We point this out to each other all the time in my profession. When the other side makes a claim designed to persuade me, but when taken on its face—they can’t support it.
Opponent: You should take a reduced amount voluntarily paid by my client?
Opponent: Because my client is so uncollectible, that if he doesn’t voluntarily pay—you will never see a dime.
Me: Then wouldn’t the smartest route be for you to consent to a judgment for the entire amount right now? Then he would stop paying attorney fees, and can laugh at my pitiful attempts to collect. He would pay less money.
Opponent: Well….he doesn’t want a judgment entered….no, I can’t agree to that.
Me: Then the message you are sending me is that you fear I can collect on a judgment—which is it: is he uncollectible or is he collectable?
Or in a divorce case:
Opponent: You take the piano which we value at $12,000, and my client will take the bank account of $12,000. Divide it evenly.
Me: My client thinks the piano is only worth about $3,000. Tell you what—if YOU think the piano is worth all that, YOU take the piano, WE’LL take the bank account.
Opponent: But your client loves that piano…
Me: She can buy three of ‘em and still have $3,000 left over if she gets the bank account.
I get the same sort of tingling feeling of a bluff every time I hear God doesn’t want to reveal too much about himself/herself ‘cause s/he wants us to believe on faith.
Why? What is so wonderful about belief based on “faith” as compared to evidence? Why does God prefer faith? Then I am told we cannot make determinations about God, because he lives on a different plane, or has such a higher intellect, or is holy, or is a spirit, or is not like us, or some other reason.
So when I ask for evidence, I am told God doesn’t prefer it. When I ask what God is like, I am told I can’t know. How is it the theist happens to know what God likes or doesn’t like?
I smell bluff…