Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 2)

[Trailblazer]

Because a powerful, wise and good god would never inflict or allow suffering to exist, for there is no suffering that is necessary for an omni-powerful god to achieve his goals, and every stance of suffering would, therefore, be contradictory to his very existence, since he is also wise and good.

God does not inflict suffering...
How do you know that a powerful, wise and good god would never allow suffering to exist?
It does not matter if there might have been another way. God knows the best way because God is all-knowing.

How do you know that suffering is not the best way for an omni-powerful god to achieve his goals

You cannot know the best way because you are not more than all-knowing since that is logically impossible.

Whatever you say is just a personal opinion but if you are asserting it as true that is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

This gets back to the OP. If you're saying that there could be unseen factors that completely change the morality of God's actions in ways we don't understand, then you have no basis to say that God is good.

Every apparently evil act of God might be good and every apparently good act of God might be evil.

I do have a basis for believing that God is good and a way to understand ‘some’ of the reasons for God’s actions via scripture.

We do not ‘always’ understand God’s actions or inaction because God is beyond human understanding, but we can know through scripture that God is always benevolent because that is one of the immutable attributes of God.

 

[Koldo]

I already explained that. You cannot compare what a human would do for another human if they saw another human suffering to what God would do for a humans if God saw a human suffering because that is the fallacy of false equivalence.

You have not explained. You are merely claiming that I can't compare god and humans, but not explaining what makes the comparison not pertinent.

Sorry but no. You are not omniscient so you cannot KNOW that.

I can know that because it is omnipotence entails.

We have already covered this ground. It does not MATTER if God is omnipotent so God could allegedly bypass suffering to get to the goal because God is omniscient and thus God knows that suffering was the best way of all the available options to achieve the intended goal.

It does not MATTER what God needs to go through, it only matters what God chooses to God through since an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, period. What about that do you not understand ?

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

Now, whenever you say that "God could have done it differently" you are against wall because you are not omniscient so you cannot possibly ever know more than God about how it should have been done.

You cannot just say God is omnipotent and ignore that God is also omniscient because God is both, and as soon as you invoke omniscience every atheist argument regarding what God could/should have done differently falls flat on its face.

In short, no human can know more than God because no human is more than all-knowing since that is logically impossible. That means that God knew all the options that were available to Him in order to achieve His goals and that means that whatever God chose to do was the best way to achieve the goals. You cannot know the best way because you are not all-knowing.

What does omnipotence mean if not unlimited power?
What does it mean to have power? It means that you are able to something. If two beings can do two exact sets of things, they are equally powerful. If however, one can do more things than the other, the first one is more powerful. So, as a frame of reference, imagine that you and I can all do the exact same things. This is obviously not true because we can clearly do different things, but just for the moment imagine that we can the exact same things, except for the fact that I can create a cake out of thin air at any moment I want. I would therefore be more powerful than you, at least at this point in time.

Now, think of it like this: Imagine that God is teaching us a good lesson, making us morally progress, by allowing smallpox to exist in the world. Let's imagine that this lesson is important enough to justify our suffering. However, I can easily think of a way to teach a lesson, any lesson, without going through any steps, such as by merely granting this lesson as a form of innate knowledge. If God can't grant innate knowledge to others, then it is possible to imagine a higher form of power, and therefore God is not really omnipotent, for there can be no higher form of power than omnipotence.

The problem is thus: What can be the best way for God to achieve his goals if not by achieving them directly?
It simply doesn't make sense to say that God could know some other better way since he is omniscient, because any other way would necessarily be either as effective as achieving it directly, and therefore no suffering would exist since God is benevolent, or he would end up with unwanted side effects and those can't exist to an omnipotent being.

 

[Koldo]

God is helping people in need to in the best of all possible ways. It is not all about ability, it is about the best way to help people in need. You cannot know the best way because you are not all-knowing.

How can the best way to help people in need be the way that is equivalent to letting them suffer and die in agony?
If any given individual did that you wouldn't call him benevolent, you would even call him monster depending on the specific circumstances, why are you doing this?

 

[Koldo]

God does not inflict suffering...
How do you know that a powerful, wise and good god would never allow suffering to exist?
It does not matter if there might have been another way. God knows the best way because God is all-knowing.

How do you know that suffering is not the best way for an omni-powerful god to achieve his goals

You cannot know the best way because you are not more than all-knowing since that is logically impossible.

Whatever you say is just a personal opinion but if you are asserting it as true that is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

You keep naming fallacies, but you keep not explaining how my arguments fit into them.
I am not saying that suffering is not the best way because you haven't proven me wrong, I am saying suffering is not the best way because omnipotence entails being able to do better than that. Omnipotence entails not needing a needle to inject a vaccine into someone's body.

 

[F1fan]

God does not have plans, only humans have plans. God already knows everything, past present and future, so why would God ever have to plan anything?

Well if your version of God was timeless and knew everything as it created the world, then it means nothing to suggest a plan. But it would mean that God is fully aware of the whole history of time at once, so in essence what it created was completely directed and caused. To a timeless God there is no time, so not future. There's no events going to happen, the children with cancers are born, live, suffer, die all in the same awareness. So God creating our existence and all history has already happened. So it's not a plan as something to wait for, it is all a deliberate and already completed creation.

God is already at the end of creation, and was at the end the moment of creation. So all events, all histories, all evolutions, all phenomenon, are a single event, God knew it, God did it. So God is the cause of all things.

God has a purpose in mind for humans but that is different from a plan.

This is doubtful since God doesn't care what happens to people.

How can you know that cancer would not exist if God as good, wise and powerful?

Because cancer is bad.

Do you know more than God?

Actual people know more than an imaginary God.

How can you know if cancer is not for the ultimate good of humans? All you have is the lens of your own understanding, you cannot see with God's Eyes so you don't see everything.

Because if there is some outcomes after cancers were eliminated could have been avoided by God just creating the world to that goal without millions of people suffering these horrible diseases. God is a sociopath.

If God exists and there is cancer there has to be a reason that cancer exists. [/quote]
God being a sociopath is possible.

To say that means that God is malevolent is based upon a fallible human opinion of what God would/should do if He exists, and it is very short-sighted because it does not take into consideration the purpose of this earthly life and what happens after we die.

Then the fallible minds of you and supposed Messengers can be short sighted. You can't escape criticisms of others for being fallible and human without that ALSO applying to you are your beliefs. Your beliefs are not factual, and inconsistent. So you are disadvantaged.

 

[F1fan]

How can the best way to help people in need be the way that is equivalent to letting them suffer and die in agony?
If any given individual did that you wouldn't call him benevolent, you would even call him monster depending on the specific circumstances, why are you doing this?

God doesn't care for people, that is clear assuming it exists as Tb believes. I think it's unlikely that any gods exist, but I think it implausible that Tb's god exists given the many contrary claims.

 

[F1fan]

God does not inflict suffering...
How do you know that a powerful, wise and good god would never allow suffering to exist?
It does not matter if there might have been another way. God knows the best way because God is all-knowing.

How do you know that suffering is not the best way for an omni-powerful god to achieve his goals

How does a God have goals but not a plan?

This is another inconsistency.

You cannot know the best way because you are not more than all-knowing since that is logically impossible.

Neither are you or your dogma.

Whatever you say is just a personal opinion but if you are asserting it as true that is an argument from ignorance.

That applies to your belief and your dogma. Your dogma is not infallible.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

You do this consistently. Your many, many claims about what you think God is this sort of fallacy. You aren't referring to facts, you refer to your beliefs in your dogma.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thus far your "evidences" have been inconsequential opinions, beliefs, and rejections of the scriptures which stand as evidence against the claims of Abrahamists regarding the God of Abraham (GOA). Make no mistake, blazer, we're not here to convince you. You are not the arbiter here to whom we must prove this nature of god. Rather you, as a support agent of GOA and acting as defense of the claims to his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, are tasked with defending those claims. "Because he is god" is not a strong defense, and is less than convincing.

Because He is God might not be convincing but that is a good enough reason to listen to Him and obey His injunctions because He has all power.

They are all the same. Evil, calamity, disaster, sorrow; all of these things are not the product of a benevolent deity. Certainly not an omnibenevolent deity, which is one that has not a shred of malevolence to them.

I am not going to play the game of either/or; either God is omnibenevolent or God is malevolent because that is the fallacy of black and white thinking. Moreover Bahaullah never wrote that God is omnibenevolent so I am not obliged to believe it.

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

Moreover, it there was ever any evil, calamity, disaster, sorrow caused by God it is because humans deserved it and it was for their own good in the long run. Look around you and see what is going on in the world, all the disasters. I am not going to say this is all because of what humans have done but it is punishment for what humans have not done.

Christians and even some Muslims are still waiting for Jesus to return but Judgment Day is here, and only the Baha’is know from whence it comes and where it will lead.

The Baha’i Writings have something to say about that:

“This judgment of God, as viewed by those who have recognized Bahá’u’lláh as His Mouthpiece and His greatest Messenger on earth, is both a retributory calamity and an act of holy and supreme discipline. It is at once a visitation from God and a cleansing process for all mankind. Its fires punish the perversity of the human race, and weld its component parts into one organic, indivisible, world-embracing community. Mankind, in these fateful years, which at once signalize the passing of the first century of the Bahá’í Era and proclaim the opening of a new one, is, as ordained by Him Who is both the Judge and the Redeemer of the human race, being simultaneously called upon to give account of its past actions, and is being purged and prepared for its future mission. It can neither escape the responsibilities of the past, nor shirk those of the future. God, the Vigilant, the Just, the Loving, the All-Wise Ordainer, can, in this supreme Dispensation, neither allow the sins of an unregenerate humanity, whether of omission or of commission, to go unpunished, nor will He be willing to abandon His children to their fate, and refuse them that culminating and blissful stage in their long, their slow and painful evolution throughout the ages, which is at once their inalienable right and their true destiny. “ The Promised Day Is Come, pp. 4-5

Read more if you want to know what is in store for the future: The Promised Day Is Come, pp. 4-6

You love your accusations of fallacies, don't you? But then again, you would be the expert on cherry picking, wouldn't you? Yet no, blazer, that one verse alone is not the sole evidence that your god is evil. There is also the majority of the Old Testament that you thoroughly cherry pick, dismissing these actions as "not accurate" or whatever rot helps you sleep better.

I have no problem sleeping because I am a Baha’i so I know what God has done within the last 200 years. I am not obliged to believe that God did everything that men wrote about Him in the Old Testament, nor am I going to waste my precious time trying to delineate what God did in the past because the past is gone and because I can never know. If you want to take the OT at face value and use it to defend your argument that is your prerogative. I do not doubt that God did some of that but whatever God did was well-deserved so that does not make God evil.

Good beings do not create evil. A child could understand this. A father that beats you, but then buys you ice cream, is not a kind and loving father, no matter the presence of a "good" action.

That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. Please don’t compare what a human to human interaction with God to human interactions because that is the fallacy of false equivalence. Then of course we have to know what evil God actually created as opposed to what you believe God created, and we have to know why God created it, because if God created it for a good reason you just lost your argument.

I never claimed that God is always a kind and loving Father, I am not a Christian. Even a Christian should know from the Bible that God has wrath. That is clearly stated by Baha’u’llah and it ain’t pretty, but that does not mean God is not benevolent. It means that God is just and God’s justice is for our own good in the long run. Reading what Baha’u’llah wrote, I do not doubt that God did some ‘cleansing’ in the past….

“We have a fixed time for you, O peoples. If ye fail, at the appointed hour, to turn towards God, He, verily, will lay violent hold on you, and will cause grievous afflictions to assail you from every direction. How severe, indeed, is the chastisement with which your Lord will then chastise you!” Gleanings, p. 214

People did fail to turn towards God when God manifested Himself in Baha’u’llah and we are seeing those afflictions now, all over the world…

In the late 19th century when Baha’u’llah proclaimed His divine station and mission, all the kings and rulers and the religious leaders of the world rejected Baha’u’llah, and not long after that they all fell from power just as Baha’u’llah warned… This is actual history which is all delineated in the Baha’i Writings.

“Soon shall the blasts of His chastisement beat upon you, and the dust of hell enshroud you. Those men who, having amassed the vanities and ornaments of the earth, have turned away disdainfully from God—these have lost both this world and the world to come. Ere long, will God, with the Hand of Power, strip them of their possessions, and divest them of the robe of His bounty. To this they themselves shall soon witness. Thou, too, shalt testify.” Gleanings, p. 209

Such is the claim. Just because the Gardener finds the poison ivy good does not mean it is.

Fallacy of false equivalence because God us not a man so God cannot be a gardener.

Loki's balls, that's not a bloody straw man. And what's more, you are the mother in aforementioned metaphor that blithely ignores the careless actions of the father (your god) and berate the child for finding the ivy offensive and harmful.

Fallacy of false equivalence because you are comparing God to humans; mother, father, and child.

A wonderful claim, and yet that's not the claim that we're discussing here, and to which you are zealously defending. If such is your stance, rather than the Topic, then what by Thor's beard are you doing here?

Obfuscation will get you nowhere. God handed the earth over to humans and after that God was no longer responsible for what happened here, so we cannot blame God for what humans did.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

And it's the vast minority, not exactly replacing those "previous versions" as they're still around. Marvelous for you, you don't have a Perdition; that doesn't change the claims and scriptural backing that do.

That is another fallacy, Argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

Christianity was the narrow gate 2000 years ago when there were few Christians, but now the Baha’i Faith is the narrow gate that leads to eternal life.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The earlier editions have been replaced by God but the earlier editions cannot be extricated from the hands of their followers who cling to the past. Free will reigns supreme.

It doesn't matter what the Bible says, because the Christian dispensation has been abrogated by the Revelations from God that came after the Bible was written. By an arrangement of God the divine ordering of the affairs of the world is only according to one religion at a time and we are now living in the Dispensation of Baha’u’llah so the religion for this age is the Baha’i Faith (according to Baha’i beliefs.)

Dispensation

1. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
2. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
3. a divinely appointed order or age:

e.g. the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Definition of dispensation | Dictionary.com

 

[Trailblazer]

You have not explained. You are merely claiming that I can't compare god and humans, but not explaining what makes the comparison not pertinent.

God cannot be compared to humans because God is not a human, therefore God cannot be expected to behave like a human, not anymore than a human would be expected to behave like God.

I can know that because it is omnipotence entails.

Even if omnipotence entails that whatever can be gained from suffering can also be gained through some other way, omniscience entails that God knows the best way of all the available options, so whatever God chose was the best way.

What does omnipotence mean if not unlimited power?
What does it mean to have power? It means that you are able to something. If two beings can do two exact sets of things, they are equally powerful. If however, one can do more things than the other, the first one is more powerful. So, as a frame of reference, imagine that you and I can all do the exact same things. This is obviously not true because we can clearly do different things, but just for the moment imagine that we can the exact same things, except for the fact that I can create a cake out of thin air at any moment I want. I would therefore be more powerful than you, at least at this point in time.

Now, think of it like this: Imagine that God is teaching us a good lesson, making us morally progress, by allowing smallpox to exist in the world. Let's imagine that this lesson is important enough to justify our suffering. However, I can easily think of a way to teach a lesson, any lesson, without going through any steps, such as by merely granting this lesson as a form of innate knowledge. If God can't grant innate knowledge to others, then it is possible to imagine a higher form of power, and therefore God is not really omnipotent, for there can be no higher form of power than omnipotence.

You can easily think of a way to teach a lesson, any lesson, without going through any steps, such as by merely granting this lesson as a form of innate knowledge, but that is not what God chose to do.

It is irrelevant if God could grant innate knowledge because that is not what God chose to do with His power and all-encompassing knowledge. If that had been the best way to accomplish His goals, then God would have chosen it, because God is all-knowing so God knows all the ways to accomplish anything He sets out to accomplish.

The problem is thus: What can be the best way for God to achieve his goals if not by achieving them directly?
It simply doesn't make sense to say that God could know some other better way since he is omniscient, because any other way would necessarily be either as effective as achieving it directly, and therefore no suffering would exist since God is benevolent, or he would end up with unwanted side effects and those can't exist to an omnipotent being.

Now you are playing God. You are saying you know of a “better way” to accomplish God’s goals, which is logically impossible since God is all-knowing and you cannot be more than all-knowing.

The entire point you are missing is that God does not to achieve His goal of humans becoming more spiritual directly. The side effects of suffering are not unwanted by God just because you won’t want them. God wants them because God wants humans to do it “the hard way.” God wants humans to struggle and exert an effort to become more spiritual such that they will be worthy of what they achieve and deserving of their spirituality, and that is why God would never grant a lesson as a form of innate knowledge.

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82

There are free rides on God’s train so people who want a free ride best not board the train.

 

[Trailblazer]

How can the best way to help people in need be the way that is equivalent to letting them suffer and die in agony?

I never said that letting people suffer and die in agony is the best way to help people in need.

I said: "God is helping people in need to in the best of all possible ways. It is not all about ability, it is about the best way to help people in need. You cannot know the best way because you are not all-knowing."

The way God helps people in need is by sending Messengers who reveal teachings and laws. In the teachings of Baha'u'llah He tells us specifically how the suffering in the world can be alleviated. No other Messenger of God has taught this, as this is a whole new age in history, the age of fulfillment, when humanity will see the Kingdom of God on earth, also referred to as the new World Order.

“The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 136

“This is the Day in which God’s most excellent favors have been poured out upon men, the Day in which His most mighty grace hath been infused into all created things. It is incumbent upon all the peoples of the world to reconcile their differences, and, with perfect unity and peace, abide beneath the shadow of the Tree of His care and loving-kindness. It behoveth them to cleave to whatsoever will, in this Day, be conducive to the exaltation of their stations, and to the promotion of their best interests. Happy are those whom the all-glorious Pen was moved to remember, and blessed are those men whose names, by virtue of Our inscrutable decree, We have preferred to conceal.

Beseech ye the one true God to grant that all men may be graciously assisted to fulfil that which is acceptable in Our sight. Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 6-7

As you can see by the passage above, God has entrusted all the peoples of the world to reconcile their differences with perfect unity and peace, and cleave to whatsoever will be conducive to the exaltation of their stations, and to the promotion of their best interests. By following the Baha'i teachings, eventually the suffering of humanity that is caused by selfishness and greed which lead to social and economic injustices will be eliminated. Eventually, science will make new discoveries by which diseases will be eliminated. We are already seeing advances in medicine that we never could have imagined 100 years ago. Look at the Covid-19 vaccines for example.

If any given individual did that you wouldn't call him benevolent, you would even call him monster depending on the specific circumstances, why are you doing this?

You keep comparing God to a human, but that will never work. Because benevolence is an immutable attribute of God, God does not have to behave in any particular way to be worthy of benevolence as a human would have to do. People suffer and die in agony because this is a material world we live in, so that is unavoidable.

The most we can hold God accountable for is creating a material world and making us live here and learn hard lessons before we can die and enter the spiritual world. It makes it easier for me that I know the reasons for the suffering, but it does not make the suffering go away. Moreover, some of us suffer much more than other people and that does not seem fair, but I just have to accept that there are mysteries I do not have all the answers to. The Baha'i Writings say that those who suffer most attain the most perfection, but even if that is true the full benefits of that perfection will not be realized in this earthly world.

 

[Trailblazer]

You keep naming fallacies, but you keep not explaining how my arguments fit into them.

I am not saying that suffering is not the best way because you haven't proven me wrong, I am saying suffering is not the best way because omnipotence entails being able to do better than that. Omnipotence entails not needing a needle to inject a vaccine into someone's body.

I apologize for citing all these fallacies but fallacies are useful because they point our errors in our thinking that lead us to false conclusions. If we cannot think logically we will come to all kinds of erroneous conclusions.

By saying that omnipotence entails being able to do better than allowing suffering, that is a form of the Oversimplified Cause Fallacy because you are basing your entire argument upon omnipotence and nothing else, which is blinding you to other relevant factors that are related to why suffering exists.

Oversimplified Cause Fallacy

Logical Form:

X is a contributing factor to Y.
X and Y are present.
Therefore, to remove Y, remove X.

Example:

P1. God is a contributing factor to suffering because God allows suffering to exist.
P2. Many people suffer.
P3. God is omnipotent so God could eliminate suffering.

C. Therefore, suffering should be eliminated by the omnipotent God.

We are taking an unreasonable leap in suggesting that suffering should be eliminated by an omnipotent God because we are not taking any other factors into consideration except one – God is omnipotent so God can do anything. We are not taking into consideration that suffering could be beneficial and that is why God allows it to exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well if your version of God was timeless and knew everything as it created the world, then it means nothing to suggest a plan. But it would mean that God is fully aware of the whole history of time at once, so in essence what it created was completely directed and caused. To a timeless God there is no time, so not future. There's no events going to happen, the children with cancers are born, live, suffer, die all in the same awareness. So God creating our existence and all history has already happened. So it's not a plan as something to wait for, it is all a deliberate and already completed creation.

God is already at the end of creation, and was at the end the moment of creation. So all events, all histories, all evolutions, all phenomenon, are a single event, God knew it, God did it. So God is the cause of all things.

God knew it but God did not do it. Besides sending Messengers all God ever did was create the world and set the process of evolution in motion. God also rules and maintains the all of existence but God is not the causal factor of anything we see on earth.

“Baha’is believe in an almighty creator who has fashioned the universe and has made man in his own image; they believe in a non-created cause of all existence, in a single God. The word ‘God’ is a symbol for that transcendent reality by which all existence is ruled and maintained. What we call God is not, as the critics of the concept of God believe, a product of human imagination, a creation of the mind, a fanciful invention which has no reality, or a reflection of particular social and economic circumstances.”
(Udo Schafer, the light that shineth in the darkness, p. 19)

Nice try at scapegoating, but God is not the cause of anything that humans do, humans are the cause because they have free will.

This is doubtful since God doesn't care what happens to people.

And you know that how?

“How can you know that cancer would not exist if God as good, wise and powerful?”

Because cancer is bad.

That is a fallacy called the fallacy of simplicity because the only factor it takes into consideration is that you don’t like cancer so cancer is bad. You assume that a good, wise and powerful God would not allow cancer to exist just because you don’t like cancer existing.

The Fallacy of Simplicity

Humanity has an inherent drive to favor the simple. Generally, things that are neat, tidy, and easy to understand have great appeal, and this is especially true when it comes to ideas. One of the attractions of things like TED Talks (and also one of the strongest criticisms against them) is that they take complex ideas and attempt to boil them down into a 20-minute presentation—sometimes, maybe too often, over-simplifying both the problem and its proposed solutions.

This appeal to simplicity frequently extends to a reference to Occam’s Razor: “the simple solution is usually the right one.” William of Ockham was a philosopher and theologian, and his principle was intended as a guide for theoretical models, not as an adjudication for final concepts or conclusions. A more complete statement of Occam’s Razor includes a couple of vital qualifications.

“All other things being equal, simpler explanations are usually preferable to complex ones.”

Did you catch those? The first is the idea of “all other things being equal.” How often is this the case? Rarely, in the encounters with the Simple Man Fallacy that I have had. Some things may be equal—not least, the desire of those holding differing positions to get to an agreeable conclusion. But for all things to be equal would be a peculiar circumstance indeed, in most cases. Ockham spoke of this being relevant “among competing hypotheses.” In actuality, many hypotheses (often simple ones) must be dismissed because they frankly cannot compete with others that, yes, are more complex, but also are more reasonable.

The second, and equally important, qualification is that simpler explanations are usually preferable. Not always. Even among competing, equal hypotheses, sometimes the more complex one must prevail, as it is the only one that can offer a true solution to the problem.

So three factors must mitigate our inner drive for simplicity: the recognition that theoretical concepts are not always equivalent to the final, practical ones; that not all concepts or factors are “equal” in their value, importance, or viability; and that, even when they are “equal” the simpler answer is not always the correct one.

Argumentum ad Simplicitate

“Do you know more than God?”

Actual people know more than an imaginary God.

Nice try at obfuscating but no actual people know more than the real God.

Because if there is some outcomes after cancers were eliminated could have been avoided by God just creating the world to that goal without millions of people suffering these horrible diseases. God is a sociopath.

The only god that is a sociopath is your imaginary god. The real God knows more than you do because He is omniscient so whatever He allows to exist has a purpose for existing, including cancer.

Then the fallible minds of you and supposed Messengers can be short sighted. You can't escape criticisms of others for being fallible and human without that ALSO applying to you are your beliefs. Your beliefs are not factual, and inconsistent. So you are disadvantaged.

I am at no disadvantage because I know my beliefs are true and they are perfectly consistent. Moreover, I have facts that support my beliefs. Why is it that the fallible minds of other humans who have cancer don’t blame God for their cancer? It is only some atheists who blame God for cancer, the irrational atheists. Rational atheists just accept cancer as a disease that humans get, along with all the other diseases that humans get. They don’t blame a God they do not even believe exists.

 

[1213]

Whoops.
...

“God cannot be tempted with evil” does not mean that you could not try to do it. I think it only means you can’t successfully entice God to do something evil. Also, I think tempting and testing are not the same thing. Tempting would mean that person intentionally tries to make someone do something wrong, while testing means one tests can someone withstand something.

 

[Trailblazer]

How does a God have goals but not a plan?
This is another inconsistency.

A plan is something humans need in order to achieve something. God does not have to achieve anything for humans because God expects humans to achieve the goals that God has set for them.

God does not need a plan because God already knows everything, including His goals for humans. Those goals were set when humans were just a glimmer in God’s Eyes.

"You cannot know the best way because you are not more than all-knowing since that is logically impossible."

Neither are you or your dogma.

Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
https://www.google.com/search?q=dogma+means

The Baha'i Faith has no dogma, we only have scriptures. Dogma are principles laid down by men who claim to have authority.

I know what Baha’u’llah revealed is God’s Purpose for humans which is more than you know. You are flying blind because you cannot ever know anything about God without a Messenger of God.

That applies to your belief and your dogma. Your dogma is not infallible.

What I have is a religious belief, not a personal opinion. I believe that Baha’u’llah is infallible so whatever He wrote is true.

You do this consistently. Your many, many claims about what you think God is this sort of fallacy. You aren't referring to facts, you refer to your beliefs in your dogma.

It is not a fallacy, unless you can find a fallacy of religious beliefs.

 

[viole]

You will have to ask God those questions because only God has the answers.

Why do believers debate that at all, then?

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

Which is cool if you do not get bone cancer when you are one month old.

No, it is not a Trump card. Theists cannot explain what we have no explanation for. However, we can reason that if God is omniscient God knows more than we can ever know. That is simple logic.

So, God could be evil. Right? How would you know, otherwise?

If there was no afterlife, it would be difficult for me to believe God is benevolent given these diseases and all the other suffering in the world, but knowing that this life is impermanent and very temporary, and that a much better world exists that is beyond this world that will be our permanent home, is what allows me to believe that God is benevolent. This world was never designed to be free of suffering but the next world will be free of suffering if we play our cards right in this world.

So the afterlife is the fly in the ointment for atheists who say God is not benevolent.

But this does not work. It does not work because God could have created all possible souls and send them directly to that beautiful home, playing harp or whatever. Instead of creating an intermediate painful step that seems to offer no additional value, but suffering. And by doing that, he would have been strictly more benevolent than with the current state of affairs, defeating the initial assumption that He was divinely benevolent.

So, either this stop on earth is useful for something or not. If not, it is useless cruelty, and God is not maximally benevolent, if it is, then the billions of souls that died in the womb, were deprived of that useful step, and God is not maximally benevolent, either.

Ergo, such a God does not exist. That is simple logic.

you will never know what God is by relying upon logic because God transcends logic.

We realised that

You only wish the evidence was the same.

That is not true. I hoped that Superman had more evidence, He is cute and I would have liked to fly around on his back sometimes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

God cannot be compared to humans because God is not a human, therefore God cannot be expected to behave like a human, not anymore than a human would be expected to behave like God.

I am afraid you didn't quite get what I meant.
The fact that God is not a human is not sufficient to make it a false equivalence. You need to explain why a benevolent god would behave differently. You need to justify.

Even if omnipotence entails that whatever can be gained from suffering can also be gained through some other way, omniscience entails that God knows the best way of all the available options, so whatever God chose was the best way.

You can easily think of a way to teach a lesson, any lesson, without going through any steps, such as by merely granting this lesson as a form of innate knowledge, but that is not what God chose to do.

It is irrelevant if God could grant innate knowledge because that is not what God chose to do with His power and all-encompassing knowledge. If that had been the best way to accomplish His goals, then God would have chosen it, because God is all-knowing so God knows all the ways to accomplish anything He sets out to accomplish.

Now you are playing God. You are saying you know of a “better way” to accomplish God’s goals, which is logically impossible since God is all-knowing and you cannot be more than all-knowing.

The entire point you are missing is that God does not to achieve His goal of humans becoming more spiritual directly. The side effects of suffering are not unwanted by God just because you won’t want them. God wants them because God wants humans to do it “the hard way.” God wants humans to struggle and exert an effort to become more spiritual such that they will be worthy of what they achieve and deserving of their spirituality, and that is why God would never grant a lesson as a form of innate knowledge.

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82

There are free rides on God’s train so people who want a free ride best not board the train.

If suffering is not unwanted by God, then he is not benevolent. You might not be aware of this but if you are going to use the 'greater good' card this entails that suffering, in itself, is unwanted by God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do have a basis for believing that God is good and a way to understand ‘some’ of the reasons for God’s actions via scripture.

We do not ‘always’ understand God’s actions or inaction because God is beyond human understanding, but we can know through scripture that God is always benevolent because that is one of the immutable attributes of God.

Why would that matter?

Even if you established that some specific scripture came from God, wouldn't it just be another of God's actions that we can't tell whether it's truly good or evil?

 

[Koldo]

I never said that letting people suffer and die in agony is the best way to help people in need.

I said: "God is helping people in need to in the best of all possible ways. It is not all about ability, it is about the best way to help people in need. You cannot know the best way because you are not all-knowing."

The way God helps people in need is by sending Messengers who reveal teachings and laws. In the teachings of Baha'u'llah He tells us specifically how the suffering in the world can be alleviated. No other Messenger of God has taught this, as this is a whole new age in history, the age of fulfillment, when humanity will see the Kingdom of God on earth, also referred to as the new World Order.

“The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 136

“This is the Day in which God’s most excellent favors have been poured out upon men, the Day in which His most mighty grace hath been infused into all created things. It is incumbent upon all the peoples of the world to reconcile their differences, and, with perfect unity and peace, abide beneath the shadow of the Tree of His care and loving-kindness. It behoveth them to cleave to whatsoever will, in this Day, be conducive to the exaltation of their stations, and to the promotion of their best interests. Happy are those whom the all-glorious Pen was moved to remember, and blessed are those men whose names, by virtue of Our inscrutable decree, We have preferred to conceal.

Beseech ye the one true God to grant that all men may be graciously assisted to fulfil that which is acceptable in Our sight. Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 6-7

As you can see by the passage above, God has entrusted all the peoples of the world to reconcile their differences with perfect unity and peace, and cleave to whatsoever will be conducive to the exaltation of their stations, and to the promotion of their best interests. By following the Baha'i teachings, eventually the suffering of humanity that is caused by selfishness and greed which lead to social and economic injustices will be eliminated. Eventually, science will make new discoveries by which diseases will be eliminated. We are already seeing advances in medicine that we never could have imagined 100 years ago. Look at the Covid-19 vaccines for example.

You can't ignore the fact that even if we do our best a lot of people will suffer and die before we figure out a solution.

You keep comparing God to a human, but that will never work. Because benevolence is an immutable attribute of God, God does not have to behave in any particular way to be worthy of benevolence as a human would have to do. People suffer and die in agony because this is a material world we live in, so that is unavoidable.

The most we can hold God accountable for is creating a material world and making us live here and learn hard lessons before we can die and enter the spiritual world. It makes it easier for me that I know the reasons for the suffering, but it does not make the suffering go away. Moreover, some of us suffer much more than other people and that does not seem fair, but I just have to accept that there are mysteries I do not have all the answers to. The Baha'i Writings say that those who suffer most attain the most perfection, but even if that is true the full benefits of that perfection will not be realized in this earthly world.

Now that you mention it...
What sort of material world would contradict god being benevolent? What fact if true would mean god is not benevolent?

 

[wandering peacefully]

The way God helps people in need is by sending Messengers who reveal teachings and laws. In the teachings of Baha'u'llah He tells us specifically how the suffering in the world can be alleviated.

So no Bahais die of cancer or die in earthquakes or die in floods, famine, wars or just get run over by a bus? And none of these things will ever happen to anyone if the whole world becomes Bahais and follow all the "rules" for this age?

If not, your entire argument fails would be the logical conclusion. The zeal for wanting to believe God will get those who don't believe your messenger's claims is a bit disturbing to say the least.