Does God have Free Will?

[siti]

I consider the concept ot the Harmony of Science and Religion is unique among the existing religions, and you have not refuted that. PLEASE RESPOND with specifics.if another religion promoted this principle.

The Baha'i Faith was the firdt to mandate that all children, girls and boys receive education..

Your strong bias determines your agenda. and filled with vague generalities.

First of all there is no need to shout.

Secondly, the notion that science and religion are in conflict was only thought of in the 19th century - before that almost nobody would have thought that there was not already "essential harmony" between religious and scientific knowledge even if their modes of inquiry were diverging. In any case, what you seem to comparing to is western (Christian) religion and perhaps Islam. I don't believe there is any issue of an essential conflict between science and religion from a Buddhist or Hindu perspective - is there?

Thirdly, you may be correct in stating that the Baha'i faith was the first to explicitly promote the education of all children as a doctrinal principle (I am prepared to accept that even though I don't know for sure), but there is a long tradition of Christian denominations promoting education for children that stretches back a century or more before Baha'u'llah's time. This was certainly not a new idea in the 1880s when Baha'u'llah wrote about it. As I pointed out in the discussion I linked to above, Robert Owen had stated almost six decades earlier (in 1826) that “To train and educate the rising generation will at all times be the first object of society, to which every other will be subordinate.”

Finally, my strong bias - if I have one - is against the deliberately misleading claims of religions...and my arguments in the three posts I linked to are not vague or general at all - they are, to the contrary, filled with (indeed they almost completely consist of) very specific, direct and verifiable quotations from people who were saying some of the same things that Baha'u'llah and Son chose to put into their "new" revelation - and these other people were already saying it decades or even centuries before it was divinely revealed to (or by?) the founders of your religion. So are these principles really "God's will"? Or are they not rather the products of human cultural evolution? Or is there any difference - between cultural evolution and the "progressive revelation" of God's will? How on earth could we tell? If humans were already saying it was important before God even got around to talking about it, what does that suggest? Were Thomas Jefferson and Robert Owen (for example) divinely inspired? They were both, in different ways, way ahead of their time - including religiously in my opinion. But who is revealing truth to whom? Does God guide men progressively or does the human construct of divinity follow the prevailing currents of human culture (albeit with a bit of a lag)? Does God really have free will or do we tell God what should be religiously sanctioned and what should be outlawed?

They are, on the face of it, wonderful ideals - these principles of your faith - but they were certainly not new and the Baha'i faith (for the most part) has been no more successful in implementing them than other religious groups - with the exception (perhaps) that you don't actually tolerate diversity of opinion within the faith (you define it "out" by calling serious dissenters "Covenant breakers") so that you can be sure to claim a unique "religious unity" that is not matched by Christianity, Islam and the rest. Well that might be true - I mean it might be true that the Baha'i faith has maintained a degree of religious unity that has completely evaded other religions, but then again, as another smart human being once revealed, "if everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking".

 

[Truly Enlightened]

When or where did I ever say that?

I said: “People can be enlightened and not be arrogant and judgmental, but those who think that they are enlightened are arrogant.” I was not referring to YOU.

People who think they are enlightened have an exaggerated sense of their importance or abilities.

Arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
https://www.google.com/search

I have answered everything you have asked directly. You just do not like my answers.

I am not going to go down this rabbit hole again; your insults, blaming, derisiveness, and criticism. All you know how to do is criticize others but you cannot see that you have any faults at all... It is always somebody else that is wrong or to blame. I have been down this road with other atheists but never this bad and never on this forum.

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me.

44: O COMPANION OF MY THRONE! Hear no evil, and see no evil, abase not thyself, neither sigh and weep. Speak no evil, that thou mayest not hear it spoken unto thee, and magnify not the faults of others that thine own faults may not appear great; and wish not the abasement of anyone, that thine own abasement be not exposed. Live then the days of thy life, that are less than a fleeting moment, with thy mind stainless, thy heart unsullied, thy thoughts pure, and thy nature sanctified, so that, free and content, thou mayest put away this mortal frame, and repair unto the mystic paradise and abide in the eternal kingdom for evermore.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh​

I have answered every question you ever asked. You just did not “like” my answers. I have spent hours answering your posts, but I am done now. I have many other people to respond to who treat me with dignity and respect. I will no longer converse with people who are rude and disrespectful. It was my mistake to even respond to you again after what has happened in the past. I knew better. But it is over now, thank God.

When or where did I ever say that?

I said: “People can be enlightened and not be arrogant and judgmental, but those who think that they are enlightened are arrogant.” I was not referring to YOU.

Although my statements were to another poster and not you, this tag-team misrepresentation strategy is certainly expected of you. Anyone that can convince themselves that underlings to a God exists, can convince themselves of anything. I'm not going to play your silly games. Others reading these post can see clearly the meaning of the statements the other poster made about my tag. So stay in denial, it suits you. You are truly transparent, including your beliefs. You have NOT answered any of my questions(as demonstrated by not stating what the questions were), and you never will or can. It is irrational to believe that an all- powerful supernatural father figure exists, without evidence. But, believing that this father figure has, or needs an underling, is just silly. This is what happens, when you abandon the need for objective physical verifiable evidence(I don't know how I know, I just know). This also creates a slippery-slope that allows for all manner of beliefs to seem rational and valid. Fortunately science is far more discriminating to make such unfalsifiable religious claims. Lets just let science explain reality, and religions explain personal beliefs? If you want to believe in the Monkey King, or any suborders of Gods, I couldn't care less.

You have answered nothing. Not one of my questions. Do I need to write the questions down again? Just like the last time you ignored them, no matter how many times I asked for answers. When you are challenged to back up your statements of facts, you attack the person, give non-answers, deflect, misdirect, distort, sermonize, misrepresent, blatantly deny, claim a conspiracy, or simply ignore the concerns altogether. News flash. If the person asking the questions says you haven't answered the questions, it is probably true that you haven't. To say that you have, or that the person just don't "like" the answers, would appear avoiding and arrogant. YOU are accountable and responsible for your actions, irrespective of your divine position. I'm curious, are your responses scripted?

You are correct, arguing with you is the same as arguing with myself. Because your mind is closed, you have no original thoughts of your own. To defend your position, you must distort, rephrase, edit, or reword the statements made by others, to fit your scripted responses. When all else fails, you simply throw up your hands and claim that you are not here to convince anyone of anything. My frustration is not about arguing with you, it is about arguing with myself. You bring nothing to the table, but rhetoric, quote-mining, editorializing, and constant referrals to Google U for approve-only sources. If I did believe in a God, I would also thank him for freeing me from arguing with myself. So for the last time, can we stick to only the topic of this thread? I'm sure you will find others to fall for this scam. After all, you did.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Where the evidence comes from determines whether the evidence is accurate or inaccurate evidence. Tainted evidence is not evidence at all. Ever see a crime drama where the evidence is tainted?

Rational people look at where the evidence comes from because that determines if it is tainted.

I did address them. I told you I dismiss them because they are lies. I do not have to prove to you why they are lies. That is not my job. If you knew the truth then you would know why they are lies.

They are false because they are false. I know they are false because I know the truth. I do not have to demonstrate that to you. The motives are obvious and they explain why the false information is presented.

Give it up for lost. Knowledge about God comes from God through Manifestations of God, who were selected by God. It does not converge with truth revealed by humans.

The Truth from God is not threatened. Only the lies of humans who distort that Truth is threatened.

Knowledge about God comes from God through Manifestations of God. I cannot be God, nobody can be God except God, Lol.

No, God exists because God exists, not because the Messenger says so. The Messenger exists because His body was born on earth but His Spirit came from the heaven of the Will of God and His message came from God.

If one thing is right, then all of it is right, and the entire house of cards stands. Religion works that way.

Of course not all people lie, but some do. I do not close my eyes or cover my ears. I know what lies are because I know what the truth is.

The evidence is all there for you to read. All those things are explained in the Writings of the Baha’i Faith. It is not my job to read it and interpret them for anyone except myself.

Where the evidence comes from determines whether the evidence is accurate or inaccurate evidence. Tainted evidence is not evidence at all. Ever see a crime drama where the evidence is tainted?

Rational people look at where the evidence comes from because that determines if it is tainted.

I did address them. I told you I dismiss them because they are lies. I do not have to prove to you why they are lies. That is not my job. If you knew the truth then you would know why they are lies.

They are false because they are false. I know they are false because I know the truth. I do not have to demonstrate that to you. The motives are obvious and they explain why the false information is presented.

First you should look up the meaning of circular reasoning. No one was questioning whether the evidence is tainted. The issue is whether the evidence is accurate. The accuracy of the evidence is not dependent on where the evidence comes from, no matter how many times you say it does. Evidence is based on facts that stand on their own. If any claims are inaccurate, simply correct them(not make excuses). I was asking for answers to many questions about your faith. All I receive is avoidance, fallacies, insults, and excuses. It is clear that you CAN'T defend or correct anything out of your mouth, so don't bother. I have certainly lost interest, especially in your ability to be intellectually honest. But don't worry, there will always be others that don't mind the circular reasoning, and other fallacies you can offer them, "God exists because God exists, not because the Messenger says so", "If one thing is right, then all of it is right", "They are false because they are false", and "The evidence is all there for you to read. All those things are explained in the Writings of the Baha’i Faith". There is, "one born every minute"

We keep coming back to "how do you know that your truth claims about God or his Messenger are true?". You will say again, that you don't know how you know, but you know because of the evidence. But then you will contradict yourself by saying that only an idiot would expect objective evidence supporting any supernatural truth claims. Therefore, by your own logic, you haven't a clue about anything you claim as being supernaturally valid. You simply believe that your claims are true, because they make you feel good about yourself. Period.

The rest of your post is just more of the same meaningless unsubstantiated rhetoric. I also agree that you are definitely not here to prove or convince anyone of anything, that comes out of your mouth. Since you are not trying to convince me of anything, then stop wasting my time doing so.

 

[shunyadragon]

nay

to win a debate.....get off the fence

draw a line

God has freewill
He is simply hampered by the lines He drew

and yours
(and yes....you did draw a line....
and you are attempting to support it
it's just so badly drawn)

Your assertions do not make it so.

 

[Thief]

Your assertions do not make it so.

maybe not....but I say the logic is there

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I am absolutely not here to convince anyone of anything.

I have spent hours answering your posts, but I am done now. I have many other people to respond to who treat me with dignity and respect. I will no longer converse with people who are rude and disrespectful. It was my mistake to even respond to you again after what has happened in the past. I knew better.

You didn't respond to me. You butted your way into a conversation I was having with another poster. That also was a mistake. I've never had any intentions of dialoguing with such a closed mind again. Especially one that doesn't know the difference in answering my posts, and answering my questions. I'm afraid I don't respond well to being shamed into obedience. And questioning extraordinary claims, does not produce guilt. I put a lot of time and efforts into my post. I try to make them as clear and concise as I can. All was a total waste of time on you. You wouldn't answer even the most basic of questions, without constantly making excuses and denials. So you will not be missed. As long as you don't butt into my conversations, you will never hear from me.

You obviously misunderstand my meaning, so I'll repeat it. "If you are truly not here to convince anyone of the nature of your faith, or the total lack of evidence supporting your faith, THEN YOU HAVE SUCCEEDED". This means that it is redundant to respond with, "I am absolutely not here to convince anyone of anything", since YOU HAVE ALREADY SUCCEEDED.

 

[shunyadragon]

First of all there is no need to shout.

Shouting is apparently necessary, because of your lack of knowledge of the history of the relationship between science and ancient religions.

Secondly, the notion that science and religion are in conflict was only thought of in the 19th century - before that almost nobody would have thought that there was not already "essential harmony" between religious and scientific knowledge even if their modes of inquiry were diverging. In any case, what you seem to comparing to is western (Christian) religion and perhaps Islam. I don't believe there is any issue of an essential conflict between science and religion from a Buddhist or Hindu perspective - is there?

You should know more about the history of the problems with the principle of the harmony of science and religion with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. ALL of these religions lack this guiding principle including Buddhism. Yes, Buddhism lacks the principle, but has historically lacked any interest in science and technology. The problem is whether religions taught these principles as a mandate for the believers to follow, and the fact is they did not, and change was left to inconsistent reform, which was frequently rejected by the faithful.

In Judaism and Christianity the historical belief in the literal Genesis, and the problem of humans descendant from Adam and Eve has most definitely impacted the view toward science throughout history. The impact of Christianity begins with the belief of the Church Fathers that Genesis is literal history of our physical existence. With Judaism it was more the origins of humanity from Adam and Eve.

Judaism still today is inconsistent concerning the support of evolution especially among the Orthodox. Yes secular Jews are pragmatic, but because of the lack of the guiding principle that belief is divided and inconsistent.

Creationism & Evolution in Jewish Thought | My Jewish Learning

The belief in the literal view of Genesis has impacted Christianity has impacted their relationship with science throughout their history. The problem first arose in understanding the cosmology of our universe. The more accurate description of our cosmology by the Roman philosopher Lucretius was rejected by traditional Christianity because it was pagan, and did not conform to a literal Genesis. Eventually Christianity reluctantly accepted the modern cosmology, but the early conflicts were very real. Your in a way correct that the problems of the harmony of science and religion came back strongly in the 19th and 20th Century, but the lack of this principle is crippling to a divided Christianity up until today with approximately 40 t0 50% of Christians still endorsing a literal view of the Bible in one form or another rejecting or compromising science.

Scientists like Charles Darwin faced a great deal of problems from his own beliefs and those around him that rejected his science of evolution.

Islam also faces the problem of belief in Genesis and the belief that humans descended from Adam and Eve. The view toward science remains inconsistent in Islam to even today, because of the lack of this fundamental principle.

From:Islamic Theological Views on Darwinian Evolution - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion

"The various positions that Muslim scholars have adopted vis-à-vis Darwin’s theory of evolution since its inception in 1859 are here reviewed with an eye on the theological arguments that are embraced, whether explicitly or implicitly. A large spectrum of views and arguments are thus found, ranging from total rejection to total acceptance, including “human exceptionalism” (evolution is applicable to all organisms and animals but not to humans).

The two main theological arguments that are thus extracted from Muslim scholars’ discussions of evolution are: 1) Is God excluded by the evolutionary paradigm or does the term “Creator” acquire a new definition? 2) Does Adam still exist in the human evolution scenario, and how to include his Qur’anic story in the scientific scenario?"

Problems with Hinduism next. I will also address the issues of the education of children in another post.

 

[shunyadragon]

First of all there is no need to shout.

Deal with Hinduism in this post. The problem remains in Hinduism with the lack of the foundation principle of the 'Harmony of Science and Religion leads to various different views from total rejection, conditional acceptance, to acceptance of the science of evolution:


From: https://www.quora.com/Does-Hinduism-believe-in-evolution


Sabuj Chattopadhyay, Autodidact | Top Writer '15/'18
Answered Aug 3, 2014 · Author has 787 answers and 1.4m answer views


No, the kind of 'evolution' Hindu scriptures talk about like Vishnu taking different 'avatars' or we getting 'human form' in millions of life cycles is not related in any way with the current scientific understanding of evolution or the way Darwin understood it. Most of such claims are based on extremely naive interpretation of the word 'evolution' and they have no idea how the mechanism of selection and the differential change of allele frequency in a gene pool occurs in real world ( processes like natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow ). It is a survival process not a purification one.

Even the very fundamental ideas about 'evolution' is erroneous in scriptures. It is not some sort of a linear process from primitive to superior organisms with human beings at the end of chain and all other animals forming the previous links. It doesn't work that way. Evolution is more like a tree in time in which each species lives at the 'leaves' and all species shares a common ancestor (branch) somewhere down towards the root. No species is 'superior' to the other. Needless to say, even if we focus only on the path from root to the leaf which corresponds to humans, there is a tremendous mismatch between what we find from fossils, genetics and geographical distribution and what is depicted in scriptures."

Another post:

‘Hinduism’ is expressed by Hindus and Hindus can believe pretty much anything they want. One Hindu can believe God exists and another that God doesn’t exist and a third that he is God and all can call themselves Hindus.

One person can believe that Sathya Sai Baba and Ramakrishna are incarnations of God and another can believe they are both frauds and both can call themselves Hindus.

If you are a Hindu and want to believe in evolution you just believe in it, no problem. No one will hate you, deride you, or insult you for it. If you don’t want to believe in it the same applies.

Iskcon is labeled by some, as a fanatical, fundamental, intolerant, aggressive group, and they don’t care if you believe in evolution or not. The theory of evolution is taught in their international school in Mayapur because it’s part of the Oxford

The contemporary Hari Krishna movement conditionally accepts evolution for animals and plants sort of maybe, but not humans.

From: We Accept Evolution, but Not Darwin’s Theory

Yes. This planet comes later on. We can take the idea from the tree–the tree grows gradually, and the different fruits, branches, and twigs gradually appear. Therefore it is to be understood that this planet has grown later on. Besides this we understand that although the planet was later on grown up, it was covered with water–pralaya payodhi jale merged into the water after devastation. Then gradually it emerges from water. That we can experience, that gradually land is coming out of the oceans. Because of its being merged into water, it is natural to conclude that the beginning of life was aquatic. This is confirmed in Padma Purana that the species of life evolved from aquatics to plants, vegetables, trees; thereafter insects, reptiles, flies, birds, then beasts, and then human kind. This is the gradual process of evolution of species of life.

But we do not accept Darwin’s theory. According to Darwin’s theory, homo sapiens came later on, but we see that the most intelligent personality, Brahma, is born first. So according to Vedic knowledge, Darwin or similar mental speculators are rejected so far the fact is concerned.

 

[shunyadragon]

maybe not....but I say the logic is there

Logic can be used to support any belief, but circular reason or begging the question does not make it so, because you believe it so, and conclude everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

 

[siti]

You should know more about the history of the problems with the principle of the harmony of science and religion with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. ALL of these religions lack this guiding principle including Buddhism. Yes, Buddhism lacks the principle, but has historically lacked any interest in science and technology...

...In Judaism and Christianity the historical belief in the literal Genesis, and the problem of humans descendant from Adam and Eve has most definitely impacted the view toward science throughout history. The impact of Christianity begins with the belief of the Church Fathers that Genesis is literal history of our physical existence. With Judaism it was more the origins of humanity from Adam and Eve.

"Throughout history" presumably meaning since the late 19th century? The early Church Fathers were certainly not consistent in their interpretations of Genesis and neither were medieval Jewish scholars (for example) - I'm not going to go into all the details - if you are really genuinely interested you can read for yourself what they actually wrote. But before Darwin, there was really not too much of an issue because almost everyone simply assumed that God created everything - it didn't matter too much how long ago that was or how it was done. The controversy was not about science versus religion it was about literalism versus allegorical or figurative interpretations of scripture and the Genesis creation account was a case in point not the crux of the argument. Of course science is caught up in that now, but it wasn't so much historically. In Islam, for many centuries, the pursuit of scientific knowledge was religiously promoted. We owe a large debt of gratitude for our current knowledge of the world to Islamic scientists who took the scientific knowledge of the more ancient Greek, Babylonian and Indian cultures to extraordinary new horizons that really laid the foundation for the scientific revolution in the west - and it was that that ignited the religion versus science wars as scientific discovery repeatedly challenged the orthodox cosmologies of the ancient scriptural traditions culminating with mankind being toppled from his God-given pedestal by Darwin.

Anyway, suppose I grant you that the Baha'i faith is superior in that sense - in that it does indeed promote the idea of harmony between science and (Baha'i) religion. What does that prove? Like I said before - it stands to reason that a religion invented in the 19th century would be more up to date than one that was invented in the 4th or the 7th century. How does that prove that God has anything to do with it?

 

[Trailblazer]

You didn't respond to me. You butted your way into a conversation I was having with another poster. That also was a mistake. I've never had any intentions of dialoguing with such a closed mind again. Especially one that doesn't know the difference in answering my posts, and answering my questions. I'm afraid I don't respond well to being shamed into obedience. And questioning extraordinary claims, does not produce guilt. I put a lot of time and efforts into my post. I try to make them as clear and concise as I can. All was a total waste of time on you. You wouldn't answer even the most basic of questions, without constantly making excuses and denials. So you will not be missed. As long as you don't butt into my conversations, you will never hear from me.

I did not butt in. People on forums respond to posts that were not posted directly to them all the time. That is not rude, but the way you castigate me with vicious criticism and constant blaming is rude and disrespectful.

My mistake was posting to you again, but I admit it was my mistake. What happened after that was not my fault.

I answered EVERY question you ever asked if I had the answer. When I did not have the answer I told you I did not know. Why wasn’t that good enough? Why is it MY responsibility to research every little detail of the Baha’i Faith for you and come up with an answer? Why is it my responsibility to prove that the detractors are wrong? Do you think that any other Baha’is are going to do that for you? If you think so, why not ask them the questions?

You said: “I'm afraid I don't respond well to being shamed into obedience.” I never shamed you, not once. You are the one who tried to shame me. You made demands that I answer specific questions and then tried to shame me into obedience by insulting me when you did not get the answers you wanted. The proof is in the posts. It is you that has been shaming me constantly, trying to get me to do what you want me to do, prove to you that my religion is true. What you are doing is called Psychological projection.

So what happened is that I did not answer your questions the way you wanted me to, I answered them with the only answers that I had. You did not get the answer that you wanted so you got angry and blamed me for that. I could easily prove that I answered every question by going back through my posts but I have better things to do with my time.

It is not my job to convince you that my beliefs are true. I just share what I believe and why I believe it. That is what I did. Baha’u’llah wrote that that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself.

I have posted over 4000 posts on this forum in less than one year. Many people ask me questions. The fact that nobody else on this forum has ever accused me of not answering their questions is evidence that I answer peoples’ questions. Nobody but you has ever accused me of making excuses and denials. That is evidence that I do not do that.

You obviously misunderstand my meaning, so I'll repeat it. "If you are truly not here to convince anyone of the nature of your faith, or the total lack of evidence supporting your faith, THEN YOU HAVE SUCCEEDED". This means that it is redundant to respond with, "I am absolutely not here to convince anyone of anything", since YOU HAVE ALREADY SUCCEEDED.

You can speak for yourself, but you cannot speak for everyone else on this forum because you cannot know what other people are thinking, what they are convinced of, or what they see as evidence.

You said: “This means that it is redundant to respond with....”

Who are you to tell me how I should respond to posts? My response was totally appropriate because I was pointing out that I have not succeeded in doing anything because I was not trying to do anything.

There is no need to respond to this post. I am finished talking to you.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Throughout history" presumably meaning since the late 19th century? The early Church Fathers were certainly not consistent in their interpretations of Genesis and neither were medieval Jewish scholars (for example) - I'm not going to go into all the details - if you are really genuinely interested you can read for yourself what they actually wrote

Throughout history I mean throughout Christian history.

I will go into details if you like. ALL the Church Fathers that wrote about Genesis considered it a literal history. St Augustine considered the variation that based on Genesis 1 Creation was instantaneous.

. But before Darwin, there was really not too much of an issue because almost everyone simply assumed that God created everything - it didn't matter too much how long ago that was or how it was done. The controversy was not about science versus religion it was about literalism versus allegorical or figurative interpretations of scripture and the Genesis creation account was a case in point not the crux of the argument.

This is in part for the need of the Baha'i Revelation and the principle lacking in other religions for the contemporary world.

Of course science is caught up in that now, but it wasn't so much historically. In Islam, for many centuries, the pursuit of scientific knowledge was religiously promoted. We owe a large debt of gratitude for our current knowledge of the world to Islamic scientists who took the scientific knowledge of the more ancient Greek, Babylonian and Indian cultures to extraordinary new horizons that really laid the foundation for the scientific revolution in the west - and it was that that ignited the religion versus science wars as scientific discovery repeatedly challenged the orthodox cosmologies of the ancient scriptural traditions culminating with mankind being toppled from his God-given pedestal by Darwin.

Anyway, suppose I grant you that the Baha'i faith is superior in that sense - in that it does indeed promote the idea of harmony between science and (Baha'i) religion. What does that prove? Like I said before - it stands to reason that a religion invented in the 19th century would be more up to date than one that was invented in the 4th or the 7th century. How does that prove that God has anything to do with it?

There is no proof of anything in this discussion, and comments like like that are rhetorical foolishness.

I do not believe Darwin toppled anything particularly God. The advances in science in the 19th and 20th century made ancient religions not tenable logically and rationally, but the persisted despite this. These changes are in harmony with the Baha'i Faith, and di not make the Baha'i Faith obsolete, and with this the Baha'i Faith acknowledges the evolution of knowledge of our physical existence, and our understanding of our scripture concerning our physical existence must change with science.

It stands to atheist reason, and you say invented as an atheist. The Baha'i say revealed with a purpose for the Modern Age.

Actually the changes in the role of women and children's education goes back earlier in the pre-Baha'i beliefs of the Babis, the earlier followers of the Bab.

This discussion just revealed the superficial knowledge of the Baha'i Faith, and the parallel issues in others religions as in science. The post I am responding to strongly reflects your atheistic bias.

 

[siti]

ALL the Church Fathers that wrote about Genesis considered it a literal history. St Augustine considered the variation that based on Genesis 1 Creation was instantaneous.

Well of course that simply isn't true...in fact these two sentences are mutually contradictory aren't they? How could "ALL the Church Fathers" take the Genesis account literally when, on your own admission, Augustine (at least) did not. But in truth, Augustine was all over the place on this - he takes it literally in one place and figuratively in another. Some of the other Church Fathers presented a bit more clarity in terms of their own interpretation but they were certainly not consistent with one another. Victorinus, Basil the Great and Ambrose all explictly defended literal 24-hour days, Cyprian (I think it was) had it as 7000 years and here - by way of example - is what Clement of Alexandria wrote as to what we should learn from the Genesis creation account (my bold):

"That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production." (Miscellanies Bk 6 Ch 16)
​

I did not say anything about Darwin "toppling God", I said he had toppled humans from their divinely authorized pedestal at the pinnacle of the earthly creation - and that he certainly did because if evolution is true (and I presume you accept the fact of evolution given that you are advocating the harmony of science and religion) then there is no reason to assume either that humans were the direct creation of God or that they occupy any remotely special position in God's favour. It is quite possible that humans will eventually become an extinct line of biological life and ultimately be superseded by another (possibly more) intelligent species at the top of the living world's pecking order - what then? Will God manifest in the form of a super-intelligent chicken or a whale? And in any case, how do you know that God has not already done exactly that? How do you know that whales, elephants or gorillas (perhaps for example) don't already have their own version of deity? Or maybe another completely unknown (to us) life from in a distant galaxy?

My point is that if you advocate both progressive "revelation" and naturalistic evolution, how can you possibly tell where "God's will" ends and human purposes take over? How can you tell there is even a difference between them? How can you tell "God's will" from natural necessity? This line of questioning is not rhetoric at all - its a serious philosophical question that has to be answered satisfactorily if you want to make the Baha'i version of theism a viable and coherent worldview.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well of course that simply isn't true...in fact these two sentences are mutually contradictory aren't they? How could "ALL the Church Fathers" take the Genesis account literally when, on your own admission, Augustine (at least) did not. But in truth, Augustine was all over the place on this - he takes it literally in one place and figuratively in another. Some of the other Church Fathers presented a bit more clarity in terms of their own interpretation but they were certainly not consistent with one another. Victorinus, Basil the Great and Ambrose all explictly defended literal 24-hour days, Cyprian (I think it was) had it as 7000 years and here - by way of example - is what Clement of Alexandria wrote as to what we should learn from the Genesis creation account (my bold):

"That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production." (Miscellanies Bk 6 Ch 16) ​

Both of the views from St. Augustine and Clement of Alexandria are versions of a literal Genesis. Yes, they also agree to parallel symbolic and allegorical understandings concerning what we may learn; from Genesis, but remained believing in a literal history in Genesis.
​

 

[siti]

Both of the views from St. Augustine and Clement of Alexandria are versions of a literal Genesis. Yes, they also agree to parallel symbolic and allegorical understandings concerning what we may learn; from Genesis, but remained believing in a literal history in Genesis.

Well given the Baha'i propensity for reinterpreting the traditions of others I suppose I should have expected a response like that...details aside though, what about the questions in my last paragraph? Can you tell the difference between God's will and the necessity of nature? How?

 

[Thief]

Logic can be used to support any belief, but circular reason or begging the question does not make it so, because you believe it so, and conclude everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

in a straight line.....God is greater

creation has rules.....He made them
for creation to hold....He refrains breaking those rules

have you tried stepping from a high ledge?.....to see if the angelic will catch you

 

[atanu]

Are there any rational grounds for firmly concluding that god, if god exists, has free will?

I do not know whether I have free will or not. In fact I do not know the “I am”. How can I know anything about God or his free will?

If I go by scripture, God is called ‘swatantra’, which means ‘of independent will’.

 

[shunyadragon]

in a straight line.....God is greater

True.

creation has rules.....He made them
for creation to hold....He refrains breaking those rules.

True, so what?!?!? It remains highly egocentric and arrogant that some claim humans can define God and draw imaginary lines to limit the identity of God.

have you tried stepping from a high ledge?.....to see if the angelic will catch you

Gravity eists by the nature of our physical existence regardless of whether God exists or not.

 

[chinu]

Are there any rational grounds for firmly concluding that god, if god exists, has free will?

One day Sunstone will post this question on religious forums, This was also decided by God

 

[shunyadragon]

Well given the Baha'i propensity for reinterpreting the traditions of others I suppose I should have expected a response like that . . .

Example: Your selective references of the Church Fathers, and your previous superficial understanding of the nature of science in the beliefs of ancient religions reflects a propensity for reinterpreting the traditions of others.I will cite the Church Fathers in more complete references to enlighten you concerning the reality of what the believed concerning Genesis. You actually play a selective shell game like liberal Christians to reinterpret the clear and specific intent of the Church Fathers as their understanding of a literal Genesis.

. ...details aside though, what about the questions in my last paragraph? Can you tell the difference between God's will and the necessity of nature? How?

I actually addressed that in this thread and many other threads in my history of this site.and apparently you have chosen to ignore it.

Again, again and again and again . . .

From the human perspective I made it very clear in numerous times that the the nature of our physical existence is as it is, and the nature of our physical existence is a reflection of God;s attribute and humans CANNOT differentiate God's will and the necessity of God's nature based on the physical evidence used by science.

The reasons I believe in God are based on other attributes and nature of our existence and NOT physical evidence that science uses to determine the nature of our physical existence.

You sure are superficial, selective in citations, and dense in your agenda and atheist bias.