Is this logical?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have no point. I just listen and respond to posts.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The writer of the OP was not claiming that.
He is an atheist who does not believe that God exists or communicates.

Yeah, sure. He is an atheist, just like me. I am only re-emphasizing his point.

 

[Nimos]

Now that Daniel got the answer, I will explain the claim. The claim is that nobody has ever observed God communicating directly to everyone, thus it is known that God has never communicated directly to everyone. He then goes on to say that just because it is known that God has never communicated directly to everyone, that does not mean that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

Do you consider this logical or illogical?

Don't really think I understand what you are writing or asking. How does it matter, if its before or after death?

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't really think I understand what you are writing or asking. How does it matter, if its before or after death?

It matters because nobody really knows what happens to people after death but we know what happens to people who are alive because they can tell us....

Joe to Larry: Has God ever spoken to you?

 

[Trailblazer]

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, our western spirituality is based on books, buildings, and beliefs. It all seems to have a thick layer of dust on it. If I wanted religion, I probably would talk to paleolithic people, who invented this whole thing.

If I was looking for a religion, I would look for the newest religion because it seems to me that would be the religion that is pertinent to the new age we live in. I would not be looking at the Bible because it was not written for this new age we live in, it was written for people who lived 2000-4000 years ago. Imo.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm glad you like using the acronym "IMO," because everything that you wrote is nothing more than you saying what you suppose God does, doesn't and so forth -- without the benefit of a single reason, that you could present to the rest of us, why you suppose as you do. As you say, it's just "your opinion."

Some of those are my beliefs but since nobody knows what IMB means I say IMO.
The only thing I could present to the rest of you are my beliefs, which state why God does certain stuff and does not do other stuff.

So here's another one: "The earth sucks, gravity is a myth" --- imo. Strike you as reasonable?

Nope. that is not an Imo because gravity is a scientific fact.

 

[Trailblazer]

BUT...BUT...BUT -- there are tons of scriptural assertions that say God does and has communicated directly to any number of people. Are you ignoring those? Or are you calling them false?

No, I am not calling them false....

I said: What this atheist deliberately ignores is that God has NEVER communicated directly with everyone.

I did not say that God has never communicated directly with anyone.

 

[Nimos]

It matters because nobody really knows what happens to people after death but we know what happens to people who are alive because they can tell us....

But if we don't know what happens to people after death, because they can't tell us as you say, then how is it relevant for the statement you made, in regards to whether its logical or not, that is what I don't really understand? What about the time between life and death, what if there is some "state" between these that are unknown to us. If one believed such thing existed, shouldn't that also be relevant for the statement or maybe there are lots of states between life and death.

I don't know, maybe I just don't get the question you are asking.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

If I was looking for a religion, I would look for the newest religion because it seems to me that would be the religion that is pertinent to the new age we live in. I would not be looking at the Bible because it was not written for this new age we live in, it was written for people who lived 2000-4000 years ago. Imo.

Yeah I like forging new things myself, but why not take the best of the old ideas? Basic animism for example is a really old idea, and maybe one that people got right a long time ago. Maybe there are ancient proverbs here and there that survive untarnished. I think maybe newer religions ought to be more mutable however, as a 'connection with god' is not relegated only to select prophets in old texts

 

[Shad]

I would read it if I could find it. As you can see, I am buried in posts.

Yah understandable. It was my first post. Get to it when you can.

However, A Vestigial Mote hit the nail on the head in this post: #52

I already covered that just in different words hence why I talked about the ordering.

That was what I was hoping for because I wanted to discuss the implications of the OP statement.

There are no implications unless using it as a counter argument as I said as per post 19. As I said in that post I agreed with it being logical as a statement. My objection was about the knowledge claim hence why I only quoted a part of the OP quote not all of it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'll always draw on personal experience first. In personal experience, which matches what countless others who have experienced "God" or the Absolute firsthand, we all say the same thing. That we see for the first time, what has always fully been there the whole time, but we just couldn't see. That's my personal experience, and that of others.

With all due respect, there is no reason what people who do not share your personal experience would believe what you have experienced came from God. It is real to you only because you experienced something and you call it God.

This is not unlike believing in a small religion like the Baha’i Faith that not many people believe in. Why should other people believe that what we believe is actually the Truth? In our case, we have the entire history of the Baha’i Faith, the person of Baha’u’llah, and His Writings, and still not many people believe.

You also have scripture. Jesus taught to consider the lilies of the field, for in them you could see God. The psalmist clearly says that the heavens declare the glory of God, and that is speaks words to the whole world. Jesus teaches that those who have eyes to see and ear to hear, meaning those who are spiritually awake and aware, will see God right there in what is said. He taught the kingdom of heaven was already here among us, and so on and so forth. Paul always speaks of creation as revealing God.

Baha’is also believe that God is reflected throughout Creation. What Jesus purportedly said can be interpreted in myriad ways. Jesus teaches that those who have eyes to see and ear to hear can thus mean different things to different people. All of the scriptures mean different things to different people since we are all different.

One does not need to use audible words to communicate. In fact, that is probably the least effective way possible to communicate, comparatively speaking. Creation itself, shows infinite love, without words and letters and teachings, and doctrines, and theories, and models, and blah, and blah, and blah blah. Words can get in the way of seeing and hearing Truth.

That is not all I see. I see suffering all around me. How does this show a Loving God? This is something most believers do not want to see so they close their eyes and ears and pretend that it is not really God’s fault, it is all because of human free will. But it isn’t. God created this world knowing that it would be a storehouse of suffering, more for some people than for others. The pain and suffering in this world is because of that wonderful Creation you attribute to God. You have to take the bad with the good if you are going to be logical, or you can just stop your ears to all the pain and suffering in the world and blame it on humans.

Trailblazer said: It does not appear to me that God communicates to anyone except those He chooses to communicate to, the Prophets/Messengers.

So God is not the Light of the World then, since he has to hire some salespeople to tell them about the sun in the sky above them, as if they can't feel it's rays?

If you do not believe in Messengers I suggest you stop referring to what Jesus said. Was Jesus a salesman? You cannot have it both ways. Apparently, God needed Jesus.

John 14:6 I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

All the Messengers of God have said something similar. You cannot get to the Father except through Me.

Trailblazer said: I see that as a judgment but I believe only God can judge.

It's not a judgement. It's an observation of what we all do. Without understanding that it is us who either sees or does not see, puts the onus on us. To say God chooses, irrationally so, to withhold knowledge from us, to "hide" himself, as it were, does in fact make God responsible and us not. That is just logic.

God is responsible, Imo, since God is omnipotent. Look at all the atheists. I do not believe that is a choice. God hides and He hides very well. He only comes out once every 500-1000 years to speak to a Messenger; then He goes back to His Own High Place. It is just too bad for those who cannot recognize the Messenger; God is not going to do anything about that.

I have been posting almost exclusively to atheists on forums for seven years now and I understand their position. I feel blessed yet undeserving that I recognized Baha’u’llah because otherwise I would be an atheist, since I could never believe in God without Baha’u’llah and I could never believe in any of the older religions.

Trailblazer said: For whatever reasons that only God knows, not all people are able to believe in God, let alone discern communication from God.

It's not just God that knows why, it's a lot of people who know why. You should listen to them.

It is a lot of people who “believe” they know why, but only God knows why, Imo.

 

[Trailblazer]

But if we don't know what happens to people after death, because they can't tell us as you say, then how is it relevant for the statement you made, in regards to whether its logical or not, that is what I don't really understand? What about the time between life and death, what if there is some "state" between these that are unknown to us. If one believed such thing existed, shouldn't that also be relevant for the statement or maybe there are lots of states between life and death.

I don't know, maybe I just don't get the question you are asking.

What happens after death is not relevant since we don't know.

If you go back and read the OP and try to figure out what he is saying, then maybe you can figure out it it makes sense to you.

 

[Shad]

It was a special pleading argument...
That atheist does a lot of that.

Special pleading: argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=special+pleading+means

What this atheist deliberately ignores is that God has NEVER communicated directly with everyone. He ignores that because that is unfavorable to his point of view that God should hop to and do that.

It wasn't special pleading if you mean the OP quote. If the OP quote was supposed to be an argument against God it was self-refuting. That is why I thought it was a counter-argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah I like forging new things myself, but why not take the best of the old ideas? Basic animism for example is a really old idea, and maybe one that people got right a long time ago. Maybe there are ancient proverbs here and there that survive untarnished. I think maybe newer religions ought to be more mutable however, as a 'connection with god' is not relegated only to select prophets in old texts

That is true, there is a lot to be said for ancient proverbs and ancient texts. Those will always be valid since the spiritual verities are eternal, the same throughout all of time. I was referring to a new message from a Messenger that is pertinent to this age and new social teachings and laws. That would be the reason to look at a new religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

It wasn't special pleading if you mean the OP quote. If the OP quote was supposed to be an argument against God it was self-refuting. That is why I thought it was a counter-argument.

No, the OP statement was not an argument against God. It was an argument for direct communication from God to everyone. He was saying that just because that has never been observed does not mean that it could not happen if God exists.

My take on that has always been that if God exists and God has never communicated directly to everyone, that means that if God exists God would not communicate directly to everyone.

The only way around that is to say that God could suddenly decide to do something He has never done before, communicate directly to everyone.

That is logically possible but what are the chances of that happening?

 

[Shad]

No, the OP statement was not an argument against God.

That why I said "if" and pointed it would be self-refuting if it were.

It was an argument for direct communication from God to everyone. He was saying that just because that has never been observed does not mean that it could not happen if God exists.

Hence why I said it seems like a counter-argument against a claim stating lack of communication to all indicted God does not exist

My take on that has always been that if God exists and God has never communicated directly to everyone, that means that if God exists God would not communicate directly to everyone.

That is an assertion as per the bold.

The only way around that is to say that God could suddenly decide to do something He has never done before, communicate directly to everyone.

This is an assertion.

That is logically possible but what are the chances of that happening?

This is unknown as probability needs actual stats not speculation.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is unknown as probability needs actual stats not speculation.

The only stats we have is that it has never happened.

 

[Shad]

The only stats we have is that it has never happened.

This is an assertion. Present your stats otherwise.

 

[Nimos]

What happens after death is not relevant since we don't know.

If you go back and read the OP and try to figure out what he is saying, then maybe you can figure out it it makes sense to you.

I think I will just leave it, still makes no sense to me