Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Trailblazer]

Side note: Ask you atheist friend if omnipotent God knows how to do anything and everything in addition to being able to do anything and everything.

Omnipotent implies omniscient IMHO.

Hypothetically, an omnipotent God could exist who is not omniscient, but what would be the ramifications of that? If God had all power and did not have all knowledge God could really mess up. So of course God is both omnipotent and omniscient.

My atheist friend thinks he knows more than god, if god exists. He thinks god is stupid because god uses Messengers instead of communicating directly to every single human being in the world.

I have explained to my friend that an omniscient God knows more than he knows since no human is omniscient. That means God knows more than he knows about the best way to communicate to humanity. He will not respond to this.

He calls himself the king of logic but he is completely illogical for the reason given below.

God knows everything. Nobody can know more than everything, which means he cannot know more than God.

God is omnipotent so God can do anything. Since God is omnipotent that means that God does not do anything God does not want to do. So if God does not want to communicate directly to everyone God is not going to communicate directly to everyone. Obviously, God does not want to communicate directly to everyone because God has never communicated directly to everyone.

There is evidence that God has communicated with Messengers, but there is no evidence that God has ever communicated any other way. That means that only three logical possibilities exist:

1. God exists and communicates with Messengers (theist), or
2. God exists and does not communicate at all (deist), or
3. God does not exist

 

[Trailblazer]

Except the part that you just told me. You are apparently capable of telling me this 'fact' about God without being a messenger.

Yes, because I am telling you what the Messenger wrote. In effect, I am the “messenger” for the Messenger. I am explaining to you what the Messenger wrote.

But I must take your word that there is a messenger in the first place. Then I am meant to take your word as to who this messenger is. Then I must also take your word that there is no other way. These are all things about God that I must accept BEFORE I ever speak to a messenger.

You do not have to take my word for it that there is a Messenger or who this Messenger is. You can find out for yourself. If you find the Messenger you can check Him out and determine if He was telling the truth.

There might be another way to believe in God but there is no other way to get messages from God.You do not have to take my word for it. You can read what the Messenger wrote about that and decide whether to believe it or not.

You cannot speak to the Messenger because he is dead, but you can read what He wrote. You should not accept anything about God unless you determine for yourself that the Messenger got a message from God.

 

[Sir Doom]

There is also: God is not omnipotent.

Really though, omnipotence definitely implies omniscience. If God is not aware of how to do anything and everything then it can't be omnipotent. Omniscience is a necessary component of omnipotence.

It is as you say, though. If we assume God is omniscient we must also assume that whatever it's doing is 'the best way' to accomplish whatever it's accomplishing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, this is getting boring... you're just repeating the same things over and over. I KNOW that it's a personal belief that you SHARE with 7 million other people... I said as much in my last post. STILL doesn't change the fact that it is your PERSONAL OPINION.

The salient point is that I have EVIDENCE to back up my personal opinion (belief). My atheist friend has NO EVIDENCE to back up his personal opinion. Most of my evidence surrounding the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is verifiable, but evidence is evidence whether it is verifiable or not.

AGAIN... we could be talking about SANTA CLAUS and it wouldn't matter. The fact that you can verify some historical facts about this person DOES NOT mean that ANY of the fantastical claims about him being a messenger from god are TRUE. It's just your PERSONAL OPINION that he was. And your personal opinion does NOT qualify as verifiable evidence.

No, it is the EVIDENCE that “indicates” that it could be the truth from God. In short, I checked out the fantastical claims of Him being a Messenger because I wanted to know. I cannot prove it to you but I have proven it to myself.

The fact that it can NEVER BE VERIFIED means that there is NO good reason to accept it as true! All of your evidence that CANNOT be verified is USELESS! Such 'evidence' is nothing more that your PERSONAL OPINION! (yeah, yeah, I KNOW... it's an OPINION that you share with 7 million other people).

There is no good reason FOR YOU to accept it as true.

It is USELESS to YOU.

I do not need VERIFIABLE evidence of that which is self-evidently the Truth from God. It is drop dead obvious TO ME, given all the OTHER evidence I have. Different strokes for different folks.

EXACTLY! It MIGHT be true or it might NOT be true. So faith is no more reliable a path to ascertaining the truth as flipping a coin... it MIGHT come up heads or it MIGHT come up tails. Of course I never claimed that faith doesn't have a 50/50 chance of being true... ONLY that it is NOT a reliable path to the truth. Or at least, no more reliable than flipping a coin.

I NEVER said that anyone should believe in God claims on faith alone. They should base their beliefs upon evidence. What cannot be verified is taken on faith. Faith is necessary for things that cannot be proven... I cannot prove that my husband is not having an affair while I am at work all day so I have to have faith that he is telling the truth when he says he was taking care of cats and doing other chores. I have to have faith I will not get hit by a car every time I ride my bike to work in heavy traffic 12 miles each way.

Anyway... unless you have something NEW to say, I think we've beat this dead horse long enough. Enjoy continuing to delude yourself!

I do have a few things to say and then I am done....

Deluding myself, you had to throw that in for good measure didn’t you? Just like with my atheist friend on that other forum, I have to be WRONG in order for him to be RIGHT. I have tried to meet him halfway but for him there is no meeting me halfway. He has to be 100% right about everything so there is nothing I can say that will ever have any effect upon him.

He is completely irrational. He thinks the Baha’i Faith is so small because God did not communicate properly. If God had been behind it everyone would be Baha’is by now!What is God supposed to do, swoop down and make people believe in His “new religion?” He completely disregards free will and says humans are not responsible for their choices. He even says criminals are not responsible for their actions.

He completely discounts the human element of choice and human nature. The primary reasons the Baha’i Faith is still small is because most people cling tenaciously to their older religions and nonbelievers do not accept the idea of Messengers. The evidence is splattered all over the forums! The Baha’i Faith is small because not many people have chosen to believe in it yet, just as Christianity was small in the beginning. I have listed all the reasons why it is still small, but he calls them excuses.But oh no, it is all God’s fault because God failed to communicate “credibly.” Imagine that! An Omnipotent God that needs excuses for not communicating the way he wants Him to so he can believe in God. Give me a break.

He knows nothing about history. He blames Baha’u’llah for the Baha’i Faith being small but refuses to acknowledge the fact that it was not Baha’u’llah’s job to spread His religion, just as it was not Jesus’ job to spread His religion. Both of them had a mission to accomplish and then they has disciples and later followers who carried the message to others. Baha’u’llah died in 1892, so how could He be teaching His faith and making it grow, from His grave?

But when I explain the facts of history and how all religions were small in the beginning and grew slowly over time, and the reasons why, he calls them excuses. He just cannot admit he is wrong when he is clearly wrong.

He says that most messengers have represented imaginary gods so a real God would never use a Messenger, as if he can know what a real God would do. He thinks all religions are like Christianity therefore the Baha’i Faith is just like Christianity. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization, drop dead illogical.

Mind you I am holding all the high cards because I know God exists. He has nothing so there is nothing I need from him. I have only continued posting to him because I care about his eternal destination. But obviously he thinks God is a big joke. He is not young so he will find out soon enough he is wrong.

Whenever he cannot answer what is in my post he hurls insults at me. A couple of days ago I had it with the insults and I told him that unless he has something new to say I do not want to hear from him. Then he hurled another insult at me because he has to have the last word. I predict he will say something to me when he sees what I wrote to my other atheist friend about Thomas Paine with his ridiculous ideas about direct communication being superior to revelation, but maybe I will be lucky and he will continue deriding Christians instead of me.

I am not deluding myself just because I do not have verifiable evidence because I do not need it. I did my research and it is drop dead obvious that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. Of course it always helps to look at the evidence. People who really want to believe in God look for evidence and look at evidence they find.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

But since you have already decided you need verifiable evidence from God that God exists, there is nothing more that needs to be said.

Have a happy life without God. God is never going to provide verifiable evidence (proof) of His existence.

 

[Trailblazer]

1. If god exists, he has the ability to communicate without messengers.

So what? That does not mean God is going to. God is omnipotent so God only does what God wants to do. Since there is no evidence that God ever communicated without Messengers, we can conclude that God wants to communicate with Messengers.

2. Messengers are human too.

Yes, they are human but they are more than human. They are made from the substance of God Himself. They have a universal divine mind. No ordinary human has that.

3. Bahaullah only lived between 1817-1872 (as so researched.) I researched my geno and I have family alive during that time period to which I can know more of. In that respect, time difference doesn't make a difference in hearing god.

How is that relevant? Are you going to hear from God from your family?

3. If god exists and the messengers know we should be able today have more messengers like jesus and bahaullah. If they are here, who would believe them?

So what? God is omniscient so God knows how many Messengers we need and when we need them.

I hope nobody believes them because they are frauds if they claim to be Messengers of God.

4. I can write a book predicting future events. If people cares about me enough, theys probably realize what I know is related to what they know of their day. Maybe I'd be a prophet but not a spokesman for god.

Will those future events actually come to pass?

In this book is a list of 30 things that Baha’u’llah predicted that actually came to pass: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

Solve where gods messengers stopped and god stop talking between 1872 and today. What happened?

They stopped talking because God stopped talking, since God told Baha’u’llah everything humanity needs to know until the next Messenger comes, any time after 2852 AD but not before.

5. Between that time how did books became more authority than the people themselves?

Both have authority but people die. Books are there for everyone to read after people – and Messengers -- die.

 

[Trailblazer]

What purpose, other than the one we give to our existence, is relevant ?

The Purpose God assigns.

Don’t you think that if God created humans God would be the one who knows the Purpose for which He created them?

I don't see why one should care about that, other than for curiosity's sake. Why do you ?

Why wouldn’t I want to know what God created me to do if God had a Purpose in mind?I care because I believe God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, so God knows more than me about what my Purpose should be. I could imagine a lot of things about my purpose and later find out they were not what was good for me. If God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, God knows what is best for me.

As I see it, I am the one constantly imbuing my life with meaning through my own actions.

I see nothing wrong with that because our lives should have meaning, but meaning is not the same thing as the ultimate Purpose of our existence, why we were created, which is to know and live according to our true self.

“Through the Teachings of this Day Star of Truth every man will advance and develop until he attaineth the station at which he can manifest all the potential forces with which his inmost true self hath been endowed. It is for this very purpose that in every age and dispensation the Prophets of God and His chosen Ones have appeared amongst men, and have evinced such power as is born of God and such might as only the Eternal can reveal.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 67-68

This is related to what happens after we die because who be become here is all that goes with us to the afterlife.

When we know our Purpose it gives our life meaning. We can imbue our lives with meaning through our own actions which will be beneficial both in this life and in the afterlife.

“The Prophets and Messengers of God have been sent down for the sole purpose of guiding mankind to the straight Path of Truth. The purpose underlying Their revelation hath been to educate all men, that they may, at the hour of death, ascend, in the utmost purity and sanctity and with absolute detachment, to the throne of the Most High.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 156-157

I meant neither. I meant I don't see belief as something to be desired by itself. I see belief as a mere consequence.
Let me put it this way: Belief is a consequence of you being convinced of something.

Yes, it is a consequence of that but why wouldn’t it also be desired if there is a God that knows what is best for us, and a God that explains how we fulfil the Purpose of our existence?Just believing in God is if no real value unless we do something with the belief.

I think it is reasonable to want one's own beliefs to align with truth. In other words, I think it is fine to say: I want to believe in God if God exists. What I find weird is saying: I want to believe in God. Period.

I fully agree. Why would anyone want to believe in a God that does not exist? The problem is that nobody can prove that God exists, although there is good evidence that indicates that God exists.

Would I want to know if God exists? Yes.
Would I want God to exist ? Depends on what you mean by the term.
Would I want to believe that God exists if God exists ? Yes.

Okay thanks. You would want to know if God exists. You would want to believe that God exists if God exists. However, you are not sure if you would want God to exist, even if God exists, depending upon what God is like? That sounds kind of like me sometimes not wanting to believe God exists but knowing God exists and having to accept God as-is. It sounds ridiculous when I say that because I know it is not rational, but sometimes feelings just are.

Woah. What a hassle.

I hope everything is alright now.

Thanks. Yes, it was quite a tumultuous time, but it’s over now. Did you ever see that movie called “The Fugitive?” I felt like Gerard that when it was finally over.

Dr. Richard Kimble: They killed my wife.
Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: I know it Richard. But it's over.
[pauses and sighs]

Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: You know I'm glad. I need the rest.
The Fugitive (1993)

Ok. I get what you meant now.

Thanks. I am glad somebody understands.

 

[Sir Doom]

Yes, because I am telling you what the Messenger wrote. In effect, I am the “messenger” for the Messenger. I am explaining to you what the Messenger wrote.

Exactly. Thus, the messenger is qualifying themselves. That shatters all hope of trust from me, sad to say.

You do not have to take my word for it that there is a Messenger or who this Messenger is. You can find out for yourself. If you find the Messenger you can check Him out and determine if He was telling the truth.

No, I can determine if I believe the messenger or not. Which I can do without ever speaking to them. Self-qualification is the most erroneous of appeals to authority imaginable.

There might be another way to believe in God but there is no other way to get messages from God.You do not have to take my word for it. You can read what the Messenger wrote about that and decide whether to believe it or not.

Or, based on an overwhelming amount of personal experience with people speaking for God I can reject this classic example of the same out of hand.

You cannot speak to the Messenger because he is dead, but you can read what He wrote. You should not accept anything about God unless you determine for yourself that the Messenger got a message from God.

And there is strike three. Not only am I meant to accept that there are messengers of God (won't be doing that) I am meant to accept THIS messenger because they say so (won't be doing that either) and I am meant to accept what they say without question, discussion or argument because they are already dead (won't be doing that either).

I see no difference between your messenger and every other one I've encountered. Except the dead part, very rarely living people claim such lofty titles. But most of the time they are dead, and therefore beyond reproach.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is also: God is not omnipotent.

What good would a wimpy God like that be? God would then not be set apart from humans.

Really though, omnipotence definitely implies omniscience. If God is not aware of how to do anything and everything then it can't be omnipotent. Omniscience is a necessary component of omnipotence.

I understand what you mean, now that you put it that way. All power and all knowledge go together like a hand in glove.

It is as you say, though. If we assume God is omniscient we must also assume that whatever it's doing is 'the best way' to accomplish whatever it's accomplishing.

That would be true, but God also has to be All-Wise in order to use all the knowledge in the best way.
That is what God has to be All-Powerful, All-Knowing and All-Wise.

 

[Sir Doom]

Hypothetically speaking if a being comes to you and says, "I am God."

Then you say, "Oh you created everything!"

And it says, "No, but I did create all of you."

Call this being a wimp if you like.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is a a mix posts since I cant remember all you said; and, Im not making things up (my words)

Is there any reason to think that God, if God exists, would want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him?

Yes. Ideally, according to the christian god he wants people to believe in him. Not all abrahamics think of god that way.

If God wanted everyone to believe in Him, what do you think God would do in order to accomplish that?

1. Explain his nature
2. Not use prophets, incarnations, and spokespeople
3. Talk in the person heart without dependence on what people wrote
4. Not depend on text writen hundred of years prior to our birth (which doesnt make it more true than if bahaullah, jesus, and muhammad existed today)

I was not trying to put anyone in a box, quite the contrary. I wanted to know how atheists and agnostics think about god and what god would want and how god would communicate if god existed.

The fact that most atheists would never claim to know what god would want or how god would communicate if god existed is what I wanted to know.

There are posts where you generalize. Its a communicative techique a lot, I mean a lot, of us write and say without realizing it. I came from my therapist earlier today and we were discussing just this generalzing a group of people. It happens to the best of us. Catching ourselves is a different story.

How can we (well, I-I know no god concepts and not a former abrahamic) can I answer that question from an atheist point of view? I can guess.

I have explained to my friend that an omniscient God knows more than he knows since no human is omniscient. That means God knows more than he knows about the best way to communicate to humanity. He will not respond to this.

He calls himself the king of logic but he is completely illogical for the reason given below.

God knows everything. Nobody can know more than everything, which means he cannot know more than God.

But you two have different beliefs; just as people here. Im sure you understand our differences; so....

There might be another way to believe in God but there is no other way to get messages from God.You do not have to take my word for it. You can read what the Messenger wrote about that and decide whether to believe it or not.

If god is god, he talks specific to the person he wants to speak with. There was someone here that said we are all god because we are all his messengers. That makes more sense than prophets. Prophets limit god because they only lived not so far (1817??!!) and yet they can talk to god better than we?

Time difference doesnt and shouldnt make a difference between messengers and layman.

You cannot speak to the Messenger because he is dead, but you can read what He wrote. You should not accept anything about God unless you determine for yourself that the Messenger got a message from God.

This is your belief. It is not a fact. God is not limited like that. If thats how you learn about him, thats fine. Unless you can describe gods nature, I wouldnt see how anyone can take the messengers word for it when not even the messengers as human can explain who and what a god is.

We need the basics first.That, and Bahaullahs writings are hard to understand because of the language. Quoting does not help.

So what? That does not mean God is going to. God is omnipotent so God only does what God wants to do. Since there is no evidence that God ever communicated without Messengers, we can conclude that God wants to communicate with Messengers.

Tell me. How do you speak for god?

Its one thing to say, "bahaullah wrote X about god", its another to say, "god says we should do X and he said his messengers would do Y."

If you dont know god and the messengers cant describe him, how can I trust you (and them) that what you guys say actually came from god and not your inspiration of him?

Yes, they are human but they are more than human. They are made from the substance of God Himself. They have a universal divine mind. No ordinary human has that.

Which is it?

Humans cant be more than. Human is a human. Humans arent substances of god himself. That sounds like the trinity.

Do bahais believe in the trinity?
If not, whats the difference between this statement and christians saying jesus is god?

How is that relevant? Are you going to hear from God from your family?

If you cant follow a hypothetical without looking into it, its hard to converse. I understand by analogy. If I cant understand it, I cant talk about it.

So what? God is omniscient so God knows how many Messengers we need and when we need them.

I hope nobody believes them because they are frauds if they claim to be Messengers of God

This is odd. You speak for god and the messengers instead of saying

the messengers said god does X

You say, god does X and thats why he has messengers

but god only talks to you through messengers yet you speak from god as if you are a messenger yourself.

Thats confusing. All abrahamics do it. I think I read Hindus do it but I havent talked to them long. seems like god-believers do.

They stopped talking because God stopped talking, since God told Baha’u’llah everything humanity needs to know until the next Messenger comes, any time after 2852 AD but not before.

1817!! Thats recent. I mean, age means nothing to spirituality, but that gap is cutting it short.

If bahaullah lived today, here, would you believe him?

Both have authority but people die. Books are there for everyone to read after people – and Messengers -- die.

Yes. But if you have a connection with god directly (since he is god), then messengers guide but they arent a replacement for god.

Thats like a artist lover thinking Bob Ross is his art because he died. I mean, I love his art, dont get me wrong. His son came over to our art store and actually taught classes. If they wrote a book, it doesnt beat talking to them face to face.

But since god is not human, unlike Bob Ross, he has the ability to talk to people without messengers.

I know you say he chose not to, but can he talk you as he talked to the messengers?

and

Why would time make a difference in the type of communication involved?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, because I am telling you what the Messenger wrote. In effect, I am the “messenger” for the Messenger. I am explaining to you what the Messenger wrote.

Exactly. Thus, the messenger is qualifying themselves. That shatters all hope of trust from me, sad to say.

The Messenger does not qualify Himself. He proves that He is worthy to be a Messenger by His Life, His Mission and His Writings. As Jesus said, by their fruits you will know them.

You do not have to take my word for it that there is a Messenger or who this Messenger is. You can find out for yourself. If you find the Messenger you can check Him out and determine if He was telling the truth.

No, I can determine if I believe the messenger or not. Which I can do without ever speaking to them. Self-qualification is the most erroneous of appeals to authority imaginable.

I guess I do not understand what you mean by self-qualification. Do you think that Baha’u’llah expected people to believe in Him based solely upon His claim to be a Messenger? No, absolutely not. He did not expect anyone to believe He was a Messenger of God without checking Him out.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

There might be another way to believe in God but there is no other way to get messages from God. You do not have to take my word for it. You can read what the Messenger wrote about that and decide whether to believe it or not.

Or, based on an overwhelming amount of personal experience with people speaking for God I can reject this classic example of the same out of hand.

You can choose because you have free will. However, it is illogical to conclude that just because there were some false messengers that means there cannot be a true Messenger of God.

You cannot speak to the Messenger because he is dead, but you can read what He wrote. You should not accept anything about God unless you determine for yourself that the Messenger got a message from God.

And there is strike three. Not only am I meant to accept that there are messengers of God (won't be doing that) I am meant to accept THIS messenger because they say so (won't be doing that either) and I am meant to accept what they say without question, discussion or argument because they are already dead (won't be doing that either).

No, you do not have to accept that there are messengers of God, and you certainly should not accept the messenger just because he says he is a messenger. You should not accept what a messenger says unless you did a lot of investigation and determined for yourself that he actually spoke for God. Only then would you accept what he said without question. Obviously that is a long road to travel, which is why most people do not travel that road and even fewer people get to the end of it.

I see no difference between your messenger and every other one I've encountered. Except the dead part, very rarely living people claim such lofty titles. But most of the time they are dead, and therefore beyond reproach.

What messengers have you encountered? Are you saying that you know people who have claimed to speak for God? What evidence do they have to support such a claim? There is a lot of evidence that supports Baha’u’llah’s claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hypothetically speaking if a being comes to you and says, "I am God."

Then you say, "Oh you created everything!"

And it says, "No, but I did create all of you."

Call this being a wimp if you like.

No, God would not be a wimp unless God was not omnipotent, but if God was not omnipotent God could not have created everything.

 

[Koldo]

The Purpose God assigns.

Don’t you think that if God created humans God would be the one who knows the Purpose for which He created them?

Why wouldn’t I want to know what God created me to do if God had a Purpose in mind?I care because I believe God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, so God knows more than me about what my Purpose should be. I could imagine a lot of things about my purpose and later find out they were not what was good for me. If God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, God knows what is best for me.

My direct creators are my father and mother and I don't care what purpose they had in mind when they created me. In the sense that I don't feel compelled to fulfill it just because that's what they want. Why wouldn't I feel the same way about my ultimate creator ( if it does exist ) ? Do you see what I am getting at ? To say that we have a specific purpose that was given to us by someone else and that we must fulfill it feels like saying we are an object that must satisfy someone else's will.

I see nothing wrong with that because our lives should have meaning, but meaning is not the same thing as the ultimate Purpose of our existence, why we were created, which is to know and live according to our true self.

“Through the Teachings of this Day Star of Truth every man will advance and develop until he attaineth the station at which he can manifest all the potential forces with which his inmost true self hath been endowed. It is for this very purpose that in every age and dispensation the Prophets of God and His chosen Ones have appeared amongst men, and have evinced such power as is born of God and such might as only the Eternal can reveal.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 67-68

I don't really believe in a true self either. That concept implies there is a false self in me, and I don't see how that could be the case. Everything about me is me. Innermost and outermost are applicable, but not true and false.

This is related to what happens after we die because who be become here is all that goes with us to the afterlife.

When we know our Purpose it gives our life meaning. We can imbue our lives with meaning through our own actions which will be beneficial both in this life and in the afterlife.

“The Prophets and Messengers of God have been sent down for the sole purpose of guiding mankind to the straight Path of Truth. The purpose underlying Their revelation hath been to educate all men, that they may, at the hour of death, ascend, in the utmost purity and sanctity and with absolute detachment, to the throne of the Most High.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 156-157

I would say that when we have a purpose it gives us meaning, regardless of where it came from.

Yes, it is a consequence of that but why wouldn’t it also be desired if there is a God that knows what is best for us, and a God that explains how we fulfil the Purpose of our existence?Just believing in God is if no real value unless we do something with the belief.

I fully agree. Why would anyone want to believe in a God that does not exist? The problem is that nobody can prove that God exists, although there is good evidence that indicates that God exists.

Okay thanks. You would want to know if God exists. You would want to believe that God exists if God exists. However, you are not sure if you would want God to exist, even if God exists, depending upon what God is like? That sounds kind of like me sometimes not wanting to believe God exists but knowing God exists and having to accept God as-is. It sounds ridiculous when I say that because I know it is not rational, but sometimes feelings just are.

Alright. Now I understand what you meant by not wanting to believe God exists.

Thanks. Yes, it was quite a tumultuous time, but it’s over now. Did you ever see that movie called “The Fugitive?” I felt like Gerard that when it was finally over.

Dr. Richard Kimble: They killed my wife.
Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: I know it Richard. But it's over.
[pauses and sighs]

Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: You know I'm glad. I need the rest.
The Fugitive (1993)

Thanks. I am glad somebody understands.

Did you just give me a huge spoiler ?
How could you... ??
What's next ? Are you gonna tell me how 'Gone with the Wind' ( 1939 ) ends ?

 

[Sir Doom]

My point is that omnipotence is not a given. Hypothetically speaking God only needs to have been responsible for us humans (directly or indirectly) in order to qualify for the title. Everything beyond that is just extra power we imagine to put one God over another.

Consider that God would not be able to demonstrate omnipotence to you even if that were the case. Not without making you omniscient, anyway.

Do you honestly think it's so far fetched to imagine God is only God of us and not the rest of the universe as well?

 

[Audie]

True.

Baha’u’llah did not make anything up. He got a revelation from God. That is what I know.

For whatever reason, atheists have a problem with the “idea” of Messengers of God. I have been posting to atheists for over four years but not one of them has been able to give me one good reason why God would not use a Messenger. Not one atheist has come up with another way God could communicate that would work better for all of humanity. That is because there is no other way.

If atheists do not choose to believe in the Messenger of God then they will never know that God exists or what God wants.

I have a way of knowing that God exists. I know because Baha’u’llah manifested God.

As for the omnipotent monster, I wish He did not exist. Religious apologetics don’t cut it for me. I believe God exists but I do not have to like Him.

Baha’u’llah was just the mailman who brought God’s mail to humanity. It is not Baha’u’llah’s fault that God built the post office, nor is it Baha’u’llah’s fault how God runs the post office. God is the one responsible for creating this world, which is a storehouse of suffering, more for some people than others. God does not seem to give a rip about suffering of people or animals, but if He does there is no way that we can know it. We are just supposed to believe it because it is written in scriptures. Sorry, but I cannot believe in an All-Loving God. I would never have made a good Christian. I am too logical.

You know he got a "message"? You know that?
I so do not believe you.

You also seem to " know" that atheists have a problem
with the idea of messengers. "Problem"? Seeing it
as baloney is a problem?

A good reason why "god" would or would not use messengers?
You say you are logical? If there were a god, I'd say he can do
as he likes. You think you "know" he is severely limited.

I would say you are correct in that, if as is so evident "god(s)"
exist only in imagination.

Your god is too stupid or limited to think of any other way than
"Messenger", you know that for a fact.

Messengers dont work that well so far.

Now, if a gigantic face appeared in the sky, everywhere,
and spoke in every langusge, that would get attention.

Appear to everyone in person, give them the same message
Keep it written in the sky till people get the idea.

Etc. This "messenger" thing is the lair of frauds, crazies,
power hungery, etc. They all have a different "truth".

How can you possibly miss that or think "god" is so
incompetent?

"Choose tp believe". THAT is another name for self deception.
I believe the sun is hot. No choice, it just is. I know that.

Think about it if you have not, the problem of choosing
to believe. Of course, if you do choose, long habit
may internalize it so deep it is indistinguishable-to you-
from belief with factual basis.


Your way of "knowing" there is a god is, quite frankly,
ridiculous. You talked yourself into it, but you do
not know. Yiu dont. If yiu cannot face that honestly,
you've not learned the simple lesson that the easiest
person to fool is, yourself.

You've talked yourself into believing you are "logical:
but you are not.

There is no logic or sense in your post. It is you making
things up ( and parroting what someone else made up)

It is about feelings, and choosing self deception.
This is no message, as a sub- messenger,
Sorry-ah, (as we say in Hong Kong) but you are
a total flop.

Just another sub sub sub variation on the same endless
theme of "knowing" about some god via "messages".
As if.

That is no trail you are a-blazin' friend, you are just
falling for a shabby, disgraceful old con, and
a-plodding down the same old moldy groove
thats been the worn out for millenia.

It does not take skepticism to disbelieve that stuff,
just a baby step or two from the credulity of the
veriest naif will do.

 

[Milton Platt]

So if God exists, you don't think He would care if anyone believed He exists?
Why do you think that?

A god, by definition would not need anything or want anything. That would imply that the god hasn't been able to satisfy a want or a need, which would make him something less than a god.

 

[viole]

There are certain problems with zapping belief in Him in every mind, and one problem is that some people do not want to be zapped because they do not want to believe in God.

How do they know if they are zapped at birth? And by the way, I also do not like to walk, I would vastly prefer to fly. But I have no wings. Is that a problem?

The other problem is that would only accomplish belief, but we would still not know anything about God or what God wants us to do. That is why God uses Messengers, to convey that information to us.

Ach yes. Those middle men. God should know that there is a thing called chinese whisper. A variant of a problem with communication when transmitted on noisy channels.

He should know by now, given that there are and have been thousands of middle men all saying different things about God.

So, what about speaking directly? I am sure that talking to billions does not take much more effort than speaking to one, for someone with infinite power.

True, God could do it, but I am not sure how helpful it would be. According to Baha’u’llah, this is what would happen if God showed up on earth:

“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. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72

Sure. Every religion makes up things that explain why God does not appear. It is a survival necessity.

However, there is a much simpler explanation for why God is so silent.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

How do they know if they are zapped at birth? And by the way, I also do not like to walk, I would vastly prefer to fly. But I have no wings. Is that a problem?



Ach yes. Those middle men. God should know that there is a thing called chinese whisper. A variant of a problem with communication when transmitted on noisy channels.

He should know by now, given that there are and have been thousands of middle men all saying different things about God.

So, what about speaking directly? I am sure that talking to billions does not take much more effort than speaking to one, for someone with infinite power.



Sure. Every religion makes up things that explain why God does not appear. It is a survival necessity.

However, there is a much simpler explanation for why God is so silent.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, but "Were the Eternal Essence to manifest
all that is latent....plentitude...gloty" Sounds so deep,
wise, almost like revealed truth you might say,
that sounds so much um, what, than your
doggone spoilsport simple explanation?

(We are at least vaguely amused by how these here
prophets and things cant just talk straight.
They have to fluff it up with this grandly
sacred soundin' prose.)

 

[viole]

Yeah, but "Were the Eternal Essence to manifest
all that is latent....plentitude...gloty" Sounds so deep,
wise, almost like revealed truth you might say,
that sounds so much um, what, than your
doggone spoilsport simple explanation?

(We are at least vaguely amused by how these here
prophets and things cant just talk straight.
They have to fluff it up with this grandly
sacred soundin' prose.)

I lile the term “deepity” to classify things that seem deep and important, but are meaningless, when carefully scrutinized. It comes from Dennet, I believe.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sir Doom]

@Trailblazer regarding messengers:

When I say someone speaks for God I mean that they tell me something of God's nature that they couldn't possibly know without some sort of esoteric revelation. As the revelation is not apparent, and none of these 'facts' has ever held up to rigorous questioning my skeptical, cynical and pessimistic nature dismisses them as optimistic guesswork at best.

Case in point is your notion of a messenger. You seem insistent that God only communicates through messengers but there is no reason to believe that God even does that. I personally trust your words more than those if a dead man because at least I can question you regarding your beliefs. I can't question a dead man. This doesn't mean the messenger is wrong or not the messenger as you say, it just means I don't believe it. God already knows that won't be good enough for me. So why would God communicate with me that way? The simple answer is that God wouldn't and isn't.

I am not cynical because I've been jaded by false messengers. I'm cynical because humans are dishonest and selfish. When someone tells me anything about anything the first thing I see is what they get out of it. This has been validated internally countless times across the entire spectrum of human thought and understanding not just the nature of God and religion.