Atheists: If God existed would God……

[KWED]

as Baha'u'llah wrote, the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself.

So why do you keep quoting the opinions of other people?

 

[KWED]

My faith is also conditioned by independently verifiable evidence and I verified the evidence independently.
Anything else, is irrational

But you have repeatedly been unable to show what this "verifiable evidence" is.
Not only that, you earlier admitted that you have no evidence to support your claims.
Basically, your argument has descended into "t'isnt, nernerner!"

 

[rational experiences]

If you base your premises on codes and not choice you will be wrong everytime.

As choice free will involves personal learning.

Codes don't learn.

Man said I think maths by my memory was holy first.

Just because he had to thesis what maths was first consciously. His say so all the time. Just an egotists man.

Then destroyed holy maths by designed maths machine maths reaction.

What he lied about ever since.

So his brother said numbers dont go backwards. As minus.

He argues yes they do.

Reality numbers always went backwards O mass whole space fused first. Just nothing no numbers no numbers allowed. O mass holy body.

In biology numbers go forward only in personal growth. Then in growth you age virtually going backwards without going anywhere as you can't go back to being a baby form or sperm ovary.

I think our science brother is a liar says my innocent thinking capability.

The innocent self said told you are wrong. The teaching.

As innocence never agreed with maths. It has to be taught believe it's real. Adult says so. It's not real it is imposed only.

Don't think...no maths.
Don't impose maths...no maths.

Without imposition your just a human living a natural life.

 

[Sheldon]

Let's just agree.....
Our belief doesn't make something exist or doesn't exist..... Good?

Atheism is not a belief, and your belief here seems to have you making claims that are violating Occam's razor.

 

[Trailblazer]

CG Didymus said: If the Baha'i Faith were true, it should still be the fastest growing religion. It has, supposedly, a new message from God that will establish peace and cure the ills of the world. It has essentially replaced all the older religions. If it were true, people wouldn't want to join any other religion.

If the Baha'i Faith were true, we would expect to see exactly what we see, that only a small number of people would believe it is true. Below are the seven reasons why this is the case.

1. Many people have never heard of the Baha’i Faith, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, there are so few Baha’is and they are busy building the New World Order, and there is only so much time, so they can only do so much.

2. But even after people know about the Baha’i Faith, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if it is true or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion.”

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.

 

[Sheldon]

It's what the Quran says...
"On the Day of Judgment, the believers will laugh at the disbelievers while reclining on couches"

Kind of a reversal of this existence, but just imaginary.

 

[Trailblazer]

And here lies the problem. You claim that the Quran is god's perfect revelation, but you also admit that you do not know what it says and that you disagree with some of it.

I do not need to know the Qur'an cover to cover just because I believe it is God's revelation.

"On the Day of Judgment, the believers will laugh at the disbelievers while reclining on couches"

Maybe that was what God wanted people to do back when the Qur'an was written, but that does not mean it holds true for all time. Revelations from God change over time.

 

[Trailblazer]

So why do you keep quoting the opinions of other people?

I never did.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you have repeatedly been unable to show what this "verifiable evidence" is.

It is objective evidence that has been verified.

Not only that, you earlier admitted that you have no evidence to support your claims.

No, quite the contrary. I have posted the evidence over and over and over again.

 

[Trailblazer]

That would be fine in itself but you contradict yourself when you go on to declare that some things are fundamentally beyond science or logic and so can never be understood. The core issue here (far from unique to you) is holding a specific set of beliefs and then trying to support them unconditionally using science and logic, significantly what you do when the science and logic contradicts (or at least doesn't support) your beliefs.

I believe that God is beyond science and the Essence of God is beyond logical analysis. Other than that, I do not claim to know what humans will be able to understand via science in the future.

I am not trying to support my beliefs using science. Science does not support my religious beliefs because religious beliefs are not within the scope of science. Conflating religion and science is illogical because they fall under a different purview, as science can prove things but religion is a belief that cannot be proven.

I do not think that logic contradicts my beliefs since I think my beliefs are logical.

Being capable of something but choosing not to do it is still an application of control.

How so?

ut if God didn't desire war and murder, he wouldn't have created humans in such a way that would inevitable have those consequences.

God created man with free will to choose between good and evil and some people will make evil choices. The only other logical option would have been to create humans as programmable robots who cannot make any choices. God does not desire that humans make evil choices but God allows free choice so that is why there is evil in the world.

God can't really give humans choice, only the illusion of choice, since God already knows what choices we would make if permitted. Our choices are limited by simple practical factors so it must be possible for God to give us a limited (perceived) choice that would lead to the consequences he desired.

What God knows is not what causes humans to choose what they choose. God is all-knowing, so God knows everything what will happen in the future, but what God knows does not cause anything to happen. Knowing something is going to happen is not what causes it to happen. For example, mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur but that knowledge does not cause the eclipse to take place.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

What causes things to happen is when a person makes a choice and acts on that choice. The choices we make do not always lead to what God desires. It leads to what we desire and sometimes our choices are aligned to what God’s desires for us, but sometimes our choices are contrary to what God desires.

The "scope of science" has no temporal quality. If something was beyond the scope of science it would always be beyond the scope of science. If something might be studied using science at some point in the future, it is within the scope of science by definition. Yet again, you are conflating human limitations with limitations of science.

I believe that God is and has always been beyond the scope of science and God will always be beyond the scope of science. Anything else might be studied using science at some point in the future, at which time we would know that it was within the scope of science, although I doubt that the soul or the spiritual world are within that scope.

Anything that could be observed by someone or something is within the scope of science.

I agree, and I believe that is everything that exists in the material world we live in.

Duped would be a harsh term. I think there are a lot of aspects of a lot of religions based on unquestionable accepting the words or certain people and texts and if anything appears to contradict them, that thing must be wrong for some reason. That leads to unsupported statements of faith like some things being "beyond science" or that there is some spiritual aspect to the world that non-believers can't understand (but the scripture, messengers and priests can somehow make clear and definitive statements about).

I fully agree. A good example of this is when Christians claim that the physical body Jesus ascended into the physical clouds in the sky and Jesus will return from heaven as He ascended and land feet first on the ground. They also believe that ‘every eye’ will see Jesus when He returns in the clouds. Then there are also the verses about how faithful Christians will meet the Lord in the air. I could go on but I think you get the point.

Yes, but that approach are contradictory and flawed. You are selectively applying logic to elements of your belief, those elements you feel you can rationalise logically, but any elements that can't be logically rationalised, you apply the blind faith about those elements being magically "beyond science" or "only known to God". But you still treat them as if they're truth anyway.

I can approach everything I believe logically; I would not believe it if I couldn’t. For example, I consider it logical to realize that some things are beyond science, and thus they must be believed on faith or not at all. Clearly, God is beyond science so must be believed on faith, but that faith need not be blind faith if it is supported by evidence. By evidence I mean the Messengers of God. I consider the Messengers of God a logical concept because there has to be an intermediary between an unknowable God and ordinary man and that intermediary would have to have a twofold nature, both divine and human, in order to act as an mediator between God and man.

If you were correctly applying logic, you wouldn't have belief. You'd have some things you know and some things you don't know. Faith in general is about filling the scary holes of all the things we don't know. We all do it to some extent, just not always in the formalised structure of a religion.

There is nothing illogical about holding a religious belief. We cannot know everything so we have to have faith in what we cannot know as a fact, and that applies to more than religion.

I have no understanding of God. My challenges are based entirely on your own words. If your "logical" approach was legitimate, it wouldn't only apply to your God.

That’s true, because if I think logically, I would think logically across the board.

For example, someone else could (and probably do) say they know your God doesn't exist because their "logic" tells them so, but they can't demonstrate that knowledge to you. Honestly now, would you accept their knowledge as truth or would you consider it false belief?

The first thing I would ask them is why their logic tells them that my God does not exist, how they reasoned that out. If I consider that illogical I will tell them why; I would not just say “that’s illogical” like some people say to me about my beliefs.

Unknowable means unknowable. If there is any way of knowing something, it is not unknowable by definition. If it can be understood by reading scriptures, scientific method could be applied to that reading and scientific conclusions reached (they're unlikely to be definitive but they would be scientific).

I consider that to be all-or-nothing thinking. I believe we can know the Attributes of God (such as Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, Immaterial, Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient) but we can never know the Essence of God (the intrinsic nature of God, such as what God is comprised of and how God functions and exists).

The way we can know the Attributes are by what the Messengers reveal in scriptures, and the Messengers also reflect some but not all of those Attributes. Only God is Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, Immaterial, but Messengers of Go can be Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient.

The Attributes of God can be understood by reading scriptures, the same way we can understand anything by reading about it. How do you think the scientific method could be applied to the Attributes of God and scientific conclusions reached?

 

[KWED]

Good
and that is what I have been saying too (mis understanding I think)

So just to be clear, you don't claim to know god exists. You simply believe god exists and accept that he may not actually exist.

 

[KWED]

Two of you keep repeating this point. I wonder why. Is somebody stating otherwise, that if they don't believe something (or in the case of the other poster, even if unproven), that it can't or doesn't exist?

All you are saying here is the tautology that if something exists, it exists. Also, if something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Obviously, belief doesn't change either of those, and with nobody claiming otherwise, why have I read these comments at least a half dozen times on the last several pages of this thread?

Critical thinkers are trying to determine which statements about reality are correct and can be believed. This is done empirically. Tautology adds nothing to that.

The issue was with their claim to know god exists.

 

[KWED]

My faith is also conditioned by independently verifiable evidence and I verified the evidence independently.
Anything else, is irrational

We've been through this before. You did not "independently verify evidence". You read an article by another Baha'i who merely made claims and assertions. You agreed with it because it supports your existing position.

 

[KWED]

It is objective evidence that has been verified.

No, quite the contrary. I have posted the evidence over and over and over again.

You have posted no "evidence". The only thing I can remember is some vague and unconvincing "prophesies" which I dealt with at the time. If you have something more, please present it

 

[KWED]

I do not need to know the Qur'an cover to cover just because I believe it is God's revelation.

How fo you know it's god's revelation if you don't know what it contains? Presumably because someone has told you it is, and you believed them without checking for yourself. Which is the initial problem.

"On the Day of Judgment, the believers will laugh at the disbelievers while reclining on couches"

Maybe that was what God wanted people to do back when the Qur'an was written, but that does not mean it holds true for all time. Revelations from God change over time.

That principle contradicts the explicit message in the Quran. So you believe it is god's perfect revelation, but you don't believe (or know) what it says.
You don't seem to even understand your own beliefs.

 

[KWED]

I never did.

You are constantly quoting Bahaulla.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Atheism is not a belief, and your belief here seems to have you making claims that are violating Occam's razor.

It's Ockham. And there's nothing to violate, it's a philosophical principle, not a law.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My faith is also conditioned by independently verifiable evidence and I verified the evidence independently.
Anything else, is irrational

You don't seem to understand what "independently verifiable" means.

 

[HonestJoe]

I believe that God is beyond science and the Essence of God is beyond logical analysis.

You can believe that but you can't support it in any way what-so-ever so it is irrelevant outside your own personal belief. It is of absolutely zero help in our discussion of what actually is (indeed, I think the concept was created by early believers to block that kind of discussion).

Science does not support my religious beliefs because religious beliefs are not within the scope of science. Conflating religion and science is illogical because they fall under a different purview, as science can prove things but religion is a belief that cannot be proven.

There is nothing in the definition of "religious belief" that requires it to be something that can't be proven. You can believe something and call it part of your religion or call it part of your personal beliefs - the provability of the belief would remain exactly the same. Sticking a "Religion" label on something doesn't magically make it subject to different rules.

How so?

If there is a bomb about to go off and I have a button that will disarm it, choosing not to press that button would still be an application of my control over the situation, just as choosing to press a button to trigger the bomb would be.

God created man with free will to choose between good and evil and some people will make evil choices. The only other logical option would have been to create humans as programmable robots who cannot make any choices.

That would have been one viable option he could have taken. He could have alternatively created a world where only the good (or at least not most evil) options were available. Or he could have simply not created humans in the first place. He apparently took the option which he knew would lead to all the evil in the world. I don't think you can absolve a hypothetical omnipotent and omniscient deity of that decision (however meaningless our objection would be).

What God knows is not what causes humans to choose what they choose. God is all-knowing, so God knows everything what will happen in the future, but what God knows does not cause anything to happen.

No, but we're talking about a god defined as omniscient and the omnipotent creator of everything. The first part states that they know everything that will happen and the second states that they caused (if only indirectly) everything that will happen.

It is literally impossible for us to have any true free choice if anything is capable of knowing the future. If the future can be known, the future must be fixed and therefore our choices fixed, even if we remain ignorant of the fact. This is a wider philosophical concept beyond specific questions of gods.

I agree, and I believe that is everything that exists in the material world we live in.

I didn't say "material world". That term has been too corrupted and misused to be of use here. I specifically said "anything that could be observed by someone or something". There is no fundamental restriction within that definition. If you wish to propose anything that outside the scope, you would need to specifically define why that thing can never be observed by anything.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

Not really, you just repeated another example of blind faith Christians are expected to believe because it is written in scripture and repeated by the priests. It is not meant to be questions or challenged.

I can approach everything I believe logically;

That is impossible, you literally declare part of what your believe (the "Essence of God") as being being logic.

Clearly, God is beyond science so must be believed on faith, but that faith need not be blind faith if it is supported by evidence.

Evidence is a aspect of scientific method. If you are assessing evidence to determine the validity of a claim, you are applying science.

The first thing I would ask them is why their logic tells them that my God does not exist, how they reasoned that out. If I consider that illogical I will tell them why; I would not just say “that’s illogical” like some people say to me about my beliefs.

What if they said they know their god is the only one, because they have the evidence of Messengers from their god, though they can't demonstrate that evidence to you and the Essence of their god is beyond logic anyway?

I consider that to be all-or-nothing thinking.

That still doesn't mean it is incorrect. If you choose to apply all-or-nothing labels to your god, you can't complain when people treat them that way.

The Attributes of God can be understood by reading scriptures, the same way we can understand anything by reading about it. How do you think the scientific method could be applied to the Attributes of God and scientific conclusions reached?

Yet again, you would first need to construct logically consistent hypotheses based on all those proposed attributes. For example, if there was an all-powerful, all-knowing, infallible and good god, what would you expect to see (or not see) in the world. Note that you can't add any additional characteristics at this point (such as what this god desires) without including them in the initial definition, and therefore constructing hypotheses covering them too.

I personally don't think that is possible because some of those characteristics are incompatible but that is what you'd need to do, and could try to do if you wanted. I've seen other believers try exactly that (typically falling at the logical inconsistency hurdle).

 

[ppp]

I am not trying to support my beliefs using science.

You are not trying to support your beliefs at all.

Science does not support my religious beliefs because religious beliefs are not within the scope of science.

Incorrect. Science does not support your beliefs because you can demonstrate no evidence for your beliefs.

. Conflating religion and science is illogical because they fall under a different purview, as science can prove things but religion is a belief that cannot be proven.

Conflating religion and science is not illogical. Religion is, among other things, an early-human failed attempt at creating a scientific methodology.
What you actually mean is that many (but not all) religious belief make non-natural claims which does not fall under the bailiwick of scientific inquiry.

I do not think that logic contradicts my beliefs since I think my beliefs are logical.

That is a tautology. All that says is that you do not think that logic contradicts your beliefs because you do not think that logic contradicts your beliefs. Or, if you prefer, you think your beliefs are logical because you think your beliefs are logical. The phrases are semantically identical.

Your beliefs are no more (or less) logical than the Star Wars saga. Most stories are internally logical.