Again, I apologize for not getting back to you for so long. My husband took a major turn for the worse after July 5 so it has been difficult to think, let alone give your post the attention that is warranted.
That's essentially where I'm coming from too, I just don't see any reason to accept any of the proposed attributes. I also think it does raise questions about the attributes you do happen to believe, especially in the context of things you say God can't/wouldn't do.
Since we last conversed, I have had a few new insights. I do not
know that God has any of the proposed attributes, I can only
believe that, and sometimes it is really difficult to believe that God has certain attributes, such as being all-loving. The reason it is difficult for me to believe that is because of all the suffering in this world. I just cannot reconcile that suffering with an all-loving God no matter how hard I try.
I know all the religious apologetics such as “suffering is good for us since it helps us grow stronger and more spiritual” but it is suffering nonetheless. I do not think that a material world with no suffering is possible or even desirable, but I have to agree with some atheists who say that God could have created this world with
less suffering and still achieve His goals, if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, as I believe He is.
There is still a fundamental difference between choosing not to do something and being literally incapable of doing it though, and it is key to the shifting statements you're making. Our entire discussion has essentially gone like this;
You: "Atheists - What would God do if he existed?"
Me: "I think God would do X."
You: "God can't do X."
Me: "But God is omnipotent."
You: "God could do X but chooses not to."
Me: "So I think God would choose to do X."
You: "God can't do X."
And so on, ad infinitum. You have to pick one; Inability, which means you need to address the omnipotence question or unwillingness, which means you need to address the moral and practical questions.
Yes, there is a fundamental difference between
choosing not to do something and
being incapable of doing it. God is capable of doing anything, but God only chooses to do what Gid wants to do.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I have been saying, so I will correct what you said in order to better represent my position.
Me: "Atheists - What would God do if he existed?"
You: "I think God would do X."
Me: "God can do X, but chooses not to do X"
You: "But God is omnipotent."
Me: "God could do X but chooses not to do X. It is completely irrelevant that God is omnipotent. That implies that God can do anything but it also implies that God is can never be forced to do anything that He does not want to do, since nobody is
more powerful than God"
You: "So I think God would choose to do X."
Me: "God could do X, but chooses not to do X."
In order to continue this dialogue, I would ask you why you think God would do X, but without knowing what X is I cannot really discuss this any further than that.
That has never been the claim though. You are asking atheists what God would if he existed. Anything is possible in that hypothetical unless you can establish definitive reasons that it is impossible (not just that you don't think God would choose to do so).
I concede that hypothetically, nothing would be impossible for an omnipotent God, but now the ball is in your court.
Having established that God
could do anything, how do you know what God
would do if God existed? You can offer an opinion as to what you think
God should do, but how can you ever know what God
would do? Do you understand the difference? In short, what you think that God should do is not necessarily what God would do.
I am thinking about it. That is why I don't believe such a god exists.
I said: My point was that just because "God
can do Y" that does not mean that “God will
choose to do Y” and if God does
not choose to do Y, then God
will not do Y. In other words, there is no reason to think that God will choose to do everything God can do. Just think about the logical implications of that, if God can do anything.
What do you think the logical implications are and why would that lead you to believe that such a God does not exist?
How logical is it to say that God
will choose to do
everything God can do just because God
can do it? Do you think that God should annihilate the earth just because God can?
Then stop stating that God can't change his nature then.
If you do not accept what the Bible says then anything is possible, but
if God is what the Bible says
then God
is unchanging, and that means that God cannot change His nature.
In that case, how can you challenge any of the suggestions for what God would do if he existed? Yet again, you're saying we can't know things about the nature of God yet are saying thing about the nature of God.
How do you think you can know what God
would do if God existed? What I challenge is anyone who says they can know what God would do if God existed, since nobody can ever know what God would do. All we can know what God has done, and we can only know that by reading scriptures, if we believe them.
I for own would not want to believe in a capricious God who could change at will, but you get to pick your God because you have free will. [/quote]
Yes, I get to pick the God I am willing to believe in because I have free will. I would not want to believe in a capricious God who could change His nature at will, nor does that make any sense to me, and that is why I do not believe in such a God.
But you were literally saying that the existence and teachings of Baha’u’llah is evidence for God! My whole point was that it doesn't provide any evidence. If we're now in agreement on that, Baha’u’llah becomes entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
What I said is that Baha’u’llah did not want us to have evidence of the
specific divine influence and that is why we don’t have it. What that means is that we cannot
see how Baha’u’llah was divinely influenced by God, but that does not mean that the existence and teachings of Baha’u’llah is not evidence for God. It simply means we cannot
see the divine influence because it was not God’s will that we are able to see it.
“That the Manifestations of Divine justice, the Day Springs of heavenly grace, have when they appeared amongst men always been destitute of all earthly dominion and shorn of the means of worldly ascendancy, should be attributed to this same principle of separation and distinction which animateth the Divine Purpose.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71
What that passage means is that when they walked the earth, the Messengers of God such as Baha’u’llah and Jesus have always appeared to us as ordinary men, eating, drinking, sleeping, like any other man. They did not shine in the plentitude of their glory because that was not according to God’s will. God wanted us to believe in them for their character, their works, and their scriptures, not because they were
obviously divine as well as human. If they had shone in the plentitude of their glory, that would make it too easy for people to recognize them.
How can you know what Gods purpose is though?
I can only know it through scriptures such as the one cited above.
But do you believe they have free will, that they're capable of good and evil? The point is that God could have created a world with animals who have will and make choices but not the informed free will of humans, and therefore no good and evil at all. Remember, we are not talking about what the God you believe in would do, only what is technically possible.
Animals have to have a will in order to make choices, like my cat can choose to try to take my other cat’s food or leave it alone. Those are choices, but they are instinctual choices, not moral choices.
I do not believe that animals have free will to choose between good and evil, only humans have free will. Having been created in the image and likeness of God, humans have the
capacity to reflect the attributes of God to varying degrees.
It's a whole complex field in itself but in simple terms all of our thoughts and decisions and the result of a combination of our memories and reactions to outside stimuli, and we have no direct control over any of that. Though it may feel like we're making free decisions, it could well be that they're entirely predetermined by the workings of our brains at that point, and if we we're put back in the same situation, we would make exactly the same choices.
That is an interesting theory. I do not doubt that our thoughts and decisions are the result of a combination of our memories and reactions to outside stimuli, but I think we have
some control over how we respond, given what is in our minds at the present time, what we know. If we we're put back in the same situation, we would probably make exactly the same choices,
unless we had learned something in the interim that caused us to choose otherwise. I know for one that I would not make the same choices for my husband were I faced with the same situation
knowing what I know now, but I did not know it then so I only acted on what I knew at the time. It causes excruciating pain to think about that so I try not to; I can only live in the present and try to make plans for the future.
Logically everything would be. If you want to propose something existing outside the scope of cause and effect, you'd have to suggest how that would be possible.
I cannot argue against cause and effect. I believe that humans have a will, which is the power of choosing or determining (volition), and our ability to choose and act on our choices is what causes the actions of men, so the actions themselves are the effects.
God also has a will, the power to choose and determine what will happen, and God’s ability to choose and act on His choices is what determines
some but not all of what happens in this world. However, whatever is left to the free will of man is not God’s choice, it is man’s choice.
So by definition, it was parts of Gods purpose for there to be evil in the world, hence the whole unresolved "Problem of Evil" issue.
No, it was not part of God’s purpose for there to be evil in the world. The reason there is evil is because humans have free will and some people choose not to follow the Laws of God. If
everyone chose to follow the Laws of God there would be no evil in the world.
