Is it a waste of my time to try having honest, logical debates with theists?

[shmogie]

Right, I agree. I simply am trying to give folk a clearer idea of what logic is and what logical logical means.If someone would simply say it isn't logical to me, they would evade the trap of saying it isn't logical, therefore you and your position are illogical.Not necessarily true at all.

BTW, I am trained in the legal system, which is adversarial, further, to my chagrin as a Christian, I return in kind. God and I are working on that.

 

[shmogie]

Another assumption, how do you derive that your god exists outside a universe/space with laws?

If he created the universe, and all it's physical laws, then he by necessity is outside of them.

 

[JustWondering]

link?

Bible claims/interpretations that don't make sense

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't debate you, because YOU are a waste of my time., I Ynow ya want me, but ya ain't gonna get me.

You won't debate me because you use poor arguments and I won't let you get away with them.

 

[JustWondering]

You are probably right about that. The Baha’i Faith considers the Qur’an authentic as compared to the Bible, but the difference is that Muhammad did not write it Himself because He was illiterate. I think Muhammad dictated the Qur’an to scribes.

The Baha’i Faith accepts Islam as the revelation that preceded it and we consider Muhammad a Prophet/Messenger of God.

The Qur’an does not say that Muhammad was the last Prophet, although it might say He was the Seal of the Prophets, meaning that He was the last Prophet in the Prophetic Cycle of religion that started with Adam, also called the Adamic Cycle.

We are living in the “end times” that Christians refer to, but it is not the end of the world, it was the end of an age. Muhammad sealed off the previous age and the Bab and Baha’u’llah ushered in a new age of mankind, beginning a whole new Cycle of religion called the Cycle of Fulfillment or the Baha’i Cycle. The followers of all religions have been awaiting the Promised One who was prophesied in their scriptures: Prophecy Fulfilled Webpage

Interesting way to interpret that, but don't you think that reinterpreting other people's religions to turn them into stepping stones for yours isn't a little disrespectful let alone suspect? How hard is it to take material that already exists and work out ways to fit it into a new system of beliefs?

So do you believe Muhammad was directly passing on the word of god as dictated by an angel?

What is it about angels that you like so much, or do you just prefer them to Messengers? How would they write if they did not have hands, like humans?

Doesn't have to be angels. God could simply etch his messages on the surface of the moon big enough for us to read them. He could have left a system for deciphering messages hidden in the arrangement of the stars which we could only do when we were ready for the knowledge/rules they contained. I could go on. Communicating through a "chosen one" has got to be the must suspect and inefficient means of communicating with mankind a god could chose, IMO of course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If he created the universe, and all it's physical laws, then he by necessity is outside of them.

Special pleading fallacy.

 

[JustWondering]

If he created the universe, and all it's physical laws, then he by necessity is outside of them.

I'm not even disputing that. Why do you assume that wherever he is, doesn't have laws he's bound by?

 

[shmogie]

I'm not even disputing that. Why do you assume that wherever he is, doesn't have laws he's bound by?

Omnipotence negates any and all laws.

 

[Trailblazer]

Interesting way to interpret that, but don't you think that reinterpreting other people's religions to turn them into stepping stones for yours isn't a little disrespectful let alone suspect? How hard is it to take material that already exists and work out ways to fit it into a new system of beliefs?

We are not reinterpreting other people’s religions; we are just explaining what some of the scriptures of those religions mean. Are you assuming that the followers of the older religions interpreted all of their scriptures correctly and now we are interpreting them differently in order to make them fit into the Baha’i schema? That is one way to view it, but that does not make any sense, unless the Baha’i Faith is a false religion and Baha’u’llah was not a Messenger of God.

If the Baha’i Faith is a true religion then Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. He claimed that God taught Him the knowledge of all that hath been so that means He knew what was meant by what was revealed in the older scriptures better than any of the followers of those religions can possibly know. I do not consider that disrespectful if Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God because God entrusted Him with that responsibility as part of His mission, but if He wasn’t a Messenger of God, He was a liar. It is a or b.

I do not know that much about what Muslims believe the Qur’an means but it is possible they misconstrued some of its meaning. As for the Bible, it was never intended to be fully understood until the time of the end. Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah unsealed the Book so it can now be understood; not all of the Bible, but what is important to understand has now been explained by Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha, His eldest son and the centre of His Covenant:

Daniel Chapter 12: 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. 8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 12Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

The early Church fathers interpreted the Bible the way they did because they could not fully understand it. The "Book" was intended to be sealed up until the time of the end, the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. The 2,300 years was up in 1844 and the book was unsealed.

There is a starting point from which the waiting in Dan 12:12 began, so if one knows how to do the math, the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days comes out to the exact year the Bab came to announce the coming of Baha’u’llah. This and the math is explained by Abdu’l-Baha in Some Answered Questions, 10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

So do you believe Muhammad was directly passing on the word of god as dictated by an angel?

Yes, I believe that the Angel Gabriel communicated to Him through the Holy Spirit.

Doesn't have to be angels. God could simply etch his messages on the surface of the moon big enough for us to read them. He could have left a system for deciphering messages hidden in the arrangement of the stars which we could only do when we were ready for the knowledge/rules they contained. I could go on. Communicating through a "chosen one" has got to be the most suspect and inefficient means of communicating with mankind a god could chose, IMO of course.

I just got finished discussing this with an atheist on my forum. He said exactly the same things you just did and I asked him why the use of Messengers is suspect and why is it inefficient? Why is the method that you propose better than Messengers?

In your answer please explain how your proposed method of communication could convey all of the information that Baha’u’llah wrote in over 15,000 Tablets such that everyone in the world could access and understand this information.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I have not seen a lot of hostility here compared to elsewhere.... One atheist got so angry at me that he deleted all the posts he ever wrote on my forum... I never did a thing to him but respond to his posts... I was polite and sincere, he just does not like my beliefs, but that is no reason to strike out at anyone... Besides, he was the one who chose to post to me, I never went after him... Now somehow that is my fault because he does not like my answers.... what a child.

There might be some hostility here but everything is relative.
What happened to Mostly Harmless Too?

I did want Mostly Harmless, but just on a whim, and since that was already taken, I didn't look too far for another. A comment by someone made me want to reflect my nature more in my name - hence the Mock the rest followed rather quickly - with any abuse or mud just sliding off the turtles back. I actually have loads of usernames I would like to use (my hobby) but one can only be one person at a time.

I'm trying to get some of my friends to join this forum - you would like them I'm sure. I'm happy enough with the mix of people and especially with the moderators - very fair and open.

 

[Trailblazer]

I did want Mostly Harmless, but just on a whim, and since that was already taken, I didn't look too far for another. A comment by someone made me want to reflect my nature more in my name - hence the Mock the rest followed rather quickly - with any abuse or mud just sliding off the turtles back. I actually have loads of usernames I would like to use (my hobby) but one can only be one person at a time.

Thanks for explaining that... I have always had one username on the other forum group I have posted on, and I was such a ditz that I used the initial of my first name and my last name for a username. Once a poster who hated me used that to look me up and accuse me of doing something I did not do. In that other forum group they frown upon changing usernames so I have just left it as it is... If they want to come after me I don't care. Life is too short to worry about stuff like that. I have had such terrible experiences on that one forum, I still ask myself why I stayed there for so long. I thought I had friends there but most of them did not really like me because of my Baha'i beliefs... I do not consider those friends. But I can be pretty naive since I assume people should like everyone no matter what they believe or disbelieve.

I'm trying to get some of my friends to join this forum - you would like them I'm sure. I'm happy enough with the mix of people and especially with the moderators - very fair and open.

I am sure I would like them if they are your friends. I do not have time for making friends off forum, so I have to depend upon forum friends. At least here there is hope for that. Everyone is so nice.
Yes, the moderators here are very fair and open.

 

[Apologes]

Thank you for the response. If we where debating what I asked you about I would at this point bring up issues I have with your response with explanations on how I arrived at those conclusions. It is at that point that theists can get derailed from the debate. I don't know if these people don't realize a debate is supposed to go back and forth while staying on topic or if they just don't care, they just want to nay say. If I asked you to give more information or provide something to back up one of your arguments, if you where here to have an honest debate, would likely have no problem doing that, right? Yet, with certain other theists I get "I don't have to prove anything to you!". Do you think that maybe some of these people might not understand what a debate is?

Most laypeople in general either don't know how to debate or they only know a tiny bit and then get flustered when things don't go as they expected. It's the same for both theists and atheists. They both tend to provide basic shallow outlines of popular arguments for their beliefs but they have no idea how to defend them.

If you really want to judge the merits of a belief system, you ought to look at actual scholars working in the relevant fields who argue for said beliefs, not Joe from accounting who hasn't a clue about what establishes the rationality of a belief but happens to go to Church every sunday.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Thanks for explaining that... I have always had one username on the other forum group I have posted on, and I was such a ditz that I used the initial of my first name and my last name for a username. Once a poster who hated me used that to look me up and accuse me of doing something I did not do. In that other forum group they frown upon changing usernames so I have just left it as it is... If they want to come after me I don't care. Life is too short to worry about stuff like that. I have had such terrible experiences on that one forum, I still ask myself why I stayed there for so long. I thought I had friends there but most of them did not really like me because of my Baha'i beliefs... I do not consider those friends. But I can be pretty naive since I assume people should like everyone no matter what they believe or disbelieve.

I am sure I would like them if they are your friends. I do not have time for making friends off forum, so I have to depend upon forum friends. At least here there is hope for that. Everyone is so nice.
Yes, the moderators here are very fair and open.

I think I have only used my real name on Facebook - deleted it because it wasn't really me to have such an account - few friends who might be interested. It's generally a lot safer to be relatively anonymous these days unless one really wants to go public. I generally block adverts, use tracking blockers, delete cookies, and use random characters for emails so as to avoid spam. It seems to work.

 

[james blunt]

So where do you stand, natural cause or endless series of creators?

Neither, because I imply space is God the creator and a natural act of God is to create. But I also know , the word God has ambiguity and can be applied differently .

I think creator is a more descriptive word that also has less baggage associated with it. God is usually a word referring to the biblical god, which I firmly believe doesn't exist. God also seems to carry implications of supernatural and magical abilities/attributes, I firmly believe that anything that exists is natural and bound by natural laws.

I do not see how you have answered the question , so I will ask again.

If God was the first descriptive word used to describe a natural process or action that created things of the Universe, would you believe in God?

 

[Apologes]

Special pleading fallacy.

That's not really special pleading. The fallacy of special pleading is when you make something an exception to a general principle without justification.

He said that God is an exception to the physical laws because He created them. He provided a justification and thereby isn't guilty of the said fallacy. You may argue that the reasons he provided for making God an exception are unsound, but you can't really accuse him of not giving any reasons.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think I have only used my real name on Facebook - deleted it because it wasn't really me to have such an account - few friends who might be interested. It's generally a lot safer to be relatively anonymous these days unless one really wants to go public. I generally block adverts, use tracking blockers, delete cookies, and use random characters for emails so as to avoid spam. It seems to work.

I went on Facebook years ago for a short time but soon realized it was too shallow for my purposes and too impersonal... This forum is so big that it tends to be impersonal but as long as I have a few people like you I can be personal with that's enough... I still have my own forum and right now there are only two posters who are regulars, both nonbelievers... we are all good friends that go back several years... They are not banned from that other forum I left but they won't post there because of the strong arm atheist dictator.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I went on Facebook years ago for a short time but soon realized it was too shallow for my purposes and too impersonal... This forum is so big that it tends to be impersonal but as long as I have a few people like you I can be personal with that's enough... I still have my own forum and right now there are only two posters who are regulars, both nonbelievers... we are all good friends that go back several years... They are not banned from that other forum I left but they won't post there because of the strong arm atheist dictator.

Bit of a problem. I think there are more than enough decent people here to make others who are so too to feel at home, even if we do bite and scratch like wildcats at times.

 

[Trailblazer]

Bit of a problem. I think there are more than enough decent people here to make others who are so too to feel at home, even if we do bite and scratch like wildcats at times.

Nothing like the biting and scratching that goes on elsewhere.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

*sigh* Well, all the early OT creation story stuff for instance. Which includes Noah, the tower of Babel, people living for hundreds of years, etc...

Well, let's take the "people living for hundreds of years"....

The Bible describes a difference between the creation of animals and humans. According to the Scriptures, A&E were created in God's image, able to display qualities that God possesses, like mercy, patience, etc. in fact, the Bible calls Adam, a "son of God." (That never applied to the animals.) As such, A&E would have been able to enjoy living forever...they were only told they would die, if they disobeyed. That would indicate they had genetic perfection. But they disobeyed; that brought sin and death. Their offspring, for the next few generations at least, being closer genetically to A&E, would experience longer lifespans. Those coming afterward, would gradually lose the longevity their ancestors enjoyed. Hence, Adam and his progeny until Noah, lived 900+ years; Noah's son, Shem, lived only 600 years; his son, Arphaxad, lived 438. By the time of Abraham a few generations later...he lived to be only 175. But Isaac, his son, lived to be 180; Jacob, 147....Joseph, 110.

Seeing a pattern?

The Sumerian Kings list also attributes long ages to the kings, although their ages are ridiculously long. But most legends' facets have some basis in truth.

 

[JustWondering]

Omnipotence negates any and all laws.

But the bible itself doesn't support that your god is omnipotent, so where are you getting this from?