The Absolute Truth

[shunyadragon]

I'm glad to see you've calmed down and refrained from calling me nasty names.

In another conversation in this thread, you speak of the meaning of The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam and quote from the writings of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop of the 3rd century. You comment on the writing style that is often used as shorthand for the doctrine that the Church. You discuss the dogma in the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches. Etc. Etc.

I believe it would be fair to say that your comments represent merely selective commentary from limited quotes, and not from a complete understanding of the History of the Christian religion.

Criticizing my understanding of Bahai while, at the same time, trying to sound like an expert in Christian history is hypocritical.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue we we were discussing on the Baha'i Faith. Your changing the subject and not responding to the substance of my posts.

 

[shunyadragon]

I did my research a lot. There's nothing defies the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. Or else, you may show your links which provides mainstream alternative explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. YOU CAN'T, period! That's why your reply only contains assertions but 0 argument.

There is nothing definite either way concerning the uncertainty of Quantum Mechanics to draw the conclusions you are 'trying' to make arguing from vague ignorance. At least it is unknown and inconclusive.

Nonetheless the characteristics of the Quantum Mechanics follow predictable pattern..

 

[sojourner]

Gotcha your own butt!

As far as the degree of objectivity it depends on the documentation and historical references for the degree of objectivity and reliability. We are not talking about history, and we are talking about what churches teach and people believe in the contemporary world, In the case of the present discussion the problem of your second and third hand anecdotal references versus your total lack of references to back up your argument is a sufficient problem.

All I can say is what I’ve head from church leaders. If you don’t believe me, that’s your issue, not mine. But it pisses me off when someone outside the religion wanders along and tries to tell everyone what we believe. I’m telling you that most mainstream Christian authorities don’t dismiss other major world religions as invalid. Your enlistment of the rantings of a religious clown don’t change that.

 

[ecco]

ecco:

The point is that you want to / need to believe they were somehow accurately recorded. Because that's all you've got. You have no evidence for that belief.

There is no evidence either way, and no evidence to justify your selective conclusion that there is even a problem.

Do you really understand what you just wrote? There is no evidence either way, so you'll just believe that people recorded very private conversations very accurately and passed on that information very accurately.

A rational approach would be to dismiss outrageous claims when there is no evidence. Your biased needs force you to accept outrageous claims even when there is no evidence.

 

[ecco]

No, the problem is you are drawing negative conclusions for something where there is no evidence for you to reach your hypothetical conclusion for which there is no evidence.

See post # 264 above

 

[ecco]

The best primary source, considering the culture and family links is that stories are hand down in writing or orally considering the very close relationship of those involved.

The "best" primary source is not necessarily a good source. You also gloss over the problem of how the very private conversations were recorded with word for word accurately.

You have the exact same problem that Christians have trying to explain how the entire 2000+ words of the Sermon on the Mount was recorded.




ETA: Did you really just say...

Yes all anecdotal I have a problem, and give only limited creedance in the anecdotal, if that. The most likely is just accepting the anecdotal as the personal perspective of what people believe as individuals

Wow. The hypocrisy. Maybe you think I only read your comments directed to me. I don't. Your comments to others are, at times, diametrically opposed to what you post to me.

 

[ecco]

Can you honestly deny that Christians believe Christianity is the True Religion and religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and even Bahai are False Religions?

Some Christians certainly do. But the preponderance of the religion — including those with spiritual authority — don’t make that kind of judgment about other religions.

Then it should be easy to list prominent Christians who believe Muhammad is a true Messenger and Allah is the True God.

Then it should be easy to list prominent Muslims who believe Shiva is the True God.

Stop trying to duck, dodge and evade.

You still have been unable to quote one of your mainstream Christian religious leaders say that Hinduism is the True religion and Christianity is not.

You still have been unable to quote one of your mainstream Christian religious leaders say that Islam is the True religion and Christianity is not.

??? I never tried to say that.

Really? Here are the first two posts on this conversation...

Can you honestly deny that Christians believe Christianity is the True Religion and religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and even Bahai are False Religions?

Some Christians certainly do. But the preponderance of the religion — including those with spiritual authority — don’t make that kind of judgment about other religions.

Carefully read your own comment. The "kind of judgment about other religions" was specifically whether people of a religious belief assert that other religions are false.

 

[ecco]

What kind of information do you require? I’ve never claimed that these are official stances; they’re merely the opinions of people in charged with whom I’ve communicated.

I’m a Christian. I believe it’s a valid religion. Or do you require some sort of support for the assertion that I’m a Christian?


I never made that claim.

I never made that claim either.

Yadda, yadda yadda. More evasion.

See post #267 above.

 

[ecco]

In this case no, as I said before Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l baha, and Shoghi Effendi are related as grandfather, father and son. They are intimate in their life, literate, and kept diaries. It is unlikely that their communications were anecdotal and were likely writtentutered, and instructed father to son as was the tradition. The testimonial especially written, like of these three men are adequate for a court of law.

kept diaries - Have you ever posted notes from their diaries? How do you know they were written contemporaneously?

What court of law accepts hearsay evidence? What court of law accepts word-for-word third-hand accounts of detailed conversations?

 

[ecco]

I do not need to believe anything of the sort.

Your not hypothetically funny, your tragically hypothetical and anecdotal, and ah . . . avoiding responding to the substance of my posts.

The substance of your posts is that you believe because you believe. Do I have that right?

 

[ecco]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue we we were discussing on the Baha'i Faith. Your changing the subject and not responding to the substance of my posts.

Well, if you feel I was changing to the subject, you could have reminded me what the subject is. I'll be glad to try to stay on track.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, if you feel I was changing to the subject, you could have reminded me what the subject is. I'll be glad to try to stay on track.

We were discussing the writings of Shoghi Effendi about Baha'u'llah, and apparently came to an end where you could not add anything more in response to my posts.

 

[shunyadragon]

The substance of your posts is that you believe because you believe. Do I have that right?

No, the substance of my posts were that there are plausible accurate ways Shoghi Effendi got his information, and of course, I do not know exactly what is the source unless I do more research. There is no reason for you to take strong negative aggressive stance you are taking in this case on the basis of 'arguing from ignorance,' because we do not know exactly.

You genuinely take an aggressive hostile stance toward ALL theists, as in name calling them 'rabid theists.' Something like the shotgun approach load with salt to dialogue.

 

[Polymath257]

I disagree. Intuition is an excellent judge of truth. In fact, I’d go out on a limb so far as to say that it’s the best judge of truth.

Interesting. In my experience is is a very, very poor indication of truth. In fact, it is barely better than a wild guess.

So, for example, I am a mathematician. I find that most people have an intuition that is very unlikely to agree with actual, mathematical truth. And this is even true of those who are professional mathematicians (although they are better in intuition that a lay person).

In a similar way, I have studied a fair amount of physics. I have found that intuition is usually only poorly correlated with truth in that subject. So, for example, the behavior of rotating bodies (which is entirely classical) tends to be counter to the intuition of most people.

What I have learned is that intuition is good for telling us what sorts of things to look for, but its ability to judge truth is very, very poor across a wide variety of subjects. Far, far better is a skepticism requiring testability and actual observations to back up a claim. And even that isn't perfect.

 

[Polymath257]

If you film, it shows something different from its state if not filmed. That's the behavior of particles at the quantum level. That's why even some serious scientists advocate that our reality is a virtual reality.

But dice are big enough that their quantum nature isn't relevant for such. The filming of dice has no effect on the outcome.

Planck's constant is *small*.

You should read more! (such as the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment)

Oh, I have read it and studied it. Do you understand why it says nothing at all about consciousness, but only about measurement?

It also says nothing at all about 'retrocausality'.

 

[Polymath257]

I did my research a lot. There's nothing defies the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. Or else, you may show your links which provides mainstream alternative explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. YOU CAN'T, period! That's why your reply only contains assertions but 0 argument.

The mainstream explanation of the DCQEE is to use quantum mechanics to determine the probabilities. And the results of that experiment agree with the QM predictions.

Let me ask you this. Have you *ever* solved a differential equation? Do you know what it means for an operator to be self-adjoint?

If the answer to *either* of those questions is NO, then you have NOT done a lot of research in quantum mechanics. In fact, those are basics to even begin to study QM in any detail.

 

[shunyadragon]

kept diaries - Have you ever posted notes from their diaries? How do you know they were written contemporaneously?

Backup and reread my posts, and you will find this does not reflect what I wrote. Please respond to may posts as written.

What court of law accepts hearsay evidence? What court of law accepts word-for-word third-hand accounts of detailed conversations?[/QUOTE]

Written records are not hearsay third hand accounts.

 

[shunyadragon]

The "best" primary source is not necessarily a good source. You also gloss over the problem of how the very private conversations were recorded with word for word accurately.

No problem at all. Baha'u'llah simply relayed the details of the conversation to Abdu'l baha, and Abdu'l baha relayed the conversation to Shoghi Effendi, and likely written down by all concerned. .

 

[ecco]

There is no reason for you to take strong negative aggressive stance you are taking in this case on the basis of 'arguing from ignorance,' because we do not know exactly.

A basis for your religious beliefs is the Truth of Ballulah and what follows. And yet, when pinned down, you say you "do not know exactly". More accurately, except for beliefs like "the information was passed on", you really don't even have a reasonable explanation.

Bottom line, you believe despite the lack of any evidence because you want to believe.

 

[ecco]

You genuinely take an aggressive hostile stance toward ALL theists, as in name calling them 'rabid theists.' Something like the shotgun approach load with salt to dialogue.

Please show where I used the phrase "rabid theists".

Alternatively, ethically, you can retract your assertion.