Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 2)

[F1fan]

God knew it but God did not do it. Besides sending Messengers all God ever did was create the world and set the process of evolution in motion. God also rules and maintains the all of existence but God is not the causal factor of anything we see on earth.

It doesn't work that way. You claim God is timeless but are treating it like it's human. God doesn't set anything in motion, God is aware of the whole range of time and events simultaneously. God did all of it at once. There is no beginning to God, there is no end, there is only the whole range of time that God experiences in what we might experience as a moment.

It's like you've written a 20 chapter book and as the author you know what's going to happen to all the characters. If you go back and read chapter 3 you know what's going to happen to the character in chapter 20, even though the character doesn't. But you as the author knows the whole range of the story you've written. And since you are the creator there's no way any character can change its own story. And you create the fate of every character and you choose their luck, or their death.

You want a Deist God with all the baggage of an interventionist God that isn't held accountable for what is created but won't do to help those in need. So something is very wrong with your idea of God. You want it to be many things that make it immoral and malevolent. But then you hate that this is what your dogma says about God. It's not my problem. You have bad and incoherent dogma.

“Baha’is believe in an almighty creator who has fashioned the universe and has made man in his own image; they believe in a non-created cause of all existence, in a single God. The word ‘God’ is a symbol for that transcendent reality by which all existence is ruled and maintained. What we call God is not, as the critics of the concept of God believe, a product of human imagination, a creation of the mind, a fanciful invention which has no reality, or a reflection of particular social and economic circumstances.”
(Udo Schafer, the light that shineth in the darkness, p. 19)

This isn't factual. It's propaganda. This is bad dogma that has no basis in truth, so we throw it out. No God is known to exist outside of human imagination no matter what these kind of believers think and write.

Nice try at scapegoating, but God is not the cause of anything that humans do, humans are the cause because they have free will.

Irony. You want your God to be everything except accountable for what it created. And you have to do this to protect your image of God against the harsh reality of an indifferent universe.

And you know that how?

Because you depict a God that does nothing to help those in suffering. We all observe people in pain and suffering that is not due to their choices, yet you defend your God standing by and doing nothing. If your god is aware and does nothing, then it does not care. Simple.

That is a fallacy called the fallacy of simplicity because the only factor it takes into consideration is that you don’t like cancer so cancer is bad. You assume that a good, wise and powerful God would not allow cancer to exist just because you don’t like cancer existing.

Sorry, but if your dogma says God is benevolent then ANY example of God not helping the innocent illustrates a malevolent character. This is your fault for representing your idea of God as if it's benevolent. So that is your failure in this debate since we have observations and data that makes your belief wrong.

You can fall back on the belief that God has a different set of moral values, but that's not a fact you can use since no Gods are known to exist outside human imagination. You have been trying to get away with making things up about your God to escape the inconsistent dogma you rely on. That is your problem. If you can't make your God coherent to human minds then you fail at debate.

Nice try at obfuscating but no actual people know more than the real God.

No gods are known to exist. There is nothing that is a "real God" that exists outside of your imagination given your lack of facts.

The only god that is a sociopath is your imaginary god. The real God knows more than you do because He is omniscient so whatever He allows to exist has a purpose for existing, including cancer.

I'm using the God you're describing, your idea of God. It can't have the qualities you claim and also be benevolent. You want it to be, but you've assigned it qualities that are inconsistent with goodness.

I am at no disadvantage because I know my beliefs are true and they are perfectly consistent. Moreover, I have facts that support my beliefs.

But they aren't factual, so what you believe is irrelevant in debate. You confuse dogma with facts. We are just giving you the opportunity to describe your God so we can assess it with the human experience and what we observe. You have no facts of a God existing. No "real God". No facts about its attributes. You just repeat what you've adopted from your chosen dogma. It's just not very well crafted dogma. It have serious flaws, and you can't argue around it no matter how you try to find loopholes and excuses. Your position is at a serious disadvantage because you have no facts.

Why is it that the fallible minds of other humans who have cancer don’t blame God for their cancer?

Because their minds are fallible.

Did you see Hitchens blame God for his cancer? No, he had a rational mind. He wasn't convinced gods exist. Those who do believe desperately appeal to God for help, but according to you God will do nothing for them. Yet you think God is good. The believer is trapped between hoping for a miracle and your God who will not deliver one.

It is only some atheists who blame God for cancer, the irrational atheists.

Who are these people?

Rational atheists just accept cancer as a disease that humans get, along with all the other diseases that humans get. They don’t blame a God they do not even believe exists.

So you acknowledge that atheists are rational. And I'll wait for your list of atheists who blame God for their cancer, but I don't believe these people exist.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Koldo]

I apologize for citing all these fallacies but fallacies are useful because they point our errors in our thinking that lead us to false conclusions. If we cannot think logically we will come to all kinds of erroneous conclusions.

By saying that omnipotence entails being able to do better than allowing suffering, that is a form of the Oversimplified Cause Fallacy because you are basing your entire argument upon omnipotence and nothing else, which is blinding you to other relevant factors that are related to why suffering exists.

Oversimplified Cause Fallacy

Logical Form:

X is a contributing factor to Y.
X and Y are present.
Therefore, to remove Y, remove X.

Example:

P1. God is a contributing factor to suffering because God allows suffering to exist.
P2. Many people suffer.
P3. God is omnipotent so God could eliminate suffering.

C. Therefore, suffering should be eliminated by the omnipotent God.

We are taking an unreasonable leap in suggesting that suffering should be eliminated by an omnipotent God because we are not taking any other factors into consideration except one – God is omnipotent so God can do anything. We are not taking into consideration that suffering could be beneficial and that is why God allows it to exist.

Since you enjoy pointing out fallacies, what you are doing here is called a strawman fallacy. You are misrepresenting my reasoning and beating down this misrepresentation.

For instance, you haven't mentioned what I have stated that would compel God towards preventing suffering: omnibenevolence.

It doesn't matter if suffering can be beneficial unless you can show that this benefit can not be gained in any other way. If it can be gained in some other way this suffering is incompatible with benevolence.

 

[F1fan]

We do not ‘always’ understand God’s actions or inaction because God is beyond human understanding, but we can know through scripture that God is always benevolent because that is one of the immutable attributes of God.

Why would a God create/evolve humans in a way that they can't understand it?

And why is God incomprehensible at all? Shouldn't a benevolent God make perfect sense to good. moral, rational people?

What's happening here is not that an actual God is incomprehensible, but that a religion's description of their God is not consistent with facts and reality.

 

[F1fan]

A plan is something humans need in order to achieve something. God does not have to achieve anything for humans because God expects humans to achieve the goals that God has set for them.

Another inconsistency. So God sets goals for people yet it isn't responsible for them getting cancer?

God does not need a plan because God already knows everything, including His goals for humans. Those goals were set when humans were just a glimmer in God’s Eyes.

Another inconsistency. No, God is timeless. God knows the fate of every humans, it knew at the moment of creation. It knows if humans achieved the goals God set already. You are writing here as if your God is limited by time, like humans. Which is it?

Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
https://www.google.com/search?q=dogma+means

The Baha'i Faith has no dogma, we only have scriptures. Dogma are principles laid down by men who claim to have authority.

Irrational. Your beliefs based on these scriptures IS dogma. The definition you post is exactly what you are doing. That you deny your dogma is dogma suggests that you understand it is weak, and are trying to avoid the fallibility of dogma. The rest of us can see it, but not you?

I know what Baha’u’llah revealed is God’s Purpose for humans which is more than you know. You are flying blind because you cannot ever know anything about God without a Messenger of God.

Its irrational to conflate belief with knowledge.

What I have is a religious belief, not a personal opinion. I believe that Baha’u’llah is infallible so whatever He wrote is true.

Now you are back to calling it belief. And what you believe could be mistaken since you are a fallible being. Can you admit you might be mistaken in your religious belief?

It is not a fallacy, unless you can find a fallacy of religious beliefs.

The major flaw is assuming any sort of god exists. Any conclusion from an assumption is not logical. Logic requires true, factual premises.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Because He is God might not be convincing but that is a good enough reason to listen to Him and obey His injunctions because He has all power.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (Argument from Authority). A poor appeal, as there is no tangible, convincing evidence that your god is The God, and has all power. All we have are claims from scripture, your claims, and the claims of your prophet. Those are no more evidence to the power and authority of your god than The Lord of the Rings is evidence to the history of the Earth.

Additionally; Or what? Terms like "listen to him and obey his warnings" sure sound scary (not really), but what is your god going to do if I continue not to listen to him? Or rather, you, because your god is suspiciously silent on many of the things that you get riled up about...

I am not going to play the game of either/or

Then why are you here, defending the claims of GOA's omnibenevolence? If the writings of your prophet are the only thoughts you have, why do the claims of the Bible and Quran - and thus logical criticism of them - matter to you?

Moreover, it there was ever any evil, calamity, disaster, sorrow caused by God it is because humans deserved it and it was for their own good in the long run.

What a disgustingly immoral display of Argument from Authority and Affirming the Consequent.

Look around you and see what is going on in the world, all the disasters. I am not going to say this is all because of what humans have done but it is punishment for what humans have not done.

I guess this is the "or what", huh? Because we don't listen to your god (or rather what your prophet writes about what he thinks about GOA) there come disasters and suffering. Right? You've backed yourself into a corner here, blazer. You won't say it directly, but it's there. Your god is immoral and not worthy of consideration.

Read more if you want to know--

I've already told you that I don't care. You continuing to vomit out irrelevant writings, when we're discussing scriptural claims of Christians and Muslims, is really toeing a line for Rule #8: Preaching/Proselytizing.

I do not doubt that God did some of that but whatever God did was well-deserved so that does not make God evil.

Argument from Authority and Magical Thinking.

That is just your personal opinion, not a fact.

No, it is a fact by the clear definitions of the word. Just because you'd apparently excuse child abuse because "Well, he's the father, so they must have deserved it!" doesn't make it good.

Please don’t compare what a human to human interaction with God to human interactions

After much consideration, the Board has elected to deny your request. Additionally, I know you just love throwing out what you think False equivalence is, but you're wrong. I don't think the bahaullah wrote anything on logical fallacies, so I'll clarify it for you. A False equivalency is making comparisons between two subjects that have nothing to do with what is being compared. An example given in this link is comparing Jesus to Hitler just because they both have moustaches. Here we are discussing morality, not state-of-being, thus comparing Yahweh to every single notion of morality is absolutely applicable. Your pale objects to this by wailing "But he's god!" are irrelevant, and what's more they are an Appeal to Authority (you love those) and additionally an example of Ipse dixit. GOA is not special, or above scrutiny and moral judgement.

I never claimed that God is always a kind and loving Father,

Again, go back and actually read what is being said to you. You are here defending that claim. If it is not a claim you agree with, why are you still here?

Obfuscation will get you nowhere. God handed the earth over to humans and after that God was no longer responsible for what happened here, so we cannot blame God for what humans did.

Yeah, nothing about what I said was obfuscation. If you don't know the meaning of a word, just don't use it.

GOA giving man "dominion over all the earth" doesn't mean that we make natural disasters, or diseases, or environmental hazards. It a claim that means we're better than fish and birds and beasts. Furthermore, if we did have such power over the Earth, everything would be a cakewalk. However, according to the scriptural and doctrinal claims regarding the GOA, we are at the mercy of the system that he created. We are set above lesser creatures, but are still lesser to him, and saying that we're responsible for what an all-powerful being does is scapegoating.

That is another fallacy, Argumentum ad populum

No, it's not. Because I am not necessarily saying that they're true, I am saying that your singular, minority example of scriptural objection (of which is also nothing more - factually - than the writings of a man) does not negate or disprove the claims of two-to-three other Abrahamic faiths. This is especially compounded by your tendency to excessively cherry-pick their scripture for things you like, while ignoring or dismissing the things that you don't. Additionally, your accusation of fallacy is false in that I clarified - right in that quote - that their claims are what are being discussed here. You'll notice, I'm sure (or maybe you won't) that I have not attempted to introduce Heathen arguments to counter GOA and Monotheism's Problem of Evil. Equally, if the Problem as presented is not something present in your religion, then your religion and writings are irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what the Bible says,

It absolutely does, because that is the issue being addressed. You trying to make it about your insubstantial claim is an example of Moving the Goalposts, i.e. because your religion says XYZ, the issue-at-hand of what Christianity claims is irrelevant.

the Christian dispensation has been abrogated by the Revelations from God that came after the Bible was written. By an arrangement of God the divine ordering of the affairs of the world is only according to one religion at a time and we are now living in the Dispensation of Baha’u’llah so the religion for this age is the Baha’i Faith

Not anymore you're not. As of 11,970, Paganism has risen again and we have evidence of Abrahamic Monotheism making a marked decline. The Age of Abraham is over, and we are ushering in a new era of many gods, toppling the problems inherent in Monotheism and solving the Problem of Evil. Yay us.

“God cannot be tempted with evil” does not mean that you could not try to do it. I think it only means you can’t successfully entice God to do something evil.

More likely it means that the author of James believes his idea of god can't be tempted. And yet we have many more scriptural evidences that god can be tempted, and one shouldn't do it "or else".

"Tempting" and "testing" are also the same, in such a context of morality.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, God could be evil. Right? How would you know, otherwise?

No, God could not be evil because all the scriptures say God is good and since the scriptures are the ONLY WAY we can ever know anything about God, you can do the math.

But this does not work. It does not work because God could have created all possible souls and send them directly to that beautiful home, playing harp or whatever.

It does work because it does not MATTER what "God could have done."

I do not give a tinker's damn what "God could have done." God did not do it your way because God is all-knowing so God knows more than you can ever know about how to do it. God knew the BEST WAY of all the available options because God is all-knowing. That is Logic 101.

So, either this stop on earth is useful for something or not. If not, it is useless cruelty, and God is not maximally benevolent, if it is, then the billions of souls that died in the womb, were deprived of that useful step, and God is not maximally benevolent, either.

There is a purpose to life on earth and that is the REASON we are here. We are not put on this earth to enjoy ourselves and be free of all suffering. We have to fulfill our purpose in this life (as noted below) to be able to enter the next life in the spiritual world and have the spiritual qualities we will need to exist there and be joyful and free for all of eternity. If we do not acquire the spiritual qualities we will need in the spiritual world we will be handicapped, like a child who was born with no arms and legs is handicapped in this world. Suffering is one way we acquire these spiritual qualities, as suffering and perseverance through the suffering develops our character.

“The purpose of God in creating man hath been, and will ever be, to enable him to know his Creator and to attain His Presence. To this most excellent aim, this supreme objective, all the heavenly Books and the divinely-revealed and weighty Scriptures unequivocally bear witness.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

“The Prophets and Messengers of God have been sent down for the sole purpose of guiding mankind to the straight Path of Truth. The purpose underlying Their revelation hath been to educate all men, that they may, at the hour of death, ascend, in the utmost purity and sanctity and with absolute detachment, to the throne of the Most High. The light which these souls radiate is responsible for the progress of the world and the advancement of its peoples. They are like unto leaven which leaveneth the world of being, and constitute the animating force through which the arts and wonders of the world are made manifest. Through them the clouds rain their bounty upon men, and the earth bringeth forth its fruits. All things must needs have a cause, a motive power, an animating principle. These souls and symbols of detachment have provided, and will continue to provide, the supreme moving impulse in the world of being....” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 156-157

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
P.S. An example of how suffering develops our character is me having to suffer through all these posts on this thread. I could just walk away because I don't need to prove anything to atheists and that is NOT why I am here. Moreover I am certainly not here to win a debate. I know why there is suffering and I know that God is benevolent so the things that atheists say on this thread are just amusing to me. I feel no need to defend my position, the only reason I respond at all is out of mercy and compassion for God's creatures.

My husband just said "Why are you responding to these people?" He does not understand because he is not like me. He would not waste his time on something that is hopeless. But I am not one to ever give up on anything, even if there is only a shred of hope. Besides that, it builds my character to face people who are all against me and not lose my composure, so everyone on this thread is really doing me a favor. Nobody likes to suffer when they are suffering, but there is a benefit after it is all over and we made our way through it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am afraid you didn't quite get what I meant.
The fact that God is not a human is not sufficient to make it a false equivalence. You need to explain why a benevolent god would behave differently. You need to justify.

No, I do not need to justify. That God is not a human is sufficient to make it a false equivalence. Logically speaking, you cannot expect God to do what a human would do because God is not a human. Conversely, you cannot expect a human to do what God can do because a human is not God.

If suffering is not unwanted by God, then he is not benevolent. You might not be aware of this but if you are going to use the 'greater good' card this entails that suffering, in itself, is unwanted by God.

That is just your personal opinion and as such it is nit a fact. When you assert it as if it is a fact then you are making an argument from ignorance, again.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
If I have to spell it out for you, there you have not done a sufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove that your proposition that If suffering is not unwanted by God, then God is not benevolent.is true.

I do not assert but I believe that suffering is wanted by God and that is why it exists. It is wanted by God because it is beneficial to man. There is no way around this because there is evidence. The evidence is the people who have suffered who say it benefited them, even cancer patients. People who whine and complain are in the minority, as most people deal with suffering and learn from it and become better people as a result. It is only atheists who whine and complain about God and how God is not good because people suffer.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would that matter?

Even if you established that some specific scripture came from God, wouldn't it just be another of God's actions that we can't tell whether it's truly good or evil?

It matters because scripture says that God is always benevolent since that is one of the immutable attributes of God.
What that means is that none of God's actions can ever be evil, they are always good and they are always for the ultimate well-being of humans.

 

[Trailblazer]

You can't ignore the fact that even if we do our best a lot of people will suffer and die before we figure out a solution.

That is true but that is life and mature adults understand that suffering is part of life and they accept it.
I cannot make you see that, I can only tell you that and hope you understand, if not now then maybe someday.

Once people die, there is no more suffering if they played their cards right in this world. There is no more suffering in the afterlife because it is a spiritual world so there is nothing to cause suffering except our own psychic pain which goes with us to the spiritual world. If we take our psychic pain with us to the next world we will be in agony. However, the worst thing we can take with us to the afterlife is a resentment towards God and worse yet is hating God. Hating God is the one unforgivable sin. One can hate the Manifestation of God (Messenger of God) and be forgiven, but one cannot be forgiven for hating God. The Holy Spirit is the Light of God so if we hate the Holy Spirit it is the same as hating God.

Question.—“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”—(Matt. 12:31–32)

Answer.— If a soul remains far from the manifestation, he may yet be awakened; for he did not recognize the manifestation of the divine perfections. But if he loathe the divine perfections themselves—in other words, the Holy Spirit—it is evident that he is like a bat which hates the light.

This detestation of the light has no remedy and cannot be forgiven—that is to say, it is impossible for him to come near unto God. This lamp is a lamp because of its light; without the light it would not be a lamp. Now if a soul has an aversion for the light of the lamp, he is, as it were, blind, and cannot comprehend the light; and blindness is the cause of everlasting banishment from God…..

The meaning is this: to remain far from the light-holder does not entail everlasting banishment, for one may become awakened and vigilant; but enmity toward the light is the cause of everlasting banishment, and for this there is no remedy.
Some Answered Questions, pp. 127-128

I used to hate God because of all my suffering but when I finally realized the consequences of hating God I worked hard to not hate God. I still do not love God but I think that can be forgiven because I know God understands all the suffering I have endured and will forgive me. Now I know that God is benevolent in spite of all my suffering and all the suffering in the world because my ego got out of the way.

"Consequently, it is made clear that for holy souls, trials are as the gift of God, the Exalted; but for weak souls they are an unexpected calamity. This test is just as thou hast written: it removeth the rust of egotism from the mirror of the heart until the Sun of Truth may shine therein. For, no veil is greater than egotism and no matter how thin that covering may be, yet it will finally veil man entirely and prevent him from receiving a portion from the eternal bounty." Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 371-372

Now that you mention it...
What sort of material world would contradict god being benevolent? What fact if true would mean god is not benevolent?

No kind of material world would contradict God's benevolence because benevolence is one of the immutable attributes of God.
No fact would mean that God is not benevolent because benevolence is one of the immutable attributes of God.

 

[Koldo]

No, I do not need to justify. That God is not a human is sufficient to make it a false equivalence. Logically speaking, you cannot expect God to do what a human would do because God is not a human. Conversely, you cannot expect a human to do what God can do because a human is not God.

You absolutely do need to justify.
You need to show the reason why the differences between god and humans makes this a false equivalency. You can not merely point there are differences between god and humans. Otherwise we would never able to compare any two things in the real world for there are always differences between any two things.

That is just your personal opinion and as such it is nit a fact. When you assert it as if it is a fact then you are making an argument from ignorance, again.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
If I have to spell it out for you, there you have not done a sufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove that your proposition that If suffering is not unwanted by God, then God is not benevolent.is true.

I do not assert but I believe that suffering is wanted by God and that is why it exists. It is wanted by God because it is beneficial to man. There is no way around this because there is evidence. The evidence is the people who have suffered who say it benefited them, even cancer patients. People who whine and complain are in the minority, as most people deal with suffering and learn from it and become better people as a result. It is only atheists who whine and complain about God and how God is not good because people suffer.

There is a major problem going on here: you don't properly understand the fallacies you are mentioning.

To make an argument from ignorance is to state a claim is true or false on the grounds that it hasn't been proven contrary to the claim being made.

It would be like saying that God exists because no one has shown he doesn't, or that God doesn't exist because no one has shown he does.

I am not doing any of that. When I say that suffering is unwanted by a benevolent god what I am doing is making an a priori claim. This is the kind of claim that follows directly from the premises, the kind of claim that can be neither supported nor contradicted by evidence, for it is the kind of claim that relates to knowledge gained independently from evidence. So when you criticize my argument for a lack of investigation you don't even understand the nature of the claim being made.

 

[Trailblazer]

So no Bahais die of cancer or die in earthquakes or die in floods, famine, wars or just get run over by a bus? And none of these things will ever happen to anyone if the whole world becomes Bahais and follow all the "rules" for this age?

If not, your entire argument fails would be the logical conclusion.

I said "The way God helps people in need is by sending Messengers who reveal teachings and laws. In the teachings of Baha'u'llah He tells us specifically how the suffering in the world can be alleviated."

I did not say that all suffering would ever be eradicated, I said it would be alleviated.

Suffering in this world will never be eradicated because suffering is inherent in life in a physical world, since it is the physical world that causes all the suffering, aside from the suffering that man creates by not being able to live in harmony with his fellow man. The suffering that is brought on by man's inability to get along with his fellow man could be greatly alleviated if everyone followed the teachings of the Baha'i Faith.

I believe that famines and war will eventually be eradicated after a large number of people embrace the Baha'i Faith. Even cancer can be eliminated after scientists discover a cure for cancer or a way to prevent cancer, and this is in accord with the teachings of the Baha'i Faith that say that science is every bit as important as religion for the progress of humanity.

Earthquakes and floods, and people getting run over by a bus are not going to be eliminated because they are part of life in a physical world.

The zeal for wanting to believe God will get those who don't believe your messenger's claims is a bit disturbing to say the least.

I have no zeal for getting people to believe in my Messenger's claims. I do not care one way or another as everyone has free will so it has to be their choice. My job is done after I deliver the message of Baha'u'llah. What happens after that is not my responsibility.

I never said or even implied that people who believe in believe my messenger's claims will be free of suffering. Being a Baha'i is not about being free of suffering. As Baha'is we know only too well that this material world is a storehouse of suffering, but at least we know we can turn to God when we are suffering, and we know that this life is not forever and that we can look forward to life in the spiritual world which will be free of suffering.

Storehouse of Suffering quote

 

[Koldo]

That is true but that is life and mature adults understand that suffering is part of life and they accept it.
I cannot make you see that, I can only tell you that and hope you understand, if not now then maybe someday.

I do accept that. What I do not accept as true is logical contradictions such as the existence of an omnimax god.

Once people die, there is no more suffering if they played their cards right in this world. There is no more suffering in the afterlife because it is a spiritual world so there is nothing to cause suffering except our own psychic pain which goes with us to the spiritual world. If we take our psychic pain with us to the next world we will be in agony.

None of this matters.
This is like saying: Look, there are a lot of candies and toys right here for you after you have been raped and killed. Enjoy them.

However, the worst thing we can take with us to the afterlife is a resentment towards God and worse yet is hating God. Hating God is the one unforgivable sin. One can hate the Manifestation of God (Messenger of God) and be forgiven, but one cannot be forgiven for hating God. The Holy Spirit is the Light of God so if we hate the Holy Spirit it is the same as hating God.

Question.—“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”—(Matt. 12:31–32)

Answer.— If a soul remains far from the manifestation, he may yet be awakened; for he did not recognize the manifestation of the divine perfections. But if he loathe the divine perfections themselves—in other words, the Holy Spirit—it is evident that he is like a bat which hates the light.

This detestation of the light has no remedy and cannot be forgiven—that is to say, it is impossible for him to come near unto God. This lamp is a lamp because of its light; without the light it would not be a lamp. Now if a soul has an aversion for the light of the lamp, he is, as it were, blind, and cannot comprehend the light; and blindness is the cause of everlasting banishment from God…..

The meaning is this: to remain far from the light-holder does not entail everlasting banishment, for one may become awakened and vigilant; but enmity toward the light is the cause of everlasting banishment, and for this there is no remedy.
Some Answered Questions, pp. 127-128

I used to hate God because of all my suffering but when I finally realized the consequences of hating God I worked hard to not hate God. I still do not love God but I think that can be forgiven because I know God understands all the suffering I have endured and will forgive me. Now I know that God is benevolent in spite of all my suffering and all the suffering in the world because my ego got out of the way.

"Consequently, it is made clear that for holy souls, trials are as the gift of God, the Exalted; but for weak souls they are an unexpected calamity. This test is just as thou hast written: it removeth the rust of egotism from the mirror of the heart until the Sun of Truth may shine therein. For, no veil is greater than egotism and no matter how thin that covering may be, yet it will finally veil man entirely and prevent him from receiving a portion from the eternal bounty." Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 371-372

I have no idea why you are saying any of this. I am afraid I am unable to feel hatred and resentment towards someone that doesn't exist, as far as I am concerned.

No kind of material world would contradict God's benevolence because benevolence is one of the immutable attributes of God.
No fact would mean that God is not benevolent because benevolence is one of the immutable attributes of God.

What I am asking is: What kind of fact about the material world would convince you that God is not benevolent? What would count as evidence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It matters because scripture says that God is always benevolent since that is one of the immutable attributes of God.
What that means is that none of God's actions can ever be evil, they are always good and they are always for the ultimate well-being of humans.

And let me guess: the scripture can't be a lie because you know God is benevolent.
And you know God is benevolent because the scripture says he is.
And you know that the scripture can't be a lie because you know God is benevolent.
And you know God is benevolent because the scripture says he is.
And you know that the scripture can't be a lie because you know God is benevolent.

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't work that way. You claim God is timeless but are treating it like it's human. God doesn't set anything in motion, God is aware of the whole range of time and events simultaneously. God did all of it at once. There is no beginning to God, there is no end, there is only the whole range of time that God experiences in what we might experience as a moment.

God has a mind and a will as humans do but God is not a human so His mind and will are not the same as a human mind and will. There is some truth to what you are saying because God and His creation have always existed.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

However, earth is only a very small part of God’s creation and earth has not always existed. Logically speaking, God had to set things in motion or they would never have come into existence at all. The Mind of God willed them to exist and they came into existence.

And since you are the creator there's no way any character can change its own story. And you create the fate of every character and you choose their luck, or their death.

That would only be true if God wrote our story and determined our fate, but such is not the case. We determine our own fate by the choices me make and the actions we take. Some of our fate is outside of our control and that is the fate that is determined by God and His irrevocable decree.

You want a Deist God with all the baggage of an interventionist God that isn't held accountable for what is created but won't do to help those in need. So something is very wrong with your idea of God.

I do not want God to be anything. God is what God is. God is not accountable to humans for anything He does, it is humans who are accountable to God. God does intervene when He sends Messengers and that is the way God intervenes and helps people. God does not “come on down” to help people in need because God is not Superman. God is Spirit and remains forever in His own high place in Heaven.

You want it to be many things that make it immoral and malevolent.

Nothing God ever does can make Him immoral because only humans are subject to morality. God sets the standards for human morality, God does not have to follow them.

God can never be malevolent because benevolence is an immutable attribute of God.

This isn't factual. It's propaganda. This is bad dogma that has no basis in truth, so we throw it out. No God is known to exist outside of human imagination no matter what these kind of believers think and write.

You can throw out anything you want. Do you think I care? You can continue to believe in your imaginary god who is malevolent but I prefer to believe in the real God who is benevolent.

Irony. You want your God to be everything except accountable for what it created. And you have to do this to protect your image of God against the harsh reality of an indifferent universe.

God is not accountable to humans for anything; it is humans who are accountable to God. God is not in any way responsible for the choices that humans make and the ensuing actions. Everyone knows that except a few atheists. If they did not know that there could be no justice system.

Because you depict a God that does nothing to help those in suffering. We all observe people in pain and suffering that is not due to their choices, yet you defend your God standing by and doing nothing. If your god is aware and does nothing, then it does not care. Simple.

God does not do nothing. God sends Messengers to help all of humanity. Sorry that is not what you ordered but that is all you are getting because God is not a short order cook.

You do not know if God cares because you do not know the mind of God. Just because God does not remove all suffering that does not mean God does not care. In fact it means that God does care because suffering is beneficial to man.

“Men who suffer not, attain no perfection. The plant most pruned by the gardeners is that one which, when the summer comes, will have the most beautiful blossoms and the most abundant fruit.

The labourer cuts up the earth with his plough, and from that earth comes the rich and plentiful harvest. The more a man is chastened, the greater is the harvest of spiritual virtues shown forth by him. A soldier is no good General until he has been in the front of the fiercest battle and has received the deepest wounds.” Paris Talks, p. 51

Sorry, but if your dogma says God is benevolent then ANY example of God not helping the innocent illustrates a malevolent character. This is your fault for representing your idea of God as if it's benevolent. So that is your failure in this debate since we have observations and data that makes your belief wrong.

The example of God helping everyone, including the innocent, is sending Messengers.

I have not failed in this debate because I am not in a debate trying to win. I am just presenting accurate information about the real God. I cannot fail since what I present comes from God so it has to be accurate. What you present comes from your own ego so it is subject to error because humans are all fallible.

“Consequently, it is made clear that for holy souls, trials are as the gift of God, the Exalted; but for weak souls they are an unexpected calamity. This test is just as thou hast written: it removeth the rust of egotism from the mirror of the heart until the Sun of Truth may shine therein. For, no veil is greater than egotism and no matter how thin that covering may be, yet it will finally veil man entirely and prevent him from receiving a portion from the eternal bounty.” Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 371-372

You can fall back on the belief that God has a different set of moral values, but that's not a fact

It certainly is not a fact because God does not have a set or moral values since God is not subject to moral behavior. There is nothing more absurd than to think that.

I'm using the God you're describing, your idea of God. It can't have the qualities you claim and also be benevolent. You want it to be, but you've assigned it qualities that are inconsistent with goodness.

Only in your opinion, which is fallible thus subject to error. We all have personal opinions, and that is all you have. I have more than you have because I have scriptures that say that God is benevolent, not just opinions.

“He, verily, shall recompense the charitable, and doubly repay them for what they have bestowed. No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

“Why is it that the fallible minds of other humans who have cancer don’t blame God for their cancer?”

Because their minds are fallible.

And yours isn’t?

Did you see Hitchens blame God for his cancer? No, he had a rational mind. He wasn't convinced gods exist. Those who do believe desperately appeal to God for help, but according to you God will do nothing for them. Yet you think God is good. The believer is trapped between hoping for a miracle and your God who will not deliver one.

You live in a complete fantasy world. Why should God cure cancer, just because you don’t like it?

Basically, what is being presented by the atheists on this thread is that God is bad because God won’t do what I want Him to do. That is childish and egotistical but your ego prevents you from seeing it for what it really is.

So you acknowledge that atheists are rational. And I'll wait for your list of atheists who blame God for their cancer, but I don't believe these people exist.

Many atheists are rational, just no atheists on this thread.

All the atheists on this thread have been blaming God for suffering and some are blaming God for cancer. I am not going to list them.

But I am now giving you a way out. All you have to do is say that God is not to blame for cancer and you are free and clear, but as soon as you say that God could/should have created a world without cancer you are invoking God and blaming God for cancer. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Trailblazer]

Since you enjoy pointing out fallacies, what you are doing here is called a strawman fallacy. You are misrepresenting my reasoning and beating down this misrepresentation.

For instance, you haven't mentioned what I have stated that would compel God towards preventing suffering: omnibenevolence.

Omnibenevolence would not compel God towards preventing suffering because suffering is beneficial to humans. Not only that, but trials are gifts from God.

TRIALS A GIFT FROM GOD

“Thou hast written concerning the tests that have come upon thee. To the sincere ones, tests are as a gift from God, the Exalted, for a heroic person hasteneth, with the utmost joy and gladness, to the tests of a violent battlefield, but the coward is afraid and trembles and utters moaning and lamentation. Likewise, an expert student prepareth and memorizeth his lessons and exercises with the utmost effort, and in the day of examination he appeareth with infinite joy before the master. Likewise, the pure gold shineth radiantly in the fire of test. Consequently, it is made clear that for holy souls, trials are as the gift of God, the Exalted; but for weak souls they are an unexpected calamity. This test is just as thou hast written: it removeth the rust of egotism from the mirror of the heart until the Sun of Truth may shine therein. For, no veil is greater than egotism and no matter how thin that covering may be, yet it will finally veil man entirely and prevent him from receiving a portion from the eternal bounty.”
Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 371-372

It doesn't matter if suffering can be beneficial unless you can show that this benefit can not be gained in any other way. If it can be gained in some other way this suffering is incompatible with benevolence.

It does not MATTER if the benefits if suffering could have been achieved in another way.

God is all-knowing and all-wise so God has to know the BEST way to achieve the results gained by suffering. That means that whatever way God chose had to be the best way and since God chose suffering that has to be the best way.

Suffering is not incompatible with benevolence because suffering is benevolent. See above.

 

[Trailblazer]

Another inconsistency. So God sets goals for people yet it isn't responsible for them getting cancer?

There is no inconsistency since cancer is not a goal that God has set for humans to strive to meet. Knowing God and spiritual development are the goals.

Another inconsistency. No, God is timeless. God knows the fate of every humans, it knew at the moment of creation. It knows if humans achieved the goals God set already. You are writing here as if your God is limited by time, like humans. Which is it?

God set the goals humans are supposed to achieve by creating them with a purpose in mind

“The purpose of God in creating man hath been, and will ever be, to enable him to know his Creator and to attain His Presence. To this most excellent aim, this supreme objective, all the heavenly Books and the divinely-revealed and weighty Scriptures unequivocally bear witness.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

That is the primary purpose as is also expressed in the Baha'i Short Obligatory Prayer as knowing and worshiping God. However, the other purpose if this life in this material world is spiritual growth, developing our spiritual nature, so our souls will be prepared to ascend to the spiritual world when we die physically.

God knows what goals humans will achieve because God knows everything that will ever happen in this world, past present and future.

Irrational. Your beliefs based on these scriptures IS dogma. The definition you post is exactly what you are doing. That you deny your dogma is dogma suggests that you understand it is weak, and are trying to avoid the fallibility of dogma. The rest of us can see it, but not you?

I can’t see it because I know the definition of dogma. The Baha’i Faith has no a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true because we have no clergy. The Baha’i Faith has the Writings of Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi; we have no doctrines or tenets. We read the Writings and decide for ourselves how to interpret them, what they mean and what to believe.

dogma in American English

1. a doctrine; tenet; belief
2. doctrines, tenets, or beliefs, collectively
3. a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion
4. Ecclesiastical
a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed

SIMILAR WORDS: ˈdoctrine
Dogma definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

I know what Baha’u’llah revealed is God’s Purpose for humans which is more than you know. You are flying blind because you cannot ever know anything about God without a Messenger of God.

Can you admit you might be mistaken in your religious belief?

I could be but I know I am not. If I don’t know after over 50 years of reading about the Baha’i Faith I would have to be pretty slow.

The major flaw is assuming any sort of god exists. Any conclusion from an assumption is not logical. Logic requires true, factual premises.

I don’t assume that God exists, I know that God exists because of the EVIDENCE.
Nice try, but religious beliefs are not subject to logic since they can never be proven to be true.

 

[F1fan]

And let me guess: the scripture can't be a lie because you know God is benevolent.
And you know God is benevolent because the scripture says he is.
And you know that the scripture can't be a lie because you know God is benevolent.
And you know God is benevolent because the scripture says he is.
And you know that the scripture can't be a lie because you know God is benevolent.

Wait, that should be a fallacy. It's so circular.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wait, that should be a fallacy. It's so circular.

It would be if it represented my position. Stay tuned, I have not answered that post yet.

 

[Trailblazer]

You absolutely do need to justify.
You need to show the reason why the differences between god and humans makes this a false equivalency. You can not merely point there are differences between god and humans. Otherwise we would never able to compare any two things in the real world for there are always differences between any two things.

I do not need to show the reason why the differences between god and humans. God is not a human and a human is not God, that is why God and humans are different.

God is: Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, Immaterial, Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient.

Humans are different from God because humans are not Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, or Immaterial, but humans can have some of the attributes of God such as Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient since humans were made in the image of God.

To make an argument from ignorance is to state a claim is true or false on the grounds that it hasn't been proven contrary to the claim being made.

It would be like saying that God exists because no one has shown he doesn't, or that God doesn't exist because no one has shown he does.

I am not doing any of that. When I say that suffering is unwanted by a benevolent god what I am doing is making an a priori claim. This is the kind of claim that follows directly from the premises, the kind of claim that can be neither supported nor contradicted by evidence, for it is the kind of claim that relates to knowledge gained independently from evidence. So when you criticize my argument for a lack of investigation you don't even understand the nature of the claim being made.

When you say that suffering is unwanted by a benevolent god what you are doing is speaking for what a benevolent God would want. I do not care what kind of claim you call it, it is a claim you can never prove, thus it is a bald assertion. It is based solely upon your expectations of what a benevolent God would want.

Your claim can be contradicted by the evidence that shows that suffering can be beneficial to humans, as testified to by those humans. That means that God is benevolent for allowing suffering to exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

I do accept that. What I do not accept as true is logical contradictions such as the existence of an omnimax god.

Ask me if I care what you accept. There are no logical contradictions for those of us who actually know something about the real God rather than the imaginary god they made up in their head. You think you can take one attribute if God – omnipotence – to prove that God is not benevolent because if He was he would have some something differently because He has all power. What blows your entire argument out of the water is that God is omniscient, so God knows more than you can ever know about how to create a world, and that means that whatever God did has to be what was best for humans. You think you can invoke malevolence to around this, as if you can know more than all the Holy Books that say that God is benevolent. It is funny to watch but sad to see.

None of this matters.
This is like saying: Look, there are a lot of candies and toys right here for you after you have been raped and killed. Enjoy them.

It does matter because the afterlife exists and it is the main act of the play.

I have no idea why you are saying any of this. I am afraid I am unable to feel hatred and resentment towards someone that doesn't exist, as far as I am concerned.

You mean something that you don’t believe exists.

What I am asking is: What kind of fact about the material world would convince you that God is not benevolent? What would count as evidence?

No fact about the material world would convince me that God is not benevolent because that is not how I know that God is benevolent. I know the only way I can ever know anything about God, from various scriptures. Anything I might believe shows that God is not benevolent would simply be a projection of my own ego. That is what is happening on this thread, a bunch of egotistical people who think they know more than ALL the scriptures that have been revealed by God throughout the ages. It is rather sad but also quite tragic.

It would be more logical to just say that there is no God at all than to be saying you know more than God about how He should have created the world.