Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?

[osgart]

I am sorry but that is not a good reason, God should do that just because God can easily do that. God can also easily wipe out all of creation in a instant... Should God do that too?

Why should God do what some humans want God to do just because they want God to do it?

Why should God communicate directly to everyone on earth -- all 7.44 billion people -- when God can communicate with Messengers such that everyone has access to that information?

But that is exactly what God wants you to do, look at the evidence and decide... That is why God gave us all a brain and free will.

But God does not want to get around our own prejudices, God wants us to get around our own prejudices... That is why God gave us all a brain and free will.

God made Himself clear in the scriptures. He made Himself even very clear in the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.
What reason do you have to think that God would be any clearer if God spoke to you directly? Baha'u'llah wrote down exactly what God revealed to Him in His Own Pen, can't get much clearer than that.

There is nothing garbled about God's communications to Baha'u'llah, and for those who find them a bit too lofty to understand, we have what was written by the appointed interpreters of His Words, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

Let me ask you this; how much sense does it make for God to reveal every one of the over 15,000 Tablets that He revealed to Baha'u'llah to every one of the 7.44 billion people in the world, when God can reveal them to one Messenger?

God knows the consequences but they only affect humans. It is the humans who should try to understand the consequences of not getting God's message. It will not affect God if they don't get it because God is fully self-sufficient, above the need for any of His creatures or their belief.

God would let all sincere souls know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God's self exists. But i do not see evidence of God. An omnipresent, omniscient God of ideal character, is God because God would never lets sincere hearted souls down with the lack of knowledge of God.

If God exists we are totally separated from everything God is. And to be separated under natures conditions must be a form of punishment.

 

[Trailblazer]

However, there are still persons who will argue against those fact - no matter how many millions of people give testimony.
...and you can argue till the cows come home, it wouldn't make a difference.

Don’t I know it.

That was so, because the Bible changes lives of those who apply its teachings.
When one has such solid evidence before their eyes, what more do they need. A miracle? That alone is a miracle.

Yes it does change their lives if they apply the teachings of Jesus...
I fail to understand how anyone can say that Jesus did not change the entire spiritual landscape of the planet, let alone saying Jesus did not even exist. The evidence is clear and plain; it is the effect Christ has had upon the humanity, even those who are not Christians, even nonbelievers. Baha’u’llah clearly pointed that out...

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86​

I just recalled what is in the Baha’i Writings about Christ’s miracles.

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.” Some Answered Questions, p. 101​

Persons who have prayed about a situation that seems impossible, and seen an almost instant change of the situation, don't need anyone to tell them God is.
It has been tested and proven time and time again.

I wish I had that much faith. I am working on that. But two weeks ago you would not have known I am the same person I am today. Two weeks ago I could not even say the word God. I had a couple of Baha’is praying for me so I think that helped.

I consider my life today a miracle because before I turned to God about four years ago I would not have endured what I have been through in the last two weeks without sheer torment and anguish for an extended period of time and many visits to counselors. However, no counselors were ever able to help me, no drugs worked, but I know God helped me in spite of my turning away from Him when I finally opened the door just a crack. I still shut it in his face occasionally but it does not stay shut very long. I think what makes it difficult for me is that I was not brought up in any religion or with any belief in God so it does not come natural. I tend to look at things from a logical viewpoint so when I see suffering I find it difficult to believe God is All-Loving.

People who don't believe... Well, the scriptures say, it's the heart.
They don't see anything because their heart is not inclined toward righteousness.
Remember Jesus' illustration of the seeds that fell on the various soil?
Remember what Paul said regarding the different type of people?
He said there will be those who draw away from God - not that the don't believe, but they open the door of their heart to wickedness.

I know how these people are and how they feel, having been there, which is why I hang in there longer than I probably should. I imagine something horrible must have happened to them in life, but maybe not; maybe that is just the way they are, hateful and arrogant towards God. I find that difficult to understand because even when I am at my worst I always know I am wrong; but they don’t know, they are blind.

Three years is a long time. I hope you weren't debating the same thing for those three years.

Remember Matthew 7:6-14. Think about it.
Remember how many persons were saved in the ark. 2 Peter 2:5
Think about that.

Yes, it is a long time, too long. And it has been essentially the same thing for all those years. God should communicate to everyone directly to everyone because that is the only credible kind of communication. If god existed, god would communicate directly because all messengers represented imaginary gods, so nobody would believe in a Messenger who represented a real God... I could write it in my sleep. Of course that is completely illogical to say that because there have been false prophets all prophets are false, which is what he is saying. Jesus told us how to differentiate: Matthew 7:16-20

One who turns away from God, makes that choice.
It has nothing to do with if they hear God's voice audibly or not.
Think of the situation with Cain and Abel. Remember God warned Cain. He hear a voice, but rather that make an effort to change his heart from jealous hatred to brotherly love, he went ahead and slaughtered his brother.

You are right. Sadly, I think it is a defect of character when somebody is that hateful and critical of other people, not just of God. I think that a person’s character is pretty much formed by age five, so me thinking I can make a difference is rather naïve... But I have always been that way, rooting for the downtrodden, like Jesus, going after that lost sheep. I guess I am hoping for a miracle.

You would not believe the amount of insults I have endured from this atheist all these years. No other Baha’i would post to him; although some Christians do, sadly they are just as insulting as he is which is a very poor example for a Christian to set. Most Christians ignore him and just let him go his own way.

Glad to know you see the value in the Bible.
Don't let the thorns of this world choke out the word, by not taking the time to read it.
Thank for sharing with me. I appreciated it.

Thanks for listening.
Eventually, I will have time to read the whole Bible. Meanwhile I get it in bits and pieces. I also listen to Christian radio for about three hours a day on work days while I am riding my bike to work and back. Christian music is very inspiring and gets me through the say. I need the hope it can give me. This song is my new favorite: Even If

 

[Trailblazer]

God would let all sincere souls know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God's self exists. But i do not see evidence of God. An omnipresent, omniscient God of ideal character, is God because God would never lets sincere hearted souls down with the lack of knowledge of God.

If God exists we are totally separated from everything God is. And to be separated under natures conditions must be a form of punishment.

I hear you. I do not usually feel close to God, quite rarely actually. But then that could be because I do not open myself up very much in prayer or meditation...

The closest I get to God is when I am reading Gleanings or other Writings. Because I understand why God's Essence remains hidden I can live with the mystery. Something has to make sense to me in order to believe it. I do not function on emotions.

I was a Bahai who never read Baha'ullah's Writings for 44 years, and I was totally cut off from God all those years, until I connected about four years ago. I do not expect bells to go off or anything, my life is difficult, knowing God is there is the best i can expect right now.

 

[Trailblazer]

I really don’t know what research could possibly support such a claim. Well... except for verifiable miracles. But even that wouldn’t necessarily confirm that the person is a messenger of God. The person could be like an X-man and either pretending or delusional that the powers come from god. Or he could be an alien— so maybe a messenger, but just not necessarily from god.

You are correct; there is no way to confirm it. But there is much information that can be uncovered that indicates it. Depending upon what is meaningful to you, there is all kinds of evidence. But if people want verifiable proof there is none of that. The caveat is that once we know, we know, and we do not need verifiable proof.

How is this helpful if we can not verify that the messenger comes from God?

That is the whole ball of wax isn’t it? The thing is that we can never verify such a thing for obvious reasons, but once we have done the adequate research and investigation, if we come out believing it we have proven it to ourselves.

If god revealed himself directly at the beginning of everyone’s life, then the issue of “hard work for some, no work for others” would be resolved. We’d all start out on a level playing field.

If we were all born with the level of education of a PhD then there would be no “hard work for some, no work for others.” We would just all be the same. Why should “acquiring” knowledge of God be any different than any other endeavor in life?

God does not owe everyone a free ride just so they won’t have to do anything. Everyone has free will so it is a level playing field and everyone can look at the Messenger if they choose to do so... However, that requires some effort, just like anything in life...

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82​

As for your student example, I am not sure why Figuring out that God exists should be the test in the first place. Do students have to go searching for a school that may or may not exist before they can even start studying?

They have to find the school they want to attend before they attend. Likewise, if someone is searching for God they have to decide where to look, which religion to attend. The difference is that you may or may not “find God” in that religion.

The sincerity and effort could be demonstrated in actually doing whatever it is god wants us to do— whether it is to be a good person, or becoming one with everything, or to devote our lives to his worship, or whatever.

That is true, but that won’t help you determine if God exists, if that is your objective. Why would you worship something you do not know exists?

Well, that’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? If God honors effort, even if we ultimately fail, then ok— it doesn’t really matter that the playing field is unfair. But if God requires success (i.e. belief in him and the correct religion), then the fact that some people aren’t cut out to be “doctors” or “lawyers” is very unfair. Salvation shouldn’t be dependent upon an accident of birth.

I fully agree. Like I said, sincerity and effort is what matters most. There is a huge difference between an atheist who thumbed his nose at God and His Messenger and one who made a sincere effort to look at Him. It might be nice if that search landed you a belief in God but if it doesn’t that does not mean you are punished. Sincere effort as it is shown in deeds is very important. As I said, a lot of it is about attitude. One with a hard heart and a closed mind is a lot different from one who has an open heart and an open mind. I post to many, many people and I intuited that you are the latter. Of course, there are shades of gray in between, may people just don’t give it much thought.

No, I would not say that is communication, if nothing is understood. Think of the pheromone communication that ants use among themselves. As you destroy their nest, they may desperately aim those pheromones at you— in an attempt of communication. But nothing would be communicated because you do not understand it.

That is a good point and God’s communication to humans would be the same. Hypothetically, God could desperately try to communicate to you but nothing would be communicated because you do not understand it. That does not mean that people cannot sense God’s presence but they cannot hear the Voice of God the way a Messenger does because they do not have a divine mind that can receive God communication.

Communication requires both a sender and a receiver. If the receiver is broken, then the sender is just making noise.

And that is what would happen if God communicated to you directly.

Two things:
1. You said “God would have to recreate man in order to make that possible.” So this means it is possible for God to speak directly to us. He would just have to fix us. He’s omnipotent. He could do it right now and make it like that’s how it’s always been. So like I said, it’s not that he can’t, it’s that he chooses not to.

No, what I meant is that God would have to start all over, from scratch, because the human brain evolved. God cannot just wave a magic wand now and make mankind all different.

I think most nonbelievers have this dreamy idea of God being omnipotent, so God can do anything, but in reality what omnipotent means is that God is All-Powerful, not necessarily that God can do anything... God cannot become a man for example, because God is an immaterial Being. God would not be God anymore if God became a man. God cannot show up in a material world so we can see Him because God is not a material being.

But hypothetically, let’s just say God could change us and make it like that’s how it’s always been. If God did that God would be admitting He made a mistake, and an Infallible God cannot make a mistake He has to correct later.

2. I agree that (in its current form) our human minds would not be able to understand all that is God. I also think that we can’t understand all that is anyone, really. God is just orders of magnitude higher. You cannot fully comprehend your best friend, so of course you cannot fully comprehend God.

I am so grateful that you can understand that. Of course we cannot comprehend a Being that is so, so far above us. For some reason, most nonbelievers cannot grasp that idea, and some believers cannot even grasp it. I can see that you operate on logic. Unfortunately, most people don’t. Rather, they operate on emotions, what they want. There is not much one can do with that. If a person cannot use reason they cannot get past their feelings, what they want.

For example, this atheist who I have been posting to for over three years insists that god should communicate directly with everyone in the world rather than use Messengers and he thinks that is logical. He insists that everyone would believe in god if god did that, and that is the only reason he can give as to why god should do that... However, there is no reason to think that God requires everyone to believe in Him; if God did require that, God could make sure everyone believed in Him by some means, since God is Omnipotent (has all power).

This atheist refuses to look at the reasons it won’t work for God to communicate directly to everyone. He just calls my reasons excuses and says that God needs excuses. How could an Omniscient God need any excuses? He is the one who needs excuses because he is a human. But there is no way to break through that wall because he has decided that god would/should communicate directly with everyone if god existed. He won’t even entertain the possibility that god could use Messengers.

If an Omniscient God exists, that God has to know more than he does about how to communicate, so if that God did not communicate directly to everyone that means (1) that is not the best way to communicate, or (2) God does not communicate at all, or (3) God does not exist. Option # 4, that God exists and made a mistake to send Messengers because God is stupid is not a logical possibility.

But you still can comprehend that your friend exists. You can still comprehend some things about your friend. We do not need to be able to fully comprehend God in order to be able to comprehend some things about God. We could comprehend that he exists, for instance— people literally believe that he exists now, so we are obviously able to comprehend that a god-like being exists.

You are really smart. Of course there is no reason to think we have to know everything about God in order to know God exists; and once we know God exists, we do not have to know everything about God. How could we know everything about a Being that much greater than we are? Why would we need to know everything? It is a Baha’i belief that we can know the Attributes of God that are reflected in the Messengers and revealed in the scriptures and we can know the Will of God that is revealed to the Messengers in every age in history. However, we can never know the Essence (intrinsic nature) of God.

God doesn’t need to dump everything into our brains. The Christians believe he was able to become human, once. Obviously, he’d be able to modulate the information he imparts so that it is able to be comprehended by the human mind.

Baha’is do not believe that God ever became a man. In other words, God did not become Jesus so Jesus was not God. God manifested Himself in Jesus so Jesus was a perfect mirror image of God and had the Attributes of God but Jesus was not God. Jesus also imparted information from God because Jesus had the knowledge of God and knew the Will of God for that age in history. God has now manifested Himself in Baha’u’llah who had the knowledge of God, knew the Will of God, and had new information to impart for this new age.

If he prefers to use Messengers, fine. That’s his choice. But let’s not pretend that an omnipotent, omniscient God can’t figure out how to directly communicate with us.

I am not saying that God couldn’t do that. I am only saying that if God did, we could not understand that communication.

 

[ecco]

Because it’s true. And, for the record, I happen to agree with the part you quote. I don’t think for one second that God wants our “saccharine adoration.” I don’t think God can be “swayed” by our prayers, and I don’t think God “becomes petulant.” I think these things are absurd, theological fantasy that serve people like Joel Osteen, James Dobson, Creflo Dollar and Franklin Graham very well. For me, the spiritual journey is much more serious, much deeper, and much less emo than the quotation describes.

So you agree:

The most preposterous notion that H. Sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes,​

Doesn't that conflict with Christian Biblical views?

Don't you agree that the following describes Christianity?

Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all of history.
​

So you agree that Christianity is an "absurd fantasy"?

 

[ecco]

So what? What people believe does not make anything a reality. There are only two possibilities, logically speaking:

1. Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, and there is only One God because He said so, or
2. Baha'u'llah was a false prophet, an ordinary man who lied.

We all have free will, so we are free to choose 1 or 2.

3. Baha'u'llah was a man possessed by a vision that he was convinced came from GOD. As possibly was Muhammad. As possibly was Jesus if he did indeed exist.

Things are seldom black or white.

Wise people look before they leap. Others assume without knowing.

Indeed. You have no way of knowing 1 or 2 or 3. You choose to assume (believe) it is 1. Is that wisdom?

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

I've already responded, in depth, to that bit of "wisdom".

The One God who revealed all the major religions... there is only One Real God.
Any other god(s) that people believe in are imaginary gods because they do not exist in reality.

So close. All you had to do was take out the word "other".
Any god(s) that people believe in are imaginary gods because they do not exist in reality.

Got any proof of that? Otherwise, I would not state it as an assertion.

You are asserting that "Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, and there is only One God because He said so". Got any proof of that?

So, let's stop with the silly "proof" arguments and look at evidence. What is the evidence that "Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God"?

 

[ecco]

You are correct, but logically speaking God cannot compete with Himself so there can be only One God and only one Truth.

You do have a habit of posing logical arguments in illogical ways.

There are actually (at least) 4 options.

1. There is one God
2. There is one God with 3 "personalities" which can come in conflict with one another
3. There are many gods who can compete and/or cooperate
4. There are no gods

You stated there was only one option. I previously stated that you tend to see things in only black or white. This time you degraded into seeing things in only white or white.

No steps forward, three steps back.

 

[sojourner]

So you agree:

The most preposterous notion that H. Sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes,​

Doesn't that conflict with Christian Biblical views?

Don't you agree that the following describes Christianity?

Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all of history.
​

So you agree that Christianity is an "absurd fantasy"?

No. Jesus never said, “ Believe these things about me.” Jesus said, “Do what I do.”

I think it describes much of American evangelicalism. It does not describe the progressive movement, because the progressive movement harbors no such absurd fantasies as Heinlein mentions here.

No. Xy is not, itself, an “absurd fantasy.” Some practice it that way, but no. Mythic? Yes. Metaphoric? Yes. But not fantasy.

 

[sojourner]

An omnipresent, omniscient God of ideal character, is God because God would never lets sincere hearted souls down with the lack of knowledge of God.

Perhaps it’s up to,us to discover on our own terms, rather than having it crammed down our throats. Isn’t that how love works? We have to discover for ourselves the desirable qualities in the other?

If God exists we are totally separated from everything God is. And to be separated under natures conditions must be a form of punishment.

Unless we’re all part of the same Divine nature. I believe God surrounds us. The world is God’s body.

 

[Trailblazer]

3. Baha'u'llah was a man possessed by a vision that he was convinced came from GOD. As possibly was Muhammad. As possibly was Jesus if he did indeed exist.
Things are seldom black or white.

That is a good point. But that would still make Baha’u’llah and Muhammad and Jesus false prophets, even if they thought they were true prophets. My point was that they are either true or false.

Indeed. You have no way of knowing 1 or 2 or 3. You choose to assume (believe) it is 1. Is that wisdom?

But I did not leap before I looked. That was my point.
I did not just “assume” that #1 was true without looking.

I have ways of knowing that #1 is true, because I looked. It cannot be proven objectively because nothing about God can be proven objectively. Nevertheless, I can know without objective evidence because I have evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was telling the truth and that He was not deluded but rather He really got a message from God.

So close. All you had to do was take out the word "other".
Any god(s) that people believe in are imaginary gods because they do not exist in reality.

Can you prove that, or is it just a personal opinion?

You are asserting that "Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, and there is only One God because He said so". Got any proof of that?

As I said above, God claims cannot be proven, for obvious logical reasons, but they can be supported by evidence.

So, let's stop with the silly "proof" arguments and look at evidence. What is the evidence that "Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God"?

I cannot list all of the evidence here, but I can list the “categories” of evidence and I can point you to where you can research these categories.
The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a true Messenger from God is as follows:

• What He was like as a person (His character);
• What He did during His mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that He wrote;
• What others have written about Him;
• 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 He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now.

 

[Trailblazer]

You do have a habit of posing logical arguments in illogical ways.

There are actually (at least) 4 options.
1. There is one God
2. There is one God with 3 "personalities" which can come in conflict with one another
3. There are many gods who can compete and/or cooperate
4. There are no gods

You stated there was only one option. I previously stated that you tend to see things in only black or white. This time you degraded into seeing things in only white or white.

No steps forward, three steps back.

I do not consider it logical that God has 3 personalities.
I do not consider it logical that there are many gods who can compete and/or cooperate.

I believe that if God exists, God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, so #2 and # 3 cannot be logical possibilities.
Thus there are only two “logical” possibilities:

1. There is One God, or
2. There is no god

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am sorry but that is not a good reason, God should do that just because God can easily do that. God can also easily wipe out all of creation in a instant... Should God do that too?

Why should God do what some humans want God to do just because they want God to do it?

Why should God communicate directly to everyone on earth -- all 7.44 billion people -- when God can communicate with Messengers such that everyone has access to that information?

You have certainly missed the point of what I wrote, presumably because it conflicts with how you personally believe in God.

Let me point out that your counter-example fails badly. If it were important (to God) that all of creation should be wiped out, then why would He not do it? Are we not told that He wiped out all humans except 8 and all animals that walked on the earth save only a few of each? Looks like a precedent to me. But is it not important to God that humans should understand what He wants of them? Clearly and unambiguously? And is that how you see human religions working throughout our history, and right up until this very moment?

And it is exactly our human religious history and present that says with absolute clarity that this presumed systems of Messengers giving "everyone access to that information" has utterly failed. Thousands of religions throughout history, dozens today, and tens of thousands of sects, all fighting with one another, all disagreeing about what God wants, makes your view of God an utterly incompetent communicator.

Let me ask you this; how much sense does it make for God to reveal every one of the over 15,000 Tablets that He revealed to Baha'u'llah to every one of the 7.44 billion people in the world, when God can reveal them to one Messenger?

Because for some inexplicable reason, God forgot to make it known to everybody that they were supposed to listen to a believe Baha'u'llah, and so they go on listening to and believing the other so-called messengers that came from -- or pretend to -- God, like Moses, Paul, Peter, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and absolutely countless others. Once again, a failure to communicate effectively on an absolutely stunning scale for something supposed to be both omniscient and omnipotent. For me, I'm afraid this simply beggars belief.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, the proposition 'we came from monkeys' is a false proposition.

I am not saying evolution is false I'm saying 'we came from monkeys' is false. Evolution is as true as true gets as far as that goes.

But of course, in your own words you demonstrate that you don't understand evolution. Evolution does NOT say that we come from monkeys. Evolution says that monkeys and we have a common ancestor, and that monkeys and apes have a common ancestor, and that tapirs and tapeworms have a common ancestor -- somewhere in the mists of the continuing development of life on this planet.

 

[Sir Doom]

But of course, in your own words you demonstrate that you don't understand evolution. Evolution does NOT say that we come from monkeys. Evolution says that monkeys and we have a common ancestor, and that monkeys and apes have a common ancestor, and that tapirs and tapeworms have a common ancestor -- somewhere in the mists of the continuing development of life on this planet.

That is exactly what I'm saying. The proposition:

"We came from monkeys."

Is FALSE

I REPEAT FALSE

FALSE = WRONG = NOT TRUE

I was hypothetically demonstrating the fact that a proposition need not be correct in order for it to be evidenced, as evidence (by the dictionary definition provided by Shunyadragon) need only indicate "the truth of" which may of course be the very "lack of truth" in the proposition along with simply being erroneously used to demonstrate a false proposition.

The notion that something becomes non-evidence simply because it isn't demonstrating what the propositioner is proposing is just ridiculous. In many cases it literally becomes evidence to the contrary! Shades of grey and all that.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have certainly missed the point of what I wrote, presumably because it conflicts with how you personally believe in God.

Let me point out that your counter-example fails badly. If it were important (to God) that all of creation should be wiped out, then why would He not do it?

He would but He didn’t so that means that it is not what God wants to do. He doeth whatsoever he willeth.

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 284​

Are we not told that He wiped out all humans except 8 and all animals that walked on the earth save only a few of each? Looks like a precedent to me.

Do you actually believe that happened? I don't.

“Mention hath been made in certain books of a deluge which caused all that existed on earth, historical records as well as other things, to be destroyed. Moreover, many cataclysms have occurred which have effaced the traces of many events. Furthermore, among existing historical records differences are to be found, and each of the various peoples of the world hath its own account of the age of the earth and of its history. Some trace their history as far back as eight thousand years, others as far as twelve thousand years. To any one that hath read the book of Jük it is clear and evident how much the accounts given by the various books have differed.​

Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 174-175​

But is it not important to God that humans should understand what He wants of them? Clearly and unambiguously? And is that how you see human religions working throughout our history, and right up until this very moment?

It is important, and that is how I see religions working throughout our history. Granted, what God wanted was not as clear and concise in the older religions as it is in the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, but it got them to where we are today.

And it is exactly our human religious history and present that says with absolute clarity that this presumed systems of Messengers giving "everyone access to that information" has utterly failed. Thousands of religions throughout history, dozens today, and tens of thousands of sects, all fighting with one another, all disagreeing about what God wants, makes your view of God an utterly incompetent communicator.

No, God is not an incompetent communicator. God communicated competently through His Messengers but humans failed to receive the communication. All of this can be attributed to humans and what they have chosen to do with their free will.

Simply put, humans cling tenaciously to older religions even after a newer religion is revealed by God, and this is all the fault of humans. Humans have utterly failed to recognize God’s Messengers. Jews failed to recognize Jesus and instead clung to Moses and the Torah; Jews and Christians failed to recognize Muhammad and instead clung to the Torah and the NT; Muslims failed to recognize the Revelation of Baha’u’llah and instead clung to the Qur’an... NONE of this is God’s fault.

Because for some inexplicable reason, God forgot to make it known to everybody that they were supposed to listen to a believe Baha'u'llah, and so they go on listening to and believing the other so-called messengers that came from -- or pretend to -- God, like Moses, Paul, Peter, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and absolutely countless others. Once again, a failure to communicate effectively on an absolutely stunning scale for something supposed to be both omniscient and omnipotent. For me, I'm afraid this simply beggars belief.

Why should God make it known to everybody that they were supposed to listen to a believe Baha'u'llah? Why is that God’s responsibility? God created us with a brain and free will to figure that out for ourselves. The fact that so many people have failed to do so is primarily because they are clinging to their older religions, like a baby clings to a baby blanket. That is not God’s fault. God will allow them to cling until they finally grow up and no longer need their baby blankets.

The explicable reason that God did not make it known to everybody that they were supposed to listen to a believe Baha’u’llah is that God wants them do figure that out for themselves.

 

[lukethethird]

That is exactly what I'm saying. The proposition:

"We came from monkeys."

Is FALSE

I REPEAT FALSE

FALSE = WRONG = NOT TRUE

I was hypothetically demonstrating the fact that a proposition need not be correct in order for it to be evidenced, as evidence (by the dictionary definition provided by Shunyadragon) need only indicate "the truth of" which may of course be the very "lack of truth" in the proposition along with simply being erroneously used to demonstrate a false proposition.

The notion that something becomes non-evidence simply because it isn't demonstrating what the propositioner is proposing is just ridiculous. In many cases it literally becomes evidence to the contrary! Shades of grey and all that.

Give the guy a break, after all, he is wearing glasses.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is exactly what I'm saying. The proposition:

"We came from monkeys."

Is FALSE

I REPEAT FALSE

FALSE = WRONG = NOT TRUE

I was hypothetically demonstrating the fact that a proposition need not be correct in order for it to be evidenced, as evidence (by the dictionary definition provided by Shunyadragon) need only indicate "the truth of" which may of course be the very "lack of truth" in the proposition along with simply being erroneously used to demonstrate a false proposition.

The notion that something becomes non-evidence simply because it isn't demonstrating what the propositioner is proposing is just ridiculous. In many cases it literally becomes evidence to the contrary! Shades of grey and all that.

And I repeat, for the hard-of-reading, that false or true, the Theory of Evolution contains no such "proposition" as "we came from monkeys." And therefore, it has nothing whatever to say about the ToE at all. So what are you arguing?

 

[lukethethird]

Weeping statues, anybody?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Give the guy a break, after all, he is wearing glasses.

The better to actually see with. So much more effective than simply assuming you know all truth.

 

[Sir Doom]

The proposition is not being made at all, its hypothetical.

Evolution is the evidence being used (erroneously in this hypothetical case) to indicate the truth of the proposition. Evolution does NOT, in fact, support the erroneous and false proposition and in fact demonstrates that the proposition is false.

Which means that regardless of how terribly the hypothetical proposition is using the evidence, it is still evidence and in this hypothetical example in fact it is (as defined) evidence to the contrary.

What this demonstrates, as I've stated repeatedly is that evidence need not indicate that the proposition is actually true in order to count as evidence and instead needs only to indicate what the truth of the proposition is (up to and including that the proposition is false).

Thus, my statement that the Bible is evidence stands. If someone states they believe X and uses the Bible as evidence as to why they believe it, the Bible is obviously fulfilling the dictionary definition of 'a body of information indicating the truth of a proposition'. It does NOT follow that the proposition is literally true simply because it has been evidenced, and neither does the invalidity of the proposition somehow transform the evidence used into non-evidence (as it is so often treated). Instead, it is merely evidence of something else and in many cases evidence to the contrary.