Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Trailblazer]

The you are saying that your God is incompetent? You're definitely wrong about something, since you've also said, "I believe that everyone has been given what they need, which is the capacity to believe in God."

So you are at once saying that everyone (including me) has been given what they need, while simultaneously saying that I do not have a thing that I need.

No, I did not say that everyone has been given what they need to believe in God. I said that everyone has the capacity to believe in God, but that does not mean everyone will be able to utilize their capacity.

I might have the capacity to run a marathon but for whatever reason I might not be able to run the marathon.

You clearly said that the only thing people need is the capacity to be a believer in God, but not everyone uses this. Sure sounds like that's what you're saying.

No, that is not what I said. I said that everyone has the capacity but not everyone will be able to utilize their capacity.
That means they need more than their capacity to be a believer in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Now, you said that after these five criteria there were other criteria that needed to be met, so how about you tell us what THEY are so we can see if this person is truly a messenger of God.

I said in #751:
“Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God.

Depending upon his claims he would have other criteria to meet.”

You pick and choose Bible verses every single time you choose to use the verses that support your faith but ignore the ones that do not support your faith.

Please show me which Bible verses I ignored because they do not support my faith.

 

[ratiocinator]

You cannot dispute that God has not chosen to prove that He exists to everyone in the world because that choice is readily apparent, since everyone in the world does not believe in God.

Either that or it doesn't exist at all, yes.

You can dispute my belief that God chose to send Messengers in an effort to communicate to humanity, but
nevertheless there is a boatload of evidence that shows that God chose to send Messengers.

Where is this evidence? The mere fact that a bunch of people started religions is not evidence that they were genuinely sent by a real god.

Essentially what you are saying that is God does not do something differently from what I believe God has done, you consider that unjust and unfair.

For the reasons I've set out (several times now), yes.

Yet you cannot come up with any other ways that God could accomplish what He accomplished via a Messenger.

I can think of endless ways that would be better and I'm not even omnipotent or omniscient.

Please do not say that God is omnipotent so God can do anything because that is a completely moot point. Humans are not omnipotent so God had to figure out a way to communicate to humans in such a way that humans could understand the communication and utilize it.

It didn't work, did it? We still just have a bunch of people, from different regions, disagreeing (often violently), all claiming to know the truth. If you god exists, it has manifestly failed to communicate effectively.

 

[ratiocinator]

For starters, we have facts surrounding the history of the Baha'i Faith that has been recorded by historians and was written in the newspapers of those times. We'd expect those facts to be true if the religion is true and not true if some alternative was true instead.

That's evidence for the religion, not its truth.

Why would everyone believe this human but obviously not human form was speaking for God?

How would that be logically possible for a being to appear to and speak to everybody in the world at the same time and why would that be necessary?

Why do you think that everyone would believe what was written in solid diamond letters across the surface of the moon was from God? An alien could do the same thing in an attempt to deceive people.

And the so-called "messengers" could be mistaken, deluded, lying, tricked by evil spirits (or aliens using mind control, for that matter). What doing something more dramatic would achieve is to eliminate common human behaviours, misunderstandings, and failings. It would also demonstrate beyond doubt that something much more powerful than humankind was at work. Nobody could claim that they hadn't got the message or that it's just another human-made superstition.

However, those are just a few ideas that I came up with in about a minute, and they were all better in the sense that they eliminated a bunch of problems with the massager model. If a god exists that is both omnipotent and omniscient, it would know (being omniscient) exactly what each person would need to believe, and be able (being omnipotent) to directly communicate to each individual in an appropriate way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Either that or it doesn't exist at all, yes.

Yes, that is another possibility.

Where is this evidence? The mere fact that a bunch of people started religions is not evidence that they were genuinely sent by a real god.

No, that is not the primary evidence. The true Messengers did start religions but that does tell us if they were true Messengers of God since many false messengers also started religions. There is much better evidence than that.

For the reasons I've set out (several times now), yes.

Okay, that is your opinion and your choice.

I can think of endless ways that would be better and I'm not even omnipotent or omniscient.

"Yet you cannot come up with any other ways that God could accomplish what He accomplished via a Messenger."

Please list those endless ways and explain why they would be better.

It didn't work, did it? We still just have a bunch of people, from different regions, disagreeing (often violently), all claiming to know the truth. If you god exists, it has manifestly failed to communicate effectively.

"Humans are not omnipotent so God had to figure out a way to communicate to humans in such a way that humans could understand the communication and utilize it."

The reason we have have a bunch of people, from different regions, disagreeing (often violently), all claiming to know the truth is because these people failed to recognize the latest Messenger of God, Baha'u'llah, who explained that are religions come from the one true God, and as such there is only one religion of God revealed in various chapters throughout the ages. It is not God's fault if most people reject His new Messenger who brings a new message. God communicated the new message clearly through Baha'u'llah but almost all religious believers chose to cling tenaciously to the religions of the past.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's evidence for the religion, not its truth.

The facts about the religion are evidence for the truth of the religion if those facts indicate that the religion is true.

And the so-called "messengers" could be mistaken, deluded, lying, tricked by evil spirits (or aliens using mind control, for that matter).

That is true, an alleged messenger could be mistaken, deluded, lying, or tricked by evil spirits, and that is why we would never want to believe any alleged anyone who claimed t be a Messenger of God unless He had without ample evidence to back up His claims.

What doing something more dramatic would achieve is to eliminate common human behaviours, misunderstandings, and failings. It would also demonstrate beyond doubt that something much more powerful than humankind was at work. Nobody could claim that they hadn't got the message or that it's just another human-made superstition.

And that is exactly what God does not want to do - eliminate common human behaviours, misunderstandings, and failings - which is why He does not do it. God does not want His Messengers to demonstrate beyond doubt that something much more powerful than humankind was at work, even though it is, because that would be too easy. That is why Baha'u'llah did miracles but never wanted people to know about them, because He did not want people to believe in Him because of His miracles. A few people witnessed them and that is how we know about them. He did offer to some Muslims to do any miracle of their choosing if they would agree to believe who He was, but when the day came to do that miracle the Muslims never showed up. This is all documented in the Baha'i Writings. Baha'u'llah, like Jesus, was a Manifestation of God so He had supernatural powers.

Question.—It is recorded that miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles really to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning? It has been proved by exact science that the essence of things does not change, and that all beings are under one universal law and organization from which they cannot deviate; and, therefore, that which is contrary to universal law is impossible.

Answer.—The Holy Manifestations are the sources of miracles and the originators of wonderful signs. For Them, any difficult and impracticable thing is possible and easy. For through a supernatural power wonders appear from Them; and by this power, which is beyond nature, They influence the world of nature. From all the Manifestations marvelous things have appeared.

Some Answered Questions, p. 100

22: MIRACLES

However, those are just a few ideas that I came up with in about a minute, and they were all better in the sense that they eliminated a bunch of problems with the massager model. If a god exists that is both omnipotent and omniscient, it would know (being omniscient) exactly what each person would need to believe, and be able (being omnipotent) to directly communicate to each individual in an appropriate way.

I have said this to atheists repeatedly: God (being omniscient) knows exactly what each person would need to believe, and be able (being omnipotent) to directly communicate to each individual in an appropriate way. However, God (being omnipotent) chooses not to do that because (a) God wants people to recognize His Messengers, and (b) God does not need anyone's belief; so if people do not recognize the Messengers and believe in God it won't hurt God, it only hurts those people.

 

[Tiberius]

No, I did not say that everyone has been given what they need to believe in God. I said that everyone has the capacity to believe in God, but that does not mean everyone will be able to utilize their capacity.

You literally said, "I believe that everyone has been given what they need."

Now you tell me that when you said everyone has been given what they need, you didn't mean that everyone has been given what they need.

I might have the capacity to run a marathon but for whatever reason I might not be able to run the marathon.

If you lack the fitness, endurance, stamina, etc, then no, you Don't have the capacity to run a marathon. You're going to be a lot clearer here, because as it is, your claim is very vague. What could prevent you from running a marathon if you have the capacity to run a marathon?

No, that is not what I said. I said that everyone has the capacity but not everyone will be able to utilize their capacity.
That means they need more than their capacity to be a believer in God.

If they can't use that capacity, does that mean they don't have the capacity to use the capacity to believe? How many iterations are you going to invoke? Are you going to say that some people have the capacity to use the capacity, but don't have the capacity to use the capacity to use the capacity?

 

[samtonga43]

"The facts about the religion are evidence for the truth of the religion if those facts indicate that the religion is true".

Talk about circular reasoning!!

 

[ratiocinator]

I have said this to atheists repeatedly: God (being omniscient) knows exactly what each person would need to believe, and be able (being omnipotent) to directly communicate to each individual in an appropriate way. However, God (being omnipotent) chooses not to do that because (a) God wants people to recognize His Messengers, and (b) God does not need anyone's belief; so if people do not recognize the Messengers and believe in God it won't hurt God, it only hurts those people.

And that is exactly why I think that if your god exists, it is not just and fair. What you've said is that god deliberately allows people to come to harm by not making itself clear and obvious and it doesn't even care because they're the ones that get hurt, not god.

It's rather like if you have an dangerous cliff path, or a beach that often has sharks nearby, a chemically contaminated park or something and instead of putting up a big notice informing people of the dangers at the appropriate site, you just put a book in the library, that has the information in it and then blame anybody who gets harmed for not going to the library and looking though it just in case there was a book with important warnings in it. Worse even than that, it's like putting the warning book in the "myths and legends" section.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your constant deflections at a title I already explained and have offered to change that only you out of everyone have decided to use to misrepresent my position is not an excuse to not answer honest questions. If I'm going to do my best to answer your questions honestly I'd appreciate if you'd show me the same courtesy and answer mine. We are only addressing one paragraph of your last post of which you made multiple as yet to be verified claims and you can't answer one single question of mine? My questions have nothing to do with the basis of my atheism and neither could have come to that conclusion without bias. I asked you honest questions so I could better understand your beliefs. If this is your idea of discourse my time is better spent elsewhere. I answered your questions. Can you honestly answer mine?

It is not only your title and first post, but your statements as cited since that are classic one-sided atheist approach and not an honest question such as: If we can't understand god is god as anything more than an imaginary friend?

So far your questions have been loaded statements 'a priori' and not questions.

No you have not responded well to my posts and those of others. You have hardened as the thread progressed

 

[Tiberius]

The facts about the religion are evidence for the truth of the religion if those facts indicate that the religion is true.

Tell me again that you don't cherry pick.

 

[infrabenji]

It is not only your title and first post, but your statements as cited since that are classic one-sided atheist approach and not an honest question such as: If we can't understand god is god as anything more than an imaginary friend?

So far your questions have been loaded statements 'a priori' and not questions.

No you have not responded well to my posts and those of others. You have hardened as the thread progressed

I’ve been nothing but kind to you. I’ve tried to draw out an honest dialogue in spite of your insults and assumptions. But it has proved fruitless. Thank you for wasting my time. I’m sure you are not a reflection of others that share your religion, as I’ve had many interesting conversations with Baha’i, or a good representative of their beliefs. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Magical Wand]

God (being omnipotent) chooses not to do that because (a) God wants people to recognize His Messengers, and (b) God does not need anyone's belief; so if people do not recognize the Messengers and believe in God it won't hurt God, it only hurts those people.

So, are you saying God wants people to recognize His Messengers, but if they don't recognize them, then it doesn't make any relevant difference to God? After all, if it doesn't "hurt" God in any way, then what difference does it make if people recognize His Messengers?

 

[Trailblazer]

So, are you saying God wants people to recognize His Messengers, but if they don't recognize them, then it doesn't make any relevant difference to God? After all, if it doesn't "hurt" God in any way, then what difference does it make if people recognize His Messengers?

I said that if people do not recognize the Messengers and believe in God it won't hurt God, and that is because God is transcendent, self-sufficient and self-sustaining, but that does not mean God does not care if people recognize His Messengers. In the sense that God cares about people, God probably cares if people recognize His Messengers.

God does not send Messengers for His benefit, God only sends them for human benefit so it makes a big difference to people if they do not recognize the Messengers of God because in that case they do not benefit from what they reveal.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess. If ye believe, to your own behoof will ye believe; and if ye believe not, ye yourselves will suffer.” Gleanings, p. 148

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

 

[Magical Wand]

I said that if people do not recognize the Messengers and believe in God it won't hurt God, and that is because God is transcendent, self-sufficient and self-sustaining, but that does not mean God does not care if people recognize His Messengers. In the sense that God cares about people, God probably cares if people recognize His Messengers.

God does not send Messengers for His benefit, God only sends them for human benefit so it makes a big difference to people if they do not recognize the Messengers of God because in that case they do not benefit from what they reveal.

Okay. Suppose a father wants to benefit his daughter in some way. He wants this because he loves and cares about his daughter. Therefore, if his daughter is not benefited in the way he wants, the father will probably feel some degree of sadness and disappointment (even though he will not gain anything if she is benefited). This is simply because he cares about his daughter.

Now suppose we say he will not feel anything bad if his daughter is not benefited. Does it still make sense to say he cares if she is benefited or not? Or that he wants her benefit? After all, he will continue feeling absolute happiness regardless of the result. He will not be hurt in any way.

Doesn't the very meaning of "wanting" presuppose that you believe the positive result will fulfill you in some way? And that the contrary will negatively impact you in some way (or fail to fulfill you)?

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay. Suppose a father wants to benefit his daughter in some way. He wants this because he loves and cares about his daughter. Therefore, if his daughter is not benefited in the way he wants, the father will probably feel some degree of sadness and disappointment (even though he will not gain anything if she is benefited). This is simply because he cares about his daughter.

Now suppose we say he will not feel anything bad if his daughter is not benefited. Does it still make sense to say he cares if she is benefited or not? Or that he wants her benefit? After all, he will continue feeling absolute happiness regardless of the result. He will not be hurt in any way.
Now suppose we say he will not feel anything bad if his daughter is not benefited. Does it still make sense to say he cares if she is benefited or not. Or that he wants her benefit? After all, he will continue feeling absolute happiness regardless of the result. He will not be hurt in any way.

No, I do not think that if a father did not feel anything bad if his daughter was not benefited that it would make sense to say he cares if she is benefited or not. I think that God probably feels sad when humans are not benefited by the Messengers because God cares if humans are benefited. Why would God send Messengers if not care about benefiting humans?

God is independent of His creatures and transcends His creatures....

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 166

But that does not mean God is incapable of caring about His creatures. However, God does not care in the same way that a human father would care because God is not a human. To compare God to a human is the fallacy of false equivalency becaue God is nothing like a human.

After all, he will continue feeling absolute happiness regardless of the result. He will not be hurt in any way
Doesn't the very meaning of "wanting" presuppose that you believe the positive result will fulfill you in some way? And that the contrary will negatively impact you in some way?

Again, you are comparing a human to God and God cannot be compared to a human and be expected to think and feel the same as a human would because God is not equivalent to a human. We cannot equate human happiness with God happiness. We cannot even say that God is happy. The problem with many scriptures is that they anthropomorphize God as if God is a human but God is exalted above human understanding.

For a human "wanting" presupposes that one believes the positive result will fulfill that [person in some way and that the contrary will negatively impact the person in some way, but God is not a human so God does not need to be "fulfilled" since God is completely self-sufficient and self-sustaining. As such, nothing can add to or diminish what God has but that does not mean that God does not have emotions.

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess.”Gleanings, p. 148

 

[Magical Wand]

No, I do not think that if a father did not feel anything bad if his daughter was not benefited that it would make sense to say he cares if she is benefited or not. I think that God probably feels sad when humans are not benefited by the Messengers because God cares if humans are benefited. Why would God send Messengers if not care about benefiting humans?

God is independent of His creatures and transcends His creatures....

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 166

But that does not mean God is incapable of caring about His creatures. However, God does not care in the same way that a human father would care because God is not a human. To compare God to a human is the fallacy of false equivalency becaue God is nothing like a human.

Again, you are comparing a human to God and God cannot be compared to a human and be expected to think and feel the same as a human would because God is not equivalent to a human. We cannot equate human happiness with God happiness. We cannot even say that God is happy. The problem with many scriptures is that they anthropomorphize God as if God is a human but God is exalted above human understanding.

For a human "wanting" presupposes that you believe the positive result will fulfill you in some way and that the contrary will negatively impact you in some way, but God is not a human so God does not need to be "fulfilled" since God is completely self-sufficient. Nothing can add to or diminish what God has but that does not mean that God does not have emotions.

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess.”Gleanings, p. 148

Great! So, God probably feels sadness. Okay. And is divine sadness a bad feeling? If yes, doesn't that hurt God? If not, then why would God want to avoid it and send Messengers?

 

[Tiberius]

I said in #751:
“Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God.

Depending upon his claims he would have other criteria to meet.”

Doesn't your own faith contradict parts of other faiths? Unless you are saying that ALL of Christianity is true, then Ba'hai is contradicting Christianity.

Please show me which Bible verses I ignored because they do not support my faith.

Any of the ones that you disagree with. Take your pick.

 

[Trailblazer]

Great! So, God probably feels sadness. Okay. And is divine sadness a bad feeling? If yes, doesn't that hurt God? If not, then why would God want to avoid it and send Messengers?

The reason I believe that God has feelings is because of what my religion teaches about a Personal God:

Personal God

While the Baháʼí writings teach of a personal god who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), they clearly state that this does not imply a human or physical form.[2] Shoghi Effendi writes:

What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.[15][16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_the_Bahai Faith

So God might feel something like sadness but God's sadness is no more like human sadness than God's love is like human love, because as I said before, God is not a human. We cannot know what God's sadness feels like, only God knows that.

Sorry, I did not understand what you meant by this: "And is divine sadness a bad feeling? If yes, doesn't that hurt God? If not, then why would God want to avoid it and send Messengers?

 

[Magical Wand]

So God might feel something like sadness but God's sadness is no more like human sadness than God's love is like human love, because as I said before, God is not a human. We cannot know what God's sadness feels like, only God knows that.

So, why are you calling it 'sadness' given that the word doesn't correspond to what we interpret as sadness? It's like saying "Person X bought a new chair.. but his "chair" isn't what we call 'chairs'.. it is different." It doesn't even make sense to say God "cares" about humans if his "caring" is (perhaps totally) different from the father's in my previous example. It loses all its meaning.

What I mean by sadness hurting God is very simple. It means the feeling has the potential to negatively affect God, and as a consequence He has the inclination to avoid it.

Your comment was that rejecting His Message doesn't hurt God. I'm asking if the feeling of sadness doesn't hurt God. If not, then why would He want to avoid it by sending messengers?