I have some deep question about God, help!

[syo]

why does this all even exist? Can't he just wipe it all out, and destroy satan?

We exist and God commands Satan to tempt us. He gives us tests to prove that we love immeasurably. If it wasn't for Satan, we wouldn't have temptations. Then HOW would we demonstrate immeasurable love?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

We exist and God commands Satan to tempt us. He gives us tests to prove that we love immeasurably. If it wasn't for Satan, we wouldn't have temptations. Then HOW would we demonstrate immeasurable love?

I do not think a loving God would command Satan to test people. But God ALLOWS Satan to test us to show that when we follow Satan it only leads to hatred and violence and crime. The things that are taking over the world because people choose to follow Satan instead of God.

 

[syo]

I do not think a loving God would command Satan to test people.

In Orthodoxy, Satan is a favourite angel of God. His job is temptation. Whatever satan does is for temptation. The biggest temptation of Satan is that he has power.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

In Orthodoxy, Satan is a favourite angel of God. His job is temptation. Whatever satan does is for temptation. The biggest temptation of Satan is that he has power.

In Christianity, Satan rebelled against God and was thrown out of Heaven. He is certainly no favorite of God. He is a sworn enemy of God and tries to overthrow everything God stands for.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wrong!

Please do not make sweeping claims about other religions if you have not studied them and going by your statements on here - it is clear that your expertise is limited to the Baha'i faith

Show me another religion that has a Covenant written by the Prophet Founder of that religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

In Christianity, Satan rebelled against God and was....

In the Baha'i Faith, Satan does not exist as a real entity but rather the word Satan is symbolic for the lower selfish materialistic nature of man, called the satanic self.

 

[Trailblazer]

If a god has chosen not to provide reasonable evidence, then it can't expect reasonable people to believe it.

Who defines what is reasonable, and who are reasonable people? God must consider His evidence reasonable since God created humans with the ability to reason.

This risks going off into philosophical discussion but briefly: the notion of "free will" in the sense most people think of it, and in any way that it makes sense with respect to an omni-god, is logically incoherent. Things (even choices) have to happen for reasons unless they involve randomness. Minds must be deterministic systems (unless there genuine randomness). The only kind of free will that makes logical sense is compatibilism (which makes no sense to an omni-god).

You kind of lost me with all of that, but here is my take on free will.

While it is true that nothing happens outside the will of God that does not mean humans do not have free will to act. Humans have free will to make choices but our destiny is held fully within the grasp of God’s will. So if we try to make a choice that is not in accordance with God’s will, then that choice will not turn into an action and we will have to make another choice. Of course, this is all happening behind the scenes.

The evidence that we have free will is that people make choices and that they are considered responsible for those choices thus held accountable for their actions in a court of law. The only exceptions are if someone is mentally ill, mentally challenged, or brain damaged. The reasons those are exceptions is that their mental functioning is impaired thus their free will (ability to choose) is impaired.

Free will does not mean we can choose to do “anything” we want to do. Free will is constrained by many factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. How free we are varies with every given situation we find ourselves in. However, we have the ability to make choices within certain parameters. Otherwise, we would just be at the mercy of our past experiences and our heredity. If humans did not have free will how could we be responsible for our actions and held accountable in a court of law? That is not possible.

Free will only applies to making moral choices. It is debatable how much freedom we have to make life decisions like marriage and career choices, or how much of that is predestined. Free will does not apply to the things we are compelled to do or things we have no control over, such as eating, sleeping, diseases, injuries, misfortunes, and death.

We are not responsible for the things we are compelled to do or the things which we have no control over, we are only responsible for the moral choices we make, such as being nice to someone or mean, rude or courteous. Am I going to give a struggling tenant the boot, or wait for him to pay the rent? I have a choice.

You would not be on this forum posting if you did not make a choice to do so. God did not make you do it so it had to be your choice since there is nobody else here. Only if someone is incarcerated do they lose the freedom of choice. That is why going to prison is the worst punishment, other than getting the death sentence, which also takes away your choice to live.

Question.—Is man a free agent in all his actions, or is he compelled and constrained?
Answer.—This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems. If God wills, another day, at the beginning of dinner, we will undertake the explanation of this subject in detail; now we will explain it briefly, in a few words, as follows. Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

For example, if he wishes, he can pass his time in praising God, or he can be occupied with other thoughts. He can be an enkindled light through the fire of the love of God, and a philanthropist loving the world, or he can be a hater of mankind, and engrossed with material things. He can be just or cruel. These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them.
Some Answered Questions, p. 248​

What's wrong with that?

God wants us to do our own homework. That is why we are born with innate intelligence to think and free will to choose and act accordingly. Would you want to be God’s puppet on a string? I wouldn’t.

Even without the problems of free will I mentioned above - you can't choose your beliefs. You either find something convincing or you don't, it's not the sort of thing people just decide. This is not a free choice. A genuine choice must be an informed choice.

I agree that we are not completely free to choose our beliefs and that is one reason why there is no such place as hell. We all have the capacity to recognize the Messenger but we cannot all use that capacity due to factors that intervene. Free will is constrained by many factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. We can’t just believe in any religion because we want to, we have to have a reason to believe it, and it has to make sense to us. I could for example never be a Christian because it is not believable to me. But you are right that any choice should be an informed choice; that means we have to be informed about what we are choosing, making a choice based upon all the information we need to make that choice.

As I said, because there is no prima facie case that there is any god to search for, let alone one that has (illogically and unfairly, as far as I can see) hidden a message amongst the religions.

If you already knew there was a God to search for, why would you have to search for a God? God did not deliberately hide the message, although I am not saying it is easy to find, unless you have some idea what you are looking for and where to look for it. Otherwise there is no chance they will ever find it.

Don't know where you got the 93% from, a quick google suggests 84% affiliated to a religion. However, that is hardly relevant because whatever percentage do not believe in "God". There is no one god-idea. Starting from the point of view of deciding if there is a god, all we have to go on are the god-ideas in the minds of people, and there are many of them. Whichever one we look at, most people in the world think it is wrong - and yes, that includes your god, which is just another god-idea that most people disagree with. You may want to claim that everyone really believes in your god, but actually their god-ideas are different - and it's only the god-ideas an unbeliever has to go on.

Yes, it is 84 percent of the world population has a faith but about 9% of people believe in God but have no religion and 7% of people are atheists Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia.

What I have observed is that nonbelievers get all caught up in what religious people believe (god-ideas) and how much one belief differs from another belief; but what people believe does not represent what was actually revealed in scripture, because believers have gotten away from the original meaning of scripture and some never understood it at all. In Daniel 12 he said that we would not understand the meaning of the Book (Bible) until the time of the end when the Book would be unsealed. We are in that time now because Baha’u’llah unsealed the Book and made it understandable. Of course I have a prejudice, but I consider the Writings of the Baha’i Faith very clear and easy to understand. One reason they are so clear is because we have appointed interpreters of Baha’u’llah’s Writings.

 

[ratiocinator]

Who defines what is reasonable, and who are reasonable people?

I guess we all have to do our best. My approach is to seek objective evidence or sound reasoning before believing things about the nature of reality.

God must consider His evidence reasonable since God created humans with the ability to reason.

Or there is no reasonable evidence because there is no god.

You kind of lost me with all of that, but here is my take on free will.
...
The evidence that we have free will is that people make choices and that they are considered responsible for those choices thus held accountable for their actions in a court of law. The only exceptions are if someone is mentally ill, mentally challenged, or brain damaged. The reasons those are exceptions is that their mental functioning is impaired thus their free will (ability to choose) is impaired.

That isn't evidence that we have free will, that is evidence that people treat other people is if they have free will. In fact, this is justifiable in the case of compatibilism, but it would be a diversion here (if you're interested, try Elbow Room by Daniel Dennett).

God wants us to do our own homework. That is why we are born with innate intelligence to think and free will to choose and act accordingly.

You keep saying this but I still don't get this game of hide-and-seek. It still seems unfair and unjust.

Would you want to be God’s puppet on a string? I wouldn’t.

Information isn't compulsion.

But you are right that any choice should be an informed choice; that means we have to be informed about what we are choosing, making a choice based upon all the information we need to make that choice.

Exactly - so why isn't all the information made clear to everybody?

If you already knew there was a God to search for, why would you have to search for a God?

Again, no matter how many times you say this, I don't find the game of hide-and-seek at all believable.

What I have observed is that nonbelievers get all caught up in what religious people believe (god-ideas) and how much one belief differs from another belief; but what people believe does not represent what was actually revealed in scripture, because believers have gotten away from the original meaning of scripture and some never understood it at all.

So you claim, but that is just another god-belief. I've read the bible and it's totally useless trying to extract a clear and unambiguous message from it - which accounts for all the different groups who all claim to be following it. The point is that the god-ideas is all a non-believer has to go on. What else is there? Either one of them (or a small number of compatible ones) is true or none of them are.

At the very least most of them must be wrong, because they are incompatible. This is why I conclude that the most probable answer is that they are all wrong, and that a more detailed (time and effort consuming) investigation is almost certainly futile. I would regard a god that would penalise me for that as being unjust - I would be using the mind it gave me as best I can.

 

[JChnsc19]

Who defines what is reasonable, and who are reasonable people? God must consider His evidence reasonable since God created humans with the ability to reason.

You kind of lost me with all of that, but here is my take on free will.

While it is true that nothing happens outside the will of God that does not mean humans do not have free will to act. Humans have free will to make choices but our destiny is held fully within the grasp of God’s will. So if we try to make a choice that is not in accordance with God’s will, then that choice will not turn into an action and we will have to make another choice. Of course, this is all happening behind the scenes.

The evidence that we have free will is that people make choices and that they are considered responsible for those choices thus held accountable for their actions in a court of law. The only exceptions are if someone is mentally ill, mentally challenged, or brain damaged. The reasons those are exceptions is that their mental functioning is impaired thus their free will (ability to choose) is impaired.

Free will does not mean we can choose to do “anything” we want to do. Free will is constrained by many factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. How free we are varies with every given situation we find ourselves in. However, we have the ability to make choices within certain parameters. Otherwise, we would just be at the mercy of our past experiences and our heredity. If humans did not have free will how could we be responsible for our actions and held accountable in a court of law? That is not possible.

Free will only applies to making moral choices. It is debatable how much freedom we have to make life decisions like marriage and career choices, or how much of that is predestined. Free will does not apply to the things we are compelled to do or things we have no control over, such as eating, sleeping, diseases, injuries, misfortunes, and death.

We are not responsible for the things we are compelled to do or the things which we have no control over, we are only responsible for the moral choices we make, such as being nice to someone or mean, rude or courteous. Am I going to give a struggling tenant the boot, or wait for him to pay the rent? I have a choice.

You would not be on this forum posting if you did not make a choice to do so. God did not make you do it so it had to be your choice since there is nobody else here. Only if someone is incarcerated do they lose the freedom of choice. That is why going to prison is the worst punishment, other than getting the death sentence, which also takes away your choice to live.

Question.—Is man a free agent in all his actions, or is he compelled and constrained?
Answer.—This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems. If God wills, another day, at the beginning of dinner, we will undertake the explanation of this subject in detail; now we will explain it briefly, in a few words, as follows. Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

For example, if he wishes, he can pass his time in praising God, or he can be occupied with other thoughts. He can be an enkindled light through the fire of the love of God, and a philanthropist loving the world, or he can be a hater of mankind, and engrossed with material things. He can be just or cruel. These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them.
Some Answered Questions, p. 248​

God wants us to do our own homework. That is why we are born with innate intelligence to think and free will to choose and act accordingly. Would you want to be God’s puppet on a string? I wouldn’t.

I agree that we are not completely free to choose our beliefs and that is one reason why there is no such place as hell. We all have the capacity to recognize the Messenger but we cannot all use that capacity due to factors that intervene. Free will is constrained by many factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. We can’t just believe in any religion because we want to, we have to have a reason to believe it, and it has to make sense to us. I could for example never be a Christian because it is not believable to me. But you are right that any choice should be an informed choice; that means we have to be informed about what we are choosing, making a choice based upon all the information we need to make that choice.

If you already knew there was a God to search for, why would you have to search for a God? God did not deliberately hide the message, although I am not saying it is easy to find, unless you have some idea what you are looking for and where to look for it. Otherwise there is no chance they will ever find it.

Yes, it is 84 percent of the world population has a faith but about 9% of people believe in God but have no religion and 7% of people are atheists Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia.

What I have observed is that nonbelievers get all caught up in what religious people believe (god-ideas) and how much one belief differs from another belief; but what people believe does not represent what was actually revealed in scripture, because believers have gotten away from the original meaning of scripture and some never understood it at all. In Daniel 12 he said that we would not understand the meaning of the Book (Bible) until the time of the end when the Book would be unsealed. We are in that time now because Baha’u’llah unsealed the Book and made it understandable. Of course I have a prejudice, but I consider the Writings of the Baha’i Faith very clear and easy to understand. One reason they are so clear is because we have appointed interpreters of Baha’u’llah’s Writings.

How do people with Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, diseased brains etc have free will?

 

[JChnsc19]

I guess we all have to do our best. My approach is to seek objective evidence or sound reasoning before believing things about the nature of reality.



Or there is no reasonable evidence because there is no god.



That isn't evidence that we have free will, that is evidence that people treat other people is if they have free will. In fact, this is justifiable in the case of compatibilism, but it would be a diversion here (if you're interested, try Elbow Room by Daniel Dennett).



You keep saying this but I still don't get this game of hide-and-seek. It still seems unfair and unjust.



Information isn't compulsion.



Exactly - so why isn't all the information made clear to everybody?



Again, no matter how many times you say this, I don't find the game of hide-and-seek at all believable.



So you claim, but that is just another god-belief. I've read the bible and it's totally useless trying to extract a clear and unambiguous message from it - which accounts for all the different groups who all claim to be following it. The point is that the god-ideas is all a non-believer has to go on. What else is there? Either one of them (or a small number of compatible ones) is true or none of them are.

At the very least most of them must be wrong, because they are incompatible. This is why I conclude that the most probable answer is that they are all wrong, and that a more detailed (time and effort consuming) investigation is almost certainly futile. I would regard a god that would penalise me for that as being unjust - I would be using the mind it gave me as best I can.

Rat I agree with what you’re saying about hide n seek. That’s what my name means Jesus Christ hide n seek champ. Why would this loving god make the most important message in your life obscure? Why is the Holy Spirit only revealed to some? Why does their god play favorites? Why is the Bible so unclear that there are 1,000s of denominations? Guess we’ll never know...

 

[syo]

In Christianity, Satan rebelled against God and was thrown out of Heaven. He is certainly no favorite of God. He is a sworn enemy of God and tries to overthrow everything God stands for.

That's a temptation. God thought of that.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do people with Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, diseased brains etc have free will?

Free will is constrained by many factors. Obviously, those with serious mental problems are not free to choose as are normal people. That is why they would not be held accountable in a court of law.

 

[ManSinha]

Show me another religion that has a Covenant written by the Prophet Founder of that religion.

Look up the history of how the Guru Granth came into being and accepted as the current source of spiritual knowledge for the Sikh Faith
The history of the Guru Granth
The volumes were compiled twice over by the 5th and 10th Prophets

In fact - I have been doing a study of the writings and teachings of the Baha'i faith and although Abrahamic - it would appear to have a lot in common with Sikhism

In fact someone quoted a prayer ascribed to Baha’u’llah which admonishes people not to call him God

There is an exact same one written by the 10th Master about a hundred years earlier - we can start a separate thread and compare and contrast if you would like - would be instructive for me at least

 

[Trailblazer]

Look up the history of how the Guru Granth came into being and accepted as the current source of spiritual knowledge for the Sikh Faith
The history of the Guru Granth
The volumes were compiled twice over by the 5th and 10th Prophets

In fact - I have been doing a study of the writings and teachings of the Baha'i faith and although Abrahamic - it would appear to have a lot in common with Sikhism

In fact someone quoted a prayer ascribed to Baha’u’llah which admonishes people not to call him God

There is an exact same one written by the 10th Master about a hundred years earlier - we can start a separate thread and compare and contrast if you would like - would be instructive for me at least

I am not surprised if the Sikh Faith has a lot in common with the Baha'i Faith, since all true faiths share the same spiritual verities. I will try to find time to read about it but unfortunately I am very busy with many things I have to do in life right now so I have had to cut back on forums. If you start a thread and post to me I will try to respond and other Baha'is are here who will probably respond. But until I find a tenant for my rental house I am going to be buried.

 

[Trailblazer]

I guess we all have to do our best. My approach is to seek objective evidence or sound reasoning before believing things about the nature of reality.

That is a good approach, but there are some things such as God for which we cannot ever have objective evidence. But we can still use sound reasoning to asses religious claims.

“God must consider His evidence reasonable since God created humans with the ability to reason.”

Or there is no reasonable evidence because there is no god.

That is the other logical possibility.

That isn't evidence that we have free will, that is evidence that people treat other people is if they have free will. In fact, this is justifiable in the case of compatibilism, but it would be a diversion here (if you're interested, try Elbow Room by Daniel Dennett).

I do not want to veer too far off topic but free will is the basis by which we are able to choose our beliefs so it is related to this topic.

You keep saying this but I still don't get this game of hide-and-seek. It still seems unfair and unjust.

Why do you think it is unfair and unjust to have to do use our innate intelligence to find what we seek? Don’t you think we should have to do anything to earn our belief in God?

Information isn't compulsion.

So you are saying that if God hand fed us the information we could still choose not to believe in God? The question is why God should do that for us.

Exactly - so why isn't all the information made clear to everybody?

God wants everyone to look at the information and make it clear to themselves. This is related to effort. Those who make the effort to clarify the information are the one who will get the reward. Not everyone deserves to have it, not unless they make the effort.

Again, no matter how many times you say this, I don't find the game of hide-and-seek at all believable.

Nothing is hidden. It is all there to look at but I guess you just do not accept the premise that humans are responsible to do anything to find it.

So you claim, but that is just another god-belief. I've read the bible and it's totally useless trying to extract a clear and unambiguous message from it - which accounts for all the different groups who all claim to be following it. The point is that the god-ideas is all a non-believer has to go on. What else is there? Either one of them (or a small number of compatible ones) is true or none of them are.

By god-ideas I guess you mean the ideas about god that are presented in scriptures. There is certainly no clear picture of God presented in the Bible. I understand that the Bible has no clear meaning and that is why there are so many different kinds of Christians. I see no use trying to figure out the Bible because the dispensation for which it was revealed has been abrogated by the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. As such, it no longer applies to the new age we live in.

At the very least most of them must be wrong, because they are incompatible. This is why I conclude that the most probable answer is that they are all wrong, and that a more detailed (time and effort consuming) investigation is almost certainly futile. I would regard a god that would penalise me for that as being unjust - I would be using the mind it gave me as best I can.

The fact that all the major religions as revealed were originally pristine is a moot point because these older religions have been corrupted by man, so they no longer represent the truth from God. There is no point investigating those religions, and as I told you before, God does not expect you to investigate the religions of the past in an effort to discover if they are true or false. God wants you to turn towards Baha’u’llah who is His Manifestation for this new age of mankind.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

 

[ratiocinator]

I do not want to veer too far off topic but free will is the basis by which we are able to choose our beliefs so it is related to this topic.

But, as already discussed, we can't choose our beliefs. I can't choose to find something convincing, it either convinces me or not. If we were free to choose our beliefs, you could choose to disbelieve in your faith for a couple of hours and then start to believe it again...

Why do you think it is unfair and unjust to have to do use our innate intelligence to find what we seek?

Why should anybody seek a god unless there's a prima facie case that there is one to be found?

Don’t you think we should have to do anything to earn our belief in God?

Why should we need to earn a belief about the nature of reality, if it's both important to us and up to somebody who is fair and just, whether to make it clear or not?

What is the supposed virtue in looking for something real amongst myths?

So you are saying that if God hand fed us the information we could still choose not to believe in God? The question is why God should do that for us.

Once again, we don't choose to believe anyway. But are you suggesting that the choice is simply accepting the "fact" of the existence of a god or not - rather than a response to a message? That would make things even more bizarre and unfair.

Those who make the effort to clarify the information are the one who will get the reward. Not everyone deserves to have it, not unless they make the effort.

Again: what is the supposed virtue in looking for something real amongst myths? What is being rewarded and why?

Nothing is hidden.

There is no obviously genuine message from any god. There are lots of contradictory claims of messages from gods. Therefore, if one of them is genuine, it is hidden amongst the myths.

There is no point investigating those religions, and as I told you before, God does not expect you to investigate the religions of the past in an effort to discover if they are true or false. God wants you to turn towards Baha’u’llah who is His Manifestation for this new age of mankind.

So you're saying don't bother with the other religions because yours is right and the rest are wrong. That's what most of them say...

 

[JChnsc19]

Free will is constrained by many factors. Obviously, those with serious mental problems are not free to choose as are normal people. That is why they would not be held accountable in a court of law.

Oh sorry. This is in the religious debate section. Didn’t think free will had to do with law in this thread. I was talking about free will in a religious way, my bad.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh sorry. This is in the religious debate section. Didn’t think free will had to do with law in this thread. I was talking about free will in a religious way, my bad.

If humans have free will they have free will and it would not only apply in a religious way, it would apply to everything they do in life. I believe that free will is related to the moral choices we make, so obviously it is related to law. The Baha'i view on free will is explained in this short chapter on free will: 70: FREE WILL

 

[Trailblazer]

But, as already discussed, we can't choose our beliefs. I can't choose to find something convincing, it either convinces me or not. If we were free to choose our beliefs, you could choose to disbelieve in your faith for a couple of hours and then start to believe it again...

I agree with you that we are not completely free to choose our beliefs. No, you cannot choose to find something convincing any more than I can choose to not believe in God, now that I believe in God.

But there is a difference between those two. Once someone believes in God they do not normally go back and disbelieve in God, not unless they believed in God because of a religion they later rejected, such as atheists who rejected Christianity. However, atheists who never believed in God do come to believe in God.

It seems to me that it would be easier for someone to come to believe in God than for someone to reject God once they believed in God. I never believed in God but I came to believe in God because of the Baha’i Faith. Now I cannot reject God because I became convinced that there is a God.

Why should anybody seek a god unless there's a prima facie case that there is one to be found?

I do understand what you are saying because I hear this all the time from atheists on another forum I post on. If you are sure there is no God then there would be no reason to search for one, but if just do not know if there is a God then there would be a reason to search. Whether you would search would thus depend upon which kind of atheist you are, a confirmed atheist or an agnostic atheist.

Why should we need to earn a belief about the nature of reality, if it's both important to us and up to somebody who is fair and just, whether to make it clear or not?

Rather than earn I should have said that we should have to do some investigation in order to discover the nature of reality. I see no reason why a God should spoon feed us that information since we are fully capable of finding and evaluating that information for ourselves, since it has been revealed by God through Baha’u’llah.

Sure, we would have to put our trust in Baha’u’llah, and we would have to have a good reason to believe that Baha’u’llah was actually a Messenger of God before we would believe anything He wrote came from God. Myself, I went through the back door, because I did not even care if God existed; I just read about the Baha’i Faith and it made so much sense to me that I later accepted that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God.

What is the supposed virtue in looking for something real amongst myths?

You do not have to look among myths and Baha’u’llah enjoined us not to do that when He wrote:
“Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.” Gleanings, pp. 174-175

Once again, we don't choose to believe anyway. But are you suggesting that the choice is simply accepting the "fact" of the existence of a god or not - rather than a response to a message? That would make things even more bizarre and unfair.

Let’s go with the idea that we do not choose to believe in God, we are either convinced by the evidence or not convinced by it. I can agree on that.

No, I am not stating that anyone would just accept that God exists with no reason to believe that (no message from God). However, some people believe in God just because the idea of God makes more sense to them than the idea of no God. I have a friend on another forum who believes in God but not in Messengers or religions, but he is completely at a loss to know anything about God or what God wants of him, so what is the point?

Again: what is the supposed virtue in looking for something real amongst myths? What is being rewarded and why?

Again, why would anyone waste their precious time looking among myths? The Baha’i Faith is not a mythical religion; it is a religion that addresses our reality on earth, what we are here for, as well as the reality of the afterlife. The reward is that we discover the purpose of our existence and we can try to fulfill that purpose. True religion is like a road map on how to live life.

There is no obviously genuine message from any god. There are lots of contradictory claims of messages from gods. Therefore, if one of them is genuine, it is hidden amongst the myths.

How do you know there is no genuine message from God? Why do you think it is necessary to look at all the older religions that have been corrupted by man in order to find the Truth?

So you're saying don't bother with the other religions because yours is right and the rest are wrong. That's what most of them say...

You are right that most of them say that but just because most of them say that does not mean that one of them is not the current religion that God wants all of us to follow. It either is or it isn’t, and what other religions say has no bearing on that.

 

[ratiocinator]

It seems to me that it would be easier for someone to come to believe in God than for someone to reject God once they believed in God.

I personally know more people who have rejected their faith than started to believe. I have no idea what the actual statistics are.

If you are sure there is no God then there would be no reason to search for one, but if just do not know if there is a God then there would be a reason to search. Whether you would search would thus depend upon which kind of atheist you are, a confirmed atheist or an agnostic atheist.

I see no reason to take the notion of any god seriously. That doesn't mean I can 100% rule one out, but I see no reason to devote much time and effort to it, especially as I think it even less likely that any human religion has anything to do with a god, even if one exists.

My reason is the same one I've explained but you still don't seem to get. Why would a god, who wanted to communicate, not make it's message clear and obviously genuine, rather than just having a religion that seems like all the others? It still makes zero sense to me.

Rather than earn I should have said that we should have to do some investigation in order to discover the nature of reality. I see no reason why a God should spoon feed us that information since we are fully capable of finding and evaluating that information for ourselves...

Why wouldn't a god make its existence plain? You're not answering the question. What is the supposed virtue that god is rewarding?

You do not have to look among myths and Baha’u’llah enjoined us not to do that when He wrote:

The Baha'i faith looks just like all the other religions to me (that means it looks like a myth). The is no obvious reason to treat it differently, that I can see.

No, I am not stating that anyone would just accept that God exists with no reason to believe that (no message from God).

I think you missed my point. Is the "test", the virtue that god rewards, for looking so hard for it, just an acknowledgement of its existence, or does it want some further response? If the former, then hiding its existence makes some kind of sense, but makes the test silly in the extreme. If the latter, then why can't it make the fact of its existence obvious to everybody so they can make an informed choice to respond or not?

How do you know there is no genuine message from God?

I said there is no obviously genuine message. I can't be sure, but if one of the religions contains a genuine message, then I think god is being unjust and unfair (for the reasons already stated multiple times now).

Why do you think it is necessary to look at all the older religions that have been corrupted by man in order to find the Truth?

Why would I think a new religion would be more likely to contain a genuine message than an older one? If this is a game of hide-and-seek, who knows what tricks god is playing?