What does God want from you?

[blü 2]

That is the theory of atheists that creation started with a lifeless single point. How had the lifeless single point produced an intelligent creature?

The theory of evolution has been a work in progress even before Darwin's Origin of Species (1859 ) and continues to explore the history of life on earth. It remains the only coherent explanation of the fossil record, for instance.

Abiogenesis, at least after WW2, is also a subject of ongoing scientific enquiry. We know it happened once, so the question is not whether but how.

The alternative is a God so breathtakingly inefficient as to evoke pity. [He] creates a universe 14 bn years ago, [he] populates it with something like septillions of stars and their planets, around 10 bn years later the sun and the earth form, after another billion years or so abiogenesis (or panspermia, though I'm not a fan) happens and evolution begins, for two billion-plus more years microorganisms in the seas use photosynthesis to create our oxygen atmosphere, and you can follow the rest >here<.

To which I should add that while ideas about death and dreams of the dead and so on go back into the history of genus Homo an unknown distance, our earliest actual evidence of worship may be around 10-11,000 BCE, and Yahweh doesn't appear until c. 1500 BCE, when [he] joins the Canaanite pantheon as another tribal god. As you doubtless know, [he]'s the henotheist god of the Hebrews until after the Babylonian captivity, when [he] becomes the only god, then around the 3rd century CE [he] becomes triune, then [he] splits into Eastern and Western Christianity, the latter splitting into Catholicism and Protestantism, and the latter splitting into a zillion fragments as you can see.

So if that was God's plan, wow, it wasn't very clever, hein?

The important issue of which atheists failed to convince us is that how the lifeless point came from nothing?

And if we solve abiogenesis and create life from scratch in the laboratory, will that mean we too are God?

Or will it mean you'll start to find abiogenesis and the theory of evolution credible after all?

 

[YoursTrue]

Out of curiosity, were you referring to Proverbs 16:4?

KJV: "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

NIV: "The LORD works out everything to its proper end— even the wicked for a day of disaster."

ESV: "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."

According to this verse, he creates wicked people, and according to Isaiah 45:7, he also creates evil. Furthermore, according to Genesis 6:6-7, he regretted creating not only mankind but also every animal, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds of the air. I would think that an omniscient (Psalm 139:1-6; Isaiah 46:9–10; 1 John 3:20), omnipotent (Psalm 147:5; Job 42:2; Daniel 2:21), and omnipresent (Psalm 139:7–10; Isaiah 40:12; Colossians 1:17) God would know better than to create something that he foreknew he would later regret creating. The Bible contains other verses that mention God's regrets in addition to creating mankind (1 Samuel 15:11; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 42:10). There are some verses describing him changing his mind about bringing disasters down on his own people as punishment for their sins against him (Jeremiah 26:13; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Joel 2:13). For the record, Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, and Joel 2:13 coincide with Isaiah 45:7 (NIV), which says, "I form the light and create darkness; I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." The New King James uses the word "calamity" instead of disaster, and the KJV uses the word "evil" instead of disaster or calamity.

He didn't MAKE people evil -- he allowed them to become wicked if that is where they were going. It's kind of proven with Moses and Pharaoh and Pharaoh's continual refusal to listen to God's voice through Moses. Pharaoh and his warriors didn't make it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why not? Sometimes, I need to as you just saw.

But if the Bible is not evidence of anything about reality to the critical thinker except that some people wrote these ideas down and maybe believed them when they did, why do you need to cite it?

But the messages don't reflect those needs. They're exhortations to be pious. None of those messages address the major problems of today.

No, the message of the Baha'i Faith is not to be pious. In fact, Baha'u'llah wrote that the fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men.
He also wrote that if people argue about religion and it becomes divisive, it is better to have no religion at all.

The Baha'i Faith addresses the major problems humanity is facing today.
Abdu’l-Baha summarized the new Baha’i principles as a remarkable, unprecedented set of new spiritual and social teachings. These are:

• The oneness of humanity. This is the essential Baha’i principle. Baha’u’llah’s writings proclaim that: “The well-being of mankind, its peace and security are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.” We must learn that humanity is one, that we are all part of one giant interrelated system, and that one set of moral principles applies to every human being.
• The independent investigation of truth. Baha’is understand that blind acceptance of tradition is no longer conducive to personal or social growth.
• The common foundation of all religions. It is essential to realize that all religions come from the same source – our one Creator – and that each Faith has sought to safeguard the nobility of man and advance social order. Religions, however, are subject to decline – which is why they must be periodically renewed.
• The essential harmony of science and religion. One without the other can become unbalanced and dangerous.
• The equality of men and women. “The world of humanity is possessed of two wings: the male and the female,” Abdu’l-Baha said in 1912. “So long as these two wings are not equivalent in strength, the bird will not fly.” For humanity to prosper, women must have equal rights with men.
• The elimination of prejudice of all kinds. The Baha’i writings proclaim that “Prejudice of all kinds, whether religious, racial, patriotic, or political is destructive of divine foundations in man. All the warfare and bloodshed in human history have been the outcome of prejudice.”
• Universal peace upheld by a world federation of nations.“

https://bahaiteachings.org/brand-new-religious-principles-bahai-faith

Which of these prophets is bringing man answers on climate change? Where are the tips on staving off an AI disaster? Where was the advice to get vaccinated during the pandemic? Which prophet brought that?

God does not send messengers to weigh in on climate change. That is within the purview of science, not religion.
However, many Baha'is weigh in on climate change and propose solutions.

Climate Change - BahaiTeachings.org

bahaiteachings.org

Instead we see vague, flowery poetry telling us to come to god and love one another. That's just not useful. Rewriting that message over and over meets few needs, and none of mine.

Telling us to love God and love and love one another was the message of Jesus. Baha'u'llah reiterated that message since many people have forgotten it, but that is certainly not he primary message of Baha'u'llah, nor the purpose for which God sent a new messenger.

So true, except the God part. Yet many get the chance to live good lives and don't squander the opportunity.

Whether the God part is true or not is a matter of belief. I cannot say I know that God determines our fate to a large degree, yet I believe so.
What is defined as a 'good life' varies by individual. For most people it is having a successful career, getting married and raising a family, but that is not true for everyone. We all have different goals and aspirations, things that matter to us.

 

[Sargonski]

Your claim that it is a horrible answer of meaningless God speak ... that is not what Truth is. However, there is no only one definition truth. Therefore, it is not necessary you are right and others are wrong. So the absolute truth is only one. In respect of no heaven and no eternal life, it just your view, again you can’t claim that you are right; there is eternal life according to holy books but the way is not furnished with roses and flours; everyone will face accountability, unbiased and fair judgement. Are we expecting that oppressors are treated same as oppressed ones?

"Horrible meaningless God Speak" is exactly what the truth was -- and this post is further fallacious contradictory silliness .. claiming there is not not only one truth by definition .. and in the next line claiming the absolute truth is only one .. then yammering on "You can't claim you are right" - Right about what .. this is what I mean by meaningless silliness

Then you state there is eternal life according to holy books --- ?? OK but so what .. I never said otherwise .. and through all this .. you forgot to tell us what this One Truth is ?

This is what mean by horribly meaningless .. what the heck are you trying to say Brother Gas .. you have not said anything so for .. other than claim I am not right about who knows what ? and go on about some Truth ... but don't say what is

My apologies for being terse .. but what term would you give this behavior ?

To finish off .. you actually say something interesting .. although completely unrelated to your horrible answer of meaningless godspeak previously offered.. that the continuation in this post..

"Everyone will face accountability" -- or put more simply .. everyone will face judgement. .. Least thats how I read the good book .. Jesus as Judge .. sitting at the right hand of the Father .. A priest forever in the order of MelchiZedek .. Twin Aeons of Justice and Righteousness .. the patron divinity of Jerusalem.

Many Christians do not believe this .. the Protesters believe you can get a free pass through judgement .. but that is another matter.

I told what God wants from you .. what say you bout that ? .. and to which God - if any - do you submit ?

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no known spiritual reality or truth, just insufficiently supported, unfalsifiable ideas that some people believe and call reality and truth.

That's it..
Mankind have been given intelligence, and we can decide for ourselves what we believe
to be closer to the truth.
..and I have decided that the Bible and Qur'an are inspired by Divine source, and
that we all have to answer to a higher authority .. G-d, the Most High.

I don't have all the answers, but I have faith that G-d does.

 

[blü 2]

He didn't MAKE people evil -- he allowed them to become wicked if that is where they were going. It's kind of proven with Moses and Pharaoh and Pharaoh's continual refusal to listen to God's voice through Moses. Pharaoh and his warriors didn't make it.

That's grossly unfair.

God expressly tells Moses that [he] (God) will harden Pharaoh's heart, which means Pharaoh was expressly denied any chance of voluntarily releasing the Isrealites. You've familiar with Exodus 7:3-4, I take it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's grossly unfair.

God expressly tells Moses that [he] (God) will harden Pharaoh's heart, which means Pharaoh was expressly denied any chance of voluntarily releasing the Isrealites. You've familiar with Exodus 7:3-4, I take it?

Mmm .. we read words, and they imply a meaning.
However, when it comes to scripture, we need to have an overall understanding of the whole.

G-d does not "harden hearts" with a magic wand type action.
Our hearts are hardened due to our own intentions and deeds.
Pharaoh rebelled against G-d, and hence became spiritually blind and power mad.

 

[blü 2]

Mmm .. we read words, and they imply a meaning.
However, when it comes to scripture, we need to have an overall understanding of the whole.

G-d does not "harden hearts" with a magic wand type action.
Our hearts are hardened due to our own intentions and deeds.
Pharaoh rebelled against G-d, and hence became spiritually blind and power mad.

I respectfully suggest you read the Tanakh's account of the Exodus. One of the things you'll find there is a magic contest between the goodies, Moses and Aaron, and Pharaoh's magicians, the baddies. They turn a staff into a snake; the baddies do the same. They turn the whole of the Nile into blood and back; the baddies do the same. And so on.

And thus in the story God indeed hardens hearts with a magic wand type action. We're talking about the bronze age, where magic was taken for granted, after all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But if the Bible is not evidence of anything about reality to the critical thinker except that some people wrote these ideas down and maybe believed them when they did, why do you need to cite it?

The Bible is evidence of what was written down and what many use to make some decisions, not evidence that anything in it is accurate or divinely inspired. People make claims about what it says, and it is sometimes appropriate to rebut them. In this thread, it has been claimed that God is not the author of evil because it says so in the Bible: "And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold, it was very good." A proper response to that was to present the opposite sentiment in another scripture.

For the skeptic, the issue being discussed isn't whether a god spoke them, but what the scriptures claim whoever wrote them. In my case, it was to illustrate how scripture can be used however the believer likes. None seem to like the one from Isaiah 45 (below) that says God is the source of darkness and evil, so it generally takes somebody like me who doesn't consider any of it authoritative to point out the contradiction.

Anyway, do you have anything to say about, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil"? The believers job it to concoct some answer that tries to make that say something else, because he has generally rejected the idea a priori as an act of faith, so of course it doesn't mean what it says. Since the skeptic has no such need, he doesn't work that semantic magic on such comments to make them say what they don't say.

the message of the Baha'i Faith is not to be pious. In fact, Baha'u'llah wrote that the fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men.

The text you provided was Baha'u'llah instructions on how to honor God. That's what all prophets, messengers and gurus claiming to speak for a god do, which is different from what Buddha or a contemporary atheistic humanist would teach because the latter isn't saying that a god told him to tell you how to be pious (scrupulously observant of a god's instructions).

God does not send messengers to weigh in on climate change.

Yes, I know. That was part of my argument about the lack of relevance of even updated messages. That's information man needed to know and take seriously. Imagine how helpful such a message would have been if people believed it came from a god and not just man and his science, which many don't trust.

That is within the purview of science, not religion.

Why not if that religion is getting messages from gods? You don't seem to realize that you're making the case that these messages are about religion, which offers no answers about climate change or anything else except how to please God as the world goes on cooking.

Telling us to love God and love and love one another was the message of Jesus. Baha'u'llah reiterated that message since many people have forgotten it, but that is certainly not he primary message of Baha'u'llah

I disagree. You provided excerpts. Yes, this is an updated message, but it's still instructions on loving God and one another, just not called that explicitly. Remove the third and fourth, and it's basically a humanist position derived from the humanist sensibilities of the Enlightenment that went into writing the American Constitution a century earlier and now called God's will:

1 The oneness of humanity.
2 The independent investigation of truth.
3 The common foundation of all religions.
4 The essential harmony of science and religion.
5 The equality of men and women.
6 The elimination of prejudice of all kinds.
7 Universal peace upheld by a world federation of nations.

Mankind have been given intelligence, and we can decide for ourselves what we believe to be closer to the truth...and I have decided that the Bible and Qur'an are inspired by Divine source. I don't have all the answers, but I have faith that G-d does.

I know. I have a different definition of truth and a different method for determining what ideas are correct than faith.

when it comes to scripture, we need to have an overall understanding of the whole.

The difference between the critical thinker and the faith-based believer is that the former comes to that overall understanding by reading scripture open-mindedly and dispassionately, which method (empiricism) generates different beliefs than if one decides what the Bible is and says before reading it (fideism).

The scriptures can't modify his beliefs. His beliefs modify scripture to make it mean what he has decided a priori it means. His "overall understanding of the whole" is that it is true and comes from a good god before he looks at it. That's called confirmation bias or motivated thinking.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I respectfully suggest you read the Tanakh's account of the Exodus..

I have .. but I interpret it in light of the whole.

i.e. alongside the Qur'an and New Testament

The OT is basically correct, but translations cause diificulties, and its age..

..And thus in the story God indeed hardens hearts with a magic wand type action..

..if that is what you want to believe..
..but I know differently.

G-d is not a person.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I know. I have a different definition of truth and a different method for determining what ideas are correct than faith..

There you go again .. putting down religious belief, and citing "faith" as a concept
that is unfounded. It's not.

What is so different about your method and my method?
I don't just choose a belief because my tribe happen to believe, or willy-nilly.

It comes across that you would rather only believe that the eternal reality can
only be physical, and you "blot out" any other alternative.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There you go again .. putting down religious belief, and citing "faith" as a concept that is unfounded. It's not.

Disagree, so I will rebut you: Religious-type faith is insufficiently justified belief. A belief either meets the critical thinker's standard for belief or doesn't. The first generates justified belief, which I never call faith, although others do (faith that one's car will probably start is justified by prior experience with it starting over 99% of the time when tested). All belief is one or the other. No belief is both or neither.

That's a falsifying argument. If it's right, you're wrong, and you can't successfully rebut it. If you're right, it's wrong and you can demonstrate that with rebuttal. Care to give it a shot, or do you agree that all you can say is that that's not what you choose to believe?

What is so different about your method and my method?

Yours is faith-based and mine is empirical. Your belief set include false and unfalsifiable beliefs because of that fact, and mine don't.

It comes across that you would rather only believe that the eternal reality can only be physical, and you "blot out" any other alternative.

Then you've misunderstood. I wouldn't rather believe anything except truth over non-truth, and I judge that empirically. I have no need to blot out supernaturalism. I also have no need for the concept nor any reason to believe that such a thing exists. The concept that a reality exists that is not a part of nature but can modify it without being detectable is self-contradictory. All of causally connected reality is nature. If a god exists and can affect the objects and processes of our world, it too is part of nature like EVERYTHING ELSE that fits that description.

 

[Gassim]

You'll need to do the legwork yourself if you'd like to know what science has to say about that. You'll need a background in the Big Bang beginning with the standard model of particles and forces (fermions and bosons). You'll need to understand how stars forge and disseminate heavy elements, the current status of abiogenesis research, and the theory of biological evolution.

If you don't care to obtain that background, then the answers aren't for you to know, and your apparent interest in them isn't very credible, or you'd already know or be knowledgeable enough to understand what others can teach those who are prepared to learn and are open-minded. The creationist has a stake in NOT understanding such things, but likes to imply that evidence and reason matter to him and that his detractors can't make their case, so he pretends to care and to have evaluated the answers provided and found them lacking, but who's buying that except other creationists?

There is no burden of "proof" with a face-based thinker. He usually can't follow the argument (or refute it) and doesn't try to, either, which are required before a burden of proof obtains regarding one's claim. There is no burden to demonstrate any idea to anybody who won't or can't follow the argument.

So you consider a disembodied mind alive? Such a thing would meet none of the criteria for life were it possible.

If he can be a father, he can be a strongman. And are you really satisfied with that response to, "Christians and Muslims each revere a Semitic desert god, that is an angry, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, pestilential, sadistic, prudish, strongman"? Just, 'He's not a man'?

No. I didn't suggest either of those. I suggested that both deities behave tyrants in scripture.

More semantic quibbling? The people made the religion.

I wrote, "There are no known spiritual realities or truths - just spiritual intuitions held by human beings." You can't rebut that without inventing rogue definitions reality and truth and defending that - the kinds of definitions that call whatever the believer chooses to believe truth and reality. Yes, that's my perspective, and if it's not yours, you're mistaken. There is no known spiritual reality or truth, just insufficiently supported, unfalsifiable ideas that some people believe and call reality and truth.

Unfortunately you are just looking for one part of the whole story. This is not the way to reach the reality. If you wish to reach the reality you should not depend on science alone because science does not have the answer of all questions. I challenge you if you can give me a single prove from science that something came from nothing. I am not arguing with you that the science is not explaining the Big Bang with the standard model of particles and forces and how stars forge and disseminate heavy elements.
Abiogenesis is just an uncertain probable theory of the evolution of living beings, the time needed to complete all their possibilities - required to form a living organism - will outweigh the age of the entire universe.
But there is a question of "why?", which is not answered in the studies of the origin of life.” How can universe of unintelligible matter produces objects with intrinsic ends, reproductive capabilities, and coded chemistry? Here, we are not dealing with biology, but talking about an entirely different problem. It means the purpose behind all that.
What is the purpose of a human being on the surface of the earth, if not to have an end? Is it reasonable for a wise God to create a creature in a universe that starts from scratch
Stephen Hawking acknowledged God's will and order when he said that "the overriding impression is that there is a system, and the more our discovery of this universe, we are more convinced that the laws of nature govern the universe. But the question remains why the world existed? If you like, you can see God is the answer to this question.
Physicist George Smoot, who discovered curls in cosmic radiation, announced in that discovery and explained it to non-specialists at a press conference in 1992: "If you are religious then you can see God"
In short you should study philosophy besides science to understand the reality.
Unfortunately most of people ignore philosophy which is an essential element to reach the reality of divinity Self, by nature and innate, is attractive to the knowledge and foresee all the unseen and dissipated to every unknown. Philosophy looks for the origin of everything, including its essence, cause, reason, secret and wisdom. Philosophy does not look at phenomena only. Still, it goes beyond the sensible world, what was before this world. Who created it, who is this creator, what his essence and the truth of his qualities, but some religious scholars avoid fondness with philosophy because in their eyes it destabilizes faith.
Today there are many sceptics and atheists, so it is mandatory to argue with the philosophical questions to challenge sceptics and atheists.
Meanwhile, science focuses on studying the phenomena of this universe, its systems and its laws. Scientists look at the study of the natural manifestations of matter without thinking about its origin and its existence. The mathematic scientists look at engineering and arithmetic without bothering to think about the meaning of space and time. Philosophers try to understand the essence of the matter, its origin, the cause of existence, the meaning of space and time, the mind and reality and the ability to perceive the truth. In essence, philosophy is a search for God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Unfortunately you are just looking for one part of the whole story. This is not the way to reach the reality.

Thanks for the heads up, but I've got a pretty good idea of how to discover what is discoverable. And you seem to be saying that one can't know anything unless he knows everything. Also, I'm pretty sure that you believe that I should stop thinking critically so that I can discover YOUR "reality." That's neither truth nor reality. How do I know? I've already been a theist. I've already decided once to suspend disbelief and give this mode of thought a test drive for a decade. No knowledge came from that.

If you wish to reach the reality you should not depend on science alone because science does not have the answer of all questions.

I don't get my answers regarding how to live life from science, but I do derive them myself empirically, which can be considered informal science. What science is for me is a model for critical thought, an argument for empiricism over faith based in its stellar éclat, a great source of stimulation and diversion reading and thinking about, and the source of a variety of discoveries that have made life longer, more functional (eyeglasses), safer (vaccines), more comfortable (air conditioning), easier (automobiles), and more interesting (international travel, electronic media).

I challenge you if you can give me a single prove from science that something came from nothing.

I can't. Nor need I to maintain my current naturalistic worldview.

My turn: I challenge you to give me a single "proof" (a compelling, evidenced argument will do) that a god exists or that that is even possible..

Abiogenesis is just an uncertain probable theory of the evolution of living beings, the time needed to complete all their possibilities - required to form a living organism - will outweigh the age of the entire universe.

That's a faith-based belief and contradicted by the current science.

How can universe of unintelligible matter produces objects with intrinsic ends, reproductive capabilities, and coded chemistry? Here, we are not dealing with biology, but talking about an entirely different problem. It means the purpose behind all that.

Your thinking is teleological, that is, it presumes goals, purpose, and intent in nature apart from conscious animal life on earth. I am aware of no purpose behind life or mind arising. I don't say that that is impossible, just that there is no evidence that it happens.

you should study philosophy besides science to understand the reality.

Once again, thanks for your interest in my education and intellectual development, but I've actually spent a fair amount of time studying and contemplating philosophy. Mine is rooted in skepticism, empiricism (epistemology), and utilitarian ethics. My metaphysics is godless (naturalism). I prefer neutral monism to materialism for reasons I could give but won't if not asked to, and both over idealism and dualism, although none can be ruled in or out yet, and I find the concept of supernaturalism self-contradictory (incoherent). I reject insufficiently supported and unfalsifiable claims.

Today there are many sceptics and atheists, so it is mandatory to argue with the philosophical questions to challenge sceptics and atheists.

Go for it. What philosophy have you got to offer? I reject fideism as a path to truth.

Scientists look at the study of the natural manifestations of matter without thinking about its origin and its existence.

Why do you believe that? Here's my take on those:

The logically possible candidate hypotheses for the existence of our universe are the following. I think the list is exhaustive and its elements mutually exclusive, meaning that one and only of these must be correct:

The universe:

I. Had no prior cause or source

1a. It has always existed
1b. It arose uncaused from nothing​

II. Had a source

IIa. It was an unconscious source

IIa1. An unconscious substance (multiverse) that always existed
IIa2. An unconscious substance (multiverse)that came into being uncaused​

IIb The source was conscious (deity)​

IIa1. A deity that always existed
IIa2. A deity that came into being uncaused​

Have you done a similar analysis, or disregard five of these without cause and assume IIa1 by faith?

Philosophers try to understand the essence of the matter, its origin, the cause of existence, the meaning of space and time, the mind and reality and the ability to perceive the truth. In essence, philosophy is a search for God.

Philosophy is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." If a god is found, great, but seeking one is not what philosophy is about.​

 

[Bird123]

Yes, you've said all that before, but it remains meaningless unless and until you describe to me what real entity you intend to denote by the word "God" ─ such that if I find a real candidate I can determine whether it's God or not.

I asked you that before, but it appears you can't.

So when it comes to real Gods, it also appears that you don't know what you're talking about. Not that you're on your own there, of course.


Leave WHAT exactly out of it? Your imaginary being? If so, consider it done.


So far, only What Is Fiction!!


I've told you I like accurate statements about reality.

But I acknowledge reality isn't your territory.

Why do you do this? You fight and fight with any excuse you can think of not to take the journey.

Wouldn't it be easier to say God is not what you seek and forget all this tap dancing around? No one is making demands whether you should take this journey or not. With all these walls you choose to limit yourself with along with fighting or afraid to make any step at all, what would you Discover anyway. I say not much!

You want me to describe what entity is God so you know God when you see God??? I know I have told you this stuff before. You already know God. If God visits you, you will not have to question is this God? If you don't know God, it's not God!!

As of now, you know very little. You fight to keep from Discovering anything. You are not open to anything but your own belief that God does not exist. Your view is extremely limited. A true visit from God would just leave you confused and maybe intimidated. Why would you think God would do such a thing? It is not best for you.

AS badly as you want what I have been saying to be fiction, I have placed Real Truth on your plate. When making a journey or doing something difficult, it helps knowing it has been done before. Further, having a starting point is priceless. No one pointed me the starting point.

It all comes down to what you seek. You do not even know that or will not say. You have many problems that need to be worked out before you even start on the journey. As for myself, I had to Discover the Real Truth regardless of what the Real Truth turned out to be. Will is 90% of everything. You have no will to seek God at all. All you have are excuses and running in the opposite direction.

That's all OK. Each chooses for themselves what they seek. Perhaps you need to start being true to yourself and Discover what you really seek and why.

That's what I see, It's very clear!!

 

[Trailblazer]

God expressly tells Moses that [he] (God) will harden Pharaoh's heart, which means Pharaoh was expressly denied any chance of voluntarily releasing the Isrealites. You've familiar with Exodus 7:3-4, I take it?

and you believe this? I don't.
It's good for a movie but not for much else.
The various stories in the Old Testament depict a anthropomorphic God, not the real God. It was written by men. Moses did not write it.

Mosaic authorship of the Torah was unquestioned by both Jews and Christians until the European Enlightenment, when the systematic study of the five books led the majority of scholars to conclude that they are the product of multiple authors throughout many centuries.​

Mosaic authorship - Wikipedia​

 

[Trailblazer]

I've thought with some care about materialism vs supernaturalism. And outside of RF what people choose to believe doesn't worry me ─ I have good friends and dear relatives who are believers, so we simply never discuss it. What worries me instead is whether people treat each other with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense (and whether I do) ─ that's the part that actually matters and comes free of tithes.

I fully agree. What mattters is not what people believe. What matters is whether people treat each other with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense (and whether I do) ─ that's the part that actually matters.

 

[Trailblazer]

G-d is not a person.

You can say that again!
One problem with the Old Testament is that it turned God into a person.
It is a serious problem and it cannot be corrected.

I don't understand why you bother with the Bible when you have the Qur'an, which is accurate.

 

[Bird123]

Two things. There are contradictory scripture that say that God *Is* the source of evil, and second, neither is evidence of anything about reality to the critical thinker except that some people wrote these ideas down and maybe believed them when they did.

Sure it would, if there were a god and both traditions were channeling it. Their divergence is what we expect from religions not receiving any messages from gods. If that began happening tomorrow, the religions would converge to a single, common, true religion.

Why would a god need to change its message?

Not all, but some claims are not just different, but mutually exclusive. Christians claim that Jesus was a demigod. Islam says he was not, just a prophet, like Muhammad, not the offspring of a god and a human. Christianity says he was the messiah promised in Old Testament scripture. The Muslims (and Jews) say he was not. These are two contradictions in four claims. Both religions can't be correct, so calling them both true religions isn't meaningful to me unless you mean that truly, they are both religions.

So are what you call prophets and messengers. My point is that they all have the same qualifications, and there is no reason to believe one over the other when they claim to speak for gods.

I don't know. How long will birds watch man fly before they learn to pilot a jet aircraft? Do these questions have any value? I know mine doesn't.

Nothing. I'm content. There is nothing more I want from life but more of the same for as long as health and circumstances permit.

You likely think your beliefs would make my life better if I shared them. You likely see them as knowledge I should like to acquire. Thanks for that, but I disagree. Whatever they do for you I don't need done for me. I either don't have that need or it is met elsewhere. I am comfortable without a god belief or a religion. I'm centered and purpose driven as an atheistic humanist. I'm happy to be alive and to live the life I do.

Most were out of my control. How I adapted to them or failed to do so was under my control. One aspect of intelligence is its ability to solve problems, but also, the ability to identify and avoid potential problems, and to be able to recognize and successfully exploit opportunities. I was born in an ideal time and place to a good family that protected, nurtured, and taught me well (we were atheists), with all kinds of advantages and opportunities available to me, and so far, no terrible luck. If I get credit, it's for not messing that up, but instead, making it work for me.

The critical thinker is "stuck" in empiricism as the only means to discern correct ideas about reality and how it works, and that's by design. He trains himself to be able to conform to rules of critical thought and the evaluation of evidence and arguments. It's the only defense against accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs, and he finds value in avoiding such beliefs.

You seem to assume that mind represents and implies the existence of a separate reality apart from nature. As far as we know, there are no spiritual factors, just spiritual intuitions. Most people have them (including this atheist), and no spirits are involved. These experiences are human minds generating feelings of warmth, belonging, and connection.

Some assume that that means that they have met or know a god and begin speaking of other realities. Not this atheist. I understand it as a gift of evolution that facilitates human well-being when it results in ideas about oneness and the sanctity of life and nature, but it can also be coopted by isms that have the opposite effect when they conflate the spiritual intuition with a god, especially one who is outside of nature, is nothing like nature, and that one is to regard more highly than nature. That's anti-spiritual.

Are you missing my point entirely? Aren't to copying religion? How? Aren't you accepting things such as the parameters you had no control over without full understanding? That sounds like religion to me.

Did you know that I copy God? How long did birds fly before mankind Discovered how? God placed truth and knowledge around so it could be Discovered. I placed truth and knowledge around about God so it can be Discovered. This has nothing to do with controlling, intimidating, or coercing the actions of others. Mankind watched birds fly for a mighty long time before one wanted to acquire true Understanding. Do you think it will be any different about God?

I realize the goal for most people is to have it made. In reality, there is so much more than that going on. Believing or not believing in God or simply having it made has never ever been what it's all about.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Ebionite]

One problem with the Old Testament is that it turned God into a person.

Really? "regards not persons"

Deuteronomy 10:17 Interlinear: for Jehovah your God -- He is God of the gods, and Lord of the lords; God, the great, the mighty, and the fearful; who accepteth not persons, nor taketh a bribe;