"Without God, Life Has No Purpose . . . . . . ."

[Trailblazer]

The only evidence is hearsay, and ancient hearsay at that.

I have discussed this ad infinitum with an atheist on other forums so I already know what Thomas Paine wrote about hearsay. I assume that is what you believe.

If you consider everything that is not direct communication from God to you as hearsay, then fine, but realize that God has never communicated that way, so there is no reason to believe God ever will. God has used Messengers (Prophets) to communicate to man throughout all eternity, long before the Bible was ever written and also after the Bible was written.

I understand why the Bible is not reliable enough evidence for God, but we now have a "new" Revelation from God from Baha'u'llah, which was written in His Own Pen and the scriptures have been authenticated. It still is not direct to you from God but there are many reasons that God does not communicate this way, which were explained by Baha'u'llah in His Writings. These reasons are logical and should be considered by anyone who considers themselves reasonable. This is after all "the age of reason."

That's in conflict with the reasons why God would not interact.

I am not sure what you meant by that. Perhaps I already covered that above.

 

[leibowde84]

I happened upon the quote below while searching for information on replacing a toilet---don't ask. In any case, it appears to be just the
kind of religious chatter that would appeal to RF Christians. So, look it over and tell us what you think.

Just as a note of information: Richard Duane "Rick" Warren (born January 28, 1954) is an American evangelical Christian pastor and author.
He is the founder and senior pastor of Saddleback Church, an evangelical megachurch in Lake Forest, California, the eighth-largest church in the United States

​

Is it pretty much right on or is it just so much Sunday morning blather?

I suggest asking yourself:

Why would life necessarily have no purpose without god ? (Not quite sure what is meant by "without god.")

Why would life necessarily have no meaning if it has no purpose?

Why would would life necessarily lack significance or hope if it had no meaning?

.​

That is an extremely depressing idea that is not based on any coherent logic or evidence. Actually, it is easily proven false. But, anyone who asks you about this should first answer the question, "what is God? What does the term refer to specifically that cannot be expressed by other words."

 

[leibowde84]

If you have given the evidence a fair shake rather than a cursory look and it remains insufficient to you, then you have no choice but to choose deism or atheism.

That's how I feel, personally. I know that believing in a personal God would help me with everyday life. I do base that on evidence. Unfortunately, none of those anecdotal stories provide any evidence for God ... instead, they merely present evidence that belief in God is helpful to some. The advantages of holding a certain belief in no way evidences that belief as being based in fact.

I have studied, I grew up religious going to Catholic grade school, Jesuit high-school, hebrew school on the weekend and studying philosophy in college. Now I take it as a hobby to explore what evidence people base their belief in God on.

But, even though I would most certainly like to believe, I cannot choose to believe in anything unless I am convinced it is actually true. For me, anything less would be dishonest.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I happened upon the quote below while searching for information on replacing a toilet---don't ask. In any case, it appears to be just the
kind of religious chatter that would appeal to RF Christians. So, look it over and tell us what you think.

Just as a note of information: Richard Duane "Rick" Warren (born January 28, 1954) is an American evangelical Christian pastor and author.
He is the founder and senior pastor of Saddleback Church, an evangelical megachurch in Lake Forest, California, the eighth-largest church in the United States

​

Is it pretty much right on or is it just so much Sunday morning blather?

I suggest asking yourself:

Why would life necessarily have no purpose without god ? (Not quite sure what is meant by "without god.")

Why would life necessarily have no meaning if it has no purpose?

Why would would life necessarily lack significance or hope if it had no meaning?
​

​

I think you are missing the most obvious question of all: "if life without God has no meaning, what is the meaning of your life with God (as you understand God)?"

Cattle, if they had such thoughts, might think of the farmer as the source of the meaning of their life, but would probably be disappointed to discover that that meaning was cheese and steak.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: If you have given the evidence a fair shake rather than a cursory look and it remains insufficient to you, then you have no choice but to choose deism or atheism.

leibowde84 said: That's how I feel, personally. I know that believing in a personal God would help me with everyday life. I do base that on evidence. Unfortunately, none of those anecdotal stories provide any evidence for God ... instead, they merely present evidence that belief in God is helpful to some. The advantages of holding a certain belief in no way evidences that belief as being based in fact.

I do not believe in God because it helps me with everyday life although I have discovered it helps me a lot.

Doubling back, I was not raised in any religion because my parents were fallen away Christians and I never saw the inside of a church or thought about God. Then in my first year of college I found out about the Baha’i Faith from my older brother and became a Baha’i.

I have been a Baha’i for 47 years but God was not really a part of my life until the last five years. That is a long sad story but suffice to say I knew God existed all that time because I never lost my belief in Baha’u’llah, which is why I believe God exists. Then I decided to try to make peace with God and learn more about my religion and other religions and now there is no turning back because it has become my whole life. I still have to take care of everyday business but I nothing that used to matter to me matters anymore...

I have studied, I grew up religious going to Catholic grade school, Jesuit high-school, hebrew school on the weekend and studying philosophy in college. Now I take it as a hobby to explore what evidence people base their belief in God on.

It has become my hobby posting to agnostics and atheists on forums for the last four years. About a year before that I started on forums posting to people of my religion and Christians. I only came here about a month ago and so far I am finding it a delightful place, compared to the forums I was posting on where believers were not well received and I was chided constantly for my beliefs.

But, even though I would most certainly like to believe, I cannot choose to believe in anything unless I am convinced it is actually true. For me, anything less would be dishonest.

I fully agree. My problem (if you can call it that) is that I tried to run away from God but I knew God existed so there was no place to run to, so I was stuck, and I ended up trying to make peace with God. Anything else would be dishonest and it would also be foolish. What I have is complete certitude, what many people long for, and it is not right for me to throw that back in God’s face.

If God exists, he always has, and we certainly haven't found him yet. My biggest fear is settling on what could be an illusion when the truth might be attainable.

I believe the Truth is attainable because we all have the capacity to recognize God. I know God has always existed but I also know God can never be located with a GPS tracking device. I know that because of what my religion teaches. I have accumulated this knowledge mostly over the last five years and the more I learn the more mind-boggling it is. My religion makes sense of God and all the religions that have preceded mine. Moreover, it makes sense of the reason we exist and where we are headed for all of eternity.

Sure, I investigated my religion and chose to believe but I was also “guided” to the Truth. A greater gift God could never have bestowed upon me so I could never repay God. One way I do that is to talk to anybody and everybody who is interested in knowing what I believe and why. Concurrently, I am on my own spiritual journey, trying to know and love God. Knowing is a lot easier for me because I am more mental than emotional.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I have discussed this ad infinitum with an atheist on other forums so I already know what Thomas Paine wrote about hearsay. I assume that is what you believe.

I'm an admirer of Paine (thus the Paineful Truth), but I arrived at the hearsay argument on my own, early, because it's so obvious and inescapable. There's much history in the Bible, but not the first evidence for any divine/supernatural event. In fact most of it can be dismissed as mythology.

If you consider everything that is not direct communication from God to you as hearsay, then fine, but realize that God has never communicated that way, so there is no reason to believe God ever will. God has used Messengers (Prophets) to communicate to man throughout all eternity, long before the Bible was ever written and also after the Bible was written.

You're merely resorting to mega-layers of hearsay, which is only worse. Why should I believe you or anyone living who tells me what God has said, much less someone thousands of years ago with all the possibilities for corruption of that message, much less the evil or misguided intentions of the "prophet" himself.

I understand why the Bible is not reliable enough evidence for God, but we now have a "new" Revelation from God from Baha'ullah, which was written in His Own Pen and the scriptures have been authenticated. It still is not direct to you from God but there are many reasons that God does not communicate this way, which were explained by Baha'u'llah in His Writings. These reasons are logical and should be considered by anyone who considers themselves reasonable. This is after all "the age of reason."

That may be more recent, but hardly more credible than any other hearsay? And what was "authenticated", that it was written by God (I'd like to see that), or Baha'u'llah--so what?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm an admirer of Paine (thus the Paineful Truth), but I arrived at the hearsay argument on my own, early, because it's so obvious and inescapable. There's much history in the Bible, but not the first evidence for any divine/supernatural event. In fact most of it can be dismissed as mythology.

That might be true about the Bible, but that still does not mean that God should communicate directly with everyone. b does not follow from a. I could explain why God does not communicate directly to everyone because there is a good reason.

You're merely resorting to mega-layers of hearsay, which is only worse. Why should I believe you or anyone living who tells me what God has said, much less someone thousands of years ago with all the possibilities for corruption of that message, much less the evil or misguided intentions of the "prophet" himself.

I never suggested you should believe older scriptures from thousands of years ago. I am only saying that is the way God communicates, with Messengers. I am not suggesting you believe me either. Nobody should ever believe anything without investigating it for themselves, if they are interested in doing so.

That may be more recent, but hardly more credible than any other hearsay? And what was "authenticated", that it was written by God (I'd like to see that), or Baha'u'llah--so what?

When I said it was authenticated I meant that the handwriting was authenticated so we know for a fact that Baha’u’llah wrote the Tablets, all 15,000 of them. That is a huge step up from any previous religion because we have no original scriptures that were written by a Prophet. We do not know what Moses said and we not have any idea what Jesus ever said and it is no better for any other Prophet in history.

Of course it cannot be authenticated to have been written by God because it was not written by God, and it cannot be proven that Baha’u’llah got a revelation for God, for obvious reasons. If people want to know if Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, there is a plethora of evidence that supports His claim. The evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is as follows. All of it is verifiable by research.

• What He was like as a person (His character);
  
• What He did during His mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that were attributed to Him or scriptures that He wrote;
• What others have written about Him;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now

However, if people have made up their minds that anything other than a direct message from God is hearsay then there is nothing more to say except this: God does not communicate to anyone except the Messengers He chooses to communicate to so if people want to know if God exists and the they want to know the Will of God for this age then they have to go through the Messenger of God for this day, Baha’u’llah.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

• What He was like as a person (His character);
  
• What He did during His mission on earth;
• The history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward;
• The scriptures that were attributed to Him or scriptures that He wrote;
• What others have written about Him;
• The Bible prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming,
• The prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled by His coming;
• The predictions He made that have come to pass;
• The religion that He established (followers), what they have done and are doing now

All examples of likely fraud and/or misinterpretation and/or blind faith--and still hearsay in any case. This is all a case for rejecting hearsay evidence, but the other reason for God's laissez-faire still stands as well, that being, maintaining a rational universe in which rational moral choices are possible, and thus perpetuating our free will.

 

[Trailblazer]

All examples of likely fraud and/or misinterpretation and/or blind faith--and still hearsay in any case. This is all a case for rejecting hearsay evidence, but the other reason for God's laissez-faire still stands as well, that being, maintaining a rational universe in which rational moral choices are possible, and thus perpetuating our free will.

Anyone is free to reject whatever they want to because we all have free will. God will not suffer for it because God is fully self-sufficient, above the need for any of His creatures or their belief. That is one reason God does not communicate directly with everyone. There are others.

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess. If ye believe, to your own behoof will ye believe; and if ye believe not, ye yourselves will suffer.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 148

 

[leibowde84]

suffice to say I knew God existed all that time because I never lost my belief in Baha’u’llah, which is why I believe God exists.

Can you explain what you mean here? What evidence do you base your belief that God exists on?

I believe the Truth is attainable because we all have the capacity to recognize God.

How do you know that we all have the capacity to recognize God if it can't be demonstrated objectively that God even exists at all without resorting to logical fallacy?

My problem (if you can call it that) is that I tried to run away from God but I knew God existed so there was no place to run to, so I was stuck, and I ended up trying to make peace with God.

You say that you "knew God existed". So, you don't just believe, you are positive. So, what do you base that positivity on? There is very little in my entire life that I have seen that is an absolute. If there is no verifiable evidence for God, how can you get to the point of claiming to have "knowledge"?

 

[Trailblazer]

Can you explain what you mean here? What evidence do you base your belief that God exists on?

I base it upon what Baha’u’llah did and wrote about God.

How do you know that we all have the capacity to recognize God if it can't be demonstrated objectively that God even exists at all without resorting to logical fallacy?

I believe we all have the “capacity” to recognize God because Baha’u’llah wrote that and it makes logical sense for the reason He gave:

“.... I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

What do you mean by resorting to logical fallacy? It cannot be demonstrated objectively that God exists because God is not a material entity that can be seen in the physical world or measured with science.

You say that you "knew God existed". So, you don't just believe, you are positive. So, what do you base that positivity on? There is very little in my entire life that I have seen that is an absolute. If there is no verifiable evidence for God, how can you get to the point of claiming to have "knowledge"?

There is also very little in my life that I consider an absolute. I consider God an absolute.

I have believed God existed for decades but I did not come to certitude until fairly recently. That did not come without much effort and sacrifice on my part.

Knowledge of God comes from the Messenger of God. That is how I know God exists. I have absolute certitude that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God because there is so much verifiable evidence. Because He was a Messenger of God that means there has to be a God.

 

[leibowde84]

You did not provide any of your evidence for God's existence. Can you provide some of it so I can get a better idea why you believe?

I base it upon what Baha’u’llah did and wrote about God.

Why do you trust the claims of Baha'u'llah? How are you so certain that he was a messenger from God?

What do you mean by resorting to logical fallacy? It cannot be demonstrated objectively that God exists because God is not a material entity that can be seen in the physical world or measured with science.

Things like god of the gaps (arguments from ignorance) = fraudulently using the current lack of scientific explanation of some aspect of the universe to support an argument for the existence of God. Claiming that the amount of people believing in God or our innate notion of a personal God as somehow evidencing God.
Circular Reasoning = assuming your conclusion in your premise (e.g., using claims from the Gospel as evidence that other claims in the Bible are true).
Things like that. I find it very annoying, as I am interested in why people believe the things they do, not so much what they believe. I'm interested on the evidence they base their beliefs on. So, when they use logically fallacious arugments, it is nothing more than a waste of time. They are just talking in circles.

I believe we all have the “capacity” to recognize God because Baha’u’llah wrote that and it makes logical sense for the reason He gave:

“.... I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

I have absolute certitude that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God because there is so much verifiable evidence.

What logic are you speaking about specifically in the quote you provided here?

 

[Trailblazer]

You did not provide any of your evidence for God's existence. Can you provide some of it so I can get a better idea why you believe?

The evidence – for me – is the Writings of Baha’u’llah because there is no other explanation for them. The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

Only a Messenger of God could write those, Imo.

Why do you trust the claims of Baha'u'llah? How are you so certain that he was a messenger from God?

From what He wrote and what he did on His 30 year mission and because he fulfilled all the prophecies in the Bible.

Things like god of the gaps (arguments from ignorance) = fraudulently using the current lack of scientific explanation of some aspect of the universe to support an argument for the existence of God. Claiming that the amount of people believing in God or our innate notion of a personal God as somehow evidencing God.

I get it I really do, as I had been posting to agnostics and atheists daily for four years before I came here a month ago. No, the current lack of scientific explanation of some aspect of the universe does not prove God exists. No, the amount of people believing in God or our innate notion of a personal God does not prove God exists. Nobody can prove God exists objectively but there is a lot of evidence that indicates that God exists. The only evidence that God exists are the Messengers God sends. That is one reason God sends them, but not the only reason.

Circular Reasoning = assuming your conclusion in your premise (e.g., using claims from the Gospel as evidence that other claims in the Bible are true).
Things like that. I find it very annoying, as I am interested in why people believe the things they do, not so much what they believe. I'm interested on the evidence they base their beliefs on. So, when they use logically fallacious arugments, it is nothing more than a waste of time. They are just talking in circles.

My reasoning is not circular because I did not use the Writings of Baha’u’llah as evidence for the existence of God. I first had to verify that Baha’u’llah was actually speaking for God before I accepted His claim that God exists, which is embedded in His Writings.

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is not that Baha’u’llah claimed to receive a message from God because that would be circular.

The evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is everything that surrounds the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, including who He was as a Person (His character); His mission on earth; the history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward; the scriptures that He wrote; what His authorized interpreters wrote; what others have written about the Baha’i Faith; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled, as well as prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that He established (followers) all over the world and what they have done and are doing now.

All of that is verifiable evidence.

What logic are you speaking about specifically in the quote you provided here?

I meant that if we did not have the capacity to believe in God ,then a just God could not expect us to believe in Him. So God must have created us with the capacity to believe in Him, as the quote says:

“.... I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

 

[Sha'irullah]

Why dies it bother so many theists that maybe their life has more purpose TO THEM because of religion. Religion will not be beneficial toward every person and not all religion is the same so to me this is such a blanket statement on subjective tastes. It is almost childish when somebody makes this argument because it is identical to the,"my god is better than your" shtick.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why dies it bother so many theists that maybe their life has more purpose TO THEM because of religion. Religion will not be beneficial toward every person and not all religion is the same so to me this is such a blanket statement on subjective tastes. It is almost childish when somebody makes this argument because it is identical to the,"my god is better than your" shtick.

My life has more purpose because of God, not because of my religion. All religions are pathways to God, all are part of one religion "of God"...

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

 

[Sha'irullah]

My life has more purpose because of God, not because of my religion. All religions are pathways to God, all are part of one religion "of God"...

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

Well I am not being nitpicky over of the usage of religion although I understand what you are saying

 

[dfnj]

We have the purpose and significance we choose for ourselves, we have function, but I see no evidence of intrinsic purpose.
Why can't we be satisfied with the roles we choose? A need for cosmic significance strikes me as a psychopathology.

So we're part of a cosmic MMORPG? Well, that clarifies things nicely.

Absolutely not. There is nothing about reality that is similar to the way a computer works. Computers have clock cycles. There's nothing to suggest there is any synchronization between all the particles executing the laws of physics. It's actually very much the opposite. All parts of reality are changing all at once completely independent of any clock cycle. If anything, reality is a very messy analog soup of repeating patterns of energy but at no moment in time is the Universe ever the same way twice.

 

[dfnj]

without god we are accidents. accidents have nothing, in my opinion.

Is your faith so weak that even if we were accidents your life would still not have meaning?

RE: only God is perfect.

Why would you think our omnipotent God is anything but perfect by definition? Honestly, do you even think about God? Having faith in an omnipotent God is easy, how can you be disappointed by omnipotence. But having faith in your fellow man, now that takes some serious faith! People behave according to your expectations. If you expect people to treat you badly they will.

People are perfectly imperfect. To have faith in people is divine. To love people in spite of the imperfections is divine. The glory of God is not where your faith is challenged.

 

[Skwim]

Is your faith so weak that even if we were accidents your life would still not have meaning?

RE: only God is perfect.

Why would you think our omnipotent God is anything but perfect by definition?

Perhaps because his imperfections speak against it.

.

 

[Thief]

I happened upon the quote below while searching for information on replacing a toilet---don't ask. In any case, it appears to be just the
kind of religious chatter that would appeal to RF Christians. So, look it over and tell us what you think.

Just as a note of information: Richard Duane "Rick" Warren (born January 28, 1954) is an American evangelical Christian pastor and author.
He is the founder and senior pastor of Saddleback Church, an evangelical megachurch in Lake Forest, California, the eighth-largest church in the United States

​

Is it pretty much right on or is it just so much Sunday morning blather?

I suggest asking yourself:

Why would life necessarily have no purpose without god ? (Not quite sure what is meant by "without god.")

Why would life necessarily have no meaning if it has no purpose?

Why would would life necessarily lack significance or hope if it had no meaning?

.​

a poor example of logic
obviously bolstering a belief in God

belief in God should come about from the opposite direction

look in the mirror.....realize you are not your own handiwork
then seek the Creator

Hope?.....for what?
eternal life?
I'm fine with that
and reasoning that I am not the source of my life takes me looking for God