Hello soulcalm17

[Sheldon]

That's not true, I am very confident someone called Richard will exist in the future. It's pretty easy, I can even claim their father will have the name Robert, and the odds are pretty good I have predicted something accurately. 



No it can't, not rationally anyway, you are a) using what appears to be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and b) violating Occam's razor. 



...and human, we already know humans write books. Assuming your claims about how accurate the predictions are can be objectively verified (I am dubious), and further assuming that it came true exactly as described (again I am dubious), and then assuming the probability can be calculated as extremely unlikely, all you'd have is a mystery you couldn't explain, to suggest the lack of an explanation evidences anything is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. 
 

Firstly, you have not demonstrated that any entity other than the humans who wrote those books, are even possible, secondly the notion one can call this imagined and unevidenced entity whatever one likes, is an entirely subjective opinion. 


 I disagree, since you assigned those attributes arbitrarily, it is little more than begging the question fallacies. You need to:

1) Demonstrate sufficient objective evidence any deity or anything supernatural is even possible. 
2) Demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that a deity exists. 
3) Demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that it si the deity you imagine to be real. 

Your argument here is fallacious and thus irrational. It is also of course used by adherents of other religions to make identically fallacious claims about other deities humans imagine to be real. It's poor reasoning, using weak arguments.

Arguments about the cause of something do not have to bring about that thing physically.
For example:
1. When I find a book, I conclude that the book must have been designed by a human. I do not need to find the specific human who wrote the book. But my conclusion is true.
2. You must have come from your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather. I do not need to physically meet your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather. But my conclusion is true.
3. The universe began with the big bang. I also do not need to see with my eyes at this moment how the big bang happened. But my conclusion is true based on the traces of the universe.

That collection of straw men doesn't seem to address anything in my post? 

You still haven't answered my question, can you demonstrate any objective evidence that a deity exists, or that a deity is even possible? You also didn't address the fallacious reasoning I explained, that you used in your arguments?

1. A straw man fallacy since I never claimed otherwise, and this also contradicts your earlier claim that koran cannot be entirely human in origin, or is divinely written. 
2. Straw man fallacy, since I never claimed otherwise. 
3. I think the word begin is not apropos, for fairly obvious reasons, so I would say the universe that we currently observe has a point of origin explained in the scientific theory of the big bang. The second sentence is another straw man fallacy, as I have not claimed otherwise. The last sentence is pretty vague, scientific theories are broad explanations of naturally occurring phenomena, that are supported by a weight of objective evidence, and that have been subjected to experiment and test to confirm them, so it would be unreasonable to deny something that the evidence suggests is an irrefutable fact. 

NB note that a scientific fact is just describing something science knows to be true, based on an overwhelming consensus among scientific experts in the related fields, and irrefutable in does not of course mean immutable, whilst the objective evidence cannot reasonably be denied, it remains open to critical scrutiny, as part of the methods of science demands that all ideas, no matter how well established, remain tentative in the light of new evidence, and thus open to continuous critical scrutiny. So this is the antithesis of faith based subjective religious beliefs, that claim to hold immutable and infallible truths.

[The Grand Nudger]

Monotheism is a newcomer. Your specific variant is even newer still. Neither it nor any version of it was the first religion of mankind. So what if people wandered around for a long damned time worshipping a whole lot of false gods? Hell...you must think that we're still wandering around worshiping false gods. This is another example of forcing a religion to die on the hill of superstition.

[soulcalm17]

That collection of straw men doesn't seem to address anything in my post? 

You still haven't answered my question, can you demonstrate any objective evidence that a deity exists, or that a deity is even possible? You also didn't address the fallacious reasoning I explained, that you used in your arguments?

1. A straw man fallacy since I never claimed otherwise, and this also contradicts your earlier claim that koran cannot be entirely human in origin, or is divinely written. 
2. Straw man fallacy, since I never claimed otherwise. 
3. I think the word begin is not apropos, for fairly obvious reasons, so I would say the universe that we currently observe has a point of origin explained in the scientific theory of the big bang. The second sentence is another straw man fallacy, as I have not claimed otherwise. The last sentence is pretty vague, scientific theories are broad explanations of naturally occurring phenomena, that are supported by a weight of objective evidence, and that have been subjected to experiment and test to confirm them, so it would be unreasonable to deny something that the evidence suggests is an irrefutable fact. 

NB note that a scientific fact is just describing something science knows to be true, based on an overwhelming consensus among scientific experts in the related fields, and irrefutable in does not of course mean immutable, whilst the objective evidence cannot reasonably be denied, it remains open to critical scrutiny, as part of the methods of science demands that all ideas, no matter how well established, remain tentative in the light of new evidence, and thus open to continuous critical scrutiny. So this is the antithesis of faith based subjective religious beliefs, that claim to hold immutable and infallible truths.

Well, in my first point, what I mean is the book as written material and designed with specific form. Not talking about the content. The thing, which is book, that's what I mean. Quran, as a hardcopy of book (muslims will say The Mushaf of Quran), of course written and designed by human. But the content of writing is from God.


I didn't mean to do straw man fallacy here. I just give examples that many causes of something, not necessarily need the empirical evidence to considered that it were true.

---

I already give argument previously that:

Prophecies that are true is impossible coming from human.

It will possible, if either the prophecier got access to the information containing future events, or someone outside the prophecier gave that information containing future events to the prophecier.

Now you would consider that it still possible come from human, from just predicting the name, and so on.

Okay, so you demand it just lucky for someone to got his prediction correct in the future.

In case of prophecies in Hindu scripture, how can you explain rationally that it just prediction by human?

It was not normal person in India talk about something will happen which the content is far from their area. Why would he talked that the person will riding a camel? When he was surrounding with the cows in his location. No camel in India that time. How and why he could predict about the number of Narashangsa enemies? While if he just gave prediction to amaze his follower, he could say in general and vague, so that he wouldn’t get embarrassed when his prophecies was wrong.
If someone want to lie to his follower, he would just gave general prophecies without the details.

If you say it all about luck or chance, I can no longer argue with you. Because chance is like “Chance of the Gaps”. You can’t explain it rationally, than it come by chance. I also can say anything is come by chance if I want to. Or also you say it’s mysteri, I would say that is “mysteries of the gaps”.

While I argued with rationality, that it impossible made by human, so it must come from outside them. The information, which is the keyword  here must be there. And information, can only be made by intelligent and has intentionality being. And when the information describing about events in the future that are happen, so I concluded that entity being had a plan and controlling his own plan. So, he is live forever or eternal.

This is argument from rationality about causing of something. That the eternal being must be there/or exist and has intelligence, intention, and plan. That the deity is possible. And also this deity is real, because the information exist and spoken by human that proved to be true.

The question about what is his physicality (for demanding that he is real ) is actually irrelevant. Because I already demonstrate rational evidence that doesn’t need to show physically evidence of the causing of something like I post before.

---

[Sheldon]

soulcalm17
I already give argument previously that:

Prophecies that are true is impossible coming from human.

No they're not, and this is a bare claim, as I explained already. people make astronomically unlikely predictions that come true all the time, the lottery would be one good example. 

soulcalm17While I argued with rationality, that it impossible made by human, so it must come from outside them.

That isn't a rational argument, as I already explained it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy:
"Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic."

That the deity is possible. 

You have failed to offer any objective evidence that any deity is possible, you're just repeating the same logical fallacy over and over?

Nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational, you can tack the word onto your claims as much as you like, but it is meaningless rhetoric. 

1) The claims for prophesy you keep citing, are of course unevidenced subjective claims from man made books, the books contain the claims, not the evidence.  
2) I don't believe the predictions were made, or that they came true as described, unless you can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support those claim, as the books contain the claims, not objective evidence. Though this is moot anyway, see No 3 below:
3) However, even if you could objectively evidence those claims, your conclusion "that it must be a deity, as we have no alternative explanation" would still be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and is thus irrational by definition? I have explained why multiple times already, and here again.
4) It is an objective fact that accurately predicting the future, even against massive odds is not just not impossible as you claim, but trivially commonplace. Again one only has to understand the odds against a lottery win to see your claim is demonstrably false. 

Now I ask again, can you demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists outside the human imagination, or that any deity is even possible?

Unevidenced claims from a book, and irrational conclusions based on known logical fallacies, are at the opposite end of the evidentiary scale from objective evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

These may be reasons that you believe whatever you do, but they are not rational arguments. I think you could recognize this easily in any context other than magic book. Let's find out.

It would be impossible for my parents to get me these gifts - therefore they came from the gift fairy.
-Obviously, it may not..in fact...be impossible for your parents to get you said gifts...but even if it were true that they couldn't... that would not mean, imply, suggest, or prove that they came from the gift fairy.

These gifts exist - therefore the gift fairy exists.
-Just chasing our own tail with this one, eh? The idea that the gifts purported to be from the gift fairy mean, imply, suggest or prove that a gift fairy exists is utterly circular..and, ofc...built upon our previous invalid argument with unsound premises.

Do you understand why I've failed to rationally argue for the gift fairy? If you do, then you understand why you've failed to rationally argue for your gift fairy...and if not, welcome to the gift fairy cult!

[Sheldon]

These may be reasons that you believe whatever you do, but they are not rational arguments.  I think you could recognize this easily in any context other than magic book.  Let's find out.

It would be impossible for my parents to get me these gifts - therefore they came from the gift fairy.
-Obviously, it may not..in fact...be impossible for your parents to get you said gifts...but even if it were true that they couldn't... that would not mean, imply, suggest, or prove that they came from the gift fairy.

These gifts exist - therefore the gift fairy exists.

A sound argument, since if one can replace the deity in his argument with literally anything, and the argument loses nothing, this surely demonstrates a very poorly reasoned argument, on its own. 

Christian apologists cites their chosen book, to make identical claims, that are unsupported by any objective evidence, and draw the same irrational conclusion using the same logical fallacy. . 

They don't seem to grasp the burden of proof lies with the person making claim, and logically no one needs to disprove that claim, or offer any alternative explanation. Unless of course they make a contrary claim, since disbelieving a claim is not the same as making a contrary claim. 

He doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that his conclusion is irrational, even if the premises in his claims were true. Though of course he hasn't demonstrated those predictions coming true is impossible, merely asserted it,  yet it is an objective fact that humans can guess and make very accurate predictions against massive odds, and be correct, it happens every day of the week all over the world in lotteries for example. 

 In religion a prophecy is defined as "a message that has been communicated to a person (typically called a prophet) by a supernatural entity."

Now I do not believe this is possible of course, unless sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated that a deity is possible, and exists, (outside of the human imagination). This would need to be done first, then this claim would need to also be supported by sufficient objective evidence. He's putting his cart in front of his horse. 

To claim anything is true, solely because we don't have, or can't, produce an alternative explanation or evidence is a logical fallacy, it is irrational by definition. Until he understands and acknowledges that fact, he is doomed to go on making the same irrational argument, as of course we see him doing here.

[Belacqua]

unless sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated that a deity is possible, and exists

I'm curious why you think that a God, if it existed, would be the sort of thing that could be demonstrated with objective evidence. It looks to me as though you may be begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī), an informal fallacy. 

I say this because in the Western theological and philosophical tradition, no one says that God is known through empirical evidence. Beginning with Plato and Aristotle, on through Plotinus, and of course all the way through Spinoza and Hegel, God is not a sensible object (that is, knowable through the senses) but an intelligible object (known only through the mind). 

In general, the philosophers' chain of reasoning begins with something undeniable about the world -- e.g. "there is something rather than nothing," or "things change." From there their reasons for concluding that a God exists are not empirical ones. No philosopher you can name relies on the "we have no other explanation therefore God" fallacy that you point to.

Some theologians rely on prophecy or revelation for specific aspects of their God -- for example, that he is a trinity. But all of them also hold that through natural theology -- without special revelation -- the existence of God can be proven. Just not with the sort of evidence that science uses. 

For these people, demanding empirical evidence for God would be like looking for a very large prime number with a telescope. That would be a category error, using sensible means to look for an intelligible object. 

I'm NOT saying you should accept any of the arguments that these people have made. I'm only pointing out that your demand for a certain kind of evidence leaves unaddressed all of the philosophical and theological reasons people have for believing in God.

[Sheldon]

Duplicate post removed, my apologies, still getting to grips with the site. see below:

[Sheldon]

unless sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated that a deity is possible, and exists

I'm curious why you think that a God, if it existed, would be the sort of thing that could be demonstrated with objective evidence. It looks to me as though you may be begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī), an informal fallacy. 

I neither asserted nor implied any such conclusion, so this seems like a straw man? Though I am intrigued as to why anyone would think I would set a different standard for god claims, than all others? If one cares about being open minded, then one ought to strive to avoid and remove bias in one's beliefs.

Belacqua

I say this because in the Western theological and philosophical tradition, no one says that God is known through empirical evidence. 

  That's not true, plenty of people make claims about the Christian deity that are empirically falsifiable, and that it intervenes in the natural physical world, and such claims are ubiquitous in the bible. However I don't care how low others set the bar for their own credulity, they can believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes them happy. 

Beginning with Plato and Aristotle, on through Plotinus, and of course all the way through Spinoza and Hegel, God is not a sensible object (that is, knowable through the senses) but an intelligible object (known only through the mind). 

 If you think they have compelling arguments for a deity then present them, and I'll take a look, but I am dubious that one can argue an abstract idea into objective reality, especially in the complete absence of any objective evidence. One could believe just about anything in this way surely?

No philosopher you can name relies on the "we have no other explanation therefore God" fallacy that you point to.

Since I never claimed otherwise, this seems like another straw man? Though I find such a sweeping and unevidenced claim dubious, my explanation of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy was aimed at those who have used it in this very thread, and of course I have seen countless apologists use it, even professional apologists like William Lane Craig, who also professes to be a professional philosopher btw. However not all philosophers agree that a deity exists, that's a given. If you think you have a compelling argument for a deity, then by all means present it, I will as always keep an open mind, Though As I said, I am dubious that in the complete absence of objective evidence that one can argue an abstract idea into existence. 

Some theologians rely on prophecy or revelation for specific aspects of their God -- for example, that he is a trinity. But all of them also hold that through natural theology -- without special revelation -- the existence of God can be proven. Just not with the sort of evidence that science uses. 

Forgive me, but some people deny objective facts like species evolution, and the shape of the earth, why should this be relevant to me trying to set as objective a standard as I can for credulity? Also those theologians of course don't agree, they use identical or very similar arguments and arrive at very different religions and deities, that does not seem like a reliable methodology to me, but then they have long revered the vapidity of subjective faith, which is useless in establishing truth. 

FYI I never mentioned science, and I have already explained at length why I find claims that prophecy evidence a deity to be irrational. Revelation of course is entirely subjective, and cannot be otherwise, it again could be used to claim just about anything, do you believe claims for revealed truths from all religions? If not then you cannot objectively use the same claim elsewhere, as this kind of bias is the very definition of a closed mind.

If you think you can "prove" (I normally eschew that word in debate) a deity exists, by all means have at it.

For these people, demanding empirical evidence for God 

Except I  am not demanding it for them, am I?

I'm only pointing out that your demand for a certain kind of evidence leaves unaddressed all of the philosophical and theological reasons people have for believing in God.

Well to be fair, you don't know what I have and have not addressed, but yes I think sufficient objective evidence is a higher standard for credulity, that is why I set it. This is not say that philosophy is not a useful discipline, but it has been superseded by the methodologies of science for example (since you bring it up), precisely because the scientific methods provide results that more reliably reflect objective reality. Though it is worth noting here, that it was you who brought science up, and not me. 

I can only address the claims and arguments people make of course, but since my own threshold for credulity is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated to support beliefs, then that is my first question. Others may set whatever standard they are minded to, and pick which philosophers and which arguments they find compelling.

[Paleophyte]

I'm curious why you think that a God, if it existed, would be the sort of thing that could be demonstrated with objective evidence.

Personally, I wouldn't. Other people like the OP and countless other evangelical fundamentalists like him keep harping on about 'Mine is the One True Way and here's the Proof!' And it's at that point that any reasonable person goes: