Atheists: If God existed would God… (Continued)

[Nakosis]

We believe this not because we can any conception of what God is, but because our Messenger has said this. That's what a Messenger does, tell us something that otherwise we couldn't know about God otherwise. Of course believing in our Messenger should come after independent investigation. This Hidden Word of Baha'u'llah tells us this:

2. O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

In the original Arabic, Justice has the connotation of fairness. That is evident in context of this Hidden Word.

Sure. I also followed someone who claimed to speak for God. He also had a hidden word that was revealed to his followers. Nothing unique about Baha'u'llah in that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok but there are dozens of people about claiming they speak for God. Is a person claiming to speak for God evidence of God?

No, of course not. The claim of a Messenger is not evidence of any kind. Evidence is what is needed to support the claims of the Messenger. Many people have made claims but they have no evidence to support their claims.

 

[joelr]

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.

By the same account it's also illogical to believe in something with completely no evidence except anecdotal stories.

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.

An entity beyond logic. Things like that were said about Inana, the first God. But Inana is fiction. Now this God which is only in stories has more rules and you claim to know them?

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.

Well that's a bit odd because I have a feeling you are only going to accept the revelations you like. While others use revelations they like. Sounds like what's most likely true is they are all made-up by people.
You realize the Islamic revelations say all Christians and Jews are liers and cursed? Christian revelations say no other people will have revelations.

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.

No, don't give credit to Yahweh, Inana or Zeus for the joy in the world? Why would they do that? Those are fiction?

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.

The only evidence on this is those are Greek/Roman/Persian myths adopted by the Hebrew religious thinkers right before Christianity. Myths do not represent things that are real. They are things that are made-up. Before this period (Hellenistic religion) Greeks didn't do the afterlife, neither did Romans.

On gravestones they wrote -
Non Fui, Fui, Non Sum, Non Curo

N.F.F.N.S.N.C.

I was not, I was, I am not, I care not.

 

[joelr]

No, of course not. The claim of a Messenger is not evidence of any kind. Evidence is what is needed to support the claims of the Messenger. Many people have made claims but they have no evidence to support their claims.

The Bahai messenger failed on all accounts. Science, new philosophy, prophecy. He didn't do miracles either. That means no evidence there either.

 

[Nakosis]

No, of course not. The claim of a Messenger is not evidence of any kind. Evidence is what is needed to support the claims of the Messenger. Many people have made claims but they have no evidence to support their claims.

Where is the evidence for Baha'u'llah?

 

[samtonga43]

I was first taught about the Bible by Fundy Christians. It sounded so right and true. But I had been taught about the Baha'i Faith first. So, one week I was arguing with my Christian friends about how the Baha'i interpretation is correct. Then the next week, I was telling the Baha'is the "Truth"... that Jesus died for ours sins and is the only way. Then a year later is when I asked Jews, "The Baha'is and the Christians say they came from you... But you don't believe them and stay with your beliefs. Why?" And they told me. And from each of the different pov's and interpretations, I could see why people in each believe theirs to be true. So, is taking any of them too seriously and too literally a mistake? And missing the point?

CG, if I were you (Bahai'i then Fundy Christian!!! ) I would stand in your shoes.
I thank God that I was an atheist for so many years. Now there's a sentence you won't see often!

 

[samtonga43]

I have never come across an atheist who is hypocritical about religion or god belief. Have you?

Of course! Many atheists cherry-pick from the Bible constantly.

Ans what has taking about religion got to do with the price of fish?

Assuming you mean talking about religion, you asked, "What have atheiests (sic) to do with religion?" I pointed out that they love to talk about religion; that is what atheists have to do with religion.

 

[samtonga43]

A box called "the actual world" that leaves out what isn't true, yes. That's the whole point.

That box called the actual world leaves out what cannot be proved to be true. See the difference?

 

[Ella S.]

That box called the actual world leaves out what cannot be proved to be true. See the difference?

No, it doesn't. It leaves out what can't be true.

If something can be true, but we can't prove it, then it might be a part of the actual world. It would be considered "possible."

 

[Ella S.]

It seems that some atheists think of a god like Odin when we say God. I don't know if that's true of you, but that is common. God is not limited by anything, in my understanding. If that seems irrational to you, I can accept that.

Odin makes far more sense than your Jehovah, because many pagans don't believe that Odin literally exists and instead view him as a mythological archetype. Also, even when Odin is believed in literally, he isn't outright impossible.

Many mystics and existentialists do the same with Jehovah, but unfortunately it's more common for believers to attack knowledge itself and undermine our ability to know things by passionately arguing for poor methods of reasoning that rely on no evidence and can lead to believing in impossible things.

It's not God that I have an issue with. It's the recurring anti-rationalism of some of its believers that degrades the intellectual character of society and obscures truth.

It's not that I think that you're irrational. It's that you are, by definition, violating the laws of logic, which is irrational by definition because it violates the tenets of rationalism which place a high emphasis on logic as the means to knowledge. In fact, by antagonizing the idea of logic as a means to knowledge, you are being anti-rational.

If you think literal anti-rationalism isn't irrational, then I don't know what to tell you. It is irrational by definition, regardless of whether it makes sense to you or not. Rationality isn't some subjective evaluative claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where is the evidence for Baha'u'llah?

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about evidence. More specifically, Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.

The words He hath revealed is what He wrote an be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

Baha'u'llah fulfilled the Bible prophecies that proves to me he was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night

Baha'u'llah also predicted many events that later came to pass. That demonstrates that he could see into the future. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

 

[CG Didymus]

CG, if I were you (Bahai'i then Fundy Christian!!! ) I would stand in your shoes.
I thank God that I was an atheist for so many years. Now there's a sentence you won't see often!

I didn't join the Baha'i Faith. I was going to their fireside meetings. But a friend had an experience that convinced him Jesus was Lord and started going to a Evangelical/Fundamentalist Church and invited me to go to Bible studies with him. This was in the 70's and Calvary Chapel had Christian rock concerts every Saturday night. I went to those also. They were considered a "Charismatic" Church.

 

[samtonga43]

No, it doesn't. It leaves out what can't be true.
If something can be true, but we can't prove it, then it might be a part of the actual world. It would be considered "possible."

In that case, perhaps you should have said "the actual world" that leaves out what may not be true...
?

 

[samtonga43]

Baha'u'llah also predicted many events that later came to pass. That demonstrates that he could see into the future. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

Never trust a book which says that it contains proofs.

 

[Ella S.]

In that case, perhaps you should have said "the actual world" that leaves out what may not be true...
?

No, because "possibly not" is completely different from "not possible" under modal logic. The latter means it is necessarily false.

Nothing impossible can be actual, because all impossible claims are false by logical necessity. It's one of the few things that can be proven with absolute certainty under deduction.

It is not the case that a God that is above the laws of logic merely "may not be true." It literally cannot be true. It is necessarily not true. It will never even potentially be true. It's completely impossible.

It has nothing to do with a lack of evidence or our inability to prove it. That's induction. I'm talking deduction here. A God that exists outside of logical laws is impossible. Not improbable. Not likely to be false. Necessarily false.

There is no possible world in which such a being can, will, or ever has existed, and we can know this with absolute certainty. It's one of the very few things that we actually can claim to know with absolute certainty, because we can't even know with absolutely certainty that the external world is real or that the past wasn't created last Thursday.

That's what it means to be impossible. It's not me dismissing something unproven because there's no evidence for it, or claiming that something doesn't exist because there's evidence against it, or even me recognizing that a claim is unfalsifiable and that there cannot be proof for it even if it is true. No, it is necessarily false. It cannot be true.

 

[rational experiences]

Human men. As a human and as a man. Born as a human baby. The term two human parents before him had sex. Bahu allah man's correct position first. Not taught in a human review of life. Isn't any god.

Exact human thought. Not theorising for machine practice of human science. From dusts whilst human present living.

As created creation it's presence anywhere first isn't any egotists human science position.

Or are you so mind lost that human thoughts advising aren't accepted anymore? Just indoctrination of theism...human told only?

Where a human and a theist says I think then says why I'm a God as a human.

Which if he truly believed that status he would say hence all humans are mutually God. But he doesn't.

He says just his own human experience makes him gods messenger. Idolises himself. Instant proof of not being an human honest.

In human theism land that means I identify human advice by a human thought pondered theism...,is humans sciences conditions only.

Falling star. Exactly predicted by men who predicted a future of human sciences earth caused attack. Star fall. From 0AD to about 1000AD return.

As Rome has been hated for a long human history. Had in technology new. Stonehenge updated sciences model. Set alight earths wandering star mass. So it came in falling burning and hit Rome in era Nero.

Exactly known why. Believing in suns theisms mass direct out of the sun. Not any planets mass or planets gas heavens. As God earth terms. Exact reason taught.

Known.

So you ask why didn't you write another book? Position three? Jesus life sacrificed returned? Saved life same episode? As one and two testimonials were. Life sacrificed?

....fact it had already been pre predicted. And science technology wasn't being practiced. Exact human reasons why it wasn't rewritten.

So for a long time dust to machine human theists pretended a humans life was created invented by the same paths a scientist used to design build a machine. As just a human.

And applied a human forced reaction to dust. All done in a human presence.

Why today humans scientist want you to believe why you are part machine. And it's satanic belief of a human only.

Yet your biology medical brothers says humans instant living life is baby born probably living now because of ape parent sex. Closest living advice.

Closest humans scientific advice. Bio life alive. All types living.

In a biological living life study. Living being the important teaching position.

Versus theists who claim why I want ground dust to be a humans beginning. As God terms in human science only. For machines only.

Ground dust means no biology life on earth as exact. As you are told by using a human minds advice.

No life whatsoever inferred as total bio extinction. By the human theirselves.....a theist

Instead you all want to coercive argue a humans historic one life experience... instead of saving human life now from satanic scientists machine choices.

I've told you I biologically heard gods voices as recorded human owned used technology. Only after brain prickling bio burning. How is that not exact advice?

You put life on origin position earth was with higher mass once. Larger heavens. Men caused one third planetary origin cohabitation to fall burst.

By altering space wombs frozen law. Highest natural law. Ice. Frozen. Exact.

All life destroyed on earth by human science pyramid. Archaeological proof said it happened.

Earth lost a huge mass and it's heavens also.

The exact moment a human scientist conjured his God act. AI earth interactive cosmic terms.

Today a human thinking says to everyone I can invent God myself in a machine is a human confession only.

As no human created created creation. And you are all too busy arguing man's religious science theisms to notice what he's said.

Thanks brothers for your non stop self idolisation. Human men.

Who knew nuclear science already was sacrificing causing ice mass removal. Sped up its sacrificed mass removal by upper nuclear chemical sprays. So ice now doubles its unnatural removal of body mass.

A guarantee of men in science.... I make all the choices to destroy life myself. I know I cause it position one. I then cause increase it position two.

Meddling.

Instead of allowing natural return by a non science practice. As you legally promised you would before.

So why renigg on your owned old promise. When you already knew why the choice and advice stated by rich mens control. Had stated exactly why science had been outlawed? Already realised. Best choice of action chosen.

Allow natural law to fix your destruction.

As space had historically naturally owned the highest coldest law of non burning gases. Reasoned exact.

 

[Truthseeker]

Rationality isn't some subjective evaluative claim.

What people believe is overrated. How we utilize our belief in our behaior is very important.

 

[Trailblazer]

Never trust a book which says that it contains proofs.

This book makes no claim to contain proofs. It simply presents one man's struggle to understand the role of reason in attaining spiritual insight, and presents the basis for his belief that the Baha'i Revelation is divine in origin.

"The sacred writings of the Baha'i Faith clearly define the role of reason in attaining spiritual insight. These teachings advise a seeker to 'apply thyself to rational and authoritative arguments. For arguments are a guide to the path and by this the heart will be turned unto the Sun of Truth. And when the heart is turned unto the Sun, then the eye will be opened and will recognize the Sun through the Sun itself. Then man will be in no need of arguments... '1 'In divine questions we must not depend entirely upon the heritage of tradition and former human experience; nay, rather, we must exercise reason, analyze and logically examine the facts presented so that confidence will be inspired and faith attained. '2

This book is the fruit of one person's struggle to understand and fulfil these admonitions. It seeks to present, in rational terms, the basis for my belief that the Baha'i Revelation is divine in origin, and to explain why I see its claim as posing a challenge of critical importance to humanity. Since religious conviction has roots that go far deeper than words or logic, it would be presumptuous to call this book a complete statement of my reasons for being a Baha'i. Those reasons which I can explain in print constitute only one aspect (and not necessarily the most important aspect) of the experiences and promptings which have helped shape my belief. Nevertheless, I share them in the hope that they will prove useful or stimulating.

I have written primarily for two large groups of people: 1) those interested in the Baha'i Faith but not committed to it; and 2) those already committed to the Faith who want to know more about the evidence upon which its claims rest. However, some readers may be hearing of the Baha'i Faith for the first time so I have tried to provide, as the discussion unfolds, whatever background information is needed for an understanding of the points raised."
The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

 

[rational experiences]

If a human understood a sun. The understanding God O earth not a sun...life would be obliterated.

O planets were like smaller energy bodies of the sun release. By law are frozen in space.

Asteroid was ice frozen.

Earth planet first was crystalline frozen as it owned an atmosphere. Asteroids didn't.

Ice ends up on planet earth transferred position off the sun asteroid.

Men of science saviour statement....asteroids that wandered past earth. Kept us safe.

Ice mass body mass on earth not sacrificed held stable. Reborn to contradict summer heat. Gods O earth.

Owned the life stability four sea of son of God.

Pretty basic. Science learning by a human was only how to destroy.

Named the destroyer. A human theist to satanist to scientist.

Ist.

Men say f ist r. Of God types.

God types owned by mother of God space law pressure formed rock. Not by a human.

Atmosphere pressure plus God rock pressure was already a space law contradicted by sun attack to form earth dust.

It..the sun mass... had converted earths crystalline mass freeze plus immaculate gas mass coldest. Greatest law cosmic earth. Statement. Why earths atmosphere was alight.

Is not an instruction how to release more earth pressure and have life destroyed.

Was the known teaching.

Dust holy... holy as it involved holding maintaining planetary pressures as gods O own. Earth.

Not man of science owned.

Exactly taught.

We are close to no earth mass says a human thinker by theism. As all humans natural aware statements first are innate consciousness human and talks first.

Instead of you taking the mind advice as a life warning. You used the advice to make it happen. What destroyer possession is. The scientist.

As first you have to be a present a natural human to think science.

Science isn't the first position natural human life is. Not your Ist.

Common sense. Not much of it left anymore.

 

[samtonga43]

This book makes no claim to contain proofs.

Gary Matthews. The Challenge of Baha'u'llah