Evidence for God

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

That is a fun one. How do we know that we know?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I never said the problem of knowledge was new, I only said that my idea of using an analogy was new, since I never tried it before.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, but try to start with logic as that was where you ended in your OP.

 

[Trailblazer]

And on which definition of "know" (or knowledge) do you base your epistemology?

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

And especially, how can I know that you know and not only claim to know?

Do you really want to know how I know and not only claim to know?

 

[Trailblazer]

That is a fun one. How do we know that we know?

I know how.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know how.

Well, then you have solved an over 2000 years old problem as the first human. So do you understand how come I doubt that?

 

[Heyo]

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

So, you are aware of, convinced or certain
that people you call messengers knew about properties of gods.

Do you really want to know how I know and not only claim to know?

Yep. I want to know how you came to the conclusion that the "messengers" knew?
Without such an explanation of the steps in your logic, it remains an unevidenced claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, then I suggest you gave us a definition of God, and we analyze the evidence thereof. I also hope I do not have to make the same same analogy with natives from the jungle, applied to theists instead, not knowing what evidence is.

God is undefinable except by His attributes.

I know what evidence is.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

We have to make the assumption that you know what God is, since you claim you have evidence thereof, otherwise you would be like someone asking for evidence of a fallen plane without knowing what a plane is. Additionally, we can make the assumption that your definition will be understood by me, unless you claim I am the equivalent of a native from the jungle that cannot understand planes not even after a descriptions of planes.

I do not know what God is, I only know what some of the attributes of God are. The attributes of God do not define what God is, they only tell us something about God.

Preferably, the definition should be clear-cut, and not involve something like personal experiences, invisible things that only some can see, and such, for the simple reason that they can be used to show evidence of basically everything, which would make a mockery of the very meaning of evidence.

So, what is God, and what is the evidence of such a thing?

God cannot be defined. All that can be known about God are some of His attributes.

Some of God’s most important attributes: Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, and Immaterial, Sovereign, Eternal, Holy, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, All-Good, All-Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient.

How can we know those are God's attributes? Because they are revealed in scripture, which is the only way we can ever know anything about God.

The evidence of God is the Messengers who reveal the scriptures.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, let's get through those attributes and submit the evidence to rational scrutiny. As you requested.

That was not what I suggested.

I said: 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.

What have you got? I hope it is not only what some self declared messengers claim .

All I have is what the Messengers claim since that is the only way to know anything about God.

Ciao

- Trailblazer

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, then you have solved an over 2000 years old problem as the first human. So do you understand how come I doubt that?

I only know how I know. I don't know how everyone else knows.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God is undefinable except by His attributes.

I know what evidence is.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

I do not know what God is, I only know what some of the attributes of God are. The attributes of God do not define what God is, they only tell us something about God.

God cannot be defined. All that can be known about God are some of His attributes.

Some of God’s most important attributes: Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, and Immaterial, Sovereign, Eternal, Holy, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, All-Good, All-Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient.

How can we know those are God's attributes? Because they are revealed in scripture, which is the only way we can ever know anything about God.

The evidence of God is the Messengers who reveal the scriptures.

Focus on your definition for this part: "...that something is true or has really happened."
Now stay there for this world as you experience it without judging if your version or say mine is true.
But rather answer this. How come we can't agree on what is true, yet we are all in the world.

If you can answer that without claiming your version with your God is true and mine is false or even in reverse, you will learn something new

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I only know how I know. I don't know how everyone else knows.

Yes, you do. We have been there before because you know what a disorder is in another human and you know it is true of another human and how to deal with that for all humans. And you know that as back to God as true for all humans.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, you are aware of, convinced or certain
that people you call messengers knew about properties of gods.

Yep. I want to know how you came to the conclusion that the "messengers" knew?
Without such an explanation of the steps in your logic, it remains an unevidenced claim.

The steps in my logical process are that Messengers knew because they got their knowledge from God through the Holy Spirit.
Don't ask me to prove that because it is a claim that is not subject to 'factual proof'...

If we are going to believe that is true, we first have to determine that Baha'u'llah was actually a Messenger of God. We cannot prove it as a fact, we can only prove it to ourselves by the process of individual investigation.

The reason I am certain of what I know is because I was guided by God.

"Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognize His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognizing the truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation."
(Baha'u'llah, quoted in Shoghi Effendi, The Dawn-Breakers, p. 586)

The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586

 

[Trailblazer]

But rather answer this. How come we can't agree on what is true, yet we are all in the world.

That is very easy to answer. Because we all have different brains by which we think, brains with different information contained therein.
Why would people who think very differently agree on what is true?
Unless person x gets new information and changes his thinking to what person y thinks, they will not agree.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you do. We have been there before because you know what a disorder is in another human and you know it is true of another human and how to deal with that for all humans. And you know that as back to God as true for all humans.

But I don't know how everyone else knows what they claim to know about God.

 

[Heyo]

The steps in my logical process are that Messengers knew because they got their knowledge from God through the Holy Spirit.
Don't ask me to prove that because it is a claim that is not subject to 'factual proof'...

Logic is a formal way to deduce true statements from other true statements or first principle (axioms). When you say you can't follow a statement back to a first principle, that statement is either false or itself an axiom.
So, you are saying that "Messengers knew because they got their knowledge from God through the Holy Spirit" is one of your axioms?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheists think they know what a god is. They don't.

Why would you say that? The skeptic doesn't need to define gods to say that he finds insufficient evidence that anything that should be called a god exists and to reject the insufficiently supported claims of others that they exist.

You could think anything is God.

Doesn't that make the word meaningless?

many others think God is simply love, or the force that attracts people towards each other.

So why call that God? How about we call the clouds God. And grape jelly.

It doesn't need to be a living, breathing identity to be worthy of our admiration and praise.

Nature is exactly that, with no gods needed.

he's probably been an atheist for so long that he hasn't even considered the idea that there could be a God

Of course I did. It's why I tested Christianity for a decade. I concluded that that god didn't exist, that faith was a terrible way to think, and gods can't be believed in without it, so, there is no value in thinking about that any further.

People like @It Aint Necessarily So just aren't ever going to get it

Get it? It's you who will never get that many people just don't need gods.

even if you did have enough insurmountable evidence to prove your God he'd just be in denial about it the entire time.

A common trope from theists, who assume that those who don't but into the god thing are in denial and being intellectually dishonest. I won't accuse you of that.

It isn't me who insists that my viewpoints are correct, it is @It Aint Necessarily So that insists that his are correct.

They are. If they were incorrect, they could be rebutted. It's that simple. Go ahead and write something that we both know is correct, like that this is March, 2023. Go ahead and try to rebut that. You can't. Why? Because it is correct. Now make a wrong statement, such as that it is April, and that is easily rebutted. See how that works? This is the academic method. It's how a courtroom trial proceeds to determine guilt or not. It's how peer review goes to decide which of competing opinions is correct, or to decide that the issues is still undecidable. You are a denizen of the other world, where none of that matters. You just declare something invalid and "just an opinion." Well, those are meaningless words to a critical thinker except for what they reveal about their source and the limits of its knowledge.

All I have is what the Messengers claim since that is the only way to know anything about God.

Then all you have is an insufficiently evidenced claim that this god exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Logic is a formal way to deduce true statements from other true statements or first principle (axioms). When you say you can't follow a statement back to a first principle, that statement is either false or itself an axiom.
So, you are saying that "Messengers knew because they got their knowledge from God through the Holy Spirit" is one of your axioms?

An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

Axiom - Wikipedia​

No, it is not an axiom, since it does not serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
I am not making a formal logical argument; since my premise can never be proven true I cannot use my premise to support my conclusion.

It is a step in my logical reasoning process, but it is not a premise on a formal logical argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

They are. If they were incorrect, they could be rebutted. It's that simple.

Personal opinions cannot be rebutted since they cannot be proven either true or false.

Go ahead and write something that we both know is correct, like that this is March, 2023. Go ahead and try to rebut that. You can't. Why? Because it is correct.

It cannot be rebutted becaue it is a fact that can be proven, not a personal opinion.

Then all you have is an insufficiently evidenced claim that this god exists.

I make no claim that God exists, I believe that God exists, and I have evidence to back up my belief.

 

[Heyo]

No, it is not an axiom, since it does not serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

The steps in my logical process are that Messengers knew because they got their knowledge from God through the Holy Spirit.

Do you see the contradiction?

I am not making a formal logical argument; since my premise can never be proven true I cannot use my premise to support my conclusion.

It is a step in my logical reasoning process, but it is not a premise on a formal logical argument.

You have now a step in your logical reasoning process that is neither an axiom nor proven or in evidence.
Your logic has a hole.