Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, I know all about that. I also write long posts but most people here have gotten used to that by now.There is only so much one can write in one post. I've already been admonished for posting lengthy responses.
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!
Yes, I know all about that. I also write long posts but most people here have gotten used to that by now.There is only so much one can write in one post. I've already been admonished for posting lengthy responses.
Yes, it does.I think your use of the phrase "quite mysterious" implies that there could still be some yet undiscovered quality that goes beyond the mere biological components that we and other animals share. The central nervous system of higher vertebrates is not mysterious, it is complex.
Can you back this up? Because now you're making a claim and there just isn't enough data to go on to reach a conclusion like that. But, I can agree that that is the current working theory, and for good reason too.Yes, there is still a lot we do not know, but that unknown still falls within the confines of the biological capabilities of the cells that make up the central nervous system.
Sure, so the mind has issues. But it's also the only thing that you can say with certainty, is real. Where does that leave you?Given that we know human beings can engage in self-deception, hallucinate, and be clinically delusional, it is best not to rely solely on our individual, personal perceptions when evaluating questions of the mind.
No - and I never said that you are misrepresenting your argument.Do you still think I am misrepresenting my argument about 'expectations' of atheists?
Yes, it does.
And yes, it is complex, but there's enough unknown about the brain's functioning to say that it is mysterious, to some extent.
Can you back this up? Because now you're making a claim and there just isn't enough data to go on to reach a conclusion like that. But, I can agree that that is the current working theory, and for good reason too.
Sure, so the mind has issues. But it's also the only thing that you can say with certainty, is real. Where does that leave you?
To clarify, my point was to consider that the brain, CNS, and all of human understanding, could be a product of a larger mind. There isn't any good reason to believe this, but when speaking about simulated realities and the like, I am not dismissing it; that is all.
You say this quite often. It is pretty hilarious. As if the amount that YOU think something is "logical" (by which you really mean it makes sense to you) has any bearing on whether or not it is true.This is logic 101 stuff.
Ah, but then the pertinent question becomes "BEST FOR WHOM?"Since God already knows everything, He does not need to be presented with a list of "options that are available to Him." It can be assumed that if God has not chosen any of those options, they are not the BEST options.
I never claimed that what I believe is 'true' just because it is logical to me. It is either true or false, but since it is a belief it cannot be proven true or false.You say this quite often. It is pretty hilarious. As if the amount that YOU think something is "logical" (by which you really mean it makes sense to you) has any bearing on whether or not it is true.
Logically speaking, if God created humans (through evolution) and God is omniscient, then and God has to know what is best for ALL humans.Ah, but then the pertinent question becomes "BEST FOR WHOM?"
Unfortunately, a generally applied statement like "this is logic 101 stuff," would lead one to believe that anyone and everyone would be taught these things as a matter of course in a simple study of logic. Ridiculous.I never claimed that what I believe is 'true' just because it is logical to me. It is either true or false, but since it is a belief it cannot be proven true or false.
But how can we know for certain that the actions He takes (or doesn't take) net out as best for US (we, as humans?) What if, instead, what He decides to engage in is "best for God?" What if it is "best for antelopes?" How would we know the difference? And please do not point me in the direction of "what a book says."Logically speaking, if God created humans (through evolution) and God is omniscient, then and God has to know what is best for ALL humans.
But that is not what I was implying. I was overstating my position in order to make a point.Unfortunately, a generally applied statement like "this is logic 101 stuff," would lead one to believe that anyone and everyone would be taught these things as a matter of course in a simple study of logic. Ridiculous.
I need no book to explain this. God has no needs whatsoever because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining, so there is no such thing as what is "best for God." Since God has no needs, everything that humans get from God is for our own benefit, not for God's benefit. God could afford to dispense with all His creatures, IF He did not love and care about them.But how can we know for certain that the actions He takes (or doesn't take) net out as best for US (we, as humans?) What if, instead, what He decides to engage in is "best for God?" What if it is "best for antelopes?" How would we know the difference? And please do not point me in the direction of "what a book says."
Overstating your position as in, "exaggerating?" Sort of like one of those lizards who flares out their hood in order to look bigger? That kind of "overstating?"But that is not what I was implying. I was overstating my position in order to make a point.
Hmmm... interesting. With "no needs whatsoever" why would He have need to do anything? Apparently you feel that He "needs" to act in a manner that is "best" for [something.] You're the one implying that there is such a "something" when you say that what God does is "best." That word "best" simply MUST be applied to your thoughts from a particular perspective. What benefits from "what is best" according to how God doles it out? And if NOTHING benefits... then I would contend that there is no "good" being done - let alone a "best."I need no book to explain this. God has no needs whatsoever because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining, so there is no such thing as what is "best for God."
You say "everything that humans get from God is for our own benefit," - is this to imply that we just happen to receive these things, and God isn't really acting purposefully on our behalf? Or do you assert that He does act purposefully on our behalf according to what is "best" for humans? If you state that He does act purposefully on our behalf, again - how can we know this? You didn't really answer that question. You just made more assertions that this is supposedly the case.Since God has no needs, everything that humans get from God is for our own benefit, not for God's benefit.
This actually hints at a possible answer to my actual question - but I don't think you'd like the implication. That being that we can know that "God does best" for humans, based on the fact that otherwise, He'd most certainly destroy us. And as a related question along that line of thinking - how can we know He isn't already in the process of doing this? Or that He is contemplating it? What holds Him back? Certainly no "need," as you stated definitively that God has no needs. Which would ultimately imply that at any time He could change His mind about doing "what's best" for humans, couldn't He? I am asking you how can we know whether or not that has happened? How can we know He is still acting in "the best" interest of humanity? Simply because He hasn't destroyed us? Is that the best you've got?God could afford to dispense with all His creatures, IF He did not love and care about them.
Then, again, how can we be sure that anything He is doing is "the best?" And again - I have to assume by the tone of your posts that you necessarily feel that "the best" is what is best for humans, specifically. If not, please clarify. I assert that in order for anything to be considered "best" you must necessarily have a perspective from which a particular thing is judged. Without that perspective, you cannot use the word "best" to any real effect. The "best" thing for me might be food one moment, and water the next, and still in the next moment, oxygen. It takes the perspective of the situation to determine which is most appropriately labeled "best" in any given moment.We can never know what God does or is doing at any time
It can be proven false.I never claimed that what I believe is 'true' just because it is logical to me. It is either true or false, but since it is a belief it cannot be proven true or false.
Beliefs can't be proven but some of them can be disproven. When a set of beliefs can be shown to lead to a contradiction, it is false. Logic 101.That God exists or that God has certain attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience cannot be proven with a logical argument. Those are beliefs and beliefs can be logical (make sense), but beliefs cannot be proven with a logical argument.
Can you please explain how a belief can be proven false.It can be proven false.
Perhaps, but can you show me the contradictions in my beliefs?Beliefs can't be proven but some of them can be disproven. When a set of beliefs can be shown to lead to a contradiction, it is false. Logic 101.
One example is in the video. Pythagoras believed that all relations between numbers can be written as relations of whole numbers. In the video it is shown false by geometric proof, Proof by contradiction - Wikipedia shows the algebraic proof.Can you please explain how a belief can be proven false.
I think you found one yourself. If I understood you correctly you no longer believe in an omnibenevolent god because it contradicted your experience.Perhaps, but can you show me the contradictions in my beliefs?
I already explained that God does what is best for humans and He does so because he loves us and wants what is best for us. That is no different from what a parent does for his children.Hmmm... interesting. With "no needs whatsoever" why would He have need to do anything? Apparently you feel that He "needs" to act in a manner that is "best" for [something.] You're the one implying that there is such a "something" when you say that what God does is "best."
I would contend that humanity benefits from what God doles out through His Messengers, but of course people have to partake of what God doles out in order to get the benefits.That word "best" simply MUST be applied to your thoughts from a particular perspective. What benefits from "what is best" according to how God doles it out? And if NOTHING benefits... then I would contend that there is no "good" being done - let alone a "best."
The ONLY way in which God interacts with humans is by sending Messengers. God purposefully sends Messengers in every age, and they reveal teachings and laws which state the best way to live in this world and the best way to prepare ourselves for the next life in the spiritual world.You say "everything that humans get from God is for our own benefit," - is this to imply that we just happen to receive these things, and God isn't really acting purposefully on our behalf? Or do you assert that He does act purposefully on our behalf according to what is "best" for humans? If you state that He does act purposefully on our behalf, again - how can we know this? You didn't really answer that question. You just made more assertions that this is supposedly the case.
That is not what I said. I said that since God does not need us God could destroy is if He did not love us, but because He loves us He does not destroy us.This actually hints at a possible answer to my actual question - but I don't think you'd like the implication. That being that we can know that "God does best" for humans, based on the fact that otherwise, He'd most certainly destroy us.
Why wouldn’t God have already destroyed us if He wanted to, as He has had plenty of time since we were created? I just explained that God does not destroy us because God loves us. Why the heck would God create us if he did not love us, given He does not need us? Hopefully human parents have children because they plan to love and care for them.And as a related question along that line of thinking - how can we know He isn't already in the process of doing this? Or that He is contemplating it? What holds Him back? Certainly no "need," as you stated definitively that God has no needs.
Why worry about what has never happened throughout human history? Why would God suddenly do an about face and destroy all humans? You might believe that if you are a Christian, but that is based upon a misinterpretation of the Bible….. God never had any such plans.Which would ultimately imply that at any time He could change His mind about doing "what's best" for humans, couldn't He? I am asking you how can we know whether or not that has happened? How can we know He is still acting in "the best" interest of humanity? Simply because He hasn't destroyed us? Is that the best you've got?
Of course that is what I mean, although there are some religious teachings that address what is best for animals.Then, again, how can we be sure that anything He is doing is "the best?" And again - I have to assume by the tone of your posts that you necessarily feel that "the best" is what is best for humans, specifically. If not, please clarify.
As I said before God is All-Knowing and God created humans so God knows what is best for humans. As a human I am not All-Knowing so I cannot know what is best for me.I assert that in order for anything to be considered "best" you must necessarily have a perspective from which a particular thing is judged. Without that perspective, you cannot use the word "best" to any real effect.
That reflects what I just said above – what is best for humans varies from age to age, and that is why what was revealed in older scriptures such as the Bible is no longer what is best.The "best" thing for me might be food one moment, and water the next, and still in the next moment, oxygen. It takes the perspective of the situation to determine which is most appropriately labeled "best" in any given moment.
I do not see how that related to religious beliefs being proven false. To prove my beliefs are false you would have to prove there is no God and Baha'u'llah is not a Messenger of God.One example is in the video. Pythagoras believed that all relations between numbers can be written as relations of whole numbers. In the video it is shown false by geometric proof, Proof by contradiction - Wikipedia shows the algebraic proof.
But that is not a contradiction within my beliefs. In other words, none of my religious beliefs contradict each other. That was me questioning some of my beliefs because I do not understand how God can be omnibenevolent given the suffering I see in the world including my own.I think you found one yourself. If I understood you correctly you no longer believe in an omnibenevolent god because it contradicted your experience.
Religious believes get no special treatment in logic. And for Pythagoras it may have been a religious belief.I do not see how that related to religious beliefs being proven false.
No, it would be sufficient to prove one or the other. It would even be sufficient to show that they can't be true at the same time, thus disproving neither.To prove my beliefs are false you would have to prove there is no God and Baha'u'llah is not a Messenger of God.
It is.But that is not a contradiction within my beliefs. In other words, none of my religious beliefs contradict each other. That was me questioning some of my beliefs because I do not understand how God can be omnibenevolent given the suffering I see in the world including my own.
That's the thing though- we simply cannot use reality to prove itself. But to understand it, sure. Which is what we're doing.At some point, we have to be disciplined and begin to evaluate whether what we imagine is probable, even possible, or just imagination. Any question must be evaluated in relation to all available information.
I kinda agree. Maybe it doesn't entail possibility, if it is something unfalsifiable or similar to that. It would make no difference whatsoever, no true distinction between reality and non-reality in the mind I speak of. Perhaps you are right.That we have the capacity to imagine that reality is all one big computer simulation does not make it a possibility
Beliefs cannot be proven or given truth values. They either point to facts or they don't. You're confusing the two.Beliefs can't be proven but some of them can be disproven. When a set of beliefs can be shown to lead to a contradiction, it is false. Logic 101.
I have a question. Does the Baha'i Faith teach of an all-good god? Not omnibenevolent, all-good (or all-giving, "just").That was me questioning some of my beliefs because I do not understand how God can be omnibenevolent given the suffering I see in the world including my own.