They don't, you misinterpret their posts. You're wrong.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: If God existed would God……
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
They don't, you misinterpret their posts. You're wrong.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Fair enough. You can discuss God all you want to but just remember....
God cannot be responsible for anything if God does not exist.
Why waste time discussing a nonexistent entity?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It does not matter how many Gods humans have imagined because the imagination does not make anything real.
In reality, there is only one God, the creator of the universe.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
If they are Baha'is who have recognized Baha'u'llah they might be checking. Otherwise they would have no reason to be checking.
No atheist ever claimed different. If you think they did you are wrong or they are not atheists.
I imagine for the same reason you ask atheists questions. For the sake of discussion.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Again, the Baha'is demand that a person investigates the truth for themselves. Baha'is say that science and religion go hand and hand. Without science, religion falls into a bunch of superstitious beliefs. What atheists have shown to Baha'is... is that their belief in God and in his messengers is unprovable scientifically.
Baha'is have to believe and accept that the God, as defined by the Baha'i Faith, is real, and that Baha'u'llah is his messenger. What can they say that hasn't already been said? All their arguments have to come back to, "Because Baha'u'llah said so, and we believe he is a true messenger of God, and therefore, everything he says is the absolute truth."
They can say that God is All-knowing, All-loving etc. How do they support having those beliefs? Reasonable questions are then... Why is there evil? Why is there suffering? Why is there disease? Difficult things for a Baha'i to answer. But not for God's messenger. He should know and have the true answer to these questions. What are they? Here's what I found about what Baha'is believe about evil...
From Some Answered Questions by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá
The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.
Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man’s characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.
Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence—that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.
Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements—that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.
The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent.
The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.
Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man’s characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.
Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence—that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.
Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements—that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.
The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is completely illogical because knowing something is going to happen does not make anyone, including God, responsible for what happens. An astronomer knows that and eclipse is going to take place at a certain time in a certain place. Does that make the astronomer responsible for the eclipse taking place?
I said that if a car salesperson who sold him the car knew that the person would kill someone with his car then the car salesperson would be partly responsible for the death, but then I said that there would be no way for the car salesperson to know that the person would kill someone with his car.
No, I do not think that one person's free will absolves another person of responsibility for their role in the the person's actions.
God is not a person, so to compare God to a person 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".
False equivalence - Wikipedia
God has no actions so God cannot be responsible for any actions. This is logic 101 stuff.
Humans have actions and humans have free will so humans are responsible for their own actions unless they have been declared mentally incompetent to make their own decisions.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
So you think God isn't responsible for nature?
Exactly what do you think God is responsible for?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You are wrong about that. Many atheists claim that God is responsible for things that occur on this earth.
For example:
9-10ths_Penguin said: You keep contradicting yourself, so it's time to ask you again: what do you believe? Do you think that one person's free will absolves others of responsibility for their role in the the person's actions?
- if yes, then nobody is an accessory to someone else's crime.
- if no, then your whole "God can't be responsible because people have free will" thing is nonsense.
#2779 9-10ths_Penguin, Today at 4:48 AM
In other words, if my answer is no, he is saying that God is responsible.
He can retract that if he wants to and admit that God is not responsible.
I don't know why I bother. It's like you're immune to reason.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Fear and indoctrination. What can you do?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That depends what you mean by responsible.
God is responsible because God is chargeable with being the author, the cause of all existence.
That is all God is responsible for (#3).
- Definition of responsible
1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often followed by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
2. involving accountability or responsibility, as in having the power to control or manage: promoted to a responsible position in the firm.
3. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually followed by for): Termites were responsible for the damage.
4. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions.
5. able to discharge obligations or pay debts.
6. reliable or dependable, as in meeting debts, conducting business dealings, etc.
Definition of responsible | Dictionary.com
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
Who or what set the evolutionary process in motion?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You are the one who is immune to reason.
The reason you have no rebuttal is because you can offer no rebuttal.
It is completely illogical to hold God responsible for anything except what God actually does.
God is not responsible for anything except creating the universe and sending Messengers to earth, since God does not DO anything else.
samtonga43
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Sweet irony!
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
He could respond if he had a rebuttal but he doesn't have one.
This still doesn't work IF your God is omnipotent and omnipresent, because it would know if what it creates will eventually create genetic faults that cause suffering, even to the innocent. Either the God is just a Deist sort of God, so not a personal God like Christians claim, or it is inept, or it's cruel, or it's not quite what Christians think it is. In any event, the God is no more moral or decent than an indifferent universe that has no gods.
Theists keep trying to wrangle a way to keep the good in how they explain their God, but it can't ever work out the way they want it when we look at reality.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The sweet irony is that you take an atheist position when you are a Christian who does not believe anything that atheists believe.
Problems is that neither you nor the atheists can offer a reasoned response to my posts, all you can do is make snarky remarks.
Usually it is the belief in that existence and its behavioral and moral consequences that is discussed.