoring the lack of facts. The writings are vague, poorly written, and offer no real guidance. The "effort" has no method. It has no taught wisdom how to be guided. It doesn't include any rules how to discern the believer is actually being guided by God, and not just some illusion. Baha'i claims the believer can't communicate with God, so what exactly informs the believer that God is guiding them?

Inevitably the Baha'i believer is an independent agent (because Baha'u'llah is dead and God is absent) and the path is one of blind guesswork. I had a better impression of Baha'i until I engaged with them. Sorry but they seem to be a lost crowd looking for approval. As much Baha'i make their claims of truth their actions leave a sour taste.

 

[F1fan]

It was to show one example of things that I don't think depends on is God real or not. And I think you agreed that it does not change. I think there are many things in the Bible, that don't change, even if God would not be real.

Because religious texts are basic evolved social rules that humans slowly put into words as languages develpoped. Rules were especially important once permanent human settlements formed to help manage larger populations. Using God was one way primitive people were able to scare the masses into obedience. Today secular laws are enforced by the agreed upon civil authority, no need for a God or idol to be set above the community.

But notice how few of the laws in the Old Testament are not used today, and would even be crimes if committed.

I think it is dishonest to cut parts out of context.

The don't murder is what it is, because it is repeated and it has clear meaning. "Stone someone" is related to the context, which makes it little different. I mean with this, the second highest rule in the Bible is that people should love others. That supersedes any other rule.

Yet many Christians don't love others. Is it they don't understand what love is, or just don't care, or disrespect the Bible and God, or what?

"Don't murder" fits to that well. If you love others, you don't murder them. But, obviously there is death penalty for certain things. The problem with that is, for those who desire to kill others, that not everyone is a judge set by God. And for those who are judges, God gave certain rules, which is why even a judge, can't kill people arbitrarily, without just reason.

Look at the "stand your ground" laws in conservative states. Obviously killing isn't all that frowned upon. If they really wanted fewer deaths they would set stricter gun laws instead. Conservatives have evolved into moral hypocrits who want things two ways.

Obviously you could think that in no case is death penalty right. I think it is not bad, if God kills evil, unrighteous people.

But God doesn't kill, humans do. And there have been many cases of death penalty convictions being wrong, even some executed people wrongly killed. This just illustrates the moral hypocrisy of conservative Christianity. And don't forget, since you are a Bible literalist, God created evil. So God is complicit with any murderer. Every time a murderer is executed so too is God executed,

God has given life, therefore He has right to decide how long life He gives. I think even a short life is a great gift. And I hope people use it wisely, and don't do stupid things.

Always the good side, but you never once admitted that God created evil. In essence God is irrelevant and we humans are left to our own moral sense to design rules to manage ourselves. Theists had divine rules for millennia and the Enlightenment realized it doesn't work and advocated for secular rule. God (theists) are too unreliable to rule societies. Just look at the chaos and harm conservatives on the Supreme Court and Red States are causing to women and their reproductive care.

 

[Stevicus]

The way I word it, you're both right. Absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. If no evidence would be expected, then finding none is not itself evidence of absence, but when evidence ought to exist but doesn't, that's significant, as with an employee who claims that he worked last Tuesday, but his coworkers don't recall seeing him and his timecard isn't stamped. He probably won't be paid based in the absence of the evidence that ought to there for him if he had worked that day.

Depending on the job, there might be other ways of proving someone was there, such as if they have to log in to a computer terminal or do any kind of documentation, log entries, etc. which could prove that they were working that day. It might take a bit more digging and looking in to other possibilities.

Another example might be police detectives trying to solve a crime. Sometimes, they might have to think in terms of "unexpected" evidence or do some real digging to investigate a crime. Of course, the criminal is going to try to cover their tracks and eliminate as much evidence as they can, so the absence of evidence can sometimes be deceiving. Sometimes, they could even try to pin their crime on someone else, and an innocent person could be wrongly prosecuted if there's insufficient or sloppy investigation by the police. It can also be thwarted by witnesses pulling the Sgt. Schultz routine, "I hear nothing. I see nothing. I know nothing."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The way I word it, you're both right. Absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. If no evidence would be expected, then finding none is not itself evidence of absence, but when evidence ought to exist but doesn't, that's significant, as with an employee who claims that he worked last Tuesday, but his coworkers don't recall seeing him and his timecard isn't stamped. He probably won't be paid based in the absence of the evidence that ought to there for him if he had worked that day.

Sure. But if a thing has no expected evidence, then a lack of evidence is still entirely consistent with the thing not existing (while also being consistent with it existing). Presuming non-existence is still a reasonable conclusion; the question is whether it's the only reasonable conclusion.

I've also found that many theists often play fast-and-loose with ideas about what would be the expected evidence of their gods. IMO, it's contradictory to say that God impacts the physical world in all sorts of ways but doesn't leave physical evidence of his existence.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you just believe them.

They could be lying, they could be schizofrenics, they could be tricked by the devil into thinking it's god,...
Any number of "explanations" could apply.

Shouldn't you need some type of verifiability before you just believe them?

No, I do not just believe them.

I thoroughly investigated the person, the history, and the claims of Baha'u'llah before I believed that He was who He claimed to be.

There is no way to verify that a Messenger of God got messages from an unverifiable God. Think about why.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let's stipulate to the fact that the messenger's god exists, and the messenger knows that he has heard from it. How do you know that? How do you distinguish the genuine messenger from the ordinary guy who claims that he heard from a god but didn't? In the past, your answer has been his words and his life. Which words and which acts distinguish the true messenger from the false one for you?

All of His words and All of His life.

Who taught you to believe that our minds are inadequate to decide such matters? If that were the case, one should have no opinions about gods and just stop thinking about them. What's the use of applying an inadequate tool to the task?

I was not saying that our minds are inadequate to decide matters related to God. I was saying that our minds are inadequate to understand what Messengers of God can understand, because what Messengers of God can understand is far above the capacity of our minds. Again...

They know they have heard from God because God assured them? That's a circular argument. They don't know a god assured them. They don't even know that a god exists. You say they do, but they don't.

You do not know for a FACT that any of that is true, so all you have is a personal opinion, just as all I have is a religious belief.

Moreover, what you are trying to do is apply logic to that which is far above and beyond human logical reasoning.

According to my beliefs, Messengers of God know that they have heard from God, but not because God assured them. Assuring is a thing that humans do. To assure is to tell someone something positively or confidently to dispel any doubts they may have. Messengers have no doubts so they don't need assuring. Messengers have twofold nature, one nature human the other divine. It is not the human nature of the Messenger that hears the voice of God, it is their divine nature. In their divine nature they are infallible, just as God is infallible, and that is how they know that it is God speaking to them, which God does through the Holy Spirit.

If they are Messengers of God of course they know that God exists for reasons stated above, but if they are just ordinary men they could only believe that God exists, just like the rest of us.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And the expression is incorrect. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It just isn't proof of absence.

How do you think they determine whether a species is extinct? I'm pretty sure I've asked you this question several times and you've never engaged with it.

Even when we think it is highly probable that velociraptors no longer exist, we know from experience that there have been occasions where we have encountered species we believed to be extinct.