Why Does God Allow Suffering?

[IndigoChild5559]

They say there’s no stupid questions , but this has to be the dumbest question imo. Obviously, we live in an imperfect world. Does one really think a perfect world could exist? I wish suffering didn’t exist, just like the next guy.

Although religious folks have all sorts of explanations for suffering that try to exonerate God, the truth is that you cannot believe in an all loving, all powerful God, without him being responsible for the suffering.

 

[Jimmy]

Although religious folks have all sorts of explanations for suffering that try to exonerate God, the truth is that you cannot believe in an all loving, all powerful God, without him being responsible for the suffering.

Responsible? That’s ridiculous imo. Life is what it is. Without skinned knees there would be no knees.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Responsible? That’s ridiculous imo. Life is what it is. Without skinned knees there would be no knees.

And who is the author of life? Who was it that arranged for the Big Bang and chose the laws of Nature? Because if you say God, then yes, God is absolutely responsible for the suffering of life.

 

[Trailblazer]

You really can't disentangle the two things. God would know every single consequence of making the world like this, as opposed to all the other ways it might have created it. The act of creation is to make the choice for all the consequences.

God's foreknowledge of what would happen did not determine the consequences.
God does not determine any consequences because God makes no choices.
Humans determine the consequences by making choices and acting on them.

God (if it existed) deliberately created a world with suffering. No amount of re-wording things can change that. It was a choice. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, it could have chosen differently.

How many times are we going to go around this block?
Hypothetically, God could have created a world without suffering, but since God is omniscient God knew that would be the best way for God to achieve His purpose for humans.

Why do you believe that? Why not think for yourself?

I do think for myself and that is why I believe it.
I am not a messenger of God so anything I might think about the afterlife would carry no weight.

You have provided not one tiny hint of the merest suggestion of the tiniest scrap of any evidence or reasoning for this conclusion.

What evidence? What logic? You've provided exactly none.

I have provided that evidence on this forum time and again, for almost seven years, but it has always been rejected.

 

[ratiocinator]

God's foreknowledge of what would happen did not determine the consequences.
God does not determine any consequences because God makes no choices.
Humans determine the consequences by making choices and acting on them.

You completely ignored what I said. And people still have zero free will with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Zero.

Hypothetically, God could have created a world without suffering, but since God is omniscient God knew that would be the best way for God to achieve His purpose for humans.

You're still doing a classic begging the question fallacy. This makes sense, if, and only if, your staring assumption is that such a God exists.

You are starting from the conclusion you want and then trying to make the evidence fit. That's a way to self-deception, not what is probably true.

I do think for myself and that is why I believe it.
I am not a messenger of God so anything I might think about the afterlife would carry no weight.

Your second statement undermines the first.

I have provided that evidence on this forum time and again, for almost seven years, but it has always been rejected.

I've never seen you post any evidence. Circular reasoning seems to be your chosen approach and bizarre claims about 'messengers' that also start with the assumptions about God.

The reason what you post is rejected is that you seem unable to provide anything that would point to your assumptions if you don't start with them.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, I have suffered a lot in my lifetime, some of which I caused by my own actions but much of which seems random. I believe that God is 100 percent holy and just, and He has never let me down in any way. I also believe that we live in a fallen world that may include sickness and death and all sorts of things caused by evil. I also believe that God doesn't see time the same way we do.

 

[Trailblazer]

You completely ignored what I said. And people still have zero free will with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Zero.

I did not ignore it, I only disagreed with it.

I agree that God would know every single consequence of making the world like this, as opposed to all the other ways it might have created it, since God is all-knowing, but I disagree that the act of creation is to make the choice for all the consequences.

People have free will because God gave people free will. Free will is circumscribed by many factors, but we do make choices.

You're still doing a classic begging the question fallacy. This makes sense, if, and only if, your staring assumption is that such a God exists.

You are starting from the conclusion you want and then trying to make the evidence fit. That's a way to self-deception, not what is probably true.

You are still ignoring what I said and changing the subject, which is called deflection.

I am not making any assumptions..... I said hypothetically, which means if an omnipotent/omniscient God exists.

Hypothetically, if an omnipotent/omniscient God exists, such a God could have created a world without suffering, but if an omniscient God exists, such a God knew what would be the best way for God to achieve His purpose for humans.

I've never seen you post any evidence.

I have posted the evidence time and again. Is there any reason why I should post it again?

 

[ratiocinator]

I agree that God would know every single consequence of making the world like this, as opposed to all the other ways it might have created it, since God is all-knowing, but I disagree that the act of creation is to make the choice for all the consequences.

How on earth do you think that works? If you know everything about all the possible choices you can make, and you choose one of them, how can you not be..., well..., actually choosing it (the whole package)?

People have free will because God gave people free will. Free will is circumscribed by many factors, but we do make choices.

Do you think your God can do the self-contradictory? Could it make a square circle, for example? Because 'free will', in the sense you describe, is every bit as self-contradictory. Everything that happens is either entirely determined by what came before, or it isn't. If it isn't, then the only option is that it's, to some extent, random. That's because there can't be any reasons for it (because any reason would have to be in the past).

An event (including a choice) cannot be both determined (will) and not determined (free).

You are still ignoring what I said and changing the subject, which is called deflection.

I am not making any assumptions..... I said hypothetically, which means if an omnipotent/omniscient God exists,

Hypothetically, God could have created a world without suffering, but since God is omniscient God knew that would be the best way for God to achieve His purpose for humans.

Yes, but you keep presenting your hypothetical as if it was the logical conclusion. Of course, if we hypothesise such a God, the only way to reconcile it with reality is as you describe, but you've provided no reasoning or evidence to suggest that the hypothesis has any basis in reality.

I have posted the evidence time and again. Is there any reason why I should post it again?

You could just link to a post where you've done it before. From what I recall, you insisted last time we spoke that the evidence was the so called 'messengers', which is, of course, entirely circular, so not evidence at all...

 

[Trailblazer]

How on earth do you think that works? If you know everything about all the possible choices you can make, and you choose one of them, how can you not be..., well..., actually choosing it (the whole package)?

The act of creating the earth the way it was created was a choice God made.
God gave man dominion over the earth and free will, so man is responsible for everything that happened after the earth was created.

Do you think your God can do the self-contradictory? Could it make a square circle, for example? Because 'free will', in the sense you describe, is every bit as self-contradictory. Everything that happens is either entirely determined by what came before, or it isn't. If it isn't, then the only option is that it's, to some extent, random. That's because there can't be any reasons for it (because any reason would have to be in the past).

Even if what we choose is determined by what came before, it is still a choice we make.

An event (including a choice) cannot be both determined (will) and not determined (free).

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.[1] As Steven Weinberg puts it: "I would say that free will is nothing but our conscious experience of deciding what to do, which I know I am experiencing as I write this review, and this experience is not invalidated by the reflection that physical laws made it inevitable that I would want to make these decisions."[2] The opposing belief, that the thesis of determinism is logically incompatible with the classical thesis of free will, is known as "incompatibilism".

Compatibilists believe that freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.[3] In other words, that causal determinism does not exclude the truth of possible future outcomes.[4] Because free will is seen as a necessary prerequisite for moral responsibility, compatibilism is often used to support compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

Compatibilism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, but you keep presenting your hypothetical as if it was the logical conclusion. Of course, if we hypothesise such a God, the only way to reconcile it with reality is as you describe, but you've provided no reasoning or evidence to suggest that the hypothesis has any basis in reality.

If we are talking about an omnipotent/omniscient God then we have to talk about it as if it exists.
There is no way to prove that such a God exists. If we believe in such a God we believe on faith and evidence.

You could just link to a post where you've done it before. From what I recall, you insisted last time we spoke that the evidence was the so called 'messengers', which is, of course, entirely circular, so not evidence at all...

I can link to an old post where I presented the evidence, but you will just say "that's not evidence."

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

If one believes in One God, Worships One God in the Muslim fashion or similar throughout the day, then they are pretty much a Muslim in my view I see a Muslim is one that Submits to One God. So I see your view is valid. We should not veil ourselves by the Names God has sent the Messengers in...

www.religiousforums.com

It does not matter one iota if it is circular.
If God sent messengers as evidence then that is what God did. That is either true or false.

Circular arguments can be valid.

Here are some perfectly valid circular arguments:

• If the Bible is true then God exists.
• If Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God then God exists.
• If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.
• Similarly, if the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Of course, since I nobody can ever prove that the Bible is true or that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, the argument is not sound.
The argument is valid but it is not sound since the premises can never be proven true.

A valid argument may still have a false conclusion. When we construct arguments, we must aim to construct one that is not only valid, but sound. A sound argument is one that is not only valid, but begins with premises that are actually true. But since the premises noted above can never be proven true, I am not making a logical argument for any religious beliefs. I am only stating them as beliefs.

 

[ratiocinator]

Compatibilism...

Yes, I'm well of compatibilism, but it gives us no independence from an omnipotent, omniscient creator, it just emphasises that such a creator would be in total control of everybody's choices.

If we are talking about an omnipotent/omniscient God then we have to talk about it as if it exists.
There is no way to prove that such a God exists. If we believe in such a God we believe on faith and evidence.

I'm still waiting for this supposed evidence..... and waiting..... and waiting.

I can link to an old post where I presented the evidence, but you will just say "that's not evidence."

That will be because it simply isn't. The post that you linked to is full of empty claims and quotes. Zero evidential value.

It does not matter one iota if it is circular.

Of course it matters. You can reach literally any conclusion you want, with a circular argument: There is no God, therefore Baha’u’llah was not a messenger and his bold claims mean that he was delusional. QED.

Circular arguments can be valid.

Yes, and validity is worthless by itself.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, I'm well of compatibilism, but it gives us no independence from an omnipotent, omniscient creator, it just emphasises that such a creator would be in total control of everybody's choices.

God has absolutely nothing to do with our choices, NOTHING.
Moreover, your logic is completely faulty. Just because God has the POWER to make our choices, that does not mean that God chooses to be in total control of everybody's choices. There is no logical connection whatsoever.

An omnipotent God only does what he CHOOSES to do, period. Why would an omnipotent God do anything He does not choose to do?

“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, p. 209

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 207-209

God does not CHOOSE to be in total control of everybody's choices.
In fact, God does not CHOOSE to exercise any control over anyone's choices.
God gave us free will so we could make our own choices.

If God was in total control of everybody's choices everyone would believe in God and there would be no sin!
This is logic 101.

I'm still waiting for this supposed evidence..... and waiting..... and waiting.

I gave it to you in the last post so there is nothing to wait for.

That will be because it simply isn't. The post that you linked to is full of empty claims and quotes. Zero evidential value.

Messengers of God are evidence for God because they are what God provides as evidence. You can take it or leave it.

Of course it matters. You can reach literally any conclusion you want, with a circular argument: There is no God, therefore Baha’u’llah was not a messenger and his bold claims mean that he was delusional. QED.

As I said, I am not making a logical argument for God or Messengers of God, so I cannot have a circular argument.
If I did not make a cake I did not make a cake.

Yes, and validity is worthless by itself.

Yes, and that is precisely why I am not making a logical argument for God or Messengers of God.

 

[ratiocinator]

God has absolutely nothing to do with our choices, NOTHING.
Moreover, your logic is completely faulty. Just because God has the POWER to make our choices, that does not mean that God chooses to be in total control of everybody's choices. There is no logical connection whatsoever.

An omnipotent God only does what he CHOOSES to do, period. Why would an omnipotent God do anything He does not choose to do?

This is just getting comical. Do you think God metaphorically shuts its eyes and throws dice or something?

A God would have all the options open to it, something like this:

Choice A: Consequences: X, Y, .......... Trailblazer posts #111 on RF...........
Choice B: Consequences: Z, W, ......... Trailblazer never joins RF.........
Choice C: ...........
⋮ ⋮ ⋮

In what way can it not have chosen what you did?

“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, p. 209
Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 207-209

Why is it religious people post their 'holy' books or writings to atheists? What's the point? Clearly we aren't going to accept it as in any way reliable or authoritative.

If God was in total control of everybody's choices everyone would believe in God and there would be no sin!
This is logic 101.

Now who's trying to limit God to their own limited human logic? Maybe God wants some atheists in the world. If it wants suffering, then how can you say it wouldn't want atheists?

In fact, of course, it just another indication that there is no God, or at least not one with any interest in communicating its existence to humans.

Messengers of God are evidence for God because they are what God provides as evidence.

Then your God appears to be an idiot.

As I said, I am not making a logical argument for God or Messengers of God, so I cannot have a circular argument.

Why all the waffle about circular argument being valid, then? And why post the circular 'argument' that you used above about messangers being evidence. Make up your mind!

 

[Trailblazer]

This is just getting comical. Do you think God metaphorically shuts its eyes and throws dice or something?

A God would have all the options open to it, something like this:

Choice A: Consequences: X, Y, .......... Trailblazer posts #111 on RF...........
Choice B: Consequences: Z, W, ......... Trailblazer never joins RF.........
Choice C: ...........
⋮ ⋮ ⋮

In what way can it not have chosen what you did?

Consequences are a result or effect of an action or condition.

Why do you think that God has anything to do with the consequences of MY choices?
God did not make ANY choices that LED to my actions. I made those choices.

Why is it religious people post their 'holy' books or writings to atheists? What's the point? Clearly we aren't going to accept it as in any way reliable or authoritative.

I know you do not accept my holy books as in any way reliable or authoritative, but I post them to make my point and to try to reach your logical mind. You do not have to believe the holy books came from God to see the logic. Why would an omnipotent God who has the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will do anything He did not choose to do?

“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.”
Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 207-209

Now who's trying to limit God to their own limited human logic? Maybe God wants some atheists in the world. If it wants suffering, then how can you say it wouldn't want atheists?

Nobody knows what God wants unless it is revealed by a messenger and is contained in scriptures.
Maybe God does want atheists, and he probably does. Using logic, if God did not want atheists there would be no atheists because an omnipotent God could make all men into believers. In fact, that very idea is in my scriptures.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 70-73

In the context of the passage above, If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people means that God could have made all people into believers, if God had wanted to make all people into believers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t want to make everyone into believers... In short, God wants us to make an effort and become believers by our own efforts (by virtue of their own innate powers).

In fact, of course, it just another indication that there is no God, or at least not one with any interest in communicating its existence to humans.

The communication has taken place all throughout human history, but it fell on deaf ears when it come to atheists.

Then your God appears to be an idiot.

Oh I see. So you know more than an omniscient God regarding HOW to communicate to humans.
I have given the atheists on this forum more than one opportunity to come up with a 'better way' than messengers, but they all fell flat on their faces.

But now is your chance, if you think you can come up with a better way.

Please don't say that 'God would know a better way' because IF God knew a better way God would have already employed it, and we would see people who believe in God because of it. Instead, what we see are people who believe in God because of the messengers, holy men, or whatever you want to call them. Whatever you want to call them, they are humans who serve as intermediaries between God and man. Very few believers believe in God and have no religion, and if thye do, thye don't know anything about God except what they have conjured up in their heads.

Moreover, there is no evidence that God has ever communicated to humans in any way other than the messengers.

Why all the waffle about circular argument being valid, then? And why post the circular 'argument' that you used above about messangers being evidence. Make up your mind!

All I did was point out that a circular argument for God and messengers can be valid, but it cannot be sound since the premises cannot be proven true, and that is why I am not trying to make a logical argument for God or messengers.

 

[ratiocinator]

Consequences are a result or effect of an action or condition.

Why do you think that God has anything to do with the consequences of MY choices?
God did not make ANY choices that LED to my actions. I made those choices.

You mentioned compatibilism before. Compatibilism is only effective free will from a human point of view. It would have zero meaning from the point of view of an omnipotent omniscient creator.

I also explain exactly why such a God would be choosing your 'choices' because they would be clearly visible to it as a direct consequence of how it chose to make the world.

The communication has taken place all throughout human history, but it fell on deaf ears when it come to atheists.

So you keep asserting without reasoning (utterly pointless circularity aside) or evidence.

I have given the atheists on this forum more than one opportunity to come up with a 'better way' than messengers, but they all fell flat on their faces.

But now is your chance, if you think you can come up with a better way.

I already did that, some time ago. I'd do it again, but you'd just reject them out of hand again because you seem to be entirely trapped in your own circular reasoning, and totally incapable of even a temporary pause to think how things might look from outside it.

Please don't say that 'God would know a better way' because IF God knew a better way God would have already employed it, and we would see people who believe in God because of it.

And there is the circularity yet again.

All I did was point out that a circular argument for God and messengers can be valid, but it cannot be sound since the premises cannot be proven true, and that is why I am not trying to make a logical argument for God or messengers.

Which means you're just believing by blind faith. All the talk of logic is rendered useless and pointless because you're basing it all on circular premises that you have no actual reason to believe, except blind faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

You mentioned compatibilism before. Compatibilism is only effective free will from a human point of view. It would have zero meaning from the point of view of an omnipotent omniscient creator.

That's true.

I also explain exactly why such a God would be choosing your 'choices' because they would be clearly visible to it as a direct consequence of how it chose to make the world.

How does God knowing what our choices will be equate to God making our choices for us?
God created the world a certain way, but humans choose what they want to do in the world that God created.

Human choices are not a consequence of how God chose to make the world.
Human choices are a consequence of human thought, which is followed by volition and action.

So you keep asserting without reasoning (utterly pointless circularity aside) or evidence.

I do assert that the communication has taken place all throughout human history, because I believe that is what has happened.

I already did that, some time ago. I'd do it again, but you'd just reject them out of hand again because you seem to be entirely trapped in your own circular reasoning, and totally incapable of even a temporary pause to think how things might look from outside it.

If you presented a 'better way' than messengers, I do not recall what you presented.
If you do it again, I won't reject it, but I might point out precisely WHY it would not be a better way (or even a way at all).

I am certainly not incapable of thinking outside the box, I am not trapped anywhere.
I would love to see your alternatives to messengers so I can point out why they would be circular reasoning. I thrive on this kind of stuff.

And there is the circularity yet again.

Talk is cheap. Show me a 'better way' that God could communicate to humans that would NOT be circular.

Which means you're just believing by blind faith. All the talk of logic is rendered useless and pointless because you're basing it all on circular premises that you have no actual reason to believe, except blind faith.

I suggest you drop the circular argument accusation because you only make yourself look illogical.
As I said before, IF God uses messengers to communicate, THEN God uses messengers to communicate.
Do you think that God checked with His angels to find out if messengers would appear circular to humans?

I have a good reason to believe in God, because of the evidence for God, and that evidence is the messengers of God.
I believe on faith and evidence because I have to have faith in the evidence, since NOBODY can ever prove that God exists, which means it can never be proven that God sends messengers.

 

[ratiocinator]

How does God knowing what our choices will be equate to God making our choices for us?
God created the world a certain way, but humans choose what they want to do in the world that God created.

But that choice is meaningless. As I pointed out an omnipotent omniscient God would see the vast, if not infinite, array of ways to make the world, perfectly seen, in perfect detail, including all of everybody's choices, and would then choose one. That is making everybody's choices inevitable.

To put it another way, if you think of some choice you made, say between two options A and B, that was a close call, and you chose A. You chose A because of all the internal and external factors that existed at that time. All those factors were because the world was the way it was at that time, and it got that way because of how it was created (assuming, for the sake of this argument, that it was).

If it had been created only slightly differently the world would have been in a different state, the factors may have been different and you may have chosen B.

Everything tracks back to how the God created things.

If you presented a 'better way' than messengers, I do not recall what you presented.
If you do it again, I won't reject it, but I might point out precisely WHY it would not be a better way (or even a way at all).

It's trivially easy to think of better ways, what would be much harder would be to think of a worse way than the messenger. It's an appalling mess. Subject to endless misunderstanding, and it gets totally lost amongst all the world's superstitions. Look at the result! Many of the supposed messengers have left religions that totally contradict each other. God gets 0/10 for communication - must try harder.

I believe last time your objections to my alternatives were more circularity. Something like "that can't be better because otherwise God would have done it like that, and God knows better than you".

I'll try once more. If you think the messengers are getting messages directly from God, then it should just communicate with everybody like that. Easy. Or, it could simply regularly put in an appearance. Some sort of worldwide, otherwise inexplicable, event in which it talks to everybody in their own language and tells us all exactly what is expected of us.

I suggest you drop the circular argument accusation because you only make yourself look illogical.
As I said before, IF God uses messengers to communicate, THEN God uses messengers to communicate.

This is hilarious. The second statement is pointless. You might just as well, and actually more honestly, say "I believe God uses messengers to communicate", dressing it up in a circular argument just makes it comical.

I have a good reason to believe in God, because of the evidence for God, and that evidence is the messengers of God.

But you've just admitted that it's not evidence. It's only 'evidence' if you already believe it, so it isn't evidence at all. Evidence is something that should at least be indicative to people who don't believe the conclusion.

 

[Trailblazer]

But that choice is meaningless. As I pointed out an omnipotent omniscient God would see the vast, if not infinite, array of ways to make the world, perfectly seen, in perfect detail, including all of everybody's choices, and would then choose one. That is making everybody's choices inevitable.

That is completely illogical.
God made the world a certain way and humans make the choices that they want to make. Those choices are not determined by God.

To put it another way, if you think of some choice you made, say between two options A and B, that was a close call, and you chose A. You chose A because of all the internal and external factors that existed at that time. All those factors were because the world was the way it was at that time, and it got that way because of how it was created (assuming, for the sake of this argument, that it was).

I chose A because of all the internal and external factors that existed at that time but this has NOTHING to do with how God created the world.
This has to do with things that happened in my life from birth.

If it had been created only slightly differently the world would have been in a different state, the factors may have been different and you may have chosen B.

So what? Regardless of how God had created the world, God would NEVER make my choices for me.

Everything tracks back to how the God created things.

Nope, everything tracks back to the things that have happened in my life that cause me to make certain choices:
my childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances.

It's trivially easy to think of better ways, what would be much harder would be to think of a worse way than the messenger. It's an appalling mess. Subject to endless misunderstanding, and it gets totally lost amongst all the world's superstitions. Look at the result! Many of the supposed messengers have left religions that totally contradict each other. God gets 0/10 for communication - must try harder.

Sorry, but you are wrong again.

Most people in the world believe in God because of a Messenger of God so that method has been very successful.

According to the statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

84 percent of the world population has faith; a third are Christian - Washington Times

"Worldwide, more than eight-in-ten people identify with a religious group," says a new comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life.

www.washingtontimes.com

Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are holy men who founded the religions, so they are intermediaries between God and man. Sure, there are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers or holy men very few people would believe in God.

You are right that the state of religion in the world is a mess, but that mess was created by humans, NOT by God.
One reason it is a mess is because religious people have misinterpreted their scriptures and created false dogmas. The scriptures in their pure form do not contradict each other as the spiritual truths are the same in every religion. In every age, God sends a new Messenger with a new message and new teachings and laws, but what he reveals does not contradict what was revealed by previous Messengers. These are just some different teachings and laws that were revealed by God, in order to suit the needs of humanity in that age.

“These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 287-289

I believe last time your objections to my alternatives were more circularity. Something like "that can't be better because otherwise God would have done it like that, and God knows better than you".

I'll try once more. If you think the messengers are getting messages directly from God, then it should just communicate with everybody like that. Easy.

Why would God communicate all of the information contained in the 15,000 tablets that Baha'u'llah wrote to every one of the 8 billion people in the world, when God can communicate those to one man? Baha'ullah wrote those tablets over the course of 40 years although He was not writing continuously.

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

Aside from that, your method assumes that 'everyone' could understand what was communicated to Baha'u'llah, and that is patently false.
The reason God chose Baha'u'llah to communicate to was because He had a divine mind, just as Jesus and other Messengers of God had.

Or, it could simply regularly put in an appearance. Some sort of worldwide, otherwise inexplicable, event in which it talks to everybody in their own language and tells us all exactly what is expected of us.

That is hilarious. God cannot 'show up' on earth. As the Bible says, no one has ever seen God and that is because, as the Bible says, no one can see God and live.

You are living in some kind of fantasy world, not in reality. In reality, Messengers are the BEST WAY for God to communicate to humans since they are both human and divine, and as such they can serve as intermediaries between God and man. This is drop dead logical.

This is hilarious. The second statement is pointless. You might just as well, and actually more honestly, say "I believe God uses messengers to communicate", dressing it up in a circular argument just makes it comical.

I'll say it again, IF God uses messengers to communicate, THEN God uses messengers to communicate.
Any logical person could understand what that means, but allow me to try to make it easier for you.

If the REALITY of the situation is that God uses messengers to communicate to humans, that is what God does...
Whether you or I or anyone else in the world believes they are messengers is of no consequence because beliefs do not determine reality.
Reality just is.

But you've just admitted that it's not evidence. It's only 'evidence' if you already believe it, so it isn't evidence at all. Evidence is something that should at least be indicative to people who don't believe the conclusion.

I did not admit that messengers are not evidence.
I said: "I have a good reason to believe in God, because of the evidence for God, and that evidence is the messengers of God."

It is not only evidence if one already believes in God. I did not believe in God before I looked at the evidence.
I was not raised in any religion or believing in God and I did not believe in God until I looked at the evidence provided by the Baha'i Faith during my freshman year in college. That was 54 years ago. I have never once questioned God's existence since that time.

 

[ratiocinator]

I chose A because of all the internal and external factors that existed at that time but this has NOTHING to do with how God created the world.
This has to do with things that happened in my life from birth.

If an omnipotent omniscient creator created the world, then it created the entire history of the world and everything in, right up until it ends.

Most people in the world believe in God because of a Messenger of God so that method has been very successful.

According to the statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

But not the same faith in the same God. Many people of faith think the others are totally wrong, some people of faith want to kill other people of different faiths. It's a total failure to communicate (if there is a real God). An utterly pathetic attempt.

You are right that the state of religion in the world is a mess, but that mess was created by humans, NOT by God.
One reason it is a mess is because religious people have misinterpreted their scriptures and created false dogmas.

All of which would be entirely predicable for an omniscient god. If such a God exists, this is its total foolishness or incompetence on full display in the world. Come to think of it, a foolish and/or incompetent God makes much more sense when we look at the state of 'creation'...

Aside from that, your method assumes that 'everyone' could understand what was communicated to Baha'u'llah, and that is patently false.
The reason God chose Baha'u'llah to communicate to was because He had a divine mind, just as Jesus and other Messengers of God had.

There's the endless circularity again. God should have done a better job of creating people, if they cannot receive its messages.

God cannot 'show up' on earth. As the Bible says, no one has ever seen God and that is because, as the Bible says, no one can see God and live.

So god is incapable of projecting its presence into the world in a way that won't kill people. So much for omnipotence. Or perhaps more evidence of bumbling incompetence?

I'll say it again, IF God uses messengers to communicate, THEN God uses messengers to communicate.
Any logical person could understand what that means, but allow me to try to make it easier for you.

If the REALITY of the situation is that God uses messengers to communicate to humans, that is what God does...
Whether you or I or anyone else in the world believes they are messengers is of no consequence because beliefs do not determine reality.
Reality just is.

Do you really not see how comical this is? All you are telling us is what you believe about reality. That's fine, you can believe what you like, but if you try to make it logical and end up with a circular argument, it just looks silly. Sorry.

I did not admit that messengers are not evidence.
I said: "I have a good reason to believe in God, because of the evidence for God, and that evidence is the messengers of God."

That's not what I was referring to. Before that you'd used the nonsense circular argument for why messengers were evidence. They're only evidence if you believe they are. Evidence that requires blind faith is not evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'll try once more. If you think the messengers are getting messages directly from God, then it should just communicate with everybody like that. Easy.

After I posted my last post to you, I had an afterthought.

If God spoke to everyone directly, how would anyone know it was really God speaking to them?

To be fair, you could ask the same question about the messengers, how did they know it was really God speaking to them?
There is no way to prove that God spoke to any messengers so that has to be believed on faith and the evidence that they present.

 

[Trailblazer]

If an omnipotent omniscient creator created the world, then it created the entire history of the world and everything in, right up until it ends.

You will have to present a BASIS for that assertion. Otherwise it is nothing more than a bald assertion.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up.

Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

www.rationalresponders.com

What you said is certainly not logical at all since humans create the entire history of the world and everything in it.
Everyone knows that.

But not the same faith in the same God. Many people of faith think the others are totally wrong, some people of faith want to kill other people of different faiths. It's a total failure to communicate (if there is a real God). An utterly pathetic attempt.

Why would different religions have the same faith in the same God? Duh.
These different religious were revealed by the same God but the message from that God changed over time.

God did not fail to communicate. God simply communicated differently at different times throughout history.
The only failure is on the part of humans in not realizing what I just said above!

Of course, these people would not know what I said above unless they read the Baha'i Writings...
The reason that they fail to understand that their religion is not the only right one is because they have rejected the last Messenger of God, Baha'u'llah, who explained this.

All of which would be entirely predicable for an omniscient god. If such a God exists, this is its total foolishness or incompetence on full display in the world. Come to think of it, a foolish and/or incompetent God makes much more sense when we look at the state of 'creation'...

You are completely illogical. You keep blaming God for what is the fault of humans.
Again, the state of religion in the world is a mess, but that mess was created by humans, NOT by God.

The mess that humans created is not in any way associated with the omniscient God, it is what would be predicted for fallible humans who failed to recognize ALL the messengers of God but rather clung to the ONE Messenger they believe in.

There's the endless circularity again. God should have done a better job of creating people, if they cannot receive its messages.

You just keep digging your grave deeper with your illogical statements.
It is not God's fault in any way that humans fail to receive the messages... It is totally man's fault.

God created all humans with the capacity to receive His messages. If God had not done so how could God hold humans accountable for NOT receiving the messages? Baha'u'llah explained this.

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 143-144

“He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 104-107

reference.bahai.org

So god is incapable of projecting its presence into the world in a way that won't kill people. So much for omnipotence. Or perhaps more evidence of bumbling incompetence?

Sorry to say this but that statement is idiotic. Wanna know why?

It is precisely because God is omnipotent that He cannot project His presence into the world without killing people.
Yes, if the Essence of God 'showed up' on earth all created things would be reduced to utter nothingness, and THAT is why God sends Messengers to represent Him on earth, which are referred to in the following passage as Manifestations of Divine justice.

“That the Manifestations of Divine justice, the Day Springs of heavenly grace, have when they appeared amongst men always been destitute of all earthly dominion and shorn of the means of worldly ascendancy, should be attributed to this same principle of separation and distinction which animateth the Divine Purpose. Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?"

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 70-73

Do you really not see how comical this is? All you are telling us is what you believe about reality. That's fine, you can believe what you like, but if you try to make it logical and end up with a circular argument, it just looks silly. Sorry.

There is nothing funny about this, you just don't like it but it is perfectly logical.

You keep using circular arguments as a smokescreen. I already told you that I am not making an argument for God's existence because that would be impossible given the premise 'God exists' can never be proven.

If the REALITY of the situation is that God uses messengers to communicate to humans, that is what God does...
is really no different from saying that If the REALITY of the situation is that the planet Pluto exists, that is reality.
The only difference is that the planet Pluto has been proven to exist, whereas God can never be proven to exist.

But proof is NOT what makes God exist! God either exists or not and God can exist absent proof, just like the plant Pluto existed before it was discovered in 1930!

You are so blinded by your bias that you cannot understand simple logic.

That's not what I was referring to. Before that you'd used the nonsense circular argument for why messengers were evidence. They're only evidence if you believe they are. Evidence that requires blind faith is not evidence.

You are wrong again. Messengers are evidence if God sent them as evidence.
It would not matter if not one person in the world believed them. If God sent them as evidence they would be evidence.

Faith with evidence is not blind faith. It is evidence-based faith, and the Messengers provided evidence of their station.
Faith will always be necessary to believe in God since there is not and never will be proof that God exists. The reason there is no proof is because God did not provide proof, and God did not provide proof because God wants our faith.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

Believing in God requires faith since no man has ever seen God and no man ever will see God. With that in mind we go looking for the evidence.
God will reward those who earnestly seek Him by helping them find the evidence they need to believe, but God will never force anyone to accept the evidence.