Atheists: If God existed would God… (Continued)

[rational experiences]

First sin in a lying human mans brother agreed terms teaching is a science thesis.

His human man's thoughts only.

Said the sun not only sacrificed set alight earths immaculate clear heavens.

It made sin..K holes. Lots of them.

In science no man owns sin. As we live stand walk on gods rock. We never owned sin.

If a human says the all loving support of God is due to my human self living. Not harmed. Not sacrificed. Not brain changed. Or bodily changed. The all loving God is typified by those types.

Allowing my consciousness and health to be happy and loving.

Greatest highest terms in created creation not changing nor hurting life.

As life lives in a fixed and stable mass environment. Holy water heavens above and below. Oxygenated by natures garden.

A human lives after the presence garden is not allowed to curse God. To say satanic words...theisms calculus.

So as different men own different phenomena attacks you theme advice differently.

Baha'i was already a loving human man. His faith pre existed. He owned a new human experience.

The old experience merciful meant men knew the earth's mercy seat as it's existent body rock had been converted by men of temple science. Taught it differently.

Baha'i attack was just star fall.

Ancient life attack caused by human technology.

As family is human first. We need to stop inferring hierarchy.

If a human believes in harming others their brain mind won't change by meditative praying and silence and honour of life's holiness.

Is who doesn't love God.
As if God isn't Idealised by its status then why teach a status?

It's man who defied God.

And origin god of no beginning eternal is unconditional love. So you proffer your service for brain entrainment.

Ceremony to heal. He refuses.

 

[Clara Tea]

@HonestJoe

I decided to start fresh with a new thread to continue our conversation because that other thread got derailed and I do not plan to post on it anymore.

I was never taught any concept of God. I learned about God by reading the Writings of Baha’u’llah. Sometimes I find it difficult to understand why a loving God would create a world in which He knew there would be so much suffering but that is not a problem of logic, as suffering, even if there is a loving God, is neither logical nor illogical, it simply exists.

The assertion of some atheists, that if a loving God exists there would be little or no suffering in the world, is not logical, it is simply a personal opinion. I could just as easily offer the personal opinion that if a loving God exists there would be suffering since suffering is advantageous for our spiritual growth. There are reasons for the suffering and it serves a purpose even though it is painful.

My position has always been that God cannot change His nature since the nature of God is unchanging. If an unchanging God could change His nature that would be a logical contradiction.

It has always been my position that God is all-knowing, so God knows everything, including the consequences of free will.

Firstly, I think it is illogical for any human to say what God should do. The minute we say what God should do that is merely a personal opinion based upon our personal expectations. If an all-knowing God exists, that God has to know what He should do better than any human can ever know that since no human is all-knowing.

Secondly, Not only is it impossible for any human to know what God would do under any given set of circumstances, what we might imagine God would do is yet another personal opinion based upon our personal expectations of God.

To answer your question, if God is defined as all-loving and good, what God would do is what God decides is all-loving and good for humans, not what humans imagine that to be. What God should do is not even relevant. Since God has no obligations to any humans God is not subject to shoulds. Only humans have obligations and are thus subject to shoulds, since only humans are accountable to other humans and accountable to God, if they believe in God.

Atheists like to apply logic to God but logic cannot be applied to God. I think I said this before but just in case here it is again.

Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God. God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to human logic and it would be illogical to think so. It is absurd to expect to be able to encapsulate an infinite God with the finite human mind.

According to my beliefs, the only way humans can ever know anything about God is through the revelations of God that come to man through Messengers of God, which are recorded in scriptures of religions.

It might seem irreconcilable that a loving God could exist given we live in a world where there is so much suffering, bear in mind that there is also joy in this world, and atheists never give God any credit for that.

However, the main point I would like to make is that this earthly life is not the be-all and the end-all. This life is only a very small part of our total existence. After we depart from this world we go to another world where there will be no more suffering, only joy and gladness for all of eternity. That is how the suffering in this world is reconciled.

What does your hypothetical God choose to do that my proposed God does not choose to do?

Hypothetically speaking, an omnipotent God is capable to doing anything but that is not same as God becoming anything. If God became other than God is; e.g., if God became powerless and weak, then God would not be God. If God became a man then God would not be God since God is not a man.

I would rather say that we cannot know everything about God based on scriptures alone. I believe we can know something about God from scriptures. However, I agree that if scriptures claim God did something that is practically or logically impossible, it is the scriptures we take to be wrong, not reality. A good example is God becoming a man and rising from the dead.

It is not a matter of convenience. Baha’u’llah either was who He claimed to be or not. There is no middle ground. There are many reasons to believe Him over others who have made similar claims but in order to know those reasons research is required.

So back to your hypothetical God, I am still not sure who or what he is.

It is logically possible for a God to have created humans without free will, but try to think about the ramifications of that. Granted, we are not always free to do whatever we might want to do since free will has constraints, but if humans had no will at all, how could they do anything, and if humans could not do anything, how would anything get done in this world? The only alternative to human free will that I can see is God running everything, in which case humans would be like God’s programmed robots with no will of their own.


Hypothetically speaking, an all-powerful God has the power to do anything, but I am not God so I cannot know what God can or can’t do. Only God knows that.

Suffering exists (regardless of logic).

God exists (if you choose to believe that God exists, and that is regardless of logic).

But, if God is all-powerful, and all-knowing, then he is aware of the suffering, and he has the power to stop the suffering, but chooses not to.
..................
Free will wouldn't be totally free if there were known consequences. That is, if you were punished for doing something, you are not totally free to do it.
.............
It is not up to us mere humans to decide what a God "should do." Yet, a loving God would end suffering (otherwise, He's not a loving God).
..............
God, exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, is beyond logic, you claim. Yet, logic should still apply, even to a God. The laws of common sense should still apply.
...................
True, God chooses what God does. God also sees the future, so might know why he does things that are not immediately obvious to humans. Yet, a loving God should not allow suffering.
..................
Logically impossible for God to become a man and rise from the dead, you claim. Yet, some claim that Jesus was not God, but the son of God. There are scriptures to confirm this idea, as well.
............
While it might be true that God can do anything, a loving God would be restricted to do loving things. To do otherwise would mean that He is not loving.

 

[rational experiences]

When you say God you use men terms.

So do you god man love humanity?

No.

A lot of you reason why they should use god given powers like nuclear as God told them how...meaning created creation. How to destroy family.

I'm doing gods work he says.

Yet in every nation a huge family population lives innocently.

So we were taught about the God destroyer conscious mentality. Leadership and agreement.

Society history of rich men.

True fact.

So if you say to a human just imagine no human exists. As we all do die someday.

Where's your god then?

Some humans say when I die I'll be with my god.

Okay which type?

As stone rock first God in human stories science themes is stone. Your skeleton ends with God. Can't make a resource out of our bones brother.

Or they say my living lived life recorded as I lived is with God in the heavens after. Proven as AI mans machines uses heavens human images recording. So it's not a resource either.

So where's God?

In my teachings the eternal the body we were humanly separated from owns one more of my life experience.

No one contacts that spirit. You awake being it.

So what is the God science is looking for....a substance? Seeing the thesis today is in seeking the answer to all things.

Just a theory. A belief. An idea. And it's not about knowing. It's about having it to destroy it as a resource.

Is the brother who theories falsely.

The loving god who ends suffering allowed us to die. Pretty basic human truth. Separated from the eternal. Then we are rewarded being who we always were first.

Not in any review is it human owned. It's self owned as our own creator.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I find it rather ironic that atheists see the bad things in this world and hold God responsible for those whereas they never mention the good things about this life and give God credit for those.

It's not 'ironic'. It's a misconception on your part. I explained this already. Atheists...by definition...cannot 'blame God' for anything.

 

[rational experiences]

Suffering exists (regardless of logic).

God exists (if you choose to believe that God exists, and that is regardless of logic).

But, if God is all-powerful, and all-knowing, then he is aware of the suffering, and he has the power to stop the suffering, but chooses not to.
..................
Free will wouldn't be totally free if there were known consequences. That is, if you were punished for doing something, you are not totally free to do it.
.............
It is not up to us mere humans to decide what a God "should do." Yet, a loving God would end suffering (otherwise, He's not a loving God).
..............
God, exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, is beyond logic, you claim. Yet, logic should still apply, even to a God. The laws of common sense should still apply.
...................
True, God chooses what God does. God also sees the future, so might know why he does things that are not immediately obvious to humans. Yet, a loving God should not allow suffering.
..................
Logically impossible for God to become a man and rise from the dead, you claim. Yet, some claim that Jesus was not God, but the son of God. There are scriptures to confirm this idea, as well.
............
While it might be true that God can do anything, a loving God would be restricted to do loving things. To do otherwise would mean that He is not loving.

As a loving human I never would claim by my choice I'll stop suffering if I decide to.

Determined egotism. I'll create you. Put you with family who like hurting family as you deserve to be hurt. Are human thoughts only.

The story I was taught said creation never owned a purpose. It was just a cause.

Son of God as described by just a man theist. Who does all thinking ideas.

Knows his human father he never is. As a baby to man he's a son.

Inheritor idea.

So you Idealised it about earths God rock body.

As it conceived gas heavens with space womb. You named the son of God with mother of God immaculate spirit. That was sacrificed to give us the light of life.

Nowhere else does that term exist.

Then you liar theist Satanists converter of earth mass dusts. Made sink holes.

You then taught God as one rock mass released its inheritor. It didn't.

Gas spirit was sacrificed. Leaving a hole only. Son of the earth inheritor sacrificed.

Void vacuum womb made it stay from its removal. Otherwise none of us would be living today. Mother void womb put it back into the tomb position.

 

[ChristineM]

because they do.

Wow and here was me blaming harry potter all the time.

Nope the point out the stupidity of theists only attributing the good bits to their god and denying the bits said theists don't like. You are misunderstanding the context of an atheist comment

 

[Balthazzar]

Pleasure and pain, struggle and times of peace, joy and sorrow, etc. The diffrence between good and evil are obvious. We inherently understand the difference. The guiding system is effective. Thata life.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not only Islamic theology, even the Bab, though your website claims otherwise, says "most merciful". Not all loving.

It says both. However, there are more instances of Merciful than of All-loving (see links below).

All-loving
Baha'i Reference Library: Search Results
Baha'i Reference Library: Search Results
Baha'i Reference Library: Search Results

Merciful
Baha'i Reference Library: Search Results

Most Merciful
Baha'i Reference Library: Search Results

All-Merciful
Baha'i Reference Library: Search Results

In Islamic, God does not love the sinners unless they repent. It's the same in the Bible. Sinners like the Al Fasadhin Fil Ard who kill innocent people, pretend they are believers, claim this, that and the other etc, and they are not reforming.

According to the Bible, God makes the sun rise on both the evil and the good.

Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

According to Abdu'l-Baha God loves everyone, including atheists and materialists.

"How ignorant therefore the thought that God who created man, educated and nurtured him, surrounded him with all blessings, made the sun and all phenomenal existence for his benefit, bestowed upon him tenderness and kindness, and then did not love him. This is palpable ignorance, for no matter to what religion a man belongs even though he be an atheist or materialist nevertheless God nurtures him, bestows His kindness and sheds upon him His light."
('Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 8, issue 7, p. 78)

However, that does not mean all men are equal in the sight of God. According to Baha'u'llah, all men are not equal in the sight of God.

“Let no one imagine that by Our assertion that all created things are the signs of the revelation of God is meant that—God forbid—all men, be they good or evil, pious or infidel, are equal in the sight of God.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 187

So it's false to say God is all-loving, all merciful. It's a strawman.

I guess that depends upon which scriptures one consults.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope the point out the stupidity of theists only attributing the good bits to their god and denying the bits said theists don't like. You are misunderstanding the context of an atheist comment

I not only understand that but I agree with it. It is not logical to attribute only the good to God and not the bad, if, as theists believe, God is responsible for everything.

By the same token, it is not logical for atheists to attribute only the bad to the God they don't believe in, and disregard the good things that God has provided.

 

[firedragon]

It says both. However, there are more instances of Merciful than of All-loving (see links below).

No it doesnt. Its wrong. Someone duped you.

According to the Bible, God makes the sun rise on both the evil and the good.

Yeah. God punishes a whole lot of people in the Bible. So it's not "All loving". Its a made up pretty apple polish TB. There is enough punishment in the Bible. So anyone could cherrypick verses.

I guess that depends upon which scriptures one consults.

You asked about Islam. So I would say the Qur'an. Of course. In the Qur'an, God is most merciful, not "all loving". There is nothing like that in the Qur'an, or in Islamic theology. So the Bahai faith you follow personally is against Islam and the Qur'an.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Besides that, as an atheist, I could ask you why don't you give any credit to the god Odin? And this is where the conflict occurs. Because you don't do this, because you don't acknowledge him as being real and it is not the position that you take.

I see you may have never asked.

I would offer that the mythology behind Odin is most likely based on some knowledge of God. I especially see this is relevant to God.

"He is known by hundreds of names"

There is most likely a fair bit of truth to be found, yet men have mixed their own level of understanding into what were greater Truths.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No it doesnt. Its wrong. Someone duped you.



Yeah. God punishes a whole lot of people in the Bible. So it's not "All loving". Its a made up pretty apple polish TB. There is enough punishment in the Bible. So anyone could cherrypick verses.



You asked about Islam. So I would say the Qur'an. Of course. In the Qur'an, God is most merciful, not "all loving". There is nothing like that in the Qur'an, or in Islamic theology. So the Bahai faith you follow personally is against Islam and the Qur'an.

I see you are very compassionate about finding fault and differences where none really exist between God's Messengers.

That, to me, is a losing battle with one's own self.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

I see you are very compassionate about finding fault and differences where none really exist between God's Messengers.

That, to me, is a losing battle with one's own self.

Regards Tony

Preaching unobjectively is not for me Tony. When a question is asked, I answer honestly. That's that. I don't appreciate rosy false pictures painted to proselytise your religion.

 

[ChristineM]

I not only understand that but I agree with it. It is not logical to attribute only the good to God and not the bad, if, as theists believe, God is responsible for everything.

By the same token, it is not logical for atheists to attribute only the bad to the God they don't believe in, and disregard the good things that God has provided.

Atheists DO NO BELIEVE A GOD DID ANYTHING because they DO NOT BELIEVE A GOD EXISTS.

What they (some) try to do is convince theists who misrepresent them that they are incorrect by comparing the conflicting claims of the theist.

While some other atheist think, what is the point, just let theists play with their own beliefs and ignore the misrepresentation.

 

[Trailblazer]

No it doesnt. Its wrong. Someone duped you.

The Baha'i Writings say what they say, which can be found on the links I provided.

Yeah. God punishes a whole lot of people in the Bible. So it's not "All loving". Its a made up pretty apple polish TB. There is enough punishment in the Bible. So anyone could cherrypick verses.

I do not believe that the OT represents anything God actually did. I believe it is anthropomorphism.

That said, I never claimed that God does not punish anyone.
Baha'u'llah says that God is terrible in punishing people who deserve it.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346

You asked about Islam. So I would say the Qur'an. Of course. In the Qur'an, God is most merciful, not "all loving". There is nothing like that in the Qur'an, or in Islamic theology. So the Bahai faith you follow personally is against Islam and the Qur'an.

Okay, thanks for that clarification. I tend to think that God is the most merciful and have reservations about all-loving. However, my personal opinions are of no real import, as God is what God is.

Just because the Qur'an does not say that God is all-loving, that does not mean that God is not all-loving. There is probably a reason why God was not described as all-loving in the Qur'an as perhaps that is not what humanity needed to hear at that time in history.

 

[firedragon]

The Baha'i Writings say what they say, which can be found on the links I provided.

No they don't. Someone mislead you with false translations. I told you many times but you wish to not look at your own scripture honestly.

 

[rational experiences]

I'm human. So are you.

Pretty basic my natural life is first. Before any human theist spruiking a human opinion first.

O earth natural.
Heavens natural.

Life with nature natural first.

No stories allowed.

Ponder that situation. The answers as you ponder says natural is good and supportive of your life.

A part of just being human. Humans recognition.

If I don't change anything.

Therefore as medical terms religious brain entrainment had to introduce methods to try to cause a changed brain to become self aware again.

It's all your meeting places were caused for.

A greater success in human emotive feeling together as supportive family membership.

The exact terms rituals. Chants. Sounds. Movements. Smells. Voice. Music. Meditations.

To be with nature to relearn it's potents. Grow food. Tend herbs. Make remedies. Live mindfully and move through life mindfully of your self gain.

A teaching only given after life attacked had to save itself. From human only self destructive personality disorder.

Greed. Unnatural accumulated unnatural wealth. That the planet mass owned first.

Good is natural.

To preach about it means humans changed it.

 

[John53]

Atheists DO NO BELIEVE A GOD DID ANYTHING because they DO NOT BELIEVE A GOD EXISTS.

What they (some) try to do is convince theists who misrepresent them that they are incorrect by comparing the conflicting claims of the theist.

While some other atheist think, what is the point, just let theists play with their own beliefs and ignore the misrepresentation.

You are on a path where logic and facts mean nothing. Where previous statements will be denied then down played then denied again. Where the simplest statement will be continually misinterpreted or misrepresented until you waste so much time and effort trying to explain it you forget why you even said it And when all else fails you will be accused of relentless attacks for not agreeing. Save yourself!

 

[rational experiences]

I'm born by human sex. Which human Satanists as scientists deny.

My two human parents not my life could never ever be my owned personal one self life.

Satanist scientist does not agree.

That they are one species one. By two create procreate a creator self the human.

They say Satan god chemical reactions did. Created a human. Title human subject human. Direct applied use of data by a human as human only information.

The first two humans are in biology now dead decomposed and by chemistry decomposition heated just some microbes in water.

The dead position.

Satanists claim in thesis thought only from the dead about a living human...how they were first created.

As just a human. Living human position only first.

That position in nature says had been living as two humans who decomposed and died. Exact human advised science as data.

No human came from that position. It's science of a living human only advised. Both living and deceased is a total medical science teaching.

As humans only intelligence in natural life is using correct natural lawful human thought. The living. Why talking about the dead was outlawed.

In scientific living human only thesis.

Legal position in human life. Exact. Just as it was notified before after the fact of living life biology self sacrificed attacked by human scientists using machines.

Exact relived human bad behaviour.

 

[CG Didymus]

You are on a path where logic and facts mean nothing. Where previous statements will be denied then down played then denied again. Where the simplest statement will be continually misinterpreted or misrepresented until you waste so much time and effort trying to explain it you forget why you even said it And when all else fails you will be accused of relentless attacks for not agreeing. Save yourself!

But there are "facts" and "logic"... sort of. Baha'is believe their prophet and religion is the absolute truth. What their religion teaches becomes fact. Whether there is a God or whether their prophet was sent by God doesn't need any proof other than the prophet's word saying those things are true. They become fact. Anything that goes against those "facts", logically, can't be true.

It's almost the same arguments atheist have with born-again Christians. The Bible and the NT are their "facts". So, who wins when those Christians argue with Baha'is? Because they both think they are the ones that are right and have "The Truth", it is well worth the effort that all of the atheists have been asking then and arguing about... "If it's true... If there is a God... And if your prophet was sent by that God, then show us some objective, tangible proof and evidence." Of course, they can't. The Baha'is, the Christians or any other religion that believes it is the truth can only keep making the claim. But can't back it up with anything other than their faith and trust in their religion and beliefs are true.