Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[shunyadragon]

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.

Actually you putting constraints on, and defining what God must be from your fallible human perspective, and that is not very convincing nor realistic argument IF God exists.

God is indeed omnipotent and omnipresent, and the nature and course of existence is defined by the will of God naturally as science describes it.

 

[Sir Doom]

Actually you putting constraints on, and defining what God must be from your fallible human perspective, and that is not very convincing nor realistic argument IF God exists.

I don't insist that God is not omnipotent, only that it's possible God isn't. I don't restrain God's nature at all. I have no idea what God's nature is. How could I insist either way?

God is indeed omnipotent and omnipresent, and the nature and course of existence is defined by the will of God naturally as science describes it.

How do you figure that?

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't insist that God is not omnipotent, only that it's possible God isn't. I don't restrain God's nature at all. I have no idea what God's nature is. How could I insist either way?

If God exists God is omnipotent and omnipresent naturally.

How do you figure that?

Again , , ,, if God exists God is omnipotent and omnipresent form the perspective of God, the nature of our physical existence is as it is, and not the from the perspective of humans.

 

[Koldo]

If God exists God is omnipotent and omnipresent naturally.




Again , , ,, if God exists God is omnipotent and omnipresent form the perspective of God, the nature of our physical existence is as it is, and not the from the perspective of humans.

Why would God have to be omnipotent and omnipresent ?
Do you mean that since your definition of God involves omnipotence and omnipresence if he exists then he has to be omnipotent and omnipresent ? I find that a little redundant, but I can see what you mean if that's what you are saying.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why would God have to be omnipotent and omnipresent ?

That is how the theistic God is defined in the Abrahamic beliefs. Actually from the human perspective God does not have to be any way.

Do you mean that since your definition of God involves omnipotence and omnipresence if he exists then he has to be omnipotent and omnipresent ? I find that a little redundant, but I can see what you mean if that's what you are saying.

Actually no, if the theistic God religions.of Abrahamic exists that is the nature of God. In the Abrahamic religions God is the Creator of everything and determines the nature of everything. It is of course different belief systems may define the God(s) they believe in any manner they choose to define God(s).

 

[Sir Doom]

If God exists God is omnipotent and omnipresent naturally.

Why do you think that?

Again , , ,, if God exists God is omnipotent and omnipresent form the perspective of God, the nature of our physical existence is as it is, and not the from the perspective of humans.

I didn't realize you were privy to God's perspective. You must be one of these messengers Trailblazer is talking about. Or perhaps you are just another one of the messengers I'm talking about. I'm leaning towards the latter, to be honest.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do you think that?

IF God exists that is the nature of God in Theistic belief systems.

I didn't realize you were privy to God's perspective.

I am not the one claiming how God must be concerning what is omnipotent and omnipresence, you are.

 

[Koldo]

That is how the theistic God is defined in the Abrahamic beliefs. Actually from the human perspective God does not have to be any way.

Actually no, if the theistic God religions.of Abrahamic exists that is the nature of God. In the Abrahamic religions God is the Creator of everything and determines the nature of everything. It is of course different belief systems may define the God(s) they believe in any manner they choose to define God(s).

You have said and I quote: "That is how the theistic God is defined in the Abrahamic beliefs."
Meaning it is a matter of definition. Since God is, by definition, omnipotent and omnipresent then God is omnipotent and omnipresent if God exists.

In the next paragraph you have said and I quote: "Actually no, if the theistic God religions.of Abrahamic exists that is the nature of God.". Meaning it is not a matter of definition.

Can you explain how to dissolve this apparent contradiction ?

 

[shunyadragon]

You have said and I quote: "That is how the theistic God is defined in the Abrahamic beliefs."
Meaning it is a matter of definition. Since God is, by definition, omnipotent and omnipresent then God is omnipotent and omnipresent if God exists.

In the next paragraph you have said and I quote: "Actually no, if the theistic God religions.of Abrahamic exists that is the nature of God.". Meaning it is not a matter of definition.

Can you explain how to dissolve this apparent contradiction ?

No contradiction, it is nature of the belief of Abrahamic religions, and not ultimate nature of God which is unknown.

 

[Koldo]

No contradiction, it is nature of the belief of Abrahamic religions, and not ultimate nature of God which is unknown.

If it is the nature of the belief then it is a matter of definition.
God has to be omnipotent because it is defined as such.

 

[Sir Doom]

IF God exists that is the nature of God in Theistic belief systems.

You must have me confused with someone else. I don't believe in that God. I can hypothetically discuss the being in question, of course. For the purpose of this thread, I most certainly have done that. The discussion between Trailblazer and I has many facets, though. I'm not arguing about omnipotence to defeat the purpose of the thread, it's a side topic. Trailblazer listed possibilities regarding the implication of God's communication. I offered a fourth option short of 'not existing at all'.

I stick by it as equally possible as the other three options presented.

I am not the one claiming how God must be concerning what is omnipotent and omnipresence, you are.

I'm not doing that. You may wish to read more of the discussion. I will not claim to know any attributes of God at all. Because I don't. Anything I say concerning the nature of God is purely hypothetical. You seem to be adamant that God must be omnipotent or not God. I don't have the first clue how you can be up in the air about existence but adamant about nature. That's absolutely backwards.

 

[shunyadragon]

If it is the nature of the belief then it is a matter of definition.
God has to be omnipotent because it is defined as such.

It is a matter of the definition of a belief.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One LAST time. Evidence that can NOT be verified is WORTHLESS. Your WORTHLESS evidence is JUST AS GOOD as no evidence at all. Yet you keep deluding yourself into believing that your evidence that can NOT be verified is somehow valid in some way.

From everything you've written it appears this aesthete is mimicking you and other theists when he insists that he KNOWS everything and that you can't question him. The fact that this guy annoys you so much is rather telling. Clearly he's shining a light on the illogical nature of your belief system and that apparently threatens you.

 

[Koldo]

It is a matter of the definition of a belief.

Please do elaborate on that.
What distinction do you see between that and what I am saying ?

 

[Audie]

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

Good one

 

[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.

How would they know that without getting a revelation for the God?

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.

You are free to dismiss them if you want to. Most people do dismiss new Messengers but later they come to believe them after they see everyone else believing them. Most people cannot think for themselves, they just follow the crowd.

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.

The reason to believe that is because God told the Messenger that the only way He can communicate is to a Messenger.

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.

Do you see any way around that? I mean God is not going to have a Messenger living all the time just so people can question Him. It is all written in books, not just what He wrote, but what others wrote about Him, a history of His life. So it is just as good as if He was alive. In fact He is believed more now than when He was alive.

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.

You are right. God won’t because that is not how God communicates to humanity. There are many reasons. One reason is because no ordinary human could ever understand God if God spoke to him directly. Messengers are not just men, they have a universal divine mind so they can receive and transmit messages from God. They can bridge the gap between an ineffable God and humans.

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.

I very much respect that view. I agree that humans are dishonest and selfish. That is why Baha’u’llah said that we should never take His word for it that He was a Messenger of God.

The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth, which means we all have to do our own research into the life and mission of the Messenger (Prophet).

“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

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I agree. God wants people to believe in Him, but I do not think God requires everyone to believe in Him, and there are certain things God wants to see in believers. People are tested and sifted and those who are godly end up believing in God, the ungodly do not. So people are the ones who determine who will be believers; by their own choices and actions, the wheat are separated from the chaff.

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 writenhundred of years prior to our birth (which doesnt make it more true than if bahaullah, jesus, and muhammad existed today)

Sorry, but that is not ever going to happen because God does not speak directly to ordinary humans. By rejecting God’s Messengers people are rejecting God because God selected and prepared those Messengers for their mission on earth. God does not take too kindly to people who reject His Messengers.

Maybe everyone would believe in God if God did what you said, but that is not how God wants everyone to come to believe. He wants them to believe on His Terms, which is by the method He chooses, a Messenger in every age. Sure, it is a little difficult for people to recognize who that Messenger is but it is certainly not impossible. After all, the Messenger that preceded each Messenger gave prophecies that would help us recognize the Messenger when He appeared. Holy Moly! There are so many prophecies that Baha’u’llah fulfilled that if people were willing to look and take the time they would know that Baha’u’llah was the Messiah, the return of Christ, and the Promised One of all the religions.

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?

You can believe that if you want to. You can believe anything you want to. Maybe that makes sense to you, but it makes absolutely no sense to me that we are all god, so I could never believe it. But of course I am already a Baha’i so I have a belief that makes sense to me.

It is not Prophets that talk to God, it is God who talks to Prophets, and that is because they have the capacity to understand God, a capacity no ordinary human has.

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.

I never said it was a fact. I said it was belief. But it is also not a fact that God is not limited in any way. God is limited by His own nature.

Messengers are more than humans. They have a divine mind, so they can understand what we cannot.

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

I had the same problem what I first became a Baha’i. That is why I read the Writings of Abdul-Baha, who was His appointed interpreter. Then later after I learned more about the Baha’i Faith and the station of Bahaullah, I went back and read Gleanings and understood it.

Tell me. How do you speak for god?

I don’t but Baha’u’llah does. That is my belief.

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."

Whatever Baha’u’llah wrote is identical to the Will of God. That is my belief. In effect, Baha’u’llah is God, just not the Essence of God, which is unknowable.

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?

Baha’u’llah described all we are able to know about God, which is God’s Attributes and God’s Will for this age in history. Not even Baha’u’llah can know the Essence (intrinsic nature) of God. Every way is barred to that knowledge.

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. Humansarent substances of god himself. That sounds like the trinity.

A Messenger of God (Manifestation of God) is a mystery no human mind can fully understand. We can only understand His human nature, iot his divine nature.

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

No, Baha’is do not believe in the Trinity the same way Christians do. In this chapter it explains how we believe in the Trinity. 27: THE TRINITY

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.

And you know that how? Can you prove that Baha’u’llah was a fraud? Good luck with that... You’ll need it. Maybe you are just angry that Messengers got a message from God and you didn’t?

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.

Baha’u’llah had the knowledge of God so He knew what humanity would need for at least the next 1000 years, until another Messenger comes.

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

I have no idea, but I think I would be less likely to believe Him if He were alive today. That is how it has worked in the past with Messengers. Only a few people believe in Jesus when He walked the earth.

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.

They are not a replacement but they are what God gives us. There is no way to have a connection with God directly.

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

No, not in the same way, not in words that I can write down on paper, but I think God can communicate to our minds if we listen. The problem is that we cannot really know it is God, even if we believe that it is.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Your father and mother were not the ones who made you what you are. They just created your body. They did not create your soul. God created your soul and that is your true reality.

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. The person, after he dies and leaves his physical body behind remains the same person, and he goes to the spiritual world where he continues the life he conducted in the physical world. At that time the soul takes on another form, a form comprised of heavenly elements that exist in the spiritual realm. What I am trying to say is that your personality goes with you when you die because it is associated with your soul. That includes the character you have developed while living on earth.

Why wouldn't I feel the same way about my ultimate creator ( if it does exist ) ? Do you see what I am getting at ?

Yes, I understand. You would want to fulfill what God your Creator wanted because God knows what is best for you, since God is All-Knowing and All-Wise.

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 understand what you mean but within the broader context of your ultimate purpose (to know and love God), you are free to be who you want to be and satisfy your own will. Moreover, if you know God and what God wants for you, that helps you be a better person.

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.

It is not that simple. To say someone has a true self just means it is the self that God wants you to be, so you are fulfilling the “ultimate purpose” of your existence, to know and love God. You are living up to your full potential, reflecting the attributes of God. Your false self would be something other than what you are intended to be, not living up to your true potential. You have good and bad attributes, we all do, but all your good attributes are reflections of God’s attributes which He instilled into you.

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

I can agree with that.

“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. That happens every time I get angry at God and I do not understand why God allows the suffering of innocent people and animals, given God is omnipotent and benevolent.

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 ?

I am sorry I did that. I guess I assumed you had probably seen the movie. It is probably my favorite movie, that and the movie As Good As it Gets.

Sorry if this post is a little unclear. I had a horrible night last night so I got very little sleep.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Hypothetically speaking, if you define God as Creator, that is true.

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

That is absolutely true. You are quite a thinker.

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?

Of course not. God is the God of the whole universe and all that is therein. Baha’u’llah explained that.

“As to thy question concerning the worlds of God. Know thou of a truth that the worlds of God are countless in their number, and infinite in their range. None can reckon or comprehend them except God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise…..” Gleanings, pp. 151-152

“Verily I say, the creation of God embraceth worlds besides this world, and creatures apart from these creatures. In each of these worlds He hath ordained things which none can search except Himself, the All-Searching, the All-Wise. Do thou meditate on that which We have revealed unto thee, that thou mayest discover the purpose of God, thy Lord, and the Lord of all worlds. In these words the mysteries of Divine Wisdom have been treasured.” Gleanings, pp. 152-153

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Of course you don’t. I don’t expect you to.

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

No, the problem is that not one single atheist can give me one good reason why they have a problem with the idea of Messengers ---- something logical please, not just saying it is baloney... Also, not one atheist has come up with a better way by which God could communicate ---- something logical please, not that God could write “I exist!” in the sky.

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 d oas 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.

No, I do not know that. Baha’u’llah even wrote that God could have chosen another way, and I am sure He would have if there was a better way, but there isn’t. An All-Knowing and All-Wise God knows the best way to communicate to humanity.

Messengers dont work that well so far.

I suggest you do some research before you say that.

Only 7% of people in the world are atheists and not all of them even want to believe in God... That means 93% of people are believers and they believe in God. 84 percent of the world population has a faith and those faiths all have some kind of Founder, what I refer to as a Messenger. Very few people in the world believe in God for some other reason. So obviously, using Messengers is a successful method of communication.

I’d call that a pretty big success myself. The fact remains God does not need anyone to believe in Him, let alone everyone, so why should God change His time honored method of communication just to accommodate a few atheists? Give me a logical reason please.

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 messageKeep it written in the sky till people get the idea.

Why should God do that just because you do not want to trust His Messengers that most people in the world trust? God is not trying to make people believe in Him. God does not give a twit if people believe in Him. God is fully self-sufficient and self-subsisting. God does not need anyone’s belief.

Besides that, Baha’u’llah wrote 15,000 Tablets. How is all that information to be conveyed in some “other way?” I said I wanted something logical, and no, God is not going to whisper in the ears of 7.44 billion people all 15,000 Tablets. There have to be scriptures so everyone can refer to them until God sends another Messenger in the future and He reveals new scriptures.

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

And of course there is absolutely no evidence that the legitimate Messengers of God such as Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah were frauds, crazies or power hungry. The exact opposite is easily demonstrable by looking at their lives.

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

How can you think God isn’t? The job got done and a few whiny atheists complain about how it got done. Why should an Omnipotent God care about a few atheists who poke fun of the messengers God sends who suffer for the sake of all of humanity?

"Choose to 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 donot know. Yiudont. If yiu cannot face that honestly,
you've not learned the simple lesson that the easiest person to fool is, yourself.

My way of knowing God exists and what God’s will is for me and all of humanity is quite frankly very rational and logical.

You have no right to speak for me as if you know me. That is disrespectful and arrogant. You do not know me. You just know I believe in a Messenger so you have to cut me down so you can make yourself right and make me wrong... Been there, done that with atheists on other forums for four years. This is psych 101 stuff but I am a psychologist so it is easy to spot something this obvious.

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

You are completely illogical. I demonstrated that above. You have no logical reason why using Messengers is a sub-optimal way for God to communicate a message to humanity. You are all emotion... You just do not like Messengers, like a little kid who does not like broccoli, but you have no good reasons why.

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

Sorry you do not like it, but it is a Revelation for God. You cannot change that with all your ranting and raving.