Prove that humans aren't blind to God's existence

[little_monkey]

You were either silly or you don't understand BoP. Your pick.

Oh, so you don't understand how BoP works, and remain willfully ignorant. Gotcha.

How you can come up with that conclusion must be the work of a sheer genius.

 

[UnTheist]

Don't bother with this one.

 

[Magic Man]

You're reading my post out of context. That initial statement was addressed to one who had previously quoted to me lines from the Qu'ran. So obviously, the messenger of God refers to Mohammad. In mho, Mohammad was delusional.

My second sentence follows through as it recommends to the poster to be skeptical instead of gobbling without questioning the teachings from a person who in mho IS delusional.

So my two sentences are related and make perfect sense.

If you were not nit-picking, then I would have to conclude that your reading skill is a lot less than what you think it is. Your pick.

So, again, do you think that any person claiming to be God's messenger is delusional or not? Why is that question so hard?

If you meant just Mohammed, then why didn't you say "Mohammed" instead of "anyone"?

I understand what your second sentence meant, but it has no bearing on the truth or lack thereof of the first sentence. Your two sentences are related to a degree, and they make perfect sense, but that doesn't mean they are true, and the second one cannot be used to verify the truth of the first one. It's more than being skeptical. In your first sentence, you go beyond skepticism, which is why I asked in the first place. You go to the point of certainty that you're right. I just wondered how you know that for sure.

My reading skill is fine, and there is no nit-picking involved. It's a simple question that you have so far avoided answering, and I simply can't figure out why.

 

[tomspug]

Oh really? Would you like to see who knows more about religion, you or me?

Why are you making this a competition? Who cares how much you "know" about religion if you don't understand the religion itself? You obviously don't understand Christianity, so what are the chances that you understand other religions?

 

[Imagist]

Why are you making this a competition? Who cares how much you "know" about religion if you don't understand the religion itself? You obviously don't understand Christianity, so what are the chances that you understand other religions?

One doesn't need to understand faerieology to discount the existence of faeries.

 

[Autodidact]

Why are you making this a competition?

Because you accused me of not knowing anything about religion.

Who cares how much you "know" about religion if you don't understand the religion itself?

But I do. *hint* disgreeing with you does not equal lack of understanding.

You obviously don't understand Christianity, so what are the chances that you understand other religions?

And you're the authority on understanding Christianity? Maybe the problem is that I understand it all too well.

Now, as I have said several times, are you actually going to respond to any of my points and show us, rather than just telling us, exactly what it is that I don't understand?

 

[little_monkey]

So, again, do you think that any person claiming to be God's messenger is delusional or not? Why is that question so hard?

If you meant just Mohammed, then why didn't you say "Mohammed" instead of "anyone"?

I understand what your second sentence meant, but it has no bearing on the truth or lack thereof of the first sentence. Your two sentences are related to a degree, and they make perfect sense, but that doesn't mean they are true, and the second one cannot be used to verify the truth of the first one. It's more than being skeptical. In your first sentence, you go beyond skepticism, which is why I asked in the first place. You go to the point of certainty that you're right. I just wondered how you know that for sure.

My reading skill is fine, and there is no nit-picking involved. It's a simple question that you have so far avoided answering, and I simply can't figure out why.

Well, that's the problem with posters who take a sentence here, a sentence there. And then jump to a hasty conclusion. It's called, taking a sentence out of context. Mind you, I'm just as guilty as the next guy about that practice. But nevertheless, my post was directed at someone in particular. It was up to you to find out what my post was meant and for whom. I'm not going to take responsibility for your mistake.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, that's the problem with posters who take a sentence here, a sentence there. And then jump to a hasty conclusion. It's called, taking a sentence out of context. Mind you, I'm just as guilty as the next guy about that practice. But nevertheless, my post was directed at someone in particular. It was up to you to find out what my post was meant and for whom. I'm not going to take responsibility for your mistake.

True or false?

"Anyone who claims to be the the messenger of God is delusional."

I'm trying to make it really easy for you here. All you have to do is answer with one word. I even gave you the two choices, so you could even quote this and just highlight the correct word.

Sure, we all take stuff out of context sometimes. I didn't in this case, but it does happen. I asked you about a specific claim you made. If you feel it needed to be qualified, that would have been the perfect time to do so. Instead, you have just avoided it altogether. The sentence that followed the one in question did not qualify the first one. It added a new idea.

If you want, we could even switch this to just Mohammed, if it makes you feel better.

True or false?

"Mohammed was delusional."

Is that easier to answer?

 

[little_monkey]

True or false?

"Anyone who claims to be the the messenger of God is delusional."

I'm trying to make it really easy for you here. All you have to do is answer with one word. I even gave you the two choices, so you could even quote this and just highlight the correct word.

Sure, we all take stuff out of context sometimes. I didn't in this case, but it does happen. I asked you about a specific claim you made. If you feel it needed to be qualified, that would have been the perfect time to do so. Instead, you have just avoided it altogether. The sentence that followed the one in question did not qualify the first one. It added a new idea.

If you want, we could even switch this to just Mohammed, if it makes you feel better.

True or false?

"Mohammed was delusional."

Is that easier to answer?

Had you understood my post, you wouldn't need to ask. But since that is not clear to you, the answer is yes. Mohammad was a delusional character who made outstanding claims that were never supported in any way. The man was a thief, a mass murderer, a conqueror with blood on his hands. And today, if he were alive, he would be sent to the Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity.

 

[Magic Man]

Had you understood my post, you wouldn't need to ask. But since that is not clear to you, the answer is yes. Mohammad was a delusional character who made outstanding claims that were never supported in any way. The man was a thief, a mass murderer, a conqueror with blood on his hands. And today, if he were alive, he would be sent to the Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity.

Ok, so then, what you're saying is that only Mohammed is delusional, and you're not making a generalization about all people who claim to be God's messenger. Is that correct?

I understood your post perfectly. If I had known it was going to take this much to get the answer to a simple question, I might not have bothered. Maybe it would be better for you to think of it as me asking you a question that might not have anything to do with the original context of your post. Is it OK to ask a question that goes in a slightly different direction than your conversation with someone else?

 

[little_monkey]

Ok, so then, what you're saying is that only Mohammed is delusional, and you're not making a generalization about all people who claim to be God's messenger. Is that correct?

I understood your post perfectly. If I had known it was going to take this much to get the answer to a simple question, I might not have bothered. Maybe it would be better for you to think of it as me asking you a question that might not have anything to do with the original context of your post. Is it OK to ask a question that goes in a slightly different direction than your conversation with someone else?

To you general question: Is anyone who claims to be the messenger of God delusional?

I will rephrase as, name one individual in all the history of mankind who has claimed to be God's messenger and you believe to be NOT delusional?

My answer is: I don't know anyone. Now, what's your answer?

 

[Magic Man]

To you general question: Is anyone who claims to be the messenger of God delusional?

I will rephrase as, name one individual in all the history of mankind who has claimed to be God's messenger and you believe to be NOT delusional?

My answer is: I don't know anyone. Now, what's your answer?

I don't know of anyone either, but, then again, I don't know for sure. Maybe some of them have been God's messenger and we just don't know it. As I said before, I would generally consider such people to be delusional, but I wouldn't make a categorical statement about the entire group. That's why I asked how you know with absolute certainty that anyone who claims to be such is delusional. I believe the same thing you do, but I know that I'm not certain about it in every case.

 

[little_monkey]

I don't know of anyone either, but, then again, I don't know for sure. Maybe some of them have been God's messenger and we just don't know it. As I said before, I would generally consider such people to be delusional, but I wouldn't make a categorical statement about the entire group. That's why I asked how you know with absolute certainty that anyone who claims to be such is delusional. I believe the same thing you do, but I know that I'm not certain about it in every case.

There is no absolute certainty -- and even this statement is not absolute -- so we can turn in circle like a dog chasing its tail. Let's put it this way: if anyone would claim to be God's messenger, I would start with the premise that he is delusional. The burden of proof would be on the claimant to prove me otherwise.

 

[Willamena]

There is no absolute certainty -- and even this statement is not absolute -- so we can turn in circle like a dog chasing its tail. Let's put it this way: if anyone would claim to be God's messenger, I would start with the premise that he is delusional. The burden of proof would be on the claimant to prove me otherwise.

Seriously, if nothing you say is certain, why should we believe anything you say? If we start with the premise that he is delusional, then every conclusion we reach will most certainly stem from that "he is delusional".

 

[tomspug]

Because you accused me of not knowing anything about religion. But I do. *hint* disgreeing with you does not equal lack of understanding. And you're the authority on understanding Christianity? Maybe the problem is that I understand it all too well.

Now, as I have said several times, are you actually going to respond to any of my points and show us, rather than just telling us, exactly what it is that I don't understand?

Yeah, that's evident, for sure. Which is why the person who is ACTUALLY a Christian doesn't see that as being evident at all.

My point is that you obviously don't understand the Christian perspective (hence your unicorn analogy, which is offensive and trite). If you START from a correct understanding of what Christianity actually is, then you might be able to add more weight to this argument than you currently are.

If you refuse to acknowledge this, then you're going to have to deal with the fact that the people you are arguing against won't take you seriously.

 

[Magic Man]

There is no absolute certainty -- and even this statement is not absolute -- so we can turn in circle like a dog chasing its tail. Let's put it this way: if anyone would claim to be God's messenger, I would start with the premise that he is delusional. The burden of proof would be on the claimant to prove me otherwise.

OK, that's a lot more reasonable. I could quibble with the fact that you might, as Willamena said, always come to he conclusion that he's delusional, making the evidence fit the premise, rather than the other way around. However, I won't. I can understand starting with that premise, as long as you keep an open mind. (I have yet to hear of someone who is convincingly God's messenger myself, but I like to think I'd at least be open to the possibility, if nothing else)

 

[Imagist]

Yeah, that's evident, for sure. Which is why the person who is ACTUALLY a Christian doesn't see that as being evident at all.

My point is that you obviously don't understand the Christian perspective (hence your unicorn analogy, which is offensive and trite). If you START from a correct understanding of what Christianity actually is, then you might be able to add more weight to this argument than you currently are.

If you refuse to acknowledge this, then you're going to have to deal with the fact that the people you are arguing against won't take you seriously.

Okay, ACTUAL Christian, please explain to us: what is it that we don't understand about the Christian perspective that would cause the unicorn analogy to be invalid?

The unicorn example is trite only because belief in god is trite. It is only offensive because you choose to take offense. Calling it trite and offensive doesn't disprove it. So please, stop sidestepping the question: what is this knowledge about the Christian viewpoint that you have and we don't?

You've already sidestepped the question a few times, so I'll make this 100% clear. I want from you two things:

1. What it is that we don't understand about the Christian perspective.
2. How #1 proves that the existence of a god is any more likely than the existence of a unicorn.

If you cannot present 1, stop bluffing that you have some secret information. If you cannot present 2, your point is irrelevant.

 

[Willamena]

OK, that's a lot more reasonable. I could quibble with the fact that you might, as Willamena said, always come to he conclusion that he's delusional, making the evidence fit the premise...

It's not a matter of making the evidence fit the premise. It's more the interpretation of the evidence. If you've begun with that premise, there is no hope for any other conclusion unless the interpretation or the premise changes.

 

[Willamena]

To you general question: Is anyone who claims to be the messenger of God delusional?

Of course not. They could actually understand the symbolism inherent in the religion (something other poeple don't even pretend to recognize).

 

[Imagist]

It's not a matter of making the evidence fit the premise. It's more the interpretation of the evidence. If you've begun with that premise, there is no hope for any other conclusion unless the interpretation or the premise changes.

This is merely the scientific method: the premise that a person claiming to have interacted with god is delusional is merely the hypothesis (an entirely reasonable one, in my opinion). But the scientific method doesn't stop there: you must then test your hypothesis. If it does not stand up to testing, you throw it out and conjecture a new hypothesis; if it DOES stand up to testing then you have what is pretty much as close to a fact as we can get.

Starting from the hypothesis that a person is delusional does not dictate that we will conclude that he is delusional. Such a conclusion can only result from testing of the hypothesis. The hypothesis merely provides a starting point for further investigation.