As I have said again and again

1. Were under obligation to have objections the only objection I need is your lack of evidence

2. You have provided no evidence period  only assertions and baseless arguments

3. Your explanation gets no preference or default status  even when we don't have one ( because were not obligated to have one ) X doesn't become true because I can't produce Y . You still need to back up your bullshit

It doesn't matter how much theists whine these fact remain unchanged

(March 16, 2017 at 9:07 pm)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 2:48 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You have presented no evidence, not one bit of actual testable evidence has been presented by you or any other theist.

What you have presented are the equivalent of  zenos paradoxes that you have somehow convinced yourself has some bearing on the existence of a supreme deity and would you credit it, it happens to be the one that is worshipped where your from. 

You see zeno has argued convincingly that motion is impossible in one of the paradoxes.
Now we all know that that is false but the logic is sound.

If you apply logic alone to a problem what you get is essentially nothing, what is needed for an argument to succeed is ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

So arguments are not now and never will be evidence.

So when you say you have presented evidence when all you have given us are old arguments forgive us when we roll our eyes and go once more into the breach.

I will say it again.

arguments are not evidence ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

That's correct; arguments are not evidence, evidence supports arguments.

I would also like to expand on the discussion of logic. There are things logic can and can't do on its own. Logic cannot demonstrate that possible things exist. However, it can demonstrate that impossible things cannot exist. When you assign mutually incompatible characteristics to x, then x cannot exist logically. This applies to God as well. God is said to be perfect yet require worship. A perfect being, however, would see no use for worship. These two qualities are incompatible by definition.

I normally find, that those who argue against logic, just aren't that good at it.  For one, you are cutting off the branch from which you sit.  And what are you trying to say with this quip?   That logic and reason are not sufficient for belief?   What do you do with the many scientific theories which are based on logical inferences?  I question how exactly this is applied, as I only see this philosophy from atheist forums.  Is a disjunctive syllogism valid evidence?

The following is the definition of Evidence (3 sources)

Quote:

• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a really interesting article, check it out. In an epistemological sense, evidence is considered to play a role in justification for a particular belief.
  
• Dictionary.reference.com defines evidence as “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.”
  
• Oxforddictionaries.com defines evidence as “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid”
  

and the definition of arguement (from the same 3 sites)

Quote:

• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has, again, a very interesting article on arguments. I’d encourage you to read it. Put very briefly, an argument is “a collection of truth-bearers … some of which are offered as reasons for one of them, the conclusion” and “a typical use of an argument is to rationally persuade its audience of the truth of the conclusion.”
  
• Dictionary.reference.com defines an argument as “a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point.”
  
• OxfordDictionaries.com defines an argument as “a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory”
  

Reference for those who gathered these definitions: https://hashtagapologetics.wordpress.com...-evidence/

And their conclusion

Quote:So, if:
Evidence can be defined as the available body of facts or information which tends to prove or disprove something…
… and…
An argument can be defined as a collection of truth-bearing statements, reasons or facts used in support of an idea, theory or belief.
Then it seems reasonable to conclude that when an argument is both valid and sound, it becomes evidence for a particular conclusion. So is an argument actually evidence?
It would seem that the answer is… yes.

So if you remove logic as evidence, and as I have often been told here, you remove testimony as evidence.   You are left with only a body of facts, that you have personally seen, and cannot make any logical deductions or inferences from to anything other than what you saw.   Add to that, another often repeated quip here, that you cannot trust what you see and remember, and all that I believe is a very weak and epistemologically neutered solipsism.

Of course a shorter route, may be to simply ask if you believe the claim that "arguments are not evidence" and why?  Is it because of evidence?  Did you reason it through using critical thinking? Or did it just sound good, and is often repeated?

Edit to add,   This view that "arguements are not evidence" would also make those who claim evidence of absence; to be without said evidence.

He's saying pretty much what I've said here before, RR. Logical arguments can go a long way, but they aren't entirely self-sufficient. They still rely on sound premises, which require some level of evidence. Without that, all the logic in the world won't get you to a sound conclusion. You have to start with what we know to be true in order to come to conclusions about what else may be true through logic.

(March 16, 2017 at 11:38 pm)Jesster Wrote: He's saying pretty much what I've said here before, RR. Logical arguments can go a long way, but they aren't entirely self-sufficient. They still rely on sound premises, which require some level of evidence. Without that, all the logic in the world won't get you to a sound conclusion. You have to start with what we know to be true in order to come to conclusions about what else may be true through logic.

I would agree, that an argument is only good as long as it's premises are true and it's logic is valid. However; and I'm assuming you are requiring evidence, that you mean physical evidence, that you will need to give evidence for.

(March 16, 2017 at 11:55 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would agree, that an argument is only good as long as it's premises are true and it's logic is valid.  However; and I'm assuming you are requiring evidence, that you mean physical evidence, that you will need to give evidence for.

Physical? Unless we're getting too nit-picky with our terms, I would tentatively agree with that being a good place to start. Observable might be a stronger term here, though. I certainly agree with the others here that an argument is not evidence, though. It's a method of arriving at a conclusion based on evidence. I'm not saying arguments are worthless here, of course. They are still quite valuable as long as they have a sturdy foundation that we can all agree on. That's all I ask for when I see these.

(March 16, 2017 at 11:38 pm)Jesster Wrote: He's saying pretty much what I've said here before, RR. Logical arguments can go a long way, but they aren't entirely self-sufficient. They still rely on sound premises, which require some level of evidence. Without that, all the logic in the world won't get you to a sound conclusion. You have to start with what we know to be true in order to come to conclusions about what else may be true through logic.

Right. The point is that arguments without evidence are useless in proving existential claims. But some theists here want to sidestep and/or twist the points presented because they can't actually formulate an acceptable rebuttal.

(March 17, 2017 at 12:08 am)Jesster Wrote:

(March 16, 2017 at 11:55 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would agree, that an argument is only good as long as it's premises are true and it's logic is valid.  However; and I'm assuming you are requiring evidence, that you mean physical evidence, that you will need to give evidence for.

Physical? Unless we're getting too nit-picky with our terms, I would tentatively agree with that being a good place to start. Observable might be a stronger term here, though. I certainly agree with the others here that an argument is not evidence, though. It's a method of arriving at a conclusion based on evidence. I'm not saying arguments are worthless here, of course. They are still quite valuable as long as they have a sturdy foundation that we can all agree on. That's all I ask for when I see these.

Yes, I agree that an arguement or scientific model is only as good as it'a foundation. That does nothing to support the claim, that only emperical evidence is established as said flundation.

Do you think that there's some other type of evidence...?

(March 16, 2017 at 2:19 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote: Simple fallacy.

Simple trolling at this point.

Quote:Speaking to Allah is not necessarily elevating above Muhammed in Islam,

Actually it does as Muhammad got his directives fro the arch angel Michael, as he was too 'impure' to Speak to Allah Himself. If a muslim says they speak with Allah, then that means their spiritual pueity is greater than the PROPHET Muhammad.

Quote:many Muslims believe they do, just like many Christians.

Second time I've asked for a citation.

Quote:You are trying to define Christianity into objective truth, which you can't do.

All I've done here is point out by the very rules of religion only Christianity puts it's believers in direct contact with God.

Quote:Citations please. I think you 'feel' that you are right but never researched it. What you fail to understand is to claim contact with God in other religions is a death sentence in most cases.

Again as only prophets can make this claim. As I exampled above To make this claim in most if not all other religions even Judaism is blaspheme and a death sentence follows.

I gave you one source, but I will give another source for individual experience. I have met muslims that claim to speak to Allah, it isn't something new.

What a douche bag! You didn't even read the source material you left did you?
The question in ght e google search header that you did read described a muslim asking spiritual leaders about his supposed muslim uncle who claims to talk to Allah. Not that He does, he just wanted to see what the Qur'an had to say about it.

The part you missed:


Did you ask him what Allah (swt) has been telling him? Ask him questions, ask him about the environment of the supposed direct communication, ask him about the medium of communication, is it verbal? Symbols? Visions? These questions will not only help you get to the truth, but also help him/her get a clear picture of what is going on. – Allah knows best Jul 23 '15 at 12:05
add a comment
4 Answers
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted


See Quran sura 42:51. Allah does not talk to a human being by direct means. It is however possible to see aspiring dreams etc.

Allah has also made family a responsibility. Providing family with sustenance and good education/training and not turning them away from religion is also a responsibility from Allah see Quran 66:6.

Tell you relative that if his change is from Allah, it must be balanced (Quran 2:143). If he is escaping from his family responsibilities in the name of excessive worship, it must be from Shaitan because the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited his companion Abdullah bin Amr bin Aas from ignoring his wife for the sake of excessive worship.



We believe the chain of communication between Allah and his creation is as follows:

Allah -> Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) -> Prophet -> people

Now Allah honored Musa(Moses) by speaking to him directly, but once again he was still a Prophet.

After Prophet Muhammad(saw) passed away, there is no new revelation to come.

The only thing that is left that resembles prophethood are dreams. Prophet Muhammad said that dreams a 1/46th revelation. Meaning someone may experience or see something that is from Allah, but the scholars say it has limits. Meaning no new revelation comes through dreams. So if someone says that Allah spoke to them in a dream and that they don't have to pray anymore, that was not a true dream. And Allah knows best.

I have studied Islam for some time, and can tell you have no idea what it is about or how it supposed to work. Here's an idea why dn't you ask questions about what you don't know rather than looking for way to demonstrate how deep your ignorance on world religion really is. Seriously, why do you who knows nothing of religion need to try and fool me into thinking you do? I have spent over a decade studying religions of the world, and here you come nearly cluless but pretending to know what it is your talking about. Why?

Quote:This is what prayer has been about (talking to God), and it is a major pillar of Christianity. 

You don't even understand the role of prayer in the christian church.
Glob...
Prayer is not about talking to God nor is it about Changing God's will or asking God for stuff. Prayer is about changing who we are to follow in the pattern from which God asks us to fit.
Look at the model prayer Jesus left us. How much of it was concerned about our daily wants or desires? how much of it was about shootng the bull?How much was dedicated in asking God for personal stuff?

Then note how much was of it was about asking God to change us make us and mold usinto something different.

Quote:But you certainly assume God exists, this has been demonstrated by what I said to you earlier.

Not in the beginning. after 18years of hell on earth I was convinced that (my version) of a loving God was not possible. So no. I did not start out that God existed. I mocked this God by beating his believers and doubble dog daring him to show his face, and continued to beat and mock his followers in my high school class till he showed up.

Quote:If you are positing that something exists, shouldn't a burden of proof be on you rather than the person denying it?

Are you stupid or something?
If I told you I saw the grand canyon and described the best I could it's full Majesty, then gave you directions on how to see it for yourself. Then you come back without lifting a finger's worth an effort with a "nut-huh, it don't exist" then isn't the burden of proof on you to disprove my claim? That's kinda how things work in court. why would this be any different? Oh, that's right your not smart enough to understand you are not arguing the typical metaphysical argument, based on intangible fact. Or rather you are trying to make my argument fit the intangible argument you are so use to defending.

Quote:I actually do have "proofs" of God's non-existence, I have manually constructed them (many from other ideas) and are still working to have a complete set. 

drag them ut sport don't be shy!
Let's see what you got!!!

Quote:However, by what you say, it seems it doesn't interest you to be open minded.

where would you ever get such an idea???

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Yes, I agree that an arguement or scientific model is only as good as it'a foundation. That does nothing to support the claim, that only emperical evidence is established as said flundation.

Can you give an example of non-empirical evidence that has been established as a foundation for a conclusion that is generally accepted as well-supported? How do you evaluate non-empirical evidence without appealing to empirical methods?

For example, my personal observations of a unknown animal are empirical, but to be established as a foundation for a conclusion, more is needed: other people observing the same creature and taking pictures of it helps, but without a specimen to study and confirm that it is, in fact, a heretofore un-catalogued species, it's not going to be generally accepted as well-supported. The evidence that has been gathered is not conclusive if it doesn't include a specimen or equivalent evidence (maybe if I videoed it close up with someone else videoing me videoing it, and we also got a DNA sample).