Evidence

[Truthseeker]

Of course not. Take this thread as an example. Claims were made of evidence. None was given. Instead it is becoming rather obvious that it is lacking. Would you investigate a religion that promised to have so much but failed in all of their claims?

You don't know if it failed in it's claims, obviously, as you are not investigating and will not. Did you listen at all when I said we can't provide much evidence in a thread, not nearly enough in fact.

You objective here is obvious to me. It is to debunk whatever is said regardless.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The problem is that evidence should exist independent of those source,.

That's it..
You should ask him or her to send God down the wire, so as to emerge from your screen, like the genie of Aladdin's lamp.

 

[Alien826]

Just as I thought. You won't be investigating. We don't have time fully support our position in a thread like this. I know full well how it looks to other people, that we are just a minor religion that is not worth investigating because there are so many of them, as well as what are what are regarded major religions. I don't blame you for not investigating. That's just how it goes.

What then is the point of this thread? If you understand that busy people are not going to invest large amounts of time investigating something just because you say so, then why bother? It's like this, a vacuum cleaner salesman comes to your door and says "I have this amazing cleaner that I'd like you to buy. I understand that you won't take my word for that, so please go away and test this machine and compare it to other machines. A fair test will take several months, you need to test make sure it will last. When you're done, come back and tell me if you want to buy it". How many machines would he sell, do you think?

The question is of course, what is a better approach? I don't know, maybe some links for each point made? Some equivalent of Consumer Reports (not sure what that would be)?

Yes, I know you didn't start the thread. but you'll do to respond to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know if it failed in it's claims, obviously, as you are not investigating and will not. Did you listen at all when I said we can't provide much evidence in a thread, not nearly enough in fact.

You objective here is obvious to me. It is to debunk whatever is said regardless.

It is not up to me to provide the evidence. That is up to the people that claim that it exists. And no, I would like to see some evidence for a god. But it appears that none exists.

 

[CG Didymus]

I was thinking more along the line of even the more recent ones. They still have outdated beliefs about sexual morality that they cannot support. They amount to "gays are wrong because God said so". And the same goes towards premarital sex. "You can't enjoy yourself because God says so" when mismatched sexual desire is one of the main reasons that marriages fail.

For sure, religious moral codes have never worked. So, what good are they?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's it..
You should ask him or her to send God down the wire, so as to emerge from your screen, like the genie of Aladdin's lamp.

You might want to work on those logic skills a bit. And while you are at it look up the concept of a strawman argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For sure, religious moral codes have never worked. So, what good are they?

They are great for giving people an undeserved sense of guilt.

 

[F1fan]

That is indeed a moral thing to strive for.
What if, as part of that process to make that a reality, it will require us to have laws against sexual immortality and even restrict the production of children between a married man and women?

First this is blackmail. Second, it is immoral to kill children in order to coerse humans to bahave an idealistic way. Third, if your messenger really wrote this, and it represents what the God really wants, what an incompetent system of communication.

You really need to stop helping your God because you are making it sound worse. Let me give you advice on how to coerse people who are doing things against your will, you do things like cut out their cable TV or cell phone service, and then you let them know it's God doing this and will keep doing this until you specific people stop having sex outside of marriage.

What you don't suggest is your God murdering children indiscriminately for acts other random people are doing. That is a crime. You describe your God as a criminal. A murderer. A torturer. And it isn't even working, so what the hell?

I prefer to un derstand childhood cancers as an indifferent universe and the lottery of life.

There are indeed a great deal of lifestyle changes that would be required to fulfil you desire to save children from fatal diseases.
What if the requirements are found in the evidence that was submitted?

Criminal God. Go ahead and keep promoting it, and turn off more people.

 

[F1fan]

That's almost laughable..
..and what are the null hypotheses?
Are they always things that can be empirically proved? No.

The only thing laughable is your contempt for science.

..yet that does not explain why there exists in psychology many different schools of thought.

They are areas of expertise pychology divided into specific disciplines, just as medicine is divided into areas of expertise as well. They are so broad and massive they have to be divided for the sake of organization and management.

If you had a working knowledge base of science you would have known this instead of the embarrassment of trying a "gotcha". Read before you post, be kind to yourself.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And that is just dogma. You are claiming in essence that a person has to believe to believe. That is only circular reasoning and an indication of a lack of evidence.

I offer it says that one must judge the evidence with justice in mind, with a rational and a logical mind and not to discard the evidence without that just approach.

Regards Tony

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you offer there are laws, that would mean there is a lawgiver.

If there is no lawgiver, then one one must logically think that disorder is the instigator of the highest order, or that no intelligence is the instigator of the highest intelligence.

Maybe then we should be aiming to be less smart, we may then be able to create the universes and all that dwells within.

Regards Tony

One of the things that far too many people do not understand is just how often order arises out of disorder. This is not true at the ultimate level of the universe, of course, but in local systems.

An excellent example is how, pebbles and larger stones sort themselves at the beach -- the result of nothing more than wave action, which is caused (ultimately, by several steps) of temperature differences caused by sun and shade, night and day. Or the cracks in a sun-dried lake bed (there is more order than disorder in the picture below, if you can see it).

 

[muhammad_isa]

They are areas of expertise psychology divided into specific disciplines..
...
If you had a working knowledge base of science you would have known this...

This seems to be your forté..
..how much smarter you are compared to others.

..and so you deny that psychologists don't all share the same theories and philosophy as you?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I've tried to understand that. If I'm right he's saying, be open to all evidence and be fair (justice) in your conclusions. Sounds good to me. On the other hand, from the tablet, "That seeker must, at all times, put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the earth, must detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who is the Lord of Lords." seems to assume a belief in god.

There is much advice in this regard. In the end there is a time that arrives where the reality of God becomes the choice and it is a barrier we can stay behind, or start to venture on the side of the possibility.

At all times there is a level of renunciation that is required, so we do see through our own eyes and are not influenced by material distraction.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

One of the things that far too many people do not understand is just how often order arises out of disorder. This is not true at the ultimate level of the universe, of course, but in local systems.

An excellent example is how, pebbles and larger stones sort themselves at the beach -- the result of nothing more than wave action, which is caused (ultimately, by several steps) of temperature differences caused by sun and shade, night and day. Or the cracks in a sun-dried lake bed (there is more order than disorder in the picture below, if you can see it).

View attachment 70036

This is the cyclic part of an ordered system.

The seed is planted grows, produces flowers and fruits and then a time comes when it dies and decays to feed the soil for the process to continue.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You should learn what qualifies as evidence and why. I am not the only one that has pointed out that your dogmatic statements are not evidence.

You must know that the statement quoted is just applicable to one's own stance!

Regards Tony

 

[Ella S.]

What then is the point of this thread? If you understand that busy people are not going to invest large amounts of time investigating something just because you say so, then why bother? It's like this, a vacuum cleaner salesman comes to your door and says "I have this amazing cleaner that I'd like you to buy. I understand that you won't take my word for that, so please go away and test this machine and compare it to other machines. A fair test will take several months, you need to test make sure it will last. When you're done, come back and tell me if you want to buy it". How many machines would he sell, do you think?

The question is of course, what is a better approach? I don't know, maybe some links for each point made? Some equivalent of Consumer Reports (not sure what that would be)?

Yes, I know you didn't start the thread. but you'll do to respond to.

The point of the thread is pretty clear to me.

"Here's my evidence."
"That's not evidence."
"Yes it is, you're just too arrogant, imperceptive, closed-minded, and stubborn to accept it."
"No, it isn't, you're being ridiculous."

Then just repeat the last two steps over and over again in an endless chain of "Yes it is," "No it isn't," "Yes it is," etc. It's like arguing with a Kindergartener. This thread isn't to generate any productive discussion. It's to attack atheists for not being gullible.

What a waste of cyberspace.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'll continue with this as you seem to get the point. It seems to me that if a Messenger knows that nothing he can say about God can be accurate, the logical action on his part would be to say nothing. Now that suggests that the whole thing is a waste of time, so maybe the statement "God is unknowable" has to be nuanced somewhat?

I will offer that a Messenger knows that everything He says is accurate and is Truth and that it will be rejected by the vast majority of people when it is first offered.

Baha'u'llah has ask us, he said do you think I give this message of my own volition, He said if it was out if Love that He has uttered the word.

".. By My life! Not of Mine own volition have I revealed Myself, but God, of His own choosing, hath manifested Me..."

".. Had it not been for the love I cherish for thee, I would not have uttered a single word of what hath been mentioned...."

That God is unknowable is indeed nuanced by what God has made known to us, which to me is the Evidence.

In that Evidence is found rational and logical proofs.

Regards Tony

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I totally agree.
Anybody who sincerely seeks truth will find it.

As a former Christian and survivor of childhood abuse, I strongly disagree with your statement.

If you knew my story, then you would know why.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The point of the thread is pretty clear to me.

"Here's my evidence."
"That's not evidence."
"Yes it is, you're just too arrogant, imperceptive, closed-minded, and stubborn to accept it."
"No, it isn't, you're being ridiculous."

Then just repeat the last two steps over and over again in an endless chain of "Yes it is," "No it isn't," "Yes it is," etc. It's like arguing with a Kindergartener. This thread isn't to generate any productive discussion. It's to attack atheists for not being gullible.

What a waste of cyberspace.

Thank you for participating, I assume you will now move on from our kindergarten chat.

Have a great Gregorian New Year.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's like you're speaking another language.

It is another language indeed.

Regards Tony