Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: Couldn't He?

You seem to be confusing "could" and "will". You are acting as if God is an Autonomon with no choice in what God does. If you believe that God granted people free will, it would seem to be reasonable to assume that God has free will. Even if everything is determined, it would be reasonable to assume that God had the free will to do so or not.

thedoc wrote:

bahman wrote: Refuse to listen! What that could even mean? People of course could disobey but cannot be so confused when it comes to belief if God really wants to communicate with people.

It could be stated as 'Willful Ignorance' and on another forum I am in a conversation with just such a person, she refuses to hear or see anything that contradicts what she already believes to be true. So if God's message did not coincide with what she already believed to be true, she will reject it as false.

Can God meet people face to face so there is no room left for doubt?

thedoc wrote:

bahman wrote: Couldn't He?

You seem to be confusing "could" and "will". You are acting as if God is an Autonomon with no choice in what God does. If you believe that God granted people free will, it would seem to be reasonable to assume that God has free will. Even if everything is determined, it would be reasonable to assume that God had the free will to do so or not.

So you mean that God prefer to leave people in state of confusion? Are you a believer? If yes, why God prefer to guide you and leave other people in state of ignorance? How could you be sure that your belief is correct?

Immanuel Can wrote: The Bible says they get the message. It says that mankind has an innate knowledge of God, because God has made it plain to them that He exists -- the Creation itself giving persistent testimony to that fact.

There is noting like innate knowledge of God. What we call innate knowledge of God is the result of teaching of a specific religion to children.

Immanuel Can wrote: It talks about "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness," and says they are being willfully ignorant, "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." Then it adds, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20)

Again the existence of God is not evident. God could make His existence evident but he presumably didn't want to.

Immanuel Can wrote: Without excuse. That's mankind. And I have found it to be quite so. I can honestly say that in my many travels I have never met a person who had not already struggled with the intuition that there is a God, and that he/she ought to be doing something about that...

I have meet many atheist persons who didn't have any struggle about existence of God.

Immanuel Can wrote: Mankind has free will. We have a choice whether or not we respond to the voice of conscience when it speaks. We can shut down our consciences...and unless God wishes to override our free will and thus subvert our freedom of decision and our individual personhood, then He will not force us to believe the truth.

There is no need to force people to believe in God. God can simply make it evident. Could God simply speak with each person considering that He is all powerful?

bahman wrote:

ken wrote: There is NO possible chance it could be anything else could there?

Because there is NO way that it could be a human beings fault, could it? It MUST be "God's" fault, according to you.

God cannot fail to convey his message. Couldn't It? Yes, or No?

You want Me to answer your questions but you will not answer Mine. And, you will persist with the 'his', for some unknown reason.

Yes hitherto God has failed to convey Its message, to most people.

bahman wrote:

ken wrote: So, tell me what is it exactly do you want Me to offer you here?

A simple reason that why we have 4000 religions knowing the fact that we have only one powerful God?

Why there is "4000" religions knowing the same fact is because that exact same knowledge/knowing is within ALL human beings.

Simple enough?

bahman wrote:

ken wrote: NO. You have just proven that here in your last two words.

WHY would you even assume God is a 'he'?

Lets say "It". Is that ok now?

Yes that is much more accurate.

bahman wrote:

ken wrote: If you do NOT disregard ALL of your beliefs and assumptions BEFORE you have a discussion, then you will NOT be able to learn anything otherwise. Even evidence, proof, logic or God can NOT penetrate the belief-system. That is already widely known, is it not?

No. God can convince people that It exists.

Have you ever tried to convince a person who believes otherwise? Even with evidence and proof the absolute Truth, I found, can not even penetrate a strongly held belief.

God does NOT want to convince people of anything. God want people to find and see what is right in Life for and by themselves. God allow all people to find and understand, and do, whatever they want. God provides evidence and the prove to what can also be soundly and validly argued. God shows what is right and wrong in Life. If people are open and want to see and understand this or if they want to keep continuing to believe their own beliefs and assumptions, then that is their choice. They are free to choose whatever they want to do. Also, depending on either way people choose to go this will affect what they find, learn and understand.

bahman wrote: Do you believe that I am a person who is discussing with you? Yes.

I do NOT believe anything.

But from My perspective yes you are.

bahman wrote: God can do the same thing with each individual to don't leave any room for doubt.

Okay if you say so.

bahman wrote:

ken wrote: The belief system was created and has evolved to where it is today, but now sadly to human beings own demise.

System of belief does not need to evolve if it is given by God.

Okay that is what you believe. But what is the point you are trying to make here.

What is this system of belief that you say does not need to evolve?

God also gave free will to people, so they can choose to listen to God, i.e., the inner knowing, or they can choose to listen to the superficial ego, i.e., their own beliefs. People CAN choose to believe their own views or not believe (in) them. People's views change, just like they do, so if what has been witnessed is believed, then beliefs can and do also change as well. But you may be exactly correct that the 'system of belief' does not need to change at all.

bahman wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: The Bible says they get the message. It says that mankind has an innate knowledge of God, because God has made it plain to them that He exists -- the Creation itself giving persistent testimony to that fact.

There is noting like innate knowledge of God. What we call innate knowledge of God is the result of teaching of a specific religion to children.

But this could be completely false. Obviously what has been taught is NOT the knowledge of God. That is as plainly obvious as the words in front of our eyes here. But the coincidence that, as you say, "... we have 4000 religions knowing the fact that we have only one powerful God" has to come from somewhere. That somewhere would obviously have to be from within. People are inspired from within the body. The evidence and proof comes from out of the body. But because of the ridicule i get here for my lengthy replies i will not even begin to explain this any further here.

bahman wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: It talks about "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness," and says they are being willfully ignorant, "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." Then it adds, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20)

Again the existence of God is not evident.

Do you mean, to you?

bahman wrote: God could make His existence evident but he presumably didn't want to.

Some times people just can not see things even when those things are directly in front of them and/or within them.

bahman wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Without excuse. That's mankind. And I have found it to be quite so. I can honestly say that in my many travels I have never met a person who had not already struggled with the intuition that there is a God, and that he/she ought to be doing something about that...

I have meet many atheist persons who didn't have any struggle about existence of God.

This is absolutely totally understandable. The teaching of what God actually does is so wrong. Also, the the absolute lack of any definition given of what God actually is then it is totally understandable that people turn away from all religious teachings. How anyone could believe in what is actually taught has baffled Me for quite some time now.

bahman wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Mankind has free will. We have a choice whether or not we respond to the voice of conscience when it speaks. We can shut down our consciences...and unless God wishes to override our free will and thus subvert our freedom of decision and our individual personhood, then He will not force us to believe the truth.

There is no need to force people to believe in God. God can simply make it evident. Could God simply speak with each person considering that He is all powerful?

You make it much harder to simply talk to while you continue to believe God is something that God is NOT.

How could anything, including God, tell you what exactly God is if you continue to believe God is something different?

What's amazing to me is to compare the Pyramids, with the Aztec Pyramids, with Stonehenge with the Parthenon, with the cathedral at Chartres or the Cistine chapel, or with the platforms used in Polynesia. And compare to palaces.

Something common going on all over if you ask me.

Also, look just at hats. Religious people all like hats. Why? There is the pope's hat, the big feathered looking hat of the Tibetian Buddhists, the priests simple four cornered hat, the yalmulka, the little Moslem hats and then there are those tonsures and the bald heads of the Zen priests. What is it that is driving all that? And compare to crowns.

Each culture has these and other forms. Its like language. You can't say people don't really speak based on the fact that if you go to Japan they use one word and if you go to England they use another. So they are not saying anything because they all disagree?

But see, they all are speaking. Different ways but same thing.

Not to see the similarity and near universality is to me a non-option. But how does it function?

Homo-Sapiens just all seem to like to pile these stones up. Why? You will have no way of knowing if you look at the differences in the content of the religious mythology and take it literally as if that was the content of their scientific results. Most of that stuff was written way before science. All of that stuff was done before "literally" was a fashion or even in the culture at least explicitly - I suspect it was actually there from the beginning.

I think that instead of trying to discredit the content of the various religious mythologies as if they were literal documents you should look at how universal religion is in homo-sapiens and then understand how it functions in a person and in a culture. Ultimately we need to look at its neurological basis. But we also need to understand the result of that neurology. What is it that is happening when people do those kind of things. What does religious experience mean?

I think a real need is to examine fetishism in general. I think there is a good case that a lot of it is fetishism. But that is just a label. How does it function? What does experiencing it have to offer, especially in the long run.

Look at chanting for example. Gathering people together with some leader up front usually but not always and singing or chanting reciting things over and over etc. What is all that? Why keep repeating over and over.

The problem with dismissing it is you can't see how it works, why it is valuable and what it is not for. There is a word for it: Pharisaic: "practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to the spirit; self-righteous; hypocritical."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pharisaic

There is a sense in which logic can be Pharisaic. How to get the conversation beyond that so the real issues come out is a question I have. Then you get to the real limitations of those forms. Nietzsche had some ideas on that, mad as he was. At least his critique was not so superficial.

My own opinion is its all some kind of language that deals with Metaphysics.

I guess before you know how God could fail to convey His message you have to know what that message is and to what extent it has been conveyed. If you met a woman and could give her a pill that would instantly cause her to fall in love with you and want you badly for the rest of your life would you give it to her? Would that really be what you wanted? To drug her into love?

In the end unless you get a message you are never confronted with what to do with it.

Oh...by the way...if you do have such a drug like I mentioned let me know, and I'll send you my email... Now that I think of it...I may reconsider my whole position..

bahman wrote:
We believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent

Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible

bahman wrote:We believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. This means that there should be one true religion. There are about 4000 religions. How God could fail to convey his message?

Well first of all... You bahman are TOTALLY wrong to suggest God is failing to convey his message....
SO NOT SURE WHERE YOU GOT THAT IDEA FROM.

First of all, God is Everything, and yes he is omniscient and omnipotent - but this is not a belief - it is a self evident fact.

Second, since God is Everything and all knowing then he knows the (human being and it's myriad of beliefs) are just the many masks he wears as part of the game of life that he himself invented.

He's pretending to be a separate living human being experiencing life from the perspective of that limited human being. But since God is not bound by limitation he also knows that the limited part of himself will realise or remember in time the unlimited God he is forever.


It was God who wanted to play this game of duality experiencing what it's like to live as separate limitation ....God in his wisdom and generous nature allows everything that could possibly happen to happen.

Even the forgetting part where he pretends to be limited, he doesn't worry about any thing the separate part of himself gets up to because he is all knowing, and already knows that in time the forgetting not/knowing part of himself ..the one that has to depend on faith, will be remembered or realised as being a load of bullshit that he himself created just for the fun of it.


He already knows that humans will remember they are God playing the part of separation, and that's why he allows all sorts of suffering, pains, and evils to happen, he knows with accurate certainty and precision that his separate self which is his own self at all times, and is why he is absolutely confident 110% in knowing that all humans will always turn away from badness and evil, preferring the peace and unconditional love that they already are in the arms of the beloved one.

He knows this without doubt or belief because he is the one that created this whole set up in the first place...In his almighty wisdom he wanted to allow people to be free and think for them self without imposing his will on them, that's the meaning of true love, to allow just about anything to happen without possessing it or judging it as bad or good, wrong or right, because it's all him. It's all safe, it's all perfect, and it's all love right here right now forever and ever.


And I use the word him because that's what you label God as...but I would rather label him as the nameless one.

You bahman are simply barking up the wrong tree with your false assumptions. Get yourself educated for once in your life and stop prattling around in ignorance.

bahman wrote:There is noting like innate knowledge of God. What we call innate knowledge of God is the result of teaching of a specific religion to children.

Apparently God disagrees with you about that.

Immanuel Can wrote: Again the existence of God is not evident. God could make His existence evident but he presumably didn't want to.

God says you're wrong about that too.

Immanuel Can wrote: I have meet many atheist persons who didn't have any struggle about existence of God.

I'm skeptical of that statement. For how could one possibly become an "Atheist" while having no position about God? It's an outright contradiction. All one could ever be is unthinking about it. The minute one became an "Atheist" one has declared that one is conscious of the idea of God, and is choosing to reject it. And that's simply definitional in what it means to be an "Atheist."

Immanuel Can wrote: There is no need to force people to believe in God. God can simply make it evident. Could God simply speak with each person considering that He is all powerful?

He has made it evident, according to Romans 1. You may deny it, but on what basis? How do you know the secrets of others' hearts? If God says He speaks to them, then how do we get the data to prove He hasn't?

bahman wrote:

thedoc wrote:

bahman wrote: Couldn't He?

You seem to be confusing "could" and "will". You are acting as if God is an Autonomon with no choice in what God does. If you believe that God granted people free will, it would seem to be reasonable to assume that God has free will. Even if everything is determined, it would be reasonable to assume that God had the free will to do so or not.

So you mean that God prefer to leave people in state of confusion? Are you a believer? If yes, why God prefer to guide you and leave other people in state of ignorance? How could you be sure that your belief is correct?

Some people have asked God to leave them alone, so god does.

bahman wrote:We believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. This means that there should be one true religion. There are about 4000 religions. How God could fail to convey his message?

Nietzsche made a very similar observation to the effect 'What, does He lack communication skills?'

Dontaskme wrote:
First of all God is Everything and yes he is omniscient and omnipotent but this is not a belief it is a self evident fact

The trouble with religious belief is that there is no requirement upon the part of the believer to demonstrate any logical consistency

And here above is an absolute classic example of this whose particular logical inconsistency can be so very easily demonstrated

Now a fact is by definition non falsifiable which means that not only is it true but it has been demonstrated to be so as well

So if it is a so called self evident fact that God is everything then there should be some evidence of his actual existence

Of course there is precisely zero which then renders the so called self evident fact neither self evident or factual

And so what you actually mean by a self evident fact is something which is self evident to you and only you

But it does not constitute a fact and your use of the word here is entirely superfluous and inappropriate

surreptitious57 wrote:
And so what you actually mean by a self evident fact is something which is self evident to you and only you

You're also barking up the wrong tree.

There is no you because there is no other than you.

God is not a thing, God is the no thing in which thing appears and disappears. The no thing stays...because well that's all there is. It's self experiential knowing. This is nothing being everything. . . FACT....the real fiction.