ecco
Veteran Member
Uh huh. Any day now. We are all waiting.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is this logical?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
1. I said that I believe the OT and the NT were the inspired Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, even though we do not know who wrote it. Also, I said that I believe some of the Bible is more accurate than other parts. The words of the Prophets in the OT fit that category. The way we can know these verses are accurate is that we can compare them to events and places that exist and see that they have been fulfilled.
2. I have produced an accurate concise Biblical prophecy that "I believe" refers to Baha'u'llah, and I explained why I believe it refers to Him. I am not going to explain that again.
Micah 7:12 “In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.”
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
He is a real person, and I do have him all to myself.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, apparently I cannot do it because some people will think I am proselytizing even if all I do is defend my religion. But it is no skin off my nose since I do not even like talking about religion, mine or any other.
I was never trying to make any case for my religion. It is either the Truth from God or not, logically speaking. I believe it is, and there is no need for me to convince anyone else since that is not a job I have been given to do.
Everyone has to do their own investigation if they want to know if it is true or false.
What people believe is not what makes anything true. It is either true or false.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious. For example, there was a time in history when most people did not believe we could ever fly in the air, but most people were wrong, as we found out later.[/QUOTE]
And I believe it is likely possible that on some level god does communicate with everyone. Think morals, and only speaks to select people to future God's communication. It comes down to the debate are there morals that humans follow or not and why do these morals exist.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
@Milton Platt
Trailblazer said: I am not a deist, but I do not agree with that. A God that exists but does not communicate with humans and cannot be discerned by humans could still be holding down the fort so to speak. Just because humans cannot prove that does not mean it is not happening. That said, I believe that God communicates through Messengers/Prophets, even if people do not recognize them as such.
Milton Platt said: I agree with what you are saying...there could be an undetectable god who does something in the background that we don't know about. But my point was that in the case of such a god, there is no need to have a religious dogma involved with worshiping it. We can go about our business as usual.
That would be true if that undetectable God never communicated through Messengers. In that case there would be no way to know what that God wants for us, so there would be no way to even have a religious dogma or know anything about the God we were worshipping. In that case, we could go about our business as usual. We can still do that now, if we do not believe God even sent Messengers.
Why do you think we have to know that God exists in order to speculate on what God might do IF God existed? I understand why God would need some definition, so for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that God is the Bible God.
I don't think that. We speculate on all sorts of things. But that does not mean they exist, nor does it mean we should presume that they exist, until such a time it is demonstrated that they do. Speculation is useful.
Okay, fair enough. I do not think we should presume they exist either. The problem with God is that it can never be demonstrated that God exists; all we have is evidence, and not everyone thinks the evidence we have is good enough to believe in God.
It is not quite the same as fairies because there is evidence for the existence of God whereas there is no evidence for the existence of fairies. God and God’s actions have been described in scriptures. As an atheist you might rebut that by saying that fairies and fairies’ actions have been described in fairy tales, since scriptures are no more than fairy tales to an atheist, right?
The existence of fairies and a god are of the same type. Old stories and tales. But The point was not to say they were exactly the same.
If you are basing what you said ONLY upon the Bible, I would tend to agree, but the Bible is not the only scripture that was ever recorded.
Thanks, and this explains why we cannot use logic to prove the existence of God or to prove anything about God. We can never base any argument upon the premise that God exists because we can never prove that is true.
We can never prove the existence of a god that leaves no evidence of itself, is invisible, etc. We can never prove the existence of fairies which operate under the same rules. In short, an invisible god looks exactly like a non-existent god.
God will always be invisible because nobody can ever “see God.” So if we accept that as a premise we can go on from there. We would also have to accept the premise that God can never be proven to exist by humans because nobody has any access to God, who remains in His Own High Place. As such, the only way we could ever have proof of God is if God provided that proof in some way that everyone would recognize as proof.
It seems logical to me that if God exists, God does not want to provide that proof because if God is omnipotent, God could easily provide that proof.
In the Qur’an it says If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people, meaning that God could have made all people believers, but if God has pleased, implies that God did not want to make all people into believers, and this verified by the fact that not all men are believers. According to my religion, which cites the Qur’an, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using our own innate intelligence, and then use our free will to make the decision to believe. God also wants us to have faith and believe that He exists without absolute proof.
Interestingly, this correlates with a Bible verse I like very much:
Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.
I think that verse means is that we need faith that is possible to find God if we earnestly seek Him. It does not mean that we should believe that God exists on faith alone and it does not mean that we must believe God exists before we find the evidence that we find by seeking Him.
Trailblazer said: I am not a deist, but I do not agree with that. A God that exists but does not communicate with humans and cannot be discerned by humans could still be holding down the fort so to speak. Just because humans cannot prove that does not mean it is not happening. That said, I believe that God communicates through Messengers/Prophets, even if people do not recognize them as such.
Milton Platt said: I agree with what you are saying...there could be an undetectable god who does something in the background that we don't know about. But my point was that in the case of such a god, there is no need to have a religious dogma involved with worshiping it. We can go about our business as usual.
That would be true if that undetectable God never communicated through Messengers. In that case there would be no way to know what that God wants for us, so there would be no way to even have a religious dogma or know anything about the God we were worshipping. In that case, we could go about our business as usual. We can still do that now, if we do not believe God even sent Messengers.
Why do you think we have to know that God exists in order to speculate on what God might do IF God existed? I understand why God would need some definition, so for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that God is the Bible God.
I don't think that. We speculate on all sorts of things. But that does not mean they exist, nor does it mean we should presume that they exist, until such a time it is demonstrated that they do. Speculation is useful.
Okay, fair enough. I do not think we should presume they exist either. The problem with God is that it can never be demonstrated that God exists; all we have is evidence, and not everyone thinks the evidence we have is good enough to believe in God.
It is not quite the same as fairies because there is evidence for the existence of God whereas there is no evidence for the existence of fairies. God and God’s actions have been described in scriptures. As an atheist you might rebut that by saying that fairies and fairies’ actions have been described in fairy tales, since scriptures are no more than fairy tales to an atheist, right?
The existence of fairies and a god are of the same type. Old stories and tales. But The point was not to say they were exactly the same.
If you are basing what you said ONLY upon the Bible, I would tend to agree, but the Bible is not the only scripture that was ever recorded.
Thanks, and this explains why we cannot use logic to prove the existence of God or to prove anything about God. We can never base any argument upon the premise that God exists because we can never prove that is true.
We can never prove the existence of a god that leaves no evidence of itself, is invisible, etc. We can never prove the existence of fairies which operate under the same rules. In short, an invisible god looks exactly like a non-existent god.
God will always be invisible because nobody can ever “see God.” So if we accept that as a premise we can go on from there. We would also have to accept the premise that God can never be proven to exist by humans because nobody has any access to God, who remains in His Own High Place. As such, the only way we could ever have proof of God is if God provided that proof in some way that everyone would recognize as proof.
It seems logical to me that if God exists, God does not want to provide that proof because if God is omnipotent, God could easily provide that proof.
In the Qur’an it says If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people, meaning that God could have made all people believers, but if God has pleased, implies that God did not want to make all people into believers, and this verified by the fact that not all men are believers. According to my religion, which cites the Qur’an, God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using our own innate intelligence, and then use our free will to make the decision to believe. God also wants us to have faith and believe that He exists without absolute proof.
Interestingly, this correlates with a Bible verse I like very much:
Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.
I think that verse means is that we need faith that is possible to find God if we earnestly seek Him. It does not mean that we should believe that God exists on faith alone and it does not mean that we must believe God exists before we find the evidence that we find by seeking Him.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Well, maybe, but not in words that can be written down and made into scriptures and not in any way that could be identified and proven that it came from God.
The problem that arises, as I see it, is that people can imagine anything, so they might imagine it was God communicating a thought to them when it fact it had nothing to do with God at all.
I believe that these morals come from the scriptures of the various religions, so ultimately they come from God through the Messengers of God. Even if people do not believe in God or any religion they live in a society where everyone has been exposed to these religions, so they are affected by them.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
So, were the writer of the OP to concede that what he wrote was illogical, and that God (if God exists) does not thus would not communicate directly to everyone, but he still believed this is the best way for God to communicate, what would you suggest to him as the next logical step?
Another unrelated question: If direct communication to everyone was the best way for God to communicate, why wouldn't an omniscient God have employed it as His method of communication?
Bird123
Well-Known Member
Now why would God need a middle man for communication? I'm afraid I have never met the Holy Spirit you speak of. Just like Satan, they are creations of mankind. On the other hand, I will stay open in the event I bump into them. Still, I see no real evidence of either one of them.
Yes, people are supposed to choose beliefs when the facts are not known. Yes, choose your messengers. On the other hand, God's system works regardless of any beliefs one might create attempting to justify actions. Indeed, we are choosing the lessons we want to learn. Other lessons will come when one is ready.
Well, that's what I see. It's very clear.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Advaita Hinduiwm and Buddhism do not need a God.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Did Bahaullah not know that people will disbelieve him? Why did not he, the manifestation of Allah, mirror-copy, exact replica of Allah and the avatara, the returning Jesus, Krishna, Buddha and Saoshyant, all in one, then, give any proof better than having a vision of the Maid of Heaven? And Bahais expect any one to believe that?That is exactly what I see...
I could not have explained it as well as that.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It did not matter to Baha'u'llah if anyone believed Him. He clearly stated that everything He did was for the sake of God. " Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God.” Gleanings, p. 85
All He needed was a handful of followers who would assist Him on His mission. Having the knowledge of God, Baha'u'llah knew that in the future everyone would recognize Him so there was no hurry. God has never been in a hurry, the Bible says God is patient.
Baha'is do not expect anyone to believe anything. What people believe is and always has been a free choice.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
One deluded person is supposed to have said something and the other deluded persons believe in a way that suits their designs, that is the story of Abrahamic religions. What is the proof of this person, Micah, to have ever existed? Because the scriptures say so. That is what is known as "circular reasoning".
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Where is this God's system? Do you mean 'what is happening' in the world? What reason you call it as God's system? What is the proof of existence of any God? However, if what has happened or happening in the world is God's system, it is a very despicable system.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
What is the proof that the founders/teachers of any of the Dharmic religions actually existed, because their scriptures say so?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I would have to agree with that, but I don't think it is God's system; it is a human system and God is hands-off.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It is not God who needs a middle man, it is humans who need a middle man because we are human and can only understand another human. Imo, we cannot ever understand God without an intermediary who has the qualities of both God and humans and can thus bridge the gap.
Likewise, I see no evidence of the God you believe in that can be Discovered.
That is true. Whatever God's system is is going to work regardless of beliefs. Imo, it needs the Messengers to work properly, but even if we do not believe in them, we will learn our lessons through living. That is why we are on this earth.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Why is God 'hands off'?
It is not necessary to accept existence of God in Dharmic religions. Even RigVeda says that Gods are later to the production of the world. I am an strong atheist Hindu, Buddha never accepted existence of God. What dharmic religions stress on is just humane action.
"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
Last edited: