Questions that believers cannot answer

[samtonga43]

Correct, but my point in the OP was that believers 'believe' they have solved these problems with their religious apologetics.

Can you provide an example?

 

[KWED]

And now you very predictably try another diversion.

No diversion. I addressed your failed arguments directly.

Instead of dealing with millions of deleted lives

I don't have a problem with preventing future possible lives before they happen, if it is deemed appropriate by medical professionals.
And still, you are unable to present any kind of cogent argument for what a woman should not be able to terminate an early-stage pregnancy with the approval of medical professionals. You simply keep repeating "but you are murdering a person!"

you dodge and dance around the real issue by desperately renaming what actually happens.

Careful with that irony. It burns.
"Abortion" is the actual term for medically or clinically terminating an early stage pregnancy pregnancy. It is not "murder". It is you who is trying to rename what actually happens.
Do you also consider contraception to be "murder" as that is also "deleting a potential person"?

It's like calling the Holocaust a unfortunate but necessary population control event. Anything to deny reality.

Yet another ridiculous appeal to emotion based on the demonstrably flawed concept that an early-stage foetus is a fully sentient member of society with dependents, friends, relatives, loved ones, hopes, fears, shared experiences, able to experience fear, loss, empathy, etc.

Ironically, the Holocaust was caused by the same kind of irrational, supremacist, exclusionist ideology as the Abrahamic religions promote. Establish a superior group, dehumanise out-groups, promise reward for the in-group and terrible punishment for the out-group. Justify the treatment of the out-groups through ideological rhetoric.

 

[KWED]

That was a very general comment. In the Book of Laws are many Laws that are for the good of the individual rather than for the protection of society.

I did not say: evil is "acts committed by man because man does not adhere to ALL OF God's Laws."

Some of God's Laws are for the welfare of individuals, for their personal spiritual development, and some of the Laws are for the protection of other people and society from evil acts.

The Laws regarding homosexuality and no sex outside of marriage are for the welfare of individuals, for their personal spiritual development. Sex is not an evil act, but rape and murder are. One way we know that is because sex is not subject to prosecution under the laws of the land, whereas rape and murder are.

Of course not, and that is certainly not the position of the Bahai Faith or its administration.

None of that really addresses the issue raised by tier original statement, "evil is acts committed by man because man does not adhere to God's Laws."

God has rules against homosexuality. Homosexuals do not adhere to god's law. Therefore homosexuality is an evil committed by man.

I understand that you may not consider homosexuality to be evil, but that is what your statement actually meant. It is another example of the problems of speaking in platitudes rather than formulating your own arguments, and thinking them through.

No, the Baha'i Laws only apply to Baha'is.

Are they Bahai's laws or god's laws? Who made them up?
Is god only god to Bahais? Is he like a president or king? Every faith has their own god who makes his own laws that only apply to people who believe in him?
This would mean that morality is entirely subjective and relative to ones belief, not some universal standard.

Your logic is faulty. Whatever benefits accrue to Baha'is for being Baha'is after they die is a separate matter from sinning. I do not believe that only Baha'is go to heaven. Where people end up after they die is relative, and it depends upon their faith and their deeds.

So, does each individual version of god have their own heaven, with their own entry criteria?
Or does everyone go to Bahai heaven, but using their own standards of entry?

Baha’is do not believe that heaven is a geographical location,

Don't think anyone does, do they?

"To 'get to heaven' as you say is dependent on two things--faith in the Manifestation of God in His Day, in other words in this age in Bahá'u'lláh;

Oh, so only Bahais can go to Bahai heaven.
But you just claimed that non-Bahai go to heaven. Were you talking about a non-Bahai heaven?

It is not necessary to follow all the Baha'i Laws to prevent sinning since the important laws that prevent the worst sins were also revealed in other scriptures and they are also codified in the laws of most countries.

So in Bahaism, homosexuality and sex outside marriage are not sins? That's good to know.

 

[KWED]

No, I am not claiming that. God has sent Messengers in every age who have affected humanity, individuals and en masse.
My point was that we cannot know what God is "doing" other than and in between sending the Messengers.

That wasn't my point. I said...
"would it be fair to blame him for what he does do? And to criticise or condemn where appropriate?
So anything arising from the messages of his messengers is god's responsibility?

No, I cannot prove that God spoke to anyone

So your argument that proof of god speaking to them is necessary before accepting their claims fails. If someone claims that god has spoken to them, you either believe them or you doesn't, depending on whether it suits you.

Just because someone 'believes' that God spoke to them, that does not mean that God spoke to them.

Indeed. And you have admitted that it is not possible to prove any of their claims.

I believe that God only spoke to certain people, the Messengers,

Because they claimed god spoke to them. You have no proof they did. You don't even have any proof that god exists in the first place. A pretty flimsy house of cards, I'm sure you will agree.

so we could blame the Messengers if they had bad actions since they should know better.

So you accept that the messengers are fallible and what they say and do may not be with god's authority.

 

[KWED]

How the Messengers of God kept themself occupied in heaven before they were born into this world is not something the Messengers revealed in scriptures because we do not need to know that,

I need to know it.

nor could we understand it,

Speak for yourself.

since the spiritual world is so different from this world.

How do you know it is different? You just admitted that you know nothing about it and couldn't understand it anyway.

That is what I have heard other atheists say.... The reason they say that is because they are looking at the spiritual world as if it is like the material world, but the spiritual wold is so different from the material world it cannot be compared to it. The other thing is that there is no time as we know it in the spiritual world so we won't be thinking in terms of time, like thinking as we might think about a visit to the mother-in-law.... "Sheesh! when is this visit going to be over?"

1. Again, you are making qualatitive claims about something you also claim to know nothing about.
2. It is the minds of the messengers we are talking about, not the range of entertainment available in heaven. Are you suggesting that their minds are kept in some sort of suspended animation before being downloaded into a human body?

The promises of Baha'u'llah are the promises. One either believes them or not. Obviously, if one is not a Baha'i, they'd have no reason to believe the promises.

What reason do Bahais have to believe what Bahaullah says?

Baha'u'llah says there are many worlds of God that are countless in there number and infinite in their range, and we will see them after we leave this world. Maybe that is one reason we will never get bored.

“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…..

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 From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 151-153

A lot of vague platitudes there.

“O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329

The same old "don't worry if god is making your life hell here on earth, he will make up for it in heaven" nonsense. Why make a person's life bad here in the first place? It can't be "a test" because he has told them it will get better later. That's like a torturer telling his victim not to worry about the pain because he is going to stop in a minute and give them some morphine and ice cream, so don't give in and reveal your secrets.

This also shows a negation of free will because the things that happen in our lives "have been ordained and manifested by God" and therefore we have no ability to alter those events or outcomes.

Once again, simply quoting the platitudes of unsophisticated thinkers can just raise more problems than it addresses.

 

[KWED]

Simply put, because God did not choose to do that, and God only does what God chooses to do.
As humans we cannot do anything about that since we are not omnipotent.

So we are just subject to god's whim, no matter how irrational. We are just his playthings.

Once again, that key question - why did god create humanity at all? What was the point?
He didn't need us. We didn't need to exist. Non-existence would be preferable to the suffering experienced by many through what god "has ordained and manifested".
Never experiencing god/ heaven/whatever is not an issue for those who never exist.

 

[samtonga43]

No. If you have free choice for a good act then there is at least one evil alternative - refraining from a good act.

I believe that Evil is a negative entity. Not an entity at all, in fact. I see it as the absence or privation of good. Evil has no substance; unlike good, it is insubstantial

 

[KWED]

You cannot know what an omnimax God would do from your limited human perspective since you cannot know what God knows. Let's not forget that omniscience is one of the omnis.

But that's the point. We do know.
An omnibenelovent god would never allow suffering to happen if it was within its power to prevent it. And an omnipotent god has that power.

However, this argument does not apply to your version of god because you acknowledge that it is not a most loving, caring god.

Moreover, if God exists and God created the world the way He created it, then we have to assume that was the *best way* it could have been created in order to accomplish what God wanted to accomplish, since an all-knowing God would have to know the best way out of all the options that were available to Him.

But this means that you reject better explanations for the observations because they do not fit with your pre-existing conclusion. (Question begging 101).

It also assumes that god is a complete twat, but you worship him anyway, which is a bit odd.

But I have to agree that suffering sucks, since I am God's poster child for suffering.

But why do you think it sucks? You just admitted that it is the best possible way to accomplish god's plan. You should celebrate it, because whatever god does must be perfect and who are you to second guess him?
If all your suffering is how god wants things to be in his best possible world, why do you even consider it to be "suffering"?

 

[KWED]

Only because what you’ve been taught, was inaccurate to begin with.

So was my understanding at first.

No one can understand it, unless they have the Father’s help. (Luke 10:21) Who is Jehovah/Yahweh.

So only people who have been tutored by god can understand the Bible, and you are one of those lucky people.

You don’t even believe he exists… so you shouldn’t expect to understand His Word accurately. — Hebrews 11:6

But then, neither do the sects of Christendom, since they attribute to Jesus the position that really belongs to Yahweh / the Father. — 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 ; John 4:23-24 ; John 17:3 etc.

But I believe that the Bible exists, so I can read it and analyse what it says, on the basis of the meanings of the words used and the context of history.
And how do you know that god hasn't been guiding me? He does move in mysterious ways, after all.

 

[KWED]

The problem is that you only have a personal opinion based upon what YOU consider benevolent, and you are stating your personal opinion as if it was a fact. In your opinion, humans having to undergo suffering is not benevolent, but others have different opinions. Why is YOUR opinion better than the opinions of other people?

Words like "benevolent" and "most" and "suffering" have meaning. It's how we are able to communicate ideas to each other. An omni-benevolent god would not keep on giving babies cancer.
"But that's not god, that's just stuff happening" I hear you cry.
But an omnipotent, omniscient god would know it was happening, know it was causing terrible suffering, and would prevent it.

You have a personal opinion as to what constitutes omnibenevolence, what an omnibenevolent God would do, but that is not a fact, it is just a personal opinion. It is in effect a projection of your ego expectations: If God does not eliminate suffering, God is not omnibenevolent.

So how do you define "omni-benevolent"?

In my opinion, it would not be omnibenevolent for anyone to rip off the limbs of every living creature.

But by your argument, that is just your ego talking. If god chooses to rip the limbs off every living creature, then there must be a good reason for it. Who are you to criticise it?

 

[KWED]

benevolence: the quality of being well meaning; kindness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=benevolence+definition

Indeed. So an omni-benevolent god is as kind and well-meaning as it is possible to be.
If I would never allow a child to die in agony from cancer, then an omni-benevolent god cannot either.
As children do die in agony from cancer, therefore I am more benevolent than god.
QED

That is what benevolence is. Whether we believe that God is benevolent or not all depends upon what we consider well-meaning and kind.

Looking forward to your explanation of how children dying in agony from cancer is "well-meaning and kind".

Is it well meaning and kind to create a world in which God knew humans would suffer, often through no fault of their own?

No.
(BTW, the suffering isn't just an unhappy accident. It is "ordained and manifested by god".

Is suffering necessary for humans to attain a goal that God had in mind for humans?

Obviously not. Because god could have created us, the universe, and his goal in a way that didn't require suffering.

What is unnecessary suffering?

In the context of an omnipotent, omniscient god - all suffering.

Why do some people have to suffer so much more than other people?

Under an omni-everything god, it makes no sense.

Will those who suffered more be better off in the end?

Why would they?

Can people still attain spiritual qualities without suffering?

People who have experienced trauma, psychological issues, abuse, etc certainly tend to be more likely to find religion than happy, well-educated, comfortable, well-adjusted people.

Imo, we cannot just say God is not benevolent just because humans suffer.

Well, we can actually, on the basis of the meanings of words and concepts.

We can get some answers if we talk to people who have suffered a lot and look at their lives.

I agree that the nature of people's lives can go some way to explain the beliefs they hold.

 

[KWED]

How would you know?
You are not God.

Because god can do anything. He could have created the universe any way he wanted, including in a way that didn't require suffering.
The concept that something is "necessary" for god means that there is a force behind god that he is constrained by.

 

[KWED]

Hope for better things to come and faith in God helps to sustain our lives. Psalm 37 is encouraging.

Like someone in debt buying a lottery ticket using their lucky numbers?

 

[KWED]

God could get what He wants because there is nothing preventing God from getting what He wants, but that does not mean that everything that happens in this world is what God wants. God can allow things to happen that He does not want to happen....

If he knows it is going to happen that way, and he allows it to happen that way despite having the ability to effect a different outcome, then by definition he wants it to happen that way. If he didn't want it to happen that way, he would have changed the outcome.

 

[KWED]

I cannot understand how anyone can love God and have compassion for humans at the same time.

Does this mean you are no longer a Bahai, or does it mean that you cannot understand why you still are one?

 

[KWED]

No. If you have free choice for a good act then there is at least one evil alternative - refraining from a good act.

Utter nonsense.
Choosing to only donate to certain charities is not "evil".

 

[KWED]

If you forcibly prevent someone doing evil then one is just a puppet not doing good by himself.

If evil does not exist, there can be no "forceful prevention" from it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yet another ridiculous appeal to emotion based on the demonstrably flawed concept that an early-stage foetus is a fully sentient member of society with dependents, friends, relatives, loved ones, hopes, fears, shared experiences, able to experience fear, loss, empathy, etc.

The survivors of failed abortions illustrate that they are just that.

 

[KWED]

Yes, God does have limits. For example: God can Not lie

What stops him?

God can't die

What stops him from ending his own existence?

Sinner Satan is the one who enjoys the 'tool of suffering' to try to manipulate us.

Why doesn't god stop him?
Either he is unable to or he doesn't want to. Neither is worthy of "god".

 

[Koldo]

The context was lost... I meant Creator making a world without moral evil would be a world without free will.

Depends on what you mean by that.
If I prevent Joe from killing someone, am I taking away his free will?