P"r"aying the percentages

[MPat]

Yes it does. If the recipient cannot figure out the “message”, then it was the error of the sender, who made it incomprehensible. In every case of communication there are three factors: the sender, the receiver and the message. First, the receiver needs to recognize that a message was sent - that the message is different from the background noise. Second, the receiver needs to be able to comprehend the message. If either one is missing, then there is no “message” to speak of. And it is always the responsibility of the sender to communicate on the level the receiver understands.

Does the receiver actually want to receive the message? You know, in Battle of Copenhagen Lord Nelson was known to have been given an order to retreat and he found a way to fail to receive it (it involved looking with a blind eye)… Can you provide an argument showing that something like that cannot be the case here?

As long as it is honest, there is no guilt involved. Your only excuse is to declare me (or the one who utters that prayer) dishonest and a liar.

Elementary, my dear Watson. If you try to play God’s part in this conversation, you should be “smart” enough to read deeper. If one commits an act out of ignorance or misunderstanding it is not “reprehensible”. You keep overlooking the word I included: “honestly”. Now you can either accept that my words are honest, or you can call me a deliberate liar. Your choice.

So, where was that “honestly”? I don’t see it in the “prayer”…

Anyway, you (or an imaginary atheist) have made a claim and I have noted that I find that claim pretty hard to believe (extraordinary, if you wish). Now what? You will cite “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and provide that extraordinary evidence?

Oh, and I don’t think anyone is going to “play God’s part” here…

I am not “some” atheist. The wager is not immoral, it is incorrect. And I did not assert that the prayer is an exact equivalent of the “wager”, I said it is somewhat similar. Both attempt to “hedge the bets”.

Can you prove that your (or “your”) principles do not lead to conclusion that such “prayer” is immoral? No, your word is not enough. In another thread you claim:

No, this is only **ONE **of the two approaches. The church **ALSO **asserts that there are intrinsically “evil” acts, which are “wrong” regardless of the place, time and circumstances. Very “wise”, to teach something and its opposite, too. This way you think that you can never be pinned down, and when your words paint you into a corner, you just “invoke” the opposite “teaching”, and hope that no one will notice. Unfortunately for you, your trick is discovered, and this street urchin proclaims loudly: “the emperor has no clothes”!

By the way, your “definition” is circular. You said: “…moral acts have three dimensions” and then “…morality or rightness of the act itself”. It is always ironic to see such elementary logical mistakes.

Well, if you can claim to find logical mistakes and contradictions in moral principles that the Church offers (and we obviously claim that there are none), why can’t we refuse to believe that your principles are not as flawless as you claim, especially given that you haven’t listed them for us to check? The Church had hundreds and thousands of years to look for ways to avoid contradictions, you obviously had less.

 

[Hee_Zen]

First, you place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the sender. How can you **arbitrarily **make that claim?

Arbitrarily? If the sender wishes to communicate, it is his responsibility to choose the proper communication channel, and encode / formulate the message which is on the level of the receiver’s ability to understand. The sender is always the one who initiates the conversation, so he must use the proper tools. If you wish to communicate with a toddler or a teenager or an adult, you must choose the proper encoding method to get through. Why is that so difficult to understand? Now, if the sender does not care, then why would he even try to communicate?

If the receiver fails to distinguish the message from background noise – perhaps through a mistaken notion of the threshold at which ‘noise’ ends and ‘message’ begins – how can you blame the sender?

He chose the incorrect channel or the incorrect mode to encode / send the message.

If the sender (I am sure you meant the receiver) fails to comprehend the message (which implicitly affirms that he’s received a message that he distinguished from background noise, by the way!), but others who received the same message comprehended it – how can you blame the sender?

Even in that case the sender is to be blamed. One sizes doe not fit all. The message must be tailored to the recipient.

In addition, we’re both pointing at the same thing, and calling it by different names. I think your assertion is the weaker: a message that is not received, or not understood, is not a “non-message”; it is a message, but one in which the communication has failed.

And whose fault is that? If the sender is not capable to formulate the message in conformity with the recipient’s ability to decipher it, then he should not have attempted to communicate in the first place.

The unwilling reader and the illiterate are not “in the same position.” I’ll grant you that they both failed to soak in today’s headlines; but, tomorrow, when the newspaper arrives, the unwilling reader has the opportunity to read and understand; the illiterate does not. They are not in the same position, although they are both lacking in possession of the same knowledge that passed them both by.

And that is what counts. In either case there is a “no message received” status at the end of the channel.

I am constantly amazed to see half-baked responses that reject something obvious: an empty glass is not the same as a non-glass.

For the thirsty person there is no difference. You seem to be unaware of the distinction between the “significant” and “insignificant” difference. Shame, shame… :tsktsk:

The glass retains its potential to receive – a potential that a ‘non-glass’ does not. You cannot make the claim of being a non-glass, since you exist and have the capacity to receive…

This is another one of those nonsensical replies. The “empty glass / no glass” does not refer to the recipient, it refers to the message.

Oh, they’re there… you just choose not to accept them, to consider them ‘background noise’: the obvious example, of course, is Scripture.

Yeah, right. How could I have missed that?

Notice how you frame up your question, though: your measure is the ‘recognition’ on the part of the receiver. You seem to wish to place the blame for lack of communication on the sender, but you concede that the success or failure of the communication hinges on the willingness of the receiver to ‘recognize’ the message…

No dice. If the receiver is willing but unable to recognize the message, it is because the sender chose the wrong tools. If the receiver is unwilling to get the message, then the sender can choose a more forceful channel to send the information - as long as he cares, of course. No one can disregard a “bang” on the head.

Have I said any such thing? Have I called you a despicable piece of dirt? It is not that it is “always your fault” (although I note with interest that your claims assert that it is never your fault, but “always the sender’s fault”). Do you always make sweeping generalizations and prejudge members of particular groups? (And then you are surprised that you are not taken seriously… )

No one has actually used these particular words. But they keep using the “how dare the clay make demands to the potter”. And they amount to the same thing. If there is a difference between them, it is insignificant.

Of course, all this is hair-splitting. This particular “potential” receiver is willing to accept the message.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Does the receiver actually want to receive the message?

Yes. For the rest read the post directly above.

The Church had hundreds and thousands of years to look for ways to avoid contradictions, you obviously had less.

During those millennia the Church had no time to separate the historically accurate verses from the allegorical ones. So much for the “due diligence”. But it is bad form and maybe against the rules to refer to a different thread.

 

[MPat]

Yes. For the rest read the post directly above.

During those millennia the Church had no time to separate the historically accurate verses from the allegorical ones. So much for the “due diligence”. But it is bad form and maybe against the rules to refer to a different thread.

OK, so, no actual arguments to support just about anything you assert…? Not even fallacious ones…?

Well, suit yourself… I’m afraid it means there isn’t much left to discuss…

 

[Gorgias]

Of course, all this is hair-splitting. This particular “potential” receiver is willing to accept the message.

It is, but not for the reason you suggest. A thought experiment for you:

a sender creates a message, a channel for it to be transmitted, and a particular encoding. Scores of recipients recognize the message, receive it, and decode it. A particular “potential” receiver does not receive the message. Who has failed, in this case?

BTW, you seem to suggest that a ‘bang’ on the head is the appropriate way to send a message to a recalcitrant receiver; what if the sender chooses not to force his message upon potential receivers? Who, then, has failed? Surely not the sender!

 

[Hee_Zen]

It is, but not for the reason you suggest. A thought experiment for you:

a sender creates a message, a channel for it to be transmitted, and a particular encoding. Scores of recipients recognize the message, receive it, and decode it. A particular “potential” receiver does not receive the message. Who has failed, in this case?

The answer is obvious. The sender, because he did not make sure that the recipient will be in the position to receive the message. When one tries to communicate to different receivers, then the “one size fits all” approach is incorrect - but I have pointed it out previously. By the way, the assertion that “scores” of recipients “got” the message is rather shaky. The different recipients cannot agree among themselves about the exact nature of the “message”, they take different parts as “important”, and “interpret” those parts differently. They are also unable to “pass” the deciphered message to the rest of us. The only thing they can do is demand that the rest of the “possible” recipients accept what they say without “explanation” - which is called “blind faith”.

BTW, you seem to suggest that a ‘bang’ on the head is the appropriate way to send a message to a recalcitrant receiver; what if the sender chooses not to force his message upon potential receivers? Who, then, has failed? Surely not the sender!

Of course the “bang” is not to be taken in a literal fashion (though I had a wonderful teacher who used a gentle “tug” on the ear of the inattentive student). But if the sender does not care if some recipients do not get the message, then he is not in the position to “complain” if some do not get the message. And definitely no “eternal punishment” for not adhering to the commands which were supposed to be part of the “message”. What do you mean by “forcing” the message? Getting the message does not “force” anything, it merely makes it possible to follow that message.

Just use the teacher / student analogy. The students are not identical, some might need a simple approach, others might need a more complicated one. The teacher should tailor the method to the needs of the individual students. The teacher must make sure that every student gets the “message” and understands it. Obviously this analogy rests of two premises: (1) the teacher cares about the students and wishes all of them to pass the final exam, and (2) the teacher is capable enough to tailor the “message” to the address each student personally, if that student needs personal attention. If a student does not get the message, it is the teacher’s fault. If the student gets the message, but does not understand it, its is the teacher’s fault. If a student asks for more explanation, and the teacher brushes it off, then the teacher’s fault is obvious.

Only if the student gets the message, understands it and fails to “learn” from it, only then can one put part of the blame on the student. Only part of it, because there are innumerable different ways to get the student’s attention and also innumerable ways to give the student every opportunity to comprehend and follow the message. This, however can be applied to the believers (Christians) only. An atheist either does not get the message, or is unable to decipher it, so the blame is strictly with the “teacher”.

 

[KidCatholic1]

The answer is obvious. The sender, because he did not make sure that the recipient will be in the position to receive the message. When one tries to communicate to different receivers, then the “one size fits all” approach is incorrect - but I have pointed it out previously. By the way, the assertion that “scores” of recipients “got” the message is rather shaky. The different recipients cannot agree among themselves about the exact nature of the “message”, they take different parts as “important”, and “interpret” those parts differently. They are also unable to “pass” the deciphered message to the rest of us. The only thing they can do is demand that the rest of the “possible” recipients accept what they say without “explanation” - which is called “blind faith”.

Of course the “bang” is not to be taken in a literal fashion (though I had a wonderful teacher who used a gentle “tug” on the ear of the inattentive student). But if the sender does not care if some recipients do not get the message, then he is not in the position to “complain” if some do not get the message. And definitely no “eternal punishment” for not adhering to the commands which were supposed to be part of the “message”. What do you mean by “forcing” the message? Getting the message does not “force” anything, it merely makes it possible to follow that message.

Just use the teacher / student analogy. The students are not identical, some might need a simple approach, others might need a more complicated one. The teacher should tailor the method to the needs of the individual students. The teacher must make sure that every student gets the “message” and understands it. Obviously this analogy rests of two premises: (1) the teacher cares about the students and wishes all of them to pass the final exam, and (2) the teacher is capable enough to tailor the “message” to the address each student personally, if that student needs personal attention. If a student does not get the message, it is the teacher’s fault. If the student gets the message, but does not understand it, its is the teacher’s fault. If a student asks for more explanation, and the teacher brushes it off, then the teacher’s fault is obvious.

Only if the student gets the message, understands it and fails to “learn” from it, only then can one put part of the blame on the student. Only part of it, because there are innumerable different ways to get the student’s attention and also innumerable ways to give the student every opportunity to comprehend and follow the message. This, however can be applied to the believers (Christians) only. An atheist either does not get the message, or is unable to decipher it, so the blame is strictly with the “teacher”.

I could argue that the Scriptures and Jesus Christ (who walked and interacted among mortals) was Him trying to communicate and appeal to the humans, even those who “don’t get the message”.

 

[tonyrey]

The answer is obvious. The sender, because he did not make sure that the recipient will be in the position to receive the message. When one tries to communicate to different receivers, then the “one size fits all” approach is incorrect - but I have pointed it out previously. By the way, the assertion that “scores” of recipients “got” the message is rather shaky. The different recipients cannot agree among themselves about the exact nature of the “message”, they take different parts as “important”, and “interpret” those parts differently. They are also unable to “pass” the deciphered message to the rest of us. The only thing they can do is demand that the rest of the “possible” recipients accept what they say without “explanation” - which is called “blind faith”.

All the great religions of the world are in agreement about the reality of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love. They recognise and promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is nothing blind or shaky about the consensus of moral and spiritual values. You too accept the principle that you should act in accordance with your conscience and not live as if you are an animal that has evolved by chance for no reason or purpose in a meaningless universe…

 

[ynotzap]

I can collect information on what the person believes to be true, but for much of it I can’t evaluate whether or not it is true or false. How can I know whether or not there were demons in my home or know that there are demons in someone else’s home?

“Is there some method of supernatural epistemology that can be used for validating the claims of others or even discovering some of these claims on my own?”

evicted the demons that were living in our house, she lived next door to us for 20 years before she passed away. Her daughter went to school with me. There were many more interactions with her, I’ve only mentioned one.

There is a method of supernatural epistemology that can be used for validating the claims of others, but not discovering some of these claims on your own, meaning you will need supernatural help. To have supernatural knowledge, you must have supernatural truth. And this truth is given by a Supernatural God, it is called Christian Faith, a Gift that can’t be acquired by human efforts. Rationalization, sincerity, honesty can lead you to the question about a method of supernatural epistemology. But this is impossible to have if no given by the Provider. It can be had, it is freely given, but there are requirements. Humility, a sincere desire to know the Truth, being honest with oneself. And an encounter with God. There are many messengers (this forum) eg. We can’t convince you, but I wager if you were , you will discover the supernatural epistemology you are looking for.

As for knowing whether the woman evicted the demons that were in you home, I can not say, but if you are still experiencing manifestation then obviously she didn’t. But supernatural faith can answer that problem, and even cure it. I can say this from experience.

If you are told something and it is confirmed for you, it is a good sign that God is communicating with you, there are prophets, and the Catholic Church has this gift, and so do it’s faithful members.it is shared by all true Christians

 

[ThinkingSapien]

… if you are still experiencing manifestation then obviously she didn’t.

Well, I can’t say that I ever experienced anything that can be identified as a manifestation. If there were demons cohabitating with us they apparently were not very active.

There is a method of supernatural epistemology that can be used for validating the claims of others, but not discovering some of these claims on your own, meaning you will need supernatural help…

Sounds like you are describing knowledge from revelation.

Humility, a sincere desire to know the Truth, being honest with oneself.

Just an FYI as I think the above indicates this may not be apparent, but I had been a Christian and started from a position of being convinced of many of the propositions of Christianity.

And an encounter with God.

Yep, I’ve never had anything that I can identify as being such an encounter.

 

[tonyrey]

Hee_Zen The answer is obvious. The sender, because he did not make sure that the recipient will be in the position to receive the message. When one tries to communicate to different receivers, then the "one size fits all" approach is incorrect - but I have pointed it out previously. By the way, the assertion that “scores” of recipients “got” the message is rather shaky. The different recipients cannot agree among themselves about the exact nature of the “message”, they take different parts as “important”, and “interpret” those parts differently. They are also unable to “pass” the deciphered message to the rest of us. The only thing they can do is demand that the rest of the “possible” recipients accept what they say without “explanation” - which is called “blind faith”.

All the great religions of the world are in agreement about the reality of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love. They recognise and promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is nothing blind or shaky about the consensus of moral and spiritual values. You too accept the principle that you should act in accordance with your conscience and not live as if you are an animal that has evolved by chance for no reason or purpose in a meaningless universe… :yup:

 

[ThinkingSapien]

All the great religions of the world are …]

You realize you already gave that response a few messages above ,right?

 

[Hee_Zen]

You realize you already gave that response a few messages above ,right?

Haha! Tony keeps conducting conversations with himself, because he gets no reply. Poor sucker… so pitiful and childish in his desire to be “recognized”. Soon he will “declare” that our lack of response indicates our “inability” to reply, and then he chalks up a “victory”.

 

[Gorgias]

You realize you already gave that response a few messages above ,right?

Haha! Tony keeps conducting conversations with himself, because he gets no reply. Poor sucker… so pitiful and childish in his desire to be “recognized”. Soon he will “declare” that our lack of response indicates our “inability” to reply, and then he chalks up a “victory”.

Nah… he just realizes that Hee thinks he’s a poor message sender until Hee actually receives the message he sent. By Hee’s skewed rules, until Hee acknowledges receipt of the message, it’s Tony’s fault that Hee doesn’t understand the point…

 

[Gorgias]

The answer is obvious. The sender, because he did not make sure that the recipient will be in the position to receive the message.

I see. So, if a hundred recipients receive the message, but one fails to receive it, it’s the sender’s fault.

You can see, can’t you, that your assertion here fails mightily. At the very least, that’s what “message garbled in transmission” or “complete message not received” or “please re-send” responses are for, you know?

By the way, the assertion that “scores” of recipients “got” the message is rather shaky.

My thought experiment, my rules.

Yet, you’re adding a new dimension to the thought experiment that goes beyond what was proposed: what the recipient does with the message. Here, your assertions are even less reasonable – you’re claiming that, if a recipient takes a received message and does something unexpected with it, the sender is still at fault! Not that the message as received is different; not that the message is received erroneously – but that the message, received in full and accurately, is interpreted in a way that’s at odds with the sender’s intent. And still, you assert, that’s the sender’s fault. That’s simply ludicrous, sorry…

But if the sender does not care if some recipients do not get the message, then he is not in the position to “complain” if some do not get the message.

How do you contend that the sender does not care? That’s a rather strong claim to make; and I don’t see you presenting any evidence to back it up. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur…

Just use the teacher / student analogy. The students are not identical, some might need a simple approach, others might need a more complicated one. The teacher should tailor the method to the needs of the individual students.

Doesn’t match the situation at hand, unfortunately. In this example of yours, each student recognizes that the teacher exists; each student is present with the expectation that he will receive a message; each student acknowledges receipt of the message. You’ve just moved the goalposts – that is, unless, you’re asserting that atheists and agnostics admit the existence of God and acknowledge that He has sent His Son and His Word to them?

No, that’s not what your ‘prayer’ was acknowledging at all.

The teacher must make sure that every student gets the “message” and understands it.

Yet, your example still seems to be insufficient. God wishes all to be saved and spend eternity in heaven. He has revealed Himself to us in His Word and through His son’s incarnation. Message delivered; message available for receipt. However, God does not force His message on anyone. Having placed it in the public for free receipt, He now allows each recipient the opportunity to receive the message or reject it, as each chooses. The fault is not in the sender: the message exists and its existence is known and it is ubiquitous in availability. It is now a question of what the recipient will do with the message. (If a teacher tries and tries and tries, but a particular student refuses to open the textbook or actively denies every teaching that’s being presented… how is that the fault of the teacher?)

This, however can be applied to the believers (Christians) only. An atheist either does not get the message, or is unable to decipher it, so the blame is strictly with the “teacher”.

You keep saying this, but each time you do, you weaken the case. Your assertion of the awareness of the message implicitly says that atheists have gotten the message. Your claim of inability to decipher the message implicitly says that atheists have received the message and now are in a position to send a reply that says “message incomprehensible – please re-transmit.” In each case, there’s no ‘blame’ to be assigned to the message sender.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I see. So, if a hundred recipients receive the message, but one fails to receive it, it’s the sender’s fault.

You can see, can’t you, that your assertion here fails mightily. At the very least, that’s what “message garbled in transmission” or “complete message not received” or “please re-send” responses are for, you know?

First of all, the hundred recipients can only “claim” that they received a message. They have no evidence that there was a message at all. The point is that I did not see anything what I could consider a message. And the “others” cannot substantiate that they received a “message”. It is all “he said, she said” - and they cannot even agree just what the “message” was.

But you seem to disregard the “meat” of what I said: the recipients are different, they have different threshold of what “gets through them”. If a message is too “weak” to be perceived as such, why should the “receiver” even attempt to answer? To whom? There is no sender, there is no message. At this point you have too options:

1. You can agree that the “message” was too weak and that is definitely the sender’s fault… or
2. You can try to blame the recipient for plucking his ears and singing: “I don’t hear you!” - which is accusing the recipient of being dishonest.

Which one will it be?

Yet, you’re adding a new dimension to the thought experiment that goes beyond what was proposed: what the recipient does with the message. Here, your assertions are even less reasonable – you’re claiming that, if a recipient takes a received message and does something unexpected with it, the sender is still at fault! Not that the message as received is different; not that the message is received erroneously – but that the message, received in full and accurately, is interpreted in a way that’s at odds with the sender’s intent. And still, you assert, that’s the sender’s fault. That’s simply ludicrous, sorry…

Where did that come from? This receiver received no message, so it cannot be “distorted”.

How do you contend that the sender does not care? That’s a rather strong claim to make; and I don’t see you presenting any evidence to back it up. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur…

Did you miss the all important “IF”? I said: "But if the sender does not care if some recipients do not get the message, then he is not in the position to “complain” if some do not get the message. "

Doesn’t match the situation at hand, unfortunately.

It was only an analogy, not a precise equivalent. But it works pretty good, in my opinion.

God wishes all to be saved and spend eternity in heaven.

That “wish” is not exactly “fervent”, not even “lukewarm”. It smacks of indifference to me.

He has revealed Himself to us in His Word and through His son’s incarnation. Message delivered; message available for receipt.

Where you see a “message”, all I see is an unsupported mythology. Not a “garbled message”, not a “partially distorted message”, no message at all. IF God would **really **wish everyone to be “saved”, then he **should **send everyone the kind of message that the recipient can see and understand - individually, if that is the case. Whether they would ***follow ***it or not, would be the prerogative of the recipient. That is where the recipient’s “freedom” is supposed to be honored. Not with the message itself.

 

[Gorgias]

First of all, the hundred recipients can only “claim” that they received a message. They have no evidence that there was a message at all. The point is that I did not see anything what I could consider a message.

Yeah… now you’ve just jumped the shark.

Since you claim ignorance of a message, now you project your impression on others, and claim that they cannot assert that they received a message? Really? You’re not seeing how unreasonable your assertions are?

And the “others” cannot substantiate that they received a “message”. It is all “he said, she said” - and they cannot even agree just what the “message” was.

Dang. Looking at all those Bibles on my shelf, I suddenly saw them ‘poof’ off into oblivion – after all, I can’t claim that I received the message!

But you seem to disregard the “meat” of what I said: the recipients are different, they have different threshold of what “gets through them”. If a message is too “weak” to be perceived as such, why should the “receiver” even attempt to answer?

You’re making this too easy…

The individual who “does not receive the message” sees that others have received a broadcast message – whether or not they respond to it, or regardless how they have interpreted it, they have received it – and therefore, they react to the reactions they see around them. They should attempt to answer, because the only reasonable presumption is “I didn’t receive the message the others did; could you please re-transmit the message to me?”

To whom? There is no sender, there is no message. At this point you have too options:

1. You can agree that the “message” was too weak and that is definitely the sender’s fault… or
2. You can try to blame the recipient for plucking his ears and singing: “I don’t hear you!” - which is accusing the recipient of being dishonest.

I disagree that these are the only options. First, there are message transmission errors that aren’t necessarily the fault of the sender. (However, I realize that you are unable to see this possibility, since it implicates you in your lack of receipt of the message. That’s ok, I get it; it’s difficult to ask the question “did I blow it?”)

Second, you seem to suggest that there aren’t those who refuse to receive the message. Am I hearing you correctly? (Now, I’m not suggesting that all who fail to receive the message are ‘plugging their ears’, but you seem to be saying that this is an impossibility.)

Which one will it be?

Neither. And, in the context of the question, there’s still the possibility to request re-transmission, which is an option you continue to refuse to admit exists.

Where did that come from? This receiver received no message, so it cannot be “distorted”.

It came from your own post, Hee. You suggested that “getting” the message was an assertion of ‘proper interpretation’ of the message (which is not at all what ‘receipt’ means). I’m merely responding to your assertion that misinterpretation of the message implies lack of receipt.

Did you miss the all important “IF”? I said: "But if the sender does not care if some recipients do not get the message, then he is not in the position to “complain” if some do not get the message. "

I see; so, you’re making an unsupported claim that God might not care that we receive His message. Isn’t that what I said – that your claim has no evidence? :sad_yes:

Where you see a “message”, all I see is an unsupported mythology. Not a “garbled message”, not a “partially distorted message”, no message at all.

And so, we’ve reached the end of our discussion. You admit that you’ve received the message, but that your interpretation of it is ‘unsupported mythology’. In other words, receipt successful, but message rejected. Your argument is at its logical end, Hee – you’ve just confirmed receipt of that which you claim you did not receive. Now… it’s up to you to do what you wish with the message.

IF

God would **really **wish everyone to be “saved”, then he **should **send everyone the kind of message that the recipient can see and understand - individually, if that is the case.

You seem to be making the argument that God is obliged to make the kind of case that’s irrefutable, and tailored to the specific needs of each person. That smacks of a message that leaves no room for a response in ‘faith’ and ‘love’, but merely, in ‘raw logic’. How do you reach that conclusion? What proofs do you offer of such an ‘obligation’?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Since you claim ignorance of a message, now you project your impression on others, and claim that they cannot assert that they received a message? Really? You’re not seeing how unreasonable your assertions are?

Well, if you prefer I can say that the alleged recipients are unable to present any semi-convincing evidence for that assumed message. It is all “blind faith”.

Dang. Looking at all those Bibles on my shelf, I suddenly saw them ‘poof’ off into oblivion – after all, I can’t claim that I received the message!

Oh, they are there, all right. They just don’t count as evidence.

The individual who “does not receive the message” sees that others have received a broadcast message – whether or not they respond to it, or regardless how they have interpreted it, they have received it – and therefore, they react to the reactions they see around them. They should attempt to answer, because the only reasonable presumption is “I didn’t receive the message the others did; could you please re-transmit the message to me?”

You still miss the point. I do NOT see others receiving the message, I only see some people who CLAIM that they received a message, but unable to substantiate it.

I disagree that these are the only options. First, there are message transmission errors that aren’t necessarily the fault of the sender. (However, I realize that you are unable to see this possibility, since it implicates you in your lack of receipt of the message. That’s ok, I get it; it’s difficult to ask the question “did I blow it?”)

Errors, mistakes? When GOD is at the controls of the communication channel???

Second, you seem to suggest that there aren’t those who refuse to receive the message. Am I hearing you correctly? (Now, I’m not suggesting that all who fail to receive the message are ‘plugging their ears’, but you seem to be saying that this is an impossibility.)

We went through this. I already asserted that I am willing to listen. Why do we have to explore that beaten path again?

Neither. And, in the context of the question, there’s still the possibility to request re-transmission, which is an option you continue to refuse to admit exists.

Not just I but also many atheists asked for “re-transmission”. Nothing ever came out of it.

I see; so, you’re making an unsupported claim that God might not care that we receive His message. Isn’t that what I said – that your claim has no evidence? :sad_yes:

Unsupported? There is no sign that God cares, so I use the good, old duck principle.

And so, we’ve reached the end of our discussion. You admit that you’ve received the message, but that your interpretation of it is ‘unsupported mythology’.

I did NOT say that I received any message. ***Please don’t distort what I said. ***

You seem to be making the argument that God is obliged to make the kind of case that’s irrefutable, and tailored to the specific needs of each person.

As I said before, a good teacher tailors the “message” to the needs of the recipient.

That smacks of a message that leaves no room for a response in ‘faith’ and ‘love’, but merely, in ‘raw logic’.

Well, in my vocabulary “faith” is a four-letter word. Love has nothing to do with the messaging system. Bits and bytes, redundancy, information theory… yes. Cold, hard logic, yes.

How do you reach that conclusion? What proofs do you offer of such an ‘obligation’?

The “obligation” is self-assumed by God. The obligation is expressed in your assertion, namely that God “wishes” (observe!!! does NOT WANT, merely wishes) to have everyone to be saved. In my neck of the woods one is supposed to help the others - out of love for them.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, if you prefer I can say that the alleged recipients are unable to present any semi-convincing evidence for that assumed message. It is all “blind faith”.

Ahh… so the issue isn’t the evidence, it’s your acceptance of the evidence. Ever hear of the ‘illative sense’? Each gets to decide whether sufficient evidence has been received in order to reach a conclusion. You simply have a different ‘standard’ of sufficiency. Doesn’t mean we’re wrong; doesn’t mean you’re right.

Oh, they are there, all right. They just don’t count as evidence.

Again – you see the message, but refuse to assent to it.

You still miss the point. I do NOT see others receiving the message, I only see some people who CLAIM that they received a message, but unable to substantiate it.

Still a problematic assertion. What, pray tell, would ‘count’ as substantiation of a message that another has received? (And why, for goodness sake, does your opinion of whether another has received a message become the determining standard for whether they’ve received it?)

Errors, mistakes? When GOD is at the controls of the communication channel???

The transmission happens in the physical world. The physical world isn’t perfect, as I’m sure you’re aware. Yes, there are transmission failures in the physical world.

We went through this. I already asserted that I am willing to listen. Why do we have to explore that beaten path again?

Because I think that it’s closer to the truth that you say you’re willing to listen, but it’s more like you’re simply giving lip service to that claim. You say you’re willing, but when we point out the message transmission vectors, you claim “nope. not a message; nope. not believable.” You see, what that means is that you’re willing to listen to a message of your own choosing, or to a message which is constructed according to your own personal rules. The recipient doesn’t get to make those decisions; the sender does. If a recipient claims that “I don’t like this message” or “I don’t approve of the envelope for this message”, he cannot simultaneously claim “I didn’t receive the message” or “I’m willing to receive a message.” That’s what you’re doing here, whether you realize it or not.

I did NOT say that I received any message. ***Please don’t distort what I said. ***

I’m not claiming that you said that you received the message… just that you actually have received it, but are unwilling to admit to it. Big difference.

As I said before, a good teacher tailors the “message” to the needs of the recipient.

I see. And ‘good teachers’ have a zero-failure rate?

Well, in my vocabulary “faith” is a four-letter word.

Shame, that. Hope it’s working for you.

The “obligation” is self-assumed by God.

Says you. Why does your theology trump, then?

The obligation is expressed in your assertion, namely that God “wishes” (observe!!! does NOT WANT, merely wishes)

Poor foundation. ‘Wishes’ does not imply ‘does not want’.

to have everyone to be saved. In my neck of the woods one is supposed to help the others - out of love for them.

Does that ‘help’ include forcing others to do things against their free will?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Ahh… so the issue isn’t the evidence, it’s your acceptance of the evidence. Ever hear of the ‘illative sense’? Each gets to decide whether sufficient evidence has been received in order to reach a conclusion. You simply have a different ‘standard’ of sufficiency. Doesn’t mean we’re wrong; doesn’t mean you’re right.

Obviously. What is “sufficient” varies from person to person. And it is insufficient for me.

Still a problematic assertion. What, pray tell, would ‘count’ as substantiation of a message that another has received? (And why, for goodness sake, does your opinion of whether another has received a message become the determining standard for whether they’ve received it?)

I only speak for myself.

The transmission happens in the physical world. The physical world isn’t perfect, as I’m sure you’re aware. Yes, there are transmission failures in the physical world.

Last time I heard God has full control over the physical world. He can (allegedly) even perform “miracles”. Is he now “impotent” to keep a noise-free communication channel?

Because I think that it’s closer to the truth that you say you’re willing to listen, but it’s more like you’re simply giving lip service to that claim. You say you’re willing, but when we point out the message transmission vectors, you claim “nope. not a message; nope. not believable.”

You have two choices. You can declare me a liar, or an idiot. I have a think skin, so don’t worry about my feelings.

You see, what that means is that you’re willing to listen to a message of your own choosing, or to a message which is constructed according to your own personal rules.

That is obvious. I am the only one who can decide what is acceptable for me.

The recipient doesn’t get to make those decisions; the sender does. If a recipient claims that “I don’t like this message” or “I don’t approve of the envelope for this message”, he cannot simultaneously claim “I didn’t receive the message” or “I’m willing to receive a message.” That’s what you’re doing here, whether you realize it or not.

Nonsense. I certainly claim that I am willing to consider a message when I see one. But only I can decide if there was a message at all.

I’m not claiming that you said that you received the message… just that you actually have received it, but are unwilling to admit to it. Big difference.

Uh-oh! This is what you said: “You admit that you’ve received the message, but that your interpretation of it is ‘unsupported mythology’.” Be careful. Your old words can bite you in the … donkey.

I see. And ‘good teachers’ have a zero-failure rate?

God is supposed to have none.

Poor foundation. ‘Wishes’ does not imply ‘does not want’.

Whatever God “wants” will happen. If it does not happen, he did not “want” it. Elementary syllogism my dear Watson.

Does that ‘help’ include forcing others to do things against their free will?

No one resists here. I am open and willing… or so I say. But again, maybe I am just a liar or insane… but in that case, why do you keep talking to me? I don’t deserve the honor.