What does God want from you?

[ppp]

That is correct. We believe that the Writings of the central figures of our Faith are true.

Do you understand that unquestionable truths are inherently anti science?

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you understand that unquestionable truths are inherently anti science?

No, I do not believe that is the case.
Baha'is believe that as a Manifestation of God Baha'u'llah was infallible so we don't question what He wrote.

The Baha'i Faith teaches that we have to accept scientific truths as well as religious truths, and that there is no inherent contradiction.
We believe that if religion contradicts science that religion is mere superstition and not the truth. For example, we do not believe that the physical body of Jesus defied gravity and rose up to heaven on the clouds and we do not believe the body of Jesus rose from the dead after three days. Both of these science has proven impossible.

“Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism...” Paris Talks, pp. 141-143​

​

From: FOURTH PRINCIPLE—THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE​

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, we can agree it's an old document. But whether it's simply inaccurate, or seriously inaccurate, well, there we may differ. For example, there is still no archaeological evidence for the Exodus, no Pharaoh identified, no evidence or even hints in Egypt, so the major question is still whether it's history in any sense at all..

The same can be said about any historical narrative of such age.
We have reliable historical evidence of Jesus and Muhammad, so..

 

[Ebionite]

Do you understand that unquestionable truths are inherently anti science?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why is it that you only look at part of that verse that says God is the source of darkness and evil?

I quoted the entire passage, although only the part about the god of Abraham being the original source of evil was relevant to our discussion. There was no dispute over whether the Bible claimed that God was the source of good.

Look at how much resistance you've offered to me making that point. First, you objected to me citing scripture that I didn't believe came from a god, which belief was irrelevant to my point that scripture identifies that deity as the source of everything including evil. And now this last comment.

Imagine how helpful such a message would be if people believed it came from God.

Agreed. A message in support of empiricism as the path to truth believed to be from a god would likely be useful if it was heard and believed by a significant number of people, but we don't have that. At best, the Abrahamic religions begrudgingly accept the science that contradicts their scriptures, which scriptures they then call allegory. It's never an endorsement of science, just an unwillingness to contest it openly. They still consider themselves the ultimate arbiters of truth by proxy, as do their adherents - not science.

All these principles are certainly not in the American Constitution.

Agreed. Baha'u'llah's agenda was not that of the Founders and vice versa. One was trying to promote religious beliefs and the other to establish a secular government.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

That was your response to, "unquestionable truths are inherently anti science"

Certitude is what leads to being locked into an idea or position in the face of evidence that one is wrong. It's characteristic of religions and serves them. It's in their interest that you believe their dogma and never waver from the faith, but not in your interest to give them that blind loyalty. They present their inflexibility regarding faith-based belief as a virtue. They're proud that they are too certain to be affected by contradictory evidence, but look at what that can lead to:

The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked them, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

He has cut himself off from discovering that he is wrong where it can be demonstrated that he is wrong to somebody a little more intellectually supple.

Here's more of that phenomenon of closing oneself off to evidence from an eminent Christian apologist some consider an intellectual. I disagree because of comments like this one:

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

And here are a couple more fideists proudly proclaiming to the world that their minds are permanently closed for business. They consider this kind of thinking virtuous:

• “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
• “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris

The prepared mind is flexible in the face of evidence supporting a change of position. This is the attitude that defines the empiricist, science being an empirical pursuit just as daily life is. Flexibility in the face of new evidence is an asset in both the laboratory and in daily life.

 

[blü 2]

The same can be said about any historical narrative of such age.
We have reliable historical evidence of Jesus and Muhammad, so..

Certainly ancient human history is a jigsaw with many pieces missing. Still, it's unclear whether the Exodus was an event in history or a later construction. As it stands, the story-teller aspects of the narrative are in part not credible and in part not reassuring.

Anyway, perhaps more archaeology will throw more light on the problem at some stage.

 

[ppp]

No, I do not believe that is the case.

And yet, in science.... All hypothesis are falsifiable. All conclusions are tentative pending disconfirming evidence. Nothing is infallible or unquestionable

 

[Ebionite]

Certitude is what leads to being locked into an idea or position in the face of evidence that one is wrong.

The assumption that such evidence exists for things that are true implies that knowledge is unattainable. While it's fair to say that this implication holds for human reason, that doesn't extent to knowledge that originates from a divine source.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you are an atheist, speculate. If God really exists and creates the universe and God creates you. What does God want from you?

Nothing. If a god exists, it has never communicated with me. There's no reason to believe that a god would know I exist or care, either.

we can make ourselves our own gods too.

Or, we can just dispense with the whole notion of gods until we have reason to do otherwise. I don't need a god in my life or to run it. I do that myself, which claim often vexes the faithful. Your reply is a common answer to that- you just want to play god. Another is that the atheist is a dissolute hedonist trying escape accountability, as if the pursuit of happiness without a god or religion is somehow to be avoided.

The assumption that such evidence exists for things that are true implies that knowledge is unattainable.

What? This can't mean what it appears to say, can it - that the idea that evidence implies knowledge is unobtainable? Correct deductions derived from the proper interpretation of evidence generate knowledge. Is that controversial?

Try plain speaking. Perhaps you could write that again and flesh it out using more words whose meaning are clear.

While it's fair to say that this implication holds for human reason, that doesn't extent to knowledge that originates from a divine source.

There are no known divine sources.

Is there a reason you feel a need to be argumentative? That must get really tiring.

He's merely disagreeing with you. In academic circles, argument is not fighting just as criticism is not insulting. Neither is emotionally motivated.

You called this being argumentative:

You said: That's just what you say.
I said: and what you say is just what you say.
You said: As you keep insisting, that is just your opinion

How is he being argumentative but not you? You're each expressing opinions and not even contradictory ones. Here you are again being "argumentative" again as you use the term. All I see is a dispassionate disagreement, not a conflict.

"There is no God of Group A and God of Group B. There is only one God. People believe different things about that God, which is usually according to their religions."

 

[Ebionite]

What? This can't mean what it appears to say, can it - that the idea that evidence implies knowledge is unobtainable?

You left out the part about truth.

 

[Gassim]

Thanks for the heads up, but I've got a pretty good idea of how to discover what is discoverable. And you seem to be saying that one can't know anything unless he knows everything. Also, I'm pretty sure that you believe that I should stop thinking critically so that I can discover YOUR "reality." That's neither truth nor reality. How do I know? I've already been a theist. I've already decided once to suspend disbelief and give this mode of thought a test drive for a decade. No knowledge came from that.

I don't get my answers regarding how to live life from science, but I do derive them myself empirically, which can be considered informal science. What science is for me is a model for critical thought, an argument for empiricism over faith based in its stellar éclat, a great source of stimulation and diversion reading and thinking about, and the source of a variety of discoveries that have made life longer, more functional (eyeglasses), safer (vaccines), more comfortable (air conditioning), easier (automobiles), and more interesting (international travel, electronic media).

I can't. Nor need I to maintain my current naturalistic worldview.

My turn: I challenge you to give me a single "proof" (a compelling, evidenced argument will do) that a god exists or that that is even possible..

That's a faith-based belief and contradicted by the current science.

Your thinking is teleological, that is, it presumes goals, purpose, and intent in nature apart from conscious animal life on earth. I am aware of no purpose behind life or mind arising. I don't say that that is impossible, just that there is no evidence that it happens.

Once again, thanks for your interest in my education and intellectual development, but I've actually spent a fair amount of time studying and contemplating philosophy. Mine is rooted in skepticism, empiricism (epistemology), and utilitarian ethics. My metaphysics is godless (naturalism). I prefer neutral monism to materialism for reasons I could give but won't if not asked to, and both over idealism and dualism, although none can be ruled in or out yet, and I find the concept of supernaturalism self-contradictory (incoherent). I reject insufficiently supported and unfalsifiable claims.

Go for it. What philosophy have you got to offer? I reject fideism as a path to truth.

Why do you believe that? Here's my take on those:

The logically possible candidate hypotheses for the existence of our universe are the following. I think the list is exhaustive and its elements mutually exclusive, meaning that one and only of these must be correct:

The universe:

I. Had no prior cause or source

1a. It has always existed​

1b. It arose uncaused from nothing​

II. Had a source

IIa. It was an unconscious source​

​

IIa1. An unconscious substance (multiverse) that always existed​

IIa2. An unconscious substance (multiverse)that came into being uncaused​

IIb The source was conscious (deity)​

​

IIa1. A deity that always existed​

IIa2. A deity that came into being uncaused​

​

Have you done a similar analysis, or disregard five of these without cause and assume IIa1 by faith?​

​

Philosophy is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." If a god is found, great, but seeking one is not what philosophy is about.​

How many branches of philosophy do you know? Do you know what philosophy of religion deal with? Can you tell how many types of existence are there? What are the nature of those existence are? Unfortunately, physics has so far found no confirmed instances of something arising from nothing. This is a dilemma to atheism.

 

[ppp]

How many branches of philosophy do you know? Do you know what philosophy of religion deal with? Can you tell how many types of existence are there? What are the nature of those existence are? Unfortunately, physics has so far found no confirmed instances of something arising from nothing. This is a dilemma to atheism.

Nah. That is a theist bag of twaddle.

1. Atheism is not monolithic.
2. Creatio ex nihilo (i.e. "something out of nothing") is theistic belief. Christianity and Islam lean on that belief, hard.
3. Theism has provided no explanations as to why there something exists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How many branches of philosophy do you know? Do you know what philosophy of religion deal with? Can you tell how many types of existence are there?

Can you address what I wrote to you? You ignored most of it. These questions are irrelevant. They remind me of some of the responses I've collected over the years from believers trying to disqualify the opinions of skeptics regarding scripture:

[24] In any other field, like medicine, engineering, technology, electronics, software, computer, unless you have qualifications and experience, you are not allowed to open your mouth.

[30] A doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer are so used to reading their professional documentation literally, that metaphor, allegory, parables, hyperbole, and analogies are like another language unto themselves.

[38] It requires theological understanding. You don't have that. I do.

[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.

Unfortunately, physics has so far found no confirmed instances of something arising from nothing. This is a dilemma to atheism.

Here's another claim of a problem, dilemma, failure, or crisis for science or atheism or materialism with no problem described. There is no dilemma in atheism.

You left out the part about truth.

That was your response to, "What? This can't mean what it appears to say, can it - that the idea that evidence implies knowledge is unobtainable? Correct deductions derived from the proper interpretation of evidence generate knowledge. Is that controversial? Try plain speaking. Perhaps you could write that again and flesh it out using more words whose meaning are clear."

I mentioned correct ideas and knowledge, synonyms for truth along with fact. But YOU left out the part where you comment on what was written.

So no, then, to you being able to clarify what you meant? No problem. I treat unevidenced claims, unfalsifiable claims, and unintelligible claims alike.

 

[Ebionite]

Correct deductions derived from the proper interpretation of evidence generate knowledge. Is that controversial?

Interpretations vary, as does the availability of evidence. The essential point relates the difference between human reason and the divine.

 

[Trailblazer]

And yet, in science.... All hypothesis are falsifiable. All conclusions are tentative pending disconfirming evidence. Nothing is infallible or unquestionable

That's true. Science is subject to change, as new discoveries are always being made. Science is constantly evolving.

Only God is infallible, although what is revealed by God is subject to change in every new age. Religion is not static, it evolves just like science.

 

[ppp]

Only God is infallible, although what is revealed by God is subject to change in every new age.

Which is an anti-since statement as:

• it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis
• well, that is a list, but the first is enough.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is an anti-since statement as:

• it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis
• well, that is a list, but the first is enough.

What God reveals has nothing to do with science, so it cannot be anti-science.

 

[Kenny]

Or, we can just dispense with the whole notion of gods until we have reason to do otherwise. I don't need a god in my life or to run it. I do that myself, which claim often vexes the faithful. Your reply is a common answer to that- you just want to play god. Another is that the atheist is a dissolute hedonist trying escape accountability, as if the pursuit of happiness without a god or religion is somehow to be avoided.

Too general IMO.


If life does come from God, then you do need Him... but at the least, what you are saying is that you are your own god. IMV Doesn't vex me, just a matter of fact. IMV

 

[ppp]

What God reveals has nothing to do with science, so it cannot be anti-science.

That is not a falsifiable statement.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is not a falsifiable statement.

So what?