Who is the proof for?

Aupmanyav · Apr 4, 2021

We Never Know said:
What I can't figure out is why does anyone demand proof of what someone else believes when they know in reality no matter what proof that person present they will deny it anyway.

You are in a debate forum. Don't be surprised if anyone wants you to prove what you believe.

Shakeel said:
We have proof. That is something other religions do not have.

Kindly present some proof of what you claim.

Heyo said:
And that is the reason why (some) atheists are aggressively asking for proof (and won't accept any answers). They fear the religious could (again) demand privileges based on unproven claims.

Why should an atheist be aggressive?

PureX said:
My answer is that only a fool, cares. Only a fool demands proof when they know they cannot have it. And only fools feel obliged to offer it when they know the person asking will accept nothing of what they offer.

If we do not want to question and do not to answer, hen I wonder what is the use of a debate forum. Why are you here, for example.

Aupmanyav · Apr 4, 2021

Thief said:
it was given when Moses did ask.....
the people will want to know Whose law this is......what shall I say?

We do not know whether Moses is historical or a myth. It is just a pirated, plagiarized story. So what is the value of a proof given to Moses?

"The modern scholarly consensus is that the biblical person of Moses is a mythical figure while also holding that "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C. Even though his name is Egyptian, no references to Moses appear in any Egyptian sources prior to the fourth century BCE, long after he is believed to have lived. No contemporary Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus - Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure. The story of his discovery picks up a familiar motif in ancient Near Eastern mythological accounts of the ruler who rises from humble origins. Thus Sargon of Akkad's Akkadian account of his own origins runs: .." - Moses - Wikipedia

Aupmanyav · Apr 4, 2021

Shakeel said:
C) We have proof and there is no reason for one who believes in it to deny it (that would be a contradiction) or to hide it.

Shakeel, hopefully, you will provide the proof to benefit us non-believers for the existence of Allah, of Mohammad being the messenger of the said Allah and of Quran being the word of God.

mikkel_the_dane said:
Nobody in the recorded history of humankind has solved with truth, proof, evidence, logic or as real what objective reality is as independent of the mind.

I would say science has made much progress and we understand many things better now, though we may not have solved the problems completely.

Shakeel · Apr 4, 2021

Conscious thoughts said:
Again, you call it fabrication.
I disagree with you but dont say the teaching you follow is false or fabricated.

Why so hostile toward other branches or religions?

Either your teachers are wrong or I'm wrong. Both cannot be right. It is impossible. Do you agree?

If you agree and you say your teachers are right, you would imply that what I follow is indeed a fabrication, even if you dare not say so.

Aupmanyav · Apr 4, 2021

Nimos said:
This is either an apple or it isn't. It can't be both. Because the statement is contradictory.
View attachment 49087

mikkel_the_dane · Apr 4, 2021

Nimos said:
I don't know if this is related to our chat in the other topic as we talked a bit about that as well?

But if it is or isn't, I would like to try to explain it.
"I can give you my answer to what the truth is for me, But to find the answer you are happy with, you must find the answer for yourself"

I think the issue why there might be a conflict or what to call it, is more about how the words are used, such as truth, proof and evidence when related to a personal experience.

Where you might perceive something as being evidently true to you personal, doesn't mean that it is to someone else. Which sort of conflict with how we understand this word. And this is where the problem occur as I see it.

But you don't see as see a problem. The problem is a subjective evolution in you as the following absurd form: To you as subjectively true is only objective truth valid, but that is only subjectively true.

Because in some cases your truth is contradicting someone else's truth and therefore we are not really talking truth anymore, but rather personal opinion or feeling. And therefore per definition you can't say that you have a proof for your claim, unless you somehow can disregard why this other truth is not correct.

Well, you can't see as see other otherwise trough external sensation experience truth, so your rule of truth is dead in the water, because you use a subjective rule for truth, which is not objective.

The problem with this is that skeptics will then laugh and say, so you do not have any proof.....But who is the proof actually for?
The proof is for you and not the skeptics.

The problem is that you are not speaking for the skeptics, because you are not them. You are speaking for your subjective understand of truth

Im not talking about you and me discussing the existence of God. Im talking about you having one understanding of something in the Qur'an and someone else having a contradictive understanding of it.

If your solution to this contradiction is as above,

"I can give you my answer to what the truth is for me, But to find the answer you are happy with, you must find the answer for yourself" then it is simply wrong to talk about your personal opinion as truth. Even if you think it is, "Truth" can't be contradictory.

This is either an apple or it isn't. It can't be both. Because the statement is contradictory.
View attachment 49087
And therefore your personal evidence for why you might not think it is an apple, which eventually lead to your personal truth about it. Just doesn't make sense in regards to truth, it purely an opinion that may or may not work for you.

It doesn't mean that it can be useful for you to believe what you do, but the distinction need to be there. And I think that is why skeptics react to it, and even others of your own religion might react to it, if they disagree.

The problem is that your example rests on the subjective belief that all of the world/the universe/reality/everything is objective. It is not so and the proof of that is that we 2, you and I, think differently and act differently as it goes on in part in this thread. You are reading it right now. Your words in part correspond to your thinking that truth can only be objective, but that is false, because that the following is only subjectively true: You think that truth is objective. But that you think that is only true, because you think it.

So here is the long answer:
Logic is about a thing at a given time and space in a given sense. But that doesn't stop a different thing at a different time and space to be in a different sense. It is that simple. If everything had to be a thing at a given time and space in a given sense, then we couldn't be different and exist at different times, spaces and senses, but we do.
So for the same, similar and/or different, you can learn the following:
The everyday world is neither just objective or just subjective. It is:

Objective in part as per your apple.
Objective in part as abstract cognitive for example logic.
Intersubjective in part for laws, rules, customs and so on.
Subjective in part for feelings and what matters existentially.

There is more if you look closer, but for this thread it will do and truth is different in these 4 cases.
Now when we play "truth" as skeptics, you and I are not the same kind of skeptics, because we do it differently. I don't believe in truth like you do, yet we are both able to live in the everyday world. That is what you can't show as a contradiction and thus show as not true, because it is subjectively true that we think differently.

There is off course more, but as long as you in effect subjectively treat everything as objective, I will just do it differently subjectively for a part of the everyday world.

mikkel_the_dane · Apr 4, 2021

Aupmanyav said:
If a person values truth, then it should be important both for the believer and the non-believer. Why should anyone subscribe to untruth? Where it ends up should be of no consequence. I did not find any proof for theism and therefore abandoned deities.

But to value truth, is not objective. It is a personal subjective belief and thus unreasonable, irrational and what not because only objective truth subjectively matters.

You only have truth as your subjective belief.

Spirit of Light · Apr 4, 2021

Shakeel said:
Either your teachers are wrong or I'm wrong. Both cannot be right. It is impossible. Do you agree?

If you agree and you say your teachers are right, you would imply that what I follow is indeed a fabrication, even if you dare not say so.

I do not know the path you are on except for the name you Said. I believe in the teaching of my teacher, but i have no right to say your teacher or imam is wrong. Allah knows it

mikkel_the_dane · Apr 4, 2021

Aupmanyav said:
... I would say science has made much progress and we understand many things better now, though we may not have solved the problems completely.

I don't care about what you say!!! There is so far nobody that has solved Agrippa's trilemma and the problem of solipsism, when it comes to truth and knowledge. That you subjective believe that doesn't apply to you, is your problem.

Shakeel · Apr 4, 2021

Conscious thoughts said:
I do not know the path you are on except for the name you Said. I believe in the teaching of my teacher, but i have no right to say your teacher or imam is wrong. Allah knows it

I don't have a teacher or an imam. I have the Qur'an and the Sunnah and I do listen to various Islamic scholars and skhaikhs. What they say should never contradict the Qur'an or the Sunnah. Your shaikhs' task is to distort those teachings and you pretend you don't notice. Is that just how badly you don't want to follow Islam?

Your position is one of intellectual dishonesty.

mikkel_the_dane · Apr 4, 2021

Shakeel said:
I don't have a teacher or an imam. I have the Qur'an and the Sunnah and I do listen to various Islamic scholars and skhaikhs. What they say should never contradict the Qur'an or the Sunnah. Your shaikhs' task is to distort those teachings and you pretend you don't notice. Is that just how badly you don't want to follow Islam?

Your position is one of intellectual dishonesty.

You are just a human like the rest of us. So your position is not different than the rest of us. We are all subjective when it comes to this. You are just of of them, who believe that you are special, because you are in effect objective, where everybody else are subjective. I have never been able to replicate that kind of objectivity, because it is intellectually subjective.

Aupmanyav · Apr 4, 2021

mikkel_the_dane said:
But to value truth, is not objective. It is a personal subjective belief and thus unreasonable, irrational and what not because only objective truth subjectively matters.
You only have truth as your subjective belief.

Truth hardly matters in worldly life, one can live easily with untruth also and most are doing that. Search for truth is only for some who are interested in that.

mikkel_the_dane · Apr 4, 2021

Aupmanyav said:
Truth hardly matters in worldly life, one can live easily with untruth also and most are doing that. Search for truth is only for some who are interested in that.

The truth is that so far all truth is conditional and not absolute. As far as I can tell you in effect believe in some version of absolute truth. I don't.

Aupmanyav · Apr 4, 2021

mikkel_the_dane said:
I don't care about what you say!!! There is so far nobody that has solved Agrippa's trilemma and the problem of solipsism, when it comes to truth and knowledge. That you subjective believe that doesn't apply to you, is your problem.

"The failure of proving exactly any truth as expressed by the Münchhausen trilemma does not have to lead to dismissal of objectivity, as with relativism. One example of an alternative is the fallibilism of Karl Popper and Hans Albert, accepting that certainty is impossible, but that it is best to get as close as possible to truth, while remembering our uncertainty" Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

Science or even military and many other professions do not have what you term as the "problem of solipsism". If they had, nothing ever would be accomplished. When people work together, they know what their co-worker is thinking. Also, the problem may not exist in many friendships and marriages. It is only a philosophical talking-point.

mikkel_the_dane said:
The truth is that so far all truth is conditional and not absolute. As far as I can tell you in effect believe in some version of absolute truth. I don't.

You are welcome. They say in Sanskrit, "Tunde-tunde matih bhinna" (different view in each head). No problem with that.
However, I beg to differ and think we are smoothly sailing towards the absolute truth, whether it is about creation of the universe or creation of life on earth.

Hermit Philosopher · Apr 4, 2021

Conscious thoughts said:
Often in discussion or debate the question for "proof" comes up when a religious person say, I believe it to be like so or so. And when you meet other people, they ask but can you prove it so we can see you are right.

Then the question arise " for whom is the religious proof important?" is it the one who actually practice a religious practice, or the one who ask?
A religous person can say "I can give you my answer to what the truth is for me, But to find the answer you are happy with, you must find the answer for your self" The problem with this is that skeptics will then laugh and say, so you do not have any proof.....But who is the proof actually for?

The “proof” of a spiritual conviction is based on whether it works or not.

If its goal is, say, to increase harmony in those involved, but when you put it into practice, it appears only to create distress; your conviction is incorrect somehow and you had better go back to square one and reassess.

Yet, if you “practise what you preach” and it results in what is aspired to, your conviction is obviously not entirely wrong.

Humbly
Hermit

Nimos · Apr 4, 2021

Shakeel said:
That Islam is a true religion from Allah.

What proof is that?

We Never Know · Apr 4, 2021

Heyo said:
"Proof" (or evidence) is necessary for someone who demands something. E.g. if you want to have unemployment or social security money, you have to proof to be eligible.
So, if you want anything, and if it is only recognition, you have to proof to be eligible. (And that is the reason why (some) atheists are aggressively asking for proof (and won't accept any answers). They fear the religious could (again) demand privileges based on unproven claims.)

If someone says I believe in god, or even says they have spoken to god, or god has guided them.... Why do they need to prove that to anyone? Its their belief, their faith, their life.

Heyo · Apr 4, 2021

We Never Know said:
If someone says I believe in god, or even says they have spoken to god, or god has guided them.... Why do they need to prove that to anyone?

They don't.

(Aside from that, they can't and nobody can disproof them.)
No rights come from belief. You have a right to believe what you want but nothing more. But we non believers know from experience that believers will want to have privileges anyway and they will cite their scripture. That is then the point where we have to inform them about their state/community given rights and that their scripture doesn't count as proof for the privileges they demand.
(Those some non believers are a bit trigger happy and attack in anticipation of the demands, even when they aren't there (yet)).

Audie · Apr 4, 2021

Conscious thoughts said:
Often in discussion or debate the question for "proof" comes up when a religious person say, I believe it to be like so or so. And when you meet other people, they ask but can you prove it so we can see you are right.

Then the question arise " for whom is the religious proof important?" is it the one who actually practice a religious practice, or the one who ask?
A religous person can say "I can give you my answer to what the truth is for me, But to find the answer you are happy with, you must find the answer for your self" The problem with this is that skeptics will then laugh and say, so you do not have any proof.....But who is the proof actually for?

It's for people who want to be done with faith

Audie · Apr 4, 2021

We Never Know said:
If someone says I believe in god, or even says they have spoken to god, or god has guided them.... Why do they need to prove that to anyone? Its their belief, their faith, their life.

Why indeed. They certainly cannot do it.
Just watch for things like " He told me it's time to start killing atheists."

Who is the proof for?

Be your own guru

Be your own guru

Be your own guru

Well-Known Member

Be your own guru

My own religion

My own religion

Be who ever you want

My own religion

Well-Known Member

My own religion

Be your own guru

My own religion

Be your own guru

Selflessly here for you

Well-Known Member

No Slack

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member