Questions for God

[Trailblazer]

I believe the evidence is that the B man is not The Spirit of God.

I never said that Baha'u'llah was the Spirit of God. Jesus was the Spirit of God.

 

[Dimi95]

You haven't been specific as to which of the two kinds of "free will" you're talking about. So I assume you're talking about the first kind I mentioned, freedom from external pressures.

I need you to answer this question so i can explain it better

Why most of the people need to work?

I was raised a Pisco, so I was acculturated (as is usual) when I was too young to question or argue.

At some point in life , everyone of us gets the chance to chose what he wants to belive.

I'd say that acculturation is far and away the most common reason for identifying with any particular religion. And the thing about acculturation is that the subject is forced to accept God because the subject is never offered a choice, but rather taught that the particular belief is "natural".

How do you define 'natural'?

Fortunately for me, in my family religion was regarded as part of good manners, not as something independently important, so there was no sense that I'd be sanctioned with any severity if I ducked out. In the end I didn't duck out, I softly and naturally drifted away. (The plus side of this is that now when church occasions arise I still know the words of the hymns.)

I think that Manners show partly our image.
Man can have good manners in front of others , but in his own house he can be different.

Then do you accept that God created the universe not knowing what would happen, or only knowing it imperfectly?

To be honest , i would have to think about the answer.

Grateful for your clarification of the relationship between omnipotence and omniscience on the one hand and responsibility on the other.

I am also gratefull for some of your questions.They just make me think more

As to the more general question, let me put it this way. Do you think no one should be acculturated or coerced in any way to learn any religious beliefs before they're mature enough to consider for themselves what's being offered?

I am very deeply connected with tradition , so from Orthodox perspective it is very hard for me to answer this.

In Orthodoxy , we are been baptized at very young age.

But if the question is personal , yes , for sure , why not , everyone should have the choice to belive in what he wants.

 

[blü 2]

Why most of the people need to work?

Because human societies have always had some form of economy, by which the individual obtains the means to satisfy his or her needs from interactions with other people, whether working for someone or rewarding someone for work, or sharing work with a partner as with childcare, and so on.

At some point in life , everyone of us gets the chance to chose what he wants to belive.

Not if the options are invisible.When I was growing up, there were, rarely, Jewish people, but no Muslims, no Buddhists, no Hindus. The beliefs of indigenous people were presented, if at all, as stories ─ look how Christianized and Christianizing Longfellow's Hiawatha is, for example.

How do you define 'natural'?

Found in nature, the world external to the self. Or of human nature, taken to be common to all humans, or very largely so (as in my example).

I think that Manners show partly our image.

We learn our manners from our society, as the rules of engaging with the great range of other people we encounter. They vary according to the sex, relationship, relative place in the peck order, and so on.

I am also gratefull for some of your questions.They just make me think more

Delighted to be of service!

I am very deeply connected with tradition , so from Orthodox perspective it is very hard for me to answer this.

In Orthodoxy , we are been baptized at very young age.

But if the question is personal , yes , for sure , why not , everyone should have the choice to belive in what he wants.

Thanks for your clear answer. I don't think it will ever be as simple as that, having been a parent myself. My wife and I had the same views on how "we should act" and kept our children to them. They were about civility, kindness, standing up for yourself, the correct relation to authority, that usual kind of thing. They didn't include religion, though they were all exposed to it at their schools, with no visible damage.

 

[Dimi95]

Because human societies have always had some form of economy, by which the individual obtains the means to satisfy his or her needs from interactions with other people, whether working for someone or rewarding someone for work, or sharing work with a partner as with childcare, and so on.

In the same way , i can answer that human societies have always belived in God(s).
In some sense is beneficial , in some it is not.
But the relationship is of another form - spiritual and includes morality.

And that is where the problem is.
Many people try to 'point out' slavery in the OT , but we are slaves to money in these days , and for me that is so much worse.Money is power in these days , as cruel as that seems , it reflects the image of today's society

Not if the options are invisible.When I was growing up, there were, rarely, Jewish people, but no Muslims, no Buddhists, no Hindus. The beliefs of indigenous people were presented, if at all, as stories ─ look how Christianized and Christianizing Longfellow's Hiawatha is, for example.

I don't know enough of Hiawatha to answer you , but i will look at what you said.

We learn our manners from our society, as the rules of engaging with the great range of other people we encounter. They vary according to the sex, relationship, relative place in the peck order, and so on.

I am glad that you mentioned society
That means that we are product of our enviourment.
So where is the free will there?
Just look at homosexuality,100 years ago it was illegal and punishable and today it is normal in most free world countries.

In religion , we have certain 'guidence' or standard regarding fundemental questions.And it does not change

Except for the Roman Church , they are exceptional..

Thanks for your clear answer. I don't think it will ever be as simple as that, having been a parent myself. My wife and I had the same views on how "we should act" and kept our children to them. They were about civility, kindness, standing up for yourself, the correct relation to authority, that usual kind of thing. They didn't include religion, though they were all exposed to it at their schools, with no visible damage.

We share the same thought
It will never be as simple as that

I am more focused on how to act on the word , or at least i am trying.

 

[ppp]

In the same way , i can answer that human societies have always belived in God(s).

That is not something that you are capable of knowing. You do not know how god beliefs were developed because they happened in prehistory. And there is at least one extent indigenous culture that has never developed god beliefs of any kind.

Religion does not produce morality in human societies. That comes entirely from humans.

 

[Dimi95]

That is not something that you are capable of knowing. You do not know how god beliefs were developed because they happened in prehistory. And there is at least one extent indigenous culture that has never developed god beliefs of any kind.

Religion does not produce morality in human societies. That comes entirely from humans.

There are people who think otherwise

Like Roberto Thomas Arruda

Roberto Arruda, Moral Archetypes - Ethics in Prehistory - PhilArchive

ABSTRACT The philosophical tradition approaches to morals have their grounds predominantly on metaphysical and theological concepts and theories. Among the traditional ethics concepts, the most prominent is the Divine Command Theory ...

philarchive.org

 

[ppp]

There are people who think otherwise

Like Roberto Arruda

Roberto Arruda, Moral Archetypes - Ethics in Prehistory - PhilArchive

ABSTRACT The philosophical tradition approaches to morals have their grounds predominantly on metaphysical and theological concepts and theories. Among the traditional ethics concepts, the most prominent is the Divine Command Theory ...

philarchive.org

People that think other wise about which thing? I made several statements. Does he think that the Piraha do not exist? If so, then he is ignoring the existence of a actual human beings for the sake of his personal preferences.

 

[Dimi95]

That is not something that you are capable of knowing.

Well yes , if evidence is what you are looking.

You do not know how god beliefs were developed because they happened in prehistory.

But there are methods which determine what is Historically accurate , so we work with what is there.

And there is at least one extent indigenous culture that has never developed god beliefs of any kind.

In Prehistory?

Religion does not produce morality in human societies. That comes entirely from humans.

Humans have a moral sense because their biological makeup determines the presence of three necessary conditions for ethical behavior:
-the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions;
-the ability to make value judgments; and
-the ability to choose between alternative courses of action.

Why do we have these abilities is another area of discussion.

I saw your latest answer , i was writing when you replied..

 

[ppp]

Well yes , if evidence is what you are looking.

It's not something you are capable of knowing whether or not you care about evidence. You are capable of saying that you know. But you are not capable of actually knowing.

But there are methods which determine what is Historically accurate , so we work with what is there.

Something else you are claiming to know, but lacking evidence.

In Prehistory?

Today. The Piraha are an indigenous society who were only discover a few decades ago. They have no concept of deities or the supernatural.

Humans have a moral sense because their biological makeup determines the presence of three necessary conditions for ethical behavior:
-the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions;
-the ability to make value judgments; and
-the ability to choose between alternative courses of action.

In that we agree.

Why do we have these abilities is another area of discussion.

Not really. Morality is part of being a social mammal. Without it, we would not be social.

 

[blü 2]

In the same way , i can answer that human societies have always belived in God(s).
In some sense is beneficial , in some it is not.
But the relationship is of another form - spiritual and includes morality.

Perhaps all human groupings include morality out of simple necessity. We know from experiments with pre-verbal children that as humans we're born with certain moral instincts ─ dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. (On an earlier occasion I gave an example >here<.) You'll notice the potential for conflict between the first two and the next two.

And that is where the problem is.
Many people try to 'point out' slavery in the OT , but we are slaves to money in these days , and for me that is so much worse.Money is power in these days , as cruel as that seems , it reflects the image of today's society

I think the problem arises from the way public morality has changed in the not far from three thousand years since the bible was written. The God of the bible orders massacres of surrendered populations, saving the virgins for distribution among the troops, sets up and receives human sacrifices, tells you the correct way to sell your daughter, tells you you're off the hook if the slave you beat up with a stick survives his or her injuries for 24-48 hours (their vagueness, not mine), has never heard of equality for women, exercises murderous religious intolerance, and so on and so on ─ as one did in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age (you'll be aware that one of the earliest uses of iron was for weapons and war chariots, so in some ways we haven't changed).

I don't know enough of Hiawatha to answer you , but i will look at what you said.

It's particular noticeable at the ending, if you're in a hurry.

I am glad that you mentioned society
That means that we are product of our enviourment.
So where is the free will there?

And even before that, the product of our genes. My view of free will is limited to making up my mind / you making up your mind without external coercion to decide one way or the other. Except for that, I see no way for humans to make decisions independently of our brains' evolved decision-making processes (which have been the subject of some interesting studies).

Just look at homosexuality,100 years ago it was illegal and punishable and today it is normal in most free world countries.

I have no argument with homosexuality. It's always been an aspect of human societies, who have dealt with it in different ways at different times. It's just a question of which number is yours in the genetic lottery.

In religion , we have certain 'guidence' or standard regarding fundemental questions.And it does not change

I think the history of the Christian church in the West shows otherwise. Once you should make war on people who followed a different god and seize their lands. Once human sacrifice was simply one of your options. Once you could own slaves (and in many places you still can). Once you should put homosexuals to death. Once you could never get divorced. Once you could rob and murder Jewish people as long as you went about it quietly, or with a mob. I think all those things have changed for the better.

Perhaps the larger point is that gods have to adjust to their congregations, otherwise the congregation will fade away; and a god without a congregation is a dead god.

I am more focused on how to act on the word , or at least i am trying.

(I've found myself a mantra after all these years. I try to do no harm, and to treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense. Sometimes I notice I haven't done as well with this as I perhaps should have intended, but then I apologize to myself and move on.)

 

[Muffled]

I never said that Baha'u'llah was the Spirit of God. Jesus was the Spirit of God.

I believe Jesus is not the Spirit of God the Father is. Jesus is the Spirit of God in the flesh.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

1. How does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

Well I think that the content of the universe would be within God's mind , or it seems very likely that it would be. However, in order for free-will to exist, for both God and humans, then there might actually be something that he 'doesn't know.' And that would be exactly what he will do next, along with what we will do next. That said, God would be able to probably see all of the future possible paths to such a degree that he would know what he will do, but perhaps he won't entirely know what we will do, since we aren't as wise

2. How does God know [he] didn't spontaneously spring into existence. fully formed with memories and all, with the rest of the universe last Thursday?

I assume that the deity can keep track of history in his mind.

3. How does God know [he]'s not just a dream in the brain of a human?

This is a weird question , because it is making a dream out to be something, that can produce something, that wonders if it is in a dream ?

I'm not entirely sure that these are the kinds of questions that any of us can really get to the bottom of

 

[blü 2]

Well I think that the content of the universe would be within God's mind , or it seems very likely that it would be.

But surely the scope of God's mind is not confined to the universe, but includes every mode of existence anywhere in the Totality of Everything?

And even if it isn't, even if God's omniscience is confined to this universe, the question remains ─ by what means has God determined that there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

However, in order for free-will to exist, for both God and humans, then there might actually be something that he 'doesn't know.' And that would be exactly what he will do next, along with what we will do next. That said, God would be able to probably see all of the future possible paths to such a degree that he would know what he will do, but perhaps he won't entirely know what we will do, since we aren't as wise.

Would it not be the case, though, that when God created this universe, [his] omniscience means that [he] already knew, and intended, everything that would ever happen anywhere at any time in this universe?

And doesn't that mean that we can never think, say or do anything other than what God perfectly foresaw and intended, so that God's omniscience puts human free will out of the question (leaving aside the much more limited definition of 'free will' imposed by science, particularly biology as we study how the human brain works?

 

[Trailblazer]

Would it not be the case, though, that when God created this universe, [his] omniscience means that [he] already knew, and intended, everything that would ever happen anywhere at any time in this universe?

God's omniscience means that [he] knew everything that would ever happen anywhere at any time in this universe, but that does not mean that God intended for everything to happen as it did.

God only intended for things to happen that God actually caused to happen.
God does not cause the actions of men so God does not intend for those to happen.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 149-150

And doesn't that mean that we can never think, say or do anything other than what God perfectly foresaw and intended, so that God's omniscience puts human free will out of the question (leaving aside the much more limited definition of 'free will' imposed by science, particularly biology as we study how the human brain works?

It means that we won't ever think, say or do anything other than what God perfectly foresaw.
It does not mean that we can't ever think, say or do anything other than what God perfectly foresaw.
So God's omniscience does not put human free will out of the question.

God perfectly foresaw what humans would choose to do because God is omniscient, so whatever humans choose to do is identical with what God foresaw.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

But surely the scope of God's mind is not confined to the universe, but includes every mode of existence anywhere in the Totality of Everything?

And even if it isn't, even if God's omniscience is confined to this universe, the question remains ─ by what means has God determined that there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

It depends on how you want to define those terms. If you want to say that there is a 'bigger square outside the square,' you can. Although I think that, from what I can tell, we humans are hardly in a position to tell where the border of everything is.

This idea of 'nothing he doesn't know , he doesn't know' is a bit of a brain twister, and I would prefer to simplify this into something less abstract. Break that down into what you really mean. I hesitate to try and break it down myself, because it is confusing

I think that the question is, can God create or start states or processes that can have an element of free-will in them? I would argue that if could not do that, he could not be God. It is surely in the power of God, to create processes that have a non-determined state.

Would it not be the case, though, that when God created this universe, [his] omniscience means that [he] already knew, and intended, everything that would ever happen anywhere at any time in this universe?

And doesn't that mean that we can never think, say or do anything other than what God perfectly foresaw and intended, so that God's omniscience puts human free will out of the question (leaving aside the much more limited definition of 'free will' imposed by science, particularly biology as we study how the human brain works?

We are talking about God here, so he can choose to exert a pretty incredible power - to start processes that he actually doesn't know the outcome of, because he allows it to determine what it will do. Arguably, if God could not do that, it would be less than God. If God could only create things that he knew the outcome of, that is less powerful - and shows less power, than being able to make things he does not

 

[blü 2]

God's omniscience means that [he] knew everything that would ever happen anywhere at any time in this universe, but that does not mean that God intended for everything to happen as it did.

I don't see how that could be the case. God is omnipotent AND omniscient, so when [he] does something, it's certain that the outcome will be exactly as [he] foresaw, and (since [he] could have any future outcome that [he] wished), exactly as [he] intended.

I see no way around that. When you're omnipotent and omniscient, you'll frown and say, "Hmmm. I see what blü 2 meant."

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I don't see how that could be the case. God is omnipotent AND omniscient, so when [he] does something, it's certain that the outcome will be exactly as [he] foresaw, and (since [he] could have any future outcome that [he] wished), exactly as [he] intended.

Then you don't see how it wouldn't be exhibiting more power to actually go beyond that.. by creating something that could have free-will. I understand: I've argued for determinism off and on, and there are some fortified arguments for it. But I've mostly rebounded to the free-will side, I think

Running programs in the universe that god knows the outcome of is possible , and if he wanted to, he could just run the Gorgonopsid.exe program for a trillion years. It would just be predictable dog eat dog style stuff. Humans, in this line of thinking, represent the biological fissure of novelty that god needed, in order to introduce some free-will in the system. Not to a point where it can compete with god, but to a point where some of it exists, and allows for outcomes to be less than predictable

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't see how that could be the case. God is omnipotent AND omniscient, so when [he] does something, it's certain that the outcome will be exactly as [he] foresaw, and (since [he] could have any future outcome that [he] wished), exactly as [he] intended.

We already covered the omniscience. God's omniscience means that God knows everything that will ever happen anywhere at any time in this universe, but that does not mean that God intended for everything to happen as it did. God only allowed it to happen because God honors free will.

Now for omnipotence..
Just because God is omnipotent and could have everything the way He wants, that does not mean everything is as God wants it to be...
The fly in the ointment is free will. God allows humans to have what they want, be it good or evil.

 

[osgart]

Now for omnipotence..
Just because God is omnipotent and could have everything the way He wants, that does not mean everything is as God wants it to be...
The fly in the ointment is free will. God allows humans to have what they want, be it good or evil.

So then let it all run free and if evil happens to someone just stand by , watch til the appointed time. People say God saved my marriage yet natural disease for a youth who becomes terminal, no such interference. Everything is as God intended with the natural disease and the evil. They must have deserved it, and they probably have a victim mentality. That's just bonkers. Not to mention it ignores what really goes on in life.

That's all granting free will where God knows best how to deal with free will. Is Earth the best way to deal with free will while waiting til some future redemption?

Everyone has a fair shake at life is putting the blinders on. There's far better attitudes toward life on Earth than any God way. Non believers deserve better too.

Waiting for LA LA land, where delayed justice is finally rectifying everything in every life. That's another cartoon fantasy.

We can't fathom God's ways is just a silly excuse for not having any answers. I myself have had it good, but to think of all the people that never had a chance for good. And a believer cries victim mentality, how rude, ignorant, and crude. Godhood with righteousness doesn't have a leg to stand on that's valid.

 

[blü 2]

Then you don't see how it wouldn't be exhibiting more power to actually go beyond that.. by creating something that could have free-will. I understand: I've argued for determinism off and on, and there are some fortified arguments for it. But I've mostly rebounded to the free-will side, I think

I don't see how anyone could be omniscient without perfect knowledge of future random events, which would include the acts of beings with the classical concept of free will.

I also don't see how any being could have literally free will. For example, the decision-making processes of the brain have been the subject of many studies, leading to descriptions of the processes by which the brain decides, makes choices and elections. The processes are sequences of biochemical and bioelectrical phenomena sometimes edited by other parts of the brain before becoming actions, words, decisions &c. The alternative to such chains of cause and effect, however complex, is true randomness, and that only occurs at the quantum level eg in the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay, or the spontaneous formation and self-cancellation of particle-antiparticle pairs.