• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God’s Method of delivering messages, is it flawed?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Egads... I just wish you could sense the level of internal sighing and eyerolling that is going on inside my brain at this very moment. You are delusional. Where did you EVER (hahahahahaha!) call anyone intellectually remiss? Why... in this EXACT reply no less. Here... let me jog your memory:

Trailblazer said:
Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

Claiming that I made a logical faux pas because I dismissed your claims out of hand (due to complete lack of evidence, which even you admit you are working within) IS claiming that I have been intellectually remiss.
Straw man. I never called you ignorant or intellectually remiss. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy and I said if you assert that is the true that would be an argument from ignorance. I said IF. Moreover, an argument from ignorance does not mean someone is ignorant.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

You said: “There are no consequences to my life to not heeding you, or these "messengers", etc. There are no consequences to my life to not listening to "god" or anyone's ideas of "god."”

I said: “Since you do not KNOW any of that, you can only believe it; but if you assert that is the true that would be an argument from ignorance:”
And the implication of all of this "you do not know for sure that there won't be consequences" is a form of threat. Albeit an extremely tepid and sort of cowardly threat, that's what it is.
Straw man. I did not threaten you and I was not implying anything, I said “I do not KNOW if you can go about your business without a single issue or detriment, and I do not KNOW if there are or will be consequences to your life for not listening to "god" or anyone's ideas of "god" -- so that is why I do not assert any of that.”

What about the words “I do not KNOW” do you NOT understand?
I don't care what there "might be." Hell... YOU don't know that you won't be rejected by the gods from entering Valhalla because you didn't die honorably on the battlefield. Do you walk around worrying about THAT your whole life? I guarantee you don't... and yet that sentiment is epistemologically equivalent to your own. You better start getting into some battles... you don't want to be found to be committing an "argument from ignorance" now, do you? Hahahahahahahaha!!!!! What a joke. Please embark on a quest of self-examination. You have no idea what you are doing, and it shows.
Straw man. I never said or thought or implied that you cared what might be.. You are projecting what you think I think onto me.

I know exactly what I am thinking and feeling, WHAT I say and WHY I say it, and I also know WHAT I mean by what I say.

I have plenty of battles, battles you can only be grateful you will never experience.
If this is all from "Baha'u'llah," then I give him absolutely zero credit. Name-dropping does nothing to impress me. NOTHING. He didn't have the goods either. In my opinion, he never possibly could have. Do I KNOW that for sure? No. But that idea maps 1000 times better to the reality I experience than anything you've put in front of me from "Baha'u'llah."
I was not name-dropping. I was just saying “I make no claims. I said that I only pass along the claims that Baha'u'llah made” because apparently you think I am making my own claims.

You are welcome to have your opinion on who has the goods and who does not. I have a different opinion because I believe Baha'u'llah brought a message from God. I never said I could prove that, as beliefs can never be proven to anyone except oneself.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
when they started tinkering with telecommunications, it was patently obvious that if the receiver was faulty in picking up or clearly rendering that transmission then the system was a fail.
first thing as excuse is typically that it must be attributed to operator error and isn't the 'system' [the tech] that is faulty.
yet there is thousands of years of records where people have made great effort and still.....same results, in general...
this supports strongly the claim that it is the tech that is faulty and not necessarily operator error on the receiving end.
 

PAUL MARKHAM

Well-Known Member
If we are not getting it the message method is flawed. I expect far more than a god who can't even bother to get the easiest of tasks right.

If he were a figment of someone imagination I would expect the message method to be flawed and I would expect the followers to make endless excuses for that. But we are talking about a god!!
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If we are not getting it the message method is flawed.
The method worked fine because the message is there for people who really want it.
However, one has to be seeking in order to find the message. Those who seek are rewarded.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.


Jesus explained why some people understand the message and others do not:

Matthew 13:16-17
But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Straw man. I never called you ignorant or intellectually remiss. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy and I said if you assert that is the true that would be an argument from ignorance. I said IF. Moreover, an argument from ignorance does not mean someone is ignorant.
Not a "strawman" - using a logical fallacy comes along with the idea that you are being intellectually remiss. It just does. What else would you call it? Someone just "made a logical mistake?" Same thing. And do you think I care that you think I am being intellectually remiss? I do not. All I care about in this conversation is that you don't further fool yourself. I try to stomp that crap out every time and in every place I see it.

You said: “There are no consequences to my life to not heeding you, or these "messengers", etc. There are no consequences to my life to not listening to "god" or anyone's ideas of "god."”
And from my perspective and in my experience, there are no consequences to my life. None that can be tied "god" or any idea surrounding him/her/it. I am a godless heathen, with all sorts of my own ideas, completely lacking in belief and failing at every turn to respect or even acknowledge "god." If this sort of behavior comes with consequences, I haven't seen them. Or if I have, then God works at them in secret - which is a pretty lousy and underhanded way to punish someone. If He/She/It is doing that, then he/she/it had better keep me in the dark about it (like he/she/it would have had to have already been doing), otherwise my judgment would ultimately be that this "god" is evil, conniving and malicious.

I said: “Since you do not KNOW any of that, you can only believe it; but if you assert that is the true that would be an argument from ignorance:”
But here again, YOU don't know that psychopathic, alien clowns aren't the source of all of the problems in your life, and that they are secretly watching you and punishing you whenever you do anything they don't agree with. You can't KNOW that this isn't the case. So, I claim that this is what is happening, and you deny this or even just assume that it isn't, then are you guilty of using an "argument from ignorance?" I mean... how silly do you want to get here?

Straw man. I did not threaten you and I was not implying anything, I said “I do not KNOW if you can go about your business without a single issue or detriment, and I do not KNOW if there are or will be consequences to your life for not listening to "god" or anyone's ideas of "god" -- so that is why I do not assert any of that.”
Unfortunately, if you're talking about "god and consequences" in any capacity, and desire that someone buy into your ideas to (supposedly) help them or "save" them, then the threat is there, whether you realize it or not.

What about the words “I do not KNOW” do you NOT understand?
But you keep saying things like: "You don't know that there aren't any consequences... there might be!" - if you have no investment in the idea, and you "don't know," then why would you ever be pushing for people to start worrying about "consequences?" Why? It is just so strange! If you don't know, then don't go around "warning" (i.e. threatening) people about consequences. What is wrong with you?

I know exactly what I am thinking and feeling, WHAT I say and WHY I say it, and I also know WHAT I mean by what I say.
I am of the opinion that you do not.

I have plenty of battles, battles you can only be grateful you will never experience.
Those are consequences of the alien clowns watching over you. I am telling you... YOU DON'T KNOW that they aren't out there, doing this. Don't commit the sin of making an argument from ignorance by denying that this is the case. Do you see what I am saying?

I was not name-dropping.
You dropped a name, and it was in response to my passing judgment on what you were presenting that you apparently agree with or thought was profound or should persuade someone to think more like you do. So, to give your argument more credence, you dropped in "Baha'u'llah." Why does it matter who said it, if it is the truth? Why? It apparently matters to you.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Not a "strawman" - using a logical fallacy comes along with the idea that you are being intellectually remiss. It just does. What else would you call it? Someone just "made a logical mistake?" Same thing.
I said if you assert that is the true that would be an argument from ignorance. I did not say that you were asserting that is true. For the record, I do not think that you are intellectually remiss.
And do you think I care that you think I am being intellectually remiss? I do not. All I care about in this conversation is that you don't further fool yourself. I try to stomp that crap out every time and in every place I see it.
You do not know that I am fooling myself. You have a personal opinion and that is all you have.
And from my perspective and in my experience, there are no consequences to my life. None that can be tied "god" or any idea surrounding him/her/it. I am a godless heathen, with all sorts of my own ideas, completely lacking in belief and failing at every turn to respect or even acknowledge "god." If this sort of behavior comes with consequences, I haven't seen them.
You raise some very valid points. I do not doubt that you do not see them in this life and you probably will not see them in this life, because that is how God set it up, but I believe you will see them in the afterlife, because that is the world of lights where everything becomes clear. I do not know what you will see; only God knows that. It is even possible you will remain in the dark.
Or if I have, then God works at them in secret - which is a pretty lousy and underhanded way to punish someone. If He/She/It is doing that, then he/she/it had better keep me in the dark about it (like he/she/it would have had to have already been doing), otherwise my judgment would ultimately be that this "god" is evil, conniving and malicious.
God does not work in the dark, God gives us fair warning of the consequences to our actions. Otherwise God would not be just. But if people do not HEED the warning it is not God’s fault.
But here again, YOU don't know that psychopathic, alien clowns aren't the source of all of the problems in your life, and that they are secretly watching you and punishing you whenever you do anything they don't agree with. You can't KNOW that this isn't the case. So, I claim that this is what is happening, and you deny this or even just assume that it isn't, then are you guilty of using an "argument from ignorance?" I mean... how silly do you want to get here?
There is no reason to believe that alien clowns are the source of all of the problems in my life, and that they are secretly watching me and punishing me whenever i do anything they don't agree with because there is no evidence that alien clowns exist, but there is reason to believe that God is watching over me because there is evidence that God exists… I mean... how silly do you want to get here?
Unfortunately, if you're talking about "god and consequences" in any capacity, then the threat is there, whether you realize it or not.
Do you mean because God is omnipotent? Yes, there could be consequences, but name me one thing in life that does not have consequences… The question is what those consequences will be. But as my mom used to tell me, if you don’t like the heat get out of the kitchen. Unfortunately, we cannot get out of the kitchen and avoid the heat, IF God exists, because there will be consequences for believing or not believing, but I really do not know what the consequences of not believing will be; I only know the consequences of believing.
But you keep saying things like: "You don't know that there aren't any consequences... there might be!" - if you have no investment in the idea, and you "don't know," then why would you ever be pushing for people to start worrying about "consequences?" Why? It is just so strange! If you don't know, then don't go around "warning" (i.e. threatening) people about consequences. What is wrong with you?
I was not warning or threatening, so let’s get that straight right now. I was saying there might be consequences but I do not KNOW what they will be because only God knows….

Okay, I will lay my cards on the table…I believe there will be consequences but I do not know exactly what they will be. All I have to go by are religious scriptures and they do not specify the consequences for nonbelievers. I am not a Christian so I do not believe in a literal hell.

Now I will tell you a little secret. I care about people so I care about the possible fate of atheists, not now, but later. You might think that sounds condescending, but it is sincere, because I believe that there is an afterlife.

I have been posting almost exclusively to atheists on various forums 24/7 for over seven years, and I do not do it for entertainment because I am quite well off, so I could be doing any number of other things with my time. I spent almost seven years posting to one particular atheist almost every day even though he never budged from his original position. A few months ago, he suddenly disappeared and I asked a friend on my forum to find out if he is okay. I have not yet heard back.
Those are consequences of the alien clowns watching over you. I am telling you... YOU DON'T KNOW that they aren't out there, doing this. Don't commit the sin of making an argument from ignorance by denying that this is the case. Do you see what I am saying?
I do see what you are saying, but I do not agree that alien clowns are comparable to God, and besides, my battles have nothing to do with God, and I would have them with or without God. My whole life has been a battle, but I have had one kind of battle for over 20 years. I almost lost the battle about six years ago, and that is when I decided to let God on board. It has been an uphill battle, but at least now I am not fighting it alone.
You dropped a name, and it was in response to my passing judgment on what you were presenting that you apparently agree with or thought was profound or should persuade someone to think more like you do. So, to give your argument more credence, you dropped in "Baha'u'llah." Why does it matter who said it, if it is the truth? Why? It apparently matters to you.
It really does not matter to me what I said or why I said it. Every day is a new day and I try to start fresh. The most important thing for me is that I am honest and that I don’t offend anyone and that apologize if I did, because I cannot always know what will offend people until I find out later. So I am sorry if I offended you with my “argument from ignorance” dialogue because now I can understand how it might have sounded.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
There is no reason to believe that alien clowns are the source of all of the problems in my life, and that they are secretly watching me and punishing me whenever i do anything they don't agree with because there is no evidence that alien clowns exist
If I put it in writing, get many others to read it and agree with me, and then go on to publish my writings and have them appear in hotels around the country, does THAT give this idea of mine any more credence, do you think?

but there is reason to believe that God is watching over me because there is evidence that God exists.
And what is this evidence? Is it any better than the evidence I could fabricate (writings, opinions correlated with others who I convince, etc.) and present to you for my ideas about alien clowns? What if I attributed some of the words I wrote to "Baha'u'llah?" Would that make them more convincing?
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
You do not know that I am fooling myself. You have a personal opinion and that is all you have.
He knows you are fooling yourself to the extent that he knows that a room full of people all claiming to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra are fooling themselves.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If I put it in writing, get many others to read it and agree with me, and then go on to publish my writings and have them appear in hotels around the country, does THAT give this idea of mine any more credence, do you think?
Any more credence than what?
Credence is not what makes anything true.
God's Truth simply exists, and we either discover it or fail to do so..
And what is this evidence? Is it any better than the evidence I could fabricate (writings, opinions correlated with others who I convince, etc.) and present to you for my ideas about alien clowns? What if I attributed some of the words I wrote to "Baha'u'llah?" Would that make them more convincing?
I believe it is better. YMMV.

Atheists still don't get it, what is convincing has nothing to do with what is true or false.
Truth simply exists and in order to believe it you need to be convinced it is true.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
He knows you are fooling yourself to the extent that he knows that a room full of people all claiming to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra are fooling themselves.
He does not know that unless he has proof.
He simply believes he knows that.
It is funny to watch you atheists commit logical fallacies.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
He does not know that unless he has proof.
Proof smoof. Proof is for math.
He simply believes he knows that.
He knows you are fooling yourself to the extent that he knows that a room full of people all claiming to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra are fooling themselves.
It is funny to watch you atheists commit logical fallacies.
You cut and paste logical fallacies, but you don't understand them. Form, but little content.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
He knows you are fooling yourself to the extent that he knows that a room full of people all claiming to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra are fooling themselves.
He does not know that unless he is God.
Only God knows whether I am fooling myself or not.

“Consider, moreover, how frequently doth man become forgetful of his own self, whilst God remaineth, through His all-encompassing knowledge, aware of His creature, and continueth to shed upon him the manifest radiance of His glory. It is evident, therefore, that, in such circumstances, He is closer to him than his own self. He will, indeed, so remain for ever, for, whereas the one true God knoweth all things, perceiveth all things, and comprehendeth all things, mortal man is prone to err, and is ignorant of the mysteries that lie enfolded within him….” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 186
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If I had said, "He knows you are fooling yourself," that might have been a relevant response. Get back to me when you're ready to deal with the sentence that I actually wrote.
Joe W said: He knows you are fooling yourself to the extent that he knows that a room full of people all claiming to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra are fooling themselves.

Nice try, but let's stick to the subject at hand rather than obfuscating.

He does not know that I am fooling myself unless he can prove it.

Get back to me when you are ready to stop committing an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
  1. true
  2. false
  3. unknown between true or false
  4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Nice try, but let's stick to the subject at hand rather than obfuscating.
If I had said, "He knows you are fooling yourself," that might have been a relevant response. Get back to me when you're ready to deal with the sentence that I actually wrote.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Get back to me when you're ready to deal with the sentence that I actually wrote.
I understand the implication of what you said but he still does not know I am fooling myself, not ANYMORE than I know I am not fooling myself

Try this on for size:
Trailblazer said: I know he is fooling himself (in denying Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God) to the extent that I know that a room full of people all claiming to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra are fooling themselves.

So, which one of us is fooling ourselves?

:D:D:D
 
Last edited:

ppp

Well-Known Member
I understand the implication of what you said but
I have no doubt that you understand the implication, which is why you keep trying to evade and obfuscate and pretend that you are being responsive. I'm not interested in lies of omission.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I have no doubt that you understand the implication, which is why you keep trying to evade and obfuscate and pretend that you are being responsive. I'm not interested in lies of omission.
I did respond. You just cannot DEAL with the logical implications of my response, so you obfuscate.
Or maybe you really do not understand my point because you don't know logic.
Anyone who did not get my point -- that there is really no difference between a and b -- had better take a logic class.

(a) Joe W said: He knows you are fooling yourself to the extent that he knows that a room full of people all claiming to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra are fooling themselves.

(b) Trailblazer said: I know he is fooling himself (in denying Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God) to the extent that I know that a room full of people all claiming to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra are fooling themselves.

So, which one of us is fooling ourselves?

Why not just answer my question, instead of obfuscating?

Whenever people cannot answer a question it becomes obvious they trying to evade and obfuscate because they would lose the argument if they tried to win it. Talk about God being a coward. I went around this block with a certain atheist for six years, posting and re-posting questions he refused to answer, so I know the drill. :rolleyes:

How would that fly in a court of law if you refused to answer the questions when put on the stand? It would be obvious you had no answer that would help prove your case, because if you had an answer that would help your case, you would answer.

I have the logical answer to the question above, but I am not answering it for you.
 
Last edited:

ppp

Well-Known Member
I did respond. You just cannot DEAL with the logical implications of my response
Once it was evident (from your first sentence) that you were dodging, there was no point in continuing to read your post. It's like one of the "town meetings" where the politician is uncomfortable with the question asked , so he answers something else entirely. No point in listening to the tap dance.
 
Top