Do the Gods Probably Exist or Probably Not Exist?

[Muffled]

What do you mean by "experiences with Him?"

I believe most are spiritual but one was prophetic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe most are spiritual but one was prophetic.

I don't know what you mean by this.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe you are on the road to Hell because your teachings can't save you.

I never expected my teachings to save me, but I do not have anything to be saved from, since there was no original sin and no “place” called Hell.

According to my religion, Heaven is nearness to God and Hell is distance from God. Since we cannot know God directly, the way we get close to God is by knowing God’s will through the Manifestation of God for this age, Baha’u’llah. Observing His teachings and Laws also bring us nearer to God.

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi...
Deism might be an example where (2) on your list could come into play. A less specific belief set, combined with a non-interventionist God could easily be 'right' and also be the result of a belief in some sort of first-cause being required.

For me, that would fit clearly in the bucket of 'not impacting on my behaviour/thoughts', but was interested in your opinion.

Sorry - I guess I missed this when you first posted.

I don't think deism is even worth considering as a serious possibility.

I think it's pretty transparent how it arose: it wasn't by starting at first principles, deducing a god, and going no further; it was by starting with the predominant religions around them, chipping away the more apparently false or ridiculous parts, and ending up with something that doesn't allow itself to be justified.

Deism aligns with the facts, sorta, but only in the same way that it aligns with the facts to say that I'm always being followed by a herd of elephants that are very shy and very good at hiding... which I don't believe either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess you mean that we are both looking at what we see in the material world and wondering how there could be a God. I would be wondering too if that was all I had to go on, especially given all the suffering I see all around me.

I don't see suffering as a reason to reject gods in general. It's a reason to reject Omnimax gods, but that can be by accepting gods without an omnimax character, not necessarily rejecting gods altogether.

IOW, a limited god who can't stop suffering or a jerkish god who doesn't care are both reconcilable with suffering.

I could not believe in God if I did not have the information that was revealed by Baha’u’llah that explains why suffering exists in this world and how it will no longer exist in the afterlife. So what you are missing is that information.

Well, no. I think you have a misunderstanding of my mindset. It's not that I would believe in a god if I could reconcile a god with suffering; it's that I see no good reason whatsoever to presume that a god exists.

Since I am already convinced that I have good evidence that God exists you are not going to talk me out of that. For four years on the primarily atheist forum I was on they tried to tell me my evidence was not evidence and that did not work. All it did was confirm that my evidence was even better than I had thought before I showed up on that forum, since I kept having to look things up to post thereby learning a lot about my religion I had not previously known. So they did me a big favor.

Of course we cannot prove that God exists, but the evidence is quite compelling if you actually gives it a fair shot.

What evidence do you think is most compelling?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't see suffering as a reason to reject gods in general. It's a reason to reject Omnimax gods, but that can be by accepting gods without an omnimax character, not necessarily rejecting gods altogether.

IOW, a limited god who can't stop suffering or a jerkish god who doesn't care are both reconcilable with suffering.

Sure, those kinds of god(s) are reconcilable with suffering, but what good is a god(s) like that? I certainly would not waste my time worshipping such a god(s).

So, as I see it, we are still stuck trying to reconcile the omnipotent God who is also benevolent, and ask why He allows suffering given He could stop it.

Well, no. I think you have a misunderstanding of my mindset. It's not that I would believe in a god if I could reconcile a god with suffering; it's that I see no good reason whatsoever to presume that a god exists.

Okay, then you are like most atheists, you just do not see any evidence that a god exists. It is only a subset of atheists cannot reconcile the possibility of a God existing with the suffering they see in the world.

What evidence do you think is most compelling?

The evidence I find most compelling is the “Person” of Baha’u’llah and the message He revealed as well as the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation. Unfortunately, we can no longer see and talk to Baha’u’llah but if you watch this short video, you can get a feel for what it was like for one of the few Westerners who met Him and interviewed Him. The second half of the video highlights some of the major historical events within the Baha’i Faith from 1890-2001, so it is very educational.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, those kinds of god(s) are reconcilable with suffering, but what good is a god(s) like that? I certainly would not waste my time worshipping such a god(s).

Whether something is “good” to you or me is irrelevant to whether it exists.

So, as I see it, we are still stuck trying to reconcile the omnipotent God who is also benevolent, and ask why He allows suffering given He could stop it.

You are, maybe. For me, worrying about the character of a god when we have no reason to think that a god exists in the first place is putting the cart before the horse.

Okay, then you are like most atheists, you just do not see any evidence that a god exists. It is only a subset of atheists cannot reconcile the possibility of a God existing with the suffering they see in the world.

Oh, don’t get me wrong: I think that the existence of suffering is a fatal flaw in the claims of many religions. I just recognize that we can conceive of gods where the existence of suffering isn’t incompatible with the existence of the god; it’s just that I see no reason to believe in those gods either.

The evidence I find most compelling is the “Person” of Baha’u’llah and the message He revealed as well as the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation. Unfortunately, we can no longer see and talk to Baha’u’llah but if you watch this short video, you can get a feel for what it was like for one of the few Westerners who met Him and interviewed Him. The second half of the video highlights some of the major historical events within the Baha’i Faith from 1890-2001, so it is very educational.

Well, that video was underwhelming.

I also note, if that timeline is correct, that the experience wasn’t that overwhelming for Edward Granville Browne, either. If the “person” of Baha’u’llah was as compelling as you say, why didn’t Browne become a Baha’i himself? The video says that the first English Baha’i was someone else 11 years later.

 

[Trailblazer]

Whether something is “good” to you or me is irrelevant to whether it exists.

True, but how much sense does it makes that a god would be limited and jerkish?

You are, maybe. For me, worrying about the character of a god when we have no reason to think that a god exists in the first place is putting the cart before the horse.

Yeah, that is true. I already believe in God so I am stuck trying to figure out why He does what He does and does not do what He does not do. Most believers just accept their scriptures say and that is okay to a point, but I tend to be more of a freethinker.

Oh, don’t get me wrong: I think that the existence of suffering is a fatal flaw in the claims of many religions. I just recognize that we can conceive of gods where the existence of suffering isn’t incompatible with the existence of the god; it’s just that I see no reason to believe in those gods either.

I guess you can conceive of most anything about what a god (gods) could be like. The sky is the limit where the human imagination comes into play. I think that the scriptures of the various religions are the only way we can ever know anything about God, and the fact that God has been portrayed differently over time can be explained by the capacity of mankind to understand gods/God, which has increased as mankind evolved.

Well, that video was underwhelming.

The video was only intended to give one an idea what it was like to meet Baha’u’llah. It was not meant to convey information about His life and mission. I have other videos that do that.

I also note, if that timeline is correct, that the experience wasn’t that overwhelming for Edward Granville Browne, either. If the “person” of Baha’u’llah was as compelling as you say, why didn’t Browne become a Baha’i himself? The video says that the first English Baha’i was someone else 11 years later.

I really do not know the history behind Browne or why he did not become a Baha’i. Not everyone who recognized the greatness of Baha’u’llah has become a Baha’i. I do not even know if Browne believed in God.

All Baha’is become Baha’is for different reasons. I am very much unlike any Baha’is I know because I have no religious background whatsoever and I never even thought about God before I became a Baha’i. I did not think much about God for a long time afterward either.

I should probably correct what I said before because the evidence that was most compelling to me was what I read “about” the Baha’i Faith and the teachings. It just all made sense to me. I did not even know anything about the “Person” of Baha’u’llah before I became a Baha’i. I only knew that He was the Founder of the Baha’i Faith and a Manifestation of God. I did not even understand what that meant back then and I did not care, because I was young and I did not care about God. That was probably because I was not brought up believing in God.

My dad was raised as a Christian but became an atheist before I was born. He died before he heard of the Baha’i Faith. I was no doubt influenced by my dad because I was much more like him than I was like my mother. My mother also fell away from Christianity before I was born but she later became a Baha’i at about age 60. My sister and brother were also Baha’is so then everyone in the family as a Baha’i.

 

[JustWondering]

It seems to me that most discussions of whether or not deity exists sooner or later end up in efforts to prove with deductive certainty that deity either does or does not exist, or at least cannot be determined to exist or not exist.

That's all very well and good, but in this thread, I would like to confine the discussion to whether or not the gods probably exist or probably do not exist. Now, I realize that, if speaking in strictly mathematical terms, the question makes little or no sense, but I am using the word "probably" here in its much loser popular sense of what is most likely to be the case, rather than in any strict mathematical sense.

In this thread, please be so kind as to avoid, just as sternly as you would normally avoid kissing a blipsnitch on its hairy lips, any and all "proofs" that the gods exist or not, or cannot be determined to exist or not. However, if you still itch with all the fires of ten extraordinarily passionate men or women to discuss such things, please start your own thread.

Do the gods probably exist or do they probably not exist? That is the question. What say you, kind sir or madam, upon that heading?

I need to know what your definition of gods is first? Do you have specific gods in mind or entities that have certain attributes?

 

[Cacotopia]

I think Ricky Gervais said this the best possible way. If you were to destroy all of both religious and scientific text books writings, and data collected, but keep a single copy of the originals. And waited 1000 years, you would end up with the same science books with the same information and completely different religious books. Of the thousands of gods that have existed and the thousands more denominations, sects, and splinter groups within those thousands, they all claim to be correct and the rest are wrong about the "one truth."

Science and the study of everything around us and our universe doesn't have all the answers, and it may never have all the answers but it is an endeavor that ceaselessly seeks to better understand our universe and all that encompasses it. It is in sync with humanity's nature, which I think by default, is curious.

Religions and other spiritual movements and organizations I find are against our nature and the one question that plagues our self conscious minds of "Why?" Sure they give a purpose to others I suppose but I don't think they are a force for ultimate good. They control and inhibit societal and scientific progression and in our current state ecologically I believe we could use a whole lot more progress than regress.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure they give a purpose to others I suppose but I don't think they are a force for ultimate good. They control and inhibit societal and scientific progression and in our current state ecologically I believe we could use a whole lot more progress than regress.

Any religion that controls or inhibits societal and scientific progression is no longer useful in this new age of mankind. The Baha'i Faith teaches that both science and religion are absolutely necessary for the progress of humanity.

“All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed..........

Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...”
Paris Talks, pp. 141-143

 

[Trailblazer]

Of the thousands of gods that have existed and the thousands more denominations, sects, and splinter groups within those thousands, they all claim to be correct and the rest are wrong about the "one truth."

The Baha’i Faith does not claim that only one religion is true and all the other religions are false. We only claim that the Baha’i Faith is the most “current” religion, the religion for the present age. All the older religions were the religions suited for the ages in which they were revealed by God but as the needs of mankind and his world change, religion has to change to suit the times.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

By the way, I see you are new here. Welcome to the forum.

 

[Cacotopia]

When a religion or belief system tells* you how something came into existence or whatever the topic is at hand, it in my view immediately cuts short further examination and understanding of how it came to by. How did the world form? God did it, end of discussion, is not a satisfactory answer. And religions in general have worn this false mantle of being inviolable. If it is the truth then it should be able to withstand hard criticism. And I think it is healthy to both endure and promote self critique, other wise how is one to know they are on the correct path for both themselves and towards a more synergistic life with others if no conflict of opinion is heard.

That being said? It seems to me that any kind of religious criticism is shunned when turned towards themselves, eager towards all other but itself, and its practitioners alike.

Thanks for the newbie nod

 

[Cacotopia]

The Baha’i Faith does not claim that only one religion is true and all the other religions are false. We only claim that the Baha’i Faith is the most “current” religion, the religion for the present age. All the older religions were the religions suited for the ages in which they were revealed by God but as the needs of mankind and his world change, religion has to change to suit the times.
By the way, I see you are new here. Welcome to the forum.

I am not speaking in specific terms of your religion, I personally know relatively little about the Baha'i faith but in honesty what I do know is that it is benign in comparison to the rest. Or rather it is more 'compatible' with the rest of the world.

 

[Trailblazer]

How did the world form? God did it, end of discussion, is not a satisfactory answer. And religions in general have worn this false mantle of being inviolable.

When you say religions I guess you mean traditional Judaism and Christianity?
The Baha'i Faith does not teach creation theory. We believe that God and His Creation have both always existed but man evolved at some time after that.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am not speaking in specific terms of your religion, I personally know relatively little about the Baha'i faith but in honesty what I do know is that it is benign in comparison to the rest. Or rather it is more 'compatible' with the rest of the world.

Yes, I knew you were talking about religion in general. It is a sad fact that many people tend to generalize from Christianity and the older religions to the Baha'i Faith. They just assume that we are the same because we are "a religion." That is called the fallacy of hasty generalization.

 

[Cacotopia]

I'm not qualified to answer questions about Baha'i.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not qualified to answer questions about Baha'i.

So it is good that you do not speak as if you know. I like atheists and I post to more atheists and agnostics than I post to beleivers. I hardly ever post to beleivers. In addition, all my online friends are nonbelievers except for one close Baha'i friend I have.

But there are some atheists I can do without, like this one who keeps saying that all messengers of god speak for imaginary gods just because some messengers have spoken for imaginary gods. He claims to be logical but he cannot even understand basic logic like the fallacy of hasty generalization. What he means and what he should say is that he does not believe that a Messenger of God exists because no man can speak for god, but he well knows that it is logically possible for a Messenger to speak for god, so he knows he cannot say that and still be logical. So instead he goes through the back door and ends up being illogical anyway.

Also, he says that Baha'ullah, the Messenger I believe in, was a con man, but he has no evidence to back that up and I have all kinds of evidence to the contrary...

So what I am trying to say is that some atheists will say anything at all just because they think they are smarter than beleivers but some of the stuff they say is just so dumb. Their primary goal is to insult believers and make them look stupid.

Mind you, most atheists are not dumb at all. Atheists as a group are more educated and maybe even more intelligent than beleivers as a group, and that is one reason they were smart enough to NOT buy off on the older religions with their superstitions and doctrines that make no sense and are contradictory to science.

 

[Cacotopia]

Messengers for god(s) exist I just am skeptical that they speak for whom they are speaking, and could be speaking for possibly schizophrenia.

Prophecy is by default open to interpretation so a claim can be made and you wait to claim it as truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

Messengers for god(s) exist I just am skeptical that they speak for whom they are speaking, and could be speaking for possibly schizophrenia.

I do not just believe a Messenger is speaking for God because He said so. That would be circular reasoning. Not many men who claim to be Messengers of God are really Messengers of God. Most are either psychotic or con men although some might just be misguided.

There has to be a lot of good evidence to support the claim that someone is a Messenger of God in order for any rational person to believe it.

Prophecy is by default open to interpretation so a claim can be made and you wait to claim it as truth.

I am not sure what you mean by that.