Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

You can discuss based on an assumption, which is was atheists do.

Sort of like, if ghosts were real would they be able to go through walls? You don't have to believe in ghosts in order to discuss whether they could or couldn't, we simply assume that ghosts are real and that they have certain abilities etc.

Usually such abilities would be put forward by the believer and that will be the premise for the discussion.

But here is where atheists get into trouble my friend.

Sure, you can say that if ghosts were real would they be able to go through walls, and that is a reasonable assumption, but atheists say that if God is real and omnipotent then God could do anything. That might be true, but just because God could hypothetically do anything that does not mean that God will choose to do everything He can do. God only does what He chooses to do, which means that God never does anything that He does not choose to do. Doing only what He chooses to do and nothing else is inherent to omnipotence.

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.”Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 284

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

“God witnesseth that there is no God but Him, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. All grace and bounty are His. To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish. He, verily, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 73

 

[Scolopendra]

I would not exactly say that God chooses not to prove He exists to everyone because of free will.
However, God chooses not to prove He exists for a reason. I know you are new to RF but I have discussed this so much with atheists here on RF and on other forums so I already have many saved Word documents that explain why. Here is one of my explanations to an atheist on another forum.

God doesn't prove that He exists, but rather provides evidence that He exists, and the Messengers of God are that evidence. As such, all doubts about God's existence are on the people who reject the evidence that God provided. The REASON that God does not prove He exists is noted below.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people means that God could have made all people believers, but IF God has pleased, implies that God did not want to make all people into believers, which is why all men are not believers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make us believers... In short, God wants us to make an effort and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).

According to this passage, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort.

If God proved to everyone that He exists then it would be impossible to distinguish between people and how much they really care about believing in Him

God sends a Messenger in every age and God wants us to recognize the Messenger He sent for the age we live in. I think I explained to you why the Messengers reveal different messages in different ages. The purpose of sending Messengers is to address the needs of humanity and because the needs of humanity are different in every age the Messengers reveal a different message in every age.

The Messengers of God are like an All-Knowing Physician, ministering to the needs of an ailing humanity.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

“No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 80

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure why I should consider the various messengers as evidence though given their conflicting nature and the uncertainty regarding their existence. Besides Baha'u'llah of course that we know was alive and liked to write a lot

 

[Trailblazer]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure why I should consider the various messengers as evidence though given their conflicting nature and the uncertainty regarding their existence. Besides Baha'u'llah of course that we know was alive and liked to write a lot

You should not consider the various messengers as evidence without a thorough investigation..

Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true.

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."

Independent Investigation of Truth

I do not believe it is necessary to investigate all the older Messengers since what they revealed is no longer pertinent. The spiritual truths they revealed are eternal so they will always be true, but the older religions do not have the remedy that humanity needs in this new age. As such I believe that the only Messenger we should take time to investigate is Baha'u'llah, and if we come to believe in Him we accept all the Messengers of the past.

 

[Nimos]

But here is where atheists get into trouble my friend.

Sure, you can say that if ghosts were real would they be able to go through walls, and that is a reasonable assumption, but atheists say that if God is real and omnipotent then God could do anything. That might be true, but just because God could hypothetically do anything that does not mean that God will choose to do everything He can do. God only does what He chooses to do, which means that God never does anything that He does not choose to do. Doing only what He chooses to do and nothing else is inherent to omnipotence.

That is irrelevant for whether or not one can blame God or not under the assumption that he exist. Whether God chooses so do something or not, that is part of the argument that you might make, given the premise that God exist.

So there are two things here.

1. Assuming that God exist
2. Whatever arguments and premises will be put forward for which point (1) will be discussed.

So you saying that God wouldn't necessarily do it even if he could, would be your argument under the agreed upon premise, that God exist. Whereas an atheist's argument might be that God is still to blame whether he chose not to do something, again under the premise that God exist. So point (1) doesn't change, regardless of what arguments we might put forward in point 2. So you have to split the two apart as separate elements in the discussion, if that makes sense?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If they took part in the crime.

And one example of "taking part of a crime" is:

providing information or equipment, knowing that it would be used in the commission of a crime,

Aiding & Abetting a Crime - 5 Common Examples

Yes, and that is in accordance with the law.

Okay. So you agree that the excuse "(Person A) isn't responsible for the crime (Person B) committed because (Person B) has free will" is not generally valid.

What are those things?

For instance, that God provided a message to humanity via "messengers."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, that is what I am talking about, a monotheistic creator-god.

I agree. God is responsible for everything He created, both negative and positive.

Okay.

However, God is not responsible for anything humans do with what He created since humans have free will.

This contradicts what you just said: "God is responsible for everything He created, both negative and positive."

 

[Link]

1. If God existed would God communicate directly to everyone?
2. If God existed would God prove that He exists to everyone?

I want to say God does not communicate directly to everyone, because, the veil would be themselves (1) in this case or Angels (2) or a chosen light/veil from him as his chosen guide (3).

As for (1) they would think they are talking to themselves and going crazy or that unseen entities were pretending to be speak for God.
As for (2) if a soul is yet corrupt, he would see Angels as harsh dark entities and be scared for them without acknowledging their holy beauty
As for (3) this can be (a) in person or (b) through light
The problem with (a) is that the soul rebels and accuses the person as a liar and if he performs miracles, they become irrational, don't reason, but rebel and accuse the miracle as just features of sorcery and he get's accused as a being a sorcerer.
The problem with (b) is that is similar to all three, except they will accuse the veil of light as a product of dark magic or they are possessed by evil being or that they are hallucinating.

The only way for God to directly guide most souls, is day of judgment type proofs, there is 8 type of proofs which will have 8 types showing each. As well, the subjugation and completely control over everyone, where people will whisper to each other but can't even talk loudly, they will be forced truth.

But then God is veiled from their vision despite knowing he is truth by power he displays and the reality he displays, they won't see his beauty and his glorious nature of light, because that take vision of love, which is too late to generate.

Hence, faith and knowing God is not beneficial when God has to act this way. Some hiddenness of the hour is there, because, God wants every soul to be able to strive for what it wishes and be rewarded or punished as the result.

But if Mohammad (s) during his time, was able to connect people from lowest reality to the sky light reality and bring a sign and proof to the soul through connecting them, he would have in a blink of an eye to every soul that can benefit from it.

So if a soul can benefit from connecting and seeing light and God, God and his Guide of time, will connect them in a heart beat.

If Imam Mahdi (a) knows miracles for sure won't be denied by a soul and he won't be accused of being a sorcerer because that soul is submissive, he would come and show miracles to that person.

Satan has infected us with envying the chosen ones and wanting to vie them in power. How many souls saw the Mahdi (a) perform miracles but overtime, accused him of being a sorcerer and join Magog and took Gog/Abu Lahab of our time who Iblis himself is the companion of as leader and followed the sorcery as taught by the devils.

How many souls who after witnessing the light of Imam and God, followed caprice and clung to earth, and were bribed by the sorcerer and false idol and their group of devils and abandoned the light for a temporary perishing pleasure that is going to pass away.

How many souls after being opened doors into Quran, turn aside after knowing the truth, and work to hide it's truths and join it's enemies.

 

[CG Didymus]

By that time the Hindu Valley civilization already established a polytheism which gave rise to the current Hindu pantheon. If we are talking about what is verifiable or not, contrary to most of the messengers you listed Krishna is one of the less likely to have even existed.

There's not very much information about why Baha'is make Krishna one of the manifestations. Here's the most interesting thing I found...

Why is Krishna considered a manifestation? And why not Confucius?

So the Abrahamic prophets + Buddha and Zoroaster are clearly accepted as manifestations in the writings of Bahaullah and Abdul Baha. But where did the idea come from that Krishna is a manifestation?

All I can find is 2 quotes, this one in Paris Talks:

An Indian said to ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá: “My aim in life is to transmit as far as in me lies the message of Krishna to the world.” ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá said: The Message of Krishna is the message of love. All God’s prophets have brought the message of love.

But this talk is not authenticated, and can therefore be considered as a pilgrim's note. It also doesn't state he is a manifestation, just a prophet. Also in Promulgation of Universal Peace:

Blessed souls—whether Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius or Muḥammad—were the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity. How can we deny such irrefutable proof? How can we be blind to such light?

This talk is authenticated and the Persian text really does mention Krishna and Confucius. But this can't mean manifestations either, because according to Shoghi Effendi Confucius is not a prophet, let alone a manifestation. He says:

Confucius was not a Prophet. It is quite correct to say he is the founder of a moral system and a great reformer.

Interestingly enough, in a pilgrim's talk Abdul Baha does claim Confucius was a prophet:

Question: Was Confucius a prophet? Yes, though not so great as Buddha. (Daily Lessons Received at Akka)

So it seems to me that Krishna's station as a manifestation came from either an interpretation of a pilgrim's talk or from a statement which should include Confucius in the list of manifestations as well. Either way Abdul Baha made the same claims about Krishna and Confucius, so it is not really clear to me why one is considered a manifestation and the other isn't.
​

If their prophet Baha'u'llah, didn't mention it, there's a problem. But the Baha'i Faith needed someone to bring Hinduism into the mix of true religions that were revealed to a manifestation by God. Krishna, I think, was their best choice. But, since he wasn't the first incarnation of Vishnu, why don't Baha'is accept them or at least mention them? Again, I think they were only looking for one name, one prophet that they could plug into their concept of "progressive" revelation.

​

 

[samtonga43]

You should not consider the various messengers as evidence without a thorough investigation.. Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true.

Maybe what you say they should investigate is not the truth. And if it is not the truth, then they won’t know the truth.

I do not believe it is necessary to investigate all the older Messengers since what they revealed is no longer pertinent. The spiritual truths they revealed are eternal so they will always be true, but the older religions do not have the remedy that humanity needs in this new age. As such I believe that the only Messenger we should take time to investigate is Baha'u'llah, and if we come to believe in Him we accept all the Messengers of the past.

As you say, spiritual truths are eternal, and God has the remedy, whatever the age.

 

[samtonga43]

There's not very much information about why Baha'is make Krishna one of the manifestations. Here's the most interesting thing I found...

Why is Krishna considered a manifestation? And why not Confucius?

So the Abrahamic prophets + Buddha and Zoroaster are clearly accepted as manifestations in the writings of Bahaullah and Abdul Baha. But where did the idea come from that Krishna is a manifestation?

All I can find is 2 quotes, this one in Paris Talks:

An Indian said to ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá: “My aim in life is to transmit as far as in me lies the message of Krishna to the world.” ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá said: The Message of Krishna is the message of love. All God’s prophets have brought the message of love.

But this talk is not authenticated, and can therefore be considered as a pilgrim's note. It also doesn't state he is a manifestation, just a prophet. Also in Promulgation of Universal Peace:

Blessed souls—whether Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius or Muḥammad—were the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity. How can we deny such irrefutable proof? How can we be blind to such light?

This talk is authenticated and the Persian text really does mention Krishna and Confucius. But this can't mean manifestations either, because according to Shoghi Effendi Confucius is not a prophet, let alone a manifestation. He says:

Confucius was not a Prophet. It is quite correct to say he is the founder of a moral system and a great reformer.

Interestingly enough, in a pilgrim's talk Abdul Baha does claim Confucius was a prophet:

Question: Was Confucius a prophet? Yes, though not so great as Buddha. (Daily Lessons Received at Akka)

So it seems to me that Krishna's station as a manifestation came from either an interpretation of a pilgrim's talk or from a statement which should include Confucius in the list of manifestations as well. Either way Abdul Baha made the same claims about Krishna and Confucius, so it is not really clear to me why one is considered a manifestation and the other isn't.
​

If their prophet Baha'u'llah, didn't mention it, there's a problem. But the Baha'i Faith needed someone to bring Hinduism into the mix of true religions that were revealed to a manifestation by God. Krishna, I think, was their best choice. But, since he wasn't the first incarnation of Vishnu, why don't Baha'is accept them or at least mention them? Again, I think they were only looking for one name, one prophet that they could plug into their concept of "progressive" revelation.

​

I agree.

 

[CG Didymus]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure why I should consider the various messengers as evidence though given their conflicting nature and the uncertainty regarding their existence. Besides Baha'u'llah of course that we know was alive and liked to write a lot

Yes, it's strange indeed. They believe in Adam, but not the Bible stories about Adam. Same with Noah, Baha'u'llah writes about Noah and implies that he lived for 950 years. But Baha'is don't believe that. And Baha'u'llah doesn't even mention the main thing that Noah is known for, the flood. Baha'i have ways to make things that seem to contradict disappear, usually by saying that those things should not be taken literally, but symbolically. Here's Baha'u'llah talking about Noah...

Among the Prophets was Noah. For nine hundred and fifty years He prayerfully exhorted His people and summoned them to the haven of security and peace. None, however, heeded His call. Each day they inflicted on His blessed person such pain and suffering that no one believed He could survive. How frequently they denied Him, how malevolently they hinted their suspicion against Him! Thus it hath been revealed: “And as often as a company of His people passed by Him, they derided Him. To them He said: ‘Though ye scoff at us now, we will scoff at you hereafter even as ye scoff at us. In the end ye shall know.’”3 Long afterward, He several times promised victory to His companions and fixed the hour thereof. But when the hour struck, the divine promise was not fulfilled. This caused a few among the small number of His followers to turn away from Him, and to this testify the records of the best-known books. These you must certainly have perused; if not, undoubtedly you will. Finally, as stated in books and traditions, there remained with Him only forty or seventy-two of His followers. At last from the depth of His being He cried aloud: “Lord! Leave not upon the land a single dweller from among the unbelievers.”4

And now, consider and reflect a moment upon the waywardness of this people. What could have been the reason for such denial and avoidance on their part? What could have induced them to refuse to put off the garment of denial,​

 

[Trailblazer]

That is irrelevant for whether or not one can blame God or not under the assumption that he exist. Whether God chooses so do something or not, that is part of the argument that you might make, given the premise that God exist.

So there are two things here.

1. Assuming that God exist
2. Whatever arguments and premises will be put forward for which point (1) will be discussed.

So you saying that God wouldn't necessarily do it even if he could, would be your argument under the agreed upon premise, that God exist. Whereas an atheist's argument might be that God is still to blame whether he chose not to do something, again under the premise that God exist. So point (1) doesn't change, regardless of what arguments we might put forward in point 2. So you have to split the two apart as separate elements in the discussion, if that makes sense?

Yes, that makes sense and I like how you have presented it.

 

[Trailblazer]

This contradicts what you just said: "God is responsible for everything He created, both negative and positive."

God is responsible for everything He created, both negative and positive
However, God is not responsible for anything humans do with what He created since humans have free will.

There is no contradiction.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"For nine hundred and fifty years He prayerfully exhorted His people and summoned them to the haven of security and peace."

Who would not scoff at that?

God is responsible for everything He created, both negative and positive
However, God is not responsible for anything humans do with what He created since humans have free will.

Can all people can differentiate between good and evil (you are taking it as a given)? Any reason why God created such humans?

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe what you say they should investigate is not the truth. And if it is not the truth, then they won’t know the truth.

Maybe what I say they should investigate is the truth. And if it is the truth, then they will know the truth

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is responsible for everything He created, both negative and positive
However, God is not responsible for anything humans do with what He created since humans have free will.

There is no contradiction.

Of course there is: God is responsible for humans, but God isn't responsible for humans? Which is it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course there is: God is responsible for humans, but God isn't responsible for humans? Which is it?

God is responsible for creating humans, but God isn't responsible for what humans do.
God isn't responsible for what humans do because humans have free will to choose.

 

[LuisDantas]

God is responsible for everything He created, both negative and positive
However, God is not responsible for anything humans do with what He created since humans have free will.

There is no contradiction.

More like you prefer to call the contradiction "free will".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is responsible for creating humans, but God isn't responsible for what humans do.

That makes no sense.

If you're responsible for a thing, then you're responsible for that thing's effects.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

God isn't responsible for what humans do because humans have free will to choose.

We already established that you don't actually believe this.

 

[F1fan]

God is responsible for creating humans, but God isn't responsible for what humans do.
God isn't responsible for what humans do because humans have free will to choose.

So God creates children with the genes that cause cancers. Cool. Let's worship and celebrate this God.