A God Problem

[Trailblazer]

Negative. Nothing that interacts temporally can be unchanging.

I meant that God's Attributes, which is all we can know of God, are unchanging.
But God can change whatever He wants to because God can do anything.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree with Pascal in that Abrahamic-styled deity is incompatible with rational analysis.

It is a shame that he chose to favor scriptural revelation over reason. That is exactly the opposite of what I would advise. God-concepts are tools, and so are scriptures. They can't afford to sustain actual doctrine.

I do however think that such a problem is very specific to Abrahamic doctrine, which is rather exotic in the matter of the role of divinity. Most any other creed manages to avoid that pitfall, including other monotheisms (such as monotheistic-flavored Hinduism or Sikhism).

To an extent, even the Bahai Faith manages to course correct its own doctrine on that specific matter, thanks to its inclusivist traits.

 

[blü 2]

"Does the idea of a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing God make sense? Does it hold together when we examine it logically?

If God is all-powerful and all-knowing then God is the only possible source of sin; and the only possible reason sin continues.

When you're all-powerful and all-knowing, all the bucks, good and bad, stop with you.

And God is very frank about it:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.​

although [he] also sponsors lies:

Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet

2 Thessalonians 2: 11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false.​

So maybe we can stay with the all-powerful and all-knowing but the perfect is out the window.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If God is all-powerful and all-knowing then God is the only possible source of sin; and the only possible reason sin continues.

When you're all-powerful and all-knowing, all the bucks, good and bad, stop with you.

And God is very frank about it:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.​

although [he] also sponsors lies:

Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet

2 Thessalonians 2: 11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false.​

So maybe we can stay with the all-powerful and all-knowing but the perfect is out the window.

My solution to that would be quite simple: just throw out the omnibenevolent requirement and moral dualism. But than Christianity would be out the window. Oh, well. Lol.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm interested in highlighting a few things for additional consideration, as there are some ideas here worth mulling over a bit more that some folks have contributed to the discussion.

A simple response would be God's Knowledge is not Human Knowledge. Lust, envy, hate love are all human terms for human experiences God can be above them as in God's knowledge they don't exist.

That is just a human conception of what All-Knowing means. God is not a human, therefore God does not KNOW like a human would know.

This is something that I myself argue when I'm in the mood to defend a theology that I myself do not share. On the one hand, I get it - classical monotheism is almost deliberately obtuse. On the other hand, in a way this reinforces the point the philosopher makes in his piece - that "God" as traditionally understood by English-speaking Western cultures is not a concept arrived at through reason, but faith. One simply has to have faith that this god has these particular attributes that are beyond comprehension and overlook the obvious logical contradictions if processed from a human point of view. Ultimately, with a god-concept this obtuse, we can't say much of anything about it, hence faith over reason.

To be clear, I wouldn't consider the faith-based nature of classical monotheism to be a bad thing, especially considering relatively little of human life is characterized by reason. But it does help me understand why certain people really can't square themselves with it and meander into atheist territory. When few theological alternatives are presented, there's the tendency to throw the seeds out with the soil or figure all theisms - including monotheism - must have the same logical quandaries. This, of course, is not so. We can see examples of this in responses as follows:

I question the assumption that God must know everything.

While this is a departure from classical monotheism somewhat, it's not as if the only monotheistic theology is the classical variety. I sometimes wonder how many Abrahamics really adhere to the logically contradictory classical monotheist framework for their god.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My personal favorite is the "Euthyphro dilemma" because of the flaw it exposes in the popular monotheist arguments regarding God being the only acceptable standard for "objective morality."

The dilemma asks a simple question:
"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

The dilemma lies in the fact that neither of the two possibilities are ideal for a monotheist:

1. If things are simply moral if commanded by God, then God can make "moral" anything He desires to, and indeed has possibly done so according to the stories of The Bible - making it moral to wipe out another tribe, for example, to plunder them and take their women. God's choice to drown the entire planet was "moral" because God did it, etc.
2. If things are moral, and God just "relays the news" to us, then it necessarily means that morality is something outside of God's control, is discernible without God, and therefore God is not necessary to assess things according to these moral absolutes.

 

[Abdemem]

Allowing evil does not bring about good.

Evil is necessary sometimes, a loving father must allow his son to perform surgery to heal himself!

Why would an all loving God refuse to interact with God's creations?

Read the Quran, you will find that God is talking to you... Try it honestly

Why leave things in the hands of faith based on a book written in ancient past?

Trully, If you read the Quran with heart, you will see that it speaks to you at this moment, exemple these verses, and you can read more:

Sourate 2, In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.

1. Alif, Lam, Meem.

2. This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guide for the righteous.

3. Those who believe in the unseen, and perform the prayers, and give from what We have provided for them.

4. And those who believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you, and are certain of the Hereafter.

5. These are upon guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.

Quran in English - Clear and Easy to Read.

Why would an all powerful God command God's creations to slaughter wicked peoples and split the spoils judiciously?

Those who follow Satan, do the worst of actions ... And everyone to follow his path, do not tell me that you have no choice ... In fact you have the choice between being good or bad, and things could have been worse if:

S42
27. If God were to increase the provision to His servants, they would transgress on earth; but He sends down in precise measure whatever He wills. Surely, regarding His servants, He is Expert and Observant.

War does not make one great, so end the war against evil with omniscience.

Right, and God tells us:

S49
13. O people! We created you from a male and a female, and made you races and tribes, that you may know one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is All-Knowing, Well-Experienced.

That the innocent must pay the price of the guilty to be redeemed.

S2
155. We will certainly test you with some fear and hunger, and some loss of possessions and lives and crops. But give good news to the steadfast.

156. Those who, when a calamity afflicts them, say, “To God we belong, and to Him we will return.”

157. Upon these are blessings and mercy from their Lord. These are the guided ones.

Why isnt moral law established in nature?

S30
41. Corruption has appeared on land and sea, because of what people’s hands have earned, in order to make them taste some of what they have done, so that they might return.

If God exists, then why must we know him through words only?

Through his words, Gods is asking you to look at his signs and think about them, examples:

S30
21. And of His signs is that He created for you mates from among yourselves, so that you may find tranquility in them; and He planted love and compassion between you. In this are signs for people who reflect.

22. And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your languages and colors. In this are signs for those who know.

23. And of His signs are your sleep by night and day, and your pursuit of His bounty. In this are signs for people who listen.

24. And of His signs is that He shows you the lightning, causing fear and hope. And He brings down water from the sky, and with it He revives the earth after it was dead. In this are signs for people who understand.

25. And of His signs is that the heaven and the earth stand at His disposal. And then, when He calls you out of the earth, you will emerge at once.

Nature is brutal if not handled so well.

Corruption is made human:

S2

11. And when it is said to them, “Do not make trouble on earth,” they say, “We are only reformers.”

12. In fact, they are the troublemakers, but they are not aware.

13. And when it is said to them, “Believe as the people have believed,” they say, “Shall we believe as the fools have believed?” In fact, it is they who are the fools, but they do not know.

14. And when they come across those who believe, they say, “We believe”; but when they are alone with their devils, they say, “We are with you; we were only ridiculing.”

15. It is God who ridicules them, and leaves them bewildered in their transgression.

16. Those are they who have bartered error for guidance; but their trade does not profit them, and they are not guided.

Why must humans have to do God's bidding of executing judgment, and establishing law?

This video about the purpose of life, may help you to find the answer:

 

[viole]

Or human reason is fallible so some humans just think they are reasonable when in fact they are not.

Well, possible. But unlikely in simple cases like this.

There is a reason for everything God does and it makes sense.

If God is All-Knowing, All-Wise and Infallible, humans questioning God’s reasons for what God does is not reasonable.

Let me understand. There is a reason for everything He does, yet it is not reasonable to ask what those reasons are? And all this make sense?

Great. Does that intend to be a compelling explanation?

Ciao

- viole

 

[bobhikes]

I'm interested in highlighting a few things for additional consideration, as there are some ideas here worth mulling over a bit more that some folks have contributed to the discussion.





This is something that I myself argue when I'm in the mood to defend a theology that I myself do not share. On the one hand, I get it - classical monotheism is almost deliberately obtuse. On the other hand, in a way this reinforces the point the philosopher makes in his piece - that "God" as traditionally understood by English-speaking Western cultures is not a concept arrived at through reason, but faith. One simply has to have faith that this god has these particular attributes that are beyond comprehension and overlook the obvious logical contradictions if processed from a human point of view. Ultimately, with a god-concept this obtuse, we can't say much of anything about it, hence faith over reason.

To be clear, I wouldn't consider the faith-based nature of classical monotheism to be a bad thing, especially considering relatively little of human life is characterized by reason. But it does help me understand why certain people really can't square themselves with it and meander into atheist territory. When few theological alternatives are presented, there's the tendency to throw the seeds out with the soil or figure all theisms - including monotheism - must have the same logical quandaries. This, of course, is not so. We can see examples of this in responses as follows:

I think its pretty clear in christian theology when God is specifically talking, there are only a few times. God makes 2 things clear one what the rules are and there will be punishments if not followed and pretty much states not many people will follow them.

God of the Old testament gave 1 rule to Adam and Eve and punished them for breaking it. Later gave 10 rules and punished his people for breaking them several times. Then god brought about Christ either the son of god or a version of God on the earth which enforced 6 of the 10 rules and gave 2 more to follow. Christ also said it was hard to get to heaven and most wouldn't get to heaven several times,
paraphrasing, it is easier to put a camel through an eye of a needle than for a Rich Man to get to heaven. Then in Revelations the final total of the worthy people is given 144,000 of the 12 tribes of Israel. There are over 7 billion people on this earth that is less than .02 percent of the population of the world worthy. This scares people they want to be worthy so a lot of prophets and writers lowered the expectations. Even the church today lowers the expectations. Purgatory is a church invention not the bible. Eternal punishment is also a church invention Revelations clearly states that the devil and hell will be destroyed in the end.

 

[sooda]

I meant that God's Attributes, which is all we can know of God, are unchanging.
But God can change whatever He wants to because God can do anything.

The only things we know about God's attributes are what the ancient Hebrews said they were.

 

[sealchan]

The New York Times doesn't usually run pieces of interest on the topic of religion, but there was an opinion piece in there today that I felt was worth sharing. It discusses the problems inherent to classical monotheism but also couches it in the philosophical history of the idea by a few well-known thinkers. It provides some interesting and valuable context for those of you who might be perplexed by the logically contradictory one-god as often characterized by followers of various Abrahamic traditions. I'd suggest reading the article in its entirety, but to highlight a paragraph or two:

"Does the idea of a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing God make sense? Does it hold together when we examine it logically?

....

What about God’s infinite knowledge — His omniscience? Philosophically, this presents us with no less of a conundrum. ... if He knows what we know, then this would appear to detract from His perfection. Why?

There are some things that we know that, if they were also known to God, would automatically make Him a sinner, which of course is in contradiction with the concept of God. As the late American philosopher Michael Martin has already pointed out, if God knows all that is knowable, then God must know things that we do, like lust and envy. But one cannot know lust and envy unless one has experienced them. But to have had feelings of lust and envy is to have sinned, in which case God cannot be morally perfect.

...

It is logical inconsistencies like these that led the 17th-century French theologian Blaise Pascal to reject reason as a basis for faith and return to the Bible and revelation. It is said that when Pascal died his servant found sewn into his jacket the words: “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob — not of the philosophers and scholars.” Evidently, Pascal considered there was more “wisdom” in biblical revelation than in any philosophical demonstration of God’s existence and nature — or plain lack thereof."
Full article - Opinion | A God Problem​

Thoughts? What are your favorite logical inconsistencies from classical monotheism? Are there oddities from other types of theism that have also caught your attention?

My thinking is that God is clearly amoral, but has a desire for us to act morally nonetheless. This, of course, seems unfair and understandably generates a lot of resentment or alternatively a lot of denial.

I think that God as a representative of nature (or not) we can all agree on the following:

• We are of nature and subject to its laws
• Nature is both supportive and not of our existence
• We should act on our own behalf to help ensure our survival with our natural/God-given talents

 

[Jollybear]

I'm interested in highlighting a few things for additional consideration, as there are some ideas here worth mulling over a bit more that some folks have contributed to the discussion.





This is something that I myself argue when I'm in the mood to defend a theology that I myself do not share. On the one hand, I get it - classical monotheism is almost deliberately obtuse. On the other hand, in a way this reinforces the point the philosopher makes in his piece - that "God" as traditionally understood by English-speaking Western cultures is not a concept arrived at through reason, but faith. One simply has to have faith that this god has these particular attributes that are beyond comprehension and overlook the obvious logical contradictions if processed from a human point of view. Ultimately, with a god-concept this obtuse, we can't say much of anything about it, hence faith over reason.

To be clear, I wouldn't consider the faith-based nature of classical monotheism to be a bad thing, especially considering relatively little of human life is characterized by reason. But it does help me understand why certain people really can't square themselves with it and meander into atheist territory. When few theological alternatives are presented, there's the tendency to throw the seeds out with the soil or figure all theisms - including monotheism - must have the same logical quandaries. This, of course, is not so. We can see examples of this in responses as follows:



While this is a departure from classical monotheism somewhat, it's not as if the only monotheistic theology is the classical variety. I sometimes wonder how many Abrahamics really adhere to the logically contradictory classical monotheist framework for their god.

I dont pay attention to other abrahamic views, unless they make a logical point.

The point i made is logical.

But, my interpretation of the bible even says the bible does not even teach God knows everything.

 

[EverChanging]

I'm interested in highlighting a few things for additional consideration, as there are some ideas here worth mulling over a bit more that some folks have contributed to the discussion.





This is something that I myself argue when I'm in the mood to defend a theology that I myself do not share. On the one hand, I get it - classical monotheism is almost deliberately obtuse. On the other hand, in a way this reinforces the point the philosopher makes in his piece - that "God" as traditionally understood by English-speaking Western cultures is not a concept arrived at through reason, but faith. One simply has to have faith that this god has these particular attributes that are beyond comprehension and overlook the obvious logical contradictions if processed from a human point of view. Ultimately, with a god-concept this obtuse, we can't say much of anything about it, hence faith over reason.

To be clear, I wouldn't consider the faith-based nature of classical monotheism to be a bad thing, especially considering relatively little of human life is characterized by reason. But it does help me understand why certain people really can't square themselves with it and meander into atheist territory. When few theological alternatives are presented, there's the tendency to throw the seeds out with the soil or figure all theisms - including monotheism - must have the same logical quandaries. This, of course, is not so. We can see examples of this in responses as follows:



While this is a departure from classical monotheism somewhat, it's not as if the only monotheistic theology is the classical variety. I sometimes wonder how many Abrahamics really adhere to the logically contradictory classical monotheist framework for their god.

I doubt many Abrahamics are classical monotheists. Process theologians certainly are not, though admittedly they are a minority. But I suspect most Abrahamics will have a sort of folk theology. Not many care about the abstract theology required for classical monotheism.

One thing that comes to mind pondering these issues is logic. Even in classical monotheism God is constrained by logic: he cannot do what is logically impossible.

If God is constrained by logic doesn't that make logic a supreme God over him? No matter how you look at it the classical God is governed by regularities that he cannot supercede. Even if he created this universe's regularities (metaphorically known as natural laws) he is still governed by his own regularities or he couldn't be personal or coherent.

Furthermore how can a personal God be timeless? He wouldn't be able to think in a linear format. That would make his mind static and so far from what we would know as personal that I don't understand how that characteristic could be applicable to him.

 

[Trailblazer]

One of the biggest problems with the omnimax idea of a deity is that once you point out a fallacy, its followers will start going on about how above and beyond this being is to our comprehension. They make it so abstract as to be non-existant. That alone shows that the entity they're talking about is imaginary.

No, logically speaking, it does not show that at all. Not being able to understand something does not make it imaginary. What it shows is that God Is exalted above and beyond human understanding, and that some people don’t like a God that is that far above them.

It's basically a rhetorical tool. We can't comprehend it and it's beyond all imagining but we're supposed to believe that this being revealed itself to us, and cares for us as individuals.

You do not have to believe any of that, belief is a choice. God gave us all free will so we could choose to believe or disbelieve, based upon the evidence He provided.

It's transcendent of the entire universe, ineffable, incomprehensible and immutable but yet still acts within the phenomenonal universe? What? But when we point out that this doesn't make sense, we're just told we can't understand it.

Why doesn’t it make sense? What doesn’t make sense is how you could ever understand how a transcendent, ineffable, incomprehensible God acts. The hundred-dollar question is why some people don’t seem to be able to accept their LIMITATIONS, and why they think they have to understand everything. There are lots of things even in this material world that we do not yet understand, so how much less can we ever understand God?

We're seeing it in this thread already. Whatever. It's garbage and a waste of time. This being only exists in the minds of those thinking about it. It's just a concept, not a real entity.

I can certainly understand why you would think that, if you have no reason to think otherwise. There has to be some REASON for you to believe that God exists and has these attributes; otherwise, it will just seem silly and foolish.

I believe that God exists as a real Entity, but I have no idea what that Entity is like, except what has been revealed through the Manifestation of God, which is a few attributes and the will of God for this age. I do not know the Essence (intrinsic nature) of God and I never will. I am perfectly content with not knowing it because I understand why I cannot know it and besides, I like mysteries.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree with Pascal in that Abrahamic-styled deity is incompatible with rational analysis.

The Abrahamic God is not subject to rational analysis because that God is beyond anything that can ever be recounted or perceived. How can be analyze an Entity that is beyond our understanding? Whereas it is human nature to try to understand things in our world, there is a limit to what we can understand. Humans are finite and God is infinite. The finite cannot fully understand the infinite. We can only understand what we are capable of understanding.

It is a shame that he chose to favor scriptural revelation over reason. That is exactly the opposite of what I would advise.

How else could God reveal Himself and convey messages to humanity other than through Prophets/Messengers who reveal/write scripture?

 

[Trailblazer]

If God is all-powerful and all-knowing then God is the only possible source of sin; and the only possible reason sin continues.

When you're all-powerful and all-knowing, all the bucks, good and bad, stop with you.

And God is very frank about it:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.

The only way you could say that God is responsible for sin is if you hold God responsible for allowing humans to sin. I consider that terribly unjust as well as irrational because God gave humans free will and the ability to choose to act according to their higher spiritual nature (noble nature, morality) or their lower material nature (sinful nature, immorality), so if humans choose to sin, that is their choice. .

God is All-Knowing, so God knows that some humans will sin, but God does not cause then to sin. That is a free will choice.

When you are All-Powerful but delegate power to humans then the humans are responsible for their actions. God is not responsible because God does not commit the evil acts.

I hardly think that Isaiah is God talking. The Bible is just a book inspired by God, it was not written by God.The only way you could argue that God has a part in creating evil, is that God created humans with the capacity to do evil. But God has no part in committing evil. All evil is attributed to human behavior. God is wholly good. Whatever God does is for our good even if we perceive it as bad.

“Men, however, have wittingly broken His law. Is such a behavior to be attributed to God, or to their proper selves? Be fair in your judgment. Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend? This same truth hath been revealed in all the Scriptures, if ye be of them that understand. Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 149-150​

although [he] also sponsors lies:

Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet

2 Thessalonians 2: 11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false.

Again, we have the same problem. The Bible was not written by God. It was written by men who wrote about God, and in many cases they were wrong. The Qur’an and the Writings of Baha’u’llah are more authentic, so their renditions of God are more accurate.

I would hazard a guess that Christianity and the Bible is responsible for the existence of most nonbelievers in the Western world. It gives people a good reason to reject the idea of a God.

The question is, why can’t people put that ancient book on the shelf and read the newer and more authentic scriptures.

So maybe we can stay with the all-powerful and all-knowing but the perfect is out the window.

If God is not perfect God is not God. Imperfection is a quality of the Creation, not the Creator.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Abrahamic God is not subject to rational analysis because that God is beyond anything that can ever be recounted or perceived. How can be analyze an Entity that is beyond our understanding? Whereas it is human nature to try to understand things in our world, there is a limit to what we can understand. Humans are finite and God is infinite. The finite cannot fully understand the infinite. We can only understand what we are capable of understanding.

Are you not claiming then that there is no true possibility of understanding such a God? Why presume that such an entity exists at all? It is just an arbitrary, unnecessary belief that, by your own admission, can't even be trusted.

How else could God reveal Himself and convey messages to humanity other than through Prophets/Messengers who reveal/write scripture?

I think that a better question is why there would be such a need.

 

[Trailblazer]

My personal favorite is the "Euthyphro dilemma" because of the flaw it exposes in the popular monotheist arguments regarding God being the only acceptable standard for "objective morality."

The dilemma asks a simple question:
"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

The dilemma lies in the fact that neither of the two possibilities are ideal for a monotheist:

If things are simply moral if commanded by God, then God can make "moral" anything He desires to, and indeed has possibly done so according to the stories of The Bible - making it moral to wipe out another tribe, for example, to plunder them and take their women. God's choice to drown the entire planet was "moral" because God did it, etc.

If things are moral, and God just "relays the news" to us, then it necessarily means that morality is something outside of God's control, is discernible without God, and therefore God is not necessary to assess things according to these moral absolutes.

It is patently illogical for a human to be judging an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise Infallible God. Then again, atheists think they can get away with it because “they do not believe in god.” It is STILL illogical though.

God sets the moral standards for humans and relays them to humans through His Messengers. Morality only applies to humans because only humans can choose between right and wrong; God by contrast is always right because God is Infallible. Moreover, God is not subject to morality because God is perfect and not “subject” to anything. He doeth whatsoever He willeth.

As for the things the Bible says that God did, I would certainly not take them to the bank. The Bible is an ancient book written by fallible humans and all of it was never intended to be interpreted literally. Humans have no way of knowing what God did, so if there was even a flood, there is no way to know it was “caused” by God.

The Bible gives atheists a reason to be atheists, or should I say an excuse, because there is no need to still be reading the Bible when we now have more accurate and authentic scriptures. If atheists really want to believe in God they can consult those scriptures.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, logically speaking, it does not show that at all. Not being able to understand something does not make it imaginary. What it shows is that God Is exalted above and beyond human understanding, and that some people don’t like a God that is that far above them.

You do not have to believe any of that, belief is a choice. God gave us all free will so we could choose to believe or disbelieve, based upon the evidence He provided.

Why doesn’t it make sense? What doesn’t make sense is how you could ever understand how a transcendent, ineffable, incomprehensible God acts. The hundred-dollar question is why some people don’t seem to be able to accept their LIMITATIONS, and why they think they have to understand everything. There are lots of things even in this material world that we do not yet understand, so how much less can we ever understand God?

I can certainly understand why you would think that, if you have no reason to think otherwise. There has to be some REASON for you to believe that God exists and has these attributes; otherwise, it will just seem silly and foolish.

I believe that God exists as a real Entity, but I have no idea what that Entity is like, except what has been revealed through the Manifestation of God, which is a few attributes and the will of God for this age. I do not know the Essence (intrinsic nature) of God and I never will. I am perfectly content with not knowing it because I understand why I cannot know it and besides, I like mysteries.

It has nothing to do with what I want or like. I'm just too into reason for all that. Things have to make logical sense to me. It's just true that your concept of a Supreme Being doesn't make logical sense. I'm totally fine accepting my limitations. I'm just an ape with a big brain (in terms of my species, not individually since I'm not that arrogant) on a little planet on the edge of the Milky Way. I'm not intrinsically more important than or wise than an earthworm. I'm not an atheist, though. I believe in many gods, nature spirits and ancestral spirits. The cosmos is crowded with spirits. Your concept of God just makes zero sense and wouldn't care about any of us by definition in the first place. I have no idea why you've chosen to latch onto the words of that Baha guy, but that's your business. But it's just hearsay and I have no reason to believe any of it. If that Baha guy's god wants me to pay attention to it, then it should reach out to me. It hasn't so I couldn't care less about Baha guy's claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

TB: There is a reason for everything God does and it makes sense.

If God is All-Knowing, All-Wise and Infallible, humans questioning God’s reasons for what God does is not reasonable.

Viole: Let me understand. There is a reason for everything He does, yet it is not reasonable to ask what those reasons are? And all this make sense?

Great. Does that intend to be a compelling explanation?

I never said that we cannot search for the reasons. We should try to find out what the reasons are, but we can only know some of the reasons, not all of the reasons.

It would not be a Just God who would expect us to follow and obey Him for no good reason.

God instilled in humans a brain which is to be used to reason and figure things out.