If God spoke directly to everyone...

[Trailblazer]

I can find no reason at all to suppose any of your "reasons" have any basis in reality. God has the ultimate "bully pulpit," if he chooses to use it.

That is true, because God is omnipotent.

Presidents, prime ministers, despots and tyrants all have their own bully pulpits -- they can take over the television and radio channels and deliver their message to everybody. And they do it, sometimes. Sure, some people don't listen, and some don't agree, but what does that have to do with the fact that the message can be delivered to, for all practical purposes, everybody?

Are you saying God should deliver His message to everybody? Why should He? Do any of Presidents, prime ministers, despots and tyrants speak directly to everyone? No, they use the media.

Why would you imagine "God wants us to seek him out?"

Simple, it says that in scriptures. How else could I ever know?

Whatever God wants about the making "belief easy to acquire" is moot, because we humans are capable of believing the most absurd crud possible -- and we do it all the time.

That is a red herring because that does not mean that we cannot believe what is true, if we search long enough and work hard enough and open our minds to the possibilities. That is no guarantee, but it increases our chances.

What is the benefit of "faith without proof?" What do you get from that?

You get what God wants you to have, faith. Then after that you get the reward, because you earnestly seek God and you get the proof you wanted.

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.

And I think it is axiomatically idiotic to suppose that there are some humans -- humans like you, and like me, who live, eat, **** and die -- who have some special understanding of "God" that is not available to the rest of us.

That understanding is available to all of us, but some people just do not understand it. There are reasons for that, but they are different for everyone. It could be that God does not want everyone to believe. In my scriptures it says that some fruit only ripens when it falls from the tree, which symbolically means after they die they will start their spiritual journey.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why assume everyone wants to be born, to breathe, to have their heart beat constantly?

We don't always get what we want.

I do not think it is like that for everyone, perhaps you are projecting. Not everyone wants to believe in God. I know that because there are many times I do not want to believe.

If, as theists such as yourself are always claiming, recognizing god is All Important-- indeed the Most Important Thing Ever, in All History?

It is, according to our scriptures.

Nevermindthat. IF it is IMPORTANT? THEN it is God's Ultimate Responsibility to Make Himself Known-- your "want" does not matter.

You are right about that Bob, because if it is THAT important for humans, it is God's responsibility to make Himself known regardless of what we want. I believe God has done that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you choose to accept the effects of Gravity? No? Well you can flap your arms all you like-- gravity WILL pull you towards the center of the planet, whether you want it to or not.

You do not get to choose gravity.

That is true, but gravity is a physical force that is beyond our control. Belief isn't.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: God wants us to seek Him out and use our innate intelligence to decide if we have found Him. God rewards true seekers.

This is a particular favourite of mine, because it makes so very little sense.

Imagine, there's a man and his wife, and they do what comes naturally, and -- surprise! -- they create a child. Well, obviously, their first instinct would be to hide and see if that newly created infant can find them, and know that they're it's parents. Then, as a reward to this "true seeker" mom will offer a nipple and dad will start saving for college.

Not a good analogy because God is not completely in hiding. God reveals what He wants to reveal of Himself, just not His full Essence. God reveals what humans need, nothing more and nothing less, just like a good parent.

 

[gnomon]

I do agree with you in this but as far as I understood, because of almost every human being is on a low level of spiritual understanding in today's society, God very seldom actually speaks in a fully audible voice these days.

What an assumption. Almost every human being is on a low level of spiritual understanding today?

What an arrogant assessment. And what does "God" have to do with spirituality anyway.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, your own story seems to contradict what you're saying. You were convinced - you believed - despite "turning away" in some outward or formal sense. Basically it sounds like you were lying to yourself despite knowing what you truly believed deep down.

That is partly correct. I was convinced - I believed - despite "turning away" in some outward or formal sense. But I was not lying to myself; I just did not care at that time because I had other interests that took precedence over God.

If you are truly convinced of something, you can't genuinely not believe it - the terms are synonymous.

I agree.

Right. And that belief is not a choice. If you are convinced the evidence shows that x is true, you definitionally already believe in x.

I agree. But just because someone is not convinced at a certain point in time that does not mean they cannot become convinced later. People can and do change throughout the course of their lives.

Case in point: I used to be convinced that Christians were full of it but upon acquiring new evidence I now think they have a lot of true beliefs. I still believe that the Christian doctrines such as Jesus is God, original sin, the bodily resurrection, ascension and return are false, but there is so much beauty in the New Testament and so much truth. Christianity is a very inspiring religion. I have been listening to Christian music all day, for eight hours and counting.

 

[Left Coast]

That is partly correct. I was convinced - I believed - despite "turning away" in some outward or formal sense. But I was not lying to myself; I just did not care at that time because I had other interests that took precedence over God.

I agree.

I agree. But just because someone is not convinced at a certain point in time that does not mean they cannot become convinced later. People can and do change throughout the course of their lives.

Case in point: I used to be convinced that Christians were full of it but upon acquiring new evidence I now think they have a lot of true beliefs. I still believe that the Christian doctrines such as Jesus is God, original sin, the bodily resurrection, ascension and return are false, but there is so much beauty in the New Testament and so much truth. Christianity is a very inspiring religion. I have been listening to Christian music all day, for eight hours and counting.

I agree that people's beliefs can and do change. But those changes are not chosen. They are the definitionally necessary outcomes of becoming convinced of something based on new evidence.

I'm also a case in point: my religious beliefs have changed more than once over the course of my life. Each time, I became convinced that my prior belief(s) were mistaken upon learning some new piece of information. I never "chose" to change my beliefs. It simply happened, automatically, as a function of realizing I was previously incorrect or realizing that something I didn't know before was true.

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree that people's beliefs can and do change. But those changes are not chosen. They are the definitionally necessary outcomes of becoming convinced of something based on new evidence.

The changes in beliefs were chosen after you became convinced of something based on new evidence.

I'm also a case in point: my religious beliefs have changed more than once over the course of my life. Each time, I became convinced that my prior belief(s) were mistaken upon learning some new piece of information. I never "chose" to change my beliefs. It simply happened, automatically, as a function of realizing I was previously incorrect or realizing that something I didn't know before was true.

But after you became convinced that your prior belief(s) were mistaken upon learning some new piece of information, you chose to change your beliefs. Nothing happens automatically unless we apply our own will.

Do you believe we have free will, or even a will?
Here is the Baha'i belief; it goes in this order:

1. Knowledge
2. Volition
3. Action

Everything we do is a willful choice, even if we are not completely free to chose given constraints on free will.

 

[Shad]

Why assume that “everyone” wants to hear from God? There have to be some people who would not want to hear from God. God is All-Knowing so God knows that. God wants belief to be a choice and that might be one reason God does not speak directly to everyone.

However, that is not the main reason why God does not speak directly to everyone, because hypothetically speaking, even if God spoke directly to everyone, people could still choose not to listen or hear.

Imo, the main reasons why God does not speak directly to everyone are as follows:

1. God wants us to seek Him out and use our innate intelligence to decide if we have found Him. God rewards true seekers.
2. God does not want to make belief easy to acquire. God wants us to exert an earnest effort in order to believe.
3. God wants us to have faith that He exists without absolute proof. Those who have faith will get the proof they need.
4. Last but not least, nobody except God’s Messengers can comprehend God. Messengers act as mediators between God and humans, communicating what we would otherwise be unable to understand.

Ergo God must accept this method of communication has flaws thus is responsible for the failure of that method to change minds.

 

[Left Coast]

The changes in beliefs were chosen after you became convinced of something based on new evidence.

Incorrect. The two are synonymous, and therefore, definitionally simultaneous. You can't be convinced x is true and not believe in x. That's a contradiction in terms.

But after you became convinced that your prior belief(s) were mistaken upon learning some new piece of information, you chose to change your beliefs. Nothing happens automatically unless we apply our own will.

That's just definitionally incorrect. I didn't "choose" my change in beliefs at all, unless the word "choose" becomes incoherent. Becoming convinced that something is true necessarily entails a change in belief.

Do you believe we have free will, or even a will?

We have some degree of agency, but I don't see any evidence it's "free" in the libertarian philosophical sense.

Here is the Baha'i belief; it goes in this order:

1. Knowledge
2. Volition
3. Action

Everything we do is a willful choice, even if we are not completely free to chose given constraints on free will.

I can get on board with that basic order of things, when it comes to, for example, physical actions we take in the world. But beliefs aren't actions. Beliefs co-occur with knowledge in step 1 of your process. If you know something, by definition you believe it. Knowledge is just a particularly robust version of belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ergo God must accept this method of communication has flaws thus is responsible for the failure of that method to change minds.

What method has flaws?

 

[Shad]

What method has flaws?

The method of communication you are talking about. IE reliance upon Messengers with subjective claims. After all if the method was reliable your religion which be dominate, it isn't.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why assume that “everyone” wants to hear from God? There have to be some people who would not want to hear from God. God is All-Knowing so God knows that. God wants belief to be a choice and that might be one reason God does not speak directly to everyone.

However, that is not the main reason why God does not speak directly to everyone, because hypothetically speaking, even if God spoke directly to everyone, people could still choose not to listen or hear.

Imo, the main reasons why God does not speak directly to everyone are as follows:

1. God wants us to seek Him out and use our innate intelligence to decide if we have found Him. God rewards true seekers.
2. God does not want to make belief easy to acquire. God wants us to exert an earnest effort in order to believe.
3. God wants us to have faith that He exists without absolute proof. Those who have faith will get the proof they need.
4. Last but not least, nobody except God’s Messengers can comprehend God. Messengers act as mediators between God and humans, communicating what we would otherwise be unable to understand.

This may be a tiny bit off topic, but I thought you might find it interesting to know that Jeremiah 31 (the New Covenant chapter) speaks of a time when everyone will know God rather than have to be taught (obviously this will happen at the end of time, either during the messianic age or the world to come -- it is not true right now). Does this mean that God will talk to us directly like he spoke to Moses? I don't know.

 

[Trailblazer]

Incorrect. The two are synonymous, and therefore, definitionally simultaneous. You can't be convinced x is true and not believe in x. That's a contradiction in terms.

This might just be a matter of semantics. So would you say that the changes in beliefs happened right at the time you became convinced based on new evidence.

That's just definitionally incorrect. I didn't "choose" my change in beliefs at all, unless the word "choose" becomes incoherent. Becoming convinced that something is true necessarily entails a change in belief.

So how do you thing that change in belief happens if you don’t choose it? What you believe sounds like determinism.

We have some degree of agency, but I don't see any evidence it's "free" in the libertarian philosophical sense.

I am not sure what you mean by that.

I can get on board with that basic order of things, when it comes to, for example, physical actions we take in the world. But beliefs aren't actions. Beliefs co-occur with knowledge in step 1 of your process. If you know something, by definition you believe it. Knowledge is just a particularly robust version of belief.

I agree. Beliefs co-occur with knowledge and knowledge is just a particularly robust version of belief. So what do you think happens after that? Do you think we just sit around believing? Don’t you think that we apply our will and act on our beliefs? In my religion, belief and observances go hand in hand and we cannot have one without the other. According to my beliefs:
“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5

 

[Left Coast]

This might just be a matter of semantics. So would you say that the changes in beliefs happened right at the time you became convinced based on new evidence.

Yes, I'd say they're synonymous. To believe means to be convinced of something.

So how do you thing that change in belief happens if you don’t choose it? What you believe sounds like determinism.

It's at least compatibilism, no doubt. "How" it happens is probably a question for cognitive scientists or neuroscientists. I perceive new information, my mind analyzes that information, and if my mind is convinced of that information, by definition I believe it. Subjectively, it all happens pretty automatically. There's no conscious "choosing" of anything.

I am not sure what you mean by that.

It's probably not necessary to get bogged down in it. In philosophy circles, the free will debate is usually divided between people who believe in what's called "libertarian" free will, "hard" determinists, and compatibilists.

I agree. Beliefs co-occur with knowledge and knowledge is just a particularly robust version of belief. So what do you think happens after that? Do you think we just sit around believing? Don’t you think that we apply our will and act on our beliefs?

Yes, of course I do. But that's really secondary to the point I was responding to in your OP. You said "God wants belief to be a choice." But as I hope we've come to agreement on, now that we've walked through it - belief isn't a choice. It's an unchosen, automatic psychological process.

 

[Trailblazer]

The method of communication you are talking about. IE reliance upon Messengers with subjective claims. After all if the method was reliable your religion which be dominate, it isn't.

No, that does not follow logically at all because most people in the world believe in God because of a Messenger of God so that method has been very successful.

According to these statistics, 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. Hindus and Buddhists comprise most of the rest of believers and they also have a Messenger (or messengers) they believe in. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are men who founded the religions, so they are Mediators between God and man. Sure, there are a few stragglers, believers who believe in God but not a Messenger; this comprises about 9% of the world population, but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers, very few people would believe in God.

Keep my religion out of this because there is no reason to think that my religion would be large after only about 150 years and every reason to believe it would still be relatively small, based upon religious history:

“Just how small was the Christian movement in the first century is clear from the calculations of the sociologist R Stark (1996:5-7; so too Hopkins 1998:192-193).Stark begins his analysis with a rough estimation of six million Christians in the Roman Empire (or about ten percent of the total population) at the start of the fourth century... There were 1,000 Christians in the year 40, 1 400 Christians in 50, 1,960 Christians in 60, 2,744 Christians in 70, 3,842 Christians in 80, 5,378 Christians in 90 and 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.

These figures are very suggestive, and reinforce the point that in its initial decades the Christian movement represented a tiny fraction of the ancient world.” How many Jews became Christians in the first century?

There were 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.
There were 5 million Baha’is at the end of the first century.

The modern world which brought with it changes in communication and transportation accounts for the larger increase in numbers, but the Faith grew very fast because the Baha'i Faith had specific target goals to accomplish set forth by the Baha'i administration and all those goals were met or exceeded.

 

[Shad]

No, that does not follow logically at all because most people in the world believe in God because of a Messenger of God so that method has been very successful.

Except for the fact that you do not see a shifting dominance from older to newer messages and messengers. IE the method still fails hence my point that your religion is not dominate. So it does follow logic. Your attempt to strawman my point has been noted. You merely attacked a fictional point you created in your head.

Because most faiths have a religious Founder, what I call a Messenger, that means most people believe in a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. Hindus and Buddhists comprise most of the rest of believers and they also have a Messenger (or messengers) they believe in.

Except they do not believe in your messenger ergo the method still fails.

Keep my religion out of this because there is no reason to think that my religion would be large after only about 150 years and every reason to believe it would still be relatively small, based upon religious history

Nope as you have injected your religion already as per defining Hinduism and Buddhist as having Messengers. You want to use your religious dogma when it helps you but retreat when a flaw is pointed out. More so your own point of why God does X is based on your religion, nothing more. Try again.

There were 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.
There were 5 million Baha’is at the end of the first century.

Ergo a failure in method due to lack of dominance of either.

The modern world which brought with it changes in communication and transportation accounts for the larger increase in numbers, but the Faith grew very fast because the Baha'i Faith had specific target goals to accomplish set forth by the Baha'i administration and all those goals were met or exceeded.

Again your religion is a tiny minority. Your method failed

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I do not think it is like that for everyone, perhaps you are projecting. Not everyone wants to believe in God. I know that because there are many times I do not want to believe.

It is, according to our scriptures.

You are right about that Bob, because if it is THAT important for humans, it is God's responsibility to make Himself known regardless of what we want..

I was right there with you up until....

I believe God has done that.

Which is demonstratively false. You cannot believe your way out of the effects of gravity.

If god were real? And all powerful? And all caring? Everyone would know about this thing, whether they wanted to or not. Just like gravity.

To do otherwise, would be to have a god who was being deliberately, and maliciously obtuse-- exactly like putting a delicious bowl of fresh fruit in front of hungry people, but secretly infect it with undetectable but deadly poison...

 

[Trailblazer]

This may be a tiny bit off topic, but I thought you might find it interesting to know that Jeremiah 31 (the New Covenant chapter) speaks of a time when everyone will know God rather than have to be taught (obviously this will happen at the end of time, either during the messianic age or the world to come -- it is not true right now). Does this mean that God will talk to us directly like he spoke to Moses? I don't know.

I agree, there will come a time when everyone will know God exists because that is in the Bible and in the Baha'i Writings. I believe this will happen during the Messianic Age which has already begun. According to Baha'i beliefs this will happen when everyone has recognized Baha'u'llah:
“The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248

Baha'is believe "His Cause" refers to the Cause of Baha'u'llah. I do not know when or how God will exalt His Cause, nobody knows that except the All-Knowing God.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That is true, but gravity is a physical force that is beyond our control. Belief isn't.

Yes-- but you cannot believe you way out of the effects of gravity.

If god were real? You could not believe yourself out of recognizing god was real-- and even better? There would ever and only be the one (1) religion too. No more religious wars...