Why do people expect God, do miracles?

[Windwalker]

Actually what I am saying is based in Baha'u'llah's Writing:

"Were the prophecies recorded in the Gospel to be literally fulfilled; were Jesus, Son of Mary, accompanied by angels, to descend from the visible heaven upon the clouds; who would dare to disbelieve, who would dare to reject the truth, and wax disdainful?
Nay, such consternation would immediately seize all the dwellers of the earth that no soul would feel able to utter a word, much less to reject or accept the truth. "

Book of Certitude

What's your understanding of this paragraph?

I think the last part of it make it clear:

"...such consternation would immediately seize all the dwellers of the earth that no soul would feel able to utter a word, much less to reject or accept the truth."

It means, if God was to perform miracles, strange things, such as showing angels then no one could even say a word, much less reject or accept the truth.

There is a certain logic to your argument that sounds agreeable. But there is also a flaw in this reasoning. If people saw something beyond the laws of nature, they might be stunned at the moment, but then in order to process what they just witnessed, all manner of filters of the mind would kick in. It would have to in order to make sense of it. People would not be stunned into silence forever. They would have to try to explain and understand it - in ways that they could accept.

Someone would claim it was the fulfillment of their religion's prophecies. Others would claim it had a naturalistic explanation. Others would call it the devil. Others would call it a mass hallucination. And so on and so forth. So this argument that the reason you don't see miracles is because God doesn't want to take free will away is flawed. People rationalize away overwhelming evidence all the time! "January 6 was just a peaceful tourist visit", is but one example. "Evolution can't be true because the Bible says there earth was made is 6 days", is another.

If you were to remove this assumed premise that the lack of spectacular miracles is motivated by God not wanting to take away free will, which I've shown is a flawed argument, then the rest has some kernel of truth to it in this way:

Everything that exists is that miracle. From atoms to Everest. From particles to people. All of it is evidence of the Divine as it is all a miracle. The miracles are there in every nanosecond of every single day, and we either filter it out and see nothing but ordinary rocks and trees, or our eyes are opened and we see that brilliant miracle that is the entirety of creation and existence itself, around us, within us, through us, and from us to everything that is, as an active participant in this living miracle.

Some see it. And others don't. Others are looking for a sign from God, when the sign is right there the whole time. Others are wrapped up in their own worlds inside their minds and fail to see the Obvious in every moment. And the list goes on and on to as many reasons as there are people why we don't see it, and either deny it's possible, or keep looking for it in some "miracle" beyond what already is there in plain sight.

So it's not a matter of protecting free will. We are already exercising that within the heart of the living miracle right now. No need for something else we'd blind ourselves to in addition to this already.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a certain logic to your argument that sounds agreeable. But there is a flaw in this reasoning. If people saw something beyond the laws of nature, they might be stunned at the moment, but then in order to process what they just witnessed, all manner of filters of the mind would kick in. It would have to in order to make sense of it. People would not be stunned into silence forever. They would have to try to explain and understand it - in ways that they could accept.

The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. They're inferred from what actually happens.

Because of this, "seeing something beyond the laws of nature" isn't a thing. By definition, anything that happens is within the laws of nature.

We could certainly see things that indicate our understanding of the laws of nature is wrong, but this isn't the same thing.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Then you missed my point.


I'm asking why not being able to choose to disbelieve in God would be any different from not being able to choose to disbelieve in any other thing we believe.

Can you choose to believe that the sky is pink?

All belief is involuntary, so if we have free will, then involuntary belief doesn't take away our free will.

This is what you are asking:

You are saying "why not being able to choose to disbelieve on God any different from not being able to choose to disbelieve in any other thing, since all beliefs are involuntary."


So, you are saying, since we cannot believe in something that is unbelievable to us, thus our belief or disbelief is involuntary. Did I understand your point correctly?

If so, the way I see it, we can change. We are not fixed. So, somethings may be believable first, but later it becomes unbelievable because we realize it was delusion, and vice-versa.
So, we have this changing attribute or ability, no?

 

[Windwalker]

The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. They're inferred from what actually happens.

Because of this, "seeing something beyond the laws of nature" isn't a thing. By definition, anything that happens is within the laws of nature.

We could certainly see things that indicate our understanding of the laws of nature is wrong, but this isn't the same thing.

You would be right if the only way to see reality is with the eyes of science and reason. But what about seeing and experiencing Beauty? What about seeing and experiencing Goodness? Aren't those seen and understood through different sets of eyes?

The eyes of science are wonderful. But if that is the only eyes you can see through, then I'd say that is seeing the world through a certain myopic color blindness. Mr. Spock represents this human dilemma for those who think logic and reason is the key to all truth, and forget they are half human too.

Seeing the miracle that is reality itself, is not a scientific description. But it is an accurate description seen through the eyes from the depths of our very being. But some are unfamiliar with that part of themselves. Those eyes have not opened yet, or perhaps they became closed.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

There is a certain logic to your argument that sounds agreeable. But there is also a flaw in this reasoning. If people saw something beyond the laws of nature, they might be stunned at the moment, but then in order to process what they just witnessed, all manner of filters of the mind would kick in. It would have to in order to make sense of it. People would not be stunned into silence forever. They would have to try to explain and understand it - in ways that they could accept.

Someone would claim it was the fulfillment of their religion's prophecies. Others would claim it had a naturalistic explanation. Others would call it the devil. Others would call it a mass hallucination. And so on and so forth. So this argument that the reason you don't see miracles is because God doesn't want to take free will away is flawed. People rationalize away overwhelming evidence all the time! "January 6 was just a peaceful tourist visit", is but one example. "Evolution can't be true because the Bible says there earth was made is 6 days", is another.

If you were to remove this assumed premise that the lack of spectacular miracles is motivated by God not wanting to take away free will, which I've shown is a flawed argument, then the rest has some kernel of truth to it in this way:

Everything that exists is that miracle. From atoms to Everest. From particles to people. All of it is evidence of the Divine as it is all a miracle. The miracles are there in every nanosecond of every single day, and we either filter it out and see nothing but ordinary rocks and trees, or our eyes are opened and we see that brilliant miracle that is the entirety of creation and existence itself, around us, within us, through us, and from us to everything that is, as an active participant in this living miracle.

Some see it. And others don't. Others are looking for a sign from God, when the sign is right there the whole time. Others are wrapped up in their own worlds inside their minds and fail to see the Obvious in every moment. And the list goes on and on to as many reasons as there are people why we don't see it, and either deny it's possible, or keep looking for it in some "miracle" beyond what already is there in plain sight.

So it's not a matter of protecting free will. We are already exercising that within the heart of the living miracle right now. No need for something else we'd blind ourselves to in addition to this already.

So in your view, is there a life after death?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You would be right if the only way to see reality is with the eyes of science and reason. But what about seeing and experiencing Beauty? What about seeing and experiencing Goodness? Aren't those seen and understood through different sets of eyes?

The eyes of science are wonderful. But if that is the only eyes you can see through, then I'd say that is seeing the world through a certain myopic color blindness. Mr. Spock represents this human dilemma for those who think logic and reason is the key to all truth, and forget they are half human too.

Seeing the miracle that is reality itself, is not a scientific description. But it is an accurate description seen through the eyes from the depths of our very being. But some are unfamiliar with that part of themselves. Those eyes have not opened yet, or perhaps they became closed.

Is this your way of saying that you think the laws of nature aren't descriptive?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is what you are asking:

You are saying "why not being able to choose to disbelieve on God any different from not being able to choose to disbelieve in any other thing, since all beliefs are involuntary."


So, you are saying, since we cannot believe in something that is unbelievable to us, thus our belief or disbelief is involuntary. Did I understand your point correctly?

Yes. And then my second point was that since belief is involuntary generally, your argument for why God doesn't demonstrate his existence fails.

If so, the way I see it, we can change. We are not fixed. So, somethings may be believable first, but later it becomes unbelievable because we realize it was delusion, and vice-versa.
So, we have this changing attribute or ability, no?

If we aren't convinced of a belief, then we don't hold that belief. If something happens to convince us - e.g. we see new evidence - then once we're convinced, we can't help but believe.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes. And then my second point was that since belief is involuntary generally, your argument for why God doesn't demonstrate his existence fails.


If we aren't convinced of a belief, then we don't hold that belief. If something happens to convince us - e.g. we see new evidence - then once we're convinced, we can't help but believe.

Right. You have a point.
Now, recognizing the true God, is not something that happens from outside. It is supposed to happen from within.
If a sudden miracle or signs happens in the world that would automatically make everyone stunned and believe, it would stop the process of change within.
In our view, the whole purpose of God, is to enable everyone to become pure from within.
It is not so much about just believing there is a god. On my last posts, I said that in details if you had a chance to read.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right. You have a point.
Now, recognizing the true God, is not something that happens from outside. It is supposed to happen from within.

This does not strike me as the process for coming to believe in something that actually exists.

If a sudden miracle or signs happens in the world that would automatically make everyone stunned and believe, it would stop the process of change within.

How so?

In our view, the whole purpose of God, is to enable everyone to become pure from within.
It is not so much about just believing there is a god.

Kind of irrelevant, no?

The question we've been talking about is whether there is - or could be - good reason to believe that gods exist. You saying "yeah, but just having good reason to believe wouldn't be enough to meet the Baha'i ideal of what faith ought to be!" (or whatever) is a red herring. You're talkjng about something else.

On my last posts, I said that in details if you had a chance to read.

I skipped them because I could see that they weren't relevant to my point or the argument you originally made.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This does not strike me as the process for coming to believe in something that actually exists.


How so?


Kind of irrelevant, no?

The question we've been talking about is whether there is - or could be - good reason to believe that gods exist. You saying "yeah, but just having good reason to believe wouldn't be enough to meet the Baha'i ideal of what faith ought to be!" (or whatever) is a red herring. You're talkjng about something else.


I skipped them because I could see that they weren't relevant to my point or the argument you originally made.

We have to go back to why God brought us in this world.
Bahai scriptures say, we are here so, we can be prepared for the life that comes after this worldy life.
In another word, there are Infinite spiritual worlds after death.
These spiritual worlds are ranked from the lowest to the highest. We don't know how they will be, and it is irrelevant to our discussion.
Now, the question is, how would God determine which world would each person go to, or deserves to be in?
It is determined by what each person souls gained in this world, in terms of spirituality.
How would it be determined how each person did?
It has to be tests to determine where each person should belong to in the infinite spiritual worlds of God.
What are the tests and performances based on? They are based on the most recent revealed scriptures from God. Those scriptures teach us truth. The better we understand those scriptures and follow them properly, we can pass the tests of this world better, and deserve better.
Thus, recognizing the Most Recent Revelation of God, is essential.
Therefore, it must not be easy for everyone to recognize it, rather those who become pure are supposed to recognize it, and then the better they follow, the better spiritual world they will be at.
Now, if a miracle happens and everyone just believes, where is the test? How would God determine the place of each person on the infinite spiritual worlds?
In another words, recognition of the True God, is supposed to be the most difficult thing, so, only if one deserves it, can realize it. If you think God should do a miracle to make it easy for everyone to believe, it goes all against the purpose of God for creating the world, sending Messengers, creating the spiritual worlds. I don't know how else to explain it.

briefly, If a big miracle happens, then regardless if a person is the most cruel, liar, The worst humans Or, the most kind, the best human would equally believe. Whereas the purpose of God, is to only enable the pure ones to recognize the true God. Do you see the difference?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have to go back to why God brought us in this world.
Bahai scriptures say, we are here so, we can be prepared for the life that comes after this worldy life.
In another word, there are Infinite spiritual worlds after death.
These spiritual worlds are ranked from the lowest to the highest. We don't know how they will be, and it is irrelevant to our discussion.
Now, the question is, how would God determine which world would each person go to, or deserves to be in?
It is determined by what each person souls gained in this world, in terms of spirituality.
How would it be determined how each person did?
It has to be tests to determine where each person should belong to in the infinite spiritual worlds of God.
What are the tests and performances based on? They are based on the most recent revealed scriptures from God. Those scriptures teach us truth. The better we understand those scriptures and follow them properly, we can pass the tests of this world better, and deserve better.
Thus, recognizing the Most Recent Revelation of God, is essential.

And you think that someone who doesn't think God exists at all is in a better position to "recognize the Most Recent Revelation of God" than someone who has good reason to believe that God is even real?

This is irrational.

Therefore, it must not be easy for everyone to recognize it, rather those who become pure are supposed to recognize it, and then the better they follow, the better spiritual world they will be at.

Your "therefore" doesn't follow.

Now, if a miracle happens and everyone just believes, where is the test? How would God determine the place of each person on the infinite spiritual worlds?
In another words, recognition of the True God, us supposed to be the most difficult thing, so, only if one deserves it, can realize it.

You just finished going on about how the real test is "recognizing the Most Recent Revelation of God." You think that God can't tell the difference between theists who "recognize the Most Recent Revelation of God" and theists who don't?

If you think God should do a miracle to make it easy for everyone to believe, it goes all against the purpose of God for creating the world, sending Messengers, creating the spiritual worlds. I don't know how else to explain it.

Well, if you want to get your point across, you'll need to find another way, because what you're saying here just doesn't make sense.

 

[Windwalker]

So in your view, is there a life after death?

I'm not exactly sure how that question relates to the points I raised? Can you explain? But in short, yes, I do believe consciousness survives the death of the body.

 

[dybmh]

He said if they believed in Moses they would have believed in Him, since Moses had told them about Messiah. So, since He was the fulfilment of the Prophecies, they were supposed to believe in Him. But they asked for miracles and He rejected it.
The date of the coming Messiah was mentioned in the old Testament, so, They would have known Jesus is that Messiah, if they had believed in Torah.

Besides the fact that scripture defines a false prophet and Jesus fits it perfectly; this argument assumes that the common 2nd temple Jew had the scripture memorized.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And you think that someone who doesn't think God exists at all is in a better position to "recognize the Most Recent Revelation of God" than someone who has good reason to believe that God is even real?

I am sorry. I don't follow what you mean.

This is irrational.

OK, but I am not sure why you think so.

Your "therefore" doesn't follow.

OK, I will try explaining more below.

You just finished going on about how the real test is "recognizing the Most Recent Revelation of God." You think that God can't tell the difference between theists who "recognizing the Most Recent Revelation of God" and theists who don't?

God does not need to know. It is an organic process. It is not like after we die, God then says, OK, let's see how you did.
The judgment is not in this manner. So, God will give everyone chance to perform. Though He knows the fate of each person, He does not interferes with it or determine it.
It is like, if you know this bus, goes where in an hour, but you are not the one who determined it.
God will give everyone chance.

This whole process of Revelations and the way this world is, it automatically creates a diversity of human beings, with infinite levels of spirituality. Because all of the different human beings needed in the spiritual worlds of God. Just as a body with different parts and members. Not all members are equal. But all are needed.

 

[Windwalker]

Is this your way of saying that you think the laws of nature aren't descriptive?

I would say that way of looking at the world, or the whole of creation is not in terms of laws or explanations of how things work. It's much more seeing creation as a work of living art, rather than trying to dissect the components of the work where you end up distracting yourself from being able see the forest for the trees.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I'm not exactly sure how that question relates to the points I raised? Can you explain? But in short, yes, I do believe consciousness survives the death of the body.

I will explain how. Please bear with me.
Do you believe in the world to come everyone is equal? I mean, do you believe, both the bad or good people will be equally treated or be at the same station in the world to come?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say that way of looking at the world, or the whole of creation is not in terms of laws or explanations of how things work. It's much more seeing creation as a work of living art, rather than trying to dissect the components of the work where you end up distracting yourself from being able see the forest for the trees.

Dude - you're the one who used the term "laws" in the first place.

 

[Windwalker]

I will explain how. Please bear with me.
Do you believe in the world to come everyone is equal? I mean, do you believe, both the bad or good people will be equally treated or be at the same station in the world to come?

My views on this matter I think are best expressed in terms of "spiritual buoyancy". I think of whatever our accumulated weight is when we leave this world, that will be what we are in the next go around, in whatever form that takes. If we are heavy, our buoyancy will be heavier and we will float nearer the bottom. If we've managed to become lighter in this life, than our buoyancy will leave us floating higher towards the surface.

This has nothing to do with some external judge like a cosmic Santa Claus checking his naughty and nice list and giving out pass and fail grades on our eternal report cards, or anything like that. It has to do more with adapting and aligning ourselves to the spiritual nature of Reality. It's really not different than what happens in this life. We can walk around so weighed down, that life sucks for us. Or we can be lighter and life is more welcoming. It's perfect judgement, as it is totally up to us. We either go with the flow, or we fight against the current and the result is suffering and loss. That's free will to me.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

My views on this matter I think are best expressed in terms of "spiritual buoyancy". I think of whatever our accumulated weight is when we leave this world, that will be what we are in the next go around, in whatever form that takes. If we are heavy, our buoyancy will be heavier and we will float nearer the bottom. If we've managed to become lighter in this life, than our buoyancy will leave us floating higher towards the surface.

This has nothing to do with some external judge like a cosmic Santa Claus checking his naughty and nice list and giving out pass and fail grades on our eternal report cards, or anything like that. It has to do more with adapting and aligning ourselves to the spiritual nature of Reality. It's really not different than what happens in this life. We can walk around so weighed down, that life sucks for us. Or we can be lighter and life is more welcoming. It's perfect judgement, as it is totally up to us. We either go with the flow, or we fight against the current and the result is suffering and loss. That's free will to me.

OK, so, what is the cause that some people will accumulate more and some less, based on what you are describing?

 

[Windwalker]

OK, so, what is the cause that some people will accumulate more and some less, based on what you are describing?

The ways we live our lives. I'm quite fond of the quote attributed to Sitting Bull. "Inside of me there are two dogs. One is mean and evil and the other is good; and they fight each other all the time. When asked which one wins I answer, the one I feed the most". Pretty much that. Do we feed our negative, selfish, hurtful, vengeful self, or do we feed our spiritual, loving, compassionate self?

Do we give ourselves over to fear, or to love? If we don't learn those lessons in this life, we'll have to learn them in the next. The less baggage we bring with us, the more buoyant we are starting the next.