Questions for God

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have laid it out on numerous occasions.

Been there, done that. I am not dumb enough to fall into that trap again.

Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of posts here -- you expect us, of course, to remember them all in detail?

Look, if I've said something before, and want to make it clear, I go find it, and link to it. I've done that many times on these forums, and it's not so hard. But to just say "I've done it before" and expect everybody to know when and where is just ducking the issue. Something I see far, far too much of here.

Everybody wants to be right, but they don't seem to want anybody looking to closely at their reasons.

 

[F1fan]

In my view, God did not create it all with a major flaw at all.

So then did they Fall go as God planned? Or was God caught off guard when the Fall happened? God didn't know Adam and Eve would be so easiy tempted when he created Satan and sent him to the Garden?

If God really wanted the Garden to succeed, don't you think God would make sure it worked?

I think He created it in the only way it could have been created, if His desire/plan was to create beings with freewill and the ability to respond freely in love, not as controlled, pre-programmed creations.

So the God you imagine is quite limited and restricted.

If the Garden worked for some period of time before God sent Satan to tempt them, couldn't God have not sent Satan to ensure it wouldn't collapse? Didn't God know they couldn't resist temptation?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then lay it out! Nobody ever does, did you know that?

So, do us all a favour. Next time you say "evidence," provide some of it.

Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of posts here -- you expect us, of course, to remember them all in detail?

Look, if I've said something before, and want to make it clear, I go find it, and link to it. I've done that many times on these forums, and it's not so hard. But to just say "I've done it before" and expect everybody to know when and where is just ducking the issue. Something I see far, far too much of here.

Everybody wants to be right, but they don't seem to want anybody looking to closely at their reasons.

I do not want to be right. I just want to believe what I think is true.

I have reasons why I believe what I do, but my reasons will never be the same as your reasons or anyone else's reasons.

Okay, here is the post again, for the hundredth time.

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

If one believes in One God, Worships One God in the Muslim fashion or similar throughout the day, then they are pretty much a Muslim in my view I see a Muslim is one that Submits to One God. So I see your view is valid. We should not veil ourselves by the Names God has sent the Messengers in...

www.religiousforums.com

Here is another post on the subject of evidence:

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

Who else would provide the evidence for the claim if not the claimant? Literally anyone else. If I could really turn into a dragon, do you think that only I could ever be the source of evidence for that claim? What about all the people who witness the transformation? If a man claimed to get...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have laid [the evidence] out on numerous occasions.

I disagree. What you write is that the words, character, and mission of the Messenger, what he did on His mission are what "causes me to believe the claim that He was speaking for God." These are just categories of evidence, not the evidence itself. You'd need to provide specific examples of these that support a belief that the messenger was actually channeling a supernatural deity - things that wouldn't or couldn't happen in a godless universe. All of the things that the Messenger said and did are consistent with naturalism.

Being God, there would be no reason to ponder such questions.

Being omniscient means needing to ponder nothing. It means having the answers.

The biblical scriptures reveal that bad things like childhood diseases occur because this is a fallen world corrupted and damaged by sin.

Reveal? I think you mean claim.

Well it's foolish to think anyone can provide an answer to this question.
If God exists he is what he is, not what we perceive him to be. He will not change according to each individual he will remain what he is. What he is cannot be known, so it's a waste of time trying to understand.
It doesn’t matter what anyone says, each individual has a perception of God. No one has seen him so it’s all speculation

This sounds like a case for agnostic atheism. I word it that if gods exist, nobody knows it or what those gods might be like, and theology is unfalsifiable and unconfirmable speculation, so there's no reason to believe that gods door do not exist and no reason to believe the claims believer make about them.

 

[Trailblazer]

I disagree. What you write is that the words, character, and mission of the Messenger, what he did on His mission are what "causes me to believe the claim that He was speaking for God." These are just categories of evidence, not the evidence itself. You'd need to provide specific examples of these that support a belief that the messenger was actually channeling a supernatural deity - things that wouldn't or couldn't happen in a godless universe. All of the things that the Messenger said and did are consistent with naturalism.

What I delineated is evidence to me that Baha'u'llah was channeling a supernatural deity
If you are looking for proof that the messenger was actually channeling a supernatural deity you will never get it since there is no proof.

As for things that wouldn't or couldn't happen in a godless universe that is only a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I’m talking about

How would you know?

the literary character, not any real deity. Literary characters can be analyzed as long as one can read.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
Romans 5:12

Now if only Paul had read the stories of Job and Enoch, I think.

 

[dybmh]

No. They [ , the verses in the bible that you brought, ] don't [ show that God is certain about it's own omniscience ].

If that's wrong, please explain to me step by step how they demonstrate HOW God knows there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know.

How, not that.

Sure.

Step #1: If God knows absolutely everything, then there is nothing which God doesn't know AND God knows if there is anything missing from its knowledge.

Step #2: Using scripture, it can be shown that there is nothing which God doesn't know AND God knows if there is anything missing from its knowledge.

Easy, right?

You asked how. The answer is, God is creating like an author who is writing a book. "Is writing" which is present-progressive. An author knows each and everything that is happening in the book. The author knows that there is nothing added to the book outside of their knowledge If they possess the book at all times. God possesses all of reality at all times. God is creating all of reality at all times. That's how.

There's no coherent manner in which God can know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know.

Of course there is. You probably won't admit it, even if we show it to you.

 

[InChrist]

So then did they Fall go as God planned? Or was God caught off guard when the Fall happened? God didn't know Adam and Eve would be so easiy tempted when he created Satan and sent him to the Garden?

If God really wanted the Garden to succeed, don't you think God would make sure it worked?

So the God you imagine is quite limited and restricted.

If the Garden worked for some period of time before God sent Satan to tempt them, couldn't God have not sent Satan to ensure it wouldn't collapse? Didn't God know they couldn't resist temptation?

Certainly God knew Adam & Eve would choose to disobey the one command He gave, heed satan’s voice, etc. I think the important point is that God created A&E with the authentic ability to make a free choice; trust God or listen to another voice, the serpent, self. In the paradise garden environment they experienced God’s presence, love, care, provision, beauty and more. The garden provided the necessary opportunity for them to exercise this freedom to demonstrate their love and trust for God… or not. So basically, you are correct, God knew they would sin and fall short. But I think that’s the way it had to be because real love cannot be forced or programmed, so they had to be given a legitimate, real life opportunity and choice. Any created being will sin and fall short of God’s perfection simply because a creation is less than God the Creator…
…creature < God
Yet, their failure was not the end of God’s plan, as the scriptures show…a Savior was promised, One whose perfect righteousness would be applied to the lives of all who believe and trust Him.

 

[InChrist]

Now if only Paul had read the stories of Job and Enoch, I think.

I’m sure Paul did.

 

[InChrist]

God had denied Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil.

Therefore when Eve ate the fruit, she did so in a state where it was impossible for her to intend to do wrong, and therefore she was incapable of sin.

And exactly the same is true of Adam.

And in the Garden story God never mentions sin, or that anyone sinned. [He] gives one and only one reason for kicking them out of the garden And since you've now read Genesis 3.22-23 you know what that reason is, and you know it has nothing to do with sin.

I’m not so sure God was denying them the knowledge of good and evil in the sense of knowing about it. God could certainly have been in the process of teaching them what good and evil is. When the scriptures say they didn’t know good and evil, I tend to think God was protecting them from experiencing the contrast or the pain of knowing evil compared to the beauty and good of their lives in the garden environment. Although, they had experienced God’s love, care, provision and beauty they chose to disobey His one instruction and listen to the serpent, trusting his voice and their own judgment above God. That is the reason they were sent out of the garden.

 

[InChrist]

Life doesn't work like that and never has. Life lives its life than dies, if they sin or not

Sin being an infraction against a diety means, as sn atheist i cannot sin anyway.

According to the scriptures physical death in this world is a picture of spiritual death, which is an eternal separation from God, the Creator of life and only Source of life.

Of course I know that you, as an atheist, don’t agree or believe this. Just sharing my view.

 

[ChristineM]

According to the scriptures physical death in this world is a picture of spiritual death, which is an eternal separation from God, the Creator of life and only Source of life.

Of course I know that you, as an atheist, don’t agree or believe this. Just sharing my view.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want.

Though it has nothing to do with atheism but everything to do with evidenced science

 

[Melchizedek99]

You are welcome to believe whatever you want.

Though it has nothing to do with atheism but everything to do with evidenced science

Science does not disprove God, in fact, it leads and points to God. Lots of catholic scientists.

 

[ChristineM]

Science does not disprove God, in fact, it leads and points to God. Lots of catholic scientists.

True science does not disprove god not does it prove god,
Science does not deal in proof but in evidence.
Catholic scientist are a strawman, they do not attempt to prove or investigate the unprovable.
However if evidence is ever given for any gods existence then i am pretty sure science will investigate that evidence and reach an honest conclusion.

Edit. As i recall around 92% of scientists did not believe in god, 8% with some believe in god. Going off current figures thats 17.7% of 8% = 1.416% of scientists being Catholic. I wouldn't say that was lots

 

[dybmh]

Everybody wants to be right, but they don't seem to want anybody looking to closely at their reasons.

Not everybody. I am perfectly happy to answer questions and present the reasons. What I'm seeing is, the critics don't want to read or try to understand the reasons I've given because they assume they know everything that can be said on the subject.

 

[blü 2]

Sure.

Step #1: If God knows absolutely everything, then there is nothing which God doesn't know AND God knows if there is anything missing from its knowledge.

No, the only person who can assert that is God [him]self, and [he] can't credibly do that until [he] or someone on [his] behalf credibly explains HOW (not that) [he] knows there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know.

Step #2: Using scripture, it can be shown that there is nothing which God doesn't know AND God knows if there is anything missing from its knowledge.

No, nothing in scripture explains HOW [he] knows. There's merely assertion.

God is creating like an author who is writing a book.

But Joanne Rowling doesn't know all about Harry Potter. Being the author of a book makes you the master of characters and events in the book BUT it doesn't mean you know everything about everything that's in the book. Non sequitur.

Not only that, but the claim of omniscience for God, as I understand it ─ correct me if I'm wrong ─ is not confined to the universe [he]'s said to have created (some 14 billion years before he existed). If there are other universes, metaverses, überverses, God is supposed to be right across every detail of every detail of every detail.

Of course there is. You probably won't admit it, even if we show it to you.

More mere assertion. Show me where it explains the HOW.

 

[blü 2]

I’m not so sure God was denying them the knowledge of good and evil in the sense of knowing about it. God could certainly have been in the process of teaching them what good and evil is.

No, the story itself rules that out, first by God's ban, right at the start, on eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and second by God's later lament that they, A&E, have now gained that knowledge.

When the scriptures say they didn’t know good and evil, I tend to think God was protecting them from experiencing the contrast or the pain of knowing evil compared to the beauty and good of their lives in the garden environment. Although, they had experienced God’s love, care, provision and beauty they chose to disobey His one instruction and listen to the serpent, trusting his voice and their own judgment above God.

The serpent told no lies ─ referring to him as a deceiver is nonsense. They did not "choose to disobey his one instruction" in any negative sense, since as I pointed out they were deliberately denied knowledge of good and evil. All Eve did was listen to the snake and think, "That sounds reasonable."

Indeed, if anyone told a lie in the story, it was God, asserting that if they ate the fruit they'd die the same day. Just as the serpent said, that was not true.

That is the reason they were sent out of the garden.

No, disobedience has NOTHING to do with why they were sent from the Garden. If that's wrong, quote me the part of the Garden story where God says "I'm kicking you out because you committed the sin of disobedience."

God says, plain and unadorned, in Genesis 3:22-23 that [he]'s kicking them out TO PREVENT THEM FROM EATING FROM THE TREE OF LIFE AND LIVING FOREVER AND BECOMING LIKE US.

It's my strongly-held view that people should treat ancient documents with respect, including not wishing their own meanings on them when plainly that meaning is not present in the text. Unfortunately Christians wish their own meanings on the Tanakh all the time. (That's not to ignore the evidence that the actual notion of the Fall in the Garden story apparently arose via the midrash tradition among the Jews of Alexandria in the late second century CE.)

 

[dybmh]

someone on [his] behalf credibly explains HOW (not that) [he] knows there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know.

That was the 2nd part of my post.

No, nothing in scripture explains HOW [he] knows.

I brought you the verses.

But Joanne Rowling doesn't know all about Harry Potter.

Yes she does. Name one thing about Harry Potter than Joanne Rowling doesn't know. Please bring sources.

it doesn't mean you know everything about everything that's in the book.

It's explaining HOW. You asked HOW. This is HOW. No a human author does not have the same capabilities as God, but the function of being a creator and knowing in that manner is HOW.

You seem to have troube distinguishing between a human and God, and also have trouble with the concept of "analogy".

Do you understand how analogies work? They are not intended to be perfect matches between the two examples. They are intended to show the similarity of certain aspects. In this case, the analogy is showing HOW. Both the author and God are creators. Both the author and God are outside of their creations, but can write themselves into the story.

Once we get passed HOW, then I can show you the scope which is absolutely everything. Yes, God can say this because of the unique properties of God as they are described in the bible. You are ignorant of those qualities as you have declared of yourself.

So, once we gat passed the HOW, which was your chosen focus, then I can show you that nothing can be excluded. God does not require a 3rd party to confirm this. This is a consequence of God's unique qualities.

Unlike a human author, God is creating each and every concept, each and every idea, everything about everything in all of its dimensions. The human author is writing a book. God is "writing" reality. Are you able to understand this?

I understand it's difficult. It could be that this is literally beyond your cognitive capability.

More mere assertion. Show me where it explains the HOW.

I did, you didn't read it. Lets deal with the Harry Potter example, then we can move on. Name one thing about Harry Potter than Joanne Rowling doesn't know. Please bring sources. The reason Harry Potter is a good example is because Joanne Rowling is lliterally the creator of Harry Potter. So, that's a good example. God is the creator of everything. Joanne Rowling is the creator of Harry Potter.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not everybody. I am perfectly happy to answer questions and present the reasons. What I'm seeing is, the critics don't want to read or try to understand the reasons I've given because they assume they know everything that can be said on the subject.

Do you know, that's not quite right. Those of us who can't bring ourselves to believe in the existence of the deities we've been introduced to (by their adherents) don't claim to know everything -- we claim that what can't be reasonably demonstrated to be true (gods) or necessary (demands by the gods) needn't be paid much or any attention.

There are all sorts of things that seem truly bizarre -- absolutely bereft of any possible explanation, to most humans. Here's one example: the decimal number that is the "Golden Ratio," called Phi (Φ) by mathematicians. This number is 1.6180339887… (a never ending decimal). But did you know, if you take the reciprocal of Φ (divide 1 by Φ), you wind up with 0.6180339887... (all the same numbers to infinity after the decimal). So dividing Phi into one results exactly in subtracting 1 from Phi (1/Φ = Φ - 1). Now, mathematicians can explain that, but to the rest of us, it's pretty mysterious.

But what's even crazier, is that there's another way to get to Phi -- the Fibonacci series; start with 0 and 1, and then every term after that in the series is just the sum of the two preceding terms. Thus, the series is {0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89...). The farther along that series you go, dividing one term by the term before gets you closer and closer to Phi. Thus, 113490317/701408733 (both adjacent terms in the series) is 1.6180339887.... Hey, this is bloody magical, isn't it?

Going further, this same ratio turns up right under out noses: this same number defines the spiral of the chambered nautilus, and the arrangement of seeds in a sunflower!

Our point is not that we understand everything, but through examination, we can find reasons to explain all of this (the Fibonacci series is strongly related to growth in the way it is constructed), and we can determine that it is natural and not a question for God after all.