What would it take for you to NOT believe in God?

[ppp]

What is fallacious about believing in God based upon the evidence believers have?

I don't know if you have a specific pieces of evidence in mind. So far, everything that believers have presented to me has contained at least one key element that was not true, false, or connected to their god through fallacious argumentation. Or a combination thereof.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know if you have a specific pieces of evidence in mind. So far, everything that believers have presented to me has contained at least one key element that was not true, false, or connected to their god through fallacious argumentation. Or a combination thereof.

As I just told @ Nimos the only evidence that God exists is the Messengers of God so of you want to believe in God that is your only alternative.

The reason why the evidence believers have presented to you from their religions have contained at least one key element that was not true, was false, or was connected to their god through fallacious argumentation was summed up by Baha'u'llah quite nicely:

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

 

[ppp]

As I just told @ Nimos the only evidence that God exists is the Messengers of God so of you want to believe in God that is your only alternative.

Calling people Messengers of God isn't evidence that there is a god, or that they are messengers. Like every other religion it is just people making claims.

The reason why the evidence believers have presented to you from their religions have contained at least one key element that was not true, was false, or was connected to their god through fallacious argumentation was summed up by Baha'u'llah quite nicely:

"This is the Day..." Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

I have read that before. It's a common theme among religions. -- Other religions have been corrupted. Other religions have no foundation. Other religions are false. But our religion is pure and true and well seated. -- Mere words.

I say, show me a god.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And no evidence for their being messengers of God / Allah. So evidence for God are the messengers, and the evidence of messengers are the scriptures, and the evidence of scriptures is God /Allah. Circle complete, you can circle it as many times as you want.

 

[Trailblazer]

Calling people Messengers of God isn't evidence that there is a god, or that they are messengers. Like every other religion it is just people making claims.

That's true, but the mission, should you choose to accept it, it is to determine if the claims were valid.

I have read that before. It's a common theme among religions. -- Other religions have been corrupted. Other religions have no foundation. Other religions are false. But our religion is pure and true and well seated. -- Mere words.

Even if that is true, that does not mean that one religion does not have the latest and current message from God that has not been corrupted..

I say, show me a god.

And I say the only way you are going to see God is reflected in the Messengers, what Baha'is refer to as the Manifestations of God.

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.......” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 54

 

[ppp]

That's true, but the mission, should you choose to accept it, it is to determine if the claims were valid.

Aww! You're trying to shift the burden of proof for your religion to me. So adorable!

Even if that is true, that does not mean that one religion does not have the latest and current message from God that has not been corrupted..

Oh, my. And you follow up with an argument from ignorance. I am not really concerned with "does not mean". It is positive evidence for the claim that make the case.

And I say the only way you are going to see God is reflected in the Messengers, what Baha'is refer to as the Manifestations of God.

I have never denied that people say the things that they believe to be true. It is just that saying it is not enough. Ya know?

 

[Trailblazer]

Aww! You're trying to shift the burden of proof for your religion to me. So adorable!

No, that is what you are doing. I have no burden to prove anything to you. Rather, it is your burden to investigate the claim of Baha'u'llah and prove to yourself, if you want to know.

Oh, my. And you follow up with an argument from ignorance. I am not really concerned with "does not mean". It is positive evidence for the claim that make the case.

It is not my job to present all the evidence. I can tell you what it is and where it is, that's all.

I have never denied that people say the things that they believe to be true. It is just that saying it is not enough. Ya know?

Well, obviously they have to do more than say it. Anyone can SAY anything.

 

[ppp]

No, that is what you are doing. I have no burden to prove anything to you. Rather, it is your burden to investigate the claim of Baha'u'llah and prove to yourself, if you want to know.

That is not what the burden of proof is, silly.

It is not my job to present all the evidence. I can tell you what it is and where it is, that's all.

All of the other corrupt religions have practitioners who try the same trick.

Well, obviously they have to do more than say it. Anyone can SAY anything.

Hence the thumbs down on all of the religions presented to me so far. All mouth and no trousers

 

[Trailblazer]

That is not what the burden of proof is, silly.

I know what the burden of proof is, I just do not agree I bear that burden, namely because (a) I did not make a claim, I merely have a belief, and (b) I am not trying to prove anything....

Baha'u'llah made a claim so He had a burden of proof and He met His burden.

All of the other corrupt religions have practitioners who try the same trick.

But that does not mean anything about my religion.

Hence the thumbs down on all of the religions presented to me so far. All mouth and no trousers

And that will probably continue to be the case unless you see something different.

 

[ppp]

I know what the burden of proof is, I just do not agree I bear that burden, namely because (a) I did not make a claim, I merely have a belief, and

Expressing a belief is making a claim. Using a grammatical passive voice does not change that.

(b) I am not trying to prove anything....

And succeeding marvelously!

But that does not mean anything about my religion.

It really does.

And that will probably continue to be the case unless you see something different.

And that won't happen until there is something different to be seen.

 

[Trailblazer]

Expressing a belief is making a claim. Using a grammatical passive voice does not change that.

I believe it is true but I am not claiming it is true.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.https://www.google.com/search

Believe: accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of. https://www.google.com/search

And that won't happen until there is something different to be seen.

There is something different but you might not see it. You know what Jesus said about eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

[ppp]

I believe it is true but I am not claiming it is true.

Using a grammatical passive voice does not change that.

There is something different but you might not see it.

Another claim.

You know what Jesus said about eyes to see and ears to hear.

I don't know that Jesus said or did anything. Including live.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know that Jesus said or did anything. Including live.

Then I guess we are starting from scratch.

 

[ppp]

Then I guess we are starting from scratch.

But not tonight. I am going to bed. Sleep well when you get there, Trailblazer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You never going to understand spiritual lifestyle. So I see no point in discussing further.

You seem to have this tendency of speaking in absolutes.

Ever heared the saying "never say never"?
You don't know what the future has in store for us.

That goes for myself, as well as you and everybody else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not right now.
But this too might pass.

Or not, off course.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What if you are wrong about reality?

To quote Professor Dawkins: what if YOU are wrong about the Great JuJu up the mountain?

I could be wrong about anything. So can you. And I'll deal with that the day I find out. I'll happily change my views then to accomodate for those new insights. Until then....

Reality might be more than you know.

And it almost certainly is. I don't consider this a problem. I consider it exciting - there's stuff to learn and personally I can't wait to find out.

But I actually need to find out first. I see no sense at all in just assuming things.
The best I can do, is take into account the reality that I actually know of.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No that is highly unlikely since 84 percent of the world population has a faith

1. faith is not a pathway to truth; faith is gullibility
2. argumentum ad populum
3. Among those people, necessarily the vast majority must be incorrect as they all believe mutually exclusive things, which goes to show just how bad "faith" is in getting answers right

It makes more sense that they are all right about some things even if they are not all right about everything.

No. It rather makes more sense that this shows that humans have a tendency to hold superstitious beliefs. Which is actually a fact in the field of psychology. And this fact isn't just a fact for humans - it's a fact for a LOT of animals. Even pidgeons are superstitious.

It makes no sense that atheists are right, given they are only 7% of the world population.

1. argumentum ad populum again
2. atheism is not a claim, so there's nothing to be "right" about in atheism

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists). Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia​

So? How does that say anything about how accurate or inaccurate a specific religious belief is?

100% of the world's population used to believe in geocentrism. That didn't make it a correct belief, now did it?
Your argument here is literally saying that 100% of people believing it, would add credibility to the claim of geocentrism. This is off course hogwash.

I do not know what you mean by "support your claims."

Myeah....that might be one of the problems here. It might also explain why you think invoking the argumentum ad populum is a good idea.

If you mean objective verifiable evidence of God's existence there is no such evidence and never will be.

...as is the case with any other entity that is claimed to exist, but doesn't actually exist.

It means that your god can not be distinguished from entities that don't exist.
It puts your god in the same category as undetectable interdimensional unicorns.

But that does not mean we cannot support our claims.

It kind of does..................
So far, the only "support" you have given here, is that "people believe it".
People believe in geocentrism too. People believing anything, has no bearing on the accuracy of that something.

Just because atheists do not LIKE what we have that does not mean we do not have anything.

"liking it" has exactly zero to do with it.
Sounds like you are projecting.

There are many things that I would like to be true, but which I don't believe because there is no evidence for it. Maybe in your world "liking" things play a factor in how you determine if something is believable or not, but in my world it is completely irrelevant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did not say that the percentage proves the position is correct. I said it is highly unlikely that the 84 percent of people who have a religion are all wrong about there being a God and that the 7% of atheists are right about there being no God. It is possible, but highly unlikely that so many people would believe in God if God does not exist.

And then you have to ask why so many be people believe in God and come to realize that most people believe in God because of a religion....... It is at that point that any logical person who wanted to believe in God would take a long hard look at religion as the evidence for God.

Religions are the claims that are being believed.
Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious. For example, there was a time in history when most people did not believe we could ever fly in the air, but most people were wrong, as we found out later.

In other words, how many or how little people believe claim X, is completely irrelevant to the correctness of claim X.


In that case we can only wonder why you brought it up. And you CLEARLY tried to use it to add credibility to the claims, as if many people believing the claim says something about the correctness of the claim. You literally said it makes it more likely to be true. So yea, you most definatly were engaging in that fallacy.