In the above exchanges, you state that God told you something.
Later when challenged, you say that you would know better whether or not you talk to God.
I wanted to point out what is that called? Oh, now I remember "sloppy thinking". Now, I haven't follwed all of these exchanges but, if I read it right (and I could be a sloppy reader) in
Statement 1: Nehor has claimed that God told him something.
and in
Statement 2: He is replying to challenge of that statement based on whether or not he talks to God.
Burden of proof aside, Nehor is attempting to justify his statement that God told him something by saying that he talks to God.
If God told him something then he is the receiver. He is attempting to justify his position as receiver by making claim as transmitter.
In comparing the two statements, I was trying to demonstrate a flaw in his thinking. It may only be a small flaw but I thought it was a good place to start. Every journey begins with one step. In this case, one baby step.
Have I made sense?
Jersey Girl
You make sense but my position is not quite as you stated. I stated that God was talking to me and then when queried as to how I know I stated that I was the person best able to determine that. Or to continue the alternate concept I continued above if I professed that I love someone who could challenge me? Who would know better than me?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Let me say it this way. He was using his position as transmitter to defend his position as receiver.
Burdern of proof, aside. Had he stated "God told me" and proceeded to give examples of how God "tells" him, that would have made more sense to me. Instead, he is attempting to support the claim that "God talks to me" by asserting that he talks to God.
And still, he would need to prove "God".
Let me try that one more time:
1. JAK posts to me. 2. Prove it. 3. I should know whether or not I post to JAK.
Is that a logical fallacy?
It's okay with me if you choose not to continue your exchanges with me here.
Jersey Girl
It's not a logical fallacy, it's simply not an argument. It's a claim. How do you evaluate a claim about a mental or spiritual state? You only have the person who experienced it's word.
JAK, I was not convinced by others to believe in God. At least have the decency to call me crazy and accuse me of hearing voices in my head. I imagine this response would be how Christ would respond if people called him a good teacher or a good man. Good teachers and men do not go around claiming to be God. Either Christ was who he said he was or he was mad.
You can accuse me of being a liar or insane but please do not tell me that I was convinced of this by others. The day I made the oath never to deny what I had discovered I spent the whole day alone in a room not listening to others.
Also JAK I am an amateur historian and I don't need the long explanations of the evolution of species and the evolution of religion, I already know these things. That humanity had no language at the time explains to me why we don't find religious activities in early cultures. The sum total of the physical remains of pre-literate people can fit inside a large room.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
JAK wrote:The first sentence is a subjective judgment -- not a fact. We have clear evidences for love of someone. We can observe a multiplicity of behaviors which can be used as evidence for love. A marriage which lasts 50 years is evidence for love. But more importantly the events day-by-day, the conduct, the demonstration of concern, care, interest, support, etc. -- all these day-by-day are evidence (over 50 years) for love. While there is a difference between proof and evidence, the two are closely related. Evidence is the building material for proof. I’ll not attempt the particulars in distinction here, but could later.
Nehor: So if love is detected because of the effects it has, couldn't God be found the same way?
Nehor,
Let’s look at the problems with your conclusion.
We observe virtually identical behavior in parents who exhibit evidence of love (in the best sense of that word). We agree that love is an emotion. It’s a human feeling and many veterinarians would also identify emotions in dogs. When the owner is away, the pet dog may refuse to eat. When the owner returns, the dog exhibits behavior of joy and happiness. We also can observe threat from a dog given other circumstances. Both can be characterized as emotional responses.
You asked a question:
So if love is detected because of the effects it has, couldn't God be found the same way?
The short answer is no. But, why is that the case? Let’s look.
We are attributing the emotions to people whom we can see. There is no comparable status in an answer to your question. We have evidence in the presence of people and in what we can observe in their responses. We can all see the same things in people. We can agree upon the existence of people. That is, we don’t imagine them (or shouldn’t as adults). (Children sometimes invent a playmate. We don’t scold a child for doing that. However, if a child is still doing that at age 16, we have a problem.
No evidence (as we can present for people) has been presented for a God claim such as you have made. Further, and analysis which you have evaded, different people have different notions about their God claims. Muslims do not perceivetheir God as do Christians (for example). And Christians do not agree with one another on the entity which they characterize as God.
Your word “detect” is interesting. How do you intend to offer evidence for the detection of God? It appears you use emotions for that. We don’t find people with emotions. Rather, we find the people first. Then we observe the behavior of those people. So evidence of emotion is in the observation of the people.
Be truthful. You don’t see God. That you may perceive that you talk to God may be. Failure to establish an entity God, the extended claim that God talks to you is without merit.
Remember my questions for which I have yet to see answer:
Is your God male? Does your God speak English to you? What is the frequency level of your God in tone of voice? Have you not simply imagined the God talks to me claim?
I assume you agree that people have different God notions.That alone should be sufficient to make us skeptical of God claims. People who make such claims do not agree. If some are wrong, none is reliable. We have no objective, reliability test for claims made.
Now people who claim to hear God talkingalso do not agree on what the various Gods are saying. Many religious preachers claim this or that. It’s their word -- their assertion.
When you stated that you should know better if God talked to you, actually that’s not the case. Autobiographies which people write are generally quite different from biographies that are products of examination of evidences surrounding a person about whom a biography is written.
In regard to claims: a person can claim anything he wishes regarding: God talks to me, and go on to claim an exclusive connectionto God. That’s what you have done.
Jim Jones who persuaded 900 people to drink Kool-Aid laced with cyanide did so as he claimed God commanded it. Most objective observers regard that Jim Jones was crazy. He was mentally unstable. But as a charismatic religious figure, he was able to persuade.
If you know the Jim Jones story, you would likely say he was wrong, misguided, or even agree that he was mentally ill. Yet, his claim is little different than yours: God told me... It’s unreliable, Nehor. There are no checks or balances for such claims people make. That fact often further excites those who claim in that they say: See, if I say God told me, you can’t dispute it. Or they claim an event or series of events which they prayed for which happened.
Unchallenged by you is that different people make different God claims. Biblically, God orchestrated mass genocide. The Bible tells stories of that. God was kind to some and brutal to others -- whimsical. The God inventions of ancient times are similiar to God inventions presently. The inventions are in the image of man.
That’s understandable. Absent any evidence, man has picked himself as most like his imagination of some thing -- supernatural.
Of course I need to be rewarded. I wanted confirmation that I learned what I was taught. Don't you want to know if I was paying attention in class? What I know about this is a direct reflection of your ability to instruct. I give you an A+!
I was going to mention "the least likely claim" but I chose not to. Thank you for addressing that in your post!
Jersey Girl
Now Jersey Girl, You said: “Excuse me, JAK. I haven't received my grade yet.”
I was only giving a grade because of that comment.
You should have mentioned “the least likely claim.”
Even when I am looking for a response to a post which I made, I find it very difficult to find it. So I get a lower grade on using this forum. Possibly a D. What do you think?
Let me say it this way. He was using his position as transmitter to defend his position as receiver.
Burdern of proof, aside. Had he stated "God told me" and proceeded to give examples of how God "tells" him, that would have made more sense to me. Instead, he is attempting to support the claim that "God talks to me" by asserting that he talks to God.
And still, he would need to prove "God".
Let me try that one more time:
1. JAK posts to me. 2. Prove it. 3. I should know whether or not I post to JAK.
Is that a logical fallacy?
It's okay with me if you choose not to continue your exchanges with me here.
Jersey Girl
Jersey Girl,
I have no objection to our exchange.
Your three (numbered) points are not comparable to what Nehor has stated.
Here is why. All that you say there is (or can be) known to us. There is nothing hidden.
We understand that we have a bb here. We also have a name and we can post to the board with our name showing on our posts.
When we post to the board, all who access the bb can (potentially) read what we posted. I added “potentially” in that I may never see a post to me for a variety of reasons. One is that I don’t find it. Another is that I don’t access the bb.
Proof that the bb is functioning (or exists) is in the multitude of posts which are transparent (in that they can be seen as the person who wrote posted them). I add the parenthetical because we certainly could consider that the content of a given post fails to be transparent. But, I read what is quoted above. You wrote it (unless someone successfully edited your words and made it appear as if you wrote what you did not write).
I was not sure I understood your post when I said that I wasn’t.
We have evidence on a bb such as this that applied science is working. I am not sure what you mean by “a logical fallacy” in your post.
But, on a technical point, evidence is the vehicle to proof. However, evidence can be:
1 misinterpreted 2 incomplete 3 not present 4 contaminated (some accurate information mixed with inaccurate material) Now we have a saying about wine: The finest gallon of wine mixed with a teaspoon of sewage makes the entire gallon sewage.
To a large extent, evidence is like that. That is, a real contaminant of wrong conclusion (false statement) is likely to destroy the reliability of a final conclusion. Consider police solving who committed a crime. The police must look at all possible evidence related and must further accurately screen what is relevant to the crime and what is not. A seizing upon a false clue may lead to a false conclusion.
We have people in prison who are not guilty of the crime for which they have been imprisioned. Occasionally, we get a nationally reported story of someone who spent many years in prison who is found innocent by discovery of DNA which proves another was guilty. While the law releases the wrongfully imprisoned person, justice was denied to a person who spent time (years) in prison.
How high up the food chain people are also determins whether they go to prison at all or what kind of prison. Paris Hilton (for example) was sentenced to 45 days. But that was reduced to 23 days (a possible day or two margin of error on my part here).
Richard Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford and never went to jail. But others did who carried out crimes in Nixon’s behalf -- and so on.
The Nehor wrote:You make sense but my position is not quite as you stated. I stated that God was talking to me and then when queried as to how I know I stated that I was the person best able to determine that. Or to continue the alternate concept I continued above if I professed that I love someone who could challenge me? Who would know better than me?
Nehor, Looking at your response and especially the part I bolded, you are simply wrong. It might have been what you intended but it was not what you wrote. I presented it exactly how you wrote it. Here are the significant exchanges:
Polygamy Porter wrote:
No, wrong again.
A man told you that God said so.
The Nehor wrote:
No, God told me that man was telling me what God said so.
JAK wrote:
You are indeed a joke, Nehor. You pontificate. No evidence for God has been established. Absent that, you make up anything that pleases your emotions. Not only did God tell you nothing, you are a victim of Mormon indoctrination. You have no idea the extent to which you are under Mormon control.
There appears to be no hope for you. Your brain has been cooked. You’re a pathetic anti-intellectual in your God claims.
The Nehor wrote:
Okay JAK. I think I would know better than you whether I talk to God.
Do you see it yet?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
The Nehor wrote:It's not a logical fallacy, it's simply not an argument. It's a claim. How do you evaluate a claim about a mental or spiritual state? You only have the person who experienced it's word.
JAK, I was not convinced by others to believe in God. At least have the decency to call me crazy and accuse me of hearing voices in my head. I imagine this response would be how Christ would respond if people called him a good teacher or a good man. Good teachers and men do not go around claiming to be God. Either Christ was who he said he was or he was mad.
You can accuse me of being a liar or insane but please do not tell me that I was convinced of this by others. The day I made the oath never to deny what I had discovered I spent the whole day alone in a room not listening to others.
Also JAK I am an amateur historian and I don't need the long explanations of the evolution of species and the evolution of religion, I already know these things. That humanity had no language at the time explains to me why we don't find religious activities in early cultures. The sum total of the physical remains of pre-literate people can fit inside a large room.
Nehor stated:
It's not a logical fallacy, it's simply not an argument. It's a claim. How do you evaluate a claim about a mental or spiritual state? You only have the person who experienced it's word.
Since this appears to be to Jersey Girl, I’ll let her address it.
Nehor stated: JAK, I was not convinced by others to believe in God. At least have the decency to call me crazy and accuse me of hearing voices in my head. I imagine this response would be how Christ would respond if people called him a good teacher or a good man. Good teachers and men do not go around claiming to be God. Either Christ was who he said he was or he was mad.
Of course you were -- sentence 1. You didn’t make up a system of religious mythology. You were indoctrinated by others in that religious mythology.
2nd sentence. You are not “crazy” probably (in a clinical sense). The most effective religious indoctrination is that which takes place without a person knowing it’s happening. You appear to fit that category by your statements on this forum.
I’d agree that good teachers don’t claim to be God. We don’t know what Jesus said except by scripts written 30 to 110 years after what is alleged in them.
No written record was made of all the alleged quotations attributed to Jesus as they appear in the Bible. In ancient scripts of the Bible, there was much use made by emperors and kings for their own benefit. And you appear to be unaware of the multitude of copies and subsequent translations made of the Bible. Otherwise, you would not so construct your statements.
You set up a false choice in this statement: “Either Christ was who he said he was or he was mad.” The analysis above shows there are other options. There may never have been the Jesus as depicted in the Bible. It’s unlikely if not impossible that stories would have been passed for decades by word of mouth without being changed by those who told stories.
Emperors and kings use religion in establishing their own power. we know historically that Christianity was so used by Constintine the Great and his heirs. Again, there are other options than the two you offer.
Nehor stated: You can accuse me of being a liar or insane but please do not tell me that I was convinced of this by others. The day I made the oath never to deny what I had discovered I spent the whole day alone in a room not listening to others.
You aren’t reading with comprehension. We are all a product of our heredity and environment. In this case, I have referenced your environment. Before you “spent the whole day alone in a room...” you were indoctrinated by those who had influence on you. That you spent a day alone in your room is not particularly relevant. You may have a great emotional attachment to your day alone, but what is of far greater importance is the indoctrination of Nehor BEFORE that.
All of your posts reflect that you have been indoctrinated. Further, spending a day alone (likely paralleling biblical scripts) is subjective and irrelevant to your claims on this bb. So you evade the issues and change the subject.
An education which opens you to others might have elevated your level of knowledge to a more objective plane. I refer to comprehensive education which is not confined and restricted by religiosity.
Nehor stated: Also JAK I am an amateur historian and I don't need the long explanations of the evolution of species and the evolution of religion, I already know these things. That humanity had no language at the time explains to me why we don't find religious activities in early cultures. The sum total of the physical remains of pre-literate people can fit inside a large room.
You have not demonstrated that you know much of history accurately, Nehor. It appears that you indeed need a wider view. It also appears that you wish to retain the blinders of religion. You don’t give evidence that you know much of what I discussed in response to your posts.
If you are/were well informed, you would know that like cultures and civilizations, religions evolved from previous conjecture. You would also know that the evolution of religious perspectives has resulted in doctrinal shifts of organized religions. Your religion is a product of religious evolution. It’s most likely (read certain) that your perspectives are different from that of your great grandparents regarding religion and everything else as well.
That you conclude that you talk to God or that God talks to you is a failure on your part to recognize the analysis which you have read from me. While you say: “I already know these things,” your writing demonstrates the opposite.
Both reformation and reconstruction of religious doctrines are products of the Protestant Reformation of 1517 CE.
I am most skeptical about how much of this you actually know.
The Nehor wrote:You make sense but my position is not quite as you stated. I stated that God was talking to me and then when queried as to how I know I stated that I was the person best able to determine that. Or to continue the alternate concept I continued above if I professed that I love someone who could challenge me? Who would know better than me?
Nehor, Looking at your response and especially the part I bolded, you are simply wrong. It might have been what you intended but it was not what you wrote. I presented it exactly how you wrote it. Here are the significant exchanges:
Polygamy Porter wrote:
No, wrong again.
A man told you that God said so.
The Nehor wrote:
No, God told me that man was telling me what God said so.
JAK wrote:
You are indeed a joke, Nehor. You pontificate. No evidence for God has been established. Absent that, you make up anything that pleases your emotions. Not only did God tell you nothing, you are a victim of Mormon indoctrination. You have no idea the extent to which you are under Mormon control.
There appears to be no hope for you. Your brain has been cooked. You’re a pathetic anti-intellectual in your God claims.
The Nehor wrote:
Okay JAK. I think I would know better than you whether I talk to God.
Do you see it yet?
Ah, you see the God telling me man telling me God was a joke. Sorry, intonation is always lost on the web.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
JAK wrote:Nehor stated: It's not a logical fallacy, it's simply not an argument. It's a claim. How do you evaluate a claim about a mental or spiritual state? You only have the person who experienced it's word.
Since this appears to be to Jersey Girl, I’ll let her address it.
Nehor stated: JAK, I was not convinced by others to believe in God. At least have the decency to call me crazy and accuse me of hearing voices in my head. I imagine this response would be how Christ would respond if people called him a good teacher or a good man. Good teachers and men do not go around claiming to be God. Either Christ was who he said he was or he was mad.
Of course you were -- sentence 1. You didn’t make up a system of religious mythology. You were indoctrinated by others in that religious mythology.
2nd sentence. You are not “crazy” probably (in a clinical sense). The most effective religious indoctrination is that which takes place without a person knowing it’s happening. You appear to fit that category by your statements on this forum.
I’d agree that good teachers don’t claim to be God. We don’t know what Jesus said except by scripts written 30 to 110 years after what is alleged in them.
No written record was made of all the alleged quotations attributed to Jesus as they appear in the Bible. In ancient scripts of the Bible, there was much use made by emperors and kings for their own benefit. And you appear to be unaware of the multitude of copies and subsequent translations made of the Bible. Otherwise, you would not so construct your statements.
You set up a false choice in this statement: “Either Christ was who he said he was or he was mad.” The analysis above shows there are other options. There may never have been the Jesus as depicted in the Bible. It’s unlikely if not impossible that stories would have been passed for decades by word of mouth without being changed by those who told stories.
Emperors and kings use religion in establishing their own power. we know historically that Christianity was so used by Constintine the Great and his heirs. Again, there are other options than the two you offer.
Nehor stated: You can accuse me of being a liar or insane but please do not tell me that I was convinced of this by others. The day I made the oath never to deny what I had discovered I spent the whole day alone in a room not listening to others.
You aren’t reading with comprehension. We are all a product of our heredity and environment. In this case, I have referenced your environment. Before you “spent the whole day alone in a room...” you were indoctrinated by those who had influence on you. That you spent a day alone in your room is not particularly relevant. You may have a great emotional attachment to your day alone, but what is of far greater importance is the indoctrination of Nehor BEFORE that.
All of your posts reflect that you have been indoctrinated. Further, spending a day alone (likely paralleling biblical scripts) is subjective and irrelevant to your claims on this bb. So you evade the issues and change the subject.
An education which opens you to others might have elevated your level of knowledge to a more objective plane. I refer to comprehensive education which is not confined and restricted by religiosity.
Nehor stated: Also JAK I am an amateur historian and I don't need the long explanations of the evolution of species and the evolution of religion, I already know these things. That humanity had no language at the time explains to me why we don't find religious activities in early cultures. The sum total of the physical remains of pre-literate people can fit inside a large room.
You have not demonstrated that you know much of history accurately, Nehor. It appears that you indeed need a wider view. It also appears that you wish to retain the blinders of religion. You don’t give evidence that you know much of what I discussed in response to your posts.
If you are/were well informed, you would know that like cultures and civilizations, religions evolved from previous conjecture. You would also know that the evolution of religious perspectives has resulted in doctrinal shifts of organized religions. Your religion is a product of religious evolution. It’s most likely (read certain) that your perspectives are different from that of your great grandparents regarding religion and everything else as well.
That you conclude that you talk to God or that God talks to you is a failure on your part to recognize the analysis which you have read from me. While you say: “I already know these things,” your writing demonstrates the opposite.
Both reformation and reconstruction of religious doctrines are products of the Protestant Reformation of 1517 CE.
I am most skeptical about how much of this you actually know.
JAK
This has degenerated into a "You are indoctrinated and know less than you think" countered by denials. You think your religion of rationality makes you better able to discern what in the past influenced me than I am who actually lived it. I think that assumption is arrogant and wrong. You know virtually nothing about me.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:This has degenerated into a "You are indoctrinated and know less than you think" countered by denials. You think your religion of rationality makes you better able to discern what in the past influenced me than I am who actually lived it. I think that assumption is arrogant and wrong. You know virtually nothing about me.
Nehor stated:
This has degenerated into a "You are indoctrinated and know less than you think" countered by denials. You think your religion of rationality makes you better able to discern what in the past influenced me than I am who actually lived it. I think that assumption is arrogant and wrong. You know virtually nothing about me.
Nehor,
All I know is what I read in your posts. I address verbatim your comments and generally reproduce exactly your words prior to a response.
Thus far, you have evaded direct response to my analysis. Given your comments, I have concluded that you are a believer in Mormon religious claims. You have said nothing to indicate otherwise. If that is correct, I know something about your views.
My responses to you have been detailed and specific regarding your comments.
In a bb such as this, I know of no better way to respond directly to what someone has stated.
I invite you to quote me as I have quoted you, line by line, and respond to the specifics of what I have said just as I have responded to the specifics you have said.