Questions that believers cannot answer

[Hockeycowboy]

You said... "Please prove that fate and predestination are real things."
Here you have just admitted that they are.

How’d you come up with that?

If I said, “Please prove that Yeti and the Cookie Monster are real things”, how would I be admitting they exist?
Only as concepts in people’s minds.

You are conflating two separate concepts here - infallible omniscience is different to conscious predestination.
Infallibly knowing what will happen makes that event inevitable. No other outcome is possible. The actual causal process is irrelevant.
Predestination is where god determines the future by making an event happen through conscious action.

But god knows exactly how they will develop, every single event, for all time. He is not simply observing events unfold, waiting to see what happens like the rest of us.

But an observer who always knows exactly the outcome of every future event.
Basically like only watching films you have seen before.

Indeed.
If god doesn't actually cause the cancer in a baby, and the devout parents pray to him to save their child from a slow, agonising death - why doesn't he intervene? Many religionists claim he has intervened in their lives for quite trivial reasons.

Cool story bro.

I’m sorry, but the Bible doesn’t agree.
Jehovah’s attempt to reason with Cain, the outcome of the Ninevites in the book of Jonah, God being “hurt at His heart” by the rebellious nature of the Israelites, etc…… it all leads to one conclusion: that Jehovah doesn’t know. He respects our use of the Free Will that He created us with.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human said some type of creator was loving had created all things.

Each different body by type and relationships would prove it loves.

Involving nurturing caring abilities for mutual success.

Which we exhibit.

We know an animal loving is different to ours. Nurture it though it truly does love us. Lower beings by our identification.

Seeing resource is supposedly a base being. Or are you pretending youre not looking for a power of God to use?

Wait a minute. No. He says Jesus humans sacrificed life is a resource.

He was very loving says about a man baby born who lived as a human. But he was a God that human. Not really a human as he was a God.

And they believe it's real. Humans are a God hence a resource.

Yet you can't be one status love.

It's purpose creator was just one condition loving.

So science thinks if it uses machines it can find love and give it to a machine.

Meaning we'd be destroyed. A machine not loving would too.

Why they ask so many science questions. Studied NDE. Human brain. Looking for it. They want it...it's a resource you know.

So behaviour asks an inhumane thinker not loving by behaviour choices .....why did you say a man god was loving. By thought only who invented invention and resourcing.

Real conscious answer using human memory says once you were loving.

Cannot say you are nowadays.

So as I got hurt I heard AI data voice ask can his new machine plus mind contact be used as a new weapon. As he uses resources to get electricity yet he made weapons from the same status.

Why I know he isn't loving at all himself.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Questions that believers cannot answer…. without resorting to a plethora of religious apologetics.

If God is loving, why did God ‘intentionally’ create a world that He knew would engender so much human and animal suffering?

If God is just, why did God create a world in which He knew some people would suffer so much more than others, many people hardly suffering at all? How is that fair?

I am not referring to suffering caused by our own choices we make that cause us to suffer, I am talking about suffering as the result of fate and predestination.

To clarify, I believe that some things that happen to us are subject to human free will and some things are not, because they were predestined by God and we have no control over them. That is called fate.

All things that are not chosen by virtue of our own free are beyond our control and I believe they are predestined by God. God is responsible for both the good and the bad things that happen to us, if those things were predestined.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 248

Man is compelled to endure the bad things that happen because God set it up that way since we live in a material world where some of the Bad things happen are beyond our control. Some of these Bad things are caused by the free will decisions of other people that affect us and some of them are simply accidents, misfortunes and diseases. These are our fate, for which God is responsible.

Believers only want to look at the good things and thank God for those things, they do not want to look at the bad things for which God is responsible. Instead, they try to say that all the bad things are really good because suffering is good, and God can never be responsible for anything bad. This is a religious apologetic and Imo it is an attempt to gloss over all the suffering in the world and say God is not responsible for it.

It would be unfair to blame man for things that are beyond his control so who is responsible for all the suffering in the world that is not caused by man? Logically speaking, if God is responsible for 'everything' then God is responsible for 'both' the good and bad things that happen to us.

Isaiah 45:7 ESV
I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things.

I rest my case.

This is the ancient problem of evil or "theodicy".

Theodicy - Wikipedia

Although many great minds in history have tried to solve this problem... One of the well-known recent attempts was the movie (and book) The Shack...

... IMO no one has successfully solved this problem so far. It all seems to be just a self-deceptive rationalization.

 

[rational experiences]

This is the ancient problem of evil or "theodicy".

Theodicy - Wikipedia

Although many great minds in history have tried to solve this problem... One of the well-known recent attempts was the movie (and book) The Shack...

IMO no one has successful solved this problem so far. It all seems to be just a self-deceptive rationalization.

I have horses and seemingly today's topic has horse quotes in the forum. One of them owns the name sounds like shack. What's your problem operative? Don't you realise you are wrong?

 

[samtonga43]

This is the ancient problem of evil or "theodicy".

Theodicy - Wikipedia

Although many great minds in history have tried to solve this problem... One of the well-known recent attempts was the movie (and book) The Shack...

... IMO no one has successfully solved this problem so far. It all seems to be just a self-deceptive rationalization.

The Problem of Evil
A perfectly powerful being can prevent any evil.
A perfectly good being will prevent evil as far as he can.
God is perfectly powerful and good.
So, if a perfectly powerful and good God exists, there will be no evil.
There is evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

 

[PearlSeeker]

A perfectly powerful being can prevent any evil.
A perfectly good being will prevent evil as far as he can.

Any evil? If you prevent moral evil you prevent free will...

 

[PearlSeeker]

... and moral good.

 

[Kenny]

And yet, you are unable to support this claim. My arguments are rational and clearly laid out, with references where necessary. If you can't respond to my points, just have the courage to admit it.

As I read it, rational is a matter of opinion.

You are going to have to explain how...
"correctly dividing the word of truth"
is a valid definition of "to study".

You mean "have I really divided the word of truth of the Bible"?
Nope, still none the wiser.

Apparently you defined it yourself... well done.

I have, and I am the wiser.

However, if you mean "have I read it, as well as other works providing historical and cultural context, with a view to understanding how and why it was written, and its subsequent effect on society", then yes. Have you?

Yes, although still have much to learn.

 

[samtonga43]

Any evil? If you prevent moral evil you prevent free will...

I agree with you. We would be puppets on a string.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Explaining a legal definition that you are misusing is not an "appeal to emotion" fallacy. It is a simple statement of fact.
And once again, you perfectly illustrate your inability to present a cogent argument against early-stage termination with the consent of medical professionals, and your resort to appeals to emotion.

If you want an effective a and rational appeal to emotion, try their one...
If god doesn't want 10 year old rape victims to have an abortion, why does he allow them to be impregnated through rape in the first place?

And now you very predictably try another diversion.
Instead of dealing with millions of deleted lives you dodge and dance around the real issue by desperately renaming what actually happens.

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

 

[Trailblazer]

That is the implication of your statement, not a straw man.
You said that evil is "acts committed by man because man does not adhere to God's Laws."
Bahaullah staid that homosexuality and sex outside marriage are against god's law.
Therefore, homosexuality and sex outside marriage are evil, by your own argument.

You need to carefully consider the implications of any claims you make, especially those religious platitudes repeated without thought.

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.

Ok, so you only consider Bahai homosexuals and fornicators to be evil.

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

Also, surely god's law is universal. Otherwise it would mean that non-Bahais cannot sin and will therefore get any appropriate afterlife benefits. Or do only Baha'is get to go to heaven?

No, the Baha'i Laws only apply to Baha'is. Only if everyone was a Baha'i would Baha'i Laws be universal.

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.

Baha’is do not believe that heaven is a geographical location, but a Baha’i once asked the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith (Shoghi Effendi) how to get to heaven, and here was his answer...

"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; and good deeds, in other words living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by. But we must always remember that our existence and everything we have or ever will have is dependent upon the mercy of God and His bounty, and therefore He can accept into His heaven, which is really nearness to Him, even the lowliest if He pleases. We always have the hope of receiving His mercy if we reach out for it."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 12, 1957)
Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File

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.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I agree with you. We would be puppets on a string.

But there are many kinds of evil... Not all could be justified.

 

[Trailblazer]

... IMO no one has successfully solved this problem so far.

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

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you claiming that god does not, and has not done anything that affects humanity, either en masse or as individuals?

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.

But you have repeatedly admitted that you can't prove god exists, so you certainly can't prove that he spoke to anyone. You claim that it is belief that gives you certainty.
So therefore, if a person genuinely believes god spoke to them, do you blame god for their actions?

No, I cannot prove that God spoke to anyone

Just because someone 'believes' that God spoke to them, that does not mean that God spoke to them. I believe that God only spoke to certain people, the Messengers, so we could blame the Messengers if they had bad actions since they should know better.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is such a cop out - but a common one for apologists.
What do the people who have actually spoken to god say about it?

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, nor could we understand it, since the spiritual world is so different from this world.

Even if you could do every really interesting thing ever devised, and do each one a trillion times, you would still have an infinite eternity left to fill. Anyone would go insane with boredom. Maybe that was the cause of their delusions?

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?"

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.

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

“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

 

[Koldo]

Any evil? If you prevent moral evil you prevent free will...

So if a person prevents a moral evil, free will doesn't exist?

 

[Koldo]

We only gain muscle by exercise. Life is difficult on purpose. Why?? God wants us to learn and grow.
We accept pain for a needed surgery. We accept that staying alive means we get old. We can also accept that life is difficult and that it’s okay.

My understanding....
Without some form of suffering and pain, how would we be able to grow spiritually ? The suffering is there to make us stronger when we realize what causes us to feel it as suffering.

When it comes to why God created a place for human to feel suffering, I believe we have been spiritual beings without a physical body before we was humans. And this physical body was created so we would feel pain and agony due to our past sin when we fall from closeness to God.
The further away from God, the more dense our existence become. (Physical body)

Only my thoughts.

This is known as the soul-making theodicy.
If God is omnipotent, why weren't humans created without the need to grow? Why not create them at their ideal stage without the need to undergo suffering to grow? Plus, how do you figure that people are undergoing strictly the ammount of suffering they need to in order to grow?

 

[Trailblazer]

If God is omnipotent, why weren't humans created without the need to grow? Why not create them at their ideal stage without the need to undergo suffering to grow?

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.

 

[Koldo]

No one ever likes my response to this issue whenever it comes up, because I'm saying that it's inappropriate to ask these questions in the first place.

To ask them we must stand in judgment of existence as if we know how "it should be" (free from suffering). But we don't know squat. We don't know why the universe exists. We don't even know why existence exists. We don't know if the universe is all that exists, or if existence includes more than the universe. We don't know if the universe or existence has any purpose besides it just being. We don't know what it's capacities or limitations are. We don't know if it has any boundaries or if there can 'be anything' beyond those boundaries.

So by what logic or reasoning are we presuming to know that existence should not involve suffering? I mean, what IS suffering, even, apart from our own preference to avoid it?

The problem of evil is not about what we want the world to be like or how far off the world is from some ideal stage we can imagine. Rather, the problem of evil is about a logical contradiction between an omnimax god and the world.

 

[Koldo]

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.

But an omnibenevolent god would choose to do that, if he had to pick between that and people undergoing a ton of suffering to grow. That's the thing.