Atheists: If God existed would God……

[muhammad_isa]

I was 8 and I kept asking why are we going to church. I was just a kid and didn't understand, but I had a sense something was very fishy about it all.

Well, you were right.
Either Jesus was a man amongst fisherman, or he was G-d.
He can't be both.

 

[ppp]

Well, you were right.
Either Jesus was a fisherman, or he was G-d.
He can't be both.

He can be both. Or neither.

 

[F1fan]

Well, you were right.
Either Jesus was a man amongst fisherman, or he was G-d.
He can't be both.

Well, the myth is that he was both, assuming he existed.

 

[rational experiences]

In word use. No words is first.

Everything existed.

A man is any man named equally first a man.

A man then described his person human.

Women and men human.

One word human the equal word.

No science.

Humans equal stated by the word is not Jesus.

What sacrificed life attacked especially babies only friend by adult sex.

Born changed the human question.

The answer a human name Jesus by phi it said

Who sacrificed humans?

A man named Jesus.

Today. Do just humans using a name use Jesus?

Yes.

Are some Jesus men loving humans?

Yes

Are some men using name Jesus evil?

Yes.

In old cult activity did humans use names as titles of teaching?

Yes.

Jesus the humans who knew as men Phi.

Conditions of science.

The men who understood the scientific relative Phi were life sacrificed the titled teaching.

Previously men who knew Phi by group named the teaching of Phi Moses.

You did it yourself. Men of science just as it said.

Humans first name a human is equal as a word. The name human ours.

Jesus Phi men understood in learning two new principles. A loving man human doesn't own science.

His nasty self inherited a new mind status because of phi criminal behaviours he said.

A human scientific self realisation.

Realised only after causes.

As no man is identified as Phi.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't see a need for any gods, omnipotent or otherwise. But if there is one, there may as well be 10,000. It's all the same.
But you are free to believe any fool thing you want to believe about a god or gods.

You are free to believe or disbelieve anything you want to but I would never call it a fool thing.

 

[Trailblazer]

This points out another problem, why is it requiring people to dig through text and try to find the good nuggets of huge significance?

Nobody is requiring anyone to do that. It is a choice.

Did the prophet not understand that there would be skepticism and he should make a set of very clear, concise, and accurate predictions in one list?

As I said, the predictions were not intended to be evidence. They are evidence for some people but they were not intended by Baha'u'llah to be evidence that He was a Messenger of God. They were simply predictions that He made and some of them were warnings to the kings and rulers of His time.

Let's say Baha'i are correct in what they believe about their messenger, that the texts are so poorly organized, and too wordy and vague, is a huge error, and a reason why many are turned off.

If the Baha'is are correct in what they believe then your personal opinion about the writings and whether they turn people off is a moot point. Truth is truth regardless of what people think about it.

Show me one good prophesy that names a name and has a date and it is clearly worded. I'll be impressed. I dislike these vague and wordy predictions, and I refuse to help these guys be correct if they can't do better at prediction.

Prophecies are not written with names and dates but humans can find the names and dates that apply to them if it is important to them.

OK, vague and open to interpretation is an extremely poor way to present prophesy. Rational minds reject it if there is a lack of clarity. Our job is not to guess what prophets meant.

The lack of clarity is a test. It is your job to figure out what the prophets meant, IF you want to know.

If believers are chiming in with their beliefs (why would we care, why is it needed?) then what use is a prophet? The whole point of prophesy is that it predicts the future, and anyone can understand it.

You are absolutely wrong about that. That is what you want from prophecies but that is NOT the point of prophecies. Quite the contrary, the point is to test people in order to see if they are willing to do their homework and figure out what the prophecies mean and who they apply to. Some Baha'is took on that homework assignment making it much easier for people to know, if they take the time to read the book Thief in the Night by William Sears.

Of course if you do not consider the Bible as scripture it is a moot point that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled the prophecies in the Bible, but if you do, it is a no-brainer that He has. All one has to do is match up what Baha'u'llah did with what the prophecy predicted would happen.

 

[F1fan]

Nobody is requiring anyone to do that. It is a choice.

It's a bad idea for anyone who can predict the future and wants their message to spread like wildfire.

As I said, the predictions were not intended to be evidence. They are evidence for some people but they were not intended by Baha'u'llah to be evidence that He was a Messenger of God. They were simply predictions that He made and some of them were warnings to the kings and rulers of His time.

Then bad plan #2. If Baha'u'llah doesn't want many people to be impressed and believe in the God he receives messages from, then good job. This doesn't make sense if this message is supposed to be spread.

If the Baha'is are correct in what they believe then your personal opinion about the writings and whether they turn people off is a moot point. Truth is truth regardless of what people think about it.

If the Baha'i are happy being a fringe cult that few know about, then good work.

Prophecies are not written with names and dates but humans can find the names and dates that apply to them if it is important to them.

So pretty much irrelevant to the future.

The lack of clarity is a test. It is your job to figure out what the prophets meant, IF you want to know.

Then less like a prophet and more like a game show host where contestants have to guess the answer from a few clues. Again, bad idea of a religion to do this.

You are absolutely wrong about that. That is what you want from prophecies but that is NOT the point of prophecies. Quite the contrary, the point is to test people in order to see if they are willing to do their homework and figure out what the prophecies mean and who they apply to. Some Baha'is took on that homework assignment making it much easier for people to know, if they take the time to read the book Thief in the Night by William Sears.

And you're impressed by this catastrophe of religious prediction? It's not prophesy when people have to guess what it means, and then after they guess, they still don't know what it means.

Of course if you do not consider the Bible as scripture it is a moot point that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled the prophecies in the Bible, but if you do, it is a no-brainer that He has. All one has to do is match up what Baha'u'llah did with what the prophecy predicted would happen.

There are no facts, thus no reason, to justify any of this. The predictions aren't predictive, nor clear. To put any of these pieces together a person must invest a lot of things, so it's not a normal conclusion. It's one highly biased and not really open to be trusted.

 

[Trailblazer]

What you're being told over and over in this thread is that what you call evidence that a messenger was sent by a deity does not support that conclusion, and therefore is not evidence of what you say it is.

How do you know that a Messenger sent by a deity is not evidence from the deity? If you do not know, it is only your personal opinion. I have a belief and you have a personal opinion and your personal opinion is no more logical than my belief. In fact, it is not even logical at all, given the evidence that shows that most people in the world believe in a deity because of some kind of a holy man who acts as an intermediary between God and humans, what I refer to as a Messenger.

Not one single atheist can present one logical reason WHY the Messenger would not be evidence for a deity, if there is a deity.

There is no reason involved in your thinking, it is all based upon your personal opinion. In your opinion, a Messenger sent by a deity does not support that conclusion that there is a deity.

They are also telling you where your reasoning is fallacious. They are hoping to convince you of this by explaining in what way you deviated from the laws of reason and evidence interpretation under the assumption that you would want to know if you had made an error and come to an unsound conclusion, but by now, it is apparent that that is not a realistic expectation.

Talk is cheap. Not one single atheist can explain why my reasoning is fallacious. No, nobody ever explained how I deviated from the laws of reason and evidence interpretation. If you ever tried to do that I would be able to rebut your argument, but it is much easier for you to make nebulous allegations hoping that they will stick.

The problem is that since you cannot construct an argument soundly or evaluate an argument critically, there is no little hope of convincing you by showing you your error if you can't see fallacy.

No, the problem is that you cannot explain what is wrong with my argument. Rather you just keep saying something is wrong with my argument. You say that I cannot construct an argument soundly or evaluate an argument critically but you cannot explain why. I cannot even imagine a courtroom operating this way. You have absolutely no evidence to support your allegations because if you had actual evidence you could present it and then we could have a real debate.

The problem is that since you cannot construct an argument soundly or evaluate an argument critically, there is no little hope of convincing you by showing you your error if you can't see fallacy.

The problem is that you cannot explain WHY my argument is unsound. If you could then we could have a real debate.

Critical thinking doesn't allow for unsupported belief. But you are being honest here that you have no reason to believe what you do. This time, you didn't claim to have evidence or reason to support your belief. There is no argument possible there. All one can say is that he doesn't think that way or accept that belief himself.

Critical thinking does allow for supported belief. I never said that I have no reason to believe what I do or that I have no evidence or reason to support my belief. Rather, I have told you repeatedly the reason why I believe what I do. You do not accept that so there is no more discussion possible here.

Your conclusion is unsound. You didn't consider the other possibilities for why so many people are unconvinced that this deity exists, including that it doesn't.

My conclusion is logical and sound. The only other logical conclusion that is possible is that a deity does not exist.

If an Omnipotent deity exists and wanted to be known as an objective fact it would be as easy as falling off a log for this deity to accomplish that, so the fact that God has not accomplished that means that the deity does not want to accomplish that. KWED, another atheist on this forum, figured that out immediately, stating that either the deity is not omnipotent or the deity chooses not to prove that it exists. Those are the only two logical possibilities, if a deity exists.

Let’s be honest. There are not ‘a lot of people’ who remain unconvinced that a deity exists, there are only a small handful of people who remain unconvinced. Most people in the world are believers.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists). Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

There is no logical reason to think that if a deity exists everyone would be convinced that this deity exists, not unless the deity wanted to convince everyone of that (since that is the only way anyone could ever know that a deity exists).

The proper analysis for the why evidence that would convince a critical thinker that a deity exists is lacking is that this god doesn't exist, it is unaware we exist, it is indifferent to our existence, or that it is unwilling or unable to make itself known.

The proper analysis for the why the evidence that the deity has provided fails to convince atheists that a deity exists is that the deity exists and the atheists do not accept the evidence that the deity has provided. The deity is not unaware we exist, it is not indifferent to our existence, and it is not unable to make itself known, but it is unwilling to make itself known in the manner that the atheists require, and that is why there are atheists.

That's deduction. These are all logically sound positions, none of which can be ruled in or out.

As I just demonstrated your position is logically unsound and it is based upon one thing and one thing only – what you would expect a deity to do if it existed. Any logical person would know straightaway that an Omnipotent deity would never do what humans expect it to do, unless that is why the deity wanted to do.

The logical deduction is that the deity is indifferent to atheists’ desires so it is unwilling to hop to and fulfill atheists’ desires like a cook would fill an order in a restaurant.

It's one thing to say that this is what you have chosen to believe and not try to defend those beliefs. No critical thinker will argue with a faith-based belief. He will tell you that he doesn't believe it himself, and that by his means of evaluating truth claims, that your belief is unjustified.

It's one thing to say that you have chosen to disbelieve in a deity but don’t try to defend those beliefs on any logical basis. No atheist can argue with a believer and win the argument on the basis of logical reasoning. The atheist will tell me that he doesn't believe in a deity, and that by his means of evaluating truth claims my belief is unjustified, but he will never be able to tell me WHY my belief is unjustified on any logical basis. He will pull out the faith card, as if it is illogical to believe in a deity on faith, when the exact opposite is the case. It is not only logical but necessary to believe in the deity on faith, since the deity had chosen not to prove that it exists.

If you call your belief faith-based, you are saying that you don't require justification to believe. Once again, what's there to disagree about? OK, you don't, I do.

No, I am not saying that I do not require justification to believe what I do because I require evidence in order to believe in God, but since nobody can prove that God exists ‘some faith’ is needed to believe that God exists. Logically speaking, if God did not require faith then God would prove that He exists. An Omnipotent God could prove that He exists in a heartbeat IF He wanted to. Baha’u’llah wrote that God could prove that He exists to everyone. I will post that passage if you want to see it.

But when you make claims such as that you use logic including deductive reasoning, and that you have evidence to support your beliefs, they tell you that you are wrong.

I do use logic, including deductive reasoning, as I did above. The only reason atheists tell me that I am wrong is because they do not accept the evidence that God has provided, Messengers of God. That does not mean that I am wrong, that only means that they disagree with my beliefs. It is as simple as that.

Atheists believe that they know what God would do if God existed, so it is all a matter of ego. Atheists deny all the evidence that indicates what God has done and all the world religions throughout human history are evidence of what God has done. Atheists think they are smarter than practically everyone in the world who adheres to a religion, and that is why I said it is a matter of ego.

 

[viole]

I believe it is true because it makes sense to me. How else can we judge a person except for their track record, their deeds? Their character is also important but that can be seen in their deeds.

The track record for job X is important. Because you know that you are hiring, or trusting, someone for job X. But you are not hiring God to perform a certain job. Your logical problem is that you do not know if God intends to perform job X or Y. Therefore, you don't know whether messengers with track record X are true, or messengers with track record Y are true. You have no logically consistent epistemology to determine the reliability of messengers based on what they tell you, or what they do.

You cannot possibly do that without having a-priori knowledge of God's characteristics and intentions. Things that cannot possibly come from a messenger, for logical reasons. For instance, it is an a-priori assumption that God wants people to be moral. Or that He is interested in our well being, happiness, righteousness etc. But you don't know that. It could be that God wants us to be immoral, and therefore messengers that bring "bad" fruits would be the true messengers of God, and you would just delude yourself by giving trust to messengers that bring "good" fruits.

This was not about God's intentions, it was about judging whether a person was a true Prophet or a false prophet. No, we cannot know God's intentions, but we can know the intentions of a Messenger of God (Prophet) since he reflects God's intentions.

Well, that is even more absurd. If you do not God's intentions, how can you possibly determine the reliability of the messenger? How do you know that God intentions are to communicate with people that will bring good fruits?

What God I believe in is based upon the evidence for God which is the Messenger of God.
According to my beliefs the Messenger and the scriptures he writes is the only way to know anything about God. I am not claiming this, I believe it.

That, as we have seen, is circular reason. For the simple reason that you cannot determine who is a reliable messenger without having already an a-priori belief of some of God's characteristics. The bottom line is that you believe in messenger X, vs. messenger Y, not for logical reasons, but because messenger X resonates better with your character and nature, and pre-assumptions you have about God.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

It's a hypothetical. The question is whether you're willing to look for information that may contradict your beliefs (which would require defining what you would expect to see if your beliefs are true). That is, after all, what you're expecting non-believers to do.

I would be willing to look for information that may contradict your beliefs, if I believed that information came from God.

You missed the point. You had just agreed with my statement that God doesn't (can't!) have any wants or needs. It is simply irrational to agree with that statement but them immediately go on to talk about what God wants (even in the context of us not knowing what God wants). This is a classic example of internally inconsistent definitions of gods and religious beliefs.

I said: “I do not know what God wants unless it was revealed in scripture, and in that case I would believe I know.” A want is a desire. There are verses in Baha’i scriptures that state what God desires. For one example:

“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

I do not believe that God has any needs because it makes no sense to me that an omnipotent/omniscient God would have needs, but I also do not believe that God has needs because the Baha’i scripture says that God is self-sufficient.

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.”
Gleanings, p. 136

Which poses the question of why both Baha’u’llah and you put so much effort in to convincing people that God does exist.

It is certainly not because God needs anyone to believe in Him. God only wants people to believe in Him for their own benefit. God could dispense with all His creatures, and He would, if He did not love them.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess.” Gleanings, p. 148

Maybe it would help if you weren't promoting a generalised set of beliefs to be held by lots of people?

I am not sure what you mean by “a generalised set of beliefs” but I am not promoting my beliefs, I am just discussing them.

Any well defined hypothesis will have logical consequences. We test a hypothesis by observing or experimenting around those predicted consequences. If the results are consistent with the hypothesis (and no other), it is supported, if the results aren't consistent with the hypothesis, it is challenged or countered, and a new or adjusted hypothesis is required.

Okay, but how would you know how to develop a hypothesis? How can you know what logical consequences would be predicted if God existed? How could you test your hypothesis unless you were able to know what God was actually doing?

With respect, just because he wrote it isn't a valid reason to believe it as truth. As it stands, all you have is the empty claim that such a thing a "souls" even exist but that they are (ever so conveniently for you) impossible to test for. With literally zero evidential or logical basis, there is no justification for giving that claim any serious consideration. You certainly can't use it as a basis for your wider claim that "the religious" in general is somehow beyond the reach of science.

I cam not claiming that the soul exists because I know it can never be proven to exist and it cannot be tested for. I am not using the soul as basis for a wider claim that "the religious" in general is somehow beyond the reach of science. If you can find some religious beliefs that are with the reach of science go on ahead, I just don’t know of any.

Well, that would be the conclusion of the discussion, though that would really require you it also accept that you can't somehow "know" your God exists anyway. That gods haven't been and can't be proven to exist is generally agreed (though sometimes for different reasons). It issue is when theists expect people to accept the existence of their god anyway (though not any of the others).

I can know that my God exists but not in a factual way. There are other ways of knowing. I do not expect anyone to accept the existence of God in general or the God I believe in since God cannot be proven to exist. I do not need proof because I have evidence that is as good as proof to me.

That's just another empty assertion (or "belief" if you prefer). If that is true though, you can't apply "logic" to God either, which is what you literally just said you're doing.

I said that I do not expect anyone to accept my beliefs as truth, but I try to use logic to get my points across. That is not the same as saying that God is subject to the rules of logic. God is not subject to anything, least of all to finite human logical reasoning. It is absurd to expect to be able to encapsulate an infinite God with the finite human mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, that is even more absurd. If you do not God's intentions, how can you possibly determine the reliability of the messenger? How do you know that God intentions are to communicate with people that will bring good fruits?

The only way we can ever know God's intentions is through what the Messenger reveals. That is how we know that God's intention is to communicate with people that will bring good fruits.

The way we determine if a person is a Messenger is by looking at who he was as a person, his life, what he did on his mission from God and what he wrote.

 

[viole]

The only way we can ever know God's intentions is through what the Messenger reveals. That is how we know that God's intention is to communicate with people that will bring good fruits.

The way we determine if a person is a Messenger is by looking at who he was as a person, his life, what he did on his mission from God and what he wrote.

Yes, but as we have seen, that is not a logically valid epistemology. You have no way to detect true messengers, if God just talks to people who bring bad fruits. And you have no way to know in advance whether God will talk to people who bring good fruits, or to people who brings bad fruits, without knowing God's intentions, or nature, in advance.

Ergo, any method we use to determine messengers' reliability, and thereby God's nature from what they say and do, is logically flawed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[joelr]

The 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

I've seen those. The science is all wrong. There is no modern philosophy beyond "everyone get along" and "wow praise his most glorious glory with endless glory!"
Which writing do you feel could not possible have been written by a person who studies popular religions?

 

[joelr]

Having gotten his science wrong is kind of like evidence that he isn't an infallible messenger from God.

Or it's the other thing. The thing it's been every day since writing was invented.....he's not getting messages from a God.
We have no evidence that Gods exist, no evidence that they give messages.
We do have evidence that people make up vast compilations of stories, laws, messages, prayers, given by Gods yet are actually fake.
Every religion you don't believe, those are examples.

In Christianity there are 38 other Gospels considered heretical. Much of the Epistles is now known to be a forgery as is Peter1/2 and all the other non-canonical works, Ascension of Isaih, and so on, hundreds of them, considered heretical (made up). Just with one religion.
Hmmmm, do you think people like to make stuff up and try to pass it off as divine revelations?

Even the ending of Mark is an admitted forgery.The apologists just say "yes it is but it was a forgery inspired by the Holy Spirit".........

Just stop.

 

[samtonga43]

I do not care what you think about me. You have no evidence to back uo any of your allegations, only a personal opinion.

My evidence is your own words as expressed in your own posts.

As I had guessed the only reason you came to this thread was to criticize me. You just cannot control yourself. You have to follow me and criticize me..

No. This is illogical. Try to work out why.

You do not know what I am addicted to because you are not God.

Correct!
I don’t know.
I don’t have proof.
I believe because of the evidence.

I think you are the one who is addicted to this behavior because it is blatantly obvious that you cannot control yourself. You seek me out on every thread I start.

Wrong. That’s your ego speaking. There seem to be others who have also ‘sought you out’.
Are we all unable to control ourselves?

It is obvious that you do not follow the teachings of Jesus. Not even one Christian on this forum behaves as you do, criticizing me constantly.

Your logical fallacy is Bandwagon with a smattering of Tu Quoque.
Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

Matthew 7:3-5 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.[/COLOR]

I’m trying to help you with your speck.

 

[KWED]

I don't know what God's intentions are, only God knows that.
I can only guess based upon what I believe God has done.

So if we cannot know god's intentions, how can we possibly know what he would do?

 

[KWED]

Logically speaking, there can only be one true God who created the universe because an omnipotent/omniscient God does not need any helpers.

Not so. It is entirely likely that no gods were involved in the formation of the universe.

Yes, there are many 'conceptions' of God, but there is only one true God.

If there is only one true god, and there is clear evidence for it, why are there many versions of god and why do their followers genuinely believe theirs is the correct version, just as you do? When they accuse you of following false god or prophets, why aren't they as right as you when you make the same accusations about them?

Remember that they are just as convinced about their evidence as you are about yours.

 

[KWED]

Yes, that is what I was getting at. Not many people who replied figured that out.

Yes, it has to be one of these. It is nice to see that you are a logical thinker.

Excellent questions. According to my beliefs, God could prove His existence to everyone if He wanted to do that, but He does not want to do that and that is why He doesn't do that.

More good questions.

There are consequences but I am not God so I cannot say exactly what they are. I can only explain what I believe they are according to scripture. The consequences in this life is that we will not know God or what God's will is for us, and that will have implications for the afterlife although I cannot say exactly what those will be.

I do not believe there is any eternal hellfire because there is nothing in the Baha'i scriptures that says that. I believe that in the afterlife the consequence of never having known God in this life is that we won't be close to God. We won't gain heaven, which is nearness to God, and that is what hell is, distance from God.

According to my beliefs, God does not want to prove His existence to everyone because God wants our belief to be a choice. God also wants us to have faith, and if God proved that He exists to everyone then nobody would have to have faith. God does not want us to have blind faith but rather evidence-based faith. That is one reason we were created with a rational mind, to be able to recognize the evidence for God.

According to my beliefs, God does not communicate to us directly because nobody could ever understand God if God communicated to them directly. Only God's chosen Messengers can understand God speaking through the Holy Spirit and they can understand God because they have a divine mind. Nobody else has a divine mind so nobody else can understand God directly.

God sends Messengers who act like Mediators between God and man, and since they have a twofold nature, both divine and human, they can understand God and humans and they can relay communication from God back to humans in a form that humans can comprehend.

So the bottom line is...
Why has god only made his existence known to a select few when he could have made it known to everyone.
And how do we know which of the many "select few" is the right one? (Again, remember that each group is just as convinced of the strength of their evidence and the weakness of others, as every other group is, so we can't simply accept their claims)

 

[KWED]

God could do that if He wanted to but God sent Baha'u'llah to do that because that is what God wanted to do.
An Omnipotent God only does what He wants to do, not what humans want Him to do.

That's like the police watching someone getting mugged by a gang but instead of intervening themselves, they phone the local church and ask them to send a Boy Scout to sort it out, who is promptly beaten up by the gang. When the victim asks why the police didn't help, they are told "We didn't want to. We thought a Boy Scout would be the best option. Stop complaining".

That sort or argument may make sense to the likes of Cressida Dick, but not to normal people.

 

[HonestJoe]

I would be willing to look for information that may contradict your beliefs, if I believed that information came from God.

That's a "no". You are not willing to do the same thing you're asking other people to do.

I said: “I do not know what God wants unless it was revealed in scripture, and in that case I would believe I know.” A want is a desire. There are verses in Baha’i scriptures that state what God desires.

But you also agreed with me when I said God can't have any wants. You are making directly contradictory statements in this thread.

Again, I say that it is logically impossible for an omnipotent and omniscient god to want anything. The entire concept of wanting simply makes no sense in that context. Now, if you are proposing a god who is both omnipotent and omniscient but also proposing that god could even possibly want anything, you can not agree with my previous statement. They are directly contradictory. You need to address that contradiction in your own statements here.

It is certainly not because God needs anyone to believe in Him.

That is a politicians answer. I didn't ask you what the reason is not, I asked you want the reason is. Why are you unwilling or unable to answer that simple question?

I am not sure what you mean by “a generalised set of beliefs” but I am not promoting my beliefs, I am just discussing them.

Generalised as in Bahai (or indeed any other formal religion). I'd be more interested in what you actually think rather than what some scriptures are telling you to believe.

Okay, but how would you know how to develop a hypothesis? How can you know what logical consequences would be predicted if God existed? How could you test your hypothesis unless you were able to know what God was actually doing?

This is basic scientific process that can be and has been applied countless times for hundreds of years. There is nothing different about doing it in relation to the existence of gods and anything else.

I cam not claiming that the soul exists because I know it can never be proven to exist and it cannot be tested for.

How can you claim to know it can't be tested if you don't even know it exists? Remember about using the correct words here; if this is something you just believe, you should say so rather than claiming to know.

I am not using the soul as basis for a wider claim that "the religious" in general is somehow beyond the reach of science.

You literally were! I asked you what about religion makes you believe it immune to science and you gave the soul as an example.

If you can find some religious beliefs that are with the reach of science go on ahead, I just don’t know of any.

"The gods live in a city at the top of Mount Olympus"
"The Sun is carried by the Sun Gods chariot across the sky"
"God created the universe 6000 years ago"
"Our monks can live with no food or water"

I could go on, especially if I'm can make up my own. Note that they don't have to be disprovable to support my point, merely testable.

I can know that my God exists but not in a factual way. There are other ways of knowing.

You say that a lot but you've never even tried to explain it. Would you try? Maybe start with the definitions of "fact", "knowledge" and "belief" and how they fit with your statements?

I said that I do not expect anyone to accept my beliefs as truth, but I try to use logic to get my points across. That is not the same as saying that God is subject to the rules of logic.

But that would mean neither or us couldn't use logic in relation to our discussions about the nature and existence of God (including stating whether God is subject to logic or not!). We couldn't say anything definitive about God at all because everything was say is rooted in logic.