Chronologically and geographically isolated revelation = god is unjust and unfair.

[jmvizanko]

Why would a fair and just super intelligent being only present his miracles and/or messiah to a select few in a specific location eons before and after, as well as around the globe away, from most of the people that ever existed? And then to top it off with, expect everyone to accept a telephone game testimony of these miracles and affirmations of truth? Why would it not make more sense to share with everyone equally any reason to affirm faith in any specific direction, rather than letting such imperfect means be the only source of discovering the truth, let alone the most important truth to know for anyone's soul?

 

[Meow Mix]

I never reeeeeally got an answer to this in my similar thread "The Warehouse."

Some try to answer but outside the bounds of the premises... others give red herrings or special pleading.

I think, as you probably suspect, the ones who hold those premises don't know, but they still believe. Special pleading Why anyone thinks it's viable is beyond me.

 

[jmvizanko]

I never reeeeeally got an answer to this in my similar thread "The Warehouse."

Some try to answer but outside the bounds of the premises... others give red herrings or special pleading.

I think, as you probably suspect, the ones who hold those premises don't know, but they still believe. Special pleading Why anyone thinks it's viable is beyond me.

Well I apologize if I copied a thread/point you already tried making, even if my thread title kicked your thread title's @$$. I do wish I was able to easily recognize / actually understand the definition of all of these fallacies some of ya'll regularly point out (ad hoc, red herring, special pleading etc...) but I don't.

PS: Do you change your pic like every day? Because you are awfully cute and it isn't fair.

 

[JustWondering]

Why would a fair and just super intelligent being only present his miracles and/or messiah to a select few in a specific location eons before and after, as well as around the globe away, from most of the people that ever existed? And then to top it off with, expect everyone to accept a telephone game testimony of these miracles and affirmations of truth? Why would it not make more sense to share with everyone equally any reason to affirm faith in any specific direction, rather than letting such imperfect means be the only source of discovering the truth, let alone the most important truth to know for anyone's soul?

A rational and fair God would not do things this way. Which is why I am compelled to believe there are no Gods or if there are, they don't care what we do and what we believe. Human ego and fear of death is what drives people to think that divine beings (if they exist) would actually give a crap about us insects one way or another.

 

[jmvizanko]

A rational and fair God would not do things this way. Which is why I am compelled to believe there are no Gods or if there are, they don't care what we do and what we believe. Human ego and fear of death is what drives people to think that divine beings (if they exist) would actually give a crap about us insects one way or another.

No argument there.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well I apologize if I copied a thread/point you already tried making, even if my thread title kicked your thread title's @$$. I do wish I was able to easily recognize / actually understand the definition of all of these fallacies some of ya'll regularly point out (ad hoc, red herring, special pleading etc...) but I don't.

PS: Do you change your pic like every day? Because you are awfully cute and it isn't fair.

lol I wasn't complaining, our points were only similar; not exact! Besides, the more times we ask it the more chances we get of... well, MAYBE getting an answer that makes sense.

Eh I just picked up fallacy names from debating so much... I started out as a young earther creationist in my teens and got my @#% handed to me so I had to look up all the things I was being accused of. It's how I learned to avoid fallacies. Learning to avoid fallacies actually de-converted me when I realized I believed stuff based entirely on fallacies, lol.

A red herring is a diversion tactic that's similar to the topic but actually off-topic. It's different from non-sequitor because it's more subtle: it has the appearance of answering the question but actually doesn't because it "switches gears" to another related topic. I think the name is a play on the fact that seeing a red herring would be very distracting or something. Trying to think of an example:

P1: Why does suffering exist?
P2: Because we have free will.
P1: But what about suffering caused by disease?
P2: Our free will gives us the ability to make choices that do harm.

It appears to be on topic -- and it ultimately "is" -- but it's dodging a more specific point, as you can see. That's the red herring

Special pleading is a fallacy that makes a "special exception" for something when otherwise rules would apply; often (but not necessarily) by arguing that it happens in an unknowable way.

P1: Why does God allow disease to exist?
P2: Because it's for a greater good.
P1: But if I gave someone a disease on purpose I'd be charged with assault, maybe attempted murder depending on the disease and thrown in jail.
P2: God has some unknowable morally sufficient reason to do so.

The problem with special pleading is that it's a "win-anything" tactic. Anything can be somehow inexplicably true. One might as well retort "Maybe God is inexplicably actually evil..." and it would run around in circles. It's a fallacy, but I have noticed that many, many, MANY theists very much like the special pleading fallacy. The perfect example of special pleading is in the phrase "God works in mysterious ways." You would think that rational people would try to avoid fallacies...

Yes I change my avatar quite a lot because I'm easily bored

 

[jmvizanko]

i started out as a young earther creationist in my teens

roflcopter!

 

[Meow Mix]

roflcopter!

Ha I know.

That's why I find it so frustrating when I also run into the "no true scotsman" fallacy; when theists say that the reason I haven't found God is because I haven't looked hard enough.

I looked damn hard back then when I was losing my faith, I was looking for any excuse to hang onto it.

But I forced myself to examine all of my beliefs (not just my religious ones) for internal and external consistency; made sure I wasn't justifying anything with fallacies, etc....

And by the time that was over I was no longer convinced that a god MUST exist. I am still open to the possibility -- really, the idea is pretty cool! -- but there's just no evidence. Alas! But, if mankind is on our own in this universe, I don't fret: it's also empowering to know that if we want something done we just have to do it. I'm okay now without the "safety net" of a god. Though it would still be neat if it were true (but also that god would have stuff to answer for now that I understand the Problem of Evil).

 

[Madhuri]

As usual, these questions and rational relate only to certain religious concepts of the Divine.

 

[Meow Mix]

As usual, these questions and rational relate only to certain religious concepts of the Divine.

Yep, that's inherent in the title and explanation of the OP.

I've seen proponents of the premises offered though, and never once have I seen them defend themselves.

 

[Riverwolf]

I've seen proponents of the premises offered though, and never once have I seen them defend themselves.

That's probably because, at least as far as Christianity is concerned, the only defense they have is something that Paul said about the "law being written in mens' hearts," which is about as weak an argument as it gets. ^_^

Sad thing is, I've seen this kind of thinking creeping into Hinduism, as well. For me, I could never believe that if there was only one true religion, and it was revealed by God, that it would have only been given to one group of people in the world.

 

[Mister Emu]

I've heard several answers... validity may vary...

One is that you do know the truth when you hear it, but most people reject it "for the light is come unto the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest their deeds be reproved." John 3:19-20

When you deny the truth you are just deceiving yourself.

I've personally never really appreciated this answer, as it takes a largely misanthropic view I'd prefer not to hold

Another way people would respond to this is in saying that all men will receive a fair chance to hear the Gospel, either in life or (shortly?) after.

Still others would say that it isn't necessary to have the belief, that if you hold love in your heart and sincerely seek the divine God will have mercy...

 

[Meow Mix]

I've heard several answers... validity may vary...

One is that you do know the truth when you hear it, but most people reject it "for the light is come unto the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest their deeds be reproved." John 3:19-20

When you deny the truth you are just deceiving yourself.

I've personally never really appreciated this answer, as it takes a largely misanthropic view I'd prefer not to hold

Another way people would respond to this is in saying that all men will receive a fair chance to hear the Gospel, either in life or (shortly?) after.

Still others would say that it isn't necessary to have the belief, that if you hold love in your heart and sincerely seek the divine God will have mercy...

Yet all of those latter answers aren't what the OP is objecting to.

If all people get a fair chance to make an informed decision then there is no problem.

 

[jmvizanko]

One is that you do know the truth when you hear it, but most people reject it "for the light is come unto the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest their deeds be reproved." John 3:19-20

When you deny the truth you are just deceiving yourself.

That would all be a fine reason if it were true at all. I seriously doubt there are many unbelievers of Christianity that aren't actually unbelievers. We just don't see the reasons to, let alone the reasons not to, think Christianity is true. It has nothing to do with rebellious rejection or avoidance.

I've personally never really appreciated this answer, as it takes a largely misanthropic view I'd prefer not to hold .

I'd say more like a completely incorrect view.

Another way people would respond to this is in saying that all men will receive a fair chance to hear the Gospel, either in life or (shortly?) after.

Once again, though, plenty of people have heard it, yet just don't think its true. The whole point of the thread is that why should people have gotten the chance to witness miracles, giving them a good reason to think its true, while I have mostly morons and an ancient poem to tell me they happened 2,000 years ago?

Still others would say that it isn't necessary to have the belief, that if you hold love in your heart and sincerely seek the divine God will have mercy...

Why the necessity to "seek the divine," whatever that means? I don't see the value in seeking to see the invisible. If it presents itself so be it, but it hasn't to me. Which is once again, built into the point of the thread.

 

[BruceDLimber]

In fact, the Baha'i scriptures state that God has sent Divine Messengers to all parts of the world over the Ages. It's just that the oldest ones have been lost to history. (Unsurprisingly, it helps to have developed writing.)

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Katzpur]

Why would a fair and just super intelligent being only present his miracles and/or messiah to a select few in a specific location eons before and after, as well as around the globe away, from most of the people that ever existed?

A fair and just, super-intelligent being wouldn't do that. Whose God are you trying to describe?

 

[jmvizanko]

A fair and just, super-intelligent being wouldn't do that. Whose God are you trying to describe?

Any religion that meets these qualifications. Although the two I am addressing most are Christianity and Islam, mainly because even in lieu the point of this thread, they still teach that people go to a hell for unbelief. But even without a hell, it would still be unfair.

 

[Zadok]

Why would a fair and just super intelligent being only present his miracles and/or messiah to a select few in a specific location eons before and after, as well as around the globe away, from most of the people that ever existed? And then to top it off with, expect everyone to accept a telephone game testimony of these miracles and affirmations of truth? Why would it not make more sense to share with everyone equally any reason to affirm faith in any specific direction, rather than letting such imperfect means be the only source of discovering the truth, let alone the most important truth to know for anyone's soul?

I completely agree - As a Christian of the LDS faith - as far as I know the LDS faith is the only religion that holds the tenant that no one will be judged and receive a reward or given a punishment until they have a clear understanding and have made their desired choice. Since this life does not offer clear understanding and actual choice, according to LDS theology, our learning and probation will continue after we die.

Zadok

 

[Riverwolf]

Any religion that meets these qualifications..

Not all religions are revelation-based, you know.

 

[Katzpur]

Why would a fair and just super intelligent being only present his miracles and/or messiah to a select few in a specific location eons before and after, as well as around the globe away, from most of the people that ever existed? And then to top it off with, expect everyone to accept a telephone game testimony of these miracles and affirmations of truth? Why would it not make more sense to share with everyone equally any reason to affirm faith in any specific direction, rather than letting such imperfect means be the only source of discovering the truth, let alone the most important truth to know for anyone's soul?

I almost never post passages from The Book of Mormon on RF. The reason I don't is that in most cases it would be pointless. In this particular situation, however, I'm going to make an exception. This passage responds to your question better than I could in my own words:

2 Nephi 29:7-11 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.

And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

So now you know that there is at least one Christian denomination who believes in a more "Christian" God than the one you have described.