ecco
Veteran Member
Uh huh. Any day now. We are all waiting.We are nearing the ' final signal', so to speak, as found at 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Uh huh. Any day now. We are all waiting.We are nearing the ' final signal', so to speak, as found at 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3
That is exactly what I see...Because what is known as true is stated, god does not communicate directly with everyone. So if god exist, then logically, it must be that god would not communicate directly with everyone. But since the statement denies that it's true that god does not communicate directly with everyone, that would mean that it's illogical. The second part of the statement is what determines whether or not it's logical or illogical.
"However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone."
What's in bold is what determine whether or not it's logical or illogical. That part denies the truth.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.Nonsense on several levels.
Fail on several levels.
- You, yourself, have stated that nothing in the OT or NT should be taken as Word From God because no one knows who wrote any of it. Therefore any "prophecies" are just the guesses of humans and not prophecies.
- You have failed to produce any accurate, concise Biblical prophecy.
He is a real person, and I do have him all to myself.I won't. There is no point. You can have your make-believe "confused" atheist all to yourself.
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.NONSENSE! You know the rules here. You know how to discuss and defend your religion without proselytizing.
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.It seems that you have come to realize that the people here, atheists and theists alike, all realize how nonsensical Bahai really is and you've given up trying to make your case.
Are you saying that it is possible that even if Joe existed and communicated Joe might not be able to talk directly to everyone and that might be the reason why Joe does not talk directly to everyone?
Whether God is communicating directly to everyone depends upon what you mean by directly. If it means talking directly in the ears of every individual human being on earth, then obviously God is not doing that. However, God might be communicating directly to everyone in some manner, but some people might not realize that because they consider anything other than a personal message to be indirect communication. In that case they would not receive God's communication because they would be waiting for a private message directly in their ears.
Actually that is what I believe is happening to the atheist who wrote the statement I posted in the OP.
He believes that if God existed God would/should communicate directly to everyone in some kind of speech such that they would know for sure it was God. How they would know it was God is beyond me. However, this is the fantasy he entertains.
So what he was saying in the OP is that just because we have never observed 'a God' communicating with everyone (speaking to everyone individually), that does not mean that God would not speak to everyone individually, if God existed.
When I asked people if they thought that statement was logical I was trying to find out if people saw what I saw as illogical. I consider that statement as written to be illogical because if God has never communicated directly with everyone (speaking to everyone individually), that means God would not do that because God does not do that.
The only caveat is that God could start doing that now even though God has never done that throughout the history of humankind, but there is no logical reason to think that God would suddenly start doing something God has never done before.
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.And I believe it is likely possible that on some level god does communicate with everyone.
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.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.
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?Because what is known as true is stated, god does not communicate directly with everyone. So if god exist, then logically, it must be that god would not communicate directly with everyone. But since the statement denies that it's true that god does not communicate directly with everyone, that would mean that it's illogical. The second part of the statement is what determines whether or not it's logical or illogical.
"However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone."
What's in bold is what determine whether or not it's logical or illogical. That part denies the truth.
What you think you see me doing is what I believe you are doing, walling yourself off in the agreeable terms of your beliefs about Discovery.
It is not about what I think, it is about what I believe, and not only because of my religion, but because of what makes sense to me. Imo, the Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe, does not “visit” humans on earth. This is not about whether it changes God; it is just pure logic and reason. God is not a material being who can come down for a visit.
Imo, God does not visit Messengers either. He communicates to them through the Holy Spirit. I decide who is a Messenger or not by investigating the Messenger; I look at His character, and His mission and His writings.
I have no box around my beliefs.
With all due respect, I totally disagree that anyone can ever have a conversation with God unless they are chosen by God, making them a Messenger of God. If I say anymore I will get kicked off this forum. Suffice to say, you have your beliefs and I have my beliefs and never the twain shall meet. You have just as much of a right to your beliefs as I have to mine.
Again, I disagree, because I believe that God hides most everything, and this is one reason there are atheists. I do not believe anyone can ever Discover God, not even a Messenger. However, I believe that when one reads the holy books it becomes clear that they came from God, even though some holy books reflect man's ideas about God, not God.
I agree that life isn't necessarily about Discovering God, first because we can never Discover God and second because there are many other things in this life to Discover besides God.
I also agree that God created it all for us in order to Learn and Grow.
I also agree that “certain” Holy Books reflect mankind rather than God.
Well, that's what I see. It's very clear.
Advaita Hinduiwm and Buddhism do not need a God.1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. How can a religion be true if there is no god?
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.
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. 85Did 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, did not give any proof better than having a vision of the Maid of Heaven? And Bahais expect any one to believe that?
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".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.”
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.God's system works regardless of any beliefs one might create attempting to justify actions.
Well, that's what I see. It's very clear.
What is the proof that the founders/teachers of any of the Dharmic religions actually existed, because their scriptures say so?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".
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.However, if what has happened or happening in the world is God's system, it is a very despicable system.
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.Now why would God need a middle man for communication?
Likewise, I see no evidence of the God you believe in that can be Discovered.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.
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.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.
Why is God 'hands off'?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.
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.What is the proof that the founders/teachers of any of the Dharmic religions actually existed, because their scriptures say so?