Christianity All Power Seized

[thomas t]

Well how did God come into existences? You assume that he was always there right? So you made him materialize out of thin air, if we are to be honest.

well if the beauty of an island, I mean the perceived beauty, would point to a loving God instead of xy... then it is evidence for him, and the air gets thicker.

Which is the only assumption I make as well. So what exactly is the difference?

So let's have a look at how many (other) assumptions you are really making (I permit myself to quote what was stated before):

* landscapes can produce themselves out of "thin air"
2/ in a way that fits the physical laws in place
3/ in a way that is compatible with man living in it
4/ in such a way that we perceive it as beautiful
5/ landscapes suddenly stopped materialzing, as we don't see this happening right now.

if something materializes, this doesn't necessarily mean it jives well with the rest. This is why we need 2 and 3, for instance.
But you also assume, the materialized landscape is for some reason beautiful... and that this materialization process doesn't repeat itself every once in a while since you don't see that happening around you.

 

[Nimos]

I mean the perceived beauty, would point to a loving God instead of xy... then it is evidence for him, and the air gets thicker.

Yes, and if it doesn't point to him, then it could point to an island materializing out of thin air. As long as you haven't given any reason to why it should point to God, then what does it matter?

if something materializes, this doesn't necessarily mean it jives well with the rest. This is why we need 2 and 3, for instance.
But you also assume, the materialized landscape is for some reason beautiful... and that this materialization process doesn't repeat itself every once in a while since you don't see that happening around you.

It's just pure accident that it is beautiful, it could just as well have been boring. Your God doesn't follow physical laws, so why should my materialization do it? I don't know for certain how it happened, it just did.

The reason it doesn't repeat itself, is because it only happened this one time. I don't know why you would apply or require any logic or reasoning for my explanation, but none for your own? That makes little sense.

 

[thomas t]

then what does it matter?

Occam's Razor applies to this very setting: we have one phenomenon in nature and two competing hypotheses for its explanation. Occam did not ponder about settings in vain. It had meaning to him, and to me too. It's a measure for how useful competing explanations are, as I see it.

It's just pure accident that it is beautiful

This is what I call conjecture, or presumtion. You have nothing to substanciate this claim, I guess.

because it only happened this one time.

and this is what I called assumtion #5 in my last post.

 

[Nimos]

This is what I call conjecture, or presumtion. You have nothing to substanciate this claim, I guess.

And how exactly is God not at conjecture? You said just a few posts ago, when I asked for evidence, that yours was just a hypothesis and therefore you didn't need to provide evidences. So why do you want me to provide some for my claim?

and this is what I called assumtion #5 in my last post.

I don't know how often it happens, maybe it's only once every million years. God only created the Universe one time as well, right? So God just stopped creating Universes as well?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Who cares or worries about scriptural promises and warnings?

At this time, those that choose to.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

what or who's god are you talking about. not every religion worships or acknowledges the same god or gods if applies. a god of man's likeness and image isn't a Living God.

I see there is only One God.

I do not talk of the God's that we have made from One God, or God's we have made for ourselves.

How we see that, is up to each of us. I see it through the Message of Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony

 

[thomas t]

So why do you want me to provide some [evidence] for my claim?

good question. If I remember well, you said that you have some.
In gerneal in this thread, you bring your points across as if they are factual, at least it sounds to me that way. For instance, you didn't say "I believe this to be true" or anything in this sense. That's why I point out that it's conjecture, as I see it.

And how exactly is God not at conjecture?

That's an even better question. Nature testifies of him as I see it. Like in the example of the above image.

maybe it's only once every million years.

That's exactly the way we should talk here, in my opinion.

God only created the Universe one time as well, right? So God just stopped creating Universes as well?

This is when we need more items of evidence. Then we can come up with a decision what to believe.
But since the topic of this thread is so much different, I opt for skipping this one, if you allow...

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Getting back to the OP about the power seized, Baha'u'llah has also written the following;

“O concourse of divines! Ye shall not henceforward behold yourselves possessed of any power, inasmuch as We have seized it from you, and destined it for such as have believed in God, the One, the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Unconstrained.”

I see there is now a vast majority of people who have a Faith, that now do choose to think for their own selves. This is a vast change from the 1800's.

I started a thread on the Bible a sure spiritual guide, to me as is the recorded Word given by Jesus the Christ about God and to me this passage tells me why that is so;

“Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring Balance established amongst men. In this most perfect Balance whatsoever the peoples and kindreds of the earth possess must be weighed, while the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but know it."

Regards Tony

 

[Nimos]

good question. If I remember well, you said that you have some.

I have none at all.

In gerneal in this thread, you bring your points across as if they are factual, at least it sounds to me that way. For instance, you didn't say "I believe this to be true" or anything in this sense. That's why I point out that it's conjecture, as I see it.

Welcome to talking God 101 as an atheist

This way of talking is pretty much how all atheists feel when talking about God, and you hear someone saying "We are all born sinners" or something like that. We know that the person can't backup such claim. So what they really mean is that they believe that to be the case.

That is why I told you, that if its just your opinion that God is behind the perception of beauty, because that is what you think, and don't feel the need to back up the claim or defend the position when asked about how you got to that conclusion, then your opinion is meaningless, just as mine is. There is nothing wrong in saying it, but it is just not a useful claim for anyone.

That's an even better question. Nature testifies of him as I see it. Like in the example of the above image.

This is where you go wrong, because the island have not always existed, and have not always looked like that. Earth when created were an inferno, you had dinosaurs and other animals walking it, for much longer than humans have existed. Humans have existed for a blink of an eye, compared to the age of the Earth. So nature doesn't testify of God, but that it have taken billions of years of evolution to reach the state that it is in. It wasn't created as the bible describe.

That's exactly the way we should talk here, in my opinion.

Having a chat about "maybes" are useless, lets say I made the claim that it was a magical smurf that created it, then what? The moment you ask into it, I could just make up things, because we are purely talking "maybe" and not things that are remotely backed up by anything.

This is when we need more items of evidence. Then we can come up with a decision what to believe.
But since the topic of this thread is so much different, I opt for skipping this one, if you allow...

Sure, but then that's it You can make the claim that God is behind the perceived beauty of things, and I can reply "If that is your opinion, fair enough" and that's it.

 

[thomas t]

his way of talking is pretty much how all atheists feel when talking about God, and you hear someone saying "We are all born sinners" or something like that.

ah ok.

That is why I told you, that if its just your opinion that God is behind the perception of beauty, because that is what you think, and don't feel the need to back up the claim or defend the position when asked about how you got to that conclusion, then your opinion is meaningless, just as mine is. [...]
Having a chat about "maybes" are useless, lets say I made the claim that it was a magical smurf that created it, then what? The moment you ask into it, I could just make up things, because we are purely talking "maybe" and not things that are remotely backed up by anything.[...]
You can make the claim that God is behind the perceived beauty of things, and I can reply "If that is your opinion, fair enough" and that's it.

but here we have Occam's Razor. We count the assumtions for either solution and we see, in this case, the God proposition wins. So there is a slight difference between opinions here.
It's a good academic tradition to apply Occam's Razor, I think.

This is where you go wrong, because the island have not always existed, and have not always looked like that. Earth when created were an inferno, you had dinosaurs and other animals walking it, for much longer than humans have existed. Humans have existed for a blink of an eye, compared to the age of the Earth. So nature doesn't testify of God, but that it have taken billions of years of evolution to reach the state that it is in. It wasn't created as the bible describe.

actually when I write a song it takes so much time, months, years... and it only appears at the very end of the process. Yet some people like it (I hope). And these songs are a sign for my love, too.
So an island appearing as late as some thousand years ago could still be a sign of love. I believe it is.

 

[Nimos]

but here we have Occam's Razor. We count the assumtions for either solution and we see, in this case, the God proposition wins. So there is a slight difference between opinions here.
It's a good academic tradition to apply Occam's Razor, I think.

Yes but Occam's razor doesn't say anything about whether or not something is true or not. And im sorry to say it again, but God is not the solution with the least assumptions.

Assumption you would have to make...

1. God exists
2. God created the Universe out of nothing
3. God created humans.
4. God loves humans
5. God of the bible is the correct one.
6. God is capable of existing outside our space and time
7. God knows what humans think is beautiful.
8. God is omniscient
9. Natural science is wrong... all of those, which have anything to do with how islands form, human evolution, astronomy etc.

And there is probably a whole lot more. So it's not the most simple explanation.

 

[DPMartin]

I see there is only One God.

I do not talk of the God's that we have made from One God, or God's we have made for ourselves.

How we see that, is up to each of us. I see it through the Message of Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony

then speak plainly, who is your god?

 

[thomas t]

And im sorry to say it again, but God is not the solution with the least assumptions.

Assumption you would have to make...

1. God exists
2. God created the Universe out of nothing
3. God created humans.
4. God loves humans
5. God of the bible is the correct one.
6. God is capable of existing outside our space and time
7. God knows what humans think is beautiful.
8. God is omniscient
9. Natural science is wrong... all of those, which have anything to do with how islands form, human evolution, astronomy etc.

And there is probably a whole lot more. So it's not the most simple explanation.

Ah no.
In order to explain the perceived beauty on earth by referring to a loving creator-God, we don't need #2,#3,#5,#6,#7,#8 and 9.
#4 can be replaced by loving creation.
So 1. and 4. remain.
Two assumptions.
In my opinion, it's the simplest solution here.

 

[Nimos]

Ah no.
In order to explain the perceived beauty on earth by referring to a loving creator-God, we don't need #2,#3,#5,#6,#7,#8 and 9.
#4 can be replaced by loving creation.
So 1. and 4. remain.
Two assumptions.
In my opinion, it's the simplest solution here.

So if you are allowed to stop at assumption 1, then I could as well.

1. Assumption that islands can materialize out of the blue.

If that assumption is true, clearly there is no need for any other assumption.... sort of like if God exists then there is no need for the rest, right?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

then speak plainly, who is your god?

The God who all the Messengers tell us about, as there is only One God.

We find that One God in the Message of Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus the Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, to name a few.

RegardsTony

 

[thomas t]

So if you are allowed to stop at assumption 1, then I could as well.

1. Assumption that islands can materialize out of the blue.

If that assumption is true, clearly there is no need for any other assumption.... sort of like if God exists then there is no need for the rest, right?

I didn't stop at assumtion 1. The love also plays a role.
2 assumptions.
But you need more.
If something materializes that doesnt mean it fits into its surrounding by default.

 

[Nimos]

I didn't stop at assumtion 1. The love also plays a role.
2 assumptions.
But you need more.
If something materializes that doesnt mean it fits into its surrounding by default.

I don't think you can just go counting assumptions.

If my assumption where that the island were created as natural science say it is, which is what i believe... meaning no God is involved.

What I mean is, that if we imagine a plane crash, assuming that Satan caused it to crash, following your logic, only requires one assumption and therefore it is very likely to be true.

However if my assumption is that the plane crashed, due to several screw ups, like the plane manufacturer sending the wrong screws, the assumption that the mechanic didn't notice it were the wrong ones, because he weren't really educated in repairing planes. I also assume that the bad weather the plane was in caused the screws to go loose and that ultimately caused the plane to crash. Even if I make that many assumptions, wouldn't you agree that my explanation is far more plausible than Satan did it?

Simply because none of my assumptions require any supernatural being or force to be involved.

 

[DPMartin]

The God who all the Messengers tell us about, as there is only One God.

We find that One God in the Message of Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus the Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, to name a few.

RegardsTony

no you don't, you know that's not true.

and for the record, though Jesus is a Gospel message, He really isn't "the messenger". His disciples are messengers of the Lord Jesus Christ, hence the "Good News". and guys like Abraham and Moses are servants of the same fulfillment.

none of the others are alike, or like the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. sorry not the same God.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

no you don't, you know that's not true.

You are free to see it that way.

I see that I do accept there is only One God and it is the most logical explanation given.



Regards Tony

 

[thomas t]

I don't think you can just go counting assumptions.

Counting assumptions... is exactly what Occam's Razor does.

If my assumption where that the island were created as natural science say it is, which is what i believe... meaning no God is involved.

Science offers an explanation for the perceived beauty of an island?
I think that an explanation based on observation or testing isn't available here. Feel free to prove me wrong.

What I mean is, that if we imagine a plane crash, assuming that Satan caused it to crash, following your logic, only requires one assumption and therefore it is very likely to be true.

no, actually that wasn't what I was saying.
So I hope the rest of your post is not referring to what I said.
Ah wait... you're saying that if a naturalistic explanation exists, one that can be supported by observation and testings... I prefer the supernatural one?
No, I do not.
Thomas