If God spoke directly to everyone...

[Thief]

also of Star Trek fame...….the Borg

if a common Intelligence telepathically 'touched' your motivation
you would have NO sense of choice

you might as well be a skin cell on the end of my toe

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I will give you that Bob, except I think that hiding is a good trait to have in an Infinitely Powerful Being.
That is because you would not want to SEE what would happen if God came OUT of hiding.

True.

What would happen? People would stop squabbling over which religion is the "right" one?

That sound like some sort of threat-- and feeds into my observation that such a hiding god is malevolently evil... good thing it's just a myth, now isn't it?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

my take on the situation is not like yours

7billion+ copies of a learning device
and all copies end in dust?
not buying that

and where is the fascination of all this life?
if the Maker already knows how you will turn out

so....similar to Star Trek fame
heaven anides by a Prime Directive
no 'touchie....no feelie'

and just like the tv series.....there is intervention
lesser forms need a 'boot'
now and then

Argument From Incredulity Logical Fallacy.

God of the Gaps: Just because you don't understand something, is not an excuse to insert "god"

 

[Thief]

Argument From Incredulity Logical Fallacy.

God of the Gaps: Just because you don't understand something, is not an excuse to insert "god"

and where is the lack of understanding that you point at?

let's try a mirror

take a good hard look

and you are your own handiwork?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why assume that “everyone” wants to hear from God? There have to be some people who would not want to hear from God. God is All-Knowing so God knows that. God wants belief to be a choice and that might be one reason God does not speak directly to everyone.

However, that is not the main reason why God does not speak directly to everyone, because hypothetically speaking, even if God spoke directly to everyone, people could still choose not to listen or hear.

Imo, the main reasons why God does not speak directly to everyone are as follows:

1. God wants us to seek Him out and use our innate intelligence to decide if we have found Him. God rewards true seekers.
2. God does not want to make belief easy to acquire. God wants us to exert an earnest effort in order to believe.
3. God wants us to have faith that He exists without absolute proof. Those who have faith will get the proof they need.
4. Last but not least, nobody except God’s Messengers can comprehend God. Messengers act as mediators between God and humans, communicating what we would otherwise be unable to understand.

I have many friends and relatives, but don't speak to them all at all times, constantly.

 

[Left Coast]

What now?

Of course belief is a choice. We are born with free will, and we do get to choose what we do. Shun fatalism as a mindset.

How is belief a choice? Which of your beliefs did you choose? Could you just choose others today? By belief I mean to be genuinely convinced something is true.

"Free will" is a misnomer. Our wills are constrained by many different factors. I can't just choose to rebuild my car's engine this morning, I haven't the faintest clue how.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Higher consciousness (Gods, Buddhas Daos and so on) are at a so high level of insight and wisdom spiritually that no mundane human can understand it.

I have no reason to believe that such people know anything that would be of value to me. I've explored that world and found it to be unable to deliver on its promises of enlightenment. Worse, the lives of self-proclaimed spiritual leaders seem stark and empty to me. They appear to have rejected much of what life has to offer.

The downfall i speak about is the lack of morality in humans now.

I contradicted that claim, noting that I am surrounded by very moral people. You didn't answer that, so the argument remains unchanged. I have no evidence that people were more moral in the past than now. Somehow, despite choosing a distinctly different path than the Muslims and Christians, you've still acquired some of that pessimism about the world that seems to be found only among the religious.

I heard that message as well as a Christian - the world is a bad place, and do not be a part of it. Fortunately, I left that ideology and that way of thinking, and explored what the world had to offer, including traveling the world over, going to university, going to dozens of musical concerts, seeing thousands of movies, reading thousands of books (including multiple books on history, philosophy, modern cosmology, quantum science, and religion), buying up art, becoming an advanced bridge enthusiast and teacher, dating multiple people, attending multiple social gatherings, etc.. My wife and I performed music live in various venues for over ten years. IN short, we took a big taste of the world, found much of it to our liking, and consider the experience a valuable education - chance to determine by immersion what kinds of things bring enduring satisfaction and which did not, and adapted my behavior accordingly.

So, as you might imagine, I don't find much merit in the pessimism I see from faith-based thinkers. This world has dangers and bad people, but it also has much beauty and many good people. Too many people see only the former, and miss the latter.

And the lack of understanding of the spiritual lifestyle.

As I said, it looks bleak, the people no better off for it, and my experience with it wasn't helpful or enlightening. I found enlightenment by studying the world and sifting that which brought satisfaction from that which palled. This was one such rejected lifestyle

How do we account for that - the difference between your enthusiasm for what you call the spiritual lifestyle, and my finding nothing there for me any longer (I did benefit from a long period of searching and reflection, but not indefinitely)? You might think I'm lazy or incurious, and so not able to follow you and forced to live a smaller, emptier life because of it. I see it as you having a need met by your choices, a need I don't have.

A person who focuses mostly on the spiritual life is a person who looks within them self and sees what is needed to be changed within the removing of all bad words, actions, and thoughts is only the first step.

I don't know what the spiritual life is to you, but I do know that we benefit by examining ourselves throughout our lifetimes to see where we can be better people, and what habits are counterproductive. Is that what you mean by spiritual?

I would also be careful about looking within myself too much of the time at the cost of not looking outward just as much to keep in touch with external reality. We navigate life using a mental map that was hopefully drawn from experience and not just sitting cross-legged with ones eyes closed.

Secondly is study the scripture and gain insight to understand what is needed to actually gain spiritual growth.

Scripture had no answers for me, either. Once again I ask, why are you and I so different? Why do you see value there? Is one of us missing something that the other has? Am I just blind to your world, as most of its denizens would surely claim, or is it that whatever need consulting scripture meets for you is met for me without resorting to scripture.

Christian scripture has almost no useful ideas for me, and the few I like I didn't need scripture to learn and didn't learn it there - things like the Golden Rule. I don't embrace that principle because somebody told me to. It follows naturally from having a sense of empathy.

it takes time to take away every bit of human attachments to this physical world.

I'll bet it does, but to what benefit and at what cost? Why would I want that? I'm already content not despite my attachments to the world, but in large part because of them.

 

[Thief]

How is belief a choice? Which of your beliefs did you choose? Could you just choose others today? By belief I mean to be genuinely convinced something is true.

"Free will" is a misnomer. Our wills are constrained by many different factors. I can't just choose to rebuild my car's engine this morning, I haven't the faintest clue how.

but you can choose a mechanic

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you think you are being rewarded because you are happy with secular humanism, but that might not be a reward. It might be that you just found something you like, not what God wanted you to find.

Gods don't factor into my thinking, but if they did, I would still use satisfaction as the measure and evidence of a life successfully lived. As I indicated earlier, I'm distrustful of advice that asks me to deny my better judgment and to accept ideas such as pursuing a path that somebody told me that God wants me to take, a path that would ask me to modify this satisfying path for a different one that was less conducive to happiness based on a promise that need not be kept of some other kind of happiness not in evidence.

So let's assume the existence of this god (who you call God). Why does God want me to find something other that what I have found? For me or for God? Does this God have needs that I can help meet by living a certain way? If so, why should I live less of a life than what seems best to me to meet those needs?

If it's for me, then I will remain the judge of what makes me happiest without regard for what God wants me to find.

I would still have the same questions without god beliefs because I would wonder why things are the way they are

I don't find any explanatory value in saying that a god did everything. Saying that God did it has no more explanatory or predictive power than saying Norman did it.

Creationism is a good example of the uselessness of such ideas. They're less than useless because they not only can't be put to any use, they inhibit exploration and discovery.

There is a temptation to try to answer questions even when we have no answers, a temptation best resisted. We don't know is a better answer than God did it if one can live with uncertainty. We're forced to live without some answers. I'm good with that.

I could never just be happy because my life was happy

Isn't that what happy is - being happy?

I would always care about the suffering of others.

As do I, but I am still happy.

 

[Left Coast]

but you can choose a mechanic

Assuming I know one/can find one.

 

[Thief]

Assuming I know one/can find one.

and you are free to make assumptions

 

[Windwalker]

That is true for most people, as most people are raised with a religious belief, and even if they were not, they are immersed in a culture that is predominantly one religion or another. It is still a choice where to retain or choose that belief, but it is difficult to resist doing so and strike out on one's own and easier to follow what others are doing and "just believe."

I think for most people it's really not a choice, because there never really is a question that comes up for them. This is just the way things are, and they accept them as such. It's the smaller percentages where they begin to question what they were raised with, and that usually occurs because of some sort of tension with that inherited system. The questions now being asked by that individual, aren't finding answers with the typical "just accept it" answers that traditionalism offers, and so they begin to look beyond it.

What about yourself? What made you question what you were programmed with? Did some crisis of faith beset you for some reason?

 

[Pudding]

Why assume that “everyone” wants to hear from God?

I don't assume that.

There have to be some people who would not want to hear from God.

Whatever.

God is All-Knowing so God knows that. God wants belief to be a choice and that might be one reason God does not speak directly to everyone.

However, that is not the main reason why God does not speak directly to everyone, because hypothetically speaking, even if God spoke directly to everyone, people could still choose not to listen or hear.

Imo, the main reasons why God does not speak directly to everyone are as follows:

1. God wants us to seek Him out and use our innate intelligence to decide if we have found Him. God rewards true seekers.
2. God does not want to make belief easy to acquire. God wants us to exert an earnest effort in order to believe.
3. God wants us to have faith that He exists without absolute proof. Those who have faith will get the proof they need.
4. Last but not least, nobody except God’s Messengers can comprehend God. Messengers act as mediators between God and humans, communicating what we would otherwise be unable to understand.

That's a bunch of claims, and you have provided 0 evidence to backup any of your claims. That's very unconvincing.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The hardships we go through is because of our karma, so those people you speak of who did go through a lot of difficulties, suffering and so on is repayment of their own karma, what people today seek is good living happiness all the time, if they feel sick they take a million different medicines, people are jealous on each other. some people do crime to get rich because then they get a higher status. All of that is actually within lack of morality when you see it from spiritual practitioners, who have no interests in money, fame, Luxourioues living and so on.

A story from a long time ago says that there was a man who carried around a rock because it was all he needed and it was a symbol of his renunciation of the worldly living. The only thing he was seeking was spiritual wisdom. He knew there are suffering in the world, but it is suffering for a reason. we all suffer from time to time because of our repayment of karma. But that is not a bad thing to suffer for.

Wow... your concepts of 'morality' are truly disgusting! You're saying that we were a MORE moral society when we practiced slavery and treated females as chattel, because suffering under slavery and male oppression was a GOOD thing. People DESERVED to be owned as property because of karma... it's a GOOD thing that they suffered in such a manner. What sort of monstrous god do you worship who condones slavery?

Why doesn't that grotesque reasoning apply to the immorality that you see today? All of the young alcoholics you were complaining about clearly DESERVE to be alcoholics, because of karma... so it's a GOOD thing. Or are you claiming that it's ONLY a good think if they suffered through slavery?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Wow... your concepts of 'morality' are truly disgusting! You're saying that we were a MORE moral society when we practiced slavery and treated females as chattel, because suffering under slavery and male oppression was a GOOD thing. People DESERVED to be owned as property because of karma... it's a GOOD thing that they suffered in such a manner. What sort of monstrous god do you worship who condones slavery?

Why doesn't that grotesque reasoning apply to the immorality that you see today? All of the young alcoholics you were complaining about clearly DESERVE to be alcoholics, because of karma... so it's a GOOD thing. Or are you claiming that it's ONLY a good think if they suffered through slavery?

You guys misunderstand what I saying. Of course, slavery is not a morally good thing to do. All I speak about is spiritual morality, what is needed for a human being to rise higher than just being a human being. In the answer you referring to i speak about when someone suffering it is karma that is in motion. But i do not say those who make you suffer, for example as a slave are morally good when they do it. But there is a reason we suffer.

It is sad that my written English is not good enough to make my statement understood as good and not as evil or bad. Morality for a spiritual person is to NEVER harm ANYONE in any situation it eans no lies, no hitting someone, no killing no slaves.
But as long human beings focus more on worldly success than spiritual success, they will not become morally good because they are attached to this world and its "pleasure"
When accepting that life is full of suffering because of our own wrongdoing it is easier to see what we should not do.

When it comes to suffering, All suffering is a result of our karma. so when we suffer the karma leaves us and we gain virtue karma=black substance. Virtue= white substance (or light)

 

[QuestioningMind]

You guys misunderstand what I saying. Of course, slavery is not a morally good thing to do. All I speak about is spiritual morality, what is needed for a human being to rise higher than just being a human being. In the answer you referring to i speak about when someone suffering it is karma that is in motion. But i do not say those who make you suffer, for example as a slave are morally good when they do it. But there is a reason we suffer.

It is sad that my written English is not good enough to make my statement understood as good and not as evil or bad. Morality for a spiritual person is to NEVER harm ANYONE in any situation it eans no lies, no hitting someone, no killing no slaves.
But as long human beings focus more on worldly success than spiritual success, they will not become morally good because they are attached to this world and its "pleasure"
When accepting that life is full of suffering because of our own wrongdoing it is easier to see what we should not do.

When it comes to suffering, All suffering is a result of our karma. so when we suffer the karma leaves us and we gain virtue karma=black substance. Virtue= white substance (or light)

Sorry, but this still sounds like a truly horrific form of 'morality'. You're claiming that people who were enslaved NEEDED to be enslaved so that they could rise 'higher as human beings', to balance their 'karma'. And if these people NEEDED to be enslaved for their own good, then CLEARLY someone NEEDED to enslave them. So you ARE claiming that the people enslaving other people were doing a GOOD thing... it's what they NEEDED to do in order to balance the enslaved individual's karma. After all , if everyone had refused to enslave these people then the people you insist NEEDED to be enslaved would NEVER balance their karma, would they?

That is VERY sick moral philosophy, in my opinion.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Sorry, but this still sounds like a truly horrific form of 'morality'. You're claiming that people who were enslaved NEEDED to be enslaved so that they could rise 'higher as human beings', to balance their 'karma'. And if these people NEEDED to be enslaved for their own good, then CLEARLY someone NEEDED to enslave them. So you ARE claiming that the people enslaving other people were doing a GOOD thing... it's what they NEEDED to do in order to balance the enslaved individual's karma. After all , if everyone had refused to enslave these people then the people you insist NEEDED to be enslaved would NEVER balance their karma, would they?

That is VERY sick moral philosophy, in my opinion.

I speak about Karma, it is you who always go back to speak about slaves. Human people gain karma when doing wrong action speech and thoughts, it is not Me Amanaki, who say it is so, it is teaching in EVERY Asian religions or Cultivation practices that when we do wrongdoings we get karma and it is negative for us so we must suffer to repay it. That we must repay for our own "sins" or wrongdoings is not evil it is only a result of our own actions, so we can blame our self when we suffer.
That you do not believe it to be so that is, of course, no problem for me.

 

[Quintessence]

I only read through the first few pages of the thread in detail and didn't see anyone add to the list of reasons why the one-god of the Abrahamic monotheisms doesn't speak directly to everyone. I think that's interesting to explore so let's add to the list!

The original list was:

1. God wants us to seek Him out and use our innate intelligence to decide if we have found Him. God rewards true seekers.
2. God does not want to make belief easy to acquire. God wants us to exert an earnest effort in order to believe.
3. God wants us to have faith that He exists without absolute proof. Those who have faith will get the proof they need.
4. Last but not least, nobody except God’s Messengers can comprehend God. Messengers act as mediators between God and humans, communicating what we would otherwise be unable to understand.

Let's add to that these ones from the polytheist perspective:

1. Unlike that creepy boy/girl who asked you out for the third time and can't accept "no" for an answer, God understands that there are many people who are simply not interested in them.
2. Unlike that creepy boy/girl who tries to tear you away from your significant other, God understands that many people are already in committed, meaningful relationships with other gods.
3. Unlike that creepy boy/girl stalker who looks up your home address, phone number, and daily habits to try and communicate with you against your will, God understand that being a creepy stalker is creepy.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

and where is the lack of understanding that you point at?

let's try a mirror

take a good hard look

and you are your own handiwork?

Deflection. Ignoring, to 100%, my previous point entirely.

 

[Left Coast]

I never said that belief was a choice. I said choosing to search is a choice.

A "choice" necessarily predicated on something that's not a choice. Ie, not actually a choice.

What we want to investigate is not in our control but people do not always do what they want to do. I do not want to go to work tomorrow but it is in my best interest to go because I have an important meeting and my boss expects me to be there. Likewise, even if someone does not want to search for God they might do it because it is in their best interest.

"Might" and "should" are different things.

I am not responsible for not getting to work if I get hit by a car riding my bike to work, and my boss would understand why I did not get there for the meeting. That is outside of my control if I get hit. So I am not responsible for the conclusion of the process, getting to work and going to the meeting, because something happened outside of my control. I am only responsible to try to make it to work.

If I don't even know I have a job, why would I try to get to work?

I think it is easy to understand and it means what it says. What do you mean, trying to have his cake and eat it too?

He argues that man has some version of "free will" while simultaneously declaring that, "Man is absolutely helpless and dependent, since might and power belong especially to God," and later:

"Also the inaction or the movement of man depend upon the assistance of God. If he is not aided, he is not able to do either good or evil. But when the help of existence comes from the Generous Lord, he is able to do both good and evil; but if the help is cut off, he remains absolutely helpless."

Absolute helplessness is literally the opposite of free will.

I have been down this road before. I cannot say God does not care because I do not KNOW if God cares. All I can know is what Baha’u’llah revealed and from that I draw some conclusions. In short, God cares that we believe in Him but only for our benefit, not for His benefit. God has no needs so God does not need us to believe He exists. God wants us to believe that but only for our own benefit.

Baha’u’llah wrote that God could have made all men one people, believers. He did not specify the method God would use and that does not matter. The point is that God could have done that if He wanted to. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make us believers... In short, God wants us to do our own homework and become believers by our own efforts. According to this passage, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own innate intelligence and making a sincere effort.

Yes I understand, this is basically what your OP summarized. My point is, that line of reasoning is based on the faulty assumption that belief is a choice, which as we've now fully covered, it isn't.

God has done nothing that YOU can see but that does not mean God has never done anything.

Yes, that's true, God could have done something in secret in his hidden corner of the universe. But the time to believe something is when we have evidence for it, not simply because we can't prove it's impossible. We have no evidence for the notion that God has ever done anything.

You just think you would want God to show Himself because you do not know what would happen. I will leave you with a short quote that explains what would happen if God revealed His full Essence to man:

“Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72

I do not think I would want to be around if that happened.

Presuming he exists, your God is omnipotent. He could show himself and prevent us from being "reduced to utter nothingness." So this is a lousy excuse to not show himself. He is choosing to hide. And therefore there are consequences to his choice, including the guarantee that a portion of the population won't believe in him. If he doesn't want to rectify that situation, that's his choice.

Believers are not making excuses for God because an infallible God cannot need excuses since He cannot make any mistakes.

Believers are just explaining what God does according to scriptures. The reason you think God needs excuses is because God is not doing what you want Him to do and you think God should do something differently; but any God that took marching orders from humans would not be omnipotent and any God that did not know the best way to communicate would not be omniscient.

We're rehashing the same argument from a few months ago. This isn't about what I want. This is about the logical conclusion of your god's alleged actions. He's supposedly the omnipotent one, we are not. He is holding all the cards. He made all the rules to the game, voluntarily. If anyone has free will, it's him, surely. Therefore, if he exists, he's choosing to hide. That's just the inescapable conclusion. It may not be a conclusion you like, which is why I'm sure you'll adamantly deny it, but it is what it is. No amount of rationalizing (like telling us what bad things would happen if he did that - because by definition, he could prevent those bad things) changes it.