Atheists, if God existed, would it be reasonable to expect God to...

[Trailblazer]

I've asked this so many times. Why doesn't Judaism or Christianity see Abraham and Moses and, if you include Adam and Noah as manifestations, then them too... Why don't they see them as "perfect"? Why do they see them as ordinary men? Why do they not have this dual natured concept of a manifestation?

There is an easy answer to those questions. It is not in their scriptures. The reason it is not in their scriptures is because back in the days when the Bible was written people were not READY to hear what we now hear from Baha'u'llah. Thousands of years ago people were at a different level of spiritual and intellectual development. To think of Manifestations of God as perfect would not have been something they could understand.

How many messengers and God finally figured out with the Baha'i revelation to have the messenger himself write the stuff down and provide provisions to keep his writings from being tampered with?

For whatever reason, God did not have the previous Messengers writing stuff in their own Pens, like the Bab and Baha'u'llah. This is related to the spiritual evolution of humanity. Humanity was not ready for a direct revelation from God until this new age.

And, as usual, why believe in the NT at all. It was second-hand information about God at best. Maybe, by the time things got written down, it very well could be just a bunch of traditions based on what got passed down by word of mouth amongst the believers. And, since Baha'i question its authenticity and with things like the healings, walking on water, casting out demons, and the belief in Satan and of course the alleged story of Jesus coming back to life, things Baha'is say didn't literally happen, then... was the NT ever the Truth about God?

Baha'is believe in the NT because we believe in Jesus and the NT is the closest we can get to who Jesus was and what He did. Also, Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible is "God's greatest testimony to His creatures."

The following letters explain how Baha'is are supposed to relate to the Bible. In short, we are supposed to throw it all out just because everything in it is not literally true.

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible

 

[Trailblazer]

That still isn’t happening. It is taking a logical assumptions – if God wanted everyone to believe – and, along with a couple of other logical assumptions, applying logic to them to determine whether that hypothetical God is viable (which it appears not to be). It is clearly based on the fact that a number of different theists do propose Gods which meet (or at least appear to meet) all of those assumptions. It doesn’t give any answers beyond that but does raise valid questions about different proposed Gods and the faiths built around them.

Notwithstanding the fact that we cannot know what God would want or care about (unless that was revealed in scriptures) I still do not understand how anyone can apply logic in order to determine whether the existence of God is viable.

So are you saying that logic doesn’t give any answers beyond what different theists propose about Gods which meet (or at least appear to meet) all of those assumptions, but logic does raise valid questions about different proposed Gods and the faiths built around them. What would those valid questions be?

It isn’t meant to directly, though it leads to the logical conclusion that if such a being exists, whatever is must be what it wants.

I fully agree with that. I only wish that all atheists realized that.

Maybe it would help to take God out of the equation entirely. The same logical would apply to any proposed omnipotent and omniscient being. Consider an alien being on some distant planet with those characteristics or imagine a human being developing omnipotence somehow.

Yes, the same logic would apply.

You may have noticed that I’ve been skipping over all these quotes. I don’t consider Baha’u’llah writings any more (or less) insightful that your own given we’ve clarified that the only confirmation of him being anything special comes from himself. You could declare yourself a messenger of God with as much authority. So, don’t tell me what you think he meant, tell me what you mean. Maybe you’ll even stumble across a difference of opinion.

Whatever I say about God will come from what Baha’u’llah said because I do not think that I can know anything about God without a Source of information. Anything I might come up with would be surmising and conjecture on my part. However, I understand that He does not carry any authority for you so I will try to adhere to your request and tell you what I mean.

It’s still all self-validating though. You can’t just create your own rules to validate what you say is truth.

It is true that this is hypothetically possible, but then one who was reading that text would have to ask why He would do that, what the motive would be. After all, He was in no way promoting Himself in that text, or in any tablet that He wrote. He promoted only God, and other Messengers of God (Prophets).

Could but hasn’t and therefore we can make a logical conclusions about something God (doesn’t) want, unless, of course, your assumption here is wrong.

It makes logical sense that if God gave humans free will He did so in order for us to be free and make our own decisions, not so He could override our decisions. I was only saying that given omnipotence God can override free will, and given God’s actions are unknowable, there is no way we can ever know if or when God is doing that.

Why? Simply believing in some kind of deity isn’t going to make any kind of single defined difference to individuals. It does have lots of different consequences though, good, bad and indifferent. Wouldn’t it more sense to consider it important that the consequences are positive regardless what people actually believe (a wider issue with religion IMO)?

You have a valid point. It would make more of a difference in someone’s life to believe in the Messenger of God then just to believe that God exists, and believing in the Messenger would mean that they would also believe in God since there cannot be a Messenger of God unless there is a God.

I do think that the consequences of believing in God (as opposed to not believing in God) are positive regardless of what people believe about God. However, why not go the whole nine yards? If one is going to believe in God it makes the most sense to me that they also believe in the religion that God wants them to believe in, since God would know what is best for humans, given omniscience.

As an aside, the Abrahamic religions not only teach that God is All-Powerful and All-Knowing, but God is also All-Wise. These work in tandem. Logically speaking if God was All-Powerful and did not have all knowledge then God could be dangerous, and if God was All-Knowing and not All-Wise God would not know how to apply His knowledge, using His power.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

Omnipotent means “can do anything” and that describes a thing that could be done. I don’t think the logic gets simpler than that. I’m suggesting the reality is more complex and that means the simple dismissive “Well God just can” answers to difficult theological questions aren’t valid.

I probably posted this to you before, but I save these definitions in Word documents so I am going to post it again, since it is vitally important.

God is omnipotent but that does not mean God can do anything. It means that God is All-Powerful.

Omnipotence means all-powerful. ... Being omnipotent, God has power over wind, water, gravity, physics, etc. God's power is infinite, or limitless. Omniscience means all-knowing. God is all all-knowing in the sense that he is aware of the past, present, and future.

Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God: Definition ...

Question: "What does it mean that God is omnipotent?"

Answer: The word omnipotent comes from omni- meaning “all” and potent meaning “power.” As with the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, it follows that, if God is infinite, and if He is sovereign, which we know He is, then He must also be omnipotent. He has all power over all things at all times and in all ways. What does it mean that God is omnipotent? | GotQuestions.org

God cannot do what it is not within His nature to do. For example, God cannot be evil because God is by nature good. God cannot become flesh because God is by nature Spirit. If God became flesh, then God would no longer be God, He would be a man. As a man, God would no longer be exalted beyond anything that can ever be recounted or perceived, which is who God is.

If you think omnipotent means that God can do anything, then that would mean God could become weak. But if God became weak, then God would no longer be omnipotent. So you see, it is logically impossible for God to become weak and that means that God cannot literally – do anything.

Several times though you’ve declared that atheists aren’t allowed to make certain statements about God and yet you make all sorts of definitive statements about God, only hand-waving them as “belief” when challenged. It’s a double standard designed to prevent beliefs being rationally questioned and a root cause of many of the worst aspects of religion.

Let me try to explain what I meant if I said that and put it in context. I did not mean that atheists are not allowed to make statements about God, but from whence would come any information about God? I say the same exact thing to believers who have no religion and do not like religion and think they can make a God in their own image, according to what they desire God to be. For example, some believers say that God is All-Loving and that God would never judge or punish anyone no matter what they did wrong, because they do not want God to be that way, but if God is that way then what they believe is not going to change God.

I was never suggesting that you should not question my religious beliefs.

That is insultingly dismissive! We could consider pretending to know everything by blindly following belief is throwing in the towel.

You took that the wrong way. When I said “throwing in the towel” all I meant is that if I had to know everything (as opposed to believing what I cannot know), I would have to abdicate belief altogether because I cannot know everything. I was not suggesting that all atheists need to know everything.

I do not pretend to know everything about God just because I have a belief. I just know enough to believe, which is very little.

It is things atheists say about believers that are insulting, that we blindly follow a belief. Atheists also say we are gullible, and there is no need to say such things unless they have a need to raise themselves up to a superior position – “I cannot be fooled the way you believers have been because I am smarter than that”

Atheists only don’t believe in any god or gods. It isn’t a type of person though, merely a singular characteristic. Individuals who happen to be atheist can and do believe a whole range of different things, rational and irrational. In general, they’re absolutely no different to you beyond that one singular point. That kind of division and simplistic categorisation is another root cause of the worst aspects of religion (and, to be fair, other philosophies and cultures too).

Of course, the same is true of believers. Believers believe in a God or gods. It isn’t a type of person though, merely a singular characteristic. Individuals who happen to be believers can and do believe a whole range of different things, rational and irrational. In general, they’re absolutely no different to you beyond that one singular point.

So why is it that so many atheists call believers irrational and unreasonable, illogical and brainwashed? You seem to be a notable exception and there are other exceptions such as @ Nimos , who is pleasant person to converse with because he is nonjudgmental; he says what he thinks but he does not define what other people are. He sticks to the subjects at hand. He can be personal but it is always in a positive way.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand that there is a long history of believers judging atheists but it is still not fair for an atheist to retaliate when nobody is even judging them.

Trailblazer said: God and the soul and the spiritual world cannot be observed directly but the effects they have can be observed, directly and indirectly.

In which case they can be studied on that basis and are “within the scope of science”.

Yes and no, because the effects are spiritual and those cannot be measured except perhaps by psychological testing which is self-reported.

Lots of things can (or could at some time) only be studied via indirect effects. If it has a physical effect it has a physical aspect by definition. Also, lots of things are within the scope of science but outside the capabilities of human beings to study them, be that due to simple practicality or fundamental capability. All of those things are still “within the scope of science”.

I am not saying I know what is within the scope of science. I find it fascinating but hard science is not a subject I studied in college. I studied geography and later psychology.

And is this something you actually know or just one of those things you believe?

Since it cannot be proven as a fact I cannot say that I know it.

In simple terms, yes but in this context, I trying to get you to understand why the faith you believe is so clear and definitive actually comes across as contradictory and inconsistent to anyone on the outside and I’m using other people’s beliefs, which they’re just as confident about as you are about yours but comes across as contradictory and inconsistent to you.

My religion is not clearly understood by those who are on the outside, but when you say that my religion comes across as contradictory and inconsistent to anyone on the outside that is too vague for me to address. I would need to know why it comes across as contradictory and inconsistent, the fine points.

Trailblazer said: Remember what I said, the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself.

Really, or is that just something people with faith say to avoid difficult questions?

I meant that nobody’s faith can be determined by anyone else’s faith. In other words, everyone has to investigate the truth for themselves and determine what to believe. That does not mean I cannot answer difficult questions.

I don’t see why “faith” should be considered anything special. It’s really just a subset of “what a person believes” and no different to anything that doesn’t involve gods and the like.

In the context of what I said above, the faith of no man really means the same thing as the belief of no man.

 

[HonestJoe]

Notwithstanding the fact that we cannot know what God would want or care about (unless that was revealed in scriptures) I still do not understand how anyone can apply logic in order to determine whether the existence of God is viable.

Not “the existence of God” in general, only whether a specified set of assumptions are logically consistent.

If I say 1) I have ten eggs 2) I have a box that only holds six eggs 3) I’ve put all my eggs in the box, obviously that has a logical contradiction – all three of those assumptions can’t be true at the same time. In itself, it says nothing about me in reality unless I actually move it out of the abstract and claim any of those assumptions are actual facts. If I claim one of them is a fact, we know at least one of the other two must be false. If I claim all three are facts, we know there must be something that is false. That doesn’t mean I have no eggs and I don’t keep them in a box, only that the specific scenario I claim can’t be true.

Exactly the same logic can apply to literally anything, including claims about gods. The logic that kicked all this off can’t determine that no God exists but it can determine some of the claimed characteristics of God can or can’t be true at the same time.

So are you saying that logic doesn’t give any answers beyond what different theists propose about Gods which meet (or at least appear to meet) all of those assumptions, but logic does raise valid questions about different proposed Gods and the faiths built around them. What would those valid questions be?

Because a lot of faith isn’t based on logic (almost by definition). It is based on scripture or specific sets of claims and assertions, often deemed immutable or divinely inspired. If there is any logical contraction with such assertions, the whole house of cards falls down. If something is claimed to be flawless, only one flaw disproves the entire claim. That doesn’t mean everything else within that faith is automatically wrong but it also means everything else within that faith can be declared automatically correct either.

I fully agree with that. I only wish that all atheists realized that.

Atheists only don’t believe in god, everything else is open. The issue here is how some theists assert that there are things God wants (or, often, doesn’t want) but that don’t happen. Either they’re wrong or God isn’t really omnipotent.

It is true that this is hypothetically possible, but then one who was reading that text would have to ask why He would do that, what the motive would be. After all, He was in no way promoting Himself in that text, or in any tablet that He wrote. He promoted only God, and other Messengers of God (Prophets).

If he wasn’t promoting himself, how come we all know his name? There are all sorts of reasons people make up or embellish things like this, rational and not. Your argument would apply to all of them. It would apply to Nostradamus and the guy in the US who has predicted the end of the world several times already.

It makes logical sense that if God gave humans free will He did so in order for us to be free and make our own decisions, not so He could override our decisions.

That’s irrelevant. We’ve already agreed that if God wants something, it will be. That means that if our “free will” was going to contradict whatever God wanted, he would override it. It’d argue that means that “free will” isn’t really free, it would merely be a perception of “free will”. “Free will” and omnipotence are logically incompatible (regardless who has them). Either we can do whatever we want or God can do whatever he wants. If we ever wanted different things (surely inevitable), one of those concepts has to be compromised.

You have a valid point. It would make more of a difference in someone’s life to believe in the Messenger of God then just to believe that God exists, and believing in the Messenger would mean that they would also believe in God since there cannot be a Messenger of God unless there is a God.

That didn’t answer the basic core question. Why do you think it’s important for anyone to believe in God? What do you think belief in God automatically changes about a person to make it important? I personally can’t think of anything, good or bad, which couldn’t apply to a theist or atheist equally. I’d argue belief in a god is just a consequence of particular mind-sets rather than the other way around.

If you think omnipotent means that God can do anything, then that would mean God could become weak. But if God became weak, then God would no longer be omnipotent. So you see, it is logically impossible for God to become weak and that means that God cannot literally – do anything.

Yes, God can’t do literally anything and therefore God isn’t truly omnipotent. We are talking about some set of universal rules or principles that are more powerful than God. Again, this isn’t a declaration that God doesn’t exist, only a statement that the set of proposed characteristics are logically incompatible and therefore can’t all be true. God is your ten eggs and what he can do is the box that only holds six. You can’t fit all the eggs in the box.

Let me try to explain what I meant if I said that and put it in context. I did not mean that atheists are not allowed to make statements about God, but from whence would come any information about God?

Exactly the same place you do. One of your key points is that none of us have the ability to know God and can only work from the words of the messengers. We all have access to the same information so are all in the same position to assess them. You can’t legitimately make any distinction on the basis of belief or religion in this context.

You took that the wrong way. When I said “throwing in the towel” all I meant is that if I had to know everything (as opposed to believing what I cannot know), I would have to abdicate belief altogether because I cannot know everything. I was not suggesting that all atheists need to know everything.

There was still the subconscious issue that, frankly we’re all guilty of, in assuming that how we think about things is somehow different to everyone else. The simple facts is that we’re all the same, with different sets of knowledge, belief and understanding. Again, determining anything on the basis of broad characteristics in that context is fundamentally flawed. It’s one of the major walls that need breaking down in this whole field.

So why is it that so many atheists call believers irrational and unreasonable, illogical and brainwashed?

Why do you accuse “so many” atheists of that? Even in seeking out these discussions, you’ll have only encountered a handful of atheists. You’ve probably met more in your life (though often not knowing they were atheist) but there will be millions alive today and countless more throughout history (including all the ones who don’t/didn’t consciously know themselves of course). Again, the generalisations are wrong in all directions, including the accusations of generalising.

Yes and no, because the effects are spiritual and those cannot be measured except perhaps by psychological testing which is self-reported.

I am not saying I know what is within the scope of science. I find it fascinating but hard science is not a subject I studied in college. I studied geography and later psychology.

You literally said “God and the soul and the spiritual world are outside the scope of science” a couple of posts back! I clearly explained why that statement was logically false. All your unsupported assertions about “spiritual effects” are meaningless in this context (they’d be meaningless even if you could back them up in any way). If it can be observed, it can be studied. If it can’t be observed, we’d be unaware of it entirely. Again, two basic logical assumptions that can’t both be true at the same time.

My religion is not clearly understood by those who are on the outside, but when you say that my religion comes across as contradictory and inconsistent to anyone on the outside that is too vague for me to address. I would need to know why it comes across as contradictory and inconsistent, the fine points.

I have already explained some of the logical inconsistencies here. The only blocker here is you understanding and accepting that logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not “the existence of God” in general, only whether a specified set of assumptions are logically consistent.

If I say 1) I have ten eggs 2) I have a box that only holds six eggs 3) I’ve put all my eggs in the box, obviously that has a logical contradiction – all three of those assumptions can’t be true at the same time. In itself, it says nothing about me in reality unless I actually move it out of the abstract and claim any of those assumptions are actual facts. If I claim one of them is a fact, we know at least one of the other two must be false. If I claim all three are facts, we know there must be something that is false. That doesn’t mean I have no eggs and I don’t keep them in a box, only that the specific scenario I claim can’t be true.

Exactly the same logic can apply to literally anything, including claims about gods. The logic that kicked all this off can’t determine that no God exists but it can determine some of the claimed characteristics of God can or can’t be true at the same time.

Okay, thanks for explaining that. I understand what you mean now. It has to all fit together or it falls apart. For example, all the attributes of God would have to work in tandem.

Because a lot of faith isn’t based on logic (almost by definition). It is based on scripture or specific sets of claims and assertions, often deemed immutable or divinely inspired. If there is any logical contraction with such assertions, the whole house of cards falls down. If something is claimed to be flawless, only one flaw disproves the entire claim. That doesn’t mean everything else within that faith is automatically wrong but it also means everything else within that faith can be declared automatically correct either.

I understand what you mean and I agree. Can you give me some examples that would apply to the Bible? What would be a flaw?

Atheists only don’t believe in god, everything else is open. The issue here is how some theists assert that there are things God wants (or, often, doesn’t want) but that don’t happen. Either they’re wrong or God isn’t really omnipotent.

What most atheists do not understand is that omnipotent means can do anything; not will do anything. So just because God can do something does not mean God would or should do it, and certainly it would be up to God to choose what He will do, not up to humans to tell God what to do.

There might be things that God wants, like more people believing in Him, but God is not going to override free will to achieve that because God does not want to override free will.

If he wasn’t promoting himself, how come we all know his name? There are all sorts of reasons people make up or embellish things like this, rational and not. Your argument would apply to all of them. It would apply to Nostradamus and the guy in the US who has predicted the end of the world several times already.

The reason we know His Name is because the Baha’is promoted Him. It has always been our responsibility to proclaim that he came and teach the Cause if people are interested in hearing about it.

As I told the atheist on my forum who I cited in the OP in a post today, regarding Baha’u’llah claiming to speak for God:

There is no proof of that but there is ample evidence that supports the belief. Smart people look at the evidence to determine if the claim is true or false, given the implications if it is actually true. Smart people would wonder how the Revelation of Baha'u'llah could have been contrived or why on earth anyone would go to all that trouble to make something up, given there would be no motive since there was no personal gain, but rather Baha'u'llah endured imprisonment, exile, banishment, suffering and persecution for 40 years. The primary reason I believe so steadfastly in Baha'u'llah is because there is no logical explanation for what He did and what He wrote other than that He did it for the sake of God.

That’s irrelevant. We’ve already agreed that if God wants something, it will be. That means that if our “free will” was going to contradict whatever God wanted, he would override it.

No, it does not mean that because if God does not want to override free will to get something, He won’t. Just because God has all power does not mean God has to exercise that power all the time.

It’d argue that means that “free will” isn’t really free, it would merely be a perception of “free will”. “Free will” and omnipotence are logically incompatible (regardless who has them). Either we can do whatever we want or God can do whatever he wants. If we ever wanted different things (surely inevitable), one of those concepts has to be compromised.

Free will is free if God allows us to make free choices and does not override them, and that is normally what God does. God normally does not override free will and if He did we would not even know it was happening. Just because God is omnipotent does not mean God has to exercise His omnipotence.

We cannot do whatever we want to do; we can only do what God allows us to do (what is the Will of God). If what we want to is not what God wills we won’t be able to do it.

That didn’t answer the basic core question. Why do you think it’s important for anyone to believe in God? What do you think belief in God automatically changes about a person to make it important?

I think it is important because *I believe* God exists and God revealed through Baha’u’llah that we were created to know and worship God. That does not mean we do not do anything else in life, it simply means that is our primary purpose of our existence. How we might go about fulfilling that purpose varies widely.

I personally can’t think of anything, good or bad, which couldn’t apply to a theist or atheist equally. I’d argue belief in a god is just a consequence of particular mind-sets rather than the other way around.

As far as qualities we might have, good or bad, atheists and believers are no different… Belief in God is not necessary to lead a moral life and have good qualities. But if God created us with a purpose in mind, as noted above, and we do not fulfill that purpose, there will be consequences, maybe not so much in this earthly life but certainly in the afterlife. The primary purpose of this life is to prepare for the afterlife, although we need to live in this life in order to do that, not have our thoughts on the afterlife. We just need an awareness that is what lies ahead beaus lack of awareness is never a good thing. Of course, this is from the point of view of a believer; for an atheist this life is all they have.

Yes, God can’t do literally anything and therefore God isn’t truly omnipotent. We are talking about some set of universal rules or principles that are more powerful than God. Again, this isn’t a declaration that God doesn’t exist, only a statement that the set of proposed characteristics are logically incompatible and therefore can’t all be true. God is your ten eggs and what he can do is the box that only holds six. You can’t fit all the eggs in the box.

God is all-powerful so God can do anything, but I do not agree that just because God cannot be anything other than what it is in His nature to be, God is not omnipotent. Logically speaking, God cannot become a man or God would no longer be God. God cannot be a man and god at the same time; that is illogical. God cannot become a servant of humans because then God would not me the Ruler of humans. Those stations are logically contradictory.

Exactly the same place you do. One of your key points is that none of us have the ability to know God and can only work from the words of the messengers. We all have access to the same information so are all in the same position to assess them. You can’t legitimately make any distinction on the basis of belief or religion in this context.

That is fine if you are going by the words of the Messengers, you are then in the same position as believers to assess them.

There was still the subconscious issue that, frankly we’re all guilty of, in assuming that how we think about things is somehow different to everyone else. The simple facts is that we’re all the same, with different sets of knowledge, belief and understanding. Again, determining anything on the basis of broad characteristics in that context is fundamentally flawed. It’s one of the major walls that need breaking down in this whole field.

I agree that many people assume that how we think is different to others but unless others share their thoughts how are we going to know we are not so different after all? That is the value of sharing on these forums. Hopefully we can break down some walls.

Why do you accuse “so many” atheists of that? Even in seeking out these discussions, you’ll have only encountered a handful of atheists. You’ve probably met more in your life (though often not knowing they were atheist) but there will be millions alive today and countless more throughout history (including all the ones who don’t/didn’t consciously know themselves of course). Again, the generalisations are wrong in all directions, including the accusations of generalising.

I cannot know what atheists are like “in real life” because I am not going to encounter very many in the country I live in and certainly not enough to be representative. I was only referring to atheists I have encountered on forums over the last seven years and there have been very many. The bulk of them have called me unreasonable, illogical and brainwashed. RF is different from the other forums I frequented for five years before I came here two years ago; the atheists on this forum are a bit more sophisticated and less judgmental.

You literally said “God and the soul and the spiritual world are outside the scope of science” a couple of posts back! I clearly explained why that statement was logically false. All your unsupported assertions about “spiritual effects” are meaningless in this context (they’d be meaningless even if you could back them up in any way). If it can be observed, it can be studied. If it can’t be observed, we’d be unaware of it entirely. Again, two basic logical assumptions that can’t both be true at the same time.

Spiritual effects cannot be observed or studied by science because they are related to the soul which is a mystery no human mind can grasp.

I have already explained some of the logical inconsistencies here. The only blocker here is you understanding and accepting that logic.

Sorry, but I really do not know what you are referring to as logical inconsistencies, and I do not have time to go back and read what was said previously.

 

[HonestJoe]

I understand what you mean and I agree. Can you give me some examples that would apply to the Bible? What would be a flaw?

It isn’t about the Bible (or any other scripture) but what individuals actually believe. There is a vast range of different (often contradictory) beliefs that have come out of the Bible in its various forms. I don’t really care about scripture, religion, messengers or prophets, I’m talking about what contemporary human beings say and do here and now.

There might be things that God wants, like more people believing in Him, but God is not going to override free will to achieve that because God does not want to override free will.

Could an all-knowing, all-powerful being even want two contradictory things? Maybe this is an issue of us applying our human limitations to a conceptual being we can’t begin to understand (regardless of our sources of information). Can we logically know (or even just believe) anything about such an alien concept to us?

The reason we know His Name is because the Baha’is promoted Him. It has always been our responsibility to proclaim that he came and teach the Cause if people are interested in hearing about it.

But who told you that was your responsibility?

The primary reason I believe so steadfastly in Baha'u'llah is because there is no logical explanation for what He did and what He wrote other than that He did it for the sake of God.

Maybe he just really believed what he was saying. Loads of people have done the same kind of thing but with vastly different messages, some of whom definitively proven wrong (I mentioned the guy who keeps predicting the end of the world). None of them appear rational from the outside and we’re all on the outside for at least some of them. Human beings are weird.

We cannot do whatever we want to do; we can only do what God allows us to do (what is the Will of God). If what we want to is not what God wills we won’t be able to do it.

And the prisoner is free to sit anywhere he wants inside his cell. If our free will can potentially be blocked, even if it never is, I don’t see how it can be truly “free”.

I think it is important because *I believe* God exists and God revealed through Baha’u’llah that we were created to know and worship God. That does not mean we do not do anything else in life, it simply means that is our primary purpose of our existence. How we might go about fulfilling that purpose varies widely.

That opens up all sorts of unanswerable questions of course, as to why God would want or need people to worship him and the fact that is sounds horrifically arrogant and dictatorial (as gods so often do). I personally don’t like the idea of worshiping anything that wants to be worshiped.

But if God created us with a purpose in mind, as noted above, and we do not fulfill that purpose, there will be consequences, maybe not so much in this earthly life but certainly in the afterlife.

That’s just more empty (and conveniently circular) belief though. You have to believe that bad things will happen if you don’t believe the bad things will happen. Frankly the whole afterlife and threats of eternal punishment open up all sorts of issues we’ve not even touched on here, well beyond the simply nature and existence of God.

The primary purpose of this life is to prepare for the afterlife, although we need to live in this life in order to do that, not have our thoughts on the afterlife.

I thought the primary purpose was to worship God? Also, do you mean “life” or just “human life”?

You seem to be falling in to just spouting ingrained beliefs without really thinking them through logically, hence the taking over yourself and circular logic. This isn’t personal, this is a fundamental issue with religion that has existed for hundreds, probably thousands of years. Nothing we’re discussing here is in any way new.

God is all-powerful so God can do anything, but I do not agree that just because God cannot be anything other than what it is in His nature to be, God is not omnipotent.

Because our thoughts are fundamentally temporal and logical it is a difficult (arguably impossible) concept to understand. Omnipotence would be beyond our ability to conceive of by definition so the idea that it could be limited by anything we can understand makes no sense. I’m agreeing with your idea that God is beyond our understanding here, I’m just taking it to its full conclusion. If we can’t understand something about God, can we truly understand anything about God? It’s like the fable of blind men with an elephant.

I cannot know what atheists are like “in real life” because I am not going to encounter very many in the country I live in and certainly not enough to be representative. I was only referring to atheists I have encountered on forums over the last seven years and there have been very many.

Where ever you are, I’m sure you’ve met more atheists than you realise, they just don’t (or can’t) admit it or aren’t even aware of it themselves. Regardless, judging any group on the basis of the subset on the internet is a major error. Too many trolls and too much difficultly knowing who you’re actually talking with. I mean, it isn’t as if the internet gives a positive impression of theism either. Again, treat people as the individuals they are, not based on your perceptions of groupings you think they’re part of.

Spiritual effects cannot be observed or studied by science because they are related to the soul which is a mystery no human mind can grasp.

If no human mind can grasp it, your mind wouldn’t be able to grasp it and you couldn’t say anything meaningful about it. If a person can in any way be aware of something, it must be able to have some kind of a physical effect within our brains. If it has a physical effect, it is “within the scope of science”, if only via that physical effect.

Sorry, but I really do not know what you are referring to as logical inconsistencies, and I do not have time to go back and read what was said previously.

Essentially the stuff you accepted right at the top of the post I’m now replying to.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don’t really care about scripture, religion, messengers or prophets, I’m talking about what contemporary human beings say and do here and now.

So what is it that contemporary human beings say and do here and now that isn’t based on logic or is logically contradictory that causes the whole house of cards to fall down?

Could an all-knowing, all-powerful being even want two contradictory things?

These things might seem contradictory to finite humans but not be contradictory to God. For example, God might want everyone to believe in Him but be unwilling to make that happen by forcing us to believe in Him, but rather God leaves it up to humans to make that happen.

Maybe this is an issue of us applying our human limitations to a conceptual being we can’t begin to understand (regardless of our sources of information). Can we logically know (or even just believe) anything about such an alien concept to us?

You raise some good points. No, I do not think that we can know much about God, and we cannot know what God wants unless it was revealed to a Messenger. Baha’u’llah did not say what God wants per se but we can read between the lines when He said what God could have done and why God did not do it. Basically, what Messengers reveal are God’s Purpose which is the same as God’s Will for humanity.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

In the context of the passage above,If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people it means that God could have made all people believers, but IF God has pleased, implies that God did not please (want) to make all men into believers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make everyone a believer... In short, God wants us to do our own homework and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).

According to this passage, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and using their free will to make the decision to believe. God wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort.

But who told you that was your responsibility?

Baha’u’llah told us, in many, many passages such as this one:

“O ye beloved of God! Repose not yourselves on your couches, nay bestir yourselves as soon as ye recognize your Lord, the Creator, and hear of the things which have befallen Him, and hasten to His assistance. Unloose your tongues, and proclaim unceasingly His Cause. This shall be better for you than all the treasures of the past and of the future, if ye be of them that comprehend this truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 330

Maybe he just really believed what he was saying. Loads of people have done the same kind of thing but with vastly different messages, some of whom definitively proven wrong (I mentioned the guy who keeps predicting the end of the world). None of them appear rational from the outside and we’re all on the outside for at least some of them. Human beings are weird.

Of course He really believed what He was saying but that begs the question where He got all the material contained in 15,000 tablets that He wrote. Moreover, there were hundreds of thousands of verses that did not survive.

“As to those verses which He either dictated or wrote Himself, their number was no less remarkable than either the wealth of material they contained, or the diversity of subjects to which they referred. A vast, and indeed the greater, proportion of these writings were, alas, lost irretrievably to posterity. No less an authority than Mírzá Áqá Ján, Bahá’u’lláh’s amanuensis, affirms, as reported by Nabíl, that by the express order of Bahá’u’lláh, hundreds of thousands of verses, mostly written by His own hand, were obliterated and cast into the river. “Finding me reluctant to execute His orders,” Mírzá Áqá Ján has related to Nabíl, “Bahá’u’lláh would reassure me saying: ‘None is to be found at this time worthy to hear these melodies.’ …Not once, or twice, but innumerable times, was I commanded to repeat this act.” God Passes By, p. 138

It is up to us to determine if we think what He wrote was rational and useful for humanity in this new age. Logically speaking, Baha’u’llah was either a Messenger of God as He claimed to be or He was a false prophet, in which case He was either deluded or a con-man. We can rule out con-man since con-men have personal selfish motives, and we know that Baha’u’llah derived no personal benefits for what He did on His mission. Rather, for 40 years He endured attempts upon His life, persecution, imprisonment, exile and banishment.

It has been suggested that maybe He was just a wise man who had lots of good ideas, but that would have to be ruled out because a good man would never lie about getting messages from God.

So all that is left is that He was deluded. But then we have to ask ourselves how a deluded man could come up with all the material for all those Tablets that He wrote. After all, He only had a rudimentary education and He was either in prison or restricted in His movements and activities during all those years that He wrote those Tablets so it is not as if He had access to a public library.

Moreover, Baha’u’llah explained passages in the Qur’an to the Muslims who were highly educated and had studied it their entire lives and they were in awe of His knowledge, wondering where He had acquired it. Baha’is believe that as a Manifestation of God (Messenger) Baha’u’llah was born with innate knowledge and that could be seen from His early childhood years.

And the prisoner is free to sit anywhere he wants inside his cell. If our free will can potentially be blocked, even if it never is, I don’t see how it can be truly “free”.

It is free. Just because God has the power to override free will that does not mean that He does so and even if He did we could never know if or when that occurs so I do not consider it useful to even think about it. I think we should just live life to the best of our ability according to our own moral code and not think about what God might be doing, because after all, we can never know that.

That opens up all sorts of unanswerable questions of course, as to why God would want or need people to worship him and the fact that is sounds horrifically arrogant and dictatorial (as gods so often do). I personally don’t like the idea of worshiping anything that wants to be worshiped.

Wow, just wow! ~~ You are making all kinds of unfounded assumptions about God, but I was expecting that given what I wrote.

These questions are answerable but I do not expect to be able to answer them in one paragraph so I can answer more questions later, after I give you the brief rundown.

In short, God does not want us to worship Him to get anything for Himself, because God is fully self-sufficient and self-sustaining, transcendent and completely independent from His Creatures. As such, God does not need anything from humans but rather God wants us to worship Him because it is beneficial for us to worship Him. The next question you will probably have is why is it beneficial to worship God, and this is something I often wonder about myself (because I have the same reaction you have, not wanting to worship God). There is a lot of explaining I’d have to do in order for you to understand why I react that way, and maybe I can explain later if you are interested.

The “reason” why it is beneficial for us to worship God can be found in the Writings of Baha’u’llah if we look for it. I do not look for it unless solicited because I am not at that level yet.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

That’s just more empty (and conveniently circular) belief though. You have to believe that bad things will happen if you don’t believe the bad things will happen. Frankly the whole afterlife and threats of eternal punishment open up all sorts of issues we’ve not even touched on here, well beyond the simply nature and existence of God.

Wow, just wow! ~~ You are making all kinds of unfounded assumptions about what I meant by consequences, threats of eternal punishment and the like, but I was expecting that given what I wrote.

That was a logical statement, an if/then. If what I said is true, that God created us to know and worship Him, then if we do not do that we will not be fulfilling the “purpose” of our existence. It only makes sense that there would be consequences or repercussions even if we cannot know exactly what they will be in this earthly life, although we can know generally. I was not referring to eternal punishment (hell) because the Baha’i Faith has no such afterlife.

I do not want to get way off topic but I can post you a very short video on the Baha’i version of the afterlife if you want to see it. It is kind of cool, done very well, straightforward and to the point.

I thought the primary purpose was to worship God? Also, do you mean “life” or just “human life”?

The primary purpose of this life is to know and worship God; first we have to know God (as much as we are able to know) before we can worship God. The reason this is our primary purpose is because after we die we will be immersed in a spiritual world and God will be the major focus, front and center. There is so much we are not allowed to know about the afterlife until after we die, but there is still a lot we can know in order to prepare for that eventuality.

I guess you were asking if other animals besides humans have an afterlife. This is a mystery that has not been revealed in scriptures because the primary focus of all scriptures is humans. Believers tend to have different opinions about a possible animal afterlife. Baha’is believe that only humans have an eternal soul and that is why only humans can know and worship God, but all animals have an animal spirit so they could continue to exist in some form after the die physically. I lean in that direction and hope they do because I am generally closer to animals than to people.

You seem to be falling in to just spouting ingrained beliefs without really thinking them through logically, hence the taking over yourself and circular logic. This isn’t personal, this is a fundamental issue with religion that has existed for hundreds, probably thousands of years. Nothing we’re discussing here is in any way new.

My beliefs were ingrained into me because I was not raised in any religion and I became a Baha’i as an adult. If you think I have not thought through my beliefs that is not true, because I analyze them constantly. From my point of view I consider them very logical as they all fit together hand in glove. I do not expect you to understand why I say that, we would have to take it one piece at a time and you might understand or you might still consider what I believe illogical. But unless I know what you consider illogical and why I cannot address your concerns.

Because our thoughts are fundamentally temporal and logical it is a difficult (arguably impossible) concept to understand. Omnipotence would be beyond our ability to conceive of by definition so the idea that it could be limited by anything we can understand makes no sense. I’m agreeing with your idea that God is beyond our understanding here, I’m just taking it to its full conclusion. If we can’t understand something about God, can we truly understand anything about God? It’s like the fable of blind men with an elephant.

Okay, fair enough. The only thing I have to add is that there are some things about God we can know, because otherwise the primary purpose of our lives could not be to know and worship God. But all we can know about God are some of the Attributes of God (qualities) and the Will of God because that is revealed by the Messengers of God. We can never know the Essence of God, God’s intrinsic nature, and God’s omnipotence is part of that nature so that is why we cannot understand it. The same holds true for God’s omniscience. We can only understand it from out very limited human perspectives. That is why I consider it rather dorky (for lack of a better word) to say that God can do anything because God is omnipotent. It would be more accurate to simply say God is All-Powerful so God has power and control over everything in the Universe, and leave it at that.

Where ever you are, I’m sure you’ve met more atheists than you realise, they just don’t (or can’t) admit it or aren’t even aware of it themselves. Regardless, judging any group on the basis of the subset on the internet is a major error. Too many trolls and too much difficultly knowing who you’re actually talking with. I mean, it isn’t as if the internet gives a positive impression of theism either. Again, treat people as the individuals they are, not based on your perceptions of groupings you think they’re part of.

You are of course correct. According to my beliefs we should never judge any individuals, but we also should not judge a whole group of people based upon a subset, especially a subset that is limited to forums. That said, my forum experiences with atheists before coming to RF were very different because most of them called me a brainwashed believer, irrational and illogical.

In fact, one reason I came to RF two years ago is because the primary forum I was posting on had an atheist forum owner and his primary moderator was an agnostic. Both of them detested the Baha’i Faith and they barely tolerated me for several years. No other Baha’is were willing to post in that intolerant atmosphere so I was the lone Baha’i, kind of like the Lone Ranger. It finally came to a head and I decided not to post there anymore when the forum owner kept accusing me of things I was not doing or thinking, accusing me of having motives and behavior I did not have. He put me on moderation in order to control me and then I decided to leave. It all turned out for the best because I found RF shortly after that.

But it was not just me who had problems on that forum! ~~ Several atheists I made friends with there could also not tolerate that forum owner so they left of their own accord and came to my forum because I treat everyone the same and I allow free speech. Maybe I allow too many personal insults but it seems to have worked out because after people let their hair down they seem to come around and work things out. My forum used to be very active but I have not had time to post much there so I am not looking for more posters, although anyone is welcome. Right now it is just me and one occasional Baha’i and one occasional Buddhist and one regular Christian, one regular atheist who says there is a remote possibility that God exists, and another regular atheist who says He has dismissed the Bible entirely but he is keeping God in his back pocket just in case.

If no human mind can grasp it, your mind wouldn’t be able to grasp it and you couldn’t say anything meaningful about it. If a person can in any way be aware of something, it must be able to have some kind of a physical effect within our brains. If it has a physical effect, it is “within the scope of science”, if only via that physical effect.

Spiritual effects are derived from the soul but the nature of the soul is a big subject. I have discussed the soul at length, so I have write-ups saved in Word documents. I think it is best to start by explaining the relationship between the body, brain and soul, according to my beliefs. I am sure it will probably sound a bit like sci-fi to you, but further elucidation could make it sound more realistic:

The soul animates the human body while we are alive on earth. The soul communicates its desires through the brain to the physical body, which thereby expresses itself, so the soul is responsible for the mind, senses and emotions as well as physical sensations. The body is just a vehicle that carries the soul around while we are alive on earth, a place to house the soul. The soul is our self, our true reality.

The soul is the sum total of the personality so it is the person himself; the physical body is pure matter with no real identity. The person, after he dies and leaves his physical body behind, goes to the spiritual world where the soul takes on a spiritual body made up of heavenly elements that exist in the spiritual realm.

Since all we have ever experienced is physical, it is impossible for us to understand what it is like to be a spiritual being rather than a physical body.

 

[HonestJoe]

So what is it that contemporary human beings say and do here and now that isn’t based on logic or is logically contradictory that causes the whole house of cards to fall down?

It’s all the things we’ve been discussing, typically boiling down to definitive statements about what God wants and does while at the same time declaring God a mystery beyond our ability to understand and the logical knots you tie yourselves in trying to square the circle (such as declaring the prophets have some kind of dual nature that magically bridges this gap).

No, I do not think that we can know much about God, and we cannot know what God wants unless it was revealed to a Messenger.

You can’t know even if it was “revealed” to a messenger because you can’t know what the messengers say came from God any more than you can know what you come up with yourself comes from God. We can’t know anything about your proposed God.

According to this passage…

You’re jumping the gun here. We’ve still not established that or any other passage carries any more truth that anything else.

Baha’u’llah told us, in many, many passages such as this one:

I think you missed the point there. We were talking about the possibility that Baha’u’llah was self-promoting so everything going back to what he wrote hardly challenges that.

Of course He really believed what He was saying but that begs the question where He got all the material contained in 15,000 tablets that He wrote. Moreover, there were hundreds of thousands of verses that did not survive.

What do you mean where did he get it? All sorts of people produce loads of written material for various reasons. This is nothing special.

It has been suggested that maybe He was just a wise man who had lots of good ideas, but that would have to be ruled out because a good man would never lie about getting messages from God.

He wouldn’t have to be entirely good to be wise or he could consider a “white lie” would be the best way to get his writings accepted and thus a greater good. The fact remains that entirely possible that the sources of his (and all other) allegedly divinely inspired writing and teaching is entirely temporal and there is no justification to assume anything comes from any god.

It is free. Just because God has the power to override free will that does not mean that He does so and even if He did we could never know if or when that occurs so I do not consider it useful to even think about it. I think we should just live life to the best of our ability according to our own moral code and not think about what God might be doing, because after all, we can never know that.

I agree the whole concept of “free will” is meaningless in practice. I’m not the one trying to give it meaning though. The “live your own life” is contradicted by all the stuff about our “purpose” we’re about to get in to though.

In short, God does not want…

So we can what God wants now? This whole paragraph is just another set of empty assertions. If it’s faith, I don’t consider it relevant. If it’s logic, you need something concrete to support it (something more than it being written by a Messenger too).

Wow, just wow! ~~ You are making all kinds of unfounded assumptions about what I meant by consequences, threats of eternal punishment and the like, but I was expecting that given what I wrote.

Fair point but in my defence, the what you actually believe remains very unclear, with the constant bouncing between “logic” and “faith”.

That was a logical statement, an if/then.

So we can apply human logic to God now? These rules are really confusing.

If what I said is true, that God created us to know and worship Him, then if we do not do that we will not be fulfilling the “purpose” of our existence. It only makes sense that there would be consequences or repercussions even if we cannot know exactly what they will be in this earthly life, although we can know generally.

I’m not convinced a purpose automatically means there must be consequences for individuals not fulfilling it. And if we can’t know what those consequences might be, it seems fairly pointless to consider them.

Note that the implication that there is anything other than “earthly life” is another unsupported assertion. I suspect the concept of an afterlife will be based on a “we can’t know but we ‘know’” basis because I’m aware of no evidence for any kind of “life after death” despite countless people trying to demonstrate it over the years.

There is so much we are not allowed to know about the afterlife until after we die, but there is still a lot we can know in order to prepare for that eventuality.

More conveniently fuzzy faith. You magically know enough to assert it’s existence as truth but can’t know enough to be challenged on the details.

The only thing I have to add is that there are some things about God we can know, because otherwise the primary purpose of our lives could not be to know and worship God.

It is frustrating that you can’t see the circular logic there. You beliefs must be true because otherwise your beliefs couldn’t be true.

Spiritual effects are derived from the soul but the nature of the soul is a big subject.

It isn’t unless you can in any way demonstrate that such a thing even exists. All of this fuzzy religion is just a distraction and the simple core point applies regardless. If it can have any kind of identifiable effect on people, it must have a physical aspect that can therefore be subject to scientific attention. If it doesn’t, we have can know literally nothing. It could all be entirely made up and would appear exactly the same.

Since all we have ever experienced is physical, it is impossible for us to understand what it is like to be a spiritual being rather than a physical body.

Then stop trying to explain it and simply accept that you can’t know anything about it either. The moment you say “spiritual effects are…” or “the soul is…” you are claiming to know what you’ve not just said we can’t know.

 

[Trailblazer]

It’s all the things we’ve been discussing, typically boiling down to definitive statements about what God wants and does while at the same time declaring God a mystery beyond our ability to understand and the logical knots you tie yourselves in trying to square the circle (such as declaring the prophets have some kind of dual nature that magically bridges this gap).

I think I explained that, but I will explain it again. According to the Baha’i Faith, the only way we can know anything about God is from what the Messengers of God reveal about God. What we can know about God is limited to the Attributes (qualities) of God and the Will of God for every age in which a Messenger appears. We can never know the Essence (intrinsic nature) of God, which will always be a mystery. “What God wants and does” falls under the heading of the Will of God so IF that was revealed by Baha’u’llah we can know it.

The Baha’i belief is that Messengers of God (Prophets) have a dual nature and that is why they can receive communication from God and relay that information to humanity in the form of scriptures. What is illogical about that?

You can’t know even if it was “revealed” to a messenger because you can’t know what the messengers say came from God any more than you can know what you come up with yourself comes from God. We can’t know anything about your proposed God.

I cannot know it in the sense of proving it to anyone (except myself) but I have believe it. Since the Essence of God is unknowable how could we know that Essence revealed information to a Messenger? It is impossible to know that in the sense of proving it so we either believe it or not, based upon the best evidence that supports the claim of the Messenger.

You’re jumping the gun here. We’ve still not established that or any other passage carries any more truth that anything else.

And as I said above, that cannot be established the way atheists would like it to be established; as a fact. The reasons are rather obvious if you think about everything I have said.

I think you missed the point there. We were talking about the possibility that Baha’u’llah was self-promoting so everything going back to what he wrote hardly challenges that.

If we want to know, each of us have to independently investigate everything that surrounds the Revelation of Baha’u’llah and determine if Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger of God or if He was a false messenger (self-promoting). As I explained before those are the only two logical possibilities, true or false.

What do you mean where did he get it? All sorts of people produce loads of written material for various reasons. This is nothing special.

Say that after you read it. That is part of the homework assignment.

And if it was only what He wrote that we had for evidence you might have a point, but we have a lot more than that. Sorry if I already posted this, but it is important to reiterate if I did:

Baha’u’llah explained how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at 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

He wouldn’t have to be entirely good to be wise or he could consider a “white lie” would be the best way to get his writings accepted and thus a greater good.

Motives always have to be considered in the case of a claim, or a crime. What would Baha’u’llah get for lying? Why would He care so much about humanity if He had no reason to care? Why would He care if His Writings were accepted for the greater good? According to Baha’u’llah He did not care about Himself at all, He only cared about God.

“Incline your ears to the counsels which this Servant giveth you for the sake of God. He, verily, asketh no recompense from you and is resigned to what God hath ordained for Him, and is entirely submissive to God’s Will.” Gleanings, p. 127

“Say: God is My witness! I have wished nothing whatever for Myself. What I have wished is the victory of God and the triumph of His Cause. He is Himself a sufficient witness between you and Me. Were ye to cleanse your eyes, ye would readily perceive how My deeds testify to the truth of My words, how My words are a guide to My deeds.” Gleanings, pp. 256-257

“Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 85

“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

If you look at Baha’u’llah's behavior it is congruent with His Words whereas there was no indication that He was doing anything for self-glorification. That is the reason why it is so important to know the history of the Cause.

The fact remains that entirely possible that the sources of his (and all other) allegedly divinely inspired writing and teaching is entirely temporal and there is no justification to assume anything comes from any god.

I certainly do not think we should assume it came from God, but we also should not discount the possibility. I mean what if it did come from God and we threw it in the trash can before we did a thorough investigation? We might still determine it did not come from God but at least we will have done our due diligence.

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree the whole concept of “free will” is meaningless in practice. I’m not the one trying to give it meaning though. The “live your own life” is contradicted by all the stuff about our “purpose” we’re about to get in to though.

I do not see a contradiction because we can live our own life and make our own choices with our purpose in mind.

So we can what God wants now?

This whole paragraph is just another set of empty assertions. If it’s faith, I don’t consider it relevant. If it’s logic, you need something concrete to support it (something more than it being written by a Messenger too).

It is according to my faith because Baha’u’llah wrote it, but it is also logical.

If God is fully self-sufficient and self-sustaining, transcendent and completely independent from His Creatures, why would God want anything from humans? Moreover, why would God need anything from humans? So there has to be another reason God sends Messengers to reveal teachings and laws to humanity, which is the premise. Since there are only two players, God and humans, God must send them for the sake of humans.

Fair point but in my defence, the what you actually believe remains very unclear, with the constant bouncing between “logic” and “faith”.

I do the bouncing because I have a faith but I think my faith is logical, and I am trying to demonstrate that.

So we can apply human logic to God now?

These rules are really confusing.

You always have to look at context. I was not applying logic to God, I was applying logic to my beliefs about God and the purpose of our existence.

I’m not convinced a purpose automatically means there must be consequences for individuals not fulfilling it. And if we can’t know what those consequences might be, it seems fairly pointless to consider them.

All actions or inactions have potential consequences. If I think my cat is sick and I do not take her to the vet there might be consequences. If there is a purpose for our existence it makes sense that not fulfilling that purpose will have consequences. We can only know very generally what those consequences will be; the specifics are not revealed so as not to frighten some people.

Note that the implication that there is anything other than “earthly life” is another unsupported assertion. I suspect the concept of an afterlife will be based on a “we can’t know but we ‘know’” basis because I’m aware of no evidence for any kind of “life after death” despite countless people trying to demonstrate it over the years.

It is not an assertion, it is a belief. Nobody can prove there is an afterlife from this earthly life because the afterlife is not a material existence.

There is evidence for a life after death and it does not come from religion. I know you will not consider it evidence but I do. Of course, I already believe there is an afterlife because of what Baha’u’llah wrote, so these other sources only validate what I already believe and the afterlife depictions are eerily similar to what Baha’u’llah revealed about the afterlife.

More conveniently fuzzy faith. You magically know enough to assert it’s existence as truth but can’t know enough to be challenged on the details.

If you want details about the afterlife you will have to go outside of religious scriptures to accounts of those who have communicated with departed spirits, in which case we cannot be certain how accurate those details are.

It is frustrating that you can’t see the circular logic there. You beliefs must be true because otherwise your beliefs couldn’t be true.

No, that is not what I am saying at all, but unless you explain why you think that I cannot rectify that misconception.

It isn’t unless you can in any way demonstrate that such a thing even exists. All of this fuzzy religion is just a distraction and the simple core point applies regardless. If it can have any kind of identifiable effect on people, it must have a physical aspect that can therefore be subject to scientific attention. If it doesn’t, we have can know literally nothing. It could all be entirely made up and would appear exactly the same.

If the soul exists it has a physical effect upon the body (as I explained before) but that does not mean that science can study that effect and tie it back to the soul (as the entity responsible for the effect).

Baha’u’llah wrote that the soul is a mystery:

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him.If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

Logically speaking, just because the nature of the soul is a mystery and cannot be proven to exist, that does not mean that the soul does not exist, because proof is not what makes things exist; they either exist or not. Of course the same logic applies to Messengers of God and God. Evidence or proof is simply what most people require to believe that these exist; but evidence and proof do not bring anything into existence.

Then stop trying to explain it and simply accept that you can’t know anything about it either. The moment you say “spiritual effects are…” or “the soul is…” you are claiming to know what you’ve not just said we can’t know.

As the passage above states, we cannot know the nature of the soul, but in other Writings the function of the soul is described, so we can know the effects of the soul upon the body, its function in this earthly life and what happens to the soul after we die. It is what the soul actually is that we cannot understand, because it is a mystery of God.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think I explained that, but I will explain it again. According to the Baha’i Faith, the only way we can know anything about God is from what the Messengers of God reveal about God.

I understand that, I just see it as entirely self-referential. The only way you “know” they’re the only source of information is because they tell you they’re the only source of information. You can only accept everything they tell you on face value and can’t listen to any other opinion, even your own. That just feels obviously fundamentally wrong to me.

I cannot know it in the sense of proving it to anyone (except myself) but I have believe it.

Isn’t that kind of the point of this kind of thread though, to try to convince other people of what you believe? If you’re never going to be able to convince anyone else, what’s the point?

Say that after you read it. That is part of the homework assignment.

I’ve been reading the bits you been quoting and it doesn’t read as anything special. Again, it’s just saying “This is true because I say so and if you don’t believe me you’re wrong”.

Motives always have to be considered in the case of a claim, or a crime. What would Baha’u’llah get for lying? Why would He care so much about humanity if He had no reason to care? Why would He care if His Writings were accepted for the greater good? According to Baha’u’llah He did not care about Himself at all, He only cared about God.

Nobody can care about humanity unless God tells them too? Everybody always acts rationally? People can’t imagine what they’re doing is rational even when it isn’t? Loads of people have (and still do) claimed to speak for God or some other kind of powerful being, often saying entirely contradictory things from each other, presumably for all sorts of different reasons. You’re not the first people to claim your messengers are a special case above the masses and you certainly won’t be the last.

I certainly do not think we should assume it came from God, but we also should not discount the possibility.

None of us should discount the possibility that we’re wrong – we probably all are to some extent. Adhering to a single religious belief is the very opposite of that though.

I mean what if it did come from God and we threw it in the trash can before we did a thorough investigation?

But we can’t independently investigate because you’ve said the only source of information are your messengers. The entire faith (like many before it) is specifically constructed to counter independent investigation or challenge.

If God is fully self-sufficient and self-sustaining, transcendent and completely independent from His Creatures, why would God want anything from humans? Moreover, why would God need anything from humans? So there has to be another reason God sends Messengers to reveal teachings and laws to humanity, which is the premise. Since there are only two players, God and humans, God must send them for the sake of humans.

The other possibility being that God doesn’t exist as you describe. God doing something “for the sake of humans” still falls back to the question of “what does God want from humans”. A logical conclusion is impossible in the context of a proposed being beyond logic. However you twist it, the core question here is why would God do anything. At the very best, you have to say “We have no idea”.

You always have to look at context. I was not applying logic to God, I was applying logic to my beliefs about God and the purpose of our existence.

A distinction without a difference. You are applying logic to the God you believe in while also stating that the God you believe in can’t have logic applied to him.

It is not an assertion, it is a belief. Nobody can prove there is an afterlife from this earthly life because the afterlife is not a material existence.

Declared beliefs are assertions, especially when they’re being presented to support other beliefs.

There is evidence for a life after death and it does not come from religion. I know you will not consider it evidence but I do.

I consider what you’re talking about as evidence. The problem is that “life after death” has no definitive hypothesis to apply the evidence too. We also have the same silly game in this area, where there are lots of confident claims of evidence and logic but as soon as there is a gap or difficult question, it becomes “it isn’t material so you can’t prove it”. It’s a great frustrating mess.

No, that is not what I am saying at all, but unless you explain why you think that I cannot rectify that misconception.

It really boils down to the fact you keep stating that there are some things we can’t know while at the same time confidential saying there are things you do know. You’ve never defined what the line or barrier is between the two. At the moment, it just seems to be “at the point you don’t know the answer to the difficult question”.

If the soul exists it has a physical effect upon the body (as I explained before) but that does not mean that science can study that effect and tie it back to the soul (as the entity responsible for the effect).

If you created a hypothesis to explain the soul, including details of all of the physical effects you propose it would have in defined circumstances, you could then test for all those physical effects in controlled environments to see if reality matches your hypothesis. It wouldn’t definitively prove anything but then that has never been formally claimed of any science. It could validate (or invalidate) your specific hypothesis though. Strangely, believers are often resistant to doing this for some reason.

Logically speaking, just because the nature of the soul is a mystery and cannot be proven to exist

Contradictory assertions again. If the nature of the soul is a mystery, how can you know it can’t be proven to exist? How can you even know it’s nature if a mystery? If we can’t say anything definitive about the soul, there is absolutely zero point in bringing it in to this discussion and absolutely zero justification for using it in any way to try to support your beliefs. All you’ve done is add another thing you could be wrong about without knowing it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand that, I just see it as entirely self-referential. The only way you “know” they’re the only source of information is because they tell you they’re the only source of information. You can only accept everything they tell you on face value and can’t listen to any other opinion, even your own. That just feels obviously fundamentally wrong to me.

Logically speaking, we could not know that they are the only source of information unless they revealed that in scriptures. So that is why they have to reveal that. Obviously, we have to do a lot of research and investigate them before we would be willing to believe the claims they make.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

Isn’t that kind of the point of this kind of thread though, to try to convince other people of what you believe? If you’re never going to be able to convince anyone else, what’s the point?

I have no interest in convincing anyone of what I believe, as Baha’u’llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself. Baha’u’llahalso wrote that we are not supposed to try to convert anyone. All we are supposed to do is share and answer questions. This is predicated upon the fact that we all have free will so we all need to decide for ourselves what to believe.

“Say: Teach ye the Cause of God, O people of Bahá, for God hath prescribed unto every one the duty of proclaiming His Message, and regardeth it as the most meritorious of all deeds. Such a deed is acceptable only when he that teacheth the Cause is already a firm believer in God, the Supreme Protector, the Gracious, the Almighty. He hath, moreover, ordained that His Cause be taught through the power of men’s utterance, and not through resort to violence. Thus hath His ordinance been sent down from the Kingdom of Him Who is the Most Exalted, the All-Wise. Beware lest ye contend with any one, nay, strive to make him aware of the truth with kindly manner and most convincing exhortation. If your hearer respond, he will have responded to his own behoof, and if not, turn ye away from him, and set your faces towards God’s sacred Court, the seat of resplendent holiness.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 278-279

No, the purpose of this thread was to share what the atheist on my forum said and to get some opinions from atheists about what he said, as you can see in the OP:

“The reason I am posting this is because I have been posting to an atheist on some other forums for over five years and he insists that if god existed god would communicate directly to every single person in the world rather than using messengers.”

I’ve been reading the bits you been quoting and it doesn’t read as anything special. Again, it’s just saying “This is true because I say so and if you don’t believe me you’re wrong”.

Where did Baha’u’llah ever say that? He would never say to “just believe” Him without doing the proper investigation.

Nobody can care about humanity unless God tells them too? Everybody always acts rationally? People can’t imagine what they’re doing is rational even when it isn’t? Loads of people have (and still do) claimed to speak for God or some other kind of powerful being, often saying entirely contradictory things from each other, presumably for all sorts of different reasons. You’re not the first people to claim your messengers are a special case above the masses and you certainly won’t be the last.

You raise some good points and that is the reason we have to look at all the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah before we would even consider believing such a claim. These are the different categories of evidence that establish the Truth of Baha’u’llah’s claim to be a Messenger of God:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His 40 year mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that His followers established, what they have done and are doing now.

However, that is just MY list, what *I* consider evidence. Baha’u’llah told us how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings).

Besides that, there are distinguishing characterizes between ordinary men and Messengers (Prophets of God).

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 270, 272, 273

We cannot use this criteria to determine if Baha’u’llah was a Prophet since He is too new to have had an effect upon much of humanity and very few people have accepted Him as a Messenger, but we can apply it to Messengers such as Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

None of us should discount the possibility that we’re wrong – we probably all are to some extent. Adhering to a single religious belief is the very opposite of that though.

I am not sure what you mean by that. Regarding Messengers of God, one is either right or wrong about them because they were either true Messengers who heard from God and spoke for God or false messengers who claimed to speak for God but had no connection to God. There is no gray area.

But we can’t independently investigate because you’ve said the only source of information are your messengers. The entire faith (like many before it) is specifically constructed to counter independent investigation or challenge.

No, I did not say that they are the only source of information. Do you think that nobody has written about Baha’u’llah. I did not even read very much of what Baha’u’llah wrote before I became a Baha’i, I read what others had written about him. For example, one of the first books I read was Baha’u’llah and the New Era, which is available to read in both of the Baha’i Reference Libraries and also available to purchase in paperback. I prefer to read in the older BRL because it is easier to read on but the new BRL allows you to download.
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

The other possibility being that God doesn’t exist as you describe. God doing something “for the sake of humans” still falls back to the question of “what does God want from humans”. A logical conclusion is impossible in the context of a proposed being beyond logic. However you twist it, the core question here is why would God do anything. At the very best, you have to say “We have no idea”.

It is a logical possibility that God does not exist, but then you would have to explain the existence of the Great Messengers such as Jesus Christ and you would have to explain how the Bible came to be written.

I do not know what you assume God would want anything from humans. Why would an omnipotent/omniscient God want or need anything from humans? It makes logical sense that if God created humans out of love, God would be doing things for the sake of humans (for human benefit). That does not mean that God wants anything in return; although scriptures do indicate that God wants us to worship Him that is for our own benefit, not for God’s.

The only way we can know why God would “do anything” is by reading scriptures revealed by a Messenger of God.I was a Baha’i for decades before I really cared to know much about God, but what I now know I learned from this one book by reading it over and over again about six years ago: Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh

A distinction without a difference. You are applying logic to the God you believe in while also stating that the God you believe in can’t have logic applied to him.

Give me an example of how I applied logic to God. I might cite what Baha’u’llah wrote about God and say I consider that logical, but that is not the same as using logic to try to determine what God could, would or should do, as the atheist I cited in the OP does.

Declared beliefs are assertions, especially when they’re being presented to support other beliefs.

Assertion is just a word. I assert something because I strongly believe it but that does not mean that I can prove that belief to anyone.

I consider what you’re talking about as evidence. The problem is that “life after death” has no definitive hypothesis to apply the evidence too. We also have the same silly game in this area, where there are lots of confident claims of evidence and logic but as soon as there is a gap or difficult question, it becomes “it isn’t material so you can’t prove it”. It’s a great frustrating mess.

I think the best way to approach something like the afterlife, something that cannot be proven to exist, is to read about it and determine if it sounds feasible to you. That is kind of like putting your toes in the water before you go swimming.

It really boils down to the fact you keep stating that there are some things we can’t know while at the same time confidential saying there are things you do know. You’ve never defined what the line or barrier is between the two. At the moment, it just seems to be “at the point you don’t know the answer to the difficult question”.

To double back, there are beliefs for which there is evidence and there is factual knowledge for which we have proof. Anything about God, the soul, or the afterlife is a belief because we have evidence but no proof.

When I say I know something about God, the soul or the afterlife, I mean I believe it confidently. There are some questions for which there are no answers since they were not revealed in scriptures. The Essence of God is a mystery, the nature of the soul is a mystery,and what we will experience in the afterlife is a mystery. There is information about the function of the soul and its eternal destination, and there is some information about the afterlife, but since we could never understand what the afterlife (spiritual world) will be like from a material world vantage point, it cannot be explained in such a way that we would understand it. Baha’u’llah used this analogy:

“The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother. When the soul attaineth the Presence of God, it will assume the form that best befitteth its immortality and is worthy of its celestial habitation.”Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 157

If you created a hypothesis to explain the soul, including details of all of the physical effects you propose it would have in defined circumstances, you could then test for all those physical effects in controlled environments to see if reality matches your hypothesis. It wouldn’t definitively prove anything but then that has never been formally claimed of any science. It could validate (or invalidate) your specific hypothesis though. Strangely, believers are often resistant to doing this for some reason.

Since the soul is what animates the physical body and allows it to function, the soul is responsible for all the physical effects on the body, so how could you test for that?

Contradictory assertions again. If the nature of the soul is a mystery, how can you know it can’t be proven to exist?

It cannot be proven to exist because it is a mystery. How can something that is a mystery be proven to exist?

How can you even know it’s nature if a mystery?

Because Baha’u’llah wrote that it is a mystery, but take note that He then went on to describe what the soul does, one of its functions:

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him.If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

If we can’t say anything definitive about the soul, there is absolutely zero point in bringing it in to this discussion and absolutely zero justification for using it in any way to try to support your beliefs. All you’ve done is add another thing you could be wrong about without knowing it.

When I say the soul is a mystery I mean that we cannot know what it is comprised of and we cannot know everything about it, but we can know certain things,that the soul animates the body and allows it to function, and we can know that the soul is the sum total of our personality while we are alive in this world and in the afterlife. In effect, the soul is who we are and the body is just a temporary holding place for the soul, a way for the soul to function while we are alive in this world, a vehicle through which the soul operates. After we die, the soul will continue to exist without a physical body, but it will take on another form in the spiritual world, a spiritual body.

If you are curious what Baha’u’llah says about the soul, the subject is dealt with in Gleanings. The introduction says pages 136-200 deal with basic questions concerning the soul and its immortality, but the real stuff begins on page 153, LXXX. There is a ‘GO’ box at the top middle of the page. Gleanings, pp. 153-155

I do not expect you to understand all of that, I sure didn’t when I first read it, but I have read it now over and over and I have read other Baha’i Writings about the soul, so I understand it pretty well, so you can ask me whatever you want to.

 

[HonestJoe]

Logically speaking, we could not know that they are the only source of information unless they revealed that in scriptures.

No, you can’t know even if they “reveal” it in scripture because them “revealing” anything is literally just them saying it with absolutely nothing backing it up. Them “revealing” something in scripture is no different to me “revealing” something in this post. And if God is talking through me, all bets are off!

I have no interest in convincing anyone of what I believe, as Baha’u’llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself.

That boils down to “what is the point of the thread?” then. I know the immediate point was to discuss what someone else proposed about God but why do you care about what people say or discussing anything in the field if you’ve no interest in convincing people that what you believe is logical and true?

Where did Baha’u’llah ever say that? He would never say to “just believe” Him without doing the proper investigation.

Do you have any quotes of his directly stating that we should question and formally investigate what he is claiming? Not “search in your heart” kind of stuff or statements that “if you really think about it you will believe” but literal “how to test the evidence” directions?

You raise some good points and that is the reason we have to look at all the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah before we would even consider believing such a claim. These are the different categories of evidence that establish the Truth of Baha’u’llah’s claim to be a Messenger of God:

Nothing you list is prove. Being a “good” person, effective writer or convincing religious leader doesn’t require a divine connection. Prophecies are easy when they’ve already been written and you’re the author of your own life story. I could write my autobiography and “prove” I fulfilled some prophecy. Again, all followers of all the different religious and spiritual leaders will make exactly the same claims about their preferred choice.

I am not sure what you mean by that. Regarding Messengers of God, one is either right or wrong about them because they were either true Messengers who heard from God and spoke for God or false messengers who claimed to speak for God but had no connection to God. There is no gray area.

The could be messengers from God but you’ve misunderstood the message, they could be messengers of something that isn’t actually the God you believe in or some could be messengers but some could just be “good” people. You’re not presenting a simply binary “is or is not”, you’re presenting a long and complex narrative.

Do you think that nobody has written about Baha’u’llah.

I meant independent history of his life and the claimed events within it, not what other believers write about what he wrote.

It is a logical possibility that God does not exist, but then you would have to explain the existence of the Great Messengers such as Jesus Christ and you would have to explain how the Bible came to be written.

I don’t need to explain anything to support the possibility God doesn’t exist. You’d have to explain exactly why those things unconditionally require God and couldn’t be explained by literally any other possibility.

I do not know what you assume God would want anything from humans.

I don’t pretend to know what he’d want but the idea that he’s sending all these messengers, inspiring all this scripture and, at least historically, is said to have directly intervened in human lives clearly suggests some kind of interest. Wouldn’t there be some kind of reasoning or motive there, however abstract?

although scriptures do indicate that God wants us to worship Him that is for our own benefit, not for God’s.

He says it’s for out benefit. Does he explain exactly how or is that one of the things conveniently beyond our understanding?

Give me an example of how I applied logic to God. I might cite what Baha’u’llah wrote about God and say I consider that logical, but that is not the same as using logic to try to determine what God could, would or should do, as the atheist I cited in the OP does.

Baha’u’llah writes about what God does so applying logic to those claims is applying logic to what God does. This is especially true in the context that we’ve not even agreed that God exists so we can only discuss what is said about God.

Assertion is just a word. I assert something because I strongly believe it but that does not mean that I can prove that belief to anyone.

That’s my point. If you can’t prove something, you can’t just say “it is”. It’s an all too common “believer” problem.

I think the best way to approach something like the afterlife, something that cannot be proven to exist, is to read about it and determine if it sounds feasible to you. That is kind of like putting your toes in the water before you go swimming.

If it exists, it could be proven to exist (though we might not currently have the resources or capability to prove it).

There is a valid element of assessing basic feasibility in the process, but again, you’d first need to present a defined hypothesis for us to consider. If you just ask it as a casual question, you’ve no idea whether everyone is talking about the same thing (and in the context and “afterlife”, they almost certainly aren’t).

Since the soul is what animates the physical body and allows it to function, the soul is responsible for all the physical effects on the body, so how could you test for that?

Well, the first step would be for you to tell us exactly how you’re saying this animation and effect works in practice so we can compose experiments to test whether reality is consistent with your hypothesis. That is the standard process that we’ve used for hundreds of years now. This field is nothing special (however much you’d like to make it out to be)

It cannot be proven to exist because it is a mystery. How can something that is a mystery be proven to exist?

Mystery only means we don’t know yet (otherwise mystery novels would be really boring ). Anyway, we’re only calling it a mystery because you’re claiming it is a mystery. You’re the only one claiming ignorance of the topic so you’re in no position to say what anyone else can come to know.

Because Baha’u’llah wrote that it is a mystery, but take note that He then went on to describe what the soul does, one of its functions:

And you think that supports your position? He said it is a mystery but went on to explain it?!?

When I say the soul is a mystery I mean that we cannot know what it is comprised of and we cannot know everything about it, but we can know certain things…

You’re using the k-word about unsupported beliefs again. You don’t know anything about the soul. You believe a bunch of things about the soul and you’ve offered exactly zero reason why your beliefs should be given any more credence than anything else.

 

[Shad]

What most atheists do not understand is that omnipotent means can do anything; not will do anything.

You made an error. God can what is logically possible. God can not make a squared circle. It is a logically impossible. Also there is issues with the "nature" of God such as lying. Of course there is a gray area in which we have not or can not determine if something is logically impossible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course there is a gray area in which we have not or can not determine if something is logically impossible.

Imo, nobody can determine what is possible for God, because the human mind cannot fathom the infinite God and subject God to logical analysis. Besides that, as you said, human logic is limited by what the human mind is capable of understanding.
As such, I consider it a complete waste of time to conjecture on what God can do.

 

[halbhh]

There is a reason I am posting this question and it is for the same reason I posted the other thread I posted about a week ago:

Would/Should God communicate directly to everyone in the world?

The reason I am posting this is because I have been posting to an atheist on some other forums for over five years and he insists that if god existed god would communicate directly to every single person in the world rather than using messengers. He should really come here and post his own question but he won’t come here so I am posting EXACTLY what he wants me to post this time, since he said that the questions on my other thread were not what he would have asked.

Here it is, a direct quote from him, turned into a question for you:

“Is there every reason to believe that if God existed, and wanted to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing any message he wanted them to get and believe, that he would use the same method used by all imaginary gods (messengers) which achieves results worse than reason demands would be achieved by using what only a real god could use: direct communication?”

Of course he is making an unfounded assumption that God is trying to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing His message, although there is no way he can know that is what God is trying to achieve.

His premise is that since imaginary gods use messengers a real God would never use a Messenger. What he is really saying is that because there are false messengers (men who claim to speak for God), God would never send a Messenger who speaks for God. Of course this is patently illogical. That is like saying that just because there is a junkyard with junky cars that do not run there cannot be a new car lot down the street with cars that run nicely.

Well, such a direct communication before faith would obviate/defeat the stated goal according to Christ: to believe. "Faith" is stated to be the primary, central goal.

What is 'faith'? --
"Faith" is a strong form of trust: to trust even in what hasn't yet been seen, proven, sensed.

If you get to really trust someone, you have "faith" in them, we say. It's the same sense of meaning. You'd believe them if they told you something you'd not even seen.

But faith is to believe before any proof. If proof comes first, the chance for faith has been obviated. Precluded.

With direct communication first, then you'd only have just observation.
E.g. -- I can simply observe pictures of Russian missiles in parades. I don't have to have any faith to believe that they exist.

Easy proof of God before faith would contradict most all of the scriptures.
All of the New Testament, and really, also much of the Old too (see Hebrews chapter 11 for how the Old Testament is also about faith).

Such a before-belief proof would be some other system and other goals, not the ones in scripture.

Your discussion partner should ask something akin to: "Why is faith so valued?"

One way to think about that is how valuable is trust in a long term relationship, like a marriage.

What's it like to be with something that distrusts you? It's not pleasant.

What is love like when someone trusts you fully?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, such a direct communication before faith would obviate/defeat the stated goal according to Christ: to believe. "Faith" is stated to be the primary, central goal.

What is 'faith'? --
"Faith" is a strong form of trust: to trust even in what hasn't yet been seen, proven, sensed.

If you get to really trust someone, you have "faith" in them, we say. It's the same sense of meaning. You'd believe them if they told you something you'd not even seen.

But faith is to believe before any proof. If proof comes first, the chance for faith has been obviated. Precluded.

With direct communication first, then you'd only have just observation.
E.g. -- I can simply observe pictures of Russian missiles in parades. I don't have to have any faith to believe that they exist.

Easy proof of God before faith would contradict most all of the scriptures.
All of the New Testament, and really, also much of the Old too (see Hebrews chapter 11 for how the Old Testament is also about faith).

Such a before-belief proof would be some other system and other goals, not the ones in scripture.

Your discussion partner should ask something akin to: "Why is faith so valued?"

One way to think about that is how valuable is trust in a long term relationship, like a marriage.

What's it like to be with something that distrusts you? It's not pleasant.

What is love like when someone trusts you fully?

All very valid points, and if you do not mind I would like to share this post on my forum.
I predict he will say that faith is only for the gullible brainwashed believers because that is what he usually says, but I am not trying to convince him of anything so it does not matter what he thinks.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

That explains why God does not provide proof, because then we would not need faith.

Anyone who sets criteria for God as to how He should reveal Himself (e.g., directly to everyone) is not earnestly seeking God. I wonder what God thinks about that?

We do not get to set criteria for the Almighty God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. That is beyond ludicrous. It is really sad that “some” atheists cannot figure out how illogical that is, and how arrogant.

 

[halbhh]

All very valid points, and if you do not mind I would like to share this post on my forum.
I predict he will say that faith is only for the gullible brainwashed believers because that is what he usually says, but I am not trying to convince him of anything so it does not matter what he thinks.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

That explains why God does not provide proof, because then we would not need faith.

Anyone who sets criteria for God as to how He should reveal Himself (e.g., directly to everyone) is not earnestly seeking God. I wonder what God thinks about that?

We do not get to set criteria for the Almighty God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. That is beyond ludicrous. It is really sad that “some” atheists cannot figure out how illogical that is, and how arrogant.

Yes, you can share it. It's true we can't really get anyone to consider something they don't want to, so I just try to give a sense of the wonderful freedom and peace, what we wish others could have. And a few sublime words from Someone Who understands deeper things the best with a short direct quote of His words from the gospels, according to what comes to mind.