When your ideas are criticized you must be taking it personally.
No, I only take it personally when *I* am criticized. I don’t care what anyone says about my beliefs or ideas.
Your claim that God is off limits because God is special was a response to your fallacy of special pleading. THAT itself is an excellent example of special pleading, which me and others pointed out. I also pointed out your circular reasoning flaws. I pointed out your argument from popularity flaws. There have been many more. But this short list in enough to prove your claim wrong.
That is not special pleading on my part. It is special pleading when atheists ignore aspects of God that they want to deny, things that make God special and different than any human. THAT is special pleading.
special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading
Numerous times I addressed the accusation that I used circular reasoning and explained why that does not invalidate my argument for Baha’u’llah as a Messenger of God.
Circular reasoning (
Latin:
circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as
circular logic) is a
logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically
valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:
If Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, then God exists.
If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.
Because your explanations fall short of what is accepted as being knowledge. Everyone agrees with me on this.
Knowledge has been defined by those who are objective, whereas your definition is biased against religious believers. b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something is the kind of knowledge tat I have.
Definition of
knowledge
1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or
association
(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something
(2) : the range of one's information or understanding answered to the best of my knowledge
Definition of KNOWLEDGE
“Everyone agrees with me on this” so it must be true. You mean some atheists agree with you, not
everyone. That is
the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
Actually many have. Your special pleading fiasco is perhaps your worse failure.
Your special pleading is perhaps your worst failure in reasoning.
“Many have.” You keep committing the same fallacy,
the fallacy of argumentum ad populum
Why would it matter
how many people pointed something out?
Because they were correct, and the more you deny your flaws the more incorrect you become.
They were correct only in your personal opinion. We all have personal opinions.
This applies to claims that are believed true because many others believe it. It doesn't apply to a set of educated and skilled thinkers who are correct in their assessment of your fallacies.
It applies whenever you say
something is true about what I said
because “many people” believe it.
“a set of educated and skilled thinkers who are correct in their assessment of your fallacies.”
Do you mean people like you?