Only in YOUR mind, according to how you think, and that is what you do not understand. Everyone does not think like YOU.
The reason you keep arguing with me is because you can only see your own point of view. It's your way or the highway.
Ok, we have a new tactic here. Now it's because I don't think right, then a silly maxim (obviously everyone does not think like me, I think like me?), which contains a hidden ad-populum fallacy and finally a rude and incorrect assessment of my point of view. Basically ad-hom.
so first:
1) Yes it's according to how I think but not for the reason you imply. It's because I hold a rational, skeptical, empirical methodology to all of my beliefs.
2)I actually DO understand that many people do not have such a methodology and often believe things on poor evidence and purely for emotional reasons. If they even entertain doubt they may use confirmation bias and apologetics to disregard them.
3) The reason I argue with you is because you have consistently presented the same claims without good evidence over and over. I'm not even arguing as much as standing up for an assessment of the facts that involves a higher standard of skepticism and critical thinking.
4) I did not say "my way or the highway" and I resent that comment. If someone was trying to convince you the government has crashed alien ships at Area 51 from the Roswell ufo crash and you continued to stick to rational explanations for the evidence and continued to point out that Matt Brazle found "rubber, sticks, eyebeams and scotch tape"....and they said "meh, it's your way or the highway....." would you not be annoyed?
At ANY point you are free to provide reasonable evidence. It doesn't speak to my "way" that you don't have a reasonable foundation to base truth and facts on with these claims. That is your responsibility. You have a claim, you demonstrate it's true.
I did not say that God cannot talk because it sounds made up. I only said a God that talks sounds made up.
And you said it's "ridiculous". Can you please provide a methodology on how to tell what claims from a God are real and what claims are made up?
Trailblazer said: A God who is supposedly infinite and creates universes and "talks" sounds ridiculous and made up.
#247
Because........why again? What limitations do you find having infinite power puts on speech?
Those two statements mean different things yet you conflate them to mean the same thing.
No I think "infinite" pretty much covers everything. (Except Aleph-1.)
I don't know what God can do, only God knows that, but a God that talks makes no logical sense to me since talking is a human thing and God is not a human. Without a mouth, how could God talk? It makes more sense to me that the Old Testament is anthropomorphic.
If a being is infinite he takes a mortal form. He telepathically says words to anyone he wants to speak to. I'm sure he figures it out.
Yet when I stated it makes sense that a God was going to reveal himself then he would give verification and knowledge you said "I don't know what God would do, only God knows God." But now that it supports your narrative to make the OT a metaphor, suddenly you feel you know what God would do?
That is confirmation bias.
It makes more sense the OT is anthropomorphic in order to make a narrative work that has NO evidence. So the whole OT, all the stories about Israel's first contact with God, all metaphor, just so Bahai can be true. Yet he provides no evidence at all?
I did not read the Writings of Baha'u'llah before I decided to believe Him. I read what other people wrote about the Baha'i Faith and I read some Writings of Abdu'l-Baha. Only much later did I read the Writings of Baha'u'llah.
That seems worse, you didn't investigate? You took the word of apologists?
Only in your opinion. In my opinion the evidence is excellent.
No, it isn't an opinion. The evidence sucks. It's basically the same level of evidence for Mormonism, Islam, Christianity, yet you are not at all compelled by them. If the evidence was good first I would see that it was good and people would be joining. Everyone would convert.
There actually is no evidence. He just claims they are revelations. That's it. A persons life, their work, that isn't evidence of revelations?
Anecdotal claims of magic exist in every cult and religion. Not evidence.
Vague prophecies, not evidence.
Warping Revelation is certainly not evidence. Picking 4 events (while discarding hundreds of others like a 7 headed dragon because it must be a "metaphor") and finding them in history, despite the fact that they happen all the time and it's easy to find 4 in the proper order, somewhere in the world. That isn't evidence. It's conspiracy theory level nonsense.
You can't, since it is ONLY a personal opinion you hold.
It isn't hard to explain (I just did) the evidence is terrible and not compelling. Again, I believe there are emotional reasons more than logical.
But what happened to the lecture on ad-populum??? Where is that? Now it's just MY opinion, and it's ONLY my opinion. Stressing it's just me.
wow, that's a shift from posting ad-populum definitions.
Again, you tap dance all over. grasping at straws. If I cite people it's a fallacy, if it's just me you use that against me. This is confirmation bias. Make me wrong at all cost. Rather than look honestly at the evidence and try and explain why it's sufficient, or consider it might not be.
No, I became convinced because of the evidence. I looked at the evidence FIRST, and that is why I was convinced.
What is bad evidence to YOU is good evidence to me. What can't you just accept that everyone does not think like you?
That is false. And confirmation bias. You probably don't actually believe that. There is no such thing as bad evidence to you and good to me.
Do you think the sun will come up tomorrow? Do you think the U.S. President is Biden? You do, because you have evidence, many lines of evidence. Both could stop but there is little doubt these are likely possibilities to be real tomorrow. We both agree.
Everyone can agree on good evidence.
Do you believe the Jesus in AU, who has a ministry and is the 2nd coming of Jesus, is really the Biblical 2nd coming of Jesus?
Do you believe Angel Moroni came down to give revelations, golden plates and true updates on Jesus and Christianity to Joseph Smith?
No and no. Because the evidence, which many people (millions) buy into. But is there actual proof? No. You also don't buy it.
Bahai, does not have good evidence either. He made a claim. He could not present any knowledge beyond what was possible. The science he spoke on was not correct.
Other forms of evidence from desperate apologists is not good evidence. People believe this because they want to believe in a movement, to feel special, to feel as if there is a spirit, an afterlife, and so on. Enough to overlook really bad evidence.
Good evidence is always good evidence.
Bad evidence is always bad and always requires apologetics. Bahai has them, as does many other religions.
A man writing long books in a peculiar style and claiming God is telling him messages is not good evidence. It's EXACTLY the same as Jesus in AU, he also claims he is divine. Same thing. Just because you bought into one doesn't mean it has good evidence.
When you care about what is actually true you may see that your evidence is non-evidence.
You have yet to explain anything that is even close to evidence. What you are now doing is trying to make it MY fault.
Your suspicions are wrong. I did not read the Writings of Baha'u'llah before I decided to believe Him. I read what other people wrote about the Baha'i Faith and I read some Writings of Abdu'l-Baha. Only much later did I read the Writings of Baha'u'llah.
Ok. Did you read apologetics designed to be convincing?
Only in your personal opinion.
Than explain what progressive means, how is this progressive?
Why do I have to ask? Why is your answer "in your opinion" ....... NO KIDDING!?!?! it's my opinion?????
But they look like facts. Progressive has meanings.
The knowledge isn't progressive. Theology isn't, literary style, keeping up with the times isn't? It was a scientific and industrial revolution, as well as a philosophy revolution. All sorts of Western philosophers were writing, it was time for a religion to add in something. A God, for sure, help humanity with medical and science.
We entered an age of science, scientific proof was essential, a God would 100% speak on mathematics, just to verify, something we couldn't confirm without a supercomputer.
You say progressive then I ask for anything progressive and it's "not progressive like that" or "I don't know what God would do", then why did he say PROGRESSIVE?
Sounds like one big scam.
It's not my opinion, I'm letting the facts speak.