Working backwards.

[Angrboda]

The reason is as follow if there is a religion that is true, they would have evidence for the truth.

This doesn't follow.

And if God is central to the truth of the faith,  the best arguments would for his existence would be found in that religion.

This doesn't follow either.

[ignoramus]

How's the schooling going MK?
I hope all is good for you....

[Mr Greene]

I do hope MK will reply to Atlas, this promises to be far more informative than most exchanges...

[GUBU]

One way to approach religion is to say, all sects of a particular religion have no proof, and the religion itself has no proof, and all this is true because God has no proof.

Another way to approach religion is to say, if there was a god, what religion would be most probably true, and if that religion was true, which sect has proof for their stance. And you can then verify which sect would have proof for the particular religion, in which, then you would know which instance of the religion actually true represents it and hence makes the proper arguments for it. 

Then you can say, what evidence does it have for humanity for the Divine Creator it presents to humanity if any at all.  How does it justify faith in God in the first place? etc.. etc...

I think you guys should consider this approach.

The reason is as follow if there is a religion that is true, they would have evidence for the truth. And if God is central to the truth of the faith,  the best arguments would for his existence would be found in that religion.

Another argument is as follows: Who best to prove his existence and explain our purpose than the Creator himself. Who best to show how we can know him than the one who designed it.

The alternative approach is you don't attempt to find proofs in religions and just wait for believers to present it. Well according to Islam there came times when there were very few believers on earth.  Also, they may not be best able to explain things to you or they don't how to heal the issue of the evil that keeps people from seeing God.

If you wait for proofs from people who are not appointed by God, you may perhaps never receive them or be overwhelmed with bad arguments or bad presentation of good arguments.

But God, if he exists knows his creation and would be best suited to guide to the truth through a revelation from him and appointed interpreters and teachers that are chosen, pure and exalted.

So you want to assert your religion is true before providing evidence for any gods' exisence?

You don't get that privilege.

[Astreja]

Another argument is as follows: Who best to prove his existence and explain our purpose than the Creator himself.

Okay.  Kindly ask your god to drop by my home at its earliest convenience.  I do not consider scriptures or religions to be evidence, so it must be an in-person, face-to-face visit.  This is not negotiable; it is the only thing that I consider acceptable evidence for the existence of god-like beings.

[Aroura]

Working backwards is fine if you have something solid to work backwards from. For instance, if someone gives me a box, I can take it apart, and see how many parts it has, how they were fitted together, and so forth. If it was a poorly made box, though, all I'll learn is how to make a poorly made box.

Also, you cannot work backwards from something that isn't solid to begin with and come up with any useful information.
Otherwise, I can start with: There are invisible purple unicorns, therefore there there are unicorns, therefore purple makes things invisible, etc.
You get faulty conclusions if you start with a faulty premise.

[brewer]

Sorry, to lazy to read. Are we reverse engineering a god now?

[ignoramus]

Sorry, to lazy to read. Are we reverse engineering a god now?

Actually what he means to say is, let's start with the conclusion and work backwards to see if we can shoehorn it with reality somehow. And most importantly, do not stop trying until we have!

More fallacies disguised as discussion... MK, what are we going to do with you?

[Mystic]

I do hope MK will reply to Atlas, this promises to be far more informative than most exchanges...

If he wants to have a debate about Shiism vs his go Quran alone approach, I would.   But this thread has nothing to do with that topic, nor did he present any compelling case against Twelver Shiism which is the sacred religion of submission of all times, but just manifests a disease of those trying to separate the family of the reminder from the reminder itself.

The family of Abraham, the family of Noah, the family of Moses and Aeron, and the family of Yaseen are in Quran.  He wishes to emphasize God revealed books, sure, but those books all emphasized God appointed Leaders and Guides with those books.

He wishes to say those books are God's direct guidance, I agree, but those books also nominate the Captains that sail the boat of salvation, that is by the name of God in it's sailing and anchoring.

I can have a serious discussion on this issue.  Ali is central to understanding Quran. I truly believe in that.

---

Working backwards is fine if you have something solid to work backwards from.  For instance, if someone gives me a box, I can take it apart, and see how many parts it has, how they were fitted together, and so forth.  If it was a poorly made box, though, all I'll learn is how to make a poorly made box.

This is true. If God exists and has revealed a book and appointed guides, those would be a solid thing to work backward from. If he doesn't exist, then no harm, no foul.  You will realize there is no case for him from himself in a revealed book or intermediates teaching on his behalf.
And if he exists and didn't reveal a book, no harm no foul.
However, if he exists and did reveal a book,  and you choose to not even give an ear to listen to his words because there happens to exist a bunch of false religions..well then that's just sad.

---

How's the schooling going MK?
I hope all is good for you....

School is going very well. 
Thanks for asking!

---

Sorry, to lazy to read. Are we reverse engineering a god now?

More like reverse engineering how we approach finding proofs of God's existence. But sure, you can say that.

---

Sorry, to lazy to read. Are we reverse engineering a god now?

More like reverse engineering how we approach finding proofs of God's existence. But sure, you can say that.

---

The reason is as follow if there is a religion that is true, they would have evidence for the truth.

This doesn't follow.

And if God is central to the truth of the faith,  the best arguments would for his existence would be found in that religion.

This doesn't follow either.

Did you ever study the issue of implicit premises?

---

The reason is as follow if there is a religion that is true, they would have evidence for the truth.

This doesn't follow.

And if God is central to the truth of the faith,  the best arguments would for his existence would be found in that religion.

This doesn't follow either.

Did you ever study the issue of implicit premises?

---

Another argument is as follows: Who best to prove his existence and explain our purpose than the Creator himself.

Okay.  Kindly ask your god to drop by my home at its earliest convenience.  I do not consider scriptures or religions to be evidence, so it must be an in-person, face-to-face visit.  This is not negotiable; it is the only thing that I consider acceptable evidence for the existence of god-like beings.

You know if a holy book claiming to be from God didn't bring this exact objection of yours and had a whole response to it in an eloquent manner, with a repeated theme, from multiple angles,  I would not believe it's from God.

You are not the first nor will be the last that brings this non-negotiable criterion on God.  The sad thing is you believe this is a source of some sort of honor to you.

[Whateverist]

One way to approach religion is to say, all sects of a particular religion have no proof, and the religion itself has no proof, and all this is true because God has no proof.

Another way to approach religion is to say, if there was a god, what religion would be most probably true, and if that religion was true, which sect has proof for their stance. And you can then verify which sect would have proof for the particular religion, in which, then you would know which instance of the religion actually true represents it and hence makes the proper arguments for it. 

Then you can say, what evidence does it have for humanity for the Divine Creator it presents to humanity if any at all.  How does it justify faith in God in the first place? etc.. etc...

I think you guys should consider this approach.

What makes you think we haven't or that we haven't considered a still better approach? Some beliefs just can't be rescued while remaining in ones' right mind.

The reason is as follow ..

This approach only works for people conditioned to think in authoritarian ways. I'm not running that program.