A God Problem

[Tumah]

It's pretty self-evident that second-hand knowledge is not the same as first-hand knowledge... especially when it comes to experiential knowledge and knowing how rather than knowing that.

Telling someone how to ride a bicycle does not a bike rider make.
Telling someone what it is like to experience intense pain does not make for knowledge of that pain.

I understand that you're talking about the way our human forms of knowledge work.

 

[Muffled]

I believe I have no doubts as well. Which is easy, considering how confusing they are. I mean they believe in airborn saviours and flying horses. Easy to have misconceptions.

Ciao

- viole

I believe it is easy to dismiss something of which you have no personal knowledge but this is a much stranger world than most people experience. Try reading Ripley's believe it or not.

 

[Muffled]

Prophesy has to be specific and can't be written after the fact. Be wary of snake oil salesmen.

I believe a virgin getting pregnant is detailed enough considering it only has happened once in history. Of course there is a slight ambiguity in language but not enough to discredit the prophecy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's pretty self-evident that second-hand knowledge is not the same as first-hand knowledge... especially when it comes to experiential knowledge and knowing how rather than knowing that.

Telling someone how to ride a bicycle does not a bike rider make.
Telling someone what it is like to experience intense pain does not make for knowledge of that pain.

But we're getting into "reverse ontological argument" territory here. You could also say, for instance, that if God doesn't "know" the feeling of deference to a superior, then he doesn't know all, but if he knows it by having deferred to a superior, then something must exist that's greater than God.

 

[Quintessence]

I understand that you're talking about the way our human forms of knowledge work.

If the one-god is all-knowing, wouldn't its forms of knowledge necessarily include human forms of knowledge?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the one-god is all-knowing, wouldn't its forms of knowledge necessarily include human forms of knowledge?

Does posession of "human forms of knowledge" necessarily require that the knowledge be acquired in the same way that a human would acquire it?

 

[Tumah]

If the one-god is all-knowing, wouldn't its forms of knowledge necessarily include human forms of knowledge?

I guess I understand the phrase "all knowing" as meaning "knowing all things" - whatever form that knowledge may take, rather than having all forms of knowledge. I don't really understand why someone would be inclined to take that route unless perhaps they were pantheistic. Otherwise, I don't understand why it's necessary to say that G-d attains His knowledge in the same manner that humans do, or that the knowledge G-d has takes a form that bears any resemblance to our own.

 

[mistoftime]

I guess I understand the phrase "all knowing" as meaning "knowing all things" - whatever form that knowledge may take, rather than having all forms of knowledge. I don't really understand why someone would be inclined to take that route unless perhaps they were pantheistic. Otherwise, I don't understand why it's necessary to say that G-d attains His knowledge in the same manner that humans do, or that the knowledge G-d has takes a form that bears any resemblance to our own.

There is no evidence that god is a

I believe a virgin getting pregnant is detailed enough considering it only has happened once in history. Of course there is a slight ambiguity in language but not enough to discredit the prophecy.

Virgins in those days couldn't get pregnant, IVF hadn't been invented.

 

[viole]

I believe a virgin getting pregnant is detailed enough considering it only has happened once in history. Of course there is a slight ambiguity in language but not enough to discredit the prophecy.

Do you have any evidence she was virgin when she got pregnant? Or do you simply believe what she said?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

Does posession of "human forms of knowledge" necessarily require that the knowledge be acquired in the same way that a human would acquire it?

One would think so. Otherwise, the experience is not the same.

 

[Trailblazer]

There's a problem with this. What you are doing here is presupposing two different concept and deceptively making it to fit your argument. For the sake of this argument, let's say that a god exist whether we can prove it or not. We still don't know which messengers are his or if he sent any at all. We still can't determine what god wants. So how did you come to the conclusion that god want us to believe/know that he exist?

I came to that conclusion because I believe Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and I believe what He wrote about that. The only way to know anything about God’s Will is from what the Messenger reveals since the Will of the Messenger is identical with the Will of God.

You just contradicted yourself. This is your belief, and your thoughts on how god is. How did you come to this conclusion? And before you even say, through scripture and/or the messengers, you must first demonstrate that it's the truth.

I came to that conclusion because I believe Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and I believe what He wrote about that. The only way to know anything about God’s Will is from what the Messenger reveals since the Will of the Messenger is identical with the Will of God.

How do you think that I can demonstrate to you that what I believe is the truth? Why would I be obligated to demonstrate that to others just because I believe it?

After saying that whatever we think god does won't make it the truth, you followed it with an assertion of what you think makes sense in regards to god and his nature. There's numerous reasons as to why god would send believers to hell for believing. On top of my head I can give quite a bit but I'll just give one for now.

It makes sense that god would send believers to hell for eternal torture because it makes the torture so much harsher for the believers because being tortured by the very god they believe, some even as a savior, will hurt even more. By the way, this could be one of infinite possibility that this is god's nature. He thrives on other's suffering.

It makes no sense to me that God would send believers to hell for believing in Him. Why would God do that? That is as much as saying that God does not want us to believe in Him. Why do you think that would be the case?

Why do you think that being tortured by the very god they believe in, some even as a savior, will hurt even more than hell?

Why do you think it is possible that God thrives on others’ suffering?

 

[Trailblazer]

Because evidence that's convincing when you look at it ought to be evidence that's convincing when someone else looks at it.

... assuming both you and the other person are reasonable, of course.

I cannot even begin to imagine why you would think that EVERYONE would find the same evidence convincing.

Everyone will not find the evidence for Baha’u’llah convincing because everyone has a different childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences. That is essentially why humans will never view the same evidence in the same way.

The Baha’i Faith is the new religion at the narrow gate.Below are the primary reasons why most people do not find the evidence for the new religion convincing.

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

The religion at the narrow gate is the religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I cannot even begin to imagine why you would think that EVERYONE would find the same evidence convincing.

I wouldn't. I don't think everyone is reasonable in their beliefs.

Everyone will not find the evidence for Baha’u’llah convincing because everyone has a different childhood upbringing, heredity, education, and adult experiences. That is essentially why humans will never view the same evidence in the same way.

Yes, but reasonable people do their best to set aside all of these factors. John Loftus called it the Outsider Test for Faith:

The outsider test is simply a challenge to test one’s own religious faith with the presumption of skepticism, as an outsider. It calls upon believers to “Test or examine your religious beliefs as if you were outsiders with the same presumption of skepticism you use to test or examine other religious beliefs.”

The Outsider Test for Faith

The Baha’i Faith is the new religion at the narrow gate.Below are the primary reasons why most people do not find the evidence for the new religion convincing.

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

The religion at the narrow gate is the religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

Right: the reason you haven't convinced me is because there's something wrong with me. It couldn't possibly be because you haven't given a good argument for your position.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

Yeah... I see this argunent as mostly excuse-making by someone who recognizes that their religion is unpopular but is motivated to maintain the belief that their religion is true.

 

[1137]

I simply don't think there's much value in traditional monotheism. We know for certain their tri-omni god doesn't exist, and it's only do popular due to a bloody history. Modern atheists tend to focus on it as "low hanging fruit" and use it to reject an gods outright. With polytheism there's no problem of evil, no problem from experiencing different gods, no desire to force everyone on one path, etc.

 

[Tumah]

There is no evidence that god is a

Well, my question wasn't really based on the claim that G-d is a, so that's fine imo.

 

[Trailblazer]

I wouldn't. I don't think everyone is reasonable in their beliefs.
Yes, but reasonable people do their best to set aside all of these factors.

I really do not like the phrase "reasonable people." I hear it a lot from atheists. The implication is that they are reasonable and believers are not reasonable. I am not saying that you are saying that, but I have heard it from atheists on other forums till it is coming out of my ears.
People are not either reasonable or unreasonable... What is reasonable to one person is not reasonable to another person. It is that simple.

Right: the reason you haven't convinced me is because there's something wrong with me. It couldn't possibly be because you haven't given a good argument for your position.

It is neither one of those things. I am not trying to argue for my beliefs, I just present them. People have to convince themselves if they want to.

Yeah... I see this argument as mostly excuse-making by someone who recognizes that their religion is unpopular but is motivated to maintain the belief that their religion is true.

Popularity does not make a religion true. That is ad populum. Christianity was just a little religion in the beginning and everyone thought it was a cult. History repeats itself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I really do not like the phrase "reasonable people." I hear it a lot from atheists. The implication is that they are reasonable and believers are not reasonable. I am not saying that you are saying that, but I have heard it from atheists on other forums till it is coming out of my ears.

People are not either reasonable or unreasonable... What is reasonable to one person is not reasonable to another person. It is that simple.

I disagree strongly. If something can be shown to be false or belief in it isn't justified, then it's unreasonable to believe in it.

It is neither one of those things. I am not trying to argue for my beliefs, I just present them. People have to convince themselves if they want to.

If you don't think you've tried to argue for your beliefs, why be surprised that your argument hasn't been accepted?

Popularity does not make a religion true. That is ad populum.

I didn't say it did. What I'm saying is that if sincere truth-seekers can examine your religion but find it lacking, then you'll need creative ways to account for this. It seems you have.

Christianity was just a little religion in the beginning and everyone thought it was a cult. History repeats itself.

I don't find Christianity believable either.

 

[Trailblazer]

I disagree strongly. If something can be shown to be false or belief in it isn't justified, then it's unreasonable to believe in it.

First, I do not know how you have been able to show my belief is false.

Second, whether a belief is justified or not depends upon if you can justify it in your own mind.

Are you saying that what is unreasonable to you sets the standards as to what is unreasonable? My point was that anyone can only SAY what is unreasonable to THEM, they cannot point blank say what is unreasonable, unless they are the standard-setters for reasonableness, and why would anyone have that ability?

In other words, if other people find a belief to be reasonable and you do not find it reasonable, that is simply because you reason differently than they do. Thus you can really only say what is reasonable to YOU.

It is neither one of those things. I am not trying to argue for my beliefs, I just present them. People have to convince themselves if they want to.

If you don't think you've tried to argue for your beliefs, why be surprised that your argument hasn't been accepted?

I have presented my beliefs but I am not arguing FOR THEM, since I am not trying to convince anyone that they are true.

I didn't say it did. What I'm saying is that if sincere truth-seekers can examine your religion but find it lacking, then you'll need creative ways to account for this. It seems you have.

I do have ways to account for this. I explained those in this post: #192 Trailblazer, Friday at 11:59 PM

I now add that there are certain criteria that Bahaullah said we have to meet in order to be considered a True Seeker. They are rather difficult to meet, but not impossible to meet, but first you have to know what they are.

Tablet of the True Seeker

I don't find Christianity believable either.

Neither do I, because the doctrines of Christianity cannot be reconciled to my logical mind. I might have found early Christianity believable, before the Paul and the Church changed the essential message of Jesus into something else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First, I do not know how you have been able to show my belief is false.

Do you think I said that your beliefs are false?

Second, whether a belief is justified or not depends upon if you can justify it in your own mind.

Well, no. Some ways of "justifying" a conclusion are demonstrably wrong or unreliable.

Are you saying that what is unreasonable to you sets the standards as to what is unreasonable? My point was that anyone can only SAY what is unreasonable to THEM, they cannot point blank say what is unreasonable, unless they are the standard-setters for reasonableness, and why would anyone have that ability?

It's certainly unreasonable to set the bar too low. If a person's standards are so low that, if they were applied consistently, contradictory ideas would both be accepted, then the standard is clearly unable to tell truth from falsehood and is therefore too low.

At the upper end, sure: reasonable people can disagree on how high is too high... but I've never seen anyone set the bar low enough that one religion can clear it but other religions - preaching that the first religion is wrong - also clear it.

In other words, if other people find a belief to be reasonable and you do not find it reasonable, that is simply because you reason differently than they do. Thus you can really only say what is reasonable to YOU.

If two people "reason differently," then at least one of them is wrong.

It's fine for people to disagree about values and aesthetics, but inferring facts about physical reality isn't arbitrary.

It is neither one of those things. I am not trying to argue for my beliefs, I just present them. People have to convince themselves if they want to.

I have presented my beliefs but I am not arguing FOR THEM, since I am not trying to convince anyone that they are true.

Okay. Personally, I tend not to look for deep explanations when I don't accomplish things I didn't set out to do. YMMV, apparently.

I do have ways to account for this. I explained those in this post: #192 Trailblazer, Friday at 11:59 PM

Like I said: creative.

I now add that there are certain criteria that Bahaullah said we have to meet in order to be considered a True Seeker. They are rather difficult to meet, but not impossible to meet, but first you have to know what they are.

Tablet of the True Seeker

You mean this (quoted from your link)?

Only when the lamp of search, of earnest striving, of longing desire, of passionate devotion, of fervid love, of rapture, and ecstasy, is kindled within the seeker’s heart, and the breeze of His loving-kindness is wafted upon his soul, will the darkness of error be dispelled, the mists of doubts and misgivings be dissipated, and the lights of knowledge and certitude envelop his being.

This seems to be a more flowery way of expressing the same sentiment that I paraphrased earlier: if someone isn't convinced, then it isn't because there's something wrong with the message; it's because there's something wrong with the unconvinced person. It's no less insulting the way Baha'u'llah phrased it.

Do you have any room in your worldview for an earnest, sincere, devoted person who strives for truth but ends up disagreeing with you?

Neither do I, because the doctrines of Christianity cannot be reconciled to my logical mind. I might have found early Christianity believable, before the Paul and the Church changed the essential message of Jesus into something else.

I wouldn't say that anyone who's fallen for homeopathy hook, line and sinker has a "logical mind."

... and you have accepted things that I dismiss as outlandish whether in Christianity, the Baha'i faith, or any other religion that preaches them, such as the existence of an intelligent god who is concerned with humanity, and the existence of "messengers"/prophets who this god has given special messages to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One would think so. Otherwise, the experience is not the same.

But is experience the same thing as knowledge?