Why do people expect God, do miracles?

[Heyo]

Yes, those are the possibilities.
But again going back to idea of Miracles. Do you think Miracle would convince all?

All? Never. We've known that Earth is roughly ball shaped for 2,500 years. There are simple ways to explain why. People can make their own experiments. Yet, there are flat earthers.

I mean, it is said Moses did some Miracles. Jesus did also. Muhammad as well.
Why then most people in the world are not convinced if Miracles is the right way of convincing?
More importantly, obviously Miracles are not convincing, then why would a wise God do something that does not convince, given that He does want to convince?

Making correct predictions, specific and reliably, is what counts as convincing in science. So, when someone claims to be a messenger of the gods, and gods are connected to miracles, a miracle would give credence to the claim, at least for the witnesses of the miracle. But that would only be the easy part. Repeat correct predictions should then convince others.

 

[danieldemol]

Please elaborate.

I already have elaborated on this question partly, Baha'u'llah claimed God can do miracles eg the virgin birth of Jesus, so if one is going to claim their God can suspend the laws of nature I believe it is only logical to expect them to demonstrate it.

But are you seriously telling me with a straight face you didn't know Baha'u'llah claimed God can do miracles? If you knew He claimed it on the other hand then why plead ignorance to @Viker ?

 

[danieldemol]

Yes, those are the possibilities.
But again going back to idea of Miracles. Do you think Miracle would convince all?

I mean, it is said Moses did some Miracles. Jesus did also. Muhammad as well.
Why then most people in the world are not convinced if Miracles is the right way of convincing?
More importantly, obviously Miracles are not convincing, then why would a wise God do something that does not convince, given that He does want to convince?

First of all the impossibility of convincing everyone should not be an obstacle to an omnipotent God, it would be miraculous if everyone were convinced, but that would be a miracle an omnipotent God could pull off.

In fact if I recall Baha'u'llah Himself claims God could convince everyone, then follows it with the lame excuse that it would provide no differentiation between the believer and the non-believer, but it is in shirking what I believe to be His obvious responsibility here that He proves the Baha'i God is either not "All-Merciful" as claimed or not "Omnipotent" as claimed.

In my opinion

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I already have elaborated on this question partly, Baha'u'llah claimed God can do miracles eg the virgin birth of Jesus, so if one is going to claim their God can suspend the laws of nature I believe it is only logical to expect them to demonstrate it.

But are you seriously telling me with a straight face you didn't know Baha'u'llah claimed God can do miracles? If you knew He claimed it on the other hand then why plead ignorance to @Viker ?

In Bahai Faith no importance is given to miracles.
The focus is on the Writings. The signs are in the Writings and the proof is established through logical arguments. The Book of Iqan, as an example, completely explains this.

 

[danieldemol]

In Bahai Faith no importance is given to miracles.
The focus is on the Writings. The signs are in the Writings and the proof is established through logical arguments. The Book of Iqan, as an example, completely explains this.

You appear to be introducing a red herring, did Baha'u'llah claim God can do miracles or not?
Of course I believe Baha'u'llah attributed no importance to miracles as if he had done he would have been held responsible to standards of repeatability for the purpose of scientific enquiry.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

All? Never. We've known that Earth is roughly ball shaped for 2,500 years. There are simple ways to explain why. People can make their own experiments. Yet, there are flat earthers.

Making correct predictions, specific and reliably, is what counts as convincing in science. So, when someone claims to be a messenger of the gods, and gods are connected to miracles, a miracle would give credence to the claim, at least for the witnesses of the miracle. But that would only be the easy part. Repeat correct predictions should then convince others.

If the omnipotent God wanted to show a sign that convinces everyone, He can. How could He not be able? But, then, that will take away everyone's free will. People will not have a choice to accept or reject anymore, rather they will be forced. Therefore if the God wanted to create human with free will, it is understandable why He would not show a convincing miraculous sign. However, this does not mean He would not show any convincing evidence, which can only be discovered by anyone who wishes willingly search after them.

 

[Heyo]

If the omnipotent God wanted to show a sign that convinces everyone, He can. How could He not be able? But, then, that will take away everyone's free will.

You are starting off into a chain of ad hoc repairs of your original argument and introducing more and more unsupported claims.
1. There is a god which can do magic.
Refutation: We don't see magic.
2. It cares about human free will and performing magic will take that away.

You are multiplying baseless assumptions.

People will not have a choice to accept or reject anymore, rather they will be forced. Therefore if the God wanted to create human with free will, it is understandable why He would not show a convincing miraculous sign. However, this does not mean He would not show any convincing evidence, which can only be discovered by anyone who wishes willingly search after them.

Isn't it forcing rational people to not believe in it by performing no magic?

But going back to the original three options, it seems that we agree that god doesn't want to convince. It doesn't care about rational people and is happy with the gullible.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You are starting off into a chain of ad hoc repairs of your original argument and introducing more and more unsupported claims.
1. There is a god which can do magic.
Refutation: We don't see magic.
2. It cares about human free will and performing magic will take that away.

You are multiplying baseless assumptions.

But you talked about God, didnt you? Isnt that a baseless claim? Why shouldn't you first prove there is a God then even talk about miracles or proofs?

No!, we are saying IF there is a God why wouldn't The God perform miracles to convince.
My arguments are building on this. Hope now it is clear.

Isn't it forcing rational people to not believe in it by performing no magic?

But going back to the original three options, it seems that we agree that god doesn't want to convince. It doesn't care about rational people and is happy with the gullible.

I am saying, there are two kinds of people. Those who truly want to discover the truth about God, and those who are not willing or have no interest.
If there is a God, it makes sense that He has given free will to everyone. Thus The way of God, would be to establish a way, that, only those who wish to discover about God, may know Him, and at the same time, not force others who do not wish. In this way, no body is forced, and at the same time, there is a way for those who wish to know Him.

 

[Quintessence]

Perhaps God being supernatural is above the Law of nature, but why should the God breaks those natural laws for us, and show miracles?

I couldn't say - I'm not a worshiper or student of that god and it seems prudent to leave the speculation on that front to those who are. That said, it seems to me that at least part of the point of those stories was propagandistic - to position this god above the other gods that were routinely worshiped within the cultural context of the time. It didn't matter if the stories were true or not, the point was to persuade others to abandon their gods in favor of this other god.

What is your own tradition? Hinduism?

An oddly astute guess, by some measures - Pagan studies scholar Michael York, who has argued for Paganism as a world religion, does put traditions like Hinduism under its umbrella. But no - Western Pagans (whether Druids like me or otherwise) have to reconstruct their traditions in ways Eastern Pagans have never had to, so the comparison is a loose one at best. Plus various Pagan traditions are quite distinct from one another even if we do put them all under a common umbrella.

 

[Heyo]

But you talked about God, didnt you? Isnt that a baseless claim? Why shouldn't you first prove there is a God then even talk about miracles or proofs?

No!, we are saying IF there is a God why wouldn't The God perform miracles to convince.
My arguments are building on this. Hope now it is clear.

You were talking about god(s). And you started with three premises.
1. There is a god.
2. It can do magic.
3. It sends messengers.

I adopted the premises for discussion sake. It looks like Premise 2 can't be supported by evidence. But instead of dropping the assumption you added an additional assumption: "4. God cares about human free will." which has as much support as the other ones.
You are not say "IF there is a god" but "IF there is a god AND IF it can do magic AND IF it sends messengers AND IF it cares about human free will ...". You are not reasoning from the assumptions, you are just adding assumptions.

 

[sayak83]

This is sort of continuation of another thread: Suppose today, God sends a Savior

What I see, is almost all people, think, the true God, and true Messengers are supposed to do Miracles.


Why do people expect God to miraculously make everything right, to solve humanity problems?

i mean, if the people do not cooperate with His messengers, and do not follow His guide, do you still expect a true God make everything right Miraclesly? And if that does not happen, do you conclude that, the Messenger was not from the God?

Is that a realistic expectation? Why?

Who says, the true God must do Miracles, by breaking the Laws of nature, and make things happen Miraclesly?

Its not only realistic, but also the minimum expectation. Miracles are not to magically solve problems, but to demonstrate that the messenger has his/her authority from a Being who is not a servant, but the Master of the Natural World and Its Order. So well validated, publicly demonstrable and impossible to fake miracles is very much like the M.D. Degree that you would see affixed in the walls of your doctor that gives you confidence that you can indeed trust him/her to cut you open. To a doctor, you are only giving authority (temporarily) of your physical body...but to this messenger you are giving authority to your immortal soul. Do yes, strong demonstrations are required.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You were talking about god(s). And you started with three premises.
1. There is a god.
2. It can do magic.
3. It sends messengers.

I adopted the premises for discussion sake. It looks like Premise 2 can't be supported by evidence. But instead of dropping the assumption you added an additional assumption: "4. God cares about human free will." which has as much support as the other ones.
You are not say "IF there is a god" but "IF there is a god AND IF it can do magic AND IF it sends messengers AND IF it cares about human free will ...". You are not reasoning from the assumptions, you are just adding assumptions.

I would say, in reality your three points have historical evidence.
It is a fact that, it is written Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad did miracles. It is a fact that, it is written Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were Messengers of God. It is a fact that it is written God has created human with free will.

But, of course just because it is written, it does not mean, it is the literal truth. And my own belief is not that, Jesus, Moses or Muhammad did miracles as it is generally understood by the adherents of these Religions.
I am just trying to logically analyze why, God did not and shall not perform miracles to convince humanity.

 

[Heyo]

I would say, in reality your three points have historical evidence.
It is a fact that, it is written Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad did miracles. It is a fact that, it is written Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were Messengers of God. It is a fact that it is written God has created human with free will.

It is also written that Odin formed Earth from the body parts of the slain giant Ymir.

But, of course just because it is written, it does not mean, it is the literal truth. And my own belief is not that, Jesus, Moses or Muhammad did miracles as it is generally understood by the adherents of these Religions.
I am just trying to logically analyze why, God did not and shall not perform miracles to convince humanity.

And I'm trying to help. The additional assumption of god caring for human free thought is not a logical conclusion. It is an ad hoc explanation. It could also be explained by an arms treaty between the gods that if one uses magic, the others are also allowed to do the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is sort of continuation of another thread: Suppose today, God sends a Savior

What I see, is almost all people, think, the true God, and true Messengers are supposed to do Miracles.


Why do people expect God to miraculously make everything right, to solve humanity problems?

i mean, if the people do not cooperate with His messengers, and do not follow His guide, do you still expect a true God make everything right Miraclesly? And if that does not happen, do you conclude that, the Messenger was not from the God?

Is that a realistic expectation? Why?

Who says, the true God must do Miracles, by breaking the Laws of nature, and make things happen Miraclesly?

Another way of looking at what you're talking about:

When we look at the world around us, is there anything that suggests that a God must exist? IOW, is there anything that we can find that's incompatible with the idea of a godless universe? If not, then why believe?

When I read your OP, the message I get from it is something like "we have theologically sound reasons for why our God is indistinguishable in every way from a God that doesn't exist at all." That's all fine and good to an extent - you dodged a bullet that could have proven your belief system wrong - you're still left with the problem that the God you're proposing is indistinguishable in every way from a God that doesn't exist at all.

IOW, you've left no intellectually honest path to accepting your belief system.

Now... if there can be no intellectually honest path to accept your belief system, this doesn't somehow exempt you from needing one.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Another way of looking at what you're talking about:

When we look at the world around us, is there anything that suggests that a God must exist? IOW, is there anything that we can find that's incompatible with the idea of a godless universe? If not, then why believe?

When I read your OP, the message I get from it is something like "we have theologically sound reasons for why our God is indistinguishable in every way from a God that doesn't exist at all." That's all fine and good to an extent - you dodged a bullet that could have proven your belief system wrong - you're still left with the problem that the God you're proposing is indistinguishable in every way from a God that doesn't exist at all.

IOW, you've left no intellectually honest path to accepting your belief system.

Now... if there can be no intellectually honest path to accept your belief system, this doesn't somehow exempt you from needing one.

Good points. I believe, the result of this discussion should also provide an answer, to your point that, is there even anything that suggests there is a God.

The point is, even if there are proofs of God, that proof and evidence would not be miracle. Because If there is an omnipotent God, then He must be able to show a Miraculous Sign, that immediately convinces everyone without a shadow of doubt, but then that means no one has the choice to reject. It will take away mankind's free will to believe or disbelieve. Thus, if there is an omnipotent God, who wants to provide evidence of Himself, He would do that in a way that, only and only if one searches for Him, then he can be guided to His way. This way, the free will is not taken from those who do not want to believe, while the way of recognition is available for those who willingly search after God.
So far OK?

Therefore there is no way, that anyone can convince or proof to someone else there is a God.
In my view, the majority of people who believe in God or gods, they do so for the wrong reason. It is often a cultural thing. It is often, due to the place and culture people are brought up, so, They just follow the common belief of the family and town or church.
But then sometime later in life, some of them realize their belief in a God was illogical and their religion was false, so they loose their Faith. But the majority who believe in a God, is only due to brainwashing from their childhood.
It could be even wishful thinking, that a God is there so they may pray to him and he answers their prayers and help them in their difficulties or fulfills their wishes in this life, and takes them to heaven in the next one. They become so dependent on this, that, no matter what, they will not be willing to give away their belief in a God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

[/QUOTE]

The point is, even if there are proofs of God, that proof and evidence would not be miracle. Because If there is an omnipotent God, then He must be able to show a Miraculous Sign, that immediately convinces everyone without a shadow of doubt, but then that means no one has the choice to reject. It will take away mankind's free will to believe or disbelieve. Thus, if there is an omnipotent God, who wants to provide evidence of Himself, He would do that in a way that, only and only if one searches for Him, then he can be guided to His way. This way, the free will is not taken from those who do not want to believe, while the way of recognition is available for those who willingly search after God.
So far OK?

No, not okay.

You're certainly not the first person to make this argument, but it's irrational nonsense:

- assuming that God cares about free will is begging the question: you don't get to assume things that imply God's existence until you first establish that God exists.

- whatever you're calling "free will" has no relation to how the word is normally used. An obvious choice is not the same as no choice.

 

[danieldemol]

The point is, even if there are proofs of God, that proof and evidence would not be miracle. Because If there is an omnipotent God, then He must be able to show a Miraculous Sign, that immediately convinces everyone without a shadow of doubt, but then that means no one has the choice to reject. It will take away mankind's free will to believe or disbelieve.

I believe you have not even demonstrated humanity has free-will.
In my opinion.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No, not okay.

You're certainly not the first person to make this argument, but it's irrational nonsense:

- assuming that God cares about free will is begging the question: you don't get to assume things that imply God's existence until you first establish that God exists.

- whatever you're calling "free will" has no relation to how the word is normally used. An obvious choice is not the same as no choice.

I completely understand your point.
But trust me, where I am getting at, is never discussed in the Forum. Just bear with me....
I am analyzing the claims of scriptures.

we have scriptures claiming to be words of God, and those scriptures says that God's purpose for creating us in this world, is to make us prepare for the life that comes after death.
We don't have a direct way to disprove or prove this claim, or news. But we can analyze it anyways. Right?

Thus, scriptures says, that, the station of each person in the next world is determined according to how each person did in this world. In another words, the scriptures says, this world, is a place of schooling and testing. The testing is required to determine the station of each person in the next world. If there was no tests how would it be determined?
Thus, according to scriptures God has created us with free will, and then based on what ways of life we choose, our destiny is determined in the life to come.
Now, then scripture says, if God were to show such miracles that forces everyone to believe, then their free will is taken, and thus how each person would be tested against God's Standards layedout in the scriptures?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I completely understand your point.
But trust me, where I am getting at, is never discussed in the Forum. Just bear with me....
I am analyzing the claims of scriptures.

we have scriptures claiming to be words of God, and those scriptures says that God's purpose for creating us in this world, is to make us prepare for the life that comes after death.
We don't have a direct way to disprove or prove this claim, or news. But we can analyze it anyways. Right?

Sure. It's useless as an indication of God's mind until you actually establish that it's from God, but we can consider whether it's at least internally consistent.

Thus, scriptures says, that, the station of each person in the next world is determined according to how each person did in this world. In another words, the scriptures says, this world, is a place of schooling and testing. The testing is required to determine the station of each person in the next world. If there was no tests how would it be determined?
Thus, according to scriptures God has created us with free will, and then based on what ways of life we choose, our destiny is determined in the life to come.
Now, then scripture says, if God were to show such miracles that forces everyone to believe, then their free will is taken, and thus how each person would be tested against God's Standards layedout in the scriptures?

You say you completely understand my point, but then you give a reply that suggests you completely missed my point.

Let's step back a bit: how do you think that God showing something to a person would mean that "their free will is taken"? Step me through your thought process there.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I believe you have not even demonstrated humanity has free-will.
In my opinion.

No, I did not because, that wouldn't be in the scope of this thread I suppose.