Baha'i and Messengers

[Sheldon]

It certainly is not logical, it is an unfalsifiable and evidenced assumption, that is not how logic works. What's worse you already asserted this deity is omnipotent, and thus this claim actually violates the the law of non contradiction, thus it is by definition irrational.

I know you don't like this, but yet you repeatedly use know logical fallacies like this, and often fail to understand it even after it is explained. If a deity is claimed to have literally unlimited power, which is what omnipotence means, then it is obviously a contradiction to claim there are things it cannot do. Thus omnipotence itself is a concept that has innate contradictions.

God could have chosen to give everyone the capacity to receive direct revelation from Him, but instead He singled out One Person from age to age and conferred upon Him the ability to directly communicate with Him.

This is just another unevidenced bare claim, and doesn't remotely address my post?

So we have Christ, Moses, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah etc. So He can manifest Himself through a Man but in His Wisdom He chose not to grant this capacity to all men.

What we have are endless unevidenced assertions, like this one.

These Suns of Truth are perfect Mirrors reflecting God. So when we see the sun reflected in these Mirrors we say the sun is seen in the mirror but the actual sun has not descended into the mirror. So sometimes one might hear Christ or Baha’u’llah say ‘I am God’ and because they are a perfect reflection of God they are correct in saying that because one can see in Them the qualities and perfections of God. But just as the sun is reflected and has not physically descended into the mirror, These Suns of Truth perfectly reflect God but God’s Essence does not descend into them, only it is reflected.

Meaningless gibberish sorry.

This does not mean God is not omnipotent

It doesn't mean anything at all, not in English anyway. You have also failed to address the contradiction in TB's post and how an omnipotent deity, cannot logically be unable to do something, or indeed anything. As this would violate the law of non contradiction. I will help you out here, theists and religious apologists usually resort to semantics here, they change omnipotence to omnipotence "lite".

He did not give all men the capability of direct communication with Him. Rather it is His Wisdom that has decreed it that way.

I don't believe you, as this is firstly an unevidenced assertions, and secondly it uses a begging the question fallacy, which theists use relentlessly, but never address, then claim their arguments and beliefs are logical, as TB did, which was where you came in, and have now tried to defend her post by using a known logical fallacy yourself, ironically.

Now one more time then:

If God became flesh then God would not be God, God would be a man.
God by definition is not a man so God cannot become a man.
This is logic 101 stuff.

The emboldened part, logically contradicts the claim her deity has "unlimited power". Which was my point that you seem to have missed.

 

[Sheldon]

God knowing what will happen in the future is not the same as God predetermining those events.

Yes, it really is. It either knows what will happen, or what will happen can be changed because it is not predetermined, it cannot be both.

 

[Sheldon]

I think the way it works is that only those who do not believe in God are the ones who pretend there is no evidence for God.

I am dubious, but will keep an open mind. Now please present the best piece of (objective) evidence you have for any deity? I promise to keep am open mind, and treat any "evidence" just as I treat all claims, and therefore without bias, .

 

[Sheldon]

Neither we nor the universe created itself.

Your deity isn't made of cream cheese. Since we are now making up straw man fallacies.

 

[Sheldon]

The spiritual laws are eternal and never become outdated. But things like stoning, crucifixion and cutting off of hands, social laws, do become outdated and need to be replaced from age to age with more humanitarian laws.

That seems like a subjective claim to me, and while I recognise that all morality has to be subjective, that claim seems entirely at odds with the notion that morality can only be derived from a perfect deity.

 

[Sheldon]

Everything we know has a cause external to itself.

Hmm, so when theists claim to know a deity, that deity has a cause external to itself? Feel free to proceed to the usual special pleading fallacy here...

Nothing brings itself into existence

So again your rationale can only infer your concept of a deity was created, by what one wonders? One also wonders what created that, and so on and so forth. Again I await the special pleading fallacy that apologists always offer, when confronted with this rational conclusion of their own rationale.

to cause itself means it has to exist before it exists. This is logically impossible.

Like the concept of a deity you mean?

Everything we know has a cause external to itself.

Parenthetically, this is only ever observed to be true within the temporal physical universe, and in every single example we have, those cause are (where they are understood by objective evidence) each and every time...caused by natural phenomena.

 

[Sheldon]

Billions of people all over the world believe in God. This proves man has a spiritual nature with spiritual senses that are reflected in a belief and lifestyle modelled on that belief.

No it doesn't, and that is a text book argumentum ad populum fallacy, ipso facto it is an irrational claim.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is just another unevidenced bare claim, and doesn't remotely address my post?



What we have are endless unevidenced assertions, like this one.



Meaningless gibberish sorry.




It doesn't mean anything at all, not in English anyway. You have also failed to address the contradiction in TB's post and how an omnipotent deity, cannot logically be unable to do something, or indeed anything. As this would violate the law of non contradiction. I will help you out here, theists and religious apologists usually resort to semantics here, they change omnipotence to omnipotence "lite".



I don't believe you, as this is firstly an unevidenced assertions, and secondly it uses a begging the question fallacy, which theists use relentlessly, but never address, then claim their arguments and beliefs are logical, as TB did, which was where you came in, and have now tried to defend her post by using a known logical fallacy yourself, ironically.

Now one more time then:



The emboldened part, logically contradicts the claim her deity has "unlimited power". Which was my point that you seem to have missed.

Not at all. I thought you might be able to see things from a different viewpoint. But if you believe we are misguided and irrational then that’s your prerogative.

 

[Sheldon]

Your argument is saying that many billions of people are experiencing illusions created by their own mind and is nothing but a fantasy and mental state instead of realising that man is a spiritual being innately because he was created to know and worship God which these people claim.

That one is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I can disbelieve any unevidenced claim, and logically need not offer any alternative unevidenced claim.

 

[Sheldon]

The Originator of the cause and effect process is God.

Please demonstrate some objective evidence for this bare claim?

Cause and effect is but a process that had to be initiated by Someone because as stated it could not initiate itself if it wasn’t in existence to do so!

Circular reasoning fallacy. I note again, a deity by your rationale cannot initiate itself, so how can it be a first cause, without resorting to a special pleading fallacy that simply assumes attributes for a deity you are asserting are impossible elsewhere?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Love is never outdated but the problem is that when prejudices arises love becomes limited.

A very wrong kind of love which says "you are wrong and only I am correct".

https://www.upliftingwords.org/post/random-and-non-random-phenomena-in-science

Bahai blog. I would not waste my time on that.

 

[Sheldon]

Not at all. I thought you might be able to see things from a different viewpoint.

You thought you could make bare unevidenced assertions, and I'd blindly accept them, in a debate forum, why would you think that?

But if you believe we are misguided and irrational then that’s your prerogative.

That's a straw man fallacy. Address what I said if you want, but don't misrepresent it with generic straw man claims please.

 

[Sheldon]

Who is insisting that God exists? Not me. I just believe that God exists, given the evidence.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Hmm, so when theists claim to know a deity, that deity has a cause external to itself? Feel free to proceed to the usual special pleading fallacy here...



So again your rationale can only infer your concept of a deity was created, by what one wonders? One also wonders what created that, and so on and so forth. Again I await the special pleading fallacy that apologists always offer, when confronted with this rational conclusion of their own rationale.



Like the concept of a deity you mean?



Parenthetically, this is only ever observed to be true within the temporal physical universe, and in every single example we have, those cause are (where they are understood by objective evidence) each and every time...caused by natural phenomena.[/QUOTE

God was not created. He always existed. He is unborn and uncreated. He has no beginning and no end.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The spiritual laws are eternal and never become outdated. But things like stoning, crucifixion and cutting off of hands, social laws, do become outdated and need to be replaced from age to age with more humanitarian laws.

Again (I have said this earlier too), if the spiritual laws are eternal, then what new did Bahaollah bring? What Bahaollah said about women and LGBTQ is now outdated. Your Allah needs to send a new messenger/manifestation. Perhaps your God himself is outdated, cannot do any thing right and needs to be replaced.

God was not created. He always existed. He is unborn and uncreated. He has no beginning and no end.

But we differ in our views. I am an atheist Hindu and for you Bahaollah, the uneducated 19th Century Iranian is (whatever). Christians and Muslims have another view which you do not accept.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No it doesn't, and that is a text book argumentum ad populum fallacy, ipso facto it is an irrational claim.

That’s just an individual opinion vs billions of people who believe otherwise.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Again, it doesn't sound like love is what is being given. Do you love them and respect them for who they are and what they believe? Knowing they probably will not return the love? You know they are extremely intelligent people and sound like they know lots of things about religion. Why did they come to reject it? Why not just believe? Why do they demand objective proof? Knowing what some religious people believe, I think they are correct in asking for proof. Which, if any, religion is correct when they all make similar claims but believe very different things?

That is because they also get to choose how they will Love CG.

Regards Tony

 

[loverofhumanity]

That one is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I can disbelieve any unevidenced claim, and logically need not offer any alternative unevidenced claim.

Anyone can deny anything they wish even truth.

 

[Sheldon]

It may not be reciprocal but we still accept the same God.

So you don't reciprocate their beliefs, or they yours, but ....no wait? You quite demonstrably don't accept the same deity, and please don't go to Afghanistan and tell the Taliban, or to what is left of Syria, and tell what is left of ISIS, just to prove my point.

Dear oh dear...

 

[Sheldon]

It’s always humanity’s choice to make. If humanity prefers one system over another then it’s their choice.

You mean because humanity is one homogenous group, and so they can make a single choice unanimously? Come on please.

It's odd, but even after 56 years, I don't ever remember anyone asking me if I choose global capitalism, or more importantly ever offering any credible alternative? Idealism is all very well, but wishful thinking and idealism won't feed cloth and house anyone, especially if you tear apart the global economy because it is unfair and cruel, but have no viable alternative.