God’s Method of delivering messages, is it flawed?

[Vinayaka]

What would be fun is if the person who posted this, is wrong and can only tell everyone else they're wrong.

There are a ton of people who do that. Their small tribe is THE answer, according to them. Even within that small tribe two people will go at it in the same way. It's an area of consciousness that mustn't be all that hard to get into, considering how many folks are in it.

 

[CG Didymus]

I did not agree that God's method is flawed.

Would it have been better if God, like he did with Baha'u'llah, had the messenger himself write down the laws and the other things God wanted the people to do?

 

[Trailblazer]

Would it have been better if God, like he did with Baha'u'llah, had the messenger himself write down the laws and the other things God wanted the people to do?

I don't understand, that is what God did.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Would it have been better if God, like he did with Baha'u'llah, had the messenger himself write down the laws and the other things God wanted the people to do?

15,000 tablets, god would never have got off the phone to Bahaullah if it had to dictate all that. Just look at the verses he churned out, not exactly short notes.

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't understand, that is what God did.

That's okay. The correct answer is "yes". It would have been better. Supposedly God struck people dead in Judaism for not doing thing right... like touching the Ark of the Covenant. In the NT, two people were struck down for lying. So God could have had his messenger write the stuff down and kill anyone that tried to mess with it. But no, he let other people write the stuff down. And then had people kill people that interpreted it differently. Like this guy...

Michael Servetus, Spanish Miguel Servet, (born 1511?, Villanueva or Tudela, Spain—died Oct. 27, 1553, Champel, Switz.), Spanish physician and theologian whose unorthodox teachings led to his condemnation as a heretic by both Protestants and Roman Catholics and to his execution by Calvinists from Geneva.​

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

That's okay. The correct answer is "yes". It would have been better. Supposedly God struck people dead in Judaism for not doing thing right... like touching the Ark of the Covenant. In the NT, two people were struck down for lying. So God could have had his messenger write the stuff down and kill anyone that tried to mess with it. But no, he let other people write the stuff down. And then had people kill people that interpreted it differently. Like this guy...

Michael Servetus, Spanish Miguel Servet, (born 1511?, Villanueva or Tudela, Spain—died Oct. 27, 1553, Champel, Switz.), Spanish physician and theologian whose unorthodox teachings led to his condemnation as a heretic by both Protestants and Roman Catholics and to his execution by Calvinists from Geneva.​

You can see very clearly how religions are twisted. A man who preached "Love thy neighbour" soon had followers putting anyone with an alternative way of looking at the situation to death. That's what happens to all religions and Baha'ism won't be any different, even if some say it will. Has the UHJ changed someofthe original teachings to "make it clearer"!!!!

 

[Trailblazer]

That's what happens to all religions and Baha'ism won't be any different, even if some say it will. Has the UHJ changed some of the original teachings to "make it clearer"!!!!

The UHJ cannot change anything that any of the central figures if the Baha'i Faith have written, which are the teachings. Those central figures are Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. Regarding those Writings, the only role of the UHJ would be to clarify certain meanings for the Baha'is.if the meanings are in question.

 

[night912]

It would be if I had not presented that as a conditional statement.

I said: So IF God has used Messengers to communicate to humans the answer is NO, God’s Method of delivering messages is not flawed.

That's not where the fallacy lies.

That is illogical because no fallible human can say that God made mistakes since that would be based upon their fallible criteria of what a mistake is.

Wrong, being fallible doesn't mean that we don't know or can't know when a mistake is made. Capable of being wrong doesn't mean that you are incapable of being correct.

A fallible human judging an infallible God’s actions is completely illogical.

That would be true only if God is actually infallible.

And special pleading isn't going to save your argument.

Moreover, IF God is All-Knowing no human can know as much as God, because no human is All-Knowing.

Therefore, IF God used Messengers to communicate, THEN that had to be the best way for God to communicate to humans, since an All-Knowing God would know the best way from all the available options.

Again, special pleading.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: ↑
It would be if I had not presented that as a conditional statement.

I said: So IF God has used Messengers to communicate to humans the answer is NO, God’s Method of delivering messages is not flawed.

That's not where the fallacy lies.

Then where does it lie?

Trailblazer said: ↑
That is illogical because no fallible human can say that God made mistakes since that would be based upon their fallible criteria of what a mistake is.

Wrong, being fallible doesn't mean that we don't know or can't know when a mistake is made. Capable of being wrong doesn't mean that you are incapable of being correct.

Fallible: capable of making mistakes or being erroneous.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fallibke+means

Infallible: incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=infalloble+means

God is infallible so that means God cannot make a mistake or be wrong.

Since humans are fallible that means they are capable of making mistakes or being wrong.

Even though humans are capable of being right, they can be wrong since they are fallible. God cannot be wrong because God is infallible.

So IF God has used Messengers to communicate to humans God cannot be wrong to deliver messages this way, but humans can be wrong when they say that God is wrong because humans are fallible (capable of making mistakes or being wrong).

Trailblazer said: ↑
A fallible human judging an infallible God’s actions is completely illogical.

That would be true only if God is actually infallible.

And special pleading isn't going to save your argument.

If God is not infallible then there is no point of this discussion. I do not believe in a God that can make mistakes because that is utterly ridiculous.

You are the one who is guilty of special pleading because you are deliberately ignoring the implications of God being infallible because it does not support your argument, since it means God cannot be wrong. Of course God cannot be wrong. That means that God is always right. Humans can be wrong which means that they are not always right.

The logical implications are obvious.

 

[night912]

I just want to make one thing clear, you learning that two new fallacies exist, is NOT the same as you understanding two new fallacies.

That is not what I am saying. There are not only two options, flawed or not flawed. I knew that was illogical so that led me to look on the web and find out what the fallacy is called.
What is the black and white fallacy?

The black-or-white fallacy occurs in arguments that have a disjunctive premiss―that is, one that gives alternatives―when one or more alternatives is incorrectly omitted. The fallacy tries to force you to choose either black or white when gray is an available alternative.
The Black-or-White Fallacy - The Fallacy Files

So, just because a method does not work perfectly that does not mean it is flawed, because there are shades of gray in between flawed and not flawed.

The reason using Messengers to communicate caused problems for humans throughout history is because humans are imperfect, so there is no way for a message from God to be received perfectly no matter what the method of delivery was. It does not matter that God is perfect because humans are not perfect so they make mistakes after they get the message from God.
It is not a flawed method just because you believe it is a flawed method. That is just your personal opinion, not a fact.
Nit-picking about the meaning of words throws up a smokescreen over the main issue in dispute, whether the method is flawed or not. I knew that was illogical so that led me to look it up and I was right, there is a fallacy for nitpicking.

Logic Chopping

(also known as: quibbling, nit-picking, smokescreen, splitting-hairs, trivial objections)

Description: Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute. Irrelevant over precision.

Logic Chopping

The Logical Fallacy of Logic Chopping / Quibbling / Quibble / Splitting-Hairs / Nit-Picking / Trivial Objections / Smokescreen / Blowing Smoke / Befogging the Issue / Clouding the Issue / Megatrifle / Trivial Objections / Cavil / Spurious Superficiality occurs when a diversion is created to make discussion of an issue difficult. The diversion is a specific kind of red herring that acts as a smokescreen to make it difficult to analyze the issue at hand. This diversion may be quibbling about the meaning of a word, nit-picking grammar, splitting hairs on unimportant details, or a seemingly unlimited other tactics. When quibbling takes the form of nitpicking language, this is sometimes called the language trap, which would be a specific kind of logic chopping.

Logical Fallacy of Logic Chopping / Quibbling / Quibble / Splitting-Hairs / Nit-Picking / Trivial Objections / Smokescreen / Blowing Smoke / Befogging the Issue / Clouding the Issue / Megatrifle / Trivial Objections / Cavil / Spurious Superficiality

I just learned two new fallacies today, thanks. [/QUOTE]

I'll split into two parts, each fallacy in it's own post.

That is not what I am saying. There are not only two options, flawed or not flawed. I knew that was illogical so that led me to look on the web and find out what the fallacy is called.

So it all makes sense now, you "knew" all along that it was illogical. But since you didn't know what the name of the fallacy, was, so you wanted to wait until you know what to call it? Now that you know the name, care to continue?

This is indicates your ignorance in this fallacy. When the person is more concern about the importance of the name than the reason why it is a fallacy, usually it's a good indication that the person is ignorant of the fallacy. Word of advice, you should not look for a fallacy to use to support your objection. Usually you end up with finding a fallacy similar to your objection, but that fallacy was not committed in your opponent's argument.

What is the black and white fallacy?

The black-or-white fallacy occurs in arguments that have a disjunctive premiss―that is, one that gives alternatives―when one or more alternatives is incorrectly omitted. The fallacy tries to force you to choose either black or white when gray is an available alternative.
The Black-or-White Fallacy - The Fallacy Files

Having the ability to read and then copy and paste is nothing if you lack the understanding of the fallacy. Pasting the definition but not showing the actual fallacy in my argument is useless. The key word here is, "disjunction." If the argument has disjunction premises, then it indeed a committed the fallacy.

So all you have to do is show me the disjunction premises that was in my argument.

Argument:
"The method is either flawed or not flawed."

So, just because a method does not work perfectly that does not mean it is flawed, because there are shades of gray in between flawed and not flawed.

Nail in the coffin. So what is that thing called? Flawbetweeno?

flawed
adjective

1. blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way.

So the only way for some thing to be imperfect(not perfect) is for it to be perfect.

Perfect = 100%
Imperfect = any percent less than 100%

The reason using Messengers to communicate caused problems for humans throughout history is because humans are imperfect, so there is no way for a message from God to be received perfectly no matter what the method of delivery was. It does not matter that God is perfect because humans are not perfect so they make mistakes after they get the message from God.

So the reason why my argument is a back and white fallacy is because of things that are irrelevant to "flawed and not flawed?"

Sorry, but the Black or White fallacy cannot exist if all I had said was, Black. You adding in White and Gray means that it is not my argument. And arguing against your argument and pretending that it was mine ..........results in a scarecrow being present.

 

[night912]

Nit-picking about the meaning of words throws up a smokescreen over the main issue in dispute, whether the method is flawed or not. I knew that was illogical so that led me to look it up and I was right, there is a fallacy for nitpicking.

Logic Chopping

(also known as: quibbling, nit-picking, smokescreen, splitting-hairs, trivial objections)

Description: Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute. Irrelevant over precision.

Logic Chopping

The Logical Fallacy of Logic Chopping / Quibbling / Quibble / Splitting-Hairs / Nit-Picking / Trivial Objections / Smokescreen / Blowing Smoke / Befogging the Issue / Clouding the Issue / Megatrifle / Trivial Objections / Cavil / Spurious Superficiality occurs when a diversion is created to make discussion of an issue difficult. The diversion is a specific kind of red herring that acts as a smokescreen to make it difficult to analyze the issue at hand. This diversion may be quibbling about the meaning of a word, nit-picking grammar, splitting hairs on unimportant details, or a seemingly unlimited other tactics. When quibbling takes the form of nitpicking language, this is sometimes called the language trap, which would be a specific kind of logic chopping.

Logical Fallacy of Logic Chopping / Quibbling / Quibble / Splitting-Hairs / Nit-Picking / Trivial Objections / Smokescreen / Blowing Smoke / Befogging the Issue / Clouding the Issue / Megatrifle / Trivial Objections / Cavil / Spurious Superficiality

I just learned two new fallacies today, thanks.

Sorry, due to me being a fallible being, I made the assumption that part of being rational is that one should provide numerous amounts of evidence to support an argument along with giving a clear explanation how it relates to the main issue.

I thought that a recent event involving several people disagreeing on the interpretation of God's message is strong evidence for the method having flaws. Several people from the same era disagreeing on the same scripture that was made for that era over one word. If something small and seen as weak evidence, was able to prove that the method does have flaws in communicating God's message. So eventhough this is just what I believe, that something small was able to do a significant impact, should be acknowledged as having at one piece of evidence

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

There has been since god first came into play many devastating wars over its existence.

World War II casualties - Wikipedia
World War I casualties - Wikipedia

85 million to 100+ million deaths. Just from 2 conflicts in the last century.

If a god exists it would have communicated with the leaders and stopped this awful bloodshed if it loved us as we are told. Don'treply it couldn't because it's not that powerful. It's a god and can do anything, like remove the leaders bent on killing others until 1 rises who isn't a madman, bent of destruction.

We get a continued procession of nobodies with little power, charlatans and more madmen to carry on with their BS.

Arguing over the definition of different words is missing the point. Why does a god who can choose anyone to carry his message continually pick nobodies?

Or does a god that's sending messages exist?

 

[night912]

Fallible: capable of making mistakes or being erroneous.
fallibke means - Google Search

Infallible: incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
infalloble means - Google Search

God is infallible so that means God cannot make a mistake or be wrong.

Since humans are fallible that means they are capable of making mistakes or being wrong.

Even though humans are capable of being right, they can be wrong since they are fallible. God cannot be wrong because God is infallible.

So IF God has used Messengers to communicate to humans God cannot be wrong to deliver messages this way, but humans can be wrong when they say that God is wrong because humans are fallible (capable of making mistakes or being wrong).

Since "fallible" means that humans CAN be wrong, making humans also capable of being right. So applying logic, stating that the disagreement on the interpretation of God's message is one flaw in his method.
Then the statement saying that God's method is not flawed(perfect) is a false statement. That only leads to the logical conclusion that God's method is flawed. But that brings up an important issue. Since God is shown to have done one flawed thing, that can only lead to the logical conclusion that God is not infallible. If two beings are both fallible, it would indicate that it's rational to not accept something as being true or false until there's sufficient evidence to support one or the other. So someone making this claim, "That is illogical because no fallible human can say that God made mistakes since that would be based upon their fallible criteria of what a mistake is." Is simply wrong.

That makes your comment below interesting. Are you now an atheist and is willing to accept that fact? Or are did you choose to be irrational and believe false information as being true?

If God is not infallible then there is no point of this discussion. I do not believe in a God that can make mistakes because that is utterly ridiculous.

But at the end of the day, everyone is free to believe in whatever want, I'm just stating the facts. Just keep in mind that if you don't believe in that God, and he does actually exist, that idea might not be that ridiculous. God might make a mistake and allow you into heaven.

 

[night912]

You are the one who is guilty of special pleading because you are deliberately ignoring the implications of God being infallible because it does not support your argument, since it means God cannot be wrong. Of course God cannot be wrong. That means that God is always right. Humans can be wrong which means that they are not always right.

Logical implication are obvious.

That's why humans can be wrong that God is always right. That's why when we know that something is wrong, because God did it, we can say that God was wrong because we cannot assume that we cannot be wrong about God cannot be wrong.


Since I'm a fallible being, I chose not to rely on making assumptions about God being fallible or infallible. That's why I don't use "God is fallible" as my defense like how you you used "God is infallible" to defend your argument. I rely on evidence to support my argument, and follow those evidence to where it leads. That's why I lead with the evidence, then present the conlusion. If whenever I do point that out, it's because the evidence lead to the conclusion that God is not infallible. And yes, every now and then I point it out based on the things you say that lead to that conclusion.

And the reason for the recent speacial pleadings that I've pointed out was not because of your statements about God is infallible, it's due to you acknowledging that we are both fallible beings, and yet, your reason why I'm wrong is due to me being fallible. You hold the things that you said at a higher level with less or none of the restrictions that gave to mine

What's funny is how ridiculous you are when making comments on God being infallible. A fallible being, capable of making mistakes and being wrong, is making claims that God is infallible and cannot make mistakes is true because a fallible statement was being said by a fallible being.

Or

When talking about how nobody can know what God. "You are wrong, that's not how God thinks, nobody is capable of knowing how God thinks. So that's not what God think because I know that is not how God thinks because I don't know what God think.

Logical implication are obvious.

Illogical implications are not so obvious.

This is why when you are illogical but think that you are logical, it's easy for you to convince yourself you are logical. But it can be near impossible for you to see that you are actually illogical.

 

[night912]

As I said, just because God allows a certain outcome that does not mean God wants it, but the fact that God does nothing to intercede probably means that God accepts the outcome because it is all part of His Plan.

If God is rational, then anything and everything that is part of his plan, means that he wants it. If you put something that you don't want into your plan, then you are being irrational.

I'm strictly talking about things that you put in your plan, no more no less. Anything else is irrelevant.

 

[Trailblazer]

So it all makes sense now, you "knew" all along that it was illogical. But since you didn't know what the name of the fallacy, was, so you wanted to wait until you know what to call it? Now that you know the name, care to continue?

This is indicates your ignorance in this fallacy. When the person is more concern about the importance of the name than the reason why it is a fallacy, usually it's a good indication that the person is ignorant of the fallacy. Word of advice, you should not look for a fallacy to use to support your objection. Usually you end up with finding a fallacy similar to your objection, but that fallacy was not committed in your opponent's argument.

I did not say I had more concern about the importance of the name of the fallacy. I did not look for the fallacy to support what I was saying. I knew what you were saying was illogical so I looked to see if there was a fallacy. Go back and read what I actually said.

I consider what you are doing to be obfuscation since you cannot respond to what I said about the black and white fallacy.

Having the ability to read and then copy and paste is nothing if you lack the understanding of the fallacy. Pasting the definition but not showing the actual fallacy in my argument is useless. The key word here is, "disjunction." If the argument has disjunction premises, then it indeed a committed the fallacy.

So all you have to do is show me the disjunction premises that was in my argument.

Argument:
"The method is either flawed or not flawed."

So the reason why my argument is a black and white fallacy is because of things that are irrelevant to "flawed and not flawed?"

Sorry, but the Black or White fallacy cannot exist if all I had said was, Black. You adding in White and Gray means that it is not my argument. And arguing against your argument and pretending that it was mine ..........results in a scarecrow being present.

This is just more obfuscation. I do not care that you said black. The discussion is about whether the God’s method of delivering messages is flawed or not flawed.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/god’s-method-of-delivering-messages-is-it-flawed.237273/

Flawed is black and not flawed is white, but there are shades of gray in between flawed and not flawed.

The black and white fallacy perfectly applies to anyone who says a method is either flawed or not flawed, for reasons I stated.

Again…..

What is the black and white fallacy?

The black-or-white fallacy occurs in arguments that have a disjunctive premiss―that is, one that gives alternatives―when one or more alternatives is incorrectly omitted. The fallacy tries to force you to choose either black or white when gray is an available alternative.

The Black-or-White Fallacy - The Fallacy Files

What is the gray, the other available alternative? It is that the method is not either flawed or not flawed. It is somewhere between the two.

Just because a method does not work perfectly that does not mean it is flawed, because there are shades of gray in between flawed and not flawed.

The reason using Messengers to communicate caused problems for humans throughout history is because humans are imperfect, so there is no way for a message from God to be received perfectly no matter what the method of delivery was. It does not matter that God is perfect because humans are not perfect so they make mistakes after they get the message from God.

flawed
adjective

1. blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way.

So the only way for some thing to be imperfect(not perfect) is for it to be perfect.

Perfect = 100%
Imperfect = any percent less than 100%

To say that something is flawed is black and white thinking, because nothing is completely flawed (black).

To say that something is either flawed (black) or not flawed (white) is black and white thinking, because there are shades of gray in between flawed and unflawed, so it could be any percentage from 0% to 100%; for example it could be 50% or 80%.

If you really want to play with definitions these are the definitions.

Perfect: having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be. perfect means - Google Search

Imperfect: not perfect; faulty or incomplete. imperfect means - Google Search

First, please explain why the method should work perfectly, and how that would even be possible given the human factor, imperfect humans?

The actual method of delivering messages is as good as it is possible to be, because there is no other method that would work better. Since God is All-Knowing, God would have to know the “best way” to communicate. Since God is infallible, God cannot make a mistake in choosing a method to communicate to humans. All the problems that arise after the message is delivered -- e.g., if humans fail to receive the message, reject the message, or misinterpret the message -- are the result of humans because humans are imperfect.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, due to me being a fallible being, I made the assumption that part of being rational is that one should provide numerous amounts of evidence to support an argument along with giving a clear explanation how it relates to the main issue.

I thought that a recent event involving several people disagreeing on the interpretation of God's message is strong evidence for the method having flaws. Several people from the same era disagreeing on the same scripture that was made for that era over one word. If something small and seen as weak evidence, was able to prove that the method does have flaws in communicating God's message. So even though this is just what I believe, that something small was able to do a significant impact, should be acknowledged as having at one piece of evidence.

Humans are on the receiving end of God's communication and whenever humans are involved, there will be imperfections, because no human is perfect. The question one might want to ask is why perfection is necessary if the main goal is achieved despite any imperfections..

Several people from the same era disagreeing on the same scripture that was made for that era over one word is no big deal because disagreeing over one word is no big deal. That does not mean they did not not understand the scripture, they just did not understand it the same way. No two people will ever understand the same scripture in exactly the same way because people assign different meanings to words.

 

[Trailblazer]

If a god exists it would have communicated with the leaders and stopped this awful bloodshed if it loved us as we are told. Don'treply it couldn't because it's not that powerful. It's a god and can do anything, like remove the leaders bent on killing others until 1 rises who isn't a madman, bent of destruction.

Baha'u'llah communicated with the leaders in an effort to stop the awful bloodshed but the leaders rejected Him and His message.

God cannot show up "in person" because God is not a person. That is the reason God sends Representatives to speak on His behalf.

“The Person of the Manifestation hath ever been the representative and mouthpiece of God. He, in truth, is the Day Spring of God’s most excellent Titles, and the Dawning-Place of His exalted Attributes. If any be set up by His side as peers, if they be regarded as identical with His Person, how can it, then, be maintained that the Divine Being is One and Incomparable, that His Essence is indivisible and peerless? Meditate on that which We have, through the power of truth, revealed unto thee, and be thou of them that comprehend its meaning.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

 

[Trailblazer]

Since "fallible" means that humans CAN be wrong, making humans also capable of being right. So applying logic, stating that the disagreement on the interpretation of God's message is one flaw in his method.

The next question to ask is why it matters if people agree on the exact meaning of God's message.

Then the statement saying that God's method is not flawed(perfect) is a false statement. That only leads to the logical conclusion that God's method is flawed.

It is not a flaw unless complete agreement on the meaning is the scripture was the goal, so if it was not God’s goal that everyone would interpret the scripture in exactly the same way then there is no flaw in the method of communication.

But that brings up an important issue. Since God is shown to have done one flawed thing, that can only lead to the logical conclusion that God is not infallible.

God was not shown to do one flawed thing. It is only your personal opinion that disagreement on the interpretation of God's message is a flaw in the method but since you are a fallible human you can be wrong. As such, your fallible personal opinion as to what constitutes a flaw in the method does not render God fallible.

If two beings are both fallible, it would indicate that it's rational to not accept something as being true or false until there's sufficient evidence to support one or the other.

So someone making this claim, "That is illogical because no fallible human can say that God made mistakes since that would be based upon their fallible criteria of what a mistake is." Is simply wrong.

That would be true if God was fallible, but God is infallible.

If God was not infallible then God would be on the same level with humans, fallible. Maybe that is where you want God to be so you can believe that you are right and God is wrong, but it is much more logical to say that God does not exist than to say God is fallible. Just think of the implications if a fallible God, if God is omnipotent.

That makes your comment below interesting. Are you now an atheist and is willing to accept that fact? Or are did you choose to be irrational and believe false information as being true?

What fact? What false information?

What makes a believer different from an atheist is that we believe that God is always right and that God can never make a mistake. That means is we do not like something that God did we still accept it, knowing we are fallible human beings who cannot ever know as much as an All-Knowing and All-Wise God.

But at the end of the day, everyone is free to believe in whatever want, I'm just stating the facts. Just keep in mind that if you don't believe in that God, and he does actually exist, that idea might not be that ridiculous. God might make a mistake and allow you into heaven.

What facts? Do you have some facts about God?

I am not worried about a fallible God because such a God does not exist, so it cannot do anything to hurt me.
On the other hand, the infallible omnipotent God can do whatever He wants to do, so that is something to fear.

At the end of the day, everyone is free to believe in whatever want to. Just keep in mind that if you don't believe in the infallible God, and He does actually exist, that idea might not be that ridiculous. God might not allow you into heaven and the alternative is.....

 

[Trailblazer]

Logical implication are obvious.

That's why humans can be wrong that God is always right. That's why when we know that something is wrong, because God did it, we can say that God was wrong because we cannot assume that we cannot be wrong about God cannot be wrong.

That is true if we rely upon our own opinions and not upon scriptures, it all boils down to that. If scriptures are wrong then all my beliefs are wrong, so I am wrong about God. But if scriptures are right then everything you believe about God is wrong.

Since I'm a fallible being, I chose not to rely on making assumptions about God being fallible or infallible. That's why I don't use "God is fallible" as my defense like how you used "God is infallible" to defend your argument. I rely on evidence to support my argument, and follow those evidence to where it leads. That's why I lead with the evidence, then present the conclusion. If whenever I do point that out, it's because the evidence lead to the conclusion that God is not infallible. And yes, every now and then I point it out based on the things you say that lead to that conclusion.

The problem with relying upon the evidence is that you are fallible so how you interpret the evidence can be wrong. I could be wrong, but I am only wrong if scriptures are wrong and God is not infallible. If that is the case then anything goes because we all have personal opinions, all of which are subject to being wrong.

And the reason for the recent special pleadings that I've pointed out was not because of your statements about God is infallible, it's due to you acknowledging that we are both fallible beings, and yet, your reason why I'm wrong is due to me being fallible. You hold the things that you said at a higher level with less or none of the restrictions that gave to mine.

I could be wrong because I am a fallible human just like you but I am only wrong if Baha’u’llah was not a Messenger of God. If He wasn’t then all bets are off.

As I said above, I am only wrong if scriptures are wrong, as nothing I say is based upon my own personal opinion, it is all based upon what is in the Baha’i Writings.

I never said that I could not be wrong about Baha’u’llah, I only ever said that I have absolute certitude that my beliefs are true, but that is a different statement.

What's funny is how ridiculous you are when making comments on God being infallible. A fallible being, capable of making mistakes and being wrong, is making claims that God is infallible and cannot make mistakes is true because a fallible statement was being said by a fallible being.

Or

When talking about how nobody can know what God. "You are wrong, that's not how God thinks, nobody is capable of knowing how God thinks. So that's not what God think because I know that is not how God thinks because I don't know what God think.

I am not making claims that God is infallible and cannot make mistakes because I said so. I am saying that only because I believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and the scriptures are true.

I am not claiming to know what or how God thinks. All that I believe I know comes through Baha’u’llah.

Illogical implications are not so obvious.

This is why when you are illogical but think that you are logical, it's easy for you to convince yourself you are logical. But it can be near impossible for you to see that you are actually illogical.

I am not necessarily logical. I am only logical if God exists and Baha’u’llah was His Messenger.

I am not illogical unless you can prove what I believe is false.

If God exists and Baha’u’llah was His Messenger then what you believe is illogical.

If God is infallible then the logical implications are obvious because God cannot be wrong. That means that God is always right. Humans can be wrong which means that they are not always right.

If God does not exist or God is not infallible then it is just your opinion vs. my opinion. Since we are both fallible, either one of us can be right or wrong, logical or illogical.