Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Koldo]

No, being wiser helps you apply the values you have to your life. Being wiser does not necessarily entail having better values, not if one is a human, but an All-Knowing and All-Wise God knows what is most important to value.

Why would an All-Knowing and All-Wise God know what is most important to value ?
How did you reach this conclusion ?

Serving others is a benefit to you because it makes you less selfish, which is good for you.

Suppose I don't agree with that, what then ?

God is reflected in all of His Creation. If you love God you will want to love what God created.

That doesn't follow. I can love someone and yet not love his reflection.

The word “material” in this context does not refer to the material natural world. It refers to the physical nature of man associated with his physical body as opposed to the spiritual nature of man associated with his soul.

The body is just a vehicle that carries the soul around while we are alive on earth, a place to house the soul. The soul is our self, our true reality; the body is just our outer shell. That is why the physical nature of man is subordinate to the spiritual nature of man.

The soul is the sum total of the personality so it is the person himself; the physical body is pure matter with no real identity. We need a body because our spirit (soul) needs a way to express itself while we are alive on earth.

There is a lot more to this but I do not want to overwhelm you with too much information, although I probably already did.

But once again, if untruth can't be found in the physical natural world, why would the physical nature of man have untruth as a trait ?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ill be honest. I am not reading your quotes because I read a lot of bahaullahs words in another thread from three bahai that last for years. I did not understand a word. The language is hard to read.

Nobody knows the intrinsic nature (Essence) of God. Baha’u’llah does not speak of it. Baha’u’llah wrote that God can never reveal His Essence to man.

That is my point. It doesnt answer my question, though. I know that no one can describe the nature of god. My point is,

because no one can describe it, there is no reason to believe anyone who describest he attributes of something he doesnt even know the nature of.

That is like describing john saying he has short hair, beautiful smile, and hansome suite. I ask you who is he, instead of saying human you say yuo dontknow.

What do attributes mean when the source of those attributes cannot be defined?
​

Jesus and Baha’u’llah were both Mediators. A Mediator is between God and man, but He is not God and He is more than a man... A Mediator is separate from God. He can mediate between God and man because He has characteristics of both.

The bible compares the nature of god to jesus christ as mediator (you are just repeating what I said when I quoted the bible verse). It is called the trinity.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus Timothy 1:25

Thisi s the trinity; duality, more specific. The relationship between god and mediator.

You are just repeating what I said. Since he has the characteristics of both, that is why people call him god. Language issues.

Baha’u’llah did describe the Attributes of God (as noted above).

The problem, though, is trying to speak for a god you both can't describe. Which makes it hard to trust bahaullah evidence (as you mentioned)

You cannot describe the nature of god; so, his attributes mean nothing.

You need a noun first, the definition of it so we know what exactly you are speaking of, then the adjectives to which describes the outer appearance of the noun.

That, or you separate attributes from nature to which many people do not do.

Nobody can meet God. Jesus even said that no man has ever seen God, but that He (Jesus) had declared God. What Jesus meant is that He (Jesus) spoke of God and verified that God exists.

Who would trust what I said about John is true without even meeting or hearing for herself John before trusting anything I said about him is true?

Sorry, didnt put a question mark.

Why would I trust what Bahaullah says about gods attributes when he doesnt even know his nature? How can I know what he says is true?

By definition, when you trust someone you dont know it is called blind faith. While I dont agree with blind faith, unless you know who you believe in first, that is exactly what it is.

Blind faith does not equal authenticity in what bahauallah says. Everyone has bahaullahs attributes. But you must define the nature to which these attributes are connected.

For example, jesus says god loves the world and whoever believes in him (father) will have everlasting life.

Who is the father?

He cant be described

Than who exactly is saving us?

God

What is god?

We dont know.

See how this doesnt make sense????

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Jesus and Baha’u’llah were not God thus they were separate from God. They Mediated between God and mankind and they declared God and described God’s Attributes.

This is a contradiction. You said Bahaullah has the divine qualities of god. Thats the trinity. Then you say he is separate as a mediator.

Trinitarians do not seperate god and jesus just because they dont know gods nature. The bible describes gods nature through christ.

Its a language issue not a biblical one. Both of you believe your respective prophets share the divinity mind of god. That divine connection is the trnity. Just chrisitans dont make it so complicated. They say jesus is god period.

Language issues

The intrinsic nature of God (God’s Essence) is unknowable. Some of the Attributes of God (God’s qualities) are knowable. The quotes describe the qualities of God.

I know.

Unless the attributes are his nature (god IS love. god IS justice as in christian belief), it makes no sense to believe in these attributes when you dont even know the nature to which these attributes describe.

Sounds off, really.

God nature (noun)-We dont know
Gods attributes (adjectives) -We do know

You cant use adjectives on a noun unless you describe the noun to which those attributes are connected.

That, or you are separating god from his attributes rather than god being his attributes (the later makes more sense)

If god is his attributes, that makes more sense

When you separate god (his nature) from his attributes, that means you must decribe the nature of god before talking about him.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We cant just say

There is something with four limbs, a mouth, hair on its back, and eats meat and plants as food.

Its not a guessing game. That could be an animal or a human (the nature of these attributes)

Since we dont know, right, those attributes mean nothing. We can dance around them, but that doesnt help.

Thats like trying to put together a 1,000 piece puzzle without the picture. A person can probably do it. Maybe a prophet. But even when its finished, he still cant describe the picture!

 

[Polymath257]

How likely is it that all the religions got it wrong? It is far more likely that they are all right but that the older religions have exceeded their shelf life so they are no longer useful for today’s modern world. Also, the older religions got tampered with while they were sitting on the shelf so that are not want was originally “packaged” by God.

And I see it as every society makes a wild guess on how to proceed, adjusting their rules as they go along. Which means they find rules that work well enough for them on a day to day basis. But in matter of the supernatural, where *all* we have is guesswork, the likelihood of getting anything right is very small.

I find it much more likely that all societies get it wrong than that they got it right.

How likely is it that 93% of people in the world who believe in God are all wrong and that the 7% of people in the world who are atheists are the only ones who are right? How well could the world function if that many people were all deluded?

Take a look around you. Does it look like it is well run?

That is very telling and there is a logical explanation for it. All the religions were right about the morality because human nature and thus morality does not change over time. Atheists get that morality by osmosis through living in a world with mostly believers because it is embedded in culture.

I think morality does change over time, but gradually. The morality for a primarily agricultural society will be slightly different than that for a fully technological society: different rules of behavior are required to function well. But at each stage, there are a limited number of rules that work well with human nature.

That is the difficult part of religion for nonbelievers. They cannot accept the unseen reality, God and the spiritual world aka afterlife. For the most part, God and the afterlife are mysteries even to believers, but at least the Baha’i depiction has some definition and makes sense.

I know of many things that are unseen: ultraviolet light for example. But that is different than a supernatural.

That is a good question. I sure would not want to believe in a God that does not exist.

But by the same token, why wouldn’t somebody want to believe in a God if there is one?

So my approach is the same with this as for any other existence question: define the nature of the object in question, determine the distinguishing evidence *both ways* that would be possible, do the research to see which direction has more evidence in its favor, and until there is a direct observation, remain skeptical.

At this point, even defining the topic is something that seems difficult for people to agree upon.

Is God the creator of the universe? If so, is it acceptable that it be a committee? An accident? A school project that is now forgotten?

Or is God a law giver? In which case, could God be a person? or a local race of space aliens?

For that matter, what does it even mean to be supernatural? Sure, 'above the natural', but which direction is that, precisely? Unseen is common physically, but physical isn't supernatural. If something can be detected, it is almost physical by definition, which would mean the supernatural cannot be detected at all. But then, what possible evidence could there be for its existence?

So, even getting off the starting block seems problematic when asking about God. And that doesn't even get to the question of how one would be able to distinguish existence from non-existence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I disagree. We can easily use philosophy as a base without the need for claims of revelation.

How do we do that? I am all ears......

 

[Trailblazer]

Since about 95% of the people of the world are taught that a god exists from the day they are born is it any surprise that 93% of the world believe in a god?

That makes sense, most people are raised that way... I was not raised to believe in God, as my parents were not religious, they were "fallen away" Christians.

The existence on god is not proven by a poll though. The majority of people in the world will not know what the square root of minus one is - that doesn't make them correct.

You're right, and it is the fallacy of ad populum to say that God exists because many people believe in God...
Nobody can "prove" that there is a God, except to themselves... It won't be known to everyone until after they die, and even then everyone might not know; if they had barred themselves from God in this mortal life they might remain barred.

The world functions well because most god believers are fairly benign and just get on with life but spending some time worshipping their god.
The most irreligious countries tend to be the most prosperous, even in the likes of the US, the most prosperous people live in the least religious states.

If you define prosperous according to material wealth, you are right, but I do not define it that way.
The material world is nothing but dust, compared to the unseen spiritual world.
Soon shall it pass away as if it had never existed.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

Why should it matter to a god? Wouldn't a god be fully self actuating and in need of nothing?

 

[Sir Doom]

No, that is the opposite of what I said... I said Baha’is are enjoined to independently investigate the religion and decide for themselves if it is true or not. Lots of people do not believe in Baha’u’llah.

That is not what I responded to. Go read it again.

An omnipotent God is capable of doing anything, but it is not going to communicate to you directly because that is not how God wants to communicate.

In case you were wondering, that is what speaking for God looks like. When you tell me what God wants. Hello false messenger. Gone goes the trust. Gone goes the benefit of the doubt. Gone goes any hope for a reasonable discussion.

An omnipotent God only does what it wants to do, not what it can do and not what humans want it to do. All rational people know that because it is logical that an All-Powerful God would not have to do anything it does not want to do.

That's right. God clearly does not want to communicate with me. I'm pretty sure I said that.

If God communicates with Messengers, it is unreasonable to “expect” God to suddenly start communicating differently than God has communicated since the dawn of human history. One reason it is unreasonable is because there is no reason why God would have to do this, since 93% of people believe in God. Thus there is no good reason for God to change the method of communication that has been successful to date. The fact that 7% of people in the world are atheists, all of which are not even searching for God, is not a reason for God to communicate differently.

If God wants to communicate with me then God will. God will not adhere to YOUR rules. You say there is no reason for God to change, but that just means there is no reason for God to communicate with me. I'm either so righteous he doesn't feel I need direction or so fallen there is no hope. I'm pretty sure it's more likely that God has never communicated with anyone.

 

[Shad]

How do we do that? I am all ears......

You seem unfamiliar with the philosophical side of the "God debate". First take a look at Existence of God - Wikipedia. and Deism - Wikipedia

Look at the various linked arguments to see how one can argue for God without the need of any revelation.

I lack knowledge of a comparable figure within your religion. However I would still advise taking a look at Existence & Nature of God | Reasonable Faith

Craig is a Christian but he does approach the general topic of God from a philosophical view point first in many cases. A lot of his arguments are applicable to many monotheist religions including your own given it is a branch within the same religious tradition as Christianity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ill be honest. I am not reading your quotes because I read a lot of bahaullahs words in another thread from three bahai that last for years. I did not understand a word. The language is hard to read.

I fully understand. For most of my life as a Baha’i, I did not understand the Writings of Baha’u’llah. I had to learn a lot about Baha’u’llah and the Baha’i Faith before I could understand them.

That is my point. It doesnt answer my question, though. I know that no one can describe the nature of god. My point is,
because no one can describe it, there is no reason to believe anyone who describest he attributes of something he doesnt even know the nature of.

That is like describing john saying he has short hair, beautiful smile, and hansome suite. I ask you who is he, instead of saying human you say you dont know.

I do not know what you cannot “separate out” the nature of God from the attributes of God.

Why would Baha’u’llah need to know the nature of God in order to know the attributes of God? Nobody can ever know the nature of God. All we can know are the attributes of God and the will of God.

In short, only God knows the nature of God. Baha’u’llah just got a message. In that message God told Baha’u’llah what His attributes are and what His will is (what God wants humans to do).

What do attributes mean when the source of those attributes cannot be defined?

God cannot ever be defined. God is above definition. All we can know are some of God’s attributes.

The problem, though, is trying to speak for a god you both can't describe. Which makes it hard to trust bahaullah evidence (as you mentioned)

You cannot describe the nature of god; so, his attributes mean nothing.

The attributes mean nothing to you but they mean a lot to people who believe in God. For example, if we do not know that God is loving and just, why would we want to believe in God?

Nobody can meet God. Jesus even said that no man has ever seen God, but that He (Jesus) had declared God. What Jesus meant is that He (Jesus) spoke of God and verified that God exists.

Who would trust what I said about John is true without even meeting or hearing for herself John before trusting anything I said about him is true?

John is a human so you can meet John. God is not a human so you cannot meet God. The only way we can know anything about God is by reading what was revealed by Baha’u’llah or other scriptures such as the Bible and the Qur’an.

Why would I trust what Bahaullah says about gods attributes when he doesnt even know his nature? How can I know what he says is true?

It would not matter if Baha’u’llah knew God’s nature. You would still have to trust what Baha’u’llah wrote about His nature. Do you understand what I mean?

By definition, when you trust someone you dont know it is called blind faith. While I dont agree with blind faith, unless you know who you believe in first, that is exactly what it is.

Blind faith does not equal authenticity in what bahauallah says. Everyone has bahaullahs attributes. But you must define the nature to which these attributes are connected.

I see no reason why we need to define the nature of God in order to know the attributes of God. Baha’u’llah revealed the attributes, not the nature.

I think we are at an impasse.

For example, jesus says god loves the world and whoever believes in him (father) will have everlasting life.

Who is the father?

He cant be described

Than who exactly is saving us?

God

What is god?

We dont know.

See how this doesnt make sense????

No, I do not see how it makes sense to need to know the nature of God. The nature of God is hidden from our view. God decides to keep it hidden. I just accept that.The following passage says that nobody can fathom the mystery of God (God’s nature). It concludes by saying that accepting our helplessness to understand the nature of God is the highest level of understanding any human can attain to.

“Wert thou to ponder in thine heart, from now until the end that hath no end, and with all the concentrated intelligence and understanding which the greatest minds have attained in the past or will attain in the future, this divinely ordained and subtle Reality, this sign of the revelation of the All-Abiding, All-Glorious God, thou wilt fail to comprehend its mystery or to appraise its virtue. Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery of the Living God, the Day Star of unfading glory, the Ancient of everlasting days. This confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmination of man’s development.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 165-166

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a contradiction. You said Bahaullah has the divine qualities of god. Thats the trinity. Then you say he is separate as a mediator.

Baha’u’llah was separate from God because He was not God. He had some attributes of God and he had a mind that was like God but He did not have the full nature of God. Nobody has the full nature of God but God.

Trinitarians do not seperate god and jesus just because they dont know gods nature. The bible describes gods nature through christ.

Its a language issue not a biblical one. Both of you believe your respective prophets share the divinity mind of god. That divine connection is the trnity. Just chrisitansdont make it so complicated. They say jesus is god period.

But that is not true. Jesus was not God incarnate. Jesus was a Manifestation of God.

Unless the attributes are his nature (god IS love. god IS justice as in christian belief), it makes no sense to believe in these attributes when you dont even know the nature to which these attributes describe.

It is a language issue. To say that God is love and God is justice are describing the attributes of God; God is loving and God is just. That does not describe the intrinsic nature of God; things such as what God is comprised of, how God operates, where God is located, cannot ever be known.

That, or you are separating god from his attributes rather than god being his attributes (the later makes more sense).

If god is his attributes, that makes more sense.

That is a good point. God is described by His attributes, but God is ABOVE all those attributes because the nature of God is, and has ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived.

When you separate god (his nature) from his attributes, that means you must decribe the nature of god before talking about him.

I do not see why. We cannot ever know the nature of God, only God’s attributes and God’s will.

 

[Shad]

“Wert thou to ponder in thine heart, from now until the end that hath no end, and with all the concentrated intelligence and understanding which the greatest minds have attained in the past or will attain in the future, this divinely ordained and subtle Reality, this sign of the revelation of the All-Abiding, All-Glorious God, thou wilt fail to comprehend its mystery or to appraise its virtue. Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery of the Living God, the Day Star of unfading glory, the Ancient of everlasting days. This confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmination of man’s development.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 165-166

Why is this translated using a form of English not used during the time?

 

[Trailblazer]

And I see it as every society makes a wild guess on how to proceed, adjusting their rules as they go along. Which means they find rules that work well enough for them on a day to day basis. But in matter of the supernatural, where *all* we have is guesswork, the likelihood of getting anything right is very small.

I like how you reason things out. You are correct. In matters of the supernatural, if *all* we have is guesswork, the likelihood of getting anything right is very small. But we have more than guesswork. We have religious scriptures, which is really the only way we can know anything about the supernatural.

I find it much more likely that all societies get it wrong than that they got it right.

Societies have nothing to do with it, as religions are behind those societies that make the claims about the supernatural. I find it more likely that the most current religion has the most accurate depiction of the supernatural, and particularly of the afterlife because I believe God sends Messengers with updates in every new age, like a computer getting updated.

How likely is it that 93% of people in the world who believe in God are all wrong and that the 7% of people in the world who are atheists are the only ones who are right? How well could the world function if that many people were all deluded?

Take a look around you. Does it look like it is well run?

You certainly have a point, but things are falling apart because the world has not accepted the “updates” from God via His new Messenger, Baha’u’llah. As such, it is like they are operating a computer that was made in the 1950s, you know those old mainframes. How can you expect anything to run smoothly when people are using such old equipment (the Bible and other older scriptures) which were never intended to be used in this new age we are now living in?

I think morality does change over time, but gradually. The morality for a primarily agricultural society will be slightly different than that for a fully technological society: different rules of behavior are required to function well. But at each stage, there are a limited number of rules that work well with human nature.

You raise another good point. Humanity passes through different stages, as the material world changes over time and as man evolves spiritually. The rules of morality change along with the world we live in and man’s capacity to follow new rules increases as man becomes more spiritual. That is why in every new age God reveals new teachings and laws that are suited to the new age.

I know of many things that are unseen: ultraviolet light for example. But that is different than a supernatural.

How is it different?

But by the same token, why wouldn’t somebody want to believe in a God if there is one?

So my approach is the same with this as for any other existence question: define the nature of the object in question, determine the distinguishing evidence *both ways* that would be possible, do the research to see which direction has more evidence in its favor, and until there is a direct observation, remain skeptical.

The nature of God cannot ever be defined. I have been explaining that to Unveiled Artist, so please refer to my posts to her for the past couple of days. God is not a material object so looking at “evidence” for God cannot be approached as we would approach a scientific study. The only evidence for God is the Messengers of God (Prophets).

At this point, even defining the topic is something that seems difficult for people to agree upon.

Is God the creator of the universe? If so, is it acceptable that it be a committee? An accident? A school project that is now forgotten?

Or is God a law giver? In which case, could God be a person? or a local race of space aliens?

Indeed, there has to be a starting point in our study. The reason there is so much confusion is that most religious people are clinging to that old mainframe computer that has a lot of outdated information on its hard drive. And some of those computers are older than others. The older they are the less accurate they are, which is why the newer religions have more accurate information than the religions that preceded them. Each new religion brings something new to the table.

The reason people do not agree about God is because everyone has a different computer with different information on its hard drive, and the information they have conflicts with what others have. The latest update from God has explained all of this but since nobody has installed the update they don’t have the most current information from God.

For that matter, what does it even mean to be supernatural? Sure, 'above the natural', but which direction is that, precisely? Unseen is common physically, but physical isn't supernatural. If something can be detected, it is almost physical by definition, which would mean the supernatural cannot be detected at all. But then, what possible evidence could there be for its existence?

That is true. The supernatural, or what I call the spiritual, cannot be detected at all in a physical world because it is not physical. Only physical things can be detected in the physical world. Spiritual things are detected in the spiritual world. The caveat is that we can know that spiritual things such as God and the spiritual world (afterlife) exist because they are described in scriptures. However, they are only described according to our capacity to understand them. The knowledge that is revealed by God must be timely and suited our capacity to hear it. As human capacity increases over time, more is revealed.

The spiritual world (afterlife) is so different from this world that we cannot grasp its nature from the vantage point of this world. A good analogy is that a child while still in the womb cannot possibly understand what it will be like after it is born into this world. What we are told in the Baha’i scriptures is that there is a spiritual world we go to after we die (afterlife) and we are told something about it. After all, it would not be a just God who would expect us to believe in something we know absolutely nothing about. For example...

“Death proffereth unto every confident believer the cup that is life indeed. It bestoweth joy, and is the bearer of gladness. It conferreth the gift of everlasting life.

As to those that have tasted of the fruit of man’s earthly existence, which is the recognition of the one true God, exalted be His glory, their life hereafter is such as We are unable to describe. The knowledge thereof is with God, alone, the Lord of all worlds.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 345-346

Joy and gladness are things we can understand. We are also told that there will be no more suffering, something else we can understand. There is much more, but I do not want to overwhelm you with too much information unless you are interested.

So, even getting off the starting block seems problematic when asking about God. And that doesn't even get to the question of how one would be able to distinguish existence from non-existence.

That starting point has to be scriptures and it makes sense to me that they would be the most current scriptures. The question of how one would be able to distinguish God’s existence from non-existence is a whole different ball game. That gets into belief and what reasons we have to believe what we do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would an All-Knowing and All-Wise God know what is most important to value ?
How did you reach this conclusion ?

I used logic to reach this conclusion. God would know because God knows everything, since God is All-Knowing.

Suppose I don't agree with that, what then ?

Then you don’t. So why don’t you agree with it? Do you think it is good to be selfish? Why?

That doesn't follow. I can love someone and yet not love his reflection.

I am not following you... His reflection is who someone is, a mirror image of someone, so how can you love someone and not his reflection?

But once again, if untruth can't be found in the physical natural world, why would the physical nature of man have untruth as a trait ?

Untruth is found in the physical natural world, and that is why the physical nature of man can have untruth as a trait.
You ask the best questions. You are sharp as a tack.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why should it matter to a god? Wouldn't a god be fully self actuating and in need of nothing?

Note that I asked that as a question.

You never cease to amaze me Milton. I always wait for you to show up on the scene, like a medic that is coming to an accident.

But of course God needs nothing from humans.

Okay, I am going to explain why I posted the OP.

There is an atheist who I have been posting to for about three years and here is the gist of his argument: If God existed, and God wanted to communicate any information he wanted humans to receive and believe, the most credible way to do that obviously would be by means of direct communication to everyone rather than communicating through Messengers.

I told him that God does not care if He is credible because God does not “need” anyone’s belief, since God is completely Self-Sufficient.The only reason that God sends Messengers is for our benefit, not because God needs humans to believe in Him.

This atheist’s other major premise is as follows: Were God to communicate with Messengers which cannot be differentiated from messengers (false prophets) that would ensure that not everyone in the world would believe in god.

In other words, he is saying that as long as God communicates with Messengers, there is no way 100% of people in the world will believe in God.

He is right. As long as God uses Messengers, not everyone will believe in God because not everyone will believe in the Messengers.

But you see, his premise is that god wants 100% of people in the world to believe in him, and he has no way to know that because he is an atheist who won’t even look at scriptures. Really, what I think he is saying is that he thinks that a god (if it exists) would want 100% of people to believe in Him.

I then told him that God does not “need” everyone to get His message because God is completely Self-Sufficient. People can “choose” to either believe in the Messengers God sends or “choose” not to believe in God, since God is not going to communicate directly to anyone except His Messengers. God still cares about these people but leaves them to themselves given free will is sacrosanct.

The caveat is that God does want everyone to believe in Him but that does not mean that God is going to change His Method of communication to accommodate the atheists who do not like Messengers. An Omnipotent God does not kowtow to humans.

 

[Trailblazer]

An omnipotent God is capable of doing anything, but it is not going to communicate to you directly because that is not how God wants to communicate.

In case you were wondering, that is what speaking for God looks like. When you tell me what God wants. Hello false messenger. Gone goes the trust. Gone goes the benefit of the doubt. Gone goes any hope for a reasonable discussion.

I am a straight shooter so I am not going to beat around the bush. I know what God wants to the extent that it was revealed to Baha’u’llah, but that is not a whole heck of a lot. With what I have I piece things together, but I certainly could be wrong, because nobody can ever know what God wants, except very generally.

Even if I did not have a religion it would be obvious to me that an omnipotent God is not going to communicate directly to you. Do you SEE the omnipotent God communicating “directly” to anyone?

That's right. God clearly does not want to communicate with me. I'm pretty sure I said that.

Okay then, it is settled. So why bother to hope for that? However, see what I said below.

If God wants to communicate with me then God will. God will not adhere to YOUR rules. You say there is no reason for God to change, but that just means there is no reason for God to communicate with me. I'm either so righteous he doesn't feel I need direction or so fallen there is no hope. I'm pretty sure it's more likely that God has never communicated with anyone.

You are so right. God does not communicate to anyone except His Messengers, so it is not personal to you.

Of course God will not adhere to MY rules. God sets His own rules. I am just explaining what they are. However, God breaks His own rules once in a while; God is omnipotent so He can do that.

I know a former atheist now a believer to whom God gave a sign, and where there is one there are more. What happened is that he knew he had hit bottom and he knew he needed God so he reached out to God in desperation and humbled himself before God. What happened after that is that God showed him a sign that was unmistakably God. Interestingly, the next thing he did was go looking to religion for the answers to his questions, so he showed up on a Baha’i forum. I have never met anyone as spiritual as this man. I only wish I had half the faith in God that he did, but then I never got a sign from God. Nevertheless, I know God exists, so that is probably why God did not give me a sign.

All people are not going to be that fortunate. The omniscient God knows who will be worthy and decides accordingly who He will guide. I am not the one who makes that decision. If you prayed to God you might get a sign. God does not normally just come along and intervene in our lives unless we pray. That is part of the setup. We have to pick up the phone and call Him.

I got angry at God and threw my phone down on the ground about a week ago, so I lost all connection to God. It has to be a two way connection for God to get through. He is coming through a little better now but there is still some interference in the phone lines.

5: O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

 

[Shad]

How do we do that? I am all ears......

After looking over those resources if there is something that sparks your interest feel free to reply to me with a topic. Take as much time as you need

 

[Trailblazer]

You seem unfamiliar with the philosophical side of the "God debate". First take a look at Existence of God - Wikipedia. and Deism - Wikipedia

Look at the various linked arguments to see how one can argue for God without the need of any revelation.

I lack knowledge of a comparable figure within your religion. However I would still advise taking a look at Existence & Nature of God | Reasonable Faith

Craig is a Christian but he does approach the general topic of God from a philosophical view point first in many cases. A lot of his arguments are applicable to many monotheist religions including your own given it is a branch within the same religious tradition as Christianity.

Thanks. Actually, I like philosophy and arguing for and against God from various viewpoints. I operate from logic and reason as much as from what you call dogma, so if I see logical inconsistencies between what I observe and dogma I am not afraid to speak up even though it makes some other Baha’is a bit uncomfortable. I no doubt gravitate towards atheists because I understand how some think and feel about God. The difference is that I know in my mind that God exists. I am just not so sure that God has all the attributes that theists attribute to Him.

I am not really as religious as you think. Most of my life as a Baha’i I had nothing to do with the religion. I was not interested in God either. Only within the last five years did I decide I needed to make peace with God and be of service to humanity, and those are the reasons I started to reconsider the Baha’i Faith. All along, I believed it was true, but I had too many other things that got in my way, a long story.

I believe in Baha’u’llah and what He revealed but I have never been much of a follower or group participant. I am called Trailblazer because I march to the beat of my own drummer.

The problem is I do not have a lot of time to read but now that you have ignited my interest I will look at those websites as soon as I have time and get back to you.

 

[Shad]

The problem is I do not have a lot of time to read but now that you have ignited my interest I will look at those websites as soon as I have time and get back to you.

Take all the time you need. I did throw a lot at you to read let alone if you wish to research specific sources referenced in the sub-pages and argument links. No rush. I will subscribe to the thread for the alerts so I do not forgot.