A God Problem

[sooda]

I was just stating a hypothetical... IF God exists.... But nobody can ever prove that so there is no reason to try to make an attempt to change anyone’s mind...

No, I did not expect anything of you; where beliefs are concerned, I never expect anything of anyone except myself.

Nobody should believe in anything unless it makes sense to them. Some atheists will die as atheists and after that, only God knows what will happen... I do not profess to know.

This is a religious forum so I talk about them here, but I would never inflict my beliefs upon anyone. I “real life” I never talk about my beliefs unless someone starts talking about their beliefs.

I think people are responsible for their own beliefs or lack thereof, and they are also responsible to have a boundary between themselves and other people; so if they are on a religious forum, they should expect to hear about religious beliefs since that is par for the course.

It is a human error either way.... If the Messengers of God do not carry divine authority, it is human error to believe they do, but if the Messengers of God do carry divine authority, it is human error to distort their teachings and it is also human error to turn away from them.

I thought you were referring to these texts but I am not very proficient in either one. What do they say about nonbelievers that is so bad? Are you referring to hell?

I do not understand what is dangerous about betting on God. I am not saying that an atheist should pretend to believe in a God they do not believe in just to avoid the possibility of eternal punishment or to gain a possible eternal reward, but perhaps leaving the door open to the possibilities might be prudent.

"If the Messengers of God do not carry divine authority, it is human error to believe they do, but if the Messengers of God do carry divine authority, it is human error to distort their teachings and it is also human error to turn away from them."

Very interesting....

 

[Yerda]

I don't have to eat garbage to know it tastes bad.....

True, but if you've never tasted it you can't know how it tastes. That would be a thing you don't know. This is all the argument is claiming, I think.

Doesn't that make sense to you?

Why do you think God does? Why do you place human limitations on a Being who has none?

Do you know why evil even exists?

Do you know why God was going to keep the knowledge of what was good and evil in his own jurisdiction?

What do you think would have happened if the first humans had simply obeyed God and told the devil to "get lost"?

I don't know much about God at all. I suspect that if there is such a being then no-one knows much about him or can get close to grasping his nature.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was just stating a hypothetical... IF God exists.... But nobody can ever prove that so there is no reason to try to make an attempt to change anyone’s mind...

"God may or may not exist; we can't tell" makes for a pretty sorry theistic religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

"God may or may not exist; we can't tell" makes for a pretty sorry theistic religion.

That is not what I said. I said nobody can prove that God exists as a fact.
However, we can tell by the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I must now ask your license for a small rant.

From where I stand I can't help but perceive that as a grave abuse of the god concept. The poor idea was never meant to stand such an overextended role... and it shows.

In essence, you have taken a somewhat useful meditation tool and forced it supporting blackmail as a supposedly religious strategy. That is a classic objection to most variants of Pascal's Wager, including ours. Pascal's Wager is a serious contender for single most damaging factor for the reputation of religion, given how self-defeating and ridiculous it is. It is way past time for anyone who cares about either religion or theism to repudiate it in no uncertain terms.
(...)

Sorry, you lost me. How is saying “IF God exists” a grave abuse of the god concept? How is that blackmail?

I do not support Pascal’s Wager because you should not pretend to believe what you do not believe just to avoid punishment or get a reward. That is insincere and dishonest.

No, actually not. Hell is also a nonissue, because it is so self-evidently contradictory a doctrine. No atheist has reason to fear such an idea.

Obviously, no atheist has a reason to fear hell, since they do not believe in God or an afterlife.

I refer to the dehumanization proper of atheists, to the idea that there is dignity in expecting non-believers to be "in danger". That speaks very ill indeed to both the Bible and the Qur'an. There are many other devastaging criticisms to direct towards either, particularly the later, but that alone is reason enough to discard both.

It is not the Baha’i position that non-believers are in danger. Times have changed and God’s Word can change with the times.

“I do not understand what is dangerous about betting on God.”

It is wasteful; such attention could be enormously better directed towards actual religious pursuits or most anything else, even in non-religious fields.

That is true, if one cannot do both, but believing God exists does not have to take time away from other pursuits.

It is misleading, because it implies a role for deity-ideas that they can never sustain.

It is actually blasphemous, because it ridicules religion by confusing it with god-worship in its grossest forms.

Sorry, you lost me again.

“I am not saying that an atheist should pretend to believe in a God they do not believe in just to avoid the possibility of eternal punishment or to gain a possible eternal reward, but perhaps leaving the door open to the possibilities might be prudent.”

No. It is not. It is, in fact, disrespectful and disgusting towards all parts involved.

Why is leaving the door open to possibilities disrespectful and disgusting? All I was suggesting is being open-minded. Is it better to be closed-minded?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, you lost me. How is saying “IF God exists” a grave abuse of the god concept?

It isn't.

Presenting it as a matter beyond personal style is.

How is that blackmail?

It isn't, because I do not care for the premise of treating belief in God as a Potentially Big Deal. It is utterly self-defeating and disrespectful to the ideas of both religion and god.

Lots of people were taught it anyway and failed to learn better in due time, unfortunately. You may or may not be aware that many adults openly regret having been through that.

I do not support Pascal’s Wager because you should not pretend to believe what you do not believe just to avoid punishment or get a reward. That is insincere and dishonest.

It is indeed. Pascal's Wager is a very bankrupt idea, to the point of being difficult to satyrise. Not only for those reasons that you rightfully point out, but also because it relies on the self-defeating premise of God as something to preach the truth of.

Obviously, no atheist has a reason to fear hell, since they do not believe in God or an afterlife.

It goes beyond that. Neither atheists nor theists have a logical reason to believe (more properly, to care) about a God that purports to be both morally sound and a yielder of hell-punishments.

If anything, all people have reason to actively refuse such a pointless, self-defeating belief.

It is not the Baha’i position that non-believers are in danger. Times have changed and God’s Word can change with the times.

As should religious doctrine, which is an actual, demonstrable thing.

That is true, if one cannot do both, but believing God exists does not have to take time away from other pursuits.

Fanatiscism and dogmatism are real, destructive realities.

Sorry, you lost me again.

Why is leaving the door open to possibilities disrespectful and disgusting? All I was suggesting is being open-minded. Is it better to be closed-minded?

"Leaving the door open" just because is deliberate waste and dispersion. It ill befits anyone who takes his or her own beliefs seriously, particularly when the attention being wasted could be used to actual religious pursuits instead.

 

[Trailblazer]

I do not care for the premise of treating belief in God as a Potentially Big Deal. It is utterly self-defeating and disrespectful to the ideas of both religion and god.

Lots of people were taught it anyway and failed to learn better in due time, unfortunately. You may or may not be aware that many adults openly regret having been through that.

All I can say is that -- whereas belief in God is not a big deal, if God exists, it is a big deal, at least from my perspective, because it changes ones entire outlook on life, IF one takes it seriously. I suppose that is difficult for an atheist who was never a believer to understand.

Obviously, no atheist has a reason to fear hell, since they do not believe in God or an afterlife.

It goes beyond that. Neither atheists nor theists have a logical reason to believe (more properly, to care) about a God that purports to be both morally sound and a yielder of hell-punishments.

If anything, all people have reason to actively refuse such a pointless, self-defeating belief.

I can agree with that. I do not believe that God sends anyone to hell, but we can make of our own lives a hell, and we can take that with us to the afterlife, not necessarily because we did not believe in God. Belief without sincerity and actions is unworthy of God.

“It is not the Baha’i position that non-believers are in danger. Times have changed and God’s Word can change with the times.”

As should religious doctrine, which is an actual, demonstrable thing.

The Christian doctrine of hell should indeed be changed, but that won’t happen as long as Christianity exists.

"Leaving the door open" just because is deliberate waste and dispersion. It ill befits anyone who takes his or her own beliefs seriously, particularly when the attention being wasted could be used to actual religious pursuits instead.

Okay, I think I understand, now that I am beginning to understand you.
Also, I can imagine if someone told me to “leave the door open” how I might feel. That has an arrogant tone to it. Leave the door open because *I* might be coming over.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I have one...

If God were born even he couldn't keep count forever and the angel of new things may or may not make it.

 

[LuisDantas]

All I can say is that -- whereas belief in God is not a big deal, if God exists, it is a big deal, at least from my perspective, because it changes ones entire outlook on life, IF one takes it seriously. I suppose that is difficult for an atheist who was never a believer to understand.

You are probably correct.

I can agree with that. I do not believe that God sends anyone to hell, but we can make of our own lives a hell, and we can take that with us to the afterlife, not necessarily because we did not believe in God. Belief without sincerity and actions is unworthy of God.

The Christian doctrine of hell should indeed be changed, but that won’t happen as long as Christianity exists.

I don't know about that. I feel a bit more optimistic, I guess.

Okay, I think I understand, now that I am beginning to understand you.
Also, I can imagine if someone told me to “leave the door open” how I might feel. That has an arrogant tone to it. Leave the door open because *I* might be coming over.

Eh. This does have an unintended ring to it... in any case, thanks!

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know about that. I feel a bit more optimistic, I guess.

Well, maybe I was being a bit too pessimistic... Times they are a changing and I think the doctrine of hell is changing too. Not all Christians believe this way anymore, just some.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not what I said. I said nobody can prove that God exists as a fact.
However, we can tell by the evidence.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

No, I am not, because evidence is not the SAME as proof:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I am not, because evidence is not the SAME as proof:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

But you also said that you've been convinced by this evidence that your beliefs are true with certainty. Any difference between "evidence that establishes truth with certainty" - if there is a difference - and "proof" is splitting hairs.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you also said that you've been convinced by this evidence that your beliefs are true with certainty. Any difference between "evidence that establishes truth with certainty" - if there is a difference - and "proof" is splitting hairs.

It is proof for me because the evidence established that my belief is the truth with certainty. But no belief can ever be established as a fact because it cannot be proven to anyone except oneself.

In other words, certainty that a belief is the truth does not make that belief a fact in the sense of being able to prove it to anyone else, like a scientific fact could be proven.

It is possible to prove that a belief is the truth, but we can only prove that to ourselves, and at that point we have certainty.

This is congruent with what Baha’u’llah said about faith:

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is proof for me because the evidence established that my belief is the truth with certainty. But no belief can ever be established as a fact because it cannot be proven to anyone except oneself.

In other words, certainty that a belief is the truth does not make that belief a fact in the sense of being able to prove it to anyone else, like a scientific fact could be proven.

It is possible to prove that a belief is the truth, but we can only prove that to ourselves, and at that point we have certainty.

This is congruent with what Baha’u’llah said about faith:

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

Again: you seem to be contradicting yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again: you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Can you please explain why you think that?

 

[night912]

I cannot say I know if God will punish atheists. However, if God exists and God sent Messengers as evidence of His existence, and to reveal messages God wants us to have, then I do not think that God will be “proud” of people who reject His Messengers. I cannot say what God will think or do about that, that’s up to God. I think it would depend upon why they rejected the Messengers. If they really tried to believe in them and couldn’t, I would think that is a lot different from someone who just discounted them out of hand, because the former is sincere and the latter is arrogant.

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 aruguemnt, let's say that a god exist whether we can prove it or not. We still don't know whuch 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 do not have a God... There is only one God, the God that revealed all the religions through Messengers. That fact that different religious believers have different conceptions of God does not mean there is more than one 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 .

You can say whatever you want to about what you think God does, but that won’t make it the truth, not any more than what I say is true because I say it. The Truth is whatever it is, we either discover it or fail to do so.

If there is a God, it makes no sense that God would send believers to eternal hell for believing. It also makes no sense that God would reward atheists fornot believing, although He might just leave them alone and not do anything to them.

After saying that whatever we think god does won't make it the truth, you follwed 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 .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you please explain why you think that?

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.

 

[Tumah]

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.

Can you explain why this is true?

 

[Quintessence]

Can you explain why this is true?

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.