Manufacturing Proof

Cartoon satirizing one of the many disbeliever strawman effigies
used to "debate" against theists, with this one illustrating
the nonsensical: "See, there's no God because you
can't MAKE people believe in it if they don't want to!"

Mina Sinard - Why does one need 'proof' that God exists? What constitutes 'proof'?

Muhammad Rasheed - No one needs ‘proof’ that God exists. The One God commands humankind to believe in their Guardian Lord who created them as a portion of their salvation. ‘Faith’ is the activating principle enabling one to avoid hell and attain the eternal bliss of paradise according to the One God’s message revealed as a guide for that very purpose.

Therefore, anyone claiming that ‘proof’ is needed for God to exist, when God doesn’t require it at all, is speaking as an enemy and is not to be trusted or taken seriously.

Sam Adams - "Faith is believing what you know ain’t true." ~Mark Twain

But if you want a serious answer, did you know I can fly like Superman? Believe me? Or do you need proof? And if you won’t believe that without proof why would you believe an even more incredible claim (that god exists) without proof?

Muhammad Rasheed - The Wright Bros had faith that their experimentation would pay off despite all the failure from both them and their rivals. It’s difficult to take Twain’s comment seriously as he was clearly not an expert on the topic. #IsThisYourGod

You’re an Internet troll asking me if I believe your unsolicited claims that I have no reason to care about. I don’t think you thought that through all the way.

Sam Adams - Not at all.

I did think it thru. You’re the one that hasn’t thought thru what it means to believe something without proof. If you won’t believe my unproven claim why would you believe an even more amazing one - that there is some sort of all powerful invisible superbeing that not only created the universe but who is busy watching everything you do?

But if you don’t like that, why would you need proof that unicorns exist? (They’re even referenced in the Bible). Or that pixies exist? Or centaurs?

Muhammad Rasheed - You clearly didn’t think it through.

The all-powerful One God said XYZ, while this “Sam Adams” said ABC, and thinks it reasonable that his ABC should be taken equally as seriously as the Supreme Creator’s XYZ.

And that makes sense to you? No wonder you quoted Twain’s claptrap with such confidence.

Muhammad Rasheed - Honestly, what do you have that would make me believe you over God? You’re a human just like me, who fits the exact same profile of every shallowly arrogant disbeliever I have ever met. Did you magically become all-powerful and all-knowing at some point? Do you have an ages old enduring scriptural message found throughout human civilization in some form or another? From here you look exactly like the disbeliever type that God makes fun of in the Book.

What’s supposed to be different about YOU?

Twain quoting?

Sam Adams - I didn’t think it thru? Why should I believe something with no evidence?

And I know my claim was nonsensical - that’s the entire point.

Do you believe in unicorns? They’re even referenced in the bible.

But, if you want to be taken seriously you’re going to have to start by proving that a “Supreme Creator” exists. And given that far smarter people than anyone posting here have been trying to prove that for centuries with absolutely no success I do wish you luck.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sam wrote: "I didn’t think it thru?"

No. The rules of the belief system are thus and so, but you insist those rules should be replaced with rules of your own liking in order for you to participate and you somehow believe that is a reasonable position to take. The choice is to either accept the system on its terms, or walk away.

Sam wrote: "Why should I believe something with no evidence?"

Because you would want to enjoy the reward offered in exchange for that belief. You either agree to play or reject it. Those are the options.

Sam wrote: "And I know my claim was nonsensical - that’s the entire point."

The problem with your point is that you pitted your finite human-level understanding that begins and ends with "Sam Adams" against the Word of the Supreme Creator of reality, whose revealed message is the enduring scripture of the ages that entire civilizations have been built up around. You're going to have to level up significantly in order for your point to make sense in the way you wished it to from my perspective as a believer.

Sam wrote: "Do you believe in unicorns? They’re even referenced in the bible."

Here: Aaron Breceda's answer to Does the Bible refer to unicorns?

The reason why you take the position you take is because you don't care to know anymore about the topic than the shallow portion you only think you know. You don't have an argument, "Sam Adams."

Sam wrote: "But, if you want to be taken seriously..."

At this point I'm genuinely curious as to why someone who should know I 100% believe they are doomed to eternal torment would think I was concerned as to whether they took my opinions about the unseen spirit they reject seriously or not.

Sam wrote: "...you’re going to have to start by proving that a 'Supreme Creator' exists."

To recap, that Supreme Creator told me in the revealed scripture provided for the purpose that 'proof' isn't needed at all, only my faith is needed as the activating principle to Win at Life. By contrast, those doomed to fail miserably and colossally at life hold the exact opposite opinion of what that Supreme Creator said.

But you've expressed that I should somehow be concerned as to whether you take ME seriously or not. Curious.

Sam wrote: "And given that far smarter people than anyone posting here have been trying to prove that for centuries with absolutely no success I do wish you luck."

The Supreme Creator is the very Author of TRUTH -- God spoke reality itself into existence and is the determiner of what is real or not real (that's why God gets to be God, you see). So it would seem that all of these odd souls who've wasted -- centuries, you say? -- trying to prove that the Omniscient Lord of All the Worlds is wrong, are no where near as "smart" as you want to give them credit for. lol

I suggest you repent, submit your whole will to your Guardian Lord who created you, do good deeds in this world in the name of God and reject evil that you may manage to save yourself from hell.

Sam Adams - No, I am not insisting those rules be replaced with anything. I’m just saying “provide some evidence that your belief is true”.

After all, there are thousands of other gods that are worshiped by billions of people. What makes you think that you’re right and they’re wrong.

What makes your belief in your god any different from someone else’s belief in Odin, Zeus, Mithra, El Shaddai, or whoever? You can’t all be right.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sam wrote: “No,  I am not insisting those rules be replaced with anything.”

And yet that’s exactly what your entire argument is hinged upon.

You see me playing baseball, but you don’t want to play unless I use the tools of baseball for the game of jacks you prefer instead. In a matter of faith, the belief system of the unseen spirit, scientific proofs or evidence is not required. Insisting that the tools of an alien system not designed for them are forced into use—or you will proclaim them false from your unreasonable position that doesn’t fit this system’s rules—functions as an attack.

Sam wrote: “I’m just saying ‘provide some evidence that your belief is true.’”

Why would I even attempt to entertain that concept when my belief system literally doesn’t require it to function? In fact, “Belief that the System is true” is literally the activating principle that sets it in motion. So your request comes across like: “I’m just saying you should bite the back of your own head’s fish light.”

Sam wrote: “After all, there are thousands of other gods…”

There’s just One God who has always told humankind from the beginning of the species that there was just the One God. Humans tend to add their own foolishness to the message in the linear flow of human culture creation, which required the continuous anointing of new prophets to set us back on the Path of Truth: There is no God but the One God. All of this is explained in the revealed scripture sent to us for the purpose, to guide us aright that we may know Truth.

Sam wrote: “What makes you think that you’re right and they’re wrong. You can’t all be right.”

God is the Determiner of what is right and what is wrong, and instructed us in Truth in the Book (conspicuously, none of these other ‘deities’ you’ve listed have ever provided a response scripture of any kind when the One God declared them all as fictions). It’s our job to align to it so we can Win.

Sam Adams - No it’s not. You’re making an argument that has no more support than a belief in Zeus, Odin, or El Shaddai. Or unicorns for that matter. If you want to believe something for absolutely no reason beyond “someone told you it’s true” or “you’ve got a book” that’s fine. But don’t expect that belief to rank any higher than my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other mythical being.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sam wrote: “No it’s not.”

Sure, it is.

Sam wrote: “You’re making an argument that has no more support than…”

The support comes from the record of sacred scripture, which is a real thing. That’s a real thing that the other ‘deities’ you’ve listed lack altogether, yes?

something > nothing

Sam wrote: “Or unicorns for that matter.”

Did that link go over your head? The original ancient Hebrew was literally referring to a mono-horned animal that is now extinct. :) The quasi-modern scribes tossed in “unicorn” because that was their only frame of reference.

Sam wrote: “If you want to believe something for…”

I believe because my Maker said it was so. That’s how I Win. So I Win.

Sam wrote: “…that’s fine.”

I KNOW it’s fine, because my Maker said it was so.

Sam Adams - Hate to tell you this but there are other religions in this world with their own sacred scriptures. What makes you think your book is any more valid than theirs is?

The claim that support for your ideas comes from sacred scripture is no more valid than claiming that that support for Zeus, Mithra, Odin or any other god comes from the writings of their believers.

To digress... a thought exercise:

Choose any god but your own (could be one of the ones I suggested or another one - all that’s important is that you don’t believe that god exists); Tell us why you believe that god does not exist; Apply the same logic to your god; Congratulations you are now an atheist.

As for the “truth” of your sacred scripture, there are two classical logical fallacies that you should be aware of:

Argument from Antiquity - basically says that something must be true because it’s been around for a long time;

Argumentum ad Populum (argument from the people) - basically an argument that concludes something must be true because many people believe it.

As for your claim that you believe something because your maker told you it’s true, when did you last talk to him? [If I was being sarcastic I’d tell you that I might believe Timothy Leary if he told me that but not too many other people.] How exactly did he tell you?

So we’re back to my original point. Why should I believe that your god exists if you don’t believe that all the others exist?

Muhammad Rasheed - Show me just one of these rival scriptures that directly addresses the claims of the One God and contradicts them, please.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sam wrote: “…when did you last talk to him?”

That’s literally the point of sacred scripture; in talking to me He talked to all of humankind. I apologize for assuming that was elementary enough not to need explanation. I thought that part was commonly understood.

Muhammad Rasheed - Neither of the two showcased logical fallacies apply to me, and your attempt to pin them on me—despite my not having used those as points—counts as a strawman effigy. If anything I’m ‘guilty’ of using the circulus in probando one instead:

circulus in probando ("circular reasoning") - a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with; the components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sam wrote: “Why should I believe that your god exists if you don’t believe that all the others exist?”

You should believe in God to save yourself from eternal torment and so you may enjoy eternal bliss. You should believe because the One God is the only God to definitively tell humanity who He is with a formal message, tell us what His relationship to creation is, and to provide formal guidance that we may prosper from the knowledge that our Guardian Lord is real.

I don’t care whether you do one or the other; it’s not my job to save you, just to share the message. You may do as you like with the info with my blessing.

In the message, God explains that it was humankind who strayed and invented the fictional deities that you lot are so fond of listing for me in these arguments after clear guidance had already been given about the matter. It’s the reason why God had to anoint regular prophets to guide us back to the Right Way every time we did it.

Sam Adams - I don’t want you to save me. So far you’re doing a pretty poor job of convincing me that there is any validity to your opinions. But you should watch this - take particular note of what he says at the 45 second mark and his immediately following comments.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sam wrote: “I don’t want you to save me.”

Do you at least realize that you saying that after I point blank told you it WASN’T my job to save you makes this comment a formal, textbook strawman effigy logical fallacy? Saving you isn’t in my to-do list, so you may battle against that faux-argument all you like without me.

Sam wrote: “So far you’re doing a pretty poor job of convincing me…”

Another strawman. It is 100% NOT my job to convince you, O Mr. Horse, to drink from the water, it was just my job to let you know it was there in the usual fashion. It’s your job to BELIEVE.

Sam wrote: “But you should watch this…”

No, I shouldn’t.

Literally there’s nothing you’ve typed here that gives me any motivation in clicking a link that impresses you. No thanks.

Sam Adams - As far as I can tell you’re comments boil down to “I believe what I believe because I believe it”. Hardly impressive reasoning.

All I really want is some evidence supporting your beliefs - and a 2,000 year old book written by men doesn’t constitute evidence.

As for my video - I only posted that to explain why I don’t want to be saved (by you or anyone else). But if you’re afraid to have your faith challenged that’s your call.

But if for the sake of argument we assume that the god of the bible exists he’s a moral monster. A demon. And he’s definitely not worthy of worship.

You might want to read this book - just collections of passages from the Bible that prove that the god of Abraham has earned the title of the most unpleasant being in all fiction many times over.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sam wrote: “As far as I can tell you’re comments boil down to ‘I believe what I believe because I believe it.’”

Allow me to assist: I believe what I believe because the All-Powerful Supreme Creator of the heavens & the earth said it was so and I would be a fool to reject truth.

Sam wrote: “Hardly impressive reasoning.”

Do you somehow believe it is impressive to insist that a literal “belief system” that uses ‘faith’ as it’s activating principle should somehow conjure non-belief system tools to dance for the whims of a narrow-minded outsider? Because your position doesn’t seem even remotely reasonable or even basic-level intelligent. It sounds like you’ve dedicated yourself to the tantrums of a brat.

Sam wrote: “All I really want is some evidence…”

Who cares what you want?

Sam wrote: “…supporting your beliefs - and a 2,000 year old book written by men doesn’t constitute evidence.”

Books don’t count as evidence, huh, Mr. Moving-the-Goal-Post? Better tell all those scholars to stop citing them then.

Sam wrote: “As for my video - I only posted that to explain why I don’t want to be saved (by you or anyone else).”

lol For at least the third time, it’s not my job to save you, Sam. What’s wrong with you? I mean, really? hahahaha

Sam wrote: “But if you’re afraid to have your faith challenged that’s your call.”

Read back through this thread and kindly point out all the times you were supposed to have actually challenged my faith. Strawman effigies aren’t challenges, if you please.

You don’t know enough to challenge me on this stuff.

Sam wrote: “But if for the sake of argument we assume that the god of the bible exists he’s a moral monster.”

God invented morality as you know it, and this is just more of your tantrum because you refuse to believe and you lack an actual argument.

Sam wrote: “You might want to read this book…”

lol No, I might not. (see: my above response to your other offer to watch a whatever) Stop doing that, please. You are not leaving the impression upon me that you think you are.

Sam Adams - M. Rasheed wrote: "...the All-Powerful Supreme Creator of the heavens & the earth said it was so"

If you have any proof of that, you might have a point.

And all those so called “challenges to your faith” reduce to “prove it”.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sam wrote: "If you have any proof of that, you might have a point."

lol Remember that Book you said somehow didn't count because of your arbitrary disbeliever rules for a system you don't know enough about and don't believe in because you just don't care? Books are often used as proof even under secular rules, it turns out.

But I don't have to "prove it" because the system doesn't require proof to function. So you aren't challenging the faith, you are having a tantrum because you can't have your way: "Make this ice cream fly under its own power! Do you take the challenge?!" lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Sam's meme: "There's not a single religion that can survive these two words: Prove It"

You know Al-Islam is 1,500 yrs old (and counting), right? In the Qur'an, Allah actually quotes/paraphrases 7th century Arab disbelievers asking for 'proof' of the prophet Muhammad's claims (pbuh). Do I need to point out that there's significantly more Muslims in the world today than there were back when God revealed the verses making fun of those simps?

I think your meme lost the 'not a single religion can survive our narrow-minded challenge" contest, unless 1,500 yrs somehow doesn't count as "survival" to you. But thanks for playing, I guess.