Just what we've all been waiting for.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do people expect God, do miracles?
- Thread starter InvestigateTruth
- Start date
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Actually what I am saying is based in Baha'u'llah's Writing:
"Were the prophecies recorded in the Gospel to be literally fulfilled; were Jesus, Son of Mary, accompanied by angels, to descend from the visible heaven upon the clouds; who would dare to disbelieve, who would dare to reject the truth, and wax disdainful?
Nay, such consternation would immediately seize all the dwellers of the earth that no soul would feel able to utter a word, much less to reject or accept the truth. "
Book of Certitude
What's your understanding of this paragraph?
I think the last part of it make it clear:
"...such consternation would immediately seize all the dwellers of the earth that no soul would feel able to utter a word, much less to reject or accept the truth."
It means, if God was to perform miracles, strange things, such as showing angels then no one could even say a word, much less reject or accept the truth.
This gets to what I said earlier: an obvious choice is not the same as no choice.
If you know that drinking poison will kill you, so you never choose to drink poison, have you "lost your free will?"
Edit: also, our acceptance and rejection of beliefs is generally involuntary anyway.
If God appearing to humanity would be so compelling that people involuntarily accept his existence, so what? People involuntarily accept the existence of things all the time.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Does it, though?
Scientists (and philosophers) have perceived of the most rigorous, successful and therefore trustworthy way to inquire about reality: the scientific method. One could say they take away peoples free will to believe. And even though scientists keep being right, not all people believe what they say. So, being right and able to show why, obviously doesn't take away free will.
"God" (i.e. apologists or "messengers") are at a severe disadvantage. They have so little to show that they can't even compete with mere mortals using the scientific method. Even a "small" miracle like accurately predicting the weather three days in a row would at least let some rational people listen to them but they can't even do that.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Exactly. That's why God does not do things which are contrary to the science.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Right. But, if God does it or not, wouldn't that depend on the purpose of God for creating us in this world?
The idea is, God only wants those who do well, see their God:
“Let him then who hopeth to attain the presence of his Lord work a righteous work.” Baha'u'llah Quoted in Book of Certitude.
In another words, attaing presence of God, is the ultimate award for the righteous.
It is the very purpose of all creation:
"He ordereth all things. He maketh His signs clear, that ye may have firm faith in attaining the presence of your
Lord.”
Bahaullah quotes in Book of Certitude
Therefore, to know who ultimately deserves that, there must be tests. And to determine if one is doing good and bad in the tests, one must have a choice.
Who expects that? I don't, but I'm an atheist. Believers don't expect it, either. I think the argument from skeptics is that if a tri-omni, interventionist deity existed and wants to be known, we ought to find evidence of intervention, which means an observation not explicable naturalistically.
How much cooperation are you looking for? Like millions of others, I already follow the Golden Rule. Maybe you mean religious observance, as in, "If you worship me, I'll help you"? That kind of a deity has no appeal to me. I'd need to know it existed for certain before considering it further.
Trump and Biden make a good real-life example. If I were to worship one, which do you think it would be - the one that demands it and angrily punishes those that don't comply, or the one who is secure in himself and kind for no reason other than that it's his nature? The Abrahamic god - harshly judgmental, slow to help, and quick to anger - is perhaps the least appealing of the options.
That's part of the argument against believing that such a god exists.
If a god makes itself known, we lose free will? That hasn't happened before with other things when they became known. What it would be would be one less chance to guess wrong and one more chance to know what is true, which is a good thing.
You seem to overlook that this is testable. I and others who were once Baha'i have followed the rules to the nth degree, I did my prayers, fasting etc. So I believe even if this includes worship of your God your God has still failed in its promise.
In my opinion.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Exactly. Because "Righteous Work", does not mean saying Prayers and Fasting.
This is a general understanding that, in Religion, Righteous Work means to do the ceremonies.
Bird123
Well-Known Member
Everyone wants God just to solve all our problems simply because we all know God can. It has always been much easier to have someone do for us than to do it ourselves. What most do not realize is we will never learn how if it is done for us. Perhaps before crying for help, one should discover just how capable one is. Each person is much more capable than they realize.
As far as messengers, God has sent no messengers. Messengers are creations of religion. So much is said about God that simply isn't true. Religion, in an attempt to gain followers, claim to have God's authority. How could that ever be when they do not understand God at all?
This is a multilevel classroom. Everyone learns through the interaction with others. With this in mind, we all could be considered messengers of God with the knowledge we share. No one has ever really been better than any one else regardless of how their EGO tells them they are.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
As far as messengers, God has sent no messengers. Messengers are creations of religion. So much is said about God that simply isn't true. Religion, in an attempt to gain followers, claim to have God's authority. How could that ever be when they do not understand God at all?
This is a multilevel classroom. Everyone learns through the interaction with others. With this in mind, we all could be considered messengers of God with the knowledge we share. No one has ever really been better than any one else regardless of how their EGO tells them they are.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
But i didn't say I only did prayers and fasting, I also followed the laws to the nth degree. So if following the ceremonies *and* the religious law *and* the golden rule does not constitute righteous work, then what exactly does it entail?
In my opinion
But I believe we do have a way to disprove this claim. The Baha'i scripture claims God is "All-Merciful". Allowing people free-will permits most of them to fall into whatever suffering is associated with rejection of the messengers. Therefore the Baha'i God is not "All-Merciful", and the scriptural claim is rejected as not internally consistent.
In my opinion.
Last edited:
Then Bahaullah is plain wrong. And an example will demonstrate this.
Satan of the Bible (as traditionally portrayed) did not lose his free will to act against God even though he personally had been with God from the beginning of his creation. In fact people have less free will now in the matter of God precisely because His existence is subject to severe doubt. Why? Because free will is truly exercised when one is able to act from a position of knowledge about the choices and the consequences. That is why children are not held accountable for many of their good, bad or contradictory actions becuase they do not have sufficient knowledge to truly act as fully free agents. So if God really were serious about any of this, He would Himself appear before everyone and clearly make Himself, His intentions and the reasons for His expectations from us known. Then humans can decide whether to follow or not. That will be the true exercise of free choice.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Lovely question my friend.
For example in Islamic Obligatory prayer, that Muslims are supposed to say several times a Day, it says:
"Guide us along the Straight Path, the Path of those You have blessed—not those You are displeased with, or those who are astray"
What is noteworthy here is, If belief in one God, saying prayer, believing in Book of God and His Messengers, means "guided Right Way", how come a Muslim everyday and night must say, "Guide us to the Right Path"?
It is like, does it make sense, if you already have a Bachelor degree, still keep asking God help you getting your Bachelor degree?
No! So, Being Guided is much more than that. It is more than following Laws. Even as Baha'u'llah said in the Most Holy Book:
"Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power. To this beareth witness that which the Pen of Revelation hath revealed. Meditate upon this, O men of insight! "– Baha’u’llah, The Most Holy Book, p. 21.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
The Purpose of punishment is not to merely make anyone to suffer, but to soften the hearts. It is to improve their soul.
I believe you are placing limits on the power of God.
God would improve a person's soul without making them suffer if God were All-Merciful and omnipotent, but the fact that this hasn't occurred to you suggests to me that you just want to believe no matter what.
In my opinion.
Agreed, but isn't the purpose of this thread and all of the apologetics in support of an indolent deity to squelch such opinions? Many of the faithful seem to believe that it is improper to have expectations of what a god would do, and that we are to accept the fact that it appears to do nothing as compatible with the claim that a tri-omni deity exists on faith. These are the very arguments that undermine those beliefs, and which skeptics use to reject the claims of the faithful, and so they are called arrogant with a variation of the puny minds argument that attempt to disqualify human judgment in such matters. How dare you think that you can know what a god would do?
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
To me it makes more sense that improving a soul is a process of training the soul, rather than doing a quick magic. It is like plant growing from seed. It cannot happen in a moment realistically speaking.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
That is a good approach. If an skeptical, proposes ways better than the God of believers, then off course that would be a valid point.
Can your God "improve their soul" and "soften the heart" without inflicting suffering?
- if no, then your God is not omnipotent.
- if yes, then your God chose to inflict the suffering for suffering's sake.