Is God good? Is God loving?

[Truthseeker]

I cannot just say it is their ego the prevents them from seeing the glory of God and be done with it as that is too simplistic.

That's most of it, in my opinion. I don't know, maybe I'm contradicting myself from my earlier replies.

 

[Truthseeker]

With all due respect what you are saying comes from your religious beliefs. I was looking for a nonreligious answer based solely upon the objective evidence, what we can see in the world.

There is no objective answer, no objective evidence. No one is objective, including me. What you are seeking is a fool's errand, in my opinion.

I'll take my leave from this thread.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe in those whose scriptures by using reason and an inner voice that tells that they are from God.

Christians say the same thing about the Bible. Sorry, I don't trust inner voices since they are unreliable since nobody can ever know where they are coming from.

 

[Truthseeker]

I believe there is a next life but as you know I do not look forward to it. Even if there is an afterlife that does not magically waft away all the suffering some people have to endure in this life.

Okay, I'll answer this. The next life is infinite in length, while this life may be 100 years. While in this life, this life seems very long, I have had that perception myself. There have been times I have wanted to die and be done with it, and not go through all of this, so I can sympathize.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's true. You are using your own experience, of course. May God be good to you in the rest of your life, and in the next life.

You are using your own experience, of course, and the scriptures that you believe are true.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's most of it, in my opinion. I don't know, maybe I'm contradicting myself from my earlier replies.

I do not agree that it is is the ego of atheists that prevents them from seeing the glory of God although it might be their ego that prevents them from even looking at the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, I'll answer this. The next life is infinite in length, while this life may be 100 years.

What makes you think I want an infinite life? What makes you think anyone except believers want one? Most atheists tell me that living forever would be the worst kind of hell. I cannot say I disagree with them.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no objective answer, no objective evidence.

And that's the problem.

 

[Suave]

If God is good and God is loving what is the evidence? This is all about evidence. I don’t want to see any scriptures because they are not evidence.

Look around you in this world. What evidence do you see that would indicate that a good/loving God exists? I am trying to be objective about this rather than being influenced by my own feelings and life experiences which do not constitute evidence.

Our genetic-code's creator, has basically autographed life's creator's signature in our DNA.

Our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.

Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle. The mathematical pattern of the number 37 being used as a key factor for conveying an Egyptian triangle might be related to the gematria value of 37 appearing in the Hebrew language of Genesis 1:1.

The 3 main words (God, the heaven, the earth) in Hebrew have a gematria numeric value of 777 (111x7), ". which is divisible by 37.

The numeric value of the entire verse is 2701 which is divisible by 37.

We may now proceed to finding the number 37 interlaced in the first verse of the Bible. We can do this by discovering words or groups of words with number values evenly divisible by 37, e.g. the 3 main words (“God” + ”the heaven” + ”the earth” = 777 = 21x37), the 5 first words (“In the beginning” + “created” + “God” + “*” + “the heaven” = 1998 = 54x37), or the last two words separately (“and” = 407 = 11x37 and “the earth” = 296 = 8x37)

You shall have no other gods before creator of the heavens and earth, life's creator.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not agree that it is is the ego of atheists that prevents them from seeing the glory of God although it might be their ego that prevents them from even looking at the evidence.

Atheists generally have a sharp eye for these things. We see the weaknesses of theist arguments which they tend to overlook due to confirmation bias.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You shall have no other gods before creator of the heavens and earth, life's creator.

That is cheating by numbers. God did not create heaven and earth in the beginning. The universe came up 13.78 billion years ago, while the age of earth is just 4.54 billion years. The scriptures got it all wrong.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And that's the problem.

I see the problem lays within our perception and understanding of life and what has been offered about the spiritual world.

The only way to have any concept about the Love and Good of God in this world, is to look at examples of the most loving and most kind of all people. When we look at them, then imagine what would be more loving and more kind. Do this process for eternity and one will still not be able to fathom the extent of the Love and kindness of God.

What I have found, is that one has to submit to faith in what God has offered, to find an inner peace on this subject.

If God is good and God is loving what is the evidence? This is all about evidence. I don’t want to see any scriptures because they are not evidence.

Do you not see the issue faced with that statement? That quoted statement would make many hundreds of posts that you have made, as null and void.

Have we not posted many times that the proof of God is the Messenger, the proof of the Messenger is their Person, their life and their Message from God, which in turn becomes the Scriptures.

See the issue?

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you not see the issue faced with that statement? That quoted statement would make many hundreds of posts that you have made, as null and void.

Trailblazer said: If God is good and God is loving what is the evidence? This is all about evidence. I don’t want to see any scriptures because they are not evidence.

Why would that statement make my posts null and void? I never said that scriptures are evidence that God is good or loving.

 

[Suave]

That is cheating by numbers. God did not create heaven and earth in the beginning. The universe came up 13.78 billion years ago, while the age of earth is just 4.54 billion years. The scriptures got it all wrong.

Perhaps all of time has been there in existence since spatiality's beginning?
With the discovered link between space and time, they can no longer be thought of as two separate things. Instead, space and time are fused together into what now is known as space-time. This fusion of space-time means the difference between past, present and future is only an illusion. Rather than thinking of time as continuous ,it's useful to think of time as a series of snapshots from moment to moment. If we conceptualize each moment or snapshot in our universe lined up one after another, we would see every moment that has ever happened or will ever happen, every location in space as well as each and every moment in time. Events I think of as happening now in various regions of space can be thought of as a now slice. When taking motion into account, I and somebody else could disagree with what exists on the now slice of time. A far away extraterrestrial being and I who are stationary relative to one another will share the same now time slice. When this distant extraterrestrial turns and starts moving away from me, he now would be in a new time slice that would be in the past from my prospective. When this distant extraterrestrial is moving towards me, he would now be in a new time slice that would be in the future from my prospective. Just as how we think of all of space is out there, the past, present, and future is out there now all existing together.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ave we not posted many times that the proof of God is the Messenger, the proof of the Messenger is their Person, their life and their Message from God, which in turn becomes the Scriptures.

See the issue?

Whereas I believe that all the above is true I do not see the problem with wanting objective evidence that shows that God is good and loving, if we are being told that is true.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Whereas I believe that all the above is true I do not see the problem with wanting objective evidence that shows that God is good and loving, if we are being told that is true.

Then it is the life of the Messenger and their Person as they are their Message.

In this age we are gifted the proof other than the Messenger, Baha'u'llah gifted us the person and life of Abdul'baha. Abdul'baha is the objective proof you are asking for. There has been no greater example.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Trailblazer said: If God is good and God is loving what is the evidence? This is all about evidence. I don’t want to see any scriptures because they are not evidence.

Why would that statement make my posts null and void? I never said that scriptures are evidence that God is good or loving.

We offer the Message as proof and evidence of Baha’u’llah, if it is proof and evidence of Baha’u’llah, then it is proof of God, as Baha’u’llah is all we can know of God.

Regards Tony

 

[Koldo]

Malevolent according to what? What does "malevolence" precisely mean to you? I ask because if you just allow me to go with how I'd define things concerning that term then the question would be incoherent, but as you're asking it I'm assuming it isn't, so I need to understand your idea of this concept.

Malevolant as in having the will and objective to diminish others' well-being. In other words, to want others to experience suffering, anguish, pain, sorrow and so on.

 

[Koldo]

If you do the research you would understand. I recommended what to read.

I have tried to google the encyclopedia you have mentioned specifically but it was locked behind a pay wall. I find it weird that someone would use modal logic terminology in a way that it is not modal logic though.

 

[Koldo]

If you do the research you would understand. I recommended what to read.

After checking the entry in the Stanford's encyclopedia I am absolutely certain you are using the terminology wrong:

Contingent things being caused by a necessary being is a conclusion of the argument, but not the definition per se of what it means to be contingent.