Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Trailblazer]

And what if Christianity is true? Which I hope not, but if it is, then the NT sure seems to be saying that the only way to have your sins forgiven is to accept that Jesus paid the penalty for those sins. I know you wouldn't want to discuss that, but I think it is an important thing to take a look at and see how the Baha'is interpret those verses, since that is one of the main born-again Christian beliefs.

I believe that the New Testament is the truth even though it has some errors and even though much of it is metaphorical truth, but I could never believe that Christianity is true, because it has been corrupted by men. I am not worried because as a Baha'i I believe in Jesus, the real Jesus, not the made up Christian version, so my sins are covered.

I think it brings in the fall of Adam. Supposedly bringing sin and death into the world. It brings in the Law of Moses. Because, supposedly, the Law was given to show that people couldn't keep the law and, therefore, never be good enough on their own. It ties in Satan. Because, supposedly, he's the one tempting people to sin and disbelieve in God. And if brings in Jesus. Why he had to be born from a virgin, so, supposedly, he didn't inherit a sin nature. Then he was obedient unto death, but then rose again, conquering sin and death.

Definitely not something for you to research. So what do you want to do? Just call it all metaphorical? Call it all BS? And let it go?

You already know what Baha'is believe about all those things, that they are metaphorical. Why wouldn't I let it go? It has absolutely no bearing upon the needs of humanity in this age.

Anyway, when we die we'll find out anyway. If it's true, how bad could hell be. Playing harps in heaven for eternity sounds like it would be a living hell too.

Even though it won't be the Christian hell, hell might be pretty bad, according to Baha'u'llah. Pay close attention to the last sentence in this passage. Sink in their depths is hell.

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths...”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

 

[Trailblazer]

I know. Most atheists I know of, myself included, are agnostic atheists. Atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge. We don't have a belief in any god because we see no reason to accept any of the claims about gods, but (at least for most versions of god) we cannot know that no god or gods exist, so we have to remain (technically at least) agnostic. However, the same can be said of multi-dimensional pixies that pull at the fabric of space-time to make gravity work - which is why we also have to bring in the burden of proof. Those that propose gods or gravity pixies, need to support their claims. It's not up to the rest of us to prove each and every claim untrue.

I was following you and I fully agreed, until you got to the burden of proof. Believers have no "burden" to prove what they believe is true to atheists just because they believe it is true. This is what atheists need to understand. If atheists want to know if our religions are true then they have the responsibility to investigate our religions for themselves. I can point you to where the information is but I cannot do the research for you, and I certainly cannot prove to you that what I believe is true. You have to prove that to yourself.

I have no claims to support, I only have beliefs. I have done nothing to claim so what would I claim?

Baha'u'llah made claims and He supported His claims with evidence. I looked at the evidence and that is why I believe that His claims are true.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is self-contradiction within the scriptures (at least there are in the bible), let alone with other scriptures.

I don’t know much about other religious scriptures but I agree about the bible. Those contradictions exist because those scriptures were written by various men who did not know each other. Moreover, they did not even know the Messengers, Moses and Jesus, so how could they accurately represent who those Messengers said? By stark contrast, Baha'u'llah wrote His own scriptures so we know exactly what He said, and there are no contradictions in His Writings.

Look where?

The logical approach is to look at what the scriptures say and compare that with what the believers believe (what their religion teaches) in order to know that they do not match up, and that means that those older religions have been corrupted by man.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

Not if nobody can give the slightest hint of a rational reason to take any religion seriously in the first place.

A rational reason to take religion seriously is because it is the only way to know anything about God, if you want to know about God.

I mean something that connects the two that isn't purely your own opinion or subjective judgement.

What people believe will always be based upon their own opinion and judgment and it is not rational to expect otherwise. No matter how much objective evidence you have it will always be interpreted subjectively. That is why different people disagree about the SAME objective evidence, what it means.

Perfectly, and no matter how often you deny it, it makes your god unjust and unfair (and not because I want some god to do something).

That is just your subjective opinion, not a fact, unless you can prove it is true. If you state it as an assertion it is a bald assertion.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up. Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

It's not my personal opinion, it's blindingly obvious. If god has a message that it is important for humans to recognise, then handing it out to human 'messengers', letting it get corrupted by people, so many people didn't have access to it, no matter how much they may have wanted it, letting people kill each other over different versions, and providing no objective evidence that there is any message at all to look for, hence excluding anybody rational, is obviously unjust.

It IS just your personal opinion that it is unjust, we all have personal opinions. It is blindingly obvious to you, but it is not at all obvious to me because I am coming from a completely different vantage point. Moreover, since you know nothing about God you have no way of knowing what God should do or what God does or why God does it. As such you are running on empty whenever you make assertions about God. By contrast, I have a full tank since I know what God does and I also know why God does what God does. Does it make logical sense that God would expect people to believe in Him without offering explanations?

God is NOT responsible for what humans do with what is revealed by His Messengers because humans have free will to make their own choices. What is blindingly obvious is that people are responsible for everything that went wrong with religions, not God.

People got by in the olden times with the scriptures that were revealed. Although it was not an ideal situation to not have the actual writings of the Messengers, it was not intended to be ideal. Humanity had to learn certain lesson before they would be ready for the age in which we now live. They had to grow spiritually and in order to do that they had to suffer the consequences of their own actions.

Most people are still not ‘ready’ for the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, but it is still very early in this religious dispensation so we have a long way to god before the bulk of humanity will be ready to accept such a new and different religion. Moreover in order to become Baha’is they would have to relinquish their older religions and most people are not ready to do that because they are emotionally attached to their religions and most people believe their religions are the only true religions.

Just think how you'd judge a human that did something similar. Say I had a cure for cancer and hid it away, gave out obscure messages, was indifferent to people needlessly dying in horrible ways, and made all the clues look like superstition.

Do you understand that God is not a human being, or anything LIKE a human being?

To compare what a human would do to what God does is the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Besides that, the latest message from God is anything but hidden away. It is all publicly available on the internet.

Baha’i Reference Library online

This appears to be a feature of some religions, that people seem to be totally blind to even the most obvious injustice in what they believe. Most versions of Christianity are even worse that what you are telling us.

I agree that most religions are messed up, as I said above, but it does not MATTER what happened in the past because we have a NEW Revelation from God.

Your entire 'argument' is built on the assumptions of your faith, i.e. it's circular. There is no logic for a god to make the world that way, unless it liked to watch suffering and confusion.

No, my beliefs are not built on assumptions, they are based upon research and investigation, which led me to believe what I do. Research and investigation is the only way people can really learn anything. We should never believe something just because someone else told us it is true. It might not seem logical to you for God to make the world this way, but if you took the time to try to understand why it is like this then at least you might understand. I don’t like suffering any more than you do but since I understand why suffering exists it makes it easier to accept.

I'm sure many of them thought they were doing the right thing according to their best efforts to understand. That's why the messenger system would be so cruel and unjust. Also, getting it right, would not stop other people (who got it wrong) from torturing and killing you because you have the 'wrong god'.

I agree that many if not post people thought they were doing the right thing and made their best efforts to understand, but you cannot blame the Messenger system for why people went astray because people are responsible for their own choices. Moreover, unless you could come up with a better system you cannot complain about the Messenger system.

The next thing atheists usually say is that if God is omnipotent and omniscient God could have come up with a better system but that is illogical because if God is omniscience God had to know the best system of all the available options.

False. It's not in plain view, so it's hiding.

God cannot ever be seen because God is Spirit.

Messengers of God are was like a clear mirror and the divine perfections were visible and apparent in this mirror. That is why Colossians 1:15 says “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” Where the Christians went wrong is in assuming that Jesus was Gdo incarnate. Jesus was a mirror image of God, but an image is not what it reflects. Christians also went wrong when they believed that Jesus was ‘the only one’ who was ever sent by God All the Messengers of God were a reflection of God, not only Jesus.

False. It is not at all clear that there is anything genuine in the world's religions.

Maybe you don’t se anything genuine in the older religions because they have been corrupted by man, but unless you have looked at the Baha’i faith you cannot say it is the SAME as the older religions. If you assume that the Baha’i Faith is the same without even looking you would be commit the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

1. religion a is x, y and z
2. religion b is x, y and z
3. religion c is x, y and z
4. religion d is x, y and z
5. religion e is x, y and z
6. Therefore, religion f (in this case the Baha’i Faith) is x, y and z

As I said, religionists will excuse their gods of even the most blatant and obvious injustice.

That is nothing but your personal opinion and if you are asserting it it is a bald assertion, unless you have actual facts to back it up.

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe that the New Testament is the truth even though it has some errors and even though much of it is metaphorical truth,

Well, I've asked you before what is true about it. You said the parables I think it was. I tried to believe it for a while. And by reading it and hearing preachers talk about it, I don't believe the stories were meant to be taken as being symbolic. To repeat what I think happened was that the stories got spread about Jesus. They got embellished with all kinds of miracles... the healings, the exorcisms, raising the dead. And considering the times, those things weren't all that unusual. Lots of religions had their fantastic stories about their Gods.

Now looking back, I'm okay with Baha'is and liberal Christians not believing those things really happened, especially the resurrection and I'd include the virgin birth. But I don't believe the writers meant them to be metaphorical. I think they meant them to be believed as being true. That what I don't believe about what the Baha'is believe.

People faced with believing in the miracle man from God, Jesus, as the only one that can save them from Satan and hell fire, has a lot more authority to it if those things really happened. If they were fiction, and the writers told the people they were fiction, that Jesus didn't literally rise from the dead, there is no literal Satan, than who's going to care what Christians say?

Plus, because some Christians still believe it literally today. With all the scientific knowledge we now have, and they still want to believe those stories as real, historical events. I think that is because it is written as if those things actually took place. And if they didn't, why call it "the truth"? Why believe Jesus was anything more than a mythical character maybe based on a real person? And Baha'is are only slightly above believing that. They have Jesus was real. He was a manifestation, but lots of the things said about him are fictional.

 

[Truthseeker]

I have no idea what other Baha'is are doing, I only know what I am doing, and I know what my bff @Truthseeker9 is doing because he tells me, and I know what my husband is doing.

Thanks for that bff reference! I remember when years ago, I don't know how long you first said that, and it's still true! That's what the last f means, forever.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree that what you posted doesn't (on the surface at least) seem incompatible with the scientific explanation, but you have to admit that your faith's explanation seems rather vague and non-specific. Virtually no details. It's easy to have an explanation that doesn't contradict science if there aren't really any details in that explanation for science to contradict. However, that also renders the religious account rather useless.

You have a valid point that it is easy to have an explanation that doesn't contradict science if there aren't really any details in that explanation for science to contradict, but I don’t think it renders the religious account useless, not unless the scientific explanation can be proven to be true and that scientific explanation renders the religious belief invalid.

A theory can never be proven, but must be "testable" through observation or experimentation. Thus far, despite some notable problems, the Big Bang Theory has remained largely consistent with the observations and is widely accepted through the cosmological community.
"How do you know that the Big Bang occurred?" | Planetarium

However, because Baha’is believe that science is the “most noble” of all human virtues and “the discoverer of all things” and we believe that science has enabled society to separate fact from conjecture, I am prone to believe what science has to say about the origin of the universe. I certainly do not believe the Genesis account of creation, that God created everything in six days. Moreover, Baha’u’llah explained how that account in Genesis was misunderstood.

Baha’is believe in evolution, that all living things evolved on earth over time, but God is the One who set that process in motion. Baha’is do not claim to know anything about life on other planets although Baha’u’llah did say that there are other worlds besides this world and there are other creatures in these worlds. I do not know what Baha’u’llah means by other worlds, if they are physical worlds or spiritual worlds or both.

“Verily I say, the creation of God embraceth worlds besides this world, and creatures apart from these creatures. In each of these worlds He hath ordained things which none can search except Himself, the All-Searching, the All-Wise. Do thou meditate on that which We have revealed unto thee, that thou mayest discover the purpose of God, thy Lord, and the Lord of all worlds. In these words the mysteries of Divine Wisdom have been treasured.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 152-153

“As to thy question concerning the worlds of God. Know thou of a truth that the worlds of God are countless in their number, and infinite in their range. None can reckon or comprehend them except God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, pp. 151-152

You were doing so well, too.

You did, after all, just agree that science can be checked by other people. Science is the tool that allows us to get evidence from reality, examine it closely, and have others check our results. We can come up with hypotheses and then test those hypotheses to see if the predictions they make are accurate, and if so, then it supports the idea that the hypothesis is correct.

Science can get support for itself in a way that religion is utterly incapable of.

I am still doing well, because I agree with everything you say about science, but I don’t think it has to be a contest between science and religion because I believe that both are true and both serve a purpose and both are necessary, although science and religion serve different purpose.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed..........

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...” Paris Talks, pp. 141-143

From: FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE

You fail to realise: Pointing out the effect they have on this world IS a way to show they exist.

Only if we can prove that the effects we see in this world are coming from the spiritual world.

Yes I do.

But what I am saying is that if there is such a planet that is undetected, then it by definition has no effect on us. Do you understand what I am getting at?

Yes, I understand, but even if we can detect a planet that does not necessarily mean it is having an effect upon earth, does it?

That only works if God has no measurable effect. And if that's the case, then God is not needed.

Just because we cannot measure God’s effects on Earth that does not mean that God is not having an effect. Our ability to measure the effect is not what determines if God is having an effect since there is no reason to think that God’s effects would be measurable.

That sounds like Pascal's wager to me.
And yeah, you are losing out on something. You're losing out on the truth of reality. You're losing out on all the time you spend following a religion that isn't true.

It is kind of like Pascal’s wager but not exactly the same because I am not suggesting that you believe in God just in case; i.e. in order to cover yourself. I think that would be insincere and God would know you don’t really believe so you would not be covered anyway because God does not like insincerity, God only wants true believers.

No, I am not losing out on any truth of reality because my belief in a spiritual reality does not preclude my believing in the reality that exists in the physical world. I spent most of my life, up until the last nine years, pursuing knowledge related to the physical reality and during those years I had nothing to do with religion. In fact, I spent about 20 years in college accruing various degrees, and they were not in religious studies. I never had much of an interest in religion until I got older.

You cannot say my religion is not true unless you can prove it isn’t true. If you are asserting that you are committing the fallacy called argument from ignorance. I dinged an atheist on another thread last night and again tonight for committing that fallacy. He said that my beliefs are false because I cannot prove they are true, and that is a classic case of an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer: The authoritative position of the Baha'i faith, as determined by the Universal House of Justice is, "I dunno."

I mean, really. The source you cited was close to a quarter century old. It says we need greater understanding if the science. Guess what? We've got it now! Our understanding of the science of genetic modification now is greatly advanced from what we understood back then. And in any case, the claim that they can't decide until they know more is a terrible position, since they are refusing to deal with the issue that is actually facing them. Even back then, genetic modification of organisms was taking place. Their refusal to make even an interim statement seems to suggest that they just don't care.

You are lucky you got anything. I had already logged off because I had been on the forum for 12 hours but then I decided to do a quick Google search to see if I could find anything, just for you. I was on the run, like a person who grabs a burger at a fast food restaurant, I was not conducting a thorough research project on the subject.

By now maybe the UHJ has said more on the subject, did you ever think of that?

"And in any case, the claim that they can't decide until they know more is a terrible position, since they are refusing to deal with the issue that is actually facing them."

But it is not an issue 'facing' the UHJ. Do you have any idea of all the serious issues that the UHJ has to deal with? You make this sound like a BIG issue, but it is not a big issue compared to all the other issues they have to deal with in order to oversee a thriving world religion. Just because it is a big issue for you that does not mean it is a big issue, relatively speaking. Do you watch ant news on TV? Are you aware of all the social, economic and political issues going on in the world today, not to mention climate change and a worldwide pandemic.

Here is a webinar that addresses the subject that is more current (2018). I just found it so I have not had time to watch it yet.

Biotechnology, Benefits and Perils: The Need for Spiritual Perspective in Achieving Harmony of Science and Religion

 

[Trailblazer]

Thanks for that bff reference! I remember when years ago, I don't know how long you first said that, and it's still true! That's what the last f means, forever.

bff means bests friends forever, and I mean it! Who would have ever known I would find my best friend on the Planet Baha'i forum. That forum got me back in the straight and narrow so I am very grateful for that, but I lost track of all the other Baha'is after that forum shut down.

 

[ratiocinator]

Believers have no "burden" to prove what they believe is true to atheists just because they believe it is true.

Not just because of that, no. Anybody can believe anything they want without supporting it, but if they decide to debate and promote it as true on a public forum, they can't expect to be taken seriously unless they take on said 'burden of proof'.

I have no claims to support...

For somebody with no 'claims to support', you've made a great deal of them here.

Baha'u'llah made claims and He supported His claims with evidence.

This, for example, is a claim. We have yet to see any of this evidence or even a credible description of what it might be like. Your 'criteria' are, as many have pointed out, not evidence of the truth of what he said.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not just because of that, no. Anybody can believe anything they want without supporting it, but if they decide to debate and promote it as true on a public forum, they can't expect to be taken seriously unless they take on said 'burden of proof'.

But I am not debating it or promoting it here, I am just responding to posts. It might seem like a debate to you but from my perspective it is not a debate since I am not trying to prove anything and I do not care if anyone take me seriously. For me it is just a discussion.

For somebody with no 'claims to support', you've made a great deal of them here.

None of these are claims I made. I make no claims since I have nothing to claim. Baha'u'llah made the claims and I just pass along to you what He claimed.

This, for example, is a claim. We have yet to see any of this evidence or even a credible description of what it might be like. Your 'criteria' are, as many have pointed out, not evidence of the truth of what he said.

No, that is not a claim, that is what I believe. -- "Baha'u'llah made claims and He supported His claims with evidence."
I have presented the evidence and I have explained that it is only evidence, not proof, because nobody can prove that a man is a Messenger of God as a fact, they can only prove that to themselves.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don’t know much about other religious scriptures but I agree about the bible. Those contradictions exist because those scriptures were written by various men who did not know each other. Moreover, they did not even know the Messengers, Moses and Jesus, so how could they accurately represent who those Messengers said?

So an abject failure of the messenger system. Shame your god didn't learn from its failures.

The logical approach is to look at what the scriptures say and compare that with what the believers believe (what their religion teaches) in order to know that they do not match up, and that means that those older religions have been corrupted by man.

If you taken the bible, then it's self-contradictory, so everybody who claims to base their beliefs on it must be cherry-picking. That's sort of evidence of 'corruption' by man but there is no evidence that there was ever an original message that didn't contradict other religions. Hence we still have no evidence for your original claim that "..the previous Messengers never contradicted each other." (#3580).

A rational reason to take religion seriously is because it is the only way to know anything about God, if you want to know about God.

Since there is no rational reason to think there is a god (or gods) in the first place, and descriptions of supposed gods vary considerably, there is no rational reason to think there is a god to know, and no basis on which to decide if I'd want to know it, if one did exist. You have also provided no rational reason to think that, even if a god (or gods) exist, that religion is the only way to know it (or them). So no, every part of your statement falls apart, so there is no rational reason to take religion seriously (not from you or in all of my other experience to date).

What people believe will always be based upon their own opinion and judgment and it is not rational to expect otherwise. No matter how much objective evidence you have it will always be interpreted subjectively. That is why different people disagree about the SAME objective evidence, what it means.

Not really. A deductive argument, if made in or converted to a sufficiently formal structure, can be objectively analysed and declared valid or invalid. Evidence can possibly be open to different interpretations, but basically it rests on the predictions of hypotheses. This is something that religions and their supporter often don't understand. Unless there is some objective prediction that can be made from your hypothesis, that can potentially falsify it, then there can't really be any objective evidence for it.

That is just your subjective opinion, not a fact, unless you can prove it is true. If you state it as an assertion it is a bald assertion.

I've given you the reasoning for it multiple times. It's a logical reductio ad absurdum. The messenger system is an insane idea that has manifestly failed (see the bible above) and that has caused endless unnecessary suffering and death and which discriminates against the rational and those who had (or have) no access to an uncorrupted message. It is therefore incompatible with a just, fair, and omnipotent god with an important message.

As such you are running on empty whenever you make assertions about God.

I'm using my (supposedly) god-given abilities in reasoning and applying them to what I see in the world. Nothing you've said has made the slightest difference to the logic I've presented. You have presented no logical counterargument. All that you've said is predicated on the truth of your faith (hence circular) and not knowing better than god (no logic, just excuses).

God cannot ever be seen because God is Spirit.

I don't care if god can be seen (as it is) or not, it doesn't have to hide its existence in what looks like a bunch of silly old superstitions.

Maybe you don’t se anything genuine in the older religions because they have been corrupted by man, but unless you have looked at the Baha’i faith you cannot say it is the SAME as the older religions.

I said; "It is not at all clear that there is anything genuine in the world's religions." If I have to go looking at all the details, then it's not clear and any supposed god is hiding.

That is nothing but your personal opinion and if you are asserting it it is a bald assertion, unless you have actual facts to back it up.

See above about all the suffering caused by the messenger system. A mere human could have told god what a stupid idea it was and how it would obviously lead to conflict, wars, and unnecessary suffering. As for other religions, just look at original sin in Christianity and god torturing itself to death to make things right that it made wrong, not to mention genocide and other crimes against humanity in the bible. Many religionists will excuse even the most heinous of crimes, as long as it's their god doing it or sanctioning it. Bahá’ís don't seem to be an exception.

 

[Tiberius]

You have a valid point that it is easy to have an explanation that doesn't contradict science if there aren't really any details in that explanation for science to contradict, but I don’t think it renders the religious account useless, not unless the scientific explanation can be proven to be true and that scientific explanation renders the religious belief invalid.

A theory can never be proven, but must be "testable" through observation or experimentation. Thus far, despite some notable problems, the Big Bang Theory has remained largely consistent with the observations and is widely accepted through the cosmological community.
"How do you know that the Big Bang occurred?" | Planetarium

However, because Baha’is believe that science is the “most noble” of all human virtues and “the discoverer of all things” and we believe that science has enabled society to separate fact from conjecture, I am prone to believe what science has to say about the origin of the universe. I certainly do not believe the Genesis account of creation, that God created everything in six days. Moreover, Baha’u’llah explained how that account in Genesis was misunderstood.

Baha’is believe in evolution, that all living things evolved on earth over time, but God is the One who set that process in motion. Baha’is do not claim to know anything about life on other planets although Baha’u’llah did say that there are other worlds besides this world and there are other creatures in these worlds. I do not know what Baha’u’llah means by other worlds, if they are physical worlds or spiritual worlds or both.

“Verily I say, the creation of God embraceth worlds besides this world, and creatures apart from these creatures. In each of these worlds He hath ordained things which none can search except Himself, the All-Searching, the All-Wise. Do thou meditate on that which We have revealed unto thee, that thou mayest discover the purpose of God, thy Lord, and the Lord of all worlds. In these words the mysteries of Divine Wisdom have been treasured.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 152-153

“As to thy question concerning the worlds of God. Know thou of a truth that the worlds of God are countless in their number, and infinite in their range. None can reckon or comprehend them except God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, pp. 151-152

I would find it a lot easier to believe your claims here if you hadn't already said you reject the science when it comes to vaccines ("For example, the so-called experts say the Covid vaccines are 'safe and effective' but I am not going to believe that just because 'they' say so," post 2222) and the effectiveness of prayer ("I do not care about prayer studies because I don't think they prove anything, I already told you that... Studies do not prove the efficacy of prayer as that is a subjective thing and cannot be measured objectively," post 3237).

I am still doing well, because I agree with everything you say about science, but I don’t think it has to be a contest between science and religion because I believe that both are true and both serve a purpose and both are necessary, although science and religion serve different purpose.

But what religion teaches, the whole be nice to people, live a good life, etc, does not require the religion to actually be true.

And I've already shown that you don't really believe what I said about science.

Only if we can prove that the effects we see in this world are coming from the spiritual world.

This statement only makes sense if everything we see that you claim comes from the spiritual world has some explanation that does not require the spiritual world. And in that case, the spiritual world is not required and can be rejected as per Occam's Razor.

Yes, I understand, but even if we can detect a planet that does not necessarily mean it is having an effect upon earth, does it?

And what effect would that be if it was unable to be measured?

An effect that can't be measured and an effect that isn't there at all are the same thing.

Just because we cannot measure God’s effects on Earth that does not mean that God is not having an effect. Our ability to measure the effect is not what determines if God is having an effect since there is no reason to think that God’s effects would be measurable.

If it has no effect, how can it actually do anything?

It is kind of like Pascal’s wager but not exactly the same because I am not suggesting that you believe in God just in case; i.e. in order to cover yourself. I think that would be insincere and God would know you don’t really believe so you would not be covered anyway because God does not like insincerity, God only wants true believers.

It is exactly like Pascal's Wager because you said that I "might just be the one who is caught with your pants down and then what are you going to say?" And you also said, "If there is nothing then I have nothing to lose by believing there is something becauwe [sic] I will never know the difference, but the same cannot be said for you." Both of these are hallmarks of Pascal's wager.

You cannot say my religion is not true unless you can prove it isn’t true. If you are asserting that you are committing the fallacy called argument from ignorance. I dinged an atheist on another thread last night and again tonight for committing that fallacy. He said that my beliefs are false because I cannot prove they are true, and that is a classic case of an argument from ignorance.

I wouldn't say that your beliefs are false if you can't prove them, but the burden of proof is directly on you. If you make a claim (and let's not start quibbling about what "make a claim" means), then no one should believe that claim unless you, the person who made it, supports it.

 

[Tiberius]

By now maybe the UHJ has said more on the subject, did you ever think of that?

Maybe they have. But it's not my responsibility to do your homework for you, is it?

Here is a webinar that addresses the subject that is more current (2018). I just found it so I have not had time to watch it yet.

Biotechnology, Benefits and Perils: The Need for Spiritual Perspective in Achieving Harmony of Science and Religion

I'm not going to watch through 80 minutes or so, perhaps you could and let me know if there is anything relevant and provide a time code.

 

[night912]

I was following you and I fully agreed, until you got to the burden of proof. Believers have no "burden" to prove what they believe is true to atheists just because they believe it is true. This is what atheists need to understand. If atheists want to know if our religions are true then they have the responsibility to investigate our religions for themselves. I can point you to where the information is but I cannot do the research for you, and I certainly cannot prove to you that what I believe is true. You have to prove that to yourself.

Nobody is asking you to do the research for us. In fact, some of us did do the research and simply disagree with your conclusions. We are simply asking you to present your objective evidence and explain why you conclude that what you claimed is true. That's how you can prove it to us, using objective evidence.

I have no claims to support, I only have beliefs. I have done nothing to claim so what would I claim?

Baha'u'llah made claims and He supported His claims with evidence. I looked at the evidence and that is why I believe that His claims are true.

You just committed the burden of proof fallacy.

And before you start saying that I'm wrong because you didn't shift the burden of proof, I'll explain why you still committed that fallacy. No, you didn't shift the burden of proof, that's why I didn't say that. But that's not the only way of committing the burden of proof fallacy. One way is to evade the burden of proof. This is what you have done. Instead of taking the burden of proof that you're associated with, you put it on someone else. You believe in the claim made by Baha'u'llah, therefore, you inherited his burden Of proof as well.

Evading the burden of proof can also be committed by how you're constantly doing as well. You're having a conversation with another person, so you making the excuse that it's just your belief can't help you evade the burden of proof. This is because our beliefs are what we see as being true in reality. So saying, "I believe X is true" or "it's my belief that X is true" or "X is true, but that's just my belief," are all statements of truth about yours and another's reality. You are making a "claim" according to your copied and pasted definition of "claim." By denying that it's not a claim, denying that you're made a statement, is just you being dishonest. So calling out your act of dishonesty, is not an appeal to motive fallacy nor is it an insult. It's simply an observation of your actions. What's insulting is you repeating to tell others that they don't understand eventhough they have already explained it to you using your goalpost moving definition of, "claim." It's insulting to tell someone that they can't comprehend the definition that you posted, when they are clearly shown to using your definition in their explanations.

Here's more on the burden of proof fallacy:

In addition, the following is another example of the burden of proof fallacy, with a different structure:

Alex: Vaccines are bad for you.

Bob: Really? Where’s the proof of that?

Alex: I read it on a website.

In this example, Alex tries to evade his burden of proof by attributing his claim to a secondary source, without providing meaningful supporting evidence himself.

This form of the burden of proof evasion is sometimes combined with vague and ambiguous language, often through attribution of the claim to an unclear or anonymous source, as in the following example:

Alex: They say that vaccines are bad for you.

This example also demonstrates how attribution to a secondary source can be combined with a denial of commitment, where a speaker attributes the claim that they’re making to someone else, without committing to it themself. For example:

Alex: Jenny says that vaccines are bad for you.

Bob: Is there any empirical proof that supports this?

Alex: I’m just telling you what Jenny says.

This type of argument is not necessarily fallacious, but can be an example of the burden of proof fallacy in cases where people use it to indirectly express support for a certain stance, while evading the associated burden of proof.
Source

 

[Trailblazer]

So an abject failure of the messenger system. Shame your god didn't learn from its failures.

God can never fail because God is infallible. Only humans can fail because humans are fallible.
The Messenger system never failed because the messages were always delivered. What humans did with them AFTER that is not God's responsibility.
That is not a failure of the Messenger sya

If you taken the bible, then it's self-contradictory, so everybody who claims to base their beliefs on it must be cherry-picking. That's sort of evidence of 'corruption' by man but there is no evidence that there was ever an original message that didn't contradict other religions. Hence we still have no evidence for your original claim that "..the previous Messengers never contradicted each other." (#3580).

As I said before, the Bible is not the original message from any Messengers because it was not written by any Messengers of God. It was written by men who claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and since it came to us by way of oral tradition it cannot be exactly what any Messengers ever said. But that is the way God wanted it to be back in those days and it was suited for those times. However the Bible is not suited for the present times and tat is why God sent a new Messenger.

There is also no evidence that the Bible contradicts other religions. Some but not all of the Bible contains a different message from other religions but difference are not contradictions.

Since there is no rational reason to think there is a god (or gods) in the first place, and descriptions of supposed gods vary considerably, there is no rational reason to think there is a god to know, and no basis on which to decide if I'd want to know it, if one did exist. You have also provided no rational reason to think that, even if a god (or gods) exist, that religion is the only way to know it (or them). So no, every part of your statement falls apart, so there is no rational reason to take religion seriously (not from you or in all of my other experience to date).

What is a 'rational reason' for you is only what you consider rational, but what you consider rational is not what I consider rational. As such the word rational ceases to be meaningful unless you qualify it by saying "what seems rational to me." You cannot just say there is no rational reason to think" as if that applied to everyone because people think differently.

What I consider rational is to look at the current description of God, from a scriptures that have not been corrupted my men, because those scriptures are more likely to be accurate. What Baha'u'llah wrote was for people living in this age, so He wrote it so people living in this age could comprehend it.

What I consider the rational reason why religion is the only way to know about God is because there is no other way to know anything about God. All the great religions revealed God. God was revealed at various times to various peoples and that is why the religions differ.

Not really. A deductive argument, if made in or converted to a sufficiently formal structure, can be objectively analysed and declared valid or invalid. Evidence can possibly be open to different interpretations, but basically it rests on the predictions of hypotheses. This is something that religions and their supporter often don't understand. Unless there is some objective prediction that can be made from your hypothesis, that can potentially falsify it, then there can't really be any objective evidence for it.

Logical arguments cannot be used to 'prove' a religious belief is true
I can make a valid argument Messengers of God but that does not mean that everyone will accept it.

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true

However, the premise cannot be proven so a logical argument cannot be used to prove that God exists.
Moreover, no premises that involve the supernatural can ever be proven and that is why logical arguments are a useful approach in proving God or Messengers of God are real.

I've given you the reasoning for it multiple times. It's a logical reductio ad absurdum. The messenger system is an insane idea that has manifestly failed (see the bible above) and that has caused endless unnecessary suffering and death and which discriminates against the rational and those who had (or have) no access to an uncorrupted message. It is therefore incompatible with a just, fair, and omnipotent god with an important message.

It is all a matter of opinion to what is a success and what is a failure. Only in your opinion did it fail but in my opinion it was a success. Most people in the world believe in God because of a Messenger of God so that method has been very successful.

According to the statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are holy men who founded the religions, so they are intermediaries between God and man. Sure, there are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers or holy men very few people would believe in God.

The death and suffering was cause by humans because humans are fallible so they make mistakes. That is unpreventable because humans have free will to make their own choices and God cannot be blamed for the choices that humans make.

Hypothetically speaking, how do you think a just, fair, and omnipotent God with an important message should deliver it? If you cannot even think of a better way than Messengers then you cannot complain about the Messenger system.

You cannot say what many atheists say and still be logical. Many atheists say is that God is omnipotent so God can do anything and use that to argue that God could have delivered the message in a better way. The reason you cannot say that and still be logical is because God is omniscient and that means that God had to know all the options that were available; so if God chose Messengers to deliver His messages that had to be the best way. That God is all-powerful has nothing to do with how God chooses to deliver a message. God looks at all the options that are available and chooses the best method to accomplish His goals, not what you think His goals should be. Logically speaking, since God is the one who is doing the communicating, it is God who knows the goals of that communication.

I'm using my (supposedly) god-given abilities in reasoning and applying them to what I see in the world. Nothing you've said has made the slightest difference to the logic I've presented. You have presented no logical counterargument. All that you've said is predicated on the truth of your faith (hence circular) and not knowing better than god (no logic, just excuses).

I have made many logical arguments but whether you consider them logical or not is your own business.
What I have presented does not come from my religion as my religion does not present logical arguments. What I said comes from my own logical mind.

I don't care if god can be seen (as it is) or not, it doesn't have to hide its existence in what looks like a bunch of silly old superstitions.

Just because most religions are silly, old, and superstitious that does not mean that the Baha'i Faith is also silly, old and superstitious, but if you assume it is without even looking at it then you would be committing the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.

I said; "It is not at all clear that there is anything genuine in the world's religions." If I have to go looking at all the details, then it's not clear and any supposed god is hiding.

No, that is not true at all. Of course you have to go looking, if you want to FIND anything. I am not suggesting that you look at all the older religions because they are not pertinent to this age and they have been corrupted by man over time and they are like a broken down car. If you want a car that runs you do not go to the junkyard, you go to the car dealer down the road. Likewise, if you want a religion that has what humanity needs in this age you look at a religion that was revealed for this age, not an older religion that was revealed for past ages. That is another one of my logical arguments.

See above about all the suffering caused by the messenger system. A mere human could have told god what a stupid idea it was and how it would obviously lead to conflict, wars, and unnecessary suffering. As for other religions, just look at original sin in Christianity and god torturing itself to death to make things right that it made wrong, not to mention genocide and other crimes against humanity in the bible. Many religionists will excuse even the most heinous of crimes, as long as it's their god doing it or sanctioning it. Bahá’ís don't seem to be an exception.

What you just said is completely illogical because no 'mere human' could ever know as much let alone more than an all-knowing God. It is also unjust because you are blaming God for what humans have done and you are trying to tie that into the Messenger system. Moreover, what happened in the past is over and it does not matter anymore because this is a new Day of God. Moreover, God did not commit any crimes, only humans commit crimes.

Imo, the Bible is a crime in may ways because it is a primary reason there are nonbelievers. The Bible was written for another age in history, it was not written for the present age, and the Bible is why so many atheists exist. Atheists read the Bible and realize how absurd much of it is and they cannot put it in any kind of perspective since they have not read the Baha'i Writings which explains the Bible and puts it in a proper perspective. I do not blame God for the Bible because I understand its place in history, and I understand that it is no longer what God wants us to be referring to in this age. The Bible was somehow necessary for humans to evolve spiritually but now it is time to put it on the shelf because we have a New revelation from God through Baha'u'llah. This is logical.

 

[night912]

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true

That's not a circular argument.

I suggest that you shouldn't try to talk about logic as if you're an A+ student on logic because the things that you say, clearly shows that you're actually an F student. By not attempting to use logic, you'll save the embarrassment of failure after failure.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would find it a lot easier to believe your claims here if you hadn't already said you reject the science when it comes to vaccines ("For example, the so-called experts say the Covid vaccines are 'safe and effective' but I am not going to believe that just because 'they' say so," post 2222) and the effectiveness of prayer ("I do not care about prayer studies because I don't think they prove anything, I already told you that... Studies do not prove the efficacy of prayer as that is a subjective thing and cannot be measured objectively," post 3237).

You should not judge the Baha'i Faith by my opinions as I am just one person. That would be the fallacy of hasty generalization. I don't know any Baha'is who did not get the Covid vaccine and they all thought it was safe and effective and the right thing to do for the good of society. I am a special case because I have so little contact with the outside world so I am not in need of the vaccine and it would be of no benefit for me or anyone else. I do not want my healthy immune system messed with for no good reason. Despite what you believe the Covid vaccines have resulted in adverse effects and death and I have no reason to take the risk.

Why should I believe one prayer study? As I recall, another Baha'i, Tony, pointed out to you that there are other studies on prayer that had different results.

But what religion teaches, the whole be nice to people, live a good life, etc, does not require the religion to actually be true.

Of course not.

And I've already shown that you don't really believe what I said about science.

You do not know what I believe about science unless I tell you. Moreover it is the fallacy of jumping to conclusions if you say i do not really believe in science just because I don't want a Covid vaccine or I don't believe in one prayer study.

I told you what the Baha'i position on science, that it is just as vital to human life and progress as is religion, is and I adhere to that, but that does not mean I have to agree with every scientific study because there are always other scientists with a different study. There is no universal consensus in science even if you believe there is. You are clearly biased and I am more in favor of looking at all the research before making a decision as to what to believe and do.

This statement only makes sense if everything we see that you claim comes from the spiritual world has some explanation that does not require the spiritual world. And in that case, the spiritual world is not required and can be rejected as per Occam's Razor.

I think you must have meant that what I said only makes sense if everything we see that I claim comes from the spiritual world has no other explanation except that it came from the spiritual world. In that case I would have to agree that the spiritual world would not be necessary to explain the effects. However, since there is no way to prove anything that happens on Earth came from souls in the spiritual world, that is just a belief I hold.

And what effect would that be if it was unable to be measured?

An effect that can't be measured and an effect that isn't there at all are the same thing.

Okay, that kind of makes sense.

If it has no effect, how can it actually do anything?

I did not say God does not have an effect, I said the effect cannot be measured.

It is exactly like Pascal's Wager because you said that I "might just be the one who is caught with your pants down and then what are you going to say?" And you also said, "If there is nothing then I have nothing to lose by believing there is something because [sic] I will never know the difference, but the same cannot be said for you." Both of these are hallmarks of Pascal's wager.

It is similar to Pascal's wager but it is not exactly the same because I am not suggesting that you believe in God to be covered just in case God exists. That is what Pascal said to do, believe even if you do not believe, and I think that is wrong because it is insincere.

I wouldn't say that your beliefs are false if you can't prove them, but the burden of proof is directly on you. If you make a claim (and let's not start quibbling about what "make a claim" means), then no one should believe that claim unless you, the person who made it, supports it.

I have no burden of proof because I did not make a claim. Baha'u'llah made claims so he had the burden and he met the burden. The worst thing you could do is believe that Baha'u'llah's claim is true just because I believe it. You have to do your own investigation to discover the truth for yourself.

I really don't know why atheists do not understand this, after I have explained it over and over again. They want me to prove to them that my belief is true but that is impossible, no matter how good the evidence is, because all people have a mind of their own and they are going to see the evidence from their own perspective no matter what I say. Even if I wanted to convince people I don't have the ability to convince people and even if I succeeded in convincing someone it would not be their belief, it would be my belief that I convinced them was true. If people want to believe they have to prove to themselves that the belief is true by looking at the evidence and assessing it for themselves.

When atheists say that believers have the burden of proof what they really mean is "I want the truth delivered to me on a silver platter so I won't have to do anything to find out what it is." Don't you realize how ludicrous that is? Moreover, religion is not a court of law so believers have no burden to prove anything to atheists, not unless the believer wants to convince the atheist.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe they have. But it's not my responsibility to do your homework for you, is it?

It is not my homework, it is your homework if you want to know what the UHJ said. I just don't understand why atheists expect me to do their homework. If they want to know about something it is their job to research it, it is not my job to research it for them. You are the one who brought this subject up, not me.

I'm not going to watch through 80 minutes or so, perhaps you could and let me know if there is anything relevant and provide a time code.

I don't know if I will ever have time to watch it but I will let you know what I find out and where it is if I watch it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Frankly I'm bored of repeating myself on most of your points. This is, however, is classic blind faith pretending to be logic:-

You cannot say what many atheists say and still be logical. Many atheists say is that God is omnipotent so God can do anything and use that to argue that God could have delivered the message in a better way. The reason you cannot say that and still be logical is because God is omniscient and that means that God had to know all the options that were available; so if God chose Messengers to deliver His messages that had to be the best way. That God is all-powerful has nothing to do with how God chooses to deliver a message. God looks at all the options that are available and chooses the best method to accomplish His goals, not what you think His goals should be. Logically speaking, since God is the one who is doing the communicating, it is God who knows the goals of that communication.

The logical way to approach testing some hypothesis is to think about what we would expect to see if it were true and what we wouldn't expect to see. We can then go and have a look and see if the world matches what we have deduced. That way you can gain support for your hypothesis or falsify it.

What you've done here is just assume it's true and constructed a little story you can tell yourself, that is actually compatible with anything at all. Nothing could possibly falsify it because it makes no predictions. It would be entirely consistent with any possible world at all. It's not logic, it's vacuous storytelling.

Almost all of what you say and what you call 'logical' already assumes the truth of your religion. If you start from that point, you're not doing logic, you're just begging the question. You're not giving reasoning or a logical basis for your faith, you're just trying to make it fit with reality.

Logically, an omniscient, omnipotent, just and fair creator god, who has an important message for its creation, would make that message clear to everybody and not allow it to be confused with superstition, corrupted or misinterpreted. It would not play games of hide-and-seek and expect people to go looking. That is not the world we live in, therefore I conclude that there is no such god.

You can argue that limited human understanding cannot grasp what a god might do, but the limitations of human understanding are what any such creator would have decided was appropriate to give us. If it's not up to the job of deciding on the right path, that is, again, down to said god. If god expects us to give up of the understanding it has deemed appropriate, then it is expecting us to be irrational.

You really cannot excuse a god as you describe from responsibility for its creation. 'Free will' with respect to such a being is logically incoherent, and wouldn't be an excuse, even if it wasn't.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is, however, is classic blind faith pretending to be logic:-

The logical way to approach testing some hypothesis is to think about what we would expect to see if it were true and what we wouldn't expect to see. We can then go and have a look and see if the world matches what we have deduced. That way you can gain support for your hypothesis or falsify it.

We cannot come up with a hypothesis for what we would expect to see if God existed because we can never know what we would 'expect to see' if God existed. Anything that you think you might 'expect to see' is nothing more than a projection of your own ego, i.e., I want.

You want to use logic to try to encapsulate God so you can delude yourself into thinking you can analyze God, but that is impossible because God is not subject to puny human logical analysis since God is infinite and unknowable. Logically speaking, such an entity cannot ever be encapsulated with human logic.

What you've done here is just assume it's true and constructed a little story you can tell yourself, that is actually compatible with anything at all. Nothing could possibly falsify it because it makes no predictions. It would be entirely consistent with any possible world at all. It's not logic, it's vacuous storytelling.

I do not assume anything, I have beliefs. Beliefs are not falsifiable because they can never be proven true or false.

You can bet your bottom dollar it's not logic, because religious beliefs are not subject to logic. Logic is for humans, to determine if human reasoning is faulty. A religious belief can be logical in the sense that it makes logical sense but religious beliefs are not subject to being proven true or false with a logical argument since the premise 'God exists and sends Messengers' can never be proven true or false.

Almost all of what you say and what you call 'logical' already assumes the truth of your religion. If you start from that point, you're not doing logic, you're just begging the question. You're not giving reasoning or a logical basis for your faith, you're just trying to make it fit with reality.

I do believe (not assume) that my religion is true, so what I say is based upon my religion and religion in general, since religion is the only way anyone can know anything about God. There is nothing illogical about that -- go head, try to prove it is illogical. It is completely logical that religion is the way we can know about God because it is the only Source of information about God.

Atheists pretend to know so much about logic but they are completely illogical because they think there is some way to know about God aside from the way that God reveals Himself, through Messengers that establish religions... can't get much more illogical than to expect an omnipotent God to be a short order cook kowtowing to humans and what they want.

Logically, an omniscient, omnipotent, just and fair creator god, who has an important message for its creation, would make that message clear to everybody and not allow it to be confused with superstition, corrupted or misinterpreted. It would not play games of hide-and-seek and expect people to go looking. That is not the world we live in, therefore I conclude that there is no such god.

There is nothing logical about expecting a God who gave humans free will to prevent them from doing something (corrupting religions). Such an expectation is completely illogical because God gave man free will to choose, so it would be illogical to expect God to override the free will that God gave to humans.

There is no hide-and-seek. Information about religion, which is the ONLY source of information about God, is readily available to everyone in the world. There is nothing illogical about a God who would expect humans to go looking for that information and in fact it would be illogical for God to hand out that information of a silver platter. Everything in this life that is worth having requires an effort so why should knowledge of God be any different? Why should it be effortless? To expect that knowing and believing in God would be an exception to the rule without justifying the exception is special pleading.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.[1][2][3][4][5] It is the application of a double standard.[6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

You can argue that limited human understanding cannot grasp what a god might do, but the limitations of human understanding are what any such creator would have decided was appropriate to give us. If it's not up to the job of deciding on the right path, that is, again, down to said god. If god expects us to give up of the understanding it has deemed appropriate, then it is expecting us to be irrational.

You are correct in saying that the limitations of human understanding are what any such creator would have decided was appropriate to give us, and that is why we cannot understand the intrinsic nature of God, because humans do not have the ability to understand God; the Messengers of God do not even understand God's intrinsic nature. However, given the that God created humans with a rational mind it is up to us to decide on the right path, that is not God's responsibility in any way. God expects us to use the abilities that God gave us, and that is rational.

You really cannot excuse a god as you describe from responsibility for its creation. 'Free will' with respect to such a being is logically incoherent, and wouldn't be an excuse, even if it wasn't.

The is nothing logically incoherent about God creating humans with a will. Humans have a will even if we are not 'free' to do anything we might want to do. That humans have a will is indisputable because if we had no will we could not do anything at all. That is what is logically coherent.

God's omniscience does not contradict human free will in any way because what God knows is totally unrelated to what humans choose to do since God's knowledge does not cause anything to happen.

God is not responsible for His creation, not anymore than a painter is responsible for a painting he created after he sold it at an auction. Whatever we do get from God is only by God's grace and mercy, not because we deserve it. You have everything backwards whenever you say that God owes you something. An Almighty God does not owe anyone anything because He is not accountable to anyone. Thinking that God owes us something is common mistake in logic that atheists make.