• 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!

I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things

joelr

Well-Known Member
I see no contradictions. God allows evil to happen because God gave man free will to choose, so some people choose to do good and some people choose to do evil.

Evil is 100% the fault of humans who choose to do evil because they do not obey the laws of God. It is as simple as that. There would be no child abuse or rape or murder or any other evil if everyone followed the laws of God.

There would still be all those crimes. Mental illness doesn't just go away because everyone follows the laws of their God. Actually some religions allow war and discriminatory behavior over gay people and women. As well as other religions.
Mentally ill people could still abuse people in various ways. Cancer and disease can still inflict people of all ages, even children.

If you want people to be compelled to follow laws from a God maybe that God should show up in a manner beyond the same way false gods show up and with exactly the same evidence as false gods show up and with exactly the same writings and proof that fake gods use? Maybe that would be a start. It's always people's fault? Yet God and Roswell ALiens are on equal footing for evidence?

ISIS are following the laws of the Quran as they interpret it. Not how you interpret it. People are free to interpret written rules. It's says bring the fight to Christians in Repentance in the Quran.
Maybe when people stop believing in Gods we can stick to mans laws, they are pretty clear. Or just keep having radical sects forever?
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
The future is determined by laws of probabilities.
You can make choices that will impact some future events. But there are also billions of other events, some microscopic, some neurons firing in your brain, in other brains, that can make different futures. An electron firing in a tube in a traffic light could cause a traffic accident, there are billions of variables. You have a probabilistic future but you can never be certain or always know the future.
Here, you are saying that the future is determined by a range of different things .. that it is "probabilistic".
You therefore conclude that it is indeterminate .. in a philosophical sense.

I am not claiming otherwise. I do not think that you or I can know what will happen in the future, and agree that it is determined by all those things.

A deity may know all possible probabilities, maybe a deity sees every possible alternate world play out at once?
No .. that is not what I believe.
I believe that our perception of "it has not happened yet" is only our perception .. and not the only possible perception.
G-d does not evaluate all possibilities .. He knows because in His perception, we have already made our choices.
i.e. everything is determined in the way that you describe

Everything is not determined by a set script .. the apparent "set script" is what is actually going to be determined in the way that you describe, but you don't perceive it.

It is all about the nature of 'time' and how we perceive it.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
No .. that is not what I believe.
I believe that our perception of "it has not happened yet" is only our perception .. and not the only possible perception.
G-d does not evaluate all possibilities .. He knows because in His perception, we have already made our choices.
i.e. everything is determined in the way that you describe

Everything is not determined by a set script .. the apparent "set script" is what is actually going to be determined in the way that you describe, but you don't perceive it.

It is all about the nature of 'time' and how we perceive it.

A God outside of time were debates and theology Aquinas worked on in the Middle Ages. He was borrowing Greek Platonic concepts and putting them on the God of the day - Yahweh. Islamic theologians also have similar work.
It's all a big thought exercise. First some evidence of a theistic God is needed. There is an X Man who knows the future as well. Also fiction.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I won't be the one who has the house of cards tumbling down on me if I am wrong.
Think about it.
Of course you will, think about it. The flaws in Pascal's wager are of course that it assumes risk, and without any objective evidence, but worse it assumes all the risk is with disbelief, since you disbelieve in all the deities I disbelieve in, except one, what are the odds you've arbitrarily picked the right one anyway? As you say you don't know, just believe.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Of course you will, think about it. The flaws in Pascal's wager are of course that it assumes risk, and without any objective evidence, but worse it assumes all the risk is with disbelief, since you disbelieve in all the deities I disbelieve in, except one, what are the odds you've arbitrarily picked the right one anyway? As you say you don't know, just believe.
If there was more than one deity and I believed in the wrong deity then I could be in trouble, but if there is any deity or deities and the atheist did not believe in any deity or deities he would be in the same amount of trouble.

I believe there is only one deity, the deity that was revealed by all the Messengers of that deity.
That is the deity I believe in. I do not believe there is any objective evidence because the deity choose not to provide such objective evidence and an omnipotent deity only does what He chooses to do.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If there was more than one deity and I believed in the wrong deity then I could be in trouble, but if there is any deity or deities and the atheist did not believe in any deity or deities he would be in the same amount of trouble.

I believe there is only one deity, the deity that was revealed by all the Messengers of that deity.
That is the deity I believe in. I do not believe there is any objective evidence because the deity choose not to provide such objective evidence and an omnipotent deity only does what He chooses to do.

That sounds like an excuse for not providing evidence?


The Messiah: meet the Australian man who says he's Jesus and his followers | 7NEWS Spotlight
Here are some of the more famous incidents of people claiming to be getting Jewish messiah messages, Babs is just one of many.


 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If there was more than one deity and I believed in the wrong deity then I could be in trouble, but if there is any deity or deities and the atheist did not believe in any deity or deities he would be in the same amount of trouble.

I believe there is only one deity, the deity that was revealed by all the Messengers of that deity.
That is the deity I believe in. I do not believe there is any objective evidence because the deity choose not to provide such objective evidence and an omnipotent deity only does what He chooses to do.

Christian messiah claimants
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If there was more than one deity and I believed in the wrong deity then I could be in trouble, but if there is any deity or deities and the atheist did not believe in any deity or deities he would be in the same amount of trouble.

I believe there is only one deity, the deity that was revealed by all the Messengers of that deity.
That is the deity I believe in. I do not believe there is any objective evidence because the deity choose not to provide such objective evidence and an omnipotent deity only does what He chooses to do.

 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
If there was more than one deity and I believed in the wrong deity then I could be in trouble,

Well even if there is only one, the house of cards could come tumbling down on you, as you put it, if you don't get your pick right. Whereas you implied only atheists took any risk. HERE:
I won't be the one who has the house of cards tumbling down on me if I am wrong.
Think about it.
I believe there is only one deity, the deity that was revealed by all the Messengers of that deity.

Yes I know this, it doesn't alter the fact that your claim that "I won't be the one who has the house of cards tumbling down on me if I am wrong." Is demonstrably incorrect, if you're wrong how will you be in any less trouble than an atheist from a theistic perspective, which of course is what you were offering?

My perspective does not involve any belief in any deity or deities, so I don't see any risk, but yours does perceive a risk, and if you get your choice wrong then from your perspective that must involve risk, this is not to say you believe you have picked the wrong deity, which is another matter.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Yes I know this, it doesn't alter the fact that your claim that "I won't be the one who has the house of cards tumbling down on me if I am wrong." Is demonstrably incorrect, if you're wrong how will you be in any less trouble than an atheist from a theistic perspective, which of course is what you were offering?
The claim that "all" messengers of the deity revealed that deity? That is mostly a Baha'i belief. And, as we all know, they have to make "adjustments" to the beliefs of the other religions to make them fit into the Baha'i beliefs. And they stack a lot of cards on that assumption. Of course, because the Baha'i Faith says it, they don't believe it is an assumption... but the truth.

As we deal out the Baha'i cards... Krishna isn't an incarnation, but a manifestation. And he didn't teach reincarnation. Buddha taught about the one true God. Jesus died and stayed dead and didn't resurrect physically. All the prophecies in all the major religions were fulfilled by the Bab and Baha'u'llah. But the cards holding all this up is that their description and definition of God is the true one. And that all messengers/manifestations were sent by this one God, and Baha'u'llah is the latest one. All things they can't prove objectively and must just "believe" that they are true. If these bottom cards get pulled out, the whole thing falls, But, if one of the cards at the top falls down, it too could knock down the whole pile.

Of course, they think their foundation is made of solid rock. But so do all the other religions. And Baha'is have no problem tearing down the foundational beliefs of the other religions. And justify it by saying that those beliefs were manmade traditions and interpretations that got added into the religion. Sure, I got no problem believing all the other religions were manmade. But those other religions are part of the Baha'i foundation too. So, they've got to be careful how much they destroy of those other religions.

For me, it's too late. They've already destroyed to much of them. I believe the Baha'is. The stories in the Scriptures of the other religions aren't literally true. But then I don't believe Baha'is when they say some things that were written as "historically" true were also not literally true... but were meant to be symbolic stories. The worst one being the resurrection story of Jesus. That's a big part of the foundation of most Christian beliefs. Jack hammered and bull dozed down to rubble. But, like I said, I believe them. Those stories weren't true. But now I'm supposed to believe the Baha'i story?

All I see is that most all new religions find ways to lay claim to The Truth... by finding ways to delegitimize the other religions. Baha'is have done that. But those religions, all crumbled and broken, are part of the foundation of the Baha'i Faith. And they stack their cards on it.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
There would still be all those crimes. Mental illness doesn't just go away because everyone follows the laws of their God. Actually some religions allow war and discriminatory behavior over gay people and women. As well as other religions.
Mentally ill people could still abuse people in various ways. Cancer and disease can still inflict people of all ages, even children.

If you want people to be compelled to follow laws from a God maybe that God should show up in a manner beyond the same way false gods show up and with exactly the same evidence as false gods show up and with exactly the same writings and proof that fake gods use? Maybe that would be a start. It's always people's fault? Yet God and Roswell ALiens are on equal footing for evidence?

ISIS are following the laws of the Quran as they interpret it. Not how you interpret it. People are free to interpret written rules. It's says bring the fight to Christians in Repentance in the Quran.
Maybe when people stop believing in Gods we can stick to mans laws, they are pretty clear. Or just keep having radical sects forever?
Speaking of the mentally ill... What would we do if we saw a person taking his son up a mountain to sacrifice him. And the guy says that God told him to do it?

And what if we saw an army march into a city and kill all the people and animals, including women and child. And they said that their God had commanded that they do it?

What are Baha'is going to say? That those stories weren't true? That God would never really do that? I say great, then the Bible stories about God are fictional. That people are just doing bad things to each other and are justifying it by making up stories that say that God told them to do it. Well, that's okay with me... But I wonder how much more is just made up stories... including God. Baha'i trust that God is real, just not the stories about God?

And like you say, lots of those beliefs were borrowed from other cultures. Yet, the Gods of those cultures, I'm sure, Baha'is believe are false?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That sounds like an excuse for not providing evidence?
Evidence of the deity would have to come from the deity.
The deity provided Messengers as evidence.

The fact that some messengers were false does not prove all messengers were false. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization, unless and until one has actually considered all the variables.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:
  1. messenger a was not a true messenger of God
  2. messenger b was not a true messenger of God
  3. messenger c was not a true messenger of God
  4. messenger d was not a true messenger of God
Therefore, messenger d (in this case Baha’u’llah) was not a true messenger of God.

It is true that the world is full of men who claimed to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there were not one or more Messengers who did speak for God.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Yes I know this, it doesn't alter the fact that your claim that "I won't be the one who has the house of cards tumbling down on me if I am wrong." Is demonstrably incorrect, if you're wrong how will you be in any less trouble than an atheist from a theistic perspective, which of course is what you were offering?

My perspective does not involve any belief in any deity or deities, so I don't see any risk, but yours does perceive a risk, and if you get your choice wrong then from your perspective that must involve risk, this is not to say you believe you have picked the wrong deity, which is another matter.
Your risk is that if there is a deity you did not perceive a deity.
My risk is if there was more than one deity and I chose the wrong deity. That same risk would apply to any theist.

There would also be a risk if there was more than one true religion and I chose only one religion and rejected all the other religions. That is the risk that Christians take, not a risk I take, since I believe that all the religions are true.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Christian messiah claimants
It does not matter if there are many false messiah claimants because that does not mean there were never any true messiah claimants.
Please refer to my previous post to you regarding the fallacy of hasty generalization.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
It does not matter if there are many false messiah claimants because that does not mean there were never any true messiah claimants.
Please refer to my previous post to you regarding the fallacy of hasty generalization.

sheez.... Talk about a system to have you set up to fail
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Top