• 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……

rational experiences

Veteran Member
What initially convinced me was what I wrote below:

Why I became a Baha'i initially had little to do with what Baha'u'llah wrote. I read mostly what Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi wrote and what other Baha'is wrote about the Baha'i Faith. I am an idealist so I was attracted to the primary message of Baha'u'llah, the oneness of mankind, the oneness of religion, world unity, and world peace.

Later, after I had been a Baha’i for many years my belief was confirmed by all the other evidence I found.
Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

There is no evidence that demonstrates that anything supernatural exists. We either believe the claims of the Messengers or not.

The religious texts are all different but they are not conflicting. It is what the religious believers believe the texts mean that is conflicting.

I never said that all those believers are correct in their beliefs. It is a sorry mess.

It is black and white thinking to say that everything in the major religions is either right or wrong. Some of what all the major religions teach is right but some of it has been altered and misinterpreted by man and that is why it is wrong.
The his story said the star that fell and hit earth wasn't holy.

Its origins was the sun. Space had cooled it's journey.

Baha'i scientific advice.

As men owned spiritual mind first. Were mind conscious changed by sun star particles causes. Our heavens spirit gas body changed.

Conscious mind still existing as earth owned a colder gas mass planet body in space than the sun.

Was how the teacher assessed Muslim reasoning against Roman Christ reasoning. By the star gain.

Stated during life cell shroud Turin attack evidence by star fall. 1000 years since Romes attack around 2AD attack.

Life for about 33 years dying sacrificed.

As it was only medical genesis advice.

Not scientific occult machine satanic thesis. Converting process.

The difference of the teachings.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I am not trying to exempt my religious beliefs from scrutiny. Fire away, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
You wrote:

Religious beliefs are not subject to the rules of logic being proven true or false by a logical argument because they are not verifiable or falsifiable.​
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science in other words as men with machines do not own when a wandering star hits earth or releases star sun particles.

Is not verifiable.

Nor is it logic. As it's not meant to occur it had however occurred.

Was the exact reasoning.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
OK, this is irrelevant to anyone else.
No, but why would it be? We are all individuals.
So atheists are justified to not believe in any Gods since atheists need evidence to make decisions that some idea is true.
You need what you need. No justification is necessary..
The New Testament says that Jesus is the savior of mankind, and the Quran says this isn't true. Huge discrepancy to Christians.
What does savior of mankind mean? I don't believe Christians understand how Jesus was savior.
I'd have to see where the Qur'an says that isn't true..
But you assert that "religious beliefs are not subject to the rules of logic being proven true or false by a logical argument because they are not verifiable or falsifiable" so believers are neither correct nor incorrect to your approach. Anything goes in your approach. Whatever a believer believes they are exempt from critique.
Whatever they determine is true is what they will believe. I did not say it is exempt from critique.
The rules of logic don't distinguish categories of claims. Ideas either have evidence which supports reason, or they don't. As a category religious beliefs/claims tend to fail more than they succeed in logic. That isn't bias, it isn't opinion, it isn't belief, it is an observation. It is a fact.
Most religions probably do fail on logic because most religious beliefs are not logical.
Even you advocate for "religious beliefs are not subject to the rules of logic being proven true or false by a logical argument because they are not verifiable or falsifiable." That has to be because you know they can't win.
No, it is because I know they are not verifiable or falsifiable.
I am not trying to win anything.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If Muslims by Egyptian science histories invented science not realising the star was hot first. They were Egyptian.

They learnt.

The star hadn't saved life.

The ice is the saviour is not a man.

So they would own documented discrepancies as science reasoned.

Not Muslims re established pyramid science first.

Rich men in all countries trade had.

So Jewish once Egyptians. Muslims once just Egyptian. Romans also once Egyptian would own contradiction science teachings in their countries. By similar DNA history.

By national country land human awareness. Similar conscious human lived DNA.

You would realise the contradicted teaching said no man was a God. Only god status saved as extreme cold history.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
@Trailblazer
His own Self: Nothing special. Took up leadership of the Babi community. Claimed to be a messenger of Allah without providing any evidence. Created his fiefdom, and passed it on to his son.
His Revelation: Nothing new. Normal oft-repeated blurbs, snake-oil selling, peace and brotherhood.
The words He hath revealed: Hypocrisy and deceit, as indicated in these words. Why 'hath' instead of 'has'? Shoghi was trying to impress with 'Olde English' words.
People only say it is illogical because they do not like my belief.
There is nothing special in your belief. Peace and brotherhood has been bandied about since the time of Zoroaster. And then, no evidence (other than your take of it) is offered by you.
 
Last edited:

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
No, what I mean is whatever one determines is true is what they will believe is true.
Other people are not going to recognize that as valid unless they came to the same determination.

A. has determined that B.’s belief that MrB is a messenger of God cannot be valid
C. D. E. F. G. etc. have come to the same determination.
∴ B.’s belief that MrB is a messenger of God cannot be valid.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
How do I know that it does not say what you think it says?
Tell me what you think it says and then I will tell you if you are right.
LOL! No, unfortunately for you, Tb, rational discussion doesn't work like this.

You have said that it does not say what I think it says.
The logical conclusion is that you know what I think it says
So, I repeat: How do you know what I think it says?

Logic 101
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
A. has determined that B.’s belief that MrB is a messenger of God cannot be valid
C. D. E. F. G. etc. have come to the same determination.
∴ B.’s belief that MrB is a messenger of God cannot be valid.
Who cares what they determined? What people determine is true has no bearing on what is actually true.
It could be true or false.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You have said that it does not say what I think it says.
The logical conclusion is that you know what I think it says
So, I repeat: How do you know what I think it says?
Logic 101
samtonga43 said:
I believe this says such a lot!


If it says such a lot that means you must have 'some idea' what it says.
Logic 101.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I don't see any moderation in hating God.
You would have to understand why I hated God in order to know why I was a moderate believer back then. I really was not a fervent believer because my faith was weak, I was more like an atheist who could not believe in God because a good God would not allow so much suffering in the world. However, it was because of my own suffering that I hated God. I did not have enough faith to trust that God was good in spite of my suffering and that is why I said I was a moderate believer.
Well, I think calling it human logic is misleading; logic is logic. That most or all humans (currently) can't understand something doesn't mean it is outside the scope of logic and the fact something involves infinity doesn't mean it is outside the scope of logic. There is no reason for thereto be any kind of fundamental barrier that puts anything beyond logic. Lots of things can be difficult or even impossible to fully understand using logic in a given context or environment but that is not the same as it being beyond logic.
Well, I think you are right. What I was trying to say is that we cannot encapsulate God since God is beyond our understanding.

While searching for something else I found this and I found it interesting.

What does God say about logic?

Logic is an attribute of God. God is not subject to logic in the sense that he is beneath it, nor is logic an "invention" of God. God is always utterly logical, because logic is part of who he is. Logic is the set of rules we must follow to think like God thinks, which is to think rightly.

Logic: The Right Use of Reason


I believe that humans have the capacity to reflect God’s attributes, so it makes sense that when we are logical we are reflecting an attribute of God.
That is applying logic though; "God is infinite therefore we can't predict his actions.". That is a statement of pure logic.
Thanks, I never thought of it that way. Logic certainly has many applications.
As I explained, a desire is about something that may or may not happen in the future. If a being is omnipotent, the concepts of future and things that may or may not happen would be practically meaningless. That can't desire anything because everything that could be already and always has been from their point of view. It is a very difficult concept to get your head around, part of what you're saying is beyond logic, but that is the problem when you assert the existence of an omnipotent being.
Yes, from God’s omniscient point of view everything has already happened since it is written on the Tablet of Fate but since it has not yet happened to us in this world God can desire for us what has not yet happened, even though it has already happened in God’s Mind. Yes, this is a very difficult concept and it is hard to grasp and explain.

Anyhow, I believe that God desires things for humans because Baha’u’llah wrote that and it makes sense to me in the context of what He wrote. Below is one short passage about desire. The omniscient God already knows that the entire human race will be united someday but God desires to observe that, to see it as it is played out in this world.

“He Who is your Lord, the All-Merciful, cherisheth in His heart the desire of beholding the entire human race as one soul and one body. Haste ye to win your share of God’s good grace and mercy in this Day that eclipseth all other created Days. How great the felicity that awaiteth the man that forsaketh all he hath in a desire to obtain the things of God! Such a man, We testify, is among God’s blessed ones.” Gleanings, p. 214
Only with a specifically defined god, which nobody has really done. I can make some up but I did that before and you just dismissed them because they weren't like your concept of religion (which is irreverent in the context of this question). So again;
"God physically created the Earth 6000 years ago"
"God carries the sun across the sky in his golden chariot"
"God will cure my illness if I pray to him"

All testable (though not necessarily easily or definitively) beliefs about hypothetical gods.
Yes, I can see how that would be testable and if we tested for such a God we would realize it does not exist.
Other than trying to use logic to support the existence of something you've defined as being beyond logic?
Some atheists think I am making a logical argument to try to prove that God exists but I keep telling them that is not what I am doing.

For example…

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

So, If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Likewise, if the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

The problem of course is in proving that either of these premises are true. I am well aware that I cannot prove the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true so I would never try to make such a logical argument.

Nevertheless, if Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, then God exists would be the reality, even if it cannot be proven. I believe that is the reality even though I cannot prove it to anyone else.
Because the definition is not "able to be observed by scientists", it is "observable (full stop)". Science as a concept is not limited to humans. Everything we have ever studied and all the things we've yet to be able to study but will be able to in the future were always within the scope of science even before humans existed. If some other intelligent being had come along, they could have applied scientific method to those things instead.
That makes sense. I had never thought if it that way. It is a Baha'i belief that both religion and science are constantly evolving so there is really no limit to what can be discovered by science or revealed by God in the future.
And so they could use science to study heaven at that point. I know lots of people who would want to do exactly that if they found themselves in heaven after they died, myself included.
It certainly would be a lot more interesting than floating around in the clouds for all of eternity as some Christians believe. The worst hell I can imagine is being bored for all of eternity. Baha’is believe that we will continue our work in the spiritual world (heaven), much to the chagrin of some Christians I know who were looking forward to taking it easy. Boring. :rolleyes:
To put it bluntly, I think that is just a get out clause, a tool to be able to dismiss or ignore any difficult questions or contradictions that are raised about your beliefs. I do think that if you're unilaterally declaring any aspect of God as being beyond logic, you can't apply logic to any other aspect of God. Once you've established a limitation to logic, you can just spread that to cover anything you want.
That does not make logical sense to me because it is all-or-nothing thinking. I think we can apply logic to the attributes (qualities) of God because they are known but we cannot amply logic to an unknown, the Essence of God. What is meant by the Essence of God is not clearly defined in the Baha’i Writings but I think it means the intrinsic nature of God although it is more than that. It is definitely a topic for further study.
And hasn't that been ever so convenient for the religious leaders over the centuries? "We can't explain everything, so you'll just have to take our word for it... but keep bringing the offerings."
clip_image001.png
You could interpret it that way but from my perspective there are simply things that are beyond human understanding and Baha’u’llah explained that. He also wrote that He knew much more than He revealed but if He had revealed all that He knew, every man on earth would be dumbfounded and that is why religious truth can only be disclosed to the extent of the capacity of the recipients. In the future more of God’s truth will be revealed, more and more in each successive age, as humans evolve spiritually.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Well, I think you are right. What I was trying to say is that we cannot encapsulate God since God is beyond our understanding.
You're still fudging the huge difference between "(currently) beyond our understanding" and "fundamentally beyond the scope of science and logic", leaning towards whichever one you find most convenient for dismissing specific challenges to your beliefs.

I believe that humans have the capacity to reflect God’s attributes, so it makes sense that when we are logical we are reflecting an attribute of God.
You can believe anything you like, but that is meaningless in our discussion about logic and science. You can't use what you believe as a basis for what we can know.

Yes, from God’s omniscient point of view everything has already happened since it is written on the Tablet of Fate but since it has not yet happened to us in this world God can desire for us what has not yet happened, even though it has already happened in God’s Mind. Yes, this is a very difficult concept and it is hard to grasp and explain.
And I still think it is irrational. You also have the issue with God being omnipotent too, which means not only would he know all events but control all events. What God desired and what is would be exactly the same thing.

Yes, I can see how that would be testable and if we tested for such a God we would realize it does not exist.
So do you accept that your previous statement that religious things are beyond the scope of science was simple wrong? Maybe you could think about who told you that and why?

Some atheists think I am making a logical argument to try to prove that God exists but I keep telling them that is not what I am doing.
Just because you say it isn't what you're doing doesn't necessary mean they're wrong.

I am well aware that I cannot prove the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true so I would never try to make such a logical argument.
You have essentially presented is as logical argument though, because you say you've assessed it yourself and concluded that it is true. The convenient exception you made was that you somehow can't demonstrate that logic to anyone else. If you're going to be honest about this, you need to stop talking about logic or knowledge in the context and just be open about that fact that all you have is a belief.

That does not make logical sense to me because it is all-or-nothing thinking.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with "all-or-nothing thinking" in logic, and in many cases it is perfectly valid. You would need than your opinion to dismiss it out of hand here.

I think we can apply logic to the attributes (qualities) of God because they are known but we cannot amply logic to an unknown, the Essence of God.
And yet again, that is a pure statement of faith. You believe it to be true. You been taught to believe it because there are logical issues in the faith that has been presented to you. As I said before, it is nothing more than a convenient get-out clause.

It is definitely a topic for further study.
It can't be studied. You are literally defining it as impossible to study. You can't have your cake and eat it.
 

RAYYAN

Proud Muslim
Well that's confusing, another guy who says he is a Muslims just said it was. So as an atheist which one of you two guys is right? Maybe you two need to figure out what the truth is and get back to us.

Let me give you an example;
If Wal-mart sells a pen that writes all colors, but you have not seen it
You can't have a choice to say it doesn't exist because it does
But, you have a choice to believe its existence or not
However, your choice doesn't make a difference because it exits

So why don't we humans get to decide whether a God exists? It's a dispute that isn't yet settled.

As I said above, your decision doesn't make a difference. If something exists or it doesn't, your belief is irrelevant in regards to its existence

Right, so how do we determine whether the idea of god is true, or at least plausible? Let's note that until we have adequate evidence that Gods are plausible we shouldn't be too eager to decide one exists, right?
Why would a rational person decide to worship something not yet known to exist?

No argument here.

I can't show you the existence of God if you can't see it
for me, I refuse to believe that the whole thing started with no designer and no creator
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Let me give you an example;
If Wal-mart sells a pen that writes all colors, but you have not seen it
You can't have a choice to say it doesn't exist because it does
But, you have a choice to believe its existence or not
However, your choice doesn't make a difference because it exits
And this is a good argument for things anyone can verify exists. Most all of us have used pens, so it is not too much of a fantastic claim to claim Walmart sells a certain kind of pen. I have no choice to deny that pens exist because I have used them and know they exist.

But if you claim that Walmart sells something that gives you superpowers, like seeing through walls and being able to withstand a gunshot, would that be believable? No, because there is no known product that can do this, and is quite an implausible thing as a product. I DO have a choice to reject this product exists because it has no basis in fact or reason.

The problem you're addressing is that various religions and believers in those religions have contradictory claims of what truth is. We see theists push back on atheists for not being convinced any gods exist but we seldom see theists of different traditions push back on the details of this "one true God" we hear about.


As I said above, your decision doesn't make a difference. If something exists or it doesn't, your belief is irrelevant in regards to its existence
But do we assume Santa Claus exists into adulthood, or do we acknowledge the lack of evidence for this being means we won't assume it does exist? On what basis do theists assume any God exists except the social learning they were exposed to? It's not facts and reason.


No argument here.

I can't show you the existence of God if you can't see it
Is God visible to anyone? Or do you mean "see" as in interpret dubious signs that critical minds are not convinced are sound?

for me, I refuse to believe that the whole thing started with no designer and no creator
Why? Who told you there is a creator or designer? What makes their assumption correct? What motivation do you have personally to prefer the warm, fuzzy feeling of a God behind all things?
 
Last edited:

RAYYAN

Proud Muslim
And this is a good argument for things anyone can verify exists. Most all of us have used pens, so it is not too much of a fantastic claim to claim Walmart sells a certain kind of pen. I have no choice to deny that pens exist because I have used them and know they exist.

But if you claim that Walmart sells something that gives you superpowers, like seeing through walls and being able to withstand a gunshot, would that be believable? No, because there is no known product that can do this, and is quite an implausible thing as a product. I DO have a choice to reject this product exists because it has no basis in fact or reason.

The problem you're addressing is that various religions and believers in those religions have contradictory claims of what truth is. We see theists push back on atheists for not being convinced any gods exist but we seldom see theists of different traditions push back on the details of this "one true God" we hear about.

I feel that you are missing the point, or we are talking about two different things
I am talking about the fact that something that exists, exists even if you choose to believe it doesn't
The pen analogy is just to show the point and we are not talking about the pen itself

For example, Do I exist? You can't see me, I might be a computer program responding to you.
If you believe I exist - I exist
If you don't believe I exist - I still exist

But do we assume Santa Claus exists into adulthood, or do we acknowledge the lack of evidence for this being means we won't assume it does exist? On what basis do theists assume any God exists except the social learning they were exposed to? It's not facts and reason.

I am a Muslim and I talk about myself
I was born a Muslim
I grew up and started to have understanding about my religion
I compared it with some other religions like Christianity, Judaism, and others
I found my religion to make a perfect sense


Is God visible to anyone? Or do you mean "see" as in interpret dubious signs that critical minds are not convinced are sound?

No, God is not visible to anyone
This amazing word can't happen by accident. There must be a creator

Why? Who told you there is a creator or designer? What makes their assumption correct? What motivation do you have personally to prefer the warm, fuzzy feeling of a God behind all things?

As I said above, This amazing universe can't be by accident
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I feel that you are missing the point, or we are talking about two different things
I am talking about the fact that something that exists, exists even if you choose to believe it doesn't
The pen analogy is just to show the point and we are not talking about the pen itself
This is something we all know already. I'm not sure why you needed to make this point. Science is what allows us to discover things that exist.

For example, Do I exist? You can't see me, I might be a computer program responding to you.
If you believe I exist - I exist
If you don't believe I exist - I still exist
Sure. But what you aren't explaining is how can I find out if you are real or just a computer? Until I have definitive evidence I'm only guessing. That there is an actual answer doesn't help me out until I investigate and gather facts, and then conclude you do indeed exist.


I am a Muslim and I talk about myself
I was born a Muslim
Well, you were likely born a theist, that being you are one of the 85% of humans "wired for God", meaning having a biological inclination to be religious. Plus, it sounds like you were born in a Muslim family and perhaps a Muslim community. If you were born to a Hindu family in a Hindu community you would unlikely be a Muslim.

I grew up and started to have understanding about my religion
Yup, social learning and likely indoctrination.

I compared it with some other religions like Christianity, Judaism, and others
I found my religion to make a perfect sense
Believers tend to discover their religions are correct and make sense. These forums are good because theist are exposed to questions they don't ask themselves.


No, God is not visible to anyone
Which is why no one can confirm it exists.


This amazing word can't happen by accident. There must be a creator
Who says?


As I said above, This amazing universe can't be by accident
Why not?
 

RAYYAN

Proud Muslim
This is something we all know already. I'm not sure why you needed to make this point. Science is what allows us to discover things that exist.

Responding to a question that says if We have a choice to disbelieve in the existence of God!

Sure. But what you aren't explaining is how can I find out if you are real or just a computer? Until I have definitive evidence I'm only guessing. That there is an actual answer doesn't help me out until I investigate and gather facts, and then conclude you do indeed exist.
That was not the question and I don't know how to prove that to you

Well, you were likely born a theist, that being you are one of the 85% of humans "wired for God", meaning having a biological inclination to be religious. Plus, it sounds like you were born in a Muslim family and perhaps a Muslim community. If you were born to a Hindu family in a Hindu community you would unlikely be a Muslim.
And how do you explain that people who were not born in a Muslim family converted to Islam and it is the fastest-growing religion in the world!

Yup, social learning and likely indoctrination.
That is your asumption - Wrong

Believers tend to discover their religions are correct and make sense. These forums are good because theist are exposed to questions they don't ask themselves.
I have been in forums like this for years :)


Which is why no one can confirm it exists.
I agree


Who says?
Logic and life experience unless you have an example you can show
 
Top