Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[David Weaver]

"If you can't show it, you don't know it."
-Aron Ra

Aron Ra is one of the worst atheists to use as a basis for quotation. He is notorious for circular reasoning, baseless claims, and has a bad habit of taking an indefensible position. If you want to quote an atheist you should use someone with a better reputation such as Bart Erhman (not saying I buy into his philosophies) just saying he is more reputable than Aron Ra

 

[Trailblazer]

"If you can't show it, you don't know it."
-Aron Ra

I know it but I cannot show it to people who don't have eyes to see or ears to hear, as Jesus said.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes it is helpful, as I gave you a direct link to the post I was talking about, a post which shows the two statements that you made that are contradictory. If you had bothered to click on that link you would have seen it.

No, it was not helpful, because there was nothing contradictory in that post

Trailblazer said: I state my belief and I back it up with logical thinking and evidence.

Trailblazer said: I am not making a logical argument since religious beliefs cannot be proven in logical arguments.

That is not contradictory because logical thinking is not the same as a logical argument. A person can think logically without presenting a logical argument.

Ta ta for now.

 

[Trailblazer]

You really do need to understand stand how analogies work. The only way in which they are, or need to be, similar, to make the analogy work, is that they are messages that it is important for people to receive for their well-being. You don't hide "Danger - high voltage! " signs in puzzle boxes.

The messages are different in how the messages are advertised. Religious messages are not going to come through the news media like messages about a vaccine that is necessary to prevent disease. That is why you are committing the fallacy of false equivalence.

No messages are hiding, you just have to know where to look.

In all the many, many, many messages we've exchanged, I have yet to read even the merest suggestion of the first hint of the tiniest scintilla of a rational reason to take your god-concept at all seriously. Every time you go into it, you collapse into circularity and assume your own religion.

If course I adhere to my own religion, why would I adhere to an ancient religion when I have a new one that has been updated?
I do not assume my religion is true, I investigated my religion and then decided it was true.

But not clearly a message from a real god.

And you would know that how? Unless you can prove that it is not a message from God you are making an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

There is no prima facie reason to think that there is a god at all, and, even if one thought there might be, there is no reason to think that Baha'u'llah is the right place to look. And, no, it doesn't make sense to look at the newest faith unless you first assume a series of messages, which would be assuming Baháʼís are right about that, which is circular.

It is no more circular than any other religious claim such as Christians make such as the following:

God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true

I never suggested you assume that is the case, I only ever suggested you check out the evidence, but that is your choice.

Right on cue, the circular argument again.

Which does not make it invalid. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Exactly, and either all of those things combine to make our choices in any situation inevitable, which would mean we are basically deterministic and all our choices would have effectively been made at the moment of creation, or they don't, and there is something about our choice-making that is random, because it happens for no reason. Randomness can't give us freedom, nor can we be held responsible for it.

Neither can give you 'free will' with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

God gave us free will and that is why we have it. Our choices are not determined by God or anyone except ourselves, although what we choose will be influenced by many factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. . Sorry you cannot understand.

 

[Tiberius]

No, it was not helpful, because there was nothing contradictory in that post

Trailblazer said: I state my belief and I back it up with logical thinking and evidence.

Trailblazer said: I am not making a logical argument since religious beliefs cannot be proven in logical arguments.

That is not contradictory because logical thinking is not the same as a logical argument. A person can think logically without presenting a logical argument.

Ta ta for now.

You don't actually expect me to believe that, do you? By your own admission, there is nothing in your argument that counts as "logic" so you can't be using logic to back up your belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

You don't actually expect me to believe that, do you? By your own admission, there is nothing in your argument that counts as "logic" so you can't be using logic to back up your belief.

Believe whatever you want to believe. I consider myself to be very logical in my thinking and I consider the Baha'i Faith to be a very logical religion. Its teachings and theology made perfect sense to me and that is why I became a Baha'i in the first place. I did not have to know that God exists or that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God back then, I only realized that much later.

 

[Tiberius]

Believe whatever you want to believe. I consider myself to be very logical in my thinking and I consider the Baha'i Faith to be a very logical religion. Its teachings and theology made perfect sense to me and that is why I became a Baha'i in the first place. I did not have to know that God exists or that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God back then, I only realized that much later.

You consider yourself to be very logical and that your beliefs are based on logic?

Is that why you said, "I am not making a logical argument since religious beliefs cannot be proven in logical arguments." Post 3808

Like I (and many others have said), your position is inconsistent and contradictory.

 

[Trailblazer]

You consider yourself to be very logical and that your beliefs are based on logic?

Is that why you said, "I am not making a logical argument since religious beliefs cannot be proven in logical arguments." Post 3808

Like I (and many others have said), your position is inconsistent and contradictory.

I have explained what I meant by that more than once. I am not making a formal logical argument with a premise and a conclusion because I can never prove that my premise is true.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, since I cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists. And that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

However, that does not mean it is not logical to believe that God exists, even if it cannot be proven as a fact. There are good reasons to believe that God exists and there is evidence that indicates that God exists therefore it is logical to conclude that God exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have explained what I meant by that more than once. I am not making a formal logical argument with a premise and a conclusion because I can never prove that my premise is true.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Wikipedia

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, since I cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists. And that is why logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists.

However, that does not mean it is not logical to believe that God exists, even if it cannot be proven to anyone except oneself.

The problem with your argument is that you have a failed premise. Your premise is too easily rejectable. And the only way that you can prove it is to put one more step into a circular argument. You have a three step circular argument. It is still circular. Here is an illustration of a Christian one:

It is the same sort of argument that you are using. Until you prove your premise independently all you have is a circular argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem with your argument is that you have a failed premise. Your premise is too easily rejectable. And the only way that you can prove it is to put one more step into a circular argument.

It is not a failed premise, it is just a premise that can never be proven, and since I cannot prove the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion God exists is true, not by using a logical argument. Logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists becaue one can never prove the premise. Moreover, as my friend @Nimos posted to me in a video on circular reasoning, the circular argument is weak because the conclusion depends upon the premise being true.

It is the same sort of argument that you are using. Until you prove your premise independently all you have is a circular argument.

But as I have been telling all you atheists, I am not trying to make an argument to try to prove that God exists, therefore I am not making a circular argument. I am well aware I can never prove my premise independently so I don't even try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not a failed premise, it is just a premise that can never be proven, and since I cannot prove the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion God exists is true, not by using a logical argument. Logical arguments cannot be used to try to prove that God exists becaue one can never prove the premise. Moreover, as my friend @Nimos posted to me in a video on circular reasoning, the circular argument is weak because the conclusion depends upon the premise being true.

But as I have been telling all you atheists, I am not trying to make an argument to try to prove that God exists, therefore I am not making a circular argument. I am well aware I can never prove my premise independently so I don't even try.

If it can never be proven then by definition it is a failed premise. Once again, a dictionary definition is not good enough. You need to go deeper let me help you:

"A premise or premiss[a] is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion.[1] "

Since you admittedly cannot prove your premise it cannot induce or justify a conclusion. A conclusion drawn upon that premise is an unjustified one therefore it is a failed premise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise

You have constantly tried to justify your claims and to do so you use circular arguments. Your belief is not a rational one. Convincing yourself does not matter one iota when it comes to having a rational belief. The question is can it convince people that reason rationally. If you can't, and that appears to be the case, your belief is not ratoinal.

It appears that you believe only because you want to believe. But that is not necessarily a one hundred percent failure. If your religion has strengths that is what you should lean on. Don't lean the weakest part of your religion, it will let you down ,as it has on this thread. There are other ways to justify a belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Since you admittedly cannot prove your premise it cannot induce or justify a conclusion. A conclusion drawn upon that premise is an unjustified one therefore it is a failed premise.

I know that and that is what I have been saying all along. The premise fails to prove the conclusion is true since the premise cannot be proven true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know that and that is what I have been saying all along. The premise fails to prove the conclusion is true since the premise cannot be proven true.

Okay. So it is a failed premise. It is a pointless argument that does not accomplish anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay. So it is a failed premise. It is a pointless argument that does not accomplish anything.

That's right.

 

[ratiocinator]

No messages are hiding, you just have to know where to look.

If you have to go looking, especially in what looks like just another superstition, then they are hidden.

If course I adhere to my own religion...

That's kind of the point. So does every other religious person, leaving the rest of us with no reason to take any of them seriously.

And you would know that how?

I said it's "not clearly a message from a real god", I did not say "it's not a message from a real god". There is no prima facie reason to believe it is. The world is full of messages that claim to be from a real god, and the burden of proof is on those who propose that they are. Not that that's relevant to the point that there is no obvious and clear message from any god(s).

It is no more circular than any other religious claim such as Christians make such as the following

Hardly a recommendation.

Which does not make it invalid. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

That doesn't stop it being circular and hence fallacious. If the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, then the Great Green Arkleseizure exists.

God gave us free will and that is why we have it.

God drew a square circle, so that's why they can exist.

Our choices are not determined by God or anyone except ourselves, although what we choose will be influenced by many factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances.

What you're still not getting is that either reality is deterministic (in which case all these things and the resulting choice were effectively decided at creation) or it isn't. This is a yes/no question. If it isn't, then some things must happen for no reason and therefore be random. Randomness cannot give us freedom, nor can we be responsible for it.

Sorry you cannot understand.

I've given you reasoning. You haven't even tried to address it, you've just kept on making the same baseless assertion. I suggest that you need to try to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's right.

And circular. But let's see what @ratiocinator has to say.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And circular. But let's see what @ratiocinator has to say.

Here is how it works in all its absurdity for the everyday world. If something is subjective, I can get away with claim it is objective, as long as how I further act follows the everyday world. That is the same with reason, logic, rationally and all those other words.

So here is the general test that applies to all claims of how objective reality really is. If that is not objective, I can do it differently. A lot of posters do it to the following effect. How the world subjectively make sense to them, must be objective and all those other words. But it is not, if you can do it differently. The problem is that also applies to you and me.

Now since I am a general skeptic I test all claims about this and not just the religious ones. The dirty secret is that in recorded human history nobody have been able to make a non-subjective and non-individual system. Maybe in the future, but for now it still holds that nobody can be only rational, objective and only use external observation.

So religious people are not that special. They do something, which can also be observed in some non-religious people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is how it works in all its absurdity for the everyday world. If something is subjective, I can get away with claim it is objective, as long as how I further act follows the everyday world. That is the same with reason, logic, rationally and all those other words.

So here is the general test that applies to all claims of how objective reality really is. If that is not objective, I can do it differently. A lot of posters do it to the following effect. How the world subjectively make sense to them, must be objective and all those other words. But it is not, if you can do it differently. The problem is that also applies to you and me.

Now since I am a general skeptic I test all claims about this and not just the religious ones. The dirty secret is that in recorded human history nobody have been able to make a non-subjective and non-individual system. Maybe one, but for now it still holds that nobody can be only rational, objective and only use external observation.

So religious people are not that special. They do something, which can also be observed in some non-religious people.

You might want to try to learn what objective means.

Yes, we assume that reality is real. It is why when debating with a nihilist a slap to the face may be called for. If they blink they lose.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You might want to try to learn what objective means.

Yes, we assume that reality is real. It is why when debating with a nihilist a slap to the face may be called for. If they blink they lose.

Well, I am not a nihilist, so that doesn't apply to me. And if you want to claim I am a solipsist, then which kind am I? There are more than one.
And the world is not the same as reality as far as I can tell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I am not a nihilist, so that doesn't apply to me. And if you want to claim I am a solipsist, then which kind am I? There are more than one.
And the world is not the same as reality as far as I can tell.

Sorry, you are right. My bad.

It is perfectly legitimate to slap a solipsist in a debate.

Thank you for the correction.