Is this logical?

Trailblazer said:

This thread is not about the logical way for God to communicate. It was an effort to determine if the statement in the OP logically follows.

Click to expand...

Depending on how you define god and communicate determines if it is logical or not.

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

If I define God = Joe and Communication = Talk

Joe not talking directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that Joe does not talk directly to everyone, that this means that if Joe existed Joe would not talk directly to everyone. Joe could not talk to everyone directly.

bobhikes said:

Depending on how you define god and communicate determines if it is logical or not.

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

If I define God = Joe and Communication = Talk

Joe not talking directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that Joe does not talk directly to everyone, that this means that if Joe existed Joe would not talk directly to everyone. Joe could not talk to everyone directly.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that it is possible that even if Joe existed and communicated Joe might not be able to talk directly to everyone and that might be the reason why Joe does not talk directly to everyone?

bobhikes said:

If I define God = Sun and Communication = shine

Sun not shinning directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that sun does not shine directly to everyone, that this means that is sun existed sun would not shine directly to everyone. Sun may or may not shine directly on everyone depending on the time frame.​

Click to expand...

What a topic! We have a saying in Hindi\Urdu: Na Soot na kapas, Julahe se lattham lattha - You neither have the thread nor cotton, and you are picking up a quarrel with the weaver. What proof do you have for existence of God. Discuss Gods talking after you have established his existence. Would he do this or would he do that comes after him being there. You have no proof for that.

Aupmanyav said:

Discuss Gods talking after you have established his existence. Would he do this or would he do that comes after he being there. You have no proof for that.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the atheist who is the writer of that OP. He is the one who talks about the god he does not believe exists incessantly as if that God actually exists. Go figure.

Trailblazer said:

Is this logical? Why or why not? God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

Click to expand...

He seems to be saying that because no god communicates with us directly, it means that if there is a god, that god would not communicate with us directly. Assuming I have it right - the language is awkward - I would have to change would not to does not in order for it to be sensible.

Trailblazer said:

When I asked people if they thought that statement was logical I was trying to find out if people saw what I saw as illogical. I consider that statement as written to be illogical because if God has never communicated directly with everyone (speaking to everyone individually), that means God would not do that because God does not do that.

Click to expand...

Is that comment in bold your interpretation of what the other person means, or your own opinion of what is the case? Either way, I don't agree with the statement. It assumes the existence of a god. One reason that no god has ever communicated with everybody is no god has communicated with anybody either because there is no god, or if there is a god, possibly because such a god is incapable of communicating with us directly or unaware of our existence. It a logical error and an act of faith to assume the existence of any god until one has sufficient evidence to justify the belief

Trailblazer said:

Tell that to the atheist who is the writer of that OP. He is the one who talks about the god he does not believe exists incessantly as if that God actually exists.

Click to expand...

We all talk about gods we don't believe in. I don't understand why that deserves criticism. What we are discussing is no different than discussing a character from fiction that we don't believe in. Santa is jolly and fat. Dracula bites necks and can be killed with a silver cross. Am I discussing those characters as if they actually exist?

Why is it inappropriate to do the same with Yahweh, for example? It is in that way that I have ruled out the existence of the god of the Christian Bible. It is said to possess mutually exclusive characteristics at the same time, such as being perfect, but making mistakes that it regrets, or being omniscient, yet granting free will. Here I am discussing the qualities of a god that I have concluded from that discussion is fictional. I consider that valid.

Trailblazer said:

I said "apparently" he is confused about whether God exists or not, but I do not think he is confused about that, although I think he is confused about other things, such as what God would do if God existed.
He is a hard atheist, but he is the strangest atheist I have ever seen because he talks about God as if God exists and he talks about God incessantly, as if God exists.

He gave me full permission to post what he writes on this forum and in fact he wants to be sure that what I post is EXACTLY as he wrote it, not my translation of what he said. You can verify everything I am saying by going to my forum. I have exited my forum as of last night and left the little boys to play in their sand box. I could not take the insanity anymore. You can go and play with them in their sand box if you want to. I have left my forum and I am not moderating it.

Click to expand...

Seriously?!? We are supposed to take your word for this? You've already waffled on a couple of key points.

Now you expect me to go into your forum and find an unnamed strange, apparently confused atheist and ask him if he wrote what you said he did!

NAH!

Until you show otherwise, we'll all just believe that it's your confused writing, or that of your mentor, Shogi Effendi.

Trailblazer said:

God does speak in a WAY everyone can hear, through His Messengers who reveal scriptures. For those who can't see or hear, it is on audio and in braille.

Click to expand...

Oh Goody. I, GOD, want to communicate my wonderous message to all the peoples of the world. Hmm, how to best do that? Oh, I know! I'll find a Guy named Bab and have him tell all the peoples about me and my wonders.

some time passes

Hm. Babi didn't work out too good. Oh, I know, I'll have Babi tell everyone that the Real Messenger is gonna be a guy named Baluluah. An unknown guy who has a problem with the Traditional Islam that I set up with my previous messenger, Muhammed. (thinks: Gee, I hope Baluluah does a better job than Muhammed did)

Trailblazer said:

I think it is more the other way around. Imo, you believing that the Almighty God lowers Himself to a human level is based upon what you want. I do not believe that is possible and it would not matter if I wanted it or not. It is a moot point.

The only exceptions are the Manifestations of God, what I normally refer to as Messengers or Prophets. Imo, there is no path that leads to God, because God is far, far above anything that can ever be recounted or perceived. People can imagine anything they want to because God gave us the ability to think and imagine, but that does not mean what people imagine is real.

I can agree with that, but words are what we have in this material world of existence. It is possible that God could communicate to the minds of some people, but there would be no way to ever know that it was God, so I see no point in believing that.

The psychiatrist is not claiming to know the Real Truth. How do you think that you know the Real Truth? Assumptions can often be wrong.


You will Discover something about the man or about life, but you will not Discover the Truth about God. The most you will Discover about the man are the Attributes of God reflected in the man.

Of course we have to make the effort to Discover things in this life. We would still be in the Stone Age if humans had not made these efforts. But religion in no way precludes Discovery. By contrast, it aids in Discovery of our True Selves.

Click to expand...

You wall yourself in with the rules you create. This will wall you from the truth as well. Truth does not always come in the agreeable terms of one's beliefs. On a True journey to Discovery, one must be open to all possibilities.

Why do you think it is a lowering of God if God decides to visit one of His children? I don't see it. A visit doesn't change God in any way.

Next, you tell me God would never visit anyone, then you say except for your messengers. How would you decide who was a messenger or not? Choose your beliefs then box around them to narrow the view.

Communication with God is not a vague thing. If you have a true conversation with God, you are going to know it. I know you can not conceive this but we all already know God. You will know God. God also has ways far beyond those of mortal men. God will not value the petty things mankind holds so dear. This is also something very noticeable. Hold onto your hat.

God hides nothing. There is so much more to Discover than the mere beliefs of other men writing holy books telling you it comes from God. When one truly Discovers God, it becomes clear those holy books do not come from God.

Still, each chooses what they want to learn. Life isn't necessarily about Discovering God. There are an almost unlimited number of lessons people are learning. As I have said before, this world isn't about God. God created it all for us in order to Learn and Grow. On the other hand, there are many many lessons to learn around religion and holy books. Learn mankind well for that is who the holy books reflect in so many different ways.

Well, that's what I see. It's very clear.

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Trailblazer said: Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

You said: He seems to be saying that because no god communicates with us directly, it means that if there is a god, that god would not communicate with us directly. Assuming I have it right - the language is awkward - I would have to change would not to does not in order for it to be sensible.

Click to expand...

No, he is saying the exact opposite thing. He is saying that we know that God (if God exists) has never communicated to everyone directly, but that does not mean that if there is a God, that God would not communicate to everyone directly. In other words, he thinks that God (if God exists) would communicate directly to everyone, even though God does not do that…. How much sense does that make?

Simply put, if God exists and God has never communicated directly to everyone that means that God would not communicate directly to everyone. Why can’t this atheist poster see what is so obvious? I posted this here to see if anyone else could see why what he said makes no sense.

If I change would not to does not as you suggested, this is how it would read:

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God does not communicate directly to everyone

That completely changes the meaning. It would then mean that even though we cannot observe God communicating directly to everyone, God (if God exists) could still be communicating directly to everyone and some people just do not realize it. Some people who responded to the OP believe that is what is happening; God is communicating directly to everyone but not everyone has ‘eyes to see and ears to hear’ as Jesus said. I adamantly disagree with people who believe this because it is as much as saying that atheists are blind and deaf because they don’t see what I see….

Imo, believers who say this about atheists are arrogant and they are abusing scripture to make their points because I do not think Jesus ever meant to say that everyone can hear from God if only they listen. In fact, Jesus said that nobody gets to the Father except by Him, which means they cannot get direct communication from God.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I do not believe that God communicates directly to anyone except His chosen Messengers and we have to go through them in order to know what God has communicated. I will never change my position because it is a core tenet of the Baha’i Faith; not only that but it makes complete logical sense if you know WHY God only communicates through Messengers rather than to everyone. But it is not the purpose of this thread to explain why this makes sense. If anyone wants to know, they would have to start a new thread and ask me, because I do not want to get dinged for proselytizing, even though it would not be proselytizing to explain this.

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Trailblazer said: When I asked people if they thought that statement was logical I was trying to find out if people saw what I saw as illogical. I consider that statement as written to be illogical because if God has never communicated directly with everyone (speaking to everyone individually), that means God would not do that because God does not do that.

You said: Is that comment in bold your interpretation of what the other person means, or your own opinion of what is the case?

Click to expand...

It is my own opinion of what is the case, not my interpretation of what the other person means (since it is the opposite of what the other person believes, as noted above).

Either way, I don't agree with the statement. It assumes the existence of a god. One reason that no god has ever communicated with everybody is no god has communicated with anybody either because there is no god, or if there is a god, possibly because such a god is incapable of communicating with us directly or unaware of our existence. It a logical error and an act of faith to assume the existence of any god until one has sufficient evidence to justify the belief

What this atheist said in the OP assumes the existence of a God in order to make his point, so it is hypothetical – IF God exists. I agree with one thing you said is a logical possibility: One reason that no god has ever communicated with everybody is no god has communicated with anybody because there is no god.

I do not agree that if there is a god, such a god is incapable of communicating with us directly or unaware of our existence. Imo, God is probably capable of communicating with everyone directly, but according to my beliefs humans are incapable of understanding God directly, so that is one reason God does not communicate with everyone directly.

I also do not agree that if there is god, God is unaware of our existence, because God would not be God if He was not even aware of His Creation. (I am not implying that God created humans, I believe we evolved, but that is another topic I do not want to get into now.)

Below are what I consider the three logical possibilities, based upon what has been observed in the world:

1. God exists and communicates through Messengers (theist)
2. God exists and does not communicate (deist)
3. God does not exist (atheist)

As I have told the atheist poster who wrote the OP innumerable times, it is not a logical possibility that if God exists, God would communicate directly to everyone because that has never happened. Do you understand what I mean?

It Aint Necessarily So said:

We all talk about gods we don't believe in. I don't understand why that deserves criticism. What we are discussing is no different than discussing a character from fiction that we don't believe in. Santa is jolly and fat. Dracula bites necks and can be killed with a silver cross. Am I discussing those characters as if they actually exist?

Click to expand...

I have no problem with atheists talking about the god they do not believe exists; in fact, I like talking to atheists about God because I want to know why they think the way they do. However, some atheists seem to think that we should not be talking about God until we can prove that God exists. That is a Catch-22 because nobody can prove that God exists.

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Why is it inappropriate to do the same with Yahweh, for example? It is in that way that I have ruled out the existence of the god of the Christian Bible. It is said to possess mutually exclusive characteristics at the same time, such as being perfect, but making mistakes that it regrets, or being omniscient, yet granting free will. Here I am discussing the qualities of a god that I have concluded from that discussion is fictional. I consider that valid.

Click to expand...

It is completely valid. I would rather talk to an atheist about God any day, rather than a believer, because I share many of the same sentiments. Besides that, I am very analytical so I like to tear things apart and analyze them. I think that the Bible can be made to make sense if we interpret it correctly. The problem as I see it is that most people do not interpret it correctly. Imo, in order to be able to do that you need more than what is written IN the Bible. I believe I have the advantage because I have the Baha’i Writings that explain how we can have free will in the presence of an omniscient God, for example.

Also, it is laughable to me that verses that say that God had regrets means that God regrets anything. Imo, these are nothing but anthropomorphisms; God does not have regrets because God cannot mistakes because God is Infallible and Inerrant. If one knows the Attributes of God then they can understand how what was attributed to God in the Bible is anthropomorphic and cannot be true. How or why it got written into the Bible that way is another conversation and I do not pretend to know. I am not a Bible expert by any means because I was never a Christian and I never studied the Bible.

ecco said:

Seriously?!? We are supposed to take your word for this? You've already waffled on a couple of key points.

Click to expand...

You don't have to take my word for this. You can go to my forum and verify everything I said.

ecco said:

Now you expect me to go into your forum and find an unnamed strange, apparently confused atheist and ask him if he wrote what you said he did!

NAH!

Click to expand...

Okay, don't go, but you won't have any problem finding this 'unnamed atheist' because he is the only poster on my forum, except for an occasional passerby who is a Baha'i.

As I said, I exited my forum a couple of days ago so he is getting very lonely all by himself because the other guy has not been coming around to play with him. It would be really interesting if you showed up and posted there because he is not going to post here. He snoops around here though because he grabbed some things from this thread and posted them to me, hoping he could hook me back into a dialogue... No way Jose.... until he answers the questions I asked him I am not talking to him again.

You do not have to be a member to read on Delphi Forums. Just Google 'delphi spiritual horizon' and it is the first thing that comes up. Click on that and then click on the thread at the top called Have Fun. There are only two posts on it, mine and his, so that should be easy peasy.

ecco said:

Until you show otherwise, we'll all just believe that it's your confused writing, or that of your mentor, Shogi Effendi.

Click to expand...

You might believe that but you do not know what all the other people will believe.

ecco said:

Oh Goody. I, GOD, want to communicate my wonderous message to all the peoples of the world. Hmm, how to best do that? Oh, I know! I'll find a Guy named Bab and have him tell all the peoples about me and my wonders.

some time passes

Hm. Babi didn't work out too good. Oh, I know, I'll have Babi tell everyone that the Real Messenger is gonna be a guy named Baluluah. An unknown guy who has a problem with the Traditional Islam that I set up with my previous messenger, Muhammed. (thinks: Gee, I hope Baluluah does a better job than Muhammed did)

Click to expand...

No comment. If you want to talk about the Baha'i Faith you will have to come to my forum. I am not talking about it here unless it is directly related to a dialogue I am having or someone asks me a direct question, because I do not want to get accused of proselytizing.

You might be able to hook some other Baha'is into defending our beliefs, just leave me out of it.

And as I told the little boys on my forum, Have Fun.

Trailblazer said:

I think there are some ways to determine probability....
Take this example. I have been married for about 35 years and my husband has never gone out on me. What are the chances that my husband is going to suddenly decide to do that?

Click to expand...

You are providing data thus stats. You proved my point.

Likewise, God has never communicated directly to everyone since humanity came into existence seven million years ago. So what are the chances that God is going to suddenly decide to do that?

Click to expand...

Assertion. You have zero evidence for or against. For all you know in the year 706 ad God communicated to everyone but we in 2020 lack the records.

Sure, it is logically possible, but logic is not a good way to determine what God will do.

Click to expand...

An empty assertion is not logical.

Bird123 said:

You wall yourself in with the rules you create. This will wall you from the truth as well. Truth does not always come in the agreeable terms of one's beliefs. On a True journey to Discovery, one must be open to all possibilities.

Click to expand...

What you think you see me doing is what I believe you are doing, walling yourself off in the agreeable terms of your beliefs about Discovery.

Bird123 said:

Why do you think it is a lowering of God if God decides to visit one of His children? I don't see it. A visit doesn't change God in any way.

Click to expand...

It is not about what I think, it is about what I believe, and not only because of my religion, but because of what makes sense to me. Imo, the Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe, does not “visit” humans on earth. This is not about whether it changes God; it is just pure logic and reason. God is not a material being who can come down for a visit.

Bird123 said:

Next, you tell me God would never visit anyone, then you say except for your messengers. How would you decide who was a messenger or not? Choose your beliefs then box around them to narrow the view.

Click to expand...

Imo, God does not visit Messengers either. He communicates to them through the Holy Spirit. I decide who is a Messenger or not by investigating the Messenger; I look at His character, and His mission and His writings.

I have no box around my beliefs.

Bird123 said:

Communication with God is not a vague thing. If you have a true conversation with God, you are going to know it. I know you can not conceive this but we all already know God. You will know God. God also has ways far beyond those of mortal men. God will not value the petty things mankind holds so dear. This is also something very noticeable. Hold onto your hat.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I totally disagree that anyone can ever have a conversation with God unless they are chosen by God, making them a Messenger of God. If I say anymore I will get kicked off this forum. Suffice to say, you have your beliefs and I have my beliefs and never the twain shall meet. You have just as much of a right to your beliefs as I have to mine.

Bird123 said:

God hides nothing. There is so much more to Discover than the mere beliefs of other men writing holy books telling you it comes from God. When one truly Discovers God, it becomes clear those holy books do not come from God.

Click to expand...

Again, I disagree, because I believe that God hides most everything, and this is one reason there are atheists. I do not believe anyone can ever Discover God, not even a Messenger. However, I believe that when one reads the holy books it becomes clear that they came from God, even though some holy books reflect man's ideas about God, not God.

Bird123 said:

Still, each chooses what they want to learn. Life isn't necessarily about Discovering God. There are an almost unlimited number of lessons people are learning. As I have said before, this world isn't about God. God created it all for us in order to Learn and Grow. On the other hand, there are many many lessons to learn around religion and holy books. Learn mankind well for that is who the holy books reflect in so many different ways.

Click to expand...

I agree that life isn't necessarily about Discovering God, first because we can never Discover God and second because there are many other things in this life to Discover besides God.

I also agree that God created it all for us in order to Learn and Grow.

I also agree that “certain” Holy Books reflect mankind rather than God.

Well, that's what I see. It's very clear.

Shad said:

Assertion. You have zero evidence for or against. For all you know in the year 706 ad God communicated to everyone but we in 2020 lack the records.

Click to expand...

I am fine with that. I withdraw the assertion.

Anything is possible, but I go with probabilities, not possibilities.
I go with I believe can be known, not with what I can never know.

Shad said:

An empty assertion is not logical.

Click to expand...

No, an empty assertion is a bald assertion.
But that does not change the fact that logic is not a good way to determine what God will do.
In fact, logic cannot determine what God will do, period.

Trailblazer said:

Anything is possible, but I go with probabilities, not possibilities.

Click to expand...

The two are linked in some ways depending on topic.

No, an empty assertion is a bald assertion.

Click to expand...

Which is applicable to what I said was an assertion.

But that does not change the fact that logic is not a good way to determine what God will do.

Click to expand...

It is applicable only in cases which are clear cut like a squared circle.

In fact, logic cannot determine what God will do, period.

Click to expand...

See above.

Shad said:

It is applicable only in cases which are clear cut like a squared circle.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I am not going down this road with you so you will have to walk it alone.
Besides, that certainly sounds like an assertion to me.
How do you think you know what God can do based upon human logic?

"God is omnipotent so God can do anything" except what is illogically impossible won't work on me.
I won't even respond to it because I consider it utterly inane.
So I am giving you a heads-up so you will know why I did not respond.

Trailblazer said:

Sorry, I am not going down this road with you so you will have to walk it alone.

Click to expand...

Why bother arguing against a logical impossibility?

Besides, that certainly sounds like an assertion to me.

Click to expand...

Nope. It is a logical impossibility. Look up the definition of circle and square. Those are incompatible ergo a logical impossibility.

How do you think you know what God can do based upon human logic?

Click to expand...

As per my example of a logical impossibility. Ergo God will never do this as it is impossible by defination.

God is omnipotent so God can do anything won't work on me.

Click to expand...

Illogical definition of omnipotent.

I won't even respond to it because I consider it utterly inane.

Click to expand...

That is because you are irrational when it comes to that specific issue.

So I am giving you a heads-up so you will know why I did not respond.

Click to expand...

Yet you responded. Now draw me a picture of a squared circled. Let see how your illogical belief works on paper. I will wait. Of course you will just run away as you always do when I bring this issue up to you. You never defend your point. You just assert and retreat.

Shad said:

Why bother arguing against a logical impossibility?

Nope. It is a logical impossibility. Look up the definition of circle and square. Those are incompatible ergo a logical impossibility.

As per my example of a logical impossibility. Ergo God will never do this as it is impossible by defination.

Illogical definition of omnipotent.

That is because you are irrational when it comes to that specific issue.

Yet you responded. Now draw me a picture of a squared circled. Let see how your illogical belief works on paper. I will wait. Of course you will just run away as you always do when I bring this issue up to you. You never defend your point. You just assert and retreat.

Click to expand...

I already warned you that I would not respond again but here I am.

I do not agree, I will never agree, so there is no point discussing God and logic.
It is not as if I have never been down this road before. I have discussed it with atheists for six years.
Now I am done. Have fun.

Trailblazer said:

I already warned you that I would not respond again but here I am.

Click to expand...

You responded. You make a number of points. Point you will never defend.

I do not agree, I will never agree, so there is no point discussing God and logic.

Click to expand...

Your agreement is not required for a logical impossibility to exist. All you demonstrated is your willful ignorance when it comes to anything touching your dogma.

It is not as if I have never been down this road before. I have discussed it with atheists for six years.

Click to expand...

And more likely than not utterly failed to defend your point. Now draw me a squared circle. I will wait

Now I am done. Have fun.

Click to expand...

Assert and retreat like I said.

Trailblazer said:

I agree that God communicated directly with Adam, but I do not think that God will ever communicate directly with everyone. I believe that Adam was a Manifestation of God (Messenger of God) so that is why God communicated directly with Him. For the same reason God communicated directly to Moses and Jesus.

Click to expand...

Because of the 'sin issue' God does Not directly communicate with everyone.
However, I find in Scripture that since ' enemy death ' will be No more on Earth, then that means that sin will also be No longer on Earth. - 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8
Since sin is the barrier, and sin leads to death, then No more death on Earth also means No more sin on Earth.
Then, as God dealt with a one-on-one with 'sinless Adam', thus God will once again to the same for sinless humanity.
Anyway, this is what I think will be the end result at the end of Jesus' 1,000-year reign over Earth.