If God incarnation, how do you know it is really Him ?

[Trailblazer]

Wouldn’t that kind of ruin the faith part?

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

If God pulled you up to Heaven and gave you a tour would you be a believer?

Anyone would, but it doesn't work that way. We are asked to believe in what we cannot yet see. That is not always easy, but it comes with the faith part.

 

[ChristineM]

If God incarnation, how do you know it is really Him, and not a fake one ?

If a god is omni everything then that god would know precisely what evidence is required .

 

[Valjean]

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

Anyone would, but it doesn't work that way. We are asked to believe in what we cannot yet see. That is not always easy, but it comes with the faith part.

God rewards blind credulity? Did He give us brains and the capacity to reason just to torture us?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why should we desire or value faith?

Because God values faith.

It's not a reliable tool for determining validity. It doesn't produce consistent results.
Wouldn't knowledge be preferable?

Not for God. If God wanted you to have knowledge you would have it, given God is omnipotent.

I'm sure that if the author of the entire universe wanted us to know him, he could find a way to convince us, but the plethora of conflicting religions and claims seems to indicate that He has no interest in our beliefs.

Since an all-powerful God could convince everyone that He exists but did not do that the logical deduction is that God does not want to do that.

Baha'u'llah wrote that God could convince everyone that He exists of that is what God wanted to do.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people means that God could have made all people believers, if God had wanted to make all people into believers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make everyone into believers... In short, God wants us to make an effort and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).

 

[danieldemol]

How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?”

Ah those froward wretches lol
We tell them the earth is flat and they want to be all contrary and difficult, we tell them man was poofed into existence from soil and they want to be all contrary and difficult etc etc

3 cheers for the froward in my view.

 

[Trailblazer]

God rewards blind credulity? Did He give us brains and the capacity to reason just to torture us?

I never said God wants blind faith. I believe that God wants evidence-based faith, but that requires that one looks at the evidence that God provides.

 

[Valjean]

Because God values faith.

How do you know that? By faith?

Not for God. If God wanted you to have knowledge you would have it, given God is omnipotent.

Since an all-powerful God could convince everyone that He exists but did not do that the logical deduction is that God does not want to do that.

Baha'u'llah wrote that God could convince everyone that He exists of that is what God wanted to do.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people means that God could have made all people believers, if God had wanted to make all people into believers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make everyone into believers... In short, God wants us to make an effort and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).

So God does not want us to have knowledge or social harmony. He gave us brains and reason just to torment us.

 

[Valjean]

I never said God wants blind faith. I believe that God wants evidence-based faith, but that requires that one looks at the evidence that God provides.

But if it's evidence-based it's not faith, is it?

How would we recognize God-given evidence? Does God-given evidence differ from objective, empirical evidence that we can see for ourselves?

 

[Trailblazer]

If a god is omni everything then that god would know precisely what evidence is required .

God knows what is required, but that does not mean that God is going to provide the evidence that everyone requires.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you know that? By faith?

No, by logic. If God did not want us to have faith God would provide proof.

So God does not want us to have knowledge or social harmony. He gave us brains and reason just to torment us.

God does want us to have knowledge and social harmony. God gave us brains and reason so that we would use them.

 

[Trailblazer]

But if it's evidence-based it's not faith, is it?

Evidence-based faith is still faith, since we have to have faith that the evidence is from God (given there is no way to prove that).

How would we recognize God-given evidence?

It is up to the individual to look at it and recognize it. How it is recognized is different for everyone.

Does God-given evidence differ from objective, empirical evidence that we can see for ourselves?

Yes it does differ, because thee is no objective, empirical evidence for God that we can see for ourselves.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

If He existed, and could read my soul, He'd be aware of my skepticism and self-serving gamble, would He not? He'd be rightfully annoyed.

The stakes, as you say, are numerous and varied. There are hundreds of religions promising all sorts of different punishments and rewards for the correct belief (theirs). How is one to choose, when the evidence for each is equal? Should one just roll the dice and hope for a winner?

Ordinarily one would assess the available, objective evidence, but when the only evidence is subjective and speculative, what is one to do -- especially when the more familiar, Abrahamic variants discourage the skepticism and critical analysis that a proper assessment would require.
Believe first and keep your fingers crossed doesn't sound like sound reasoning or a good gamble, to me.

A Critique Of Pascal's Wager

Blaise Pascal is one of the most famous, mathematicians, philosophers and theologians in the Western Canon. Following a period of mystical experiences in 1654, Pascal dedicated himself to spiritual contemplation. In this period, he wrote his most famous work, Pensées. Within Pensées, Pascal...

www.shapeofsociety.com

Well I suppose your evidence would be in the creation of the universe.

If you want to believe that the elements that created the Big Bang just magically appeared out of nothingness then that is one option.

Your other is that something created those elements.

Science says the first option is an impossibility.

Once you decide there is a creator you are halfway there then you can start deciding which is the correct one.

 

[ChristineM]

God knows what is required, but that does not mean that God is going to provide the evidence that everyone requires.

Figures.

 

[Valjean]

God knows what is required, but that does not mean that God is going to provide the evidence that everyone requires.

So He does not care for us to believe or know.
So the perceptible, empirically based evidence is deceptive, the God-given evidence is either not given or is ambiguous.

He value chaos and confusion, then? He values guesswork (faith)?

 

[Trailblazer]

So He does not care for us to believe or know.

That is not what I said. I said "God knows what is required, but that does not mean that God is going to provide the evidence that everyone requires."
What I meant by that is that God is not going to provide evidence that will meet everyone's requirements.

God wants everyone to believe but it is only possible to believe based upon the evidence that God provides.

So the perceptible, empirically based evidence is deceptive, the God-given evidence is either not given or is ambiguous.

I did not say that perceptible, empirically based evidence is deceptive, I said it is not available.

The God-given evidence must be deciphered but first it has to be looked at.

He value chaos and confusion, then? He values guesswork (faith)?

No, God does not value chaos and confusion or guesswork. God wants us to believe on faith and evidence and know what we believe is true.

 

[Valjean]

Well I suppose your evidence would be in the creation of the universe.

If you want to believe that the elements that created the Big Bang just magically appeared out of nothingness then that is one option.

Your other is that something created those elements.
Science says the first option is an impossibility.

Once you decide there is a creator you are halfway there then you can start deciding which is the correct one.

But noöne claims magic poofing out of nothing; not scientists, not atheists. That's a straw man that christian apologists keep claiming.

As a matter of fact, it's the theists who claim God magically spoke the universe into existence, and routinely creates, ex nihilo, by His finger, His hand or His word.

We claim physics or chemistry. Christians claim magic.

We don't claim to understand the Big Bang. It's mechanism is, as yet, unknown. Christians claim "Goddidit!" and seem to think that attribution is an explanation. They posit no mechanism.

So how does the creation of the universe evidence God? What do you base this claim on?

 

[Valjean]

That is not what I said. I said "God knows what is required, but that does not mean that God is going to provide the evidence that everyone requires."
What I meant by that is that God is not going to provide evidence that will meet everyone's requirements.

God wants everyone to believe but it is only possible to believe based upon the evidence that God provides.

So God wants everyone to believe. He's capable of providing evidence sufficient to make everyone believe, yet He chooses to provide evidence sufficient to only a few --- yet He wants everyone to believe.
I'm confused. Why will God not provide the evidence to achieve what you say He wants?

I did not say that perceptible, empirically based evidence is deceptive, I said it is not available.

Which is why we reasonably defer belief.

The God-given evidence must be deciphered but first it has to be looked at.

But we haven't been shown any God-given evidence. All we have are the claims of believers -- who show us no evidence of either stripe.

No, God does not value chaos and confusion or guesswork. God wants us to believe on faith and evidence and know what we believe is true.

So God wants us to guess, or roll dice, but doesn't want chaos or confusion? How's that going to work?

 

[Valjean]

No, by logic. If God did not want us to have faith God would provide proof.

That doesn't follow.

God does want us to have knowledge and social harmony. God gave us brains and reason so that we would use them.

Yet this God provides no objective evidence for us to use our brains and reason on, that would reasonably lead us to believe He even exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

So God wants everyone to believe. He's capable of providing evidence sufficient to make everyone believe, yet He chooses to provide evidence sufficient to only a few --- yet He wants everyone to believe.
I'm confused. Why will God not provide the evidence to achieve what you say He wants?

First off, I do not know that God wants everyone to believe so that was an assumption on my part.
I do not know if God wants everyone's belief but I do know from scripture that God does not need everyone's belief, since God has no needs.

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 166

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

Which is why we reasonably defer belief.

I do not consider it reasonable to expect perceptible, empirically based evidence for God since there can never be any such evidence.
If that is what your require to believe that is what you require, but that means you will never believe in God.

But we haven't been shown any God-given evidence. All we have are the claims of believers -- who show us no evidence of either stripe.

We have shown you what we believe is the evidence, and these are not claims.
Baha'u'llah made many claims, and I believe those claims.

So God wants us to guess, or roll dice, but doesn't want chaos or confusion? How's that going to work?

God does not want us to guess. God wants us to believe on the evidence and know what we believe is true.

 

[Valjean]

Evidence-based faith is still faith, since we have to have faith that the evidence is from God (given there is no way to prove that).

Evidence-based faith is knowledge. Degrees of confidence vary, of course, depending on the quality of evidence.

"Faith" is unevidenced or poorly evidenced belief.

It is up to the individual to look at it and recognize it. How it is recognized is different for everyone.

Objective, empirical evidence is recognizable as such. It's generally observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. It's there for anyone to examine.

Yes it does differ, because thee is no objective, empirical evidence for God that we can see for ourselves.

So, till there is, deferral of belief is the rational position, no?