Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[Trailblazer]

Because it was a pointless question. Either the criteria stand on their own or they do not. It was an attempt at deflection.

Why would they stand on their own? Someone just made them up. If I made up a list of criteria, would it stand in its own?
No, what you do when you refuse to answer my very simple questions is called deflection and when you tell me I am deflecting that is projection.

Why did you avoid the offer of a discussion of those criteria that I made to you?

I am not the one who avoided a discussion. I told you what I thought of those criteria and why I thought that and you responded by telling me I was wrong, but you never told me why I was wrong. That is not a discussion, that is deflection. People who always have to be right cannot have discussions because there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Trailblazer your quotes are messed up Perhaps you have already corrected them, but you said:

"I am not the one who avoided a discussion. I told you what I thought of those criteria and why I thought that and you responded by telling me I was wrong, but you never told me why I was wrong. That is not a discussion, that is deflection. People who always have to be right cannot have discussions because there is nothing to discuss."

Actually you were. Several times I offered to discuss those criteria by using a specific example. One must evaluate them on a case by case basis. That was also explained to you earlier. When you do not respond to offers of the topic that you wanted to discuss it looks like avoidance.

 

[Trailblazer]

When people use certain dishonest tactics I will react. That is hardly being preachy. If you were fair you would have commented on the poor techniques used against me as well.

Tactics that do not exist except in your own imagination.
Poor techniques used against you that do not exist except in your own imagination.
No such things are going on except in your own head.
If you do not believe what I say about my own motives there is nothing I can do about that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually you were. Several times I offered to discuss those criteria by using a specific example.

Please cite the post where you offered to discuss the criteria by giving a specific example.

Oh never mind, I went back and looked for myself. Below is what you said when you first posted the criteria and there was no post after that where you offered to discuss those criteria by using a specific example.
* * * * * * *
I have seen the prophecies. Other Bahai' brought those up. With a slight tweak these rules for Biblical prophesies can be applied the Bahai' prophecies. For the same reason that Biblical prophecies fail so do that of the Bahai' faith:

Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

#620 Subduction Zone, Yesterday at 9:12 PM

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tactics that do not exist except in your own imagination.
Poor techniques used against you that do not exist except in your own imagination.
No such things are going on except in your own head.
If you do not believe what I say about my own motives there is nothing I can do about that.

You may not be able to see what you did that was wrong. That does not mean that it did not happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please cite the post where you offered to discuss the criteria by giving a specific example.

Evidence for a god existing or not existing

 

[the light]

@Subduction Zone, I will not waste 5 more mins in this thread as you have turned it into psychological religious warefare. I suggest tonight you take a deep hard look at yourself in the mirror for 10 mins, and I want you to think about all the things you have done throughout your life then ask yourself, are you happy? Do you like what you've done? Now think about all the bad stuff you've done, the people you hurt, would you do it again? If you can manage to be sincere during this process, you will see the light and I hope you know how to pray when the time comes, because if you dont then your just another einstein who died while trying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone, I will not waste 5 more mins in this thread as you have turned it into psychological religious warefare. I suggest tonight you take a deep hard look at yourself in the mirror for 10 mins, and I want you to think about all the things you have done throughout your life then ask yourself, are you happy? Do you like what you've done? Now think about all the bad stuff you've done, the people you hurt, would you do it again? If you can manage to be sincere during this process, you will see the light and I hope you know how to pray when the time comes, because if you dont then your just another einstein who died while trying.

No, I am ready to discuss the evidence, but I do get rather irritated when people use improper techniques. Just be honest. Be willing to support your claims and I will do the same.

 

[Trailblazer]

I strongly suspect that he is talking about me "falsely accusing" him of being preachy.

What do you think?
Was he being "preachy" in your opinion?

No, I do not think that he is talking about you "falsely accusing" him of being preachy. I did not see you doing that.

From what I can see SZ was accusing you of making false claims.

When people start with false accusations they really should not expect people to answer their questions. And when one of your claims was shown to be false you continued with false accusations.
#669 Subduction Zone, 56 minutes ago

I never saw you make any false claims so I think that was a false accusation.
I never saw you or I make any false accusations either. All we did was to ask for answers to three questions.
If those questions had been answered when I first asked them all this folderol could have been avoided.

 

[the light]

@Subduction Zone you cannot process this amount of data into a thread let alone post on the public library called internet, that is how words are changed, manipulated and forgotten, this is going to be an extremely hard pill to swallow for most. Like I stated before we are producing a publication that will take 7 years to construct, the last 7 years will be left for salvation, we are currently in possession of all known materials and artifacts and we have already translated 25% of it. There is much work to be done and I bet if you helped you would have the answer you have been looking for, for years now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone you cannot process this amount of data into a thread let alone post on the public library called internet, that is how words are changed, manipulated and forgotten, this is going to be an extremely hard pill to swallow for most. Like I stated before we are producing a publication that will take 7 years to construct, the last 7 years will be left for salvation, we are currently in possession of all known materials and artifacts and we have already translated 25% of it. There is much work to be done and I bet if you helped you would have the answer you have been looking for, for years now.

So you cannot post any evidence? All you have are the same sort of unsupported claims that others have. Why should anyone believe you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I do not think that he is talking about you "falsely accusing" him of being preachy. I did not see you doing that.

From what I can see SZ was accusing you of making false claims.

When people start with false accusations they really should not expect people to answer their questions. And when one of your claims was shown to be false you continued with false accusations.
#669 Subduction Zone, 56 minutes ago

I never saw you make any false claims so I think that was a false accusation.
I never saw you or I make any false accusations either. All we did was to ask for answers to three questions.
If those questions had been answered when I first asked them all this folderol could have been avoided.

The "sermon" accusation was false. It was a personal attack.

Meanwhile I have offered several times to discuss those criteria with you and posted the link to the post that you asked for. I am seeing a world of dodging here.

 

[Trailblazer]

Evidence for a god existing or not existing

And I responded to that post, so you cannot say I am avoiding a discussion:

Evidence for a god existing or not existing

 

[Trailblazer]

Meanwhile I have offered several times to discuss those criteria with you and posted the link to the post that you asked for. I am seeing a world of dodging here.

Not several times, once, and I responded to that one post, so no dodging occurred..

Evidence for a god existing or not existing

Now the ball is in your court.

 

[Trailblazer]

You may not be able to see what you did that was wrong. That does not mean that it did not happen.

The same exact thing applies to you.
Just because you think it was wrong does not mean it was wrong, except in your own mind.
Why is it that some people always have to point out the faults of others rather than looking at their own faults?

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

 

[the light]

So you cannot post any evidence? All you have are the same sort of unsupported claims that others have. Why should anyone believe you?

@Subduction Zone we are not looking for validation, recognition or glory, but only offering hope to those like yourself

 

[Trailblazer]

LOL! I got rather ticked off at you because what you did was classical avoidance. Did you forget what your first question was?

The first question is what do you mean by a true prophecy? That was not avoidance, it was a sincere question.
You twist everything I say in your mind to mean something it does not mean.

Good, you hopefully can see your error.

No, all I can see is that you avoid answering questions which is not my error.

Oh my, no no no. That was not deflection. You were caught being dishonest and would not own up to it. Not just once but multiple times. This is why I said that you can do better than this.

If you want a serious discussion you need to quit doing what you are accusing me of.

Caught by whom? Why is it that it is only you that thinks I was dishonest? Could it be your perception is wrong?
Show me where I lied or stop accusing me of being dishonest.

No, I do not want a serious discussion because I can see that would be impossible.

Please note that you avoided discussing this rationally. I offered to discuss those rules based upon an example.

Why did you run away from that discussion?

I did not run away, I answered the post. #653 Trailblazer, Today at 11:21 AM

* * * * * * * * *
Why is it that I have been discussing the five criteria that @ Tiberius made up for over a month now almost daily, and I never ran away, and we have never had a dispute, like what has been happening on this thread ? He is an atheist and I get along with him just fine, just as I get along with all the atheists on this forum.

Loved ones in hell - take 2.

@ Tiberius said: Any reliable prophecy must meet five criteria

1. The prophecy must not be about something that is likely to happen anyway.
2. Where we have verified that the prophecy was written prior to the event that fulfilled it.
3. Where we have verified that the event that fulfilled it really took place in a way that fulfilled the prophecy.
4. The the fulfilling event was not done by someone simply to make the prophecy come true.
5. The prophecy is specific and is not open to interpretation.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you are back to circular reasoning. The Bible can only be used to discuss if doctrine is correct within Christianity. It is never evidence for Christianity itself. At least not until it is proven to be reliable. And since believers tend to be afraid to test their holy books properly it will probably never be evidence.

The Bible is the only evidence of Jesus Christ so it is the only evidence for Christianity.
Whether it is circular or not does not matter, it is still the only evidence.

When you say that the Bible is not evidence for Christianity until it is proven to be reliable what you are really saying is that it is not evidence for you unless it meets your standards of reliability. However, the Bible is still evidence for Christianity even if you do not consider it reliable evidence.

Since you are so interested in the Bible I suggest you read this excerpt from a longer article:

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Let’s start with perhaps the most famous bad example of a circular argument:

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

It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. It’s also a bad argument from a logical standpoint, as logical arguments tend to be formulated in “if A than B”, and this formulation is missing here. This emphasizes the other weak aspect of this argumentation: both claims have a rather low prior probability.

Let’s see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:

If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments because they are circular? No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.

http://www.timvanderzee.com/circular-arguments/

 

[F1fan]

I provided everything necessary -but you have to do the work yourself

You made claims that are not supported by fact or established knowledge, and I pointed this out. If you have no facts to back up your claims then I accept your concession.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know that they failed if you never looked at the prophecies and what happened later that fulfilled them?

A failed prophecy is a prophecy that 'fails' to predict an event that happened later. Baha'u'llah did not fail to predict the atomic age so His prophecy did not fail. It is that simple.

From the book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah, pp. 85-86

The coming dawn of the Atomic Age was writ large in the prophecies of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'1-Baha.

Nuclear Terror

Prophecy 21: The development of nuclear weapons.

In a Tablet entitled Words of Paradise (written shortly before His passing in 1892), Baha'u'llah noted the rush by Western civilization to develop ever-more-deadly weapons of war. Explaining the urgency of His call for world unity and peace, He declared:

Strange and astonishing things exist in the earth but they are hidden from the minds and the understanding of men. These things are capable of changing the whole atmosphere of the earth and their contamination would prove lethal.141

This reference to 'strange and astonishing things' aptly describes the twin processes of fission and fusion by which we obtain nuclear energy. The reality of such a power was again affirmed in 1911 by 'Abdu'1-Baha:

There is in existence a stupendous force, as yet, happily, undiscovered by man. Let us supplicate God, the Beloved, that this force be not discovered by science until spiritual civilization shall dominate the human mind. In the hands of men of lower material nature, this power would be able to destroy the whole earth.142

'Abdu'1-Baha spoke these portentous words to the Japanese ambassador to Spain, Viscount Arawaka, for whose country the warning carried grave implications.

An ironic coincidence? If so, it was not the only one. In 1920 'Abdu'1-Baha wrote to a group of young students in Tokyo: 'In Japan the divine proclamation will be heard as a formidable explosion .. .'U3 (I am aware of no other explosion metaphor in the Baha'i writings.) A quarter of a century later, the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporized in the first wartime use of atomic bombs. Today the world's nuclear arsenals contain enough firepower not only to destroy humanity many times over but to alter climate and atmosphere so drastically as to render the planet uninhabitable.

Okay, I will give you credit for responding. I missed this post.

Now let's look at the prophecy. Is it accurate? Not really. It is rather vague. And it is incorrect. Though nuclear weapons are powerful But the prophesy overstates what would happen if all of the nuclear weapons that exist were to be exploded. It is not as great as you think that it is. Since people tend to live in cities it would kill over half of the people on the Earth, But not all humans:


What If We Blew Up All The World’s Nukes at Once?

Yes, nuclear weapons are scary. It would be nice if there was an independent source that verified these claims. but nuclear explosions are not enough to destroy all of humanity one time over. Energy AGW is a far greater threat. In one year alone the added energy to our atmosphere is roughly 6 times the energy of all nuclear testing ever. .

Let's pull up the criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

Was it accurate? Not exactly. It was off a bit.

I will grant number 2 since this was a claim of a prophet of Bahai'

Was it 3, precise and unambiguous? Not at all.

How about 4? That we would continue to invent more powerful explosives is not all that surprising.

I will grant number 5.

So you have two out of 5 with an iffy on number one. I would not say that it is totally failed but it is far from being a reliable prophecy.