Are people who claim to know God liars?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By whom?

You're writing but you're not thinking beyond yourself. And yet you presume that everyone else should be.

No, I don't. That seems to be your misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

I'm growing weary of this.

You and me both.

 

[Jean Valjean]

You need to find Jesus, crawl tunnel, and you will meet God. As a christian I walk in his vinyards...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is a logical fallacy.

For thousands of years sailors came back from the sea with tales of giant squid. All those years not a single shred of evidence other than the tales. Widely considered to be fiction and overactive imaginations. But recently in the last 20 years or so evidence has been presented. Now giant squids are real, as they have been proven to exist. No longer fictional tales of horror.

Your logic is faulty because the giant squid has existed in reality this whole time. Because of its elusive nature, its environment (deep dark ocean) and its biology, evidence is scarce to say the least. But the lack of evidence does not immediately make something not a part of reality. As proven by the giant squid in 2004.

Who knows what evidence may be found one day that does prove the existence of God. Real tangible evidence.

Who knows, indeed? However, I should point out that those sailors, however, always had the potential to catch a squid and bring back the evidence (and in fact, that has happened). I should also point out that, compared with the totality of people alive, very few were sailors who encountered such beasts, such things being very rare, so it's hardly surprising that it took so long. On the other hand, humans in their billions have been assiduously looking for "evidence" of the existence of God -- under every rock, in every logical construction Anselm could dream up, in prayers and ceremonies and invocations, in "pictures" made be oil on ponds or burns on toast or shadows on hedges -- and yet such "evidence" still eludes everyone.

I add that to the things I consider.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is a logical fallacy.

For thousands of years sailors came back from the sea with tales of giant squid. All those years not a single shred of evidence other than the tales. Widely considered to be fiction and overactive imaginations. But recently in the last 20 years or so evidence has been presented. Now giant squids are real, as they have been proven to exist. No longer fictional tales of horror.

Your logic is faulty because the giant squid has existed in reality this whole time. Because of its elusive nature, its environment (deep dark ocean) and its biology, evidence is scarce to say the least. But the lack of evidence does not immediately make something not a part of reality. As proven by the giant squid in 2004.

Who knows what evidence may be found one day that does prove the existence of God. Real tangible evidence.

Who knows, indeed? However, I should point out that those sailors, however, always had the potential to catch a squid and bring back the evidence (and in fact, that has happened). I should also point out that, compared with the totality of people alive, very few were sailors who encountered such beasts, such things being very rare, so it's hardly surprising that it took so long. On the other hand, humans in their billions have been assiduously looking for "evidence" of the existence of God -- under every rock, in every logical construction Anselm could dream up, in prayers and ceremonies and invocations, in "pictures" made be oil on ponds or burns on toast or shadows on hedges -- and yet such "evidence" still eludes everyone.

I add that to the things I consider.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The blind cannot see.
Those who cannot see even from creation, from the glory of the heavens and from the glory of the earth, the ecosystems, the individual animals - some of the obvious things revealed about God - are blind.

Those who think that a God who creates man with an unquenchable thirst for God in the fact that there never has been a nation, a tribe - on earth without some form of worship, and yet denies this need as originating with the creator - are blind. That atheism stands there lonely and screams there is no god while there is undeniable evidence for the universe not being materialistic - just goes to show that some are blind.

I will not deny some are blind; this cannot be fixed. So, let the blind lead the blind into oblivion.

That's a lot of accusation of blindness, and all of it utterly circular and completely unattested.

Many of those that you might call "blind" may, with just as much (and very likely more) justification, claim that you are hallucinating -- "seeing" what isn't there.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As a Baha'i I would say the Essence of God is unknowable.

What "knowledge" we have of God we receive from His Messengers.
So in my belief in answer to your question "Whence does this knowledge come from?" It comes from the Messengers and Prophets of God Who have appeared down through our history and sacrificed Themselves for the well being of humankind.

Religion is founded on revelations received by the Prophets and in some form are later shared with us so we have revealed scriptures and Writings that are availabe for anyone to explore.

As always, I have to respectfully disagree by pointing out that any "knowledge" of God from "His Messengers" must be as easily conveyed by Him to all of us, rather than to just a few "Messengers." And because this method of revelation through prophets can conclusively be shown to be fraught with the dangers of errors of communication in passing that "knowledge" along, it would seem to me to be an extremely poor mechanism for anything worthy of being called "God" to employ.

The wars and misery in human history caused by the confused and conflicting "messages" of so many of those who claim to be God's prophets is ample justification for my doubt. (And your own fellow Baha'is around the world are pretty good evidence in how they are treated). It is, so very obviously, a "failure to communicate." I would not have much faith in a God who would fail in such a way.

 

[osgart]

God!, the big guy defending everyone's just deserve be it positive or negative. the deliverer of justice like pizza to your door. always on time, bringing the truth to all. the king of the right side of the fence of life. the Eternal One. The Judge of all souls. The One making sure that every innocent soul is safe. The Great Damner. the one who defeated all evil or is on the way to defeating it all. the Glorious One. the one who's glory is proclaimed by nature. The Great Giver of Life. The Merciful one on sinners. God!

 

[Enoch07]

Who knows, indeed? However, I should point out that those sailors, however, always had the potential to catch a squid and bring back the evidence (and in fact, that has happened). I should also point out that, compared with the totality of people alive, very few were sailors who encountered such beasts, such things being very rare, so it's hardly surprising that it took so long. On the other hand, humans in their billions have been assiduously looking for "evidence" of the existence of God -- under every rock, in every logical construction Anselm could dream up, in prayers and ceremonies and invocations, in "pictures" made be oil on ponds or burns on toast or shadows on hedges -- and yet such "evidence" still eludes everyone.

I add that to the things I consider.

Thats fine. Like I said earlier, i only have a problem with it when it someone puts a negative as an absolute. It does science a disservice.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But let's challenge this "all good, all knowing and all powerful" god for another moment. What would it have taken, I wonder, to have stopped that earthquake in Mexico this week, which killed children and teachers in an elementary school, among much else? Was that too much? Okay -- but what would it have cost God to just trigger a false fire alarm -- such a tiny thing to do, and they would all have been out of the building?

Now, I grant that the Devil might like to tempt little boys to sin by triggering false alarms, but of course he would not do so in this case -- for exactly the reason I just gave that an all-powerful and all-loving God might have at least considered it.

 

[Grandliseur]

That's a lot of accusation of blindness, and all of it utterly circular and completely unattested.

Many of those that you might call "blind" may, with just as much (and very likely more) justification, claim that you are hallucinating -- "seeing" what isn't there.

That is the state of affairs, and none can change it.

Even if I were to take my Google Earth markers from Mount Sinai, where one can still see the stone altar with its engravings, the mountain, the grave-site of those killed, and the maker Solomon left on both sides of the straight - you would find ways with a broom and dustpan to get rid of it. Even the gilded wheel of an Egyptian chariot, perhaps Pharao's own - would leave you grabbing for the broom, not the Bible.

You should read my poem I left on another question; you might like it better:
To remove the veils

 

[osgart]

don't we all wish there was God?

 

[Kenny]

But let's challenge this "all good, all knowing and all powerful" god for another moment. What would it have taken, I wonder, to have stopped that earthquake in Mexico this week, which killed children and teachers in an elementary school, among much else? Was that too much? Okay -- but what would it have cost God to just trigger a false fire alarm -- such a tiny thing to do, and they would all have been out of the building?

That's a good question... but why stop there?

What would it cost God to stop a fire where people were killed?
What would it cost God to advise everyone that a tsunami is about to hit so people could leave costal areas?
What would it cost God to stop a 50 car pileup where many were killed or maimed?
What would it cost God to take a drunk driver and sober him up to not kill when he went in the wrong direction on a highway?

Such a tiny thing to do.

But why stop there?

What would it cost God to stop a child from falling out of a window?
What would it cost God to stop a child from falling out of a tree?
What would it cost God to stop a child from playing with a gun and killing a friend?

Such a tiny thing to do.

But why stop there?

What would it cost God to stop someone from breaking a bone during a soccer game?
What would it cost God to stop a child on a bike from falling and scraping a knee?
What would it cost God to stop a child from accidentally breaking the nose of his friend playing with branches and using them as swords?

Such a tiny thing to do...

What would it cost? Not having humans but rather puppets on a string with no will, no purpose and no life.

IMV

 

[Nakosis]

"Objective validation" is, itself, an imaginary phenomena that isn't otherwise "real". Logically, no human can "objectively perceive" or "objectively validate" anything. Because the moment we perceive it, we are doing so subjectively. And the moment we presume to "validate" it, we are doing so based on our own subjective criteria.

What I mean by objective is without bias. To view something without a desire for it to be true or false.

To examine the evidence and understand what it implies without a personal bias as to what is implied.

 

[sayak83]

That is the state of affairs, and none can change it.

Even if I were to take my Google Earth markers from Mount Sinai, where one can still see the stone altar with its engravings, the mountain, the grave-site of those killed, and the maker Solomon left on both sides of the straight - you would find ways with a broom and dustpan to get rid of it. Even the gilded wheel of an Egyptian chariot, perhaps Pharao's own - would leave you grabbing for the broom, not the Bible.

You should read my poem I left on another question; you might like it better:
To remove the veils

Nothing like this exist at all. Have you been duped by well known fake propagated by conman like Wyatt and websites that circulate those fakes?

 

[Nakosis]

It depends on what the nature of "God" is which no one can "directly" know.

I'd have to ask from whence did your knowledge, memory, fallibility/infallibility, knowledge of what is good/bad, vision, desire for other folks to be dependent of you in some way, belief, spiritual experiences, the desire to engineer/create/design, life (some of the many essences/nature of your being) come from?

Is that documented and evident? What tests have you performed within yourself?

IMO the reality of spiritual experiences is that it's all a crapshoot. Unless you can find a means to validate your claims objectively to someone else.

I used to have folks believing I could tell the future. I used Tarot cards. As a card reader you get pretty good at creating a narrative. It creates an interesting validation system. I make a claim about a person's life. They provide feedback which affirms my claim. Everyone's belief in my ability to foretell the future increases.

Something about my character, my narrative was very convincing to folks. It's like people have a need to believe in something. It gives them a sense of security.

Did I have any real knowledge of the future? If so, I'd be rich by now. Predicting lotto numbers, sport scores etc. No I just let my subconscious take over creating a narrative. The subconscious is a lot quicker, is a lot more aware, can pick out details about the person and current situations a thousand times better than what I can consciously do. But it's not God.

From our conscious POV it may seem very godlike. All of this occurs without conscious awareness.

The problem is, is how do we validate what we consciously feel to be true? Our conscious awareness sucks. It's slow, prone to errors, lacks the computing power of the subconscious mind.

Have I tested it? Lottery numbers, not so good. It does well however in what I'd call vague generalities. Stuff the subconscious mind has knowledge of but really poor results if I'm expecting access to some kind of supernatural powers.

 

[Nakosis]

Atheists too? The people who make the claim "nah, nah, there is no God," are making a claim of authority.

You can't say, "No, that's not God," without some idea of what "God" is.

God shouldn't depend on what my idea of God is.

I've no problem creating up some concept of God, but based on what? The Bible, the Quran, whatever my subconscious mind can dream up?

I can do all this and come up with a variety of concepts of God. Assuming there is a God, this God must conform to my concept of what God should be?

What seems more likely? I have some actual knowledge of God or my subconscious mind creates for me some concept of God from what other folks have told me about God?

And, more to the question, whatever that concept happens to be, how do I validate it?

Personal validation of God, whatever the concept isn't that hard. God tends to take on whatever form I conceive of God.

So since I've found that I can't trust personal validation because of this tendency to validate the concepts I myself create, I don't create concepts of God. If there is a God, it's up to God to prove himself. Not my job to create a concept for God to conform to.

 

[Nakosis]

What you say is true, but I wouldn't call these mystical experiences. Mystical experiences are more likely to "break" your view of god or reality than follow them.

They do, well they seem to. The subconscious is more powerful, more aware, less fallible, records everything you've see or heard. All I'm doing is creating a conscious concept of God. The subconscious does the rest. This "God" possesses a great deal of insight, wisdom, knowledge to a vastly greater capacity than what I am consciously capable of. It is in many ways superior to the thoughts of conscious awareness. It's not difficult for it to "break" your view of reality.

Indeed, such a being would seem fake and if tested would be proven such.

Yes, if you approach it scientifically. If however you're relying on personal experience, not so much.

Why would anything powerful enough to be called deity request worship from lesser beings anyway? It makes as much sense to me as a human wanting a single celled organism to worship him.

I think it depends more on your concept of such a deity since it seems we get to define the properties of God.

 

[Hawkins]

My criticism of Religion is the claim to know anything about God, at all.

My position is man knows nothing about God. I assume this is the default position of atheists. Am I wrong?

People who say God is whatever... loving, all powerful, Just, merciful, has a plan for all of us etc.
From whence does this knowledge about God come from?

I know nothing about God and neither do you. You can have faith that God possesses whatever properties you feel God should possess, but based on what? Imagining if a God did exist, this is what God ought to be like?

You have the Bible, Quran etc... So why do you feel these folks were in any better position than you to have knowledge about God.

Not that I'm going to go about calling believers liars. I just think they feel a certainty that they don't actually possess.

By your line of reasoning, historians are also liars.

The difference between Christianity and history is that, history is the witnessing of human deeds while the Bible records the witnessing of God's deeds. Shall there be any truth there, it's the only way for such a truth to convey.

 

[Nakosis]

It informs it.

Or misinforms it as the case maybe. Or do you see all religious as equally valid?

Because science hasn't discovered everything.

Science is just a tool to validate what we think we have discovered. Through validation of our discoveries we can make better choices as to how to better pursue our goals.

If you're wanting to accomplish something, doesn't it make sense to be as certain as possible of how reality works?

 

[Hawkins]

Or misinforms it as the case maybe. Or do you see all religious as equally valid?


Science is just a tool to validate what we think we have discovered. Through validation of our discoveries we can make better choices as to how to better pursue our goals.

If you're wanting to accomplish something, doesn't it make sense to be as certain as possible of how reality works?

Science can confirm a truth if it's a scientific truth. A scientific truth is a specific kind of truth which repeats itself with a set of rules governing its repetition. Besides this, "science" is just a term more refers to a hypothesis came up with science-assisted researches. The hypothesis can be true or false.