How can anyone understand anything about a god? You are vocal about how limited science is, so what other means and method is available AND RELIABLE to any of us that we can detect a god and understand things about it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for God
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The only way we can know anything about God is from what the Messengers of God reveal about God, which are God's will and God's attributes.
We can also know some of God's attributes because they are manifested in the Person of the Messenger.
We can never know the Essence of God, not even the Messengers knew that.
We can never detect God since God dwells in unapproachable Light.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
None, as far as I can tell.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The suffering-free realm is heaven, but nobody will be bored there since they will still have God's work to do, just like here, only without a physical body and physical needs to worry about.....
I have heard atheists say they would rather go to hell, since it will be so much more fun, because they imagine they will be able to have the physical things they enjoy here, eating, drinking and having sex, but there will be nothing physical in hell, so it will be hell thinking about what they used to have but can no longer have, for all of eternity.... I cannot imagine anything worse than that.
Meanwhile, the believers will be with God up in heaven. If I get to heaven, I won't just be sitting around doing nothing or singing praises to God, I will want to be doing actual work, so I will want to go down and rescue souls who are in hell..... That is what I try to do here so it will just be a continuation of my work.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Can you you name a few concrete examples? What in his character? What accomplishments? What from his words?
It didn't happen to me, i haven't been to heaven.
I think you have misunderstood why they would prefer to be in hell if you think it is because they are bored of not suffering.
In my opinion.
It didn't happen to me, i haven't been to heaven.
I think you have misunderstood why they would prefer to be in hell if you think it is because they are bored of not suffering.
In my opinion.
If humans can't know how God thinks then your claim to know that God's logic is different to human logic is something you can't know since the mind of God is just as unknown to you as it is to the non-believer in your God in my view.
OK, so there is no basis for any rational human to decide a god of some sort exists?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Fair enough.
My intent was not that atheists are like the natives who are ignorant of some reality. That has nothing to do with my analogy.
My analogy was not intended to compare things that can be known and proven to exist (airplanes) to things that cannot be known or proven to exist (God). My analogy was using airplanes as something that the natives have never seen or heard of. The question is: How the natives know what evidence for an airplane looked like if they have no idea what an airplane is? Similarly, how would an atheist know what evidence for God looked like if they have no idea what God is? That was my analogy.
Atheists cannot go by what theists claim that God is and say there is no evidence for such a God, since theists have a God that reveals Himself through the messengers. When I say the messengers are the evidence for God, atheists say "that's not evidence " so I want to know what atheists think the evidence would be if God existed.
This thread was intended to be about what God is according to theists. This thread was about what atheists would accept as evidence for God, not about what theists believe God is or what theists believe the evidence for God is.
I said: Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?
As always threads do get off track, I was only attempting to reel it in.
People are free to think and contribute however they want to, but I am also free not to discuss what I don't want to discuss.
Of course I know full well that my belief about "evidence for God" is contentious and I don't care what responses are posted. However, I am free not to engage in a discussion about my evidence for God since that has been amply covered in the past
Atheists might be a target of some believers but they are not in my crosshairs. I am the one who is always defending atheists when other believers attack them.
Atheists are not a threat to me and I don't think they are a threat to believers in general. Why would atheists be a threat? What can atheists do to believers to harm them? Only if a believer was not firm in their faith would an atheist pose a threat.
So you are a Buddhist who does not believe in God. I had a good friend who was a Buddhist and he believed in God.
If you actually had evidence you could rebut the evidence believers say they have. That was the point of this thread.
It is only a difference in belief, and it does not affect my belief system. People are free to 'believe' whatever they want to, but I go by the evidence.
It was not me who complained about lashing out, it was you.
You said: You are frustrated that you aren't trusted, and you lash out against those who show the best skill at thinking.
Yet you have no evidence of me lashing out. I am as cool as a cucumber.
Cults might have rules, but true religions have Laws and these Laws come from God.
Whether my evidence convinces you or anyone else is not what would make the Baha'i Faith a true religion. It is either true or not, regardless of what anyone believes, since how many people believe in a religion does not make any religion true.
I don't have any gaps to fill in since there is no evidence missing. I certainly don't know everything about God but I know enough to know that God exists and I know what I need to know to fulfill the purpose of my existence.
How many people are blown away by the texts has no bearing whatsoever on whether the Baha'i Faith is true or not. You still don't get it so you keep repeating the same mantra which equates to the fallacy of ad populum.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.
I know, because I have 1986 Honda Prelude and most people would think it is a piece of junk, but I love it.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder when it come to 'what people like', but what people like has nothing to do with what is actually true or false.
The revelations are not inconsistent although they are different. Why would a new messenger come just to reveal exactly the same thing that the previous messengers revealed? What is inconsistent is what people believe but that is because they don't understand the real meaning of the scriptures.
God does not reveal any conflicting things, God only reveals different things in every age, because humanity needs different things in every age.
According to my beliefs, there was no time when man was without religion or God, since God has sent messengers ever since man evolved to be man. The reason there is no record of these messengers or the religions in prehistoric times is because the art of writing did not exist that long ago.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I can't know about God's logic, but I reason that God's logic has to be different from human logic since God is not a human.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The idea is, we don't remember anything that happened before we were born. But, it's just a theory.
Sure. But that's not what I said.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I'll have to think on that and get back to you when I have more time. I am on a schedule today and I am running late.
So your God wipes the slate clean so we have no recollection of our objection to living without suffering just to take a portion of us back to heaven in spite of our objections?
Sure, because in my view what you said was irrelevant to our whole discussion on choosing suffering.
In my opinion.
Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
In Christianity, you know the Father through relationship with the Son, and you know the Son through relationship with the least (the victim). This is how it works.
How do you relate to the least / victim? I describe that here:
Why the Woke and Christian Communities Need Each Other
When the self shares the light with the victim, then the self will experience what the victim experiences. The Christian self highly identifies with the Kingdom. However, where victimization occurs, sin will be there also. Since sin is antithetical to the Kingdom, the Christian may have a...
www.religiousforums.com
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
We can only confirm that these are characters in the New Testament. Even this is fuzzy given how Christians don't agree abut this relationship. So not helpful.
What victim?
This looks to be little more than ideological nonsense. Reading the thread you started it has a lot of religious and right wing code words, and these are not fact based. I can't accept any of you wrote there because it is so heavily biased and inaccurate.
Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
I believe you that you see a lot of noise, but I assure you that there is signal. You can focus on the noise if you want, but I am being sincere.
Last edited:
I knew how this would go before it unfolded. No, she cannot give you anything specific. It will always be broad, nonspecific generalities.
And here they are. One might ask what aspect of his character (or works or word) was transhuman, but no answer will be offered beyond, "his character" followed by a link that doesn't support the claim, either.
Yeah, that's pretty much how I understand all scripture. This piece was, "with God all things are possible," which should be understood as only the things nature you can do are possible, which is pretty much the empiricist's view anyway. The whole god thing shouldn't be understood as there literally being a god. That's meant figuratively as well, and refers to the unconscious laws of nature, which is also pretty much what the humanist believes already. So, you can see that if we allow ourselves to take liberties with what words mean, no words have a definite meaning. That's the beauty of scripture, which is vague, ambiguous, self-contradictory, often gives bad advice, praises poor thinking and morality in its deity, and is full of error. But no worries. We can still work with that and call it divine if we fix a few parts.
Of course you did, and in a backhand way which is why he was offended. So did whoever you're carrying water for. Your man chose that language to demean and intimidate people for blaming his god for gratuitous suffering.
Heroes also don't like suffering, but he chose to feature cowards. Now tell me how I can't know what he was thinking or why he wrote those words.
You mean except messengers and their messages, right? Or is that metaphysical to you?
Unless there are real things that aren't physical, not physical and not real are synonymous, and nothing is known to be real that isn't also physical, so you have no basis for assuming otherwise. Moreover, you offer this as absence of evidence as justification for your belief, as if the lack of evidence is no problem because there is no evidence - exactly why critical thinkers reject such a belief.
Not anything that just justifies belief in their extraordinary claims, which require extraordinary evidence, not the mundane musings of yet another religious reformer.
I asked you that and never answered with anything more specific than his character, his work, and his words, which were all very human.
Exactly.
I agree with you here, which is a large part of the argument that no tri-omni god rules our world. By the way, since you don't like suffering, does this make you a coward?
This lasted about six seconds ....
Bad atheist trying to make you out to be the bad guy!
Well, that's a claim, let's see the facts that inform us that you are correct, and not bluffing. I think you are bluffing since you haven't presented evidence that your fantastic claims are in any way true.
Sincere people get conned and fooled, too. So show us what you have to indicate you aren't one of them.