Atheists: If God existed would God……

[ppp]

I never acknowledged that nothing is beyond logic. I just said "no."

Those are things that are outside logic. When you rejected that things meeting those criteria exist, you rejected the existence of things that are outside of logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Those are things that are outside logic. When you rejected that things meeting those criteria exist, you rejected the existence of things that are outside of logic.

Only in your opinion.

 

[ppp]

Only in your opinion.

It is no more my opinion than the process of counting is my opinion.

 

[HonestJoe]

I explained it to the best of my ability. If you think they are not beyond science and logic please explain why you think they are not beyond science and logic, as you define science and logic.

Science and logic are abstract concepts so there is no reason for anything to be "beyond" them.

Science at it's core just describes a set of methods and processes for studying things and, as I said before, they can, in theory at least, be applied to literally anything that can be observed by any intelligence.

Logic is even more abstract concept and can even be applied to hypothetical or imaginary things and so can certainly be applied to anything purposed as actually existing. The complication there isn't the ability to apply logical thought, only agreeing what the relevant rules of logic actually are in that context.

Why is what I believe irrelevant in the context of this thread?

What you believe is irrelevant to the answers of atheists (or anyone else) to your questions. What you believe is your answer to the questions. Other people will have different ideas about the consequences of a god existing and you can't just dismiss those ideas by saying "But God isn't like that", you would need to address the raw logic of their conclusions in the hypothetical abstract (since for atheists, that is obviously what how it is presented).

Everything about God has to be believed, it cannot be known, so that makes any discussion about God impossible, if your requirement is that it must be known.

You're the one who keeps claiming to know things about God (often immediately after asserting that nothing about God can be known!).

The question is, why would God be responsible for all of the consequences just because God knows what those consequences will be?

IT STILL ISN'T ONLY BECAUSE OF OMNISCIENCE! We are talking about a creator God who is both omniscient and omnipotent. That God would also be responsible for causing all of those consequences. At the moment of creation, he would have set everything on a predetermined path of cause and effect, with the ability to know exactly what all of those consequences would be and to change them to literally anything else.

No concept of free will can alter any of that, not least as in this context, true free will would be impossible and all of our actions would be, on some level, predetermined by the act of creation.

Fair enough, we have no way of knowing which of those two categories God sits in if you are looking at it from a non-scriptural, purely logical perspective. But from a scriptural perspective we can never discover, observe or measure God.

Again, we should be talking on a purely logical basis. That is the only the atheists you presented your questions to can answer them. The problem is that doesn't result in the answers you wanted.

 

[Trailblazer]

Science and logic are abstract concepts so there is no reason for anything to be "beyond" them.

Science at it's core just describes a set of methods and processes for studying things and, as I said before, they can, in theory at least, be applied to literally anything that can be observed by any intelligence.

Logic is even more abstract concept and can even be applied to hypothetical or imaginary things and so can certainly be applied to anything purposed as actually existing. The complication there isn't the ability to apply logical thought, only agreeing what the relevant rules of logic actually are in that context.

Okay, thanks for explaining that. It is good to know where you are coming from.

What you believe is irrelevant to the answers of atheists (or anyone else) to your questions. What you believe is your answer to the questions. Other people will have different ideas about the consequences of a god existing and you can't just dismiss those ideas by saying "But God isn't like that", you would need to address the raw logic of their conclusions in the hypothetical abstract (since for atheists, that is obviously what how it is presented).

Fair enough. I am well aware that other people have other ideas about God but I can only speak about what I believe and listen to what others believe. God is what God is to me according to my religious beliefs but I have no need to convince anyone of what I believe and there is always room for learning from others. For example, recently I learned a lot from a Christian and from an atheist on another thread I just started. They both know the Bible very well but they are coming from different perspectives. I do not know the Bible very well so I have a lot to learn.

Honestly, I do not see how an atheist can come to any conclusions about God with logic alone unless they have something more to go on. There is an atheist I have been conversing with for about eight years on other forums and he completely rejects Scriptures so he comes up with all kinds of things that God could/would/should do, based solely upon the belief that God – if God exists – would be omnipotent. Even if you add that God is omniscient, nobody can say what God would do based upon those two attributes alone, and I do not understand how logic is going to help.

You're the one who keeps claiming to know things about God (often immediately after asserting that nothing about God can be known!).

As I said before, I think that certain things can be known about God (God’s attributes) but the essence of God can never be known. I do not mean that God’s attributes can be known as a fact, because nothing about God can be known as a fact; all that can be known is based upon revealed Scriptures. That is what I meant when I said “everything about God has to be believed, it cannot be known.”

IT STILL ISN'T ONLY BECAUSE OF OMNISCIENCE! We are talking about a creator God who is both omniscient and omnipotent. That God would also be responsible for causing all of those consequences. At the moment of creation, he would have set everything on a predetermined path of cause and effect, with the ability to know exactly what all of those consequences would be and to change them to literally anything else.

But you still have not explained why that omniscient/omnipotent God would be responsible for causing all of those consequences or why he would have set everything on a predetermined path of cause and effect. This is just an idea that you have but I don’t know why you think that would be the case.

No concept of free will can alter any of that, not least as in this context, true free will would be impossible and all of our actions would be, on some level, predetermined by the act of creation.

Again, I do not understand why you think that true free will would be impossible if God was omnipotent and omniscient. Moreover, I do not understand why all our actions would have to be predetermined if God was omnipotent and omniscient. I do not understand your logic at all, and you are not the only one who thinks like this! I have been conversing with two different atheists on other threads who have the same ideas.

Again, we should be talking on a purely logical basis. That is the only the atheists you presented your questions to can answer them. The problem is that doesn't result in the answers you wanted.

I am not looking for any particular answers, but as I noted above, I do not think you can know anything about God on a purely logical basis with nothing else to go on except that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Do you think God is limited to those two attributes? If God has other attributes and they are not factored how can your conclusions be accurate?

 

[HonestJoe]

I am well aware that other people have other ideas about God but I can only speak about what I believe and listen to what others believe.

That isn't true. You could apply science and logic to the abstract concept of god as presented in your OP question, you're just choosing not to. The problem is that you asked it specifically of atheists and the only way they can approach that question is with science and logic, since they have no belief about gods to work with.

If your position is really that you're only willing to consider beliefs about God, and not science or logic, your OP question was at best flawed and at worst dishonest. It simply can not be answered in any way you would accept.

Honestly, I do not see how an atheist can come to any conclusions about God with logic alone unless they have something more to go on.

Exactly the same way anyone can with literally any abstract concept. We could discus things like the possibility of alien life, the physical consequences of faster-the-light travel or the consequences of a new human species evolving in the same way. We can discuss very simple things in those terms too, things that we already know the answer to but just (re)work through the logical process (and often do when teaching the basic principles of logic).

In simple terms, we just need to establish the underlying logical principles (which are generally fixed), set out some assumptions and work though conclusions based upon them. That process can be done with pretty much anything. As I've said multiple times, there is absolutely nothing special or unique about the concept of a god in this context.

Even if you add that God is omniscient, nobody can say what God would do based upon those two attributes alone, and I do not understand how logic is going to help.

Nothing I've said is about what God would do. The only logical conclusions I've reached based on the assumptions of an omnipotent and omniscient creator are based on what would be (and the logical contradictions that creates).

I do not mean that God’s attributes can be known as a fact, because nothing about God can be known as a fact; all that can be known is based upon revealed Scriptures.

There is no difference between "known as fact" and "known". You can't know anything based only on what you read in scripture, that would still just be belief. After all, people can reach very different conclusions from the same scriptures and different things again from scriptures of other revealed religions, often contradictory things. It can't all be knowledge because it can't all be true.

Your blocker does seem to be not being willing to accept that all you have is faith and belief. I understand why that is difficult, though I personally don't think it is an issue in and of itself. When you start conflating belief and knowledge though, I'm going to pick up you on it.

But you still have not explained why that omniscient/omnipotent God would be responsible for causing all of those consequences or why he would have set everything on a predetermined path of cause and effect. This is just an idea that you have but I don’t know why you think that would be the case.

I don't know how I can explain it without repeating myself.

The possibility of omniscience would require everything to be predetermined. For anything to know for certain what will happen, what will happen must be clearly determined. Therefore, a God defined as having created everything must have created everything as predetermined at the point of creation.

Imagine the flow of time is a book. God has written the entire book and can flick though all of the pages, seeing how it will end. We are reading the book, limited to working through it steadily, a page at a time. The end of the book has already been written and so is predetermined. We have no idea how the book will end yet (and may never even get to the last page at all) but that ending already exists.

 

[Yazata]

Atheists: If God existed

'
A great deal would seem to depend on what the word 'God' means.

would God do #1 or #2, as noted below?

These are two separate questions.

1. If God existed would God communicate directly to everyone?

I use the word 'God' to mean reality's ultimate principle, whatever the answers are to the biggest metaphysical questions. Reality's Source we might say. I don't think of 'God' as a person. So if you mean communication in the sense that people communicate with each other, I'd say that I don't expect it. I'm hugely skeptical about any claims of divine revelation.

2. If God existed would God prove that He exists to everyone?

Maybe that proof already exists. If 'God' is whatever the ultimate explanation is for reality, then reality itself might arguably be proof of that unknown explanation, even if we don't know anything about what it is.

I'm not 100% convinced by that line of reasoning, it depends on implicit premises like the Principle of Sufficient Reason that I'm not entirely wedded to. But it's certainly arguable that reality itself is proof of whatever the sufficient reason for reality might be.

 

[Trailblazer]

A great deal would seem to depend on what the word 'God' means.

I guess you mean it would depend upon what God is.

'I use the word 'God' to mean reality's ultimate principle, whatever the answers are to the biggest metaphysical questions. Reality's Source we might say. I don't think of 'God' as a person. So if you mean communication in the sense that people communicate with each other, I'd say that I don't expect it. I'm hugely skeptical about any claims of divine revelation.

I believe that knowing what God is answers are to the biggest metaphysical questions. God is the Source but I don't think of 'God' as a person, because that would bring God down to the level of a human being, and God is not a human.

I believe in divine revelation so I think we can know something about God through revelation, some of God's attributes and God's will for any given age, but I do not believe we can ever know the essence of God, God's intrinsic nature.

Maybe that proof already exists. If 'God' is whatever the ultimate explanation is for reality, then reality itself might arguably be proof of that unknown explanation, even if we don't know anything about what it is.

I believe that there is evidence for God and that the Messengers of God and their revelations are the evidence, but I do not think God can ever be proven to exist because God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men.

I'm not 100% convinced by that line of reasoning, it depends on implicit premises like the Principle of Sufficient Reason that I'm not entirely wedded to. But it's certainly arguable that reality itself is proof of whatever the sufficient reason for reality might be.

I believe that there is a reason for everything in existence and that has been revealed by the Messengers of God. That said, I do not believe that the universe is direct proof of a God, since it could have come into existence by another means. I believe that the only direct proof of God are His Manifestations, who are also Messengers of God.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

 

[Trailblazer]

That isn't true. You could apply science and logic to the abstract concept of god as presented in your OP question, you're just choosing not to. The problem is that you asked it specifically of atheists and the only way they can approach that question is with science and logic, since they have no belief about gods to work with.

If your position is really that you're only willing to consider beliefs about God, and not science or logic, your OP question was at best flawed and at worst dishonest. It simply can not be answered in any way you would accept.

Previously you said: Science at it's core just describes a set of methods and processes for studying things and, as I said before, they can, in theory at least, be applied to literally anything that can be observed by any intelligence.

Science cannot be applied to God because there is no process or method by which God can be studied.

However, logic can be applied to what God might do, such as the questions I asked atheists to answer in the OP.

1. If God exists would God communicate directly to everyone?
2. If God exists would God prove that He exists to everyone?

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

Can you use logic in answering those questions and explain the reason for your answers?
Is there a logical reason to think that an omnipotent/omniscient God would communicate directly to everyone prove that He exists to everyone?

In simple terms, we just need to establish the underlying logical principles (which are generally fixed), set out some assumptions and work though conclusions based upon them. That process can be done with pretty much anything. As I've said multiple times, there is absolutely nothing special or unique about the concept of a god in this context.

So you would have to make some assumptions about God such as God is omnipotent and omniscient.

Nothing I've said is about what God would do. The only logical conclusions I've reached based on the assumptions of an omnipotent and omniscient creator are based on what would be (and the logical contradictions that creates).

What do you think those contradictions are? I do not see any contradictions created by God having those two attributes.

There is no difference between "known as fact" and "known". You can't know anything based only on what you read in scripture, that would still just be belief. After all, people can reach very different conclusions from the same scriptures and different things again from scriptures of other revealed religions, often contradictory things. It can't all be knowledge because it can't all be true.

I agree that what is contained in scripture cannot be known as a fact and that is why it is a belief. However, I think some of God’s attributes can be known. You can argue to the contrary if you think that nothing can be known unless it can be known as a fact, that which has been proven.

It depends upon which definition of know you are using. There is more than one way of knowing something is true. I cannot know anything about God as a fact because I can never prove anything about God, but that is not the only way to know something is true.

Know: be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information. Google
Know: to have information in your mind; to be aware of something: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/know

You are correct about scripture. People reach very different conclusions from the same scriptures and conclude different things from scriptures of other revealed religions, and what conclusions they come to cannot all be true since they are often contradictory. However more than one interpretation of scripture can be true since scriptures can have more than one meaning.

Your blocker does seem to be not being willing to accept that all you have is faith and belief. I understand why that is difficult, though I personally don't think it is an issue in and of itself. When you start conflating belief and knowledge though, I'm going to pick up you on it.

A belief, whether religious or not, is something that has not been proven to be a fact, so that is what I have. We have to have faith in lots of things every day because everything cannot be proven as a fact.

I don't know how I can explain it without repeating myself.

The possibility of omniscience would require everything to be predetermined. For anything to know for certain what will happen, what will happen must be clearly determined. Therefore, a God defined as having created everything must have created everything as predetermined at the point of creation.

That makes no logical sense to me at all. Just because God knows everything that will ever happen that does not mean that God predetermines everything that will happen. That would mean that everything that happens is predestined/fated by God, which would mean humans have no free will to choose and no control over their own destiny.

I believe that God is omniscient so God has foreknowledge of everything that will ever happen but God’s knowledge is not what causes anything to happen. There is no logical connection between knowledge and causality. Mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur but this knowledge does not cause the eclipse to take place.

Just because God created everything there is no reason to think that everything that ever happened after it was created was predetermined by God. There is no logical connection

I believe that everything that happens to humans is either the result of a free will choice, and what is outside of our control is our fate/destiny that was predetermined by God. I explained that on a thread I started about a week ago: I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things

Human free will choices were not predetermined by God, they are determined by us. God has always known what those choices would be but God’s all-encompassing knowledge does not cause anything to occur. It is a perfection of God.

Imagine the flow of time is a book. God has written the entire book and can flick though all of the pages, seeing how it will end. We are reading the book, limited to working through it steadily, a page at a time. The end of the book has already been written and so is predetermined. We have no idea how the book will end yet (and may never even get to the last page at all) but that ending already exists.

You are correct that God knows everything that will ever happen and God has always known since the beginning of creation, since it was written on the Tablet of Fate, but that knowledge is not the cause of what happens in this material world.

You said: The end of the book has already been written and so is predetermined.
I say: The end of the book has already been written and so is known.

Everything that will ever happen has always been known by God but it has not occurred until it takes place in this material word. Some of what happens is the result of human free will choices and some of it was predetermined by God, as noted in the thread I cited above.

 

[Sheldon]

Science cannot be applied to God because there is no process or method by which God can be studied.

Another circular reasoning fallacy.

 

[HonestJoe]

Science cannot be applied to God because there is no process or method by which God can be studied.

That's just another declaration of belief. God could certainly be observed by himself and by convention, could be observed by angels, Satan and other demons. There is nothing fundamental to the concept of God that somehow moves it beyond the scope of science (however much you'd like there to be).

Regardless, it is certainly true that we're are (currently at least) incapable of applying scientific method to any of the numerous and varied god concepts different believers present but all that means is that none of those claims are provable and remain unknowns, just like the countless other concepts and hypotheses we've not (yet) been able to fully study and understand.

However, logic can be applied to what God might do, such as the questions I asked atheists to answer in the OP.

Logic can be applied to a hypothetical concept of a god but the key point is that this won't necessarily be the same as the god you personally believe in, and the logical conclusions can legitimately contradict your beliefs. That doesn't necessarily mean those conclusions are wrong or flawed, it is at least equally possible that your beliefs are wrong instead.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

Can you use logic in answering those questions and explain the reason for your answers?

You need to construct more logical assumptions about this hypothetical god to answer those questions. The statement of their omnipotence and omniscience aren't enough information, you'd also need to define what their desires would be too. The general logical conclusion would be that if a omnipotent being desired something, that this would happen though, therefore if that thing doesn't happen, there can't be a omnipotent being who desires it.

So you would have to make some assumptions about God such as God is omnipotent and omniscient.

Note that is "assumption" in the context of pure logic. Don't confuse it with the casual use of the word as there are significant difference to meaning in the different contexts.

What do you think those contradictions are? I do not see any contradictions created by God having those two attributes.

That is a whole complex area of philosophy I'm really not qualified to explain in any detail and I don't claim to have any definitive answers (or that there even are any). This would be on starting point, just on omnipotence alone; Omnipotence paradox - Wikipedia

It depends upon which definition of know you are using. There is more than one way of knowing something is true.

I accept there can be different ways to gain knowledge but I would argue that they all reach the same end point, that "to know" always means the same thing. I don't accept (and you haven't explained) how there can be a difference between "to know as fact" rather than just "to know". I would argue they are synonymous, that the "as fact" is just inferred.

That fact (hah) remains that you (and I) don't know anything about God. Lots of people have all sorts of different beliefs about God and the rest of us are aware of many of them as beliefs held by others.

However more than one interpretation of scripture can be true since scriptures can have more than one meaning.

You're conveniently skipping over the contradictory element there. Lots of beliefs, both between and within religions, are directly contradictory. They can't all be true and there is no reason to assume any one of them is true over any of the others.

Interpretation only adds yet another complication. You can't even definitively state what any given scripture actually means since different people will read it in different ways (with different biases, preconceptions and motives).

That makes no logical sense to me at all. Just because God knows everything that will ever happen that does not mean that God predetermines everything that will happen. That would mean that everything that happens is predestined/fated by God, which would mean humans have no free will to choose and no control over their own destiny.

Yes, you need to accept the possibility that true free will doesn't exist to accept the wider possibility of predetermination. As long as your faith prevents you from accepting those possibilities, we're not going to get anywhere on this and I'm willing to keep bashing at that wall.

Everything that will ever happen has always been known by God but it has not occurred until it takes place in this material word.

That is temporal thinking. God would exist outside time so the whole concept of time or when things occur is meaningless here. All events throughout time would be exactly the same from his point of view from the very point of creation. These are difficult concepts to get your head around and we don't really have the words to describe it.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is nothing fundamental to the concept of God that somehow moves it beyond the scope of science (however much you'd like there to be).

Regardless, it is certainly true that we're are (currently at least) incapable of applying scientific method to any of the numerous and varied god concepts different believers present but all that means is that none of those claims are provable and remain unknowns, just like the countless other concepts and hypotheses we've not (yet) been able to fully study and understand.

I guess you are saying that hypothetically speaking, if God could be observed then God would not be beyond the scope of science. I would agree with that.

So do you you concede to the fact that since God claims are not provable and remain unknowns they cannot presently be studied and understood by science?

Logic can be applied to a hypothetical concept of a god but the key point is that this won't necessarily be the same as the god you personally believe in, and the logical conclusions can legitimately contradict your beliefs. That doesn't necessarily mean those conclusions are wrong or flawed, it is at least equally possible that your beliefs are wrong instead.

I do not understand how you can apply logic to a god you know nothing about. At best you would just be shooting in the dark, imagining what a god might be like if god existed. I understand that you believe scripture was not revealed by any god, but that is all we have ever had that describes God.

You need to construct more logical assumptions about this hypothetical god to answer those questions. The statement of their omnipotence and omniscience aren't enough information, you'd also need to define what their desires would be too. The general logical conclusion would be that if an omnipotent being desired something, that this would happen though, therefore if that thing doesn't happen, there can't be a omnipotent being who desires it.

1. If God existed would God communicate directly to everyone?
2. If God existed would God prove that He exists to everyone?

That is correct. We would need to know what God desires in order to answer these questions. If God desires that everyone believes He exists God might communicate directly to everyone and/or God prove that He exists to everyone. Otherwise, there is no reason to think that God would do either of these things.

Some atheists believe that if God exists, God should God communicate directly to everyone and/or prove that He exists to everyone, but why should God do either one of these things? Why would an omnipotent God have an obligation to humans to do either of those things?

It all goes back to what God desires, which would be related to what God is trying to accomplish, and we cannot know exactly what God is trying to accomplish.

According to scriptures, God wants everyone to know Him and love Him, but exactly how God wants that to come about is another story. I do not believe God wants everyone to know or love Him because He communicated to them directly or provided proof of His existence. I believe God wants everyone to know and love Him based upon the evidence that God provides.

As I tell atheists, if God desired for 1. or 2. to happen they would happen because an omnipotent God could do either one or both of those things. The logical conclusion then is that is not what God desires since neither one of those things has ever been observed happening.

That is a whole complex area of philosophy I'm really not qualified to explain in any detail and I don't claim to have any definitive answers (or that there even are any). This would be on starting point, just on omnipotence alone; Omnipotence paradox - Wikipedia

I agree with the part of the article. God cannot do what is not within God’s nature to do. For example, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. I would also add that God cannot become a man (as many Christians believe) because then God would no longer be God, since God is not a man.

I accept there can be different ways to gain knowledge but I would argue that they all reach the same end point, that "to know" always means the same thing. I don't accept (and you haven't explained) how there can be a difference between "to know as fact" rather than just "to know". I would argue they are synonymous, that the "as fact" is just inferred.

When I say I know, I mean an inner sense of certitude, not that I know God exists as a fact. That inner certitude is not something I can explain. Only another believer who shared that same certitude can understand what I mean.

That fact (hah) remains that you (and I) don't know anything about God. Lots of people have all sorts of different beliefs about God and the rest of us are aware of many of them as beliefs held by others.

No, nobody can ever know for a fact that God exists. Do you think that means that God does not exist? What if God exists and does not desire to be known as a fact? If God did not desire to be known as a fact, then we could never know that God exists as a fact. Conversely, If God did desire to be known as a fact, then we could know God exists as a fact because an omnipotent God could provide proof of His existence. (Incidentally, Baha’u’llah wrote that God could make all men one people, which means that God could make everyone believe He exists. He then went on to explain why God did not do that.)

You're conveniently skipping over the contradictory element there. Lots of beliefs, both between and within religions, are directly contradictory. They can't all be true and there is no reason to assume any one of them is true over any of the others.

As I have explained to @Tiberius many times, it is not the original (as close as we can ever get to the original) scriptures that contradict each other, it is what religious people have come to believe they mean is that is contradictory. It is true that all religions are different from each other and teach different things but differences are not contradictions. They are just additional teachings, new and different teachings, that were not revealed in the previous religions.

The teachings of all the religions can all be true if they are additional teachings rather than contradictory teachings, and that is what I believe is the case. Baha’is refer to that as Progressive Revelation, and it makes logical sense.

Interpretation only adds yet another complication. You can't even definitively state what any given scripture actually means since different people will read it in different ways (with different biases, preconceptions and motives).

And here is the hornet’s nest. How can we know what a scripture actually means when there are so many different interpretations? Christians don’t even agree what the Bible means and that is why there are so many denominations of Christianity and so many different beliefs about the end times.

Every Christian I have known believes that they know what the Bible means; but as I tell them, this is logically impossible that all of them are right, because the meanings they assign are different and often contradictory. So who is right?

There are several possibilities: (1) one person is right and everyone else who disagrees with that person is wrong, or (2) nobody is right because nobody understands the real (intended) meaning, or (3) there is more than one meaning of many scriptures, so more than one person is right.

How can anyone say the meaning they assign is correct and the other meanings others assign are wrong? The hundred-dollar question is why people think they are uniquely qualified to interpret scriptures? There are so many different interpretations so nobody can say that only theirs is correct because they cannot prove that it is correct, nor has anyone been given the authority to interpret the scriptures. As such, it is just their personal opinion that they are right and others are wrong.

The problem is that Jesus never appointed an interpreter so everyone was left to decide what the Bible means. Baha’u’llah had something to say about Interpretation of Scriptures. Basically what He was saying is that there has to be an appointed interpreter who has the ultimate authority to interpret the scriptures.

Yes, you need to accept the possibility that true free will doesn't exist to accept the wider possibility of predetermination. As long as your faith prevents you from accepting those possibilities, we're not going to get anywhere on this and I'm willing to keep bashing at that wall.

Just because we are not free to choose everything we will do that does not mean we are not free to choose anything we will do. Free will has many constraints. We have to have the ability and the opportunity to do x if we are going to be able to do x.

God’s foreknowledge of what will happen in the future is not the cause of its realization. The essential knowledge of God surrounds the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, but it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God.

I do believe there is such a thing as fate and predestination but just because some things are predetermined by God that does not mean that everything is predetermined by God. If that was true we would all just be like God’s puppets in a string.

I do not recall if I already pointed you to the thread I started that deals with free will and fate/predestination. My OP explains how some things are subject to free will and some things are fated/predestined.

I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things

That is temporal thinking. God would exist outside time so the whole concept of time or when things occur is meaningless here. All events throughout time would be exactly the same from his point of view from the very point of creation. These are difficult concepts to get your head around and we don't really have the words to describe it.

You are correct. God exists outside of time so God is in a different dimension from the earth dimension where time is measured by the sun. In the spiritual world where there is no sun, time cannot be so measured.

You are also correct in saying that all events throughout time (as we know it) are exactly the same from God’s point of view from the very point of creation. It is as if everything that has happened or ever will happen has always been known by God. Yes, this is a very difficult subject to wrap our heads around.

 

[Sheldon]

I guess you are saying that hypothetically speaking, if God could be observed then God would not be beyond the scope of science. I would agree with that.

A deity wouldn't have to be observed for science to examine claims about it, all that would be necessary is for it to influence the physical world or universe in any way.

 

[samtonga43]

I agree with the part of the article. God cannot do what is not within God’s nature to do. For example, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. I would also add that God cannot become a man (as many Christians believe) because then God would no longer be God, since God is not a man.

God did not 'become' a man. God was Father, Son, Holy Spirit, in the Beginning. Jesus Christ is God Incarnate.

When I say I know, I mean an inner sense of certitude, not that I know God exists as a fact. That inner certitude is not something I can explain. Only another believer who shared that same certitude can understand what I mean.

Exactly. Here is where I can completely agree with you. To try to explain this certitude makes no sense whatsoever. It is, in fact, counter-productive.

The teachings of all the religions can all be true if they are additional teachings rather than contradictory teachings, and that is what I believe is the case. Baha’is refer to that as Progressive Revelation, and it m.akes logical sense.

Jesus said that He was the Way, the Truth and the Life

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus said that He was the Way, the Truth and the Life

John 14:6
John 14:6
John 14:6
John 14:6
John 14:6
John 14:6

 

[HonestJoe]

So do you you concede to the fact that since God claims are not provable and remain unknowns they cannot presently be studied and understood by science?

That does depend on the specific claims. Some could be studied since they involve material effects (e.g. "Praying at Lourdes will cure your illness" or "God caused a world-wide flood 4000 years ago") but sure, there are plenty of claims about various gods which we can't currently study. This is typically intentional IMO.

I do not understand how you can apply logic to a god you know nothing about.

It isn't applying logic to god, its applying logic to clams about a god. We can apply logic to entirely fictional things (e.g. "Who is stronger, Superman or the Hulk?"), we just have to define the relevant characteristics about those things. And believers in gods do indeed define the characteristics of their gods and so logic can be applied on the basis of those defined characteristics.

Some atheists believe that if God exists, God should God communicate directly to everyone and/or prove that He exists to everyone, but why should God do either one of these things?

They say that specifically on the basis of how believers define and personalise that god though. They are applying logic to the concept of that god as defined. Regardless of whether their conclusions are valid, the process they're following certainly is. It is the same way we assess any proposed concept or idea, real or fictional.

As I tell atheists, if God desired for 1. or 2. to happen they would happen because an omnipotent God could do either one or both of those things. The logical conclusion then is that is not what God desires since neither one of those things has ever been observed happening.

The other equally logical possibility would be that God doesn't exist at all of course.

I agree with the part of the article. God cannot do what is not within God’s nature to do. For example, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being.

That raises difficult questions about the nature of his omnipotence though. It would imply that there is some force or set of rules which are essentially more powerful than God. I'm not sure that is consistent with how monotheistic gods are typically defined and presented, including your own and counters the idea that any god specifically would be necessary for creation, since the more powerful thing could have done it instead.

When I say I know, I mean an inner sense of certitude, not that I know God exists as a fact.

Yes, and yet again, that is called "belief", not "knowledge". If you keep calling your belief knowledge, you will only continue to cause unnecessary confusion and conflict.

No, nobody can ever know for a fact that God exists. Do you think that means that God does not exist?

No, I think it means nobody can know whether God (or any other deity) exists. As a consequence, I think it means there is no good reason to operate as if any god does exist.

What if God exists and does not desire to be known as a fact?

Then we wouldn't know such a god existed nor the motives for that God keeping it's existence uncertain. Again, I see no reason to act as if such a god does exist and certainly no good reason to worship or revere them.

There are several possibilities: (1) one person is right and everyone else who disagrees with that person is wrong, or (2) nobody is right because nobody understands the real (intended) meaning, or (3) there is more than one meaning of many scriptures, so more than one person is right.

It is also possible that the scriptures aren't divinely inspired and don't contain any unified truth at all, but are just a collection of various idea and beliefs that have been combined, edited and interpreted by different people for different purposes through the years. Being correct in interpreting the original intended meaning of any given scripture doesn't necessarily mean you have an actual truth, only the opinion of whoever wrote it.

There are so many different interpretations so nobody can say that only theirs is correct because they cannot prove that it is correct, nor has anyone been given the authority to interpret the scriptures.

Baha’u’llah had something to say about Interpretation of Scriptures. Basically what He was saying is that there has to be an appointed interpreter who has the ultimate authority to interpret the scriptures.

Aren't these two statements contradictory? Does nobody have authority to interpret the scriptures or does Baha’u’llah have the authority (because he said so)? I don't see how you can't get stuck in a loop if the only way to determine who has authority to interpret the scriptures comes from those scriptures. That's like locking your keys inside the car.

God’s foreknowledge of what will happen in the future is not the cause of its realization.

THAT IS STILL NOT WHAT I'M SAYING!

Please read carefully;
1) If anything can be omnipotent, everything must be predetermined.
2) If God knowingly created everything, God is responsible for everything.

The two points are separate but if they're both true, they combine to infer further conclusions.

I do believe there is such a thing as fate and predestination but just because some things are predetermined by God that does not mean that everything is predetermined by God. If that was true we would all just be like God’s puppets in a string.

You can't dismiss the logic just because the consequence would be unpleasant or contradicts your beliefs. That's the entire point of discussing it in the first place.

The simple logic remains, that if God created everything with clear and complete knowledge of all of the consequences of what he created (including any indirect or knock-on effects), he can only be said to be directly responsible for causing all of those consequences. If he has desired anything to be different in reality, he could (and presumably would) have made it so in the first place. Every single thing that every happens would be Gods will by definition.

 

[Trailblazer]

It isn't applying logic to god, its applying logic to clams about a god. We can apply logic to entirely fictional things (e.g. "Who is stronger, Superman or the Hulk?"), we just have to define the relevant characteristics about those things. And believers in gods do indeed define the characteristics of their gods and so logic can be applied on the basis of those defined characteristics.

Yes, I agree we can apply logic to claims about God if we have some characteristics to go on, what I have called the attributes of God.

They say that specifically on the basis of how believers define and personalise that god though. They are applying logic to the concept of that god as defined. Regardless of whether their conclusions are valid, the process they're following certainly is. It is the same way we assess any proposed concept or idea, real or fictional.

On the basis of how Baha’i believers define God, God would never do anything that God does not want to do, so what God chooses to do will be only what God wants to do. That means that if God does not want to communicate directly to everyone or prove He exists to everyone, God will never choose to do those things.

Furthermore, since I believe that no ordinary human being could ever understand God if God communicated to them directly, there would be no reason for God to do so.

The other equally logical possibility would be that God doesn't exist at all of course.

Of course that is equally likely, but it is not a given that God does not exist just because God does not do 1. or 2.

That raises difficult questions about the nature of his omnipotence though. It would imply that there is some force or set of rules which are essentially more powerful than God. I'm not sure that is consistent with how monotheistic gods are typically defined and presented, including your own and counters the idea that any god specifically would be necessary for creation, since the more powerful thing could have done it instead.

I do not believe that omnipotent means can do anything but rather it means all-powerful. God cannot do what would reduce God to less than all-powerful because then God would no longer be all-powerful.

If there was a more powerful thing than God then God would not be the most powerful entity, which is what all-powerful implies, so that is correct that God would not have been necessary for creation, since the more powerful thing could have been the creator.

Yes, and yet again, that is called "belief", not "knowledge". If you keep calling your belief knowledge, you will only continue to cause unnecessary confusion and conflict.

I have already caused the confusion and conflict so I don’t want to cause any more. That’s true, it is a belief since there is no proof that God exists, only evidence. If there was proof, God’s existence would be a fact, not a belief.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

No, I think it means nobody can know whether God (or any other deity) exists. As a consequence, I think it means there is no good reason to operate as if any god does exist.

Fair enough, but I think that if there is evidence that God exists and I think that is a good reason to believe that God exists. The problem of course that the evidence is not sufficient for everyone, and I would not expect anyone to believe on evidence that is insufficient. One can only believe what makes sense to them although it is possible that people can change how they think about the evidence if they are open to change.

Then we wouldn't know such a god existed nor the motives for that God keeping it's existence uncertain. Again, I see no reason to act as if such a god does exist and certainly no good reason to worship or revere them.

No, we wouldn’t know the motives for keeping its existence uncertain unless we were open to reading the scriptures of a religion that revealed that information. I do not believe there is any other possible way to know.

It is also possible that the scriptures aren't divinely inspired and don't contain any unified truth at all, but are just a collection of various idea and beliefs that have been combined, edited and interpreted by different people for different purposes through the years. Being correct in interpreting the original intended meaning of any given scripture doesn't necessarily mean you have an actual truth, only the opinion of whoever wrote it.

That’s true, and I question how much of the Bible is actually divinely inspired. Since we don’t even know who authored it, it is only a faith-based belief that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the fact that there are so many contradictions in the Bible leads me to believe the whole Bible is not divinely inspired since God would not contradict Himself.

Aren't these two statements contradictory? Does nobody have authority to interpret the scriptures or does Baha’u’llah have the authority (because he said so)? I don't see how you can't get stuck in a loop if the only way to determine who has authority to interpret the scriptures comes from those scriptures. That's like locking your keys inside the car.

No, those two statements are not contradictory. Allow me to explain.

I think that Baha’u’llah was referring to the Bible as the Word of God. What Baha’u’llah was saying in that passage is that the biblical scriptures can have many different, but the Representative of God and His appointed interpreters are the only ones who have the authority to interpret the scriptures, so they are the final authorities on the meaning, and whatever meaning they assign should not be questioned.

The Representative of God is the Messenger of God, also referred to as a Manifestation of God. Jesus was a Messenger of God but He did not even write any scriptures let alone interpret them, nor did He assign an interpreter, so everyone was free to interpret them as they chose to.

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible has been a big problem since the very beginning. Christians disagreed as to what the Bible meant and that is why there are so many different sects of Christianity. I believe that Christians have misinterpreted much of the Bible because they did not have the key to unlock the meaning, and that is understandable because it was prophesied in Daniel 12 that the Book would be sealed up until the time of the end, meaning nobody would really understand it.

Daniel Chapter 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

Baha’is believe that the 2,300 years came in 1844 and the book was unsealed by Baha’u’llah. That math is explained in Some Answered Questions, 10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF DANIEL

Unsealing the Book means we can now understand what much of the Bible means that could never be understood before by reading the Baha’i Writings.

THAT IS STILL NOT WHAT I'M SAYING!

Please read carefully;
1) If anything can be omnipotent, everything must be predetermined.
2) If God knowingly created everything, God is responsible for everything.

The two points are separate but if they're both true, they combine to infer further conclusions.

Okay, I understand what you are saying but I do not know why you think that 1) everything would be predetermined if God was omnipotent, and I do not know why you think that 2) If God knowingly created everything God would be responsible for everything.

Neither one of those statements makes sense to me. I see no logical connection between omnipotence and predetermination and I see no reason what God would be responsible for everything He created just because He created it. I believe that God gave man a rational mind and free will so man could be responsible for the earth and everything on it, including being responsible for other people. Science and religion are what man has to manage the earth.

If a painter created a painting and then he sold it at auction would that painter be responsible for the painting after that? I believe that God is responsible for the creation that He created but God is not responsible for what humans chose to do with the creation after it was created.

You can't dismiss the logic just because the consequence would be unpleasant or contradicts your beliefs. That's the entire point of discussing it in the first place.

The simple logic remains, that if God created everything with clear and complete knowledge of all of the consequences of what he created (including any indirect or knock-on effects), he can only be said to be directly responsible for causing all of those consequences.

Sorry, but I do not see it that way because it makes no logical sense to me. This is not only about my religious beliefs, I reasoned this out by myself.

I do not believe that God’s foreknowledge of the consequences of what He created causes God to be responsible for what God created. I do no believe that God’s foreknowledge causes anything to happen in this world. How can foreknowledge of something cause anything to happen? Only the free will of man and/or the will of God that lead to actions can cause anything to happen.

If he has desired anything to be different in reality, he could (and presumably would) have made it so in the first place. Every single thing that every happens would be Gods will by definition.

God made the earth in the first place but after He made it He handed it over to the humans who He made it for. Nothing in life is not static, everything changes over time, so what it was in the first place was never intended to be that way it would be for all time. Humanity evolves over time just as science evolves over time, and the earth changes as science and humanity evolve.

If God desired anything to be different God could override human free will and make it different but that was never what God wanted, because if God had wanted that God would have never given humans free will in the first place.

In a certain sense everything that ever happens is God’s will because it only happens because God allows it to happen.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes, I agree we can apply logic to claims about God if we have some characteristics to go on, what I have called the attributes of God.

Specifically about the concept of a god. This can be in the abstract and a step away from any question of whether such a being actually exists or not, merely whether the concept is internally consistent. The problem with many proposed gods is that their fundamental definitions are often fuzzy and explicitly masked (which concepts like God being beyond our understanding), which is necessary to overcome internal logical consistencies or the inability to support their existence with objective evidence.

I do not believe that omnipotent means can do anything but rather it means all-powerful. God cannot do what would reduce God to less than all-powerful because then God would no longer be all-powerful.

Yes, and as I say, that raised a problem with the entire concept. How can something be called "all-powerful" if there are things it can't do, if there is something in existence that can prevent them, something that could therefore be considered more powerful. It raises the question of whether true omnipotence is even logically possible at all.

It could be that God is actually "just" very powerful but that would mean the beliefs that his is omnipotent would be wrong and therefore brings all the other beliefs about him in to question.

No, we wouldn’t know the motives for keeping its existence uncertain unless we were open to reading the scriptures of a religion that revealed that information. I do not believe there is any other possible way to know.

Given that there is still no reason to trust scripture (or anyone's particular interpretation of it), that jus means there is literally no way to know.

I think that Baha’u’llah was referring to the Bible as the Word of God. What Baha’u’llah was saying in that passage is that the biblical scriptures can have many different, but the Representative of God and His appointed interpreters are the only ones who have the authority to interpret the scriptures, so they are the final authorities on the meaning, and whatever meaning they assign should not be questioned.

But that in itself is only based on his word. He is declaring his own authority on the basis of his own authority.

The Representative of God is the Messenger of God, also referred to as a Manifestation of God. Jesus was a Messenger of God but He did not even write any scriptures let alone interpret them, nor did He assign an interpreter, so everyone was free to interpret them as they chose to.

Okay, I understand what you are saying but I do not know why you think that 1) everything would be predetermined if God was omnipotent, and I do not know why you think that 2) If God knowingly created everything God would be responsible for everything.

I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly. I think that unless you can accept the possibility of free will not existing, you won't be able to accept any of this.

If God desired anything to be different God could override human free will and make it different but that was never what God wanted, because if God had wanted that God would have never given humans free will in the first place.

In a certain sense everything that ever happens is God’s will because it only happens because God allows it to happen.

Exactly. That would mean that everything that happens, good, bad or indifferent, must be exactly what God wanted to happen. Specifically including all of the bad things of course.

 

[Trailblazer]

Specifically about the concept of a god. This can be in the abstract and a step away from any question of whether such a being actually exists or not, merely whether the concept is internally consistent. The problem with many proposed gods is that their fundamental definitions are often fuzzy and explicitly masked (which concepts like God being beyond our understanding), which is necessary to overcome internal logical consistencies or the inability to support their existence with objective evidence.

But if God exists and is beyond our understanding that is the reality, and if God exists and does not provide objective evidence of His existence that is also the reality…

So what can we do about that?

Yes, and as I say, that raised a problem with the entire concept. How can something be called "all-powerful" if there are things it can't do, if there is something in existence that can prevent them, something that could therefore be considered more powerful. It raises the question of whether true omnipotence is even logically possible at all.

God being all-powerful does not mean God can do anything, it means God has all power to do what is God chooses to do.

Nobody can interfere with what God chooses to do, but by the same token nobody can make God do what God does not choose to do because no human is all-powerful, and no human can be more than all-powerful, which would be necessary to overpower an all-powerful God.

It could be that God is actually "just" very powerful but that would mean the beliefs that his is omnipotent would be wrong and therefore brings all the other beliefs about him in to question.

That is true. If God was not all-powerful that would call a lot of things believers believe about God into question

Given that there is still no reason to trust scripture (or anyone's particular interpretation of it), that just means there is literally no way to know.

That’s true, if you cannot trust any scripture. In that case all we are left with is our own imagination.

But that in itself is only based on his word. He is declaring his own authority on the basis of his own authority.

That is correct, and that is why we would not believe His claim to have authority unless there was evidence to support His claim to have authority.

It is important to note that Baha’u’llah never claimed to be the only Representative of God that ever existed or that ever will exist; He said is only one of many Messengers who have come to earth and that there will be more Messengers in the future, as long as mankind exists.

However, Baha'is believe that the coming of the Bab in 1844 AD ushered in the beginning of a new age, which is also the time of the end referred to in Daniel 12, because it marked the end of the old age and the beginning of the new age. The Bab was the Gate who came to announce the coming of Baha’u’llah nine years later. Baha'is believe that as the Messenger for this age Baha’u’llah is the one who unsealed the Book (the Bible) and explained its meaning, as per Daniel 12.

I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly. I think that unless you can accept the possibility of free will not existing, you won't be able to accept any of this.

No, I cannot accept the possibility that free will does not exist because I consider that illogical, since everything that happens in this world can only happen if there is human free will. Moreover, without free will humans could not be held accountable for their moral actions and that is an untenable belief, since the entire justice system worldwide is predicated on free will.

Exactly. That would mean that everything that happens, good, bad or indifferent, must be exactly what God wanted to happen. Specifically including all of the bad things of course.

No, it does not mean that everything that happens in this world is as God wanted it to happen, it means that it is as God has allowed it to happen. God does not want man to commit evil actions but God allows it since humans have free will to choose. Nobody can know whether or not God wants other bad things to happen, things such as natural disasters. These events are not subject to free will choice, and I believe that God allows these things to happen because God does not intervene with the natural world.

 

[HonestJoe]

So what can we do about that?

Absolutely nothing. That is the problem with religious beliefs (certainly theistic ones).

God being all-powerful does not mean God can do anything, it means God has all power to do what is God chooses to do.

That is the same thing! God can choose to do anything means God can do anything. These word games are getting you nowhere.

Nobody can interfere with what God chooses to do

But you've already said there are some things God can't do (e.g. stop being a God or go against nature) so something (not necessarily somebody) must be capable of preventing him from doing some things.

... because no human is all-powerful, and no human can be more than all-powerful, which would be necessary to overpower an all-powerful God.

You need to stop focusing on humans in this context. We're talking about the nature of God here. Humans are an irrelevant speck at this scale. The question is essentially what (if anything) exists at Gods level (remembering that "I don't know" remains a perfectly valid answer).

That is correct, and that is why we would not believe His claim to have authority unless there was evidence to support His claim to have authority.

Is there though? Evidence that is entirely independent of both scripture and his own words?

No, I cannot accept the possibility that free will does not exist because I consider that illogical

It really isn't. It is a confusing and scary concept but in and of itself it is perfectly possible for free will to be an illusion and for us to have no true control of our actions. I'm not sure whether that is the case but it is certainly a possibility, regardless of how scary it might be (after all, a lot of people find the idea of an all-powerful God equally terrifying).

No, it does not mean that everything that happens in this world is as God wanted it to happen, it means that it is as God has allowed it to happen.

Again, these mean exactly the same thing. If God gave humans free will, he must have known that we will do bad things as a consequence. He could have prevented that (either the will or the consequences) in an endless number of ways but apparently chose not to.

If you have a free and uninfluenced choice to do something will full knowledge of the consequences but you choose not to do it, the only reason could be that it is not what you wanted. You talk a lot about human free will but wouldn't God have free will as well? Why wouldn't he be responsible for his conscious actions (and inaction) in the same way we all are?