Iconodule

Just a question, which method of logic in regaurds to God's omnipotence and the like do the bahai take?

That is the skeptic will ask the question can God create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift? Or some other logical paradox.

Christians (for the most part) are firmly in the tradition that God cannot do the logically impossible. But if I were to guess I think most Bahai would take the other position that God can do anything regaurdless of certain laws of logic, I base this on the fact that God makes eight completely different religions 100% true at different times and yet they are true afterwards.

Or am I mistaken? Please share!

LordOfGoblins

Not sure if there is a Bahai stance on this.
I think we covered this before.
My understanding is Gods omnipotence cannot be measured against himself. So he can do everything in relation to being powerful over his creation but as soon as you measure his omnipotence against his own self you run into problems. That is, it is no longer something which can be measured or described in human understandings.
Just like how you cannot know Gods essence or who he really is, there are plenty of other things related to God we will never know or could never know.
The End.

LordOfGoblins

Only understandings is true, and the truth of any understanding is limited by the vehicle of words and mens minds. Think about it. Dont assume you have all the answers. Dont just take something from the bible and take an absolute literalist stance on what it means without delving into what its implications are and what it could mean. Remember the mind of man is limited. Your sphere of understanding is different from the person next to you. Yet some people will wax proud and arrogant in the thought that their sphere of understanding SEES ALL.
That is a vain hope.
On the other hand if you recognise your limitations you begin to see the reality of 'progressive revelation' and how it works. Truth can be a far more subtle thing than people take it for.
Also remember God doesnt 'make religions' he sends messengers. It is man who makes formalised structures and systems with attempts to adhere to groups and categorise things according to his inclinations.
Baha'u'llah explains that if one is endowed with insight he sees all the prophets 'soaring in the same realm' so to speak.
its just it's not always easy to see coming from different time periods and cultueral backgrounds.
A lot can happen in 2000 years..
-----------------
It is clear and evident to thee that all the Prophets are the Temples of the Cause of God, Who have appeared clothed in divers attire. If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith. Such is the unity of those Essences of being, those Luminaries of infinite and immeasurable splendour.

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 153)

LordOfGoblins

Iconodule, is truth something which you can see with your eye or is it words on a page?
Remember the words speak no truth to someone who does not have the ability to read the language!
And even to those who do have the ability to read it, the truth will only be tolerated by the reader to the extand that his mind can accept it!!
Thats why Christianity is divided into thousands of sects!!
Ever thought about the reason why God would create thousands of sects within Christianity? Or is everything about why God would create many conflicting different religions over time?
How is that different to different sects inside Christianity!!!??
Its the same question you should be willing to ask yourself if you are willing to be fair minded and not always biased against the Bahais!!

Iconodule

That doesn't answer my question. Basically I am asking can God do something which is illogical? That is can he created a square circle, since the previous religions totally contradict each other in how they were understood at the time and by their followers (for instance Mirza applauds Constantine but Constantine had the Christian faith defined by the Bishops at council and they were the ones that succeeded which the quran talks about, thus the true Christians for the Bahai were the trinitarians) which shows God can change things ontoligcally despite contradicting and make them all correct. Thats just how it seems to me.

I would however say the better option is to say that logical contradictions do not exist and are simply nonsense questions, like "Can God make blue tast like Cheese?" It doesn't make sense because its not logical and what is logical is what is God and what is from God.

Btw we've been over this it was protestantism that divided into thousand of sects. But the Orthodox church has been with us since the apostles and lived through Muhammad despite his followers relentless persecution and invasion and destruction of holy places (something Muhammad I am sure would be very proud of). But I think I am being fair in asking this and giving my opinion on what i see currently.I'm open to being corrected but I didn't see that in your responces.

LordOfGoblins

I did answer your question.
Its all about progressive understanding.
The question of Can God create a square circle has absolutely nothing to do with why there are so many religions in the world in the Bahai understanding.
You did want the Bahai understanding right?
There is no official Bahai stance on the whole creating a square circle thing (I answered the question that he cannot do things relative to his own power.) but I gave the Bahai stance more or less on why it appears the are many religions at contradiction.


And no I have never had the discussion with you about protestanism. And you did not rebutt what I said about why there are multiple sects...

after reading about protestanism it is clear that it only caused division insofar as people disagreed from their different understandings. In other words EXACTLY WHAT I SAID ALREADY. That is just a label to hide behind. Prove me wrong. You love to debate so Prove it! Prove that that is outside the circle of truth of what I already said. It would not cause any division by itself. The only reason to deny the authority of the Pope to begin with is because peoples understanding of his authority is different!
Likewise all the understandings inside churches under that label are subject to the same dividing phenomina.

Unless you want to say that people divide from things like hatred or whim. Which is just even more meaningless and petty. So if thats the case then thats EVEN LOWER than dividing over differences of opionion.

Fadl

Hi Icon,

It's been a long time!

Yes, God can make a stone so large that he can't lift it. But it is not actually a paradox.

LordOfGoblins

How could we ever know something like that though?
Id love for someone to prove how human beings could possibly know how Gods power works relative to himself..

Fadl

This is how I understand it:

A stone so heavy that God cannot lift it, is composed of all the matter and energy in the universe. Such a stone is a 'singularity' of infinite mass and density. How, then, can God be incapable of lifting such a stone without surrendering His omnipotence?

To 'lift' is to move an object away from the center of mass of another object. But since a stone so heavy that it cannot be lifted by God almighty requires ALL matter in the universe; there is no remaining matter from which any other object can be composed of or exist. Therefore, the meaning of the word 'lift' breaks down and has no meaning. The statement "God is lifting a stone of infinite mass" or "not lifting a stone of infinite mass" are actually equivalent since they are both meaningless with no other objects to be lifted or not lifted relative to. The omnipotence of God remains intact, but the meaning of lifting stones is utterly shattered.

LordOfGoblins

hmm what about this then.
Lets say I lived for infinite amount of time.
Would it be possible for me to draw a line on a page (given the paper was as long as I needed it to be) that was too long for me to rub out?

Fadl

Ok. My bad for thinking I was answering a serious question.

Cheers

ahanu

Can you provide a quote where Baha'u'llah accepts the Trinity or any other religious doctrine that contradicts his own? Thanks. Praising Christians means Baha'u'llah accepts the Trinity?

LordOfGoblins

Ok..
How about this.

If at any isntant in time God manifests a rock of a given size, it will never be of sufficeint size that he cannot lift it.

On the other hand if the rock continually grows in size then he will never be given a chance to lift it and thus the question can never be tested..

I dont know yes it is a silly question. Im sorry I think it is abit rediclous..
sorry..


But more importantly how does this relate to the Bahai faith???
It doesnt..

ahanu

Iconodule's argument is based on erroneous presuppositions. For example, Iconodule writes:

Notice Iconodule's so-called fact. The presupposition is that God makes religions 100% true at different times. This does not account for what Lord of Goblins, a Baha'i, believes. Lord of Goblins writes: "Its all about progressive understanding." In other words, its about the mental capacity of a people in a particular culture, place, and time.

Iconodule frames his entire question around God with no account of the population's mental capacity during a particular culture, place, and time. For Iconodule, God's truth seems to penetrate a human being's understanding without the brain's filter. In other words, if God desired to teach the theory of relativity to a person in 1st century Jerusalem, the person experiencing the direct teaching from God would understand it, regardless of the fact this prescientific mind doesn't even have the language to frame an understanding of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, for Baha'is, if God desired to teach the theory of relativity to a person in 1st century Jerusalem, how would the person understand it and explain it? Could a person understand the theory of relativity back then? If not, why would God bother trying to teach it? This becomes a critical question, but for Iconodule, I don't think it is a critical question.

So, when Iconodule sees the doctrine of the Trinity and other doctrines in the Christian faith, he believes how later Christians explained it reveal absolute truth. For Baha'is, the question isn't this: if God contradicts himself, do Baha'is accept logical contradictions in their God? Rather, here's the crucial question: If humans contradict their understanding of truth from God, why and how do these contradictions arise? Consider the last question and Lord of Goblin's observation: "Christianity is divided into thousands of sects!!" I think Lord of Goblins seeks an answer.

ahanu

Check out my post above.

arthra

Logical paradoxes amused the scholastics centuries ago... See the following:

Omnipotence paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in my view they are not part of Baha'i discussion... so it's mostly a part of medieval Christian culture not Baha'i.

By the by Icono dule... Did you ever finish that catechumen class?

Essence of GOD

how can we use our limited logic to explain something we are incapable of fully understanding.
our logic is not as perfect as everyone thinks.

also, a blind man's logic differs from a seeing man's.
logic or reason is based on a metaphysical reality of our 5 senses which seems limited to fully explain everything.

Fadl

LOG,

If you would only read what I posted above...maybe you wouldn't say this.

LordOfGoblins

Its not something I feel is worth trying to debate over.
I think the issue is more about what parameters can God create in the forknowledge of whether he will be able to undermine those parameters and still lift the stone. You said infinite size and mass taking the whole universe up. So he creates it only with the knowledge of whether he will not be able to still lift it, otherwise he wont go ahead and create it (cos its not the most unliftable stone imaginable). So given that how does his power work relative to his ownself is the question for me which I dont know the answer.
So even if you say infinite size and mass, then perhaps there is a workaround for him in which case he can still lift it. The workaround is not something we know but if it does exist then we can assume God knows it.
I dunno its just too hard on my brain to try to come up with the biggest and strongest argument that I am capable of in regards to this, im not up to it...

From the writings though we do though that things are strange and not limited.
For example Abdul'Baha says no matter how beautiful someone is a more beautiful person can be imagined. No matter how virtues a person is a more virtuous one can be imagined.
So extending the analogy- can God create a virtues person which is too virtuous that he cannot create one more virtuous? Apparently Not if we stick to what AbdulBaha says.
Could that mean that no matter how heavy a stone is, a more heavy stone can be imagined?
its really not something that one can easily picture.

LordOfGoblins

In conclusion IMO.
Everything inside the physical realm is in his power and when you measure his power against his own self you get an infinite loop like in programming.


int x=0;
while (x < infinity){
x=x+1;
}

Im not certain about this though, so I reserve the right to correct myself later.
(:

Fadl

And you are debating because... ?

Fadl

What does 'lift' mean to you? Is it possible to lift something (regardless of size) without something to lift it from?

With nothing in existence other than a single stone of infinite mass, 'to lift' or 'not to lift' are both nonsense. Therefore God's inability to lift such a stone is not a chink in his omnipotent armor, it is a shattering of the term 'lift' which has no meaning at all in such a senario. That is how God can be omnipotent at the same time as being able to create a stone so massive that he can't lift it.

Fadl

These arguments are actually not as irrelevant as you seem to believe. Modern athiests use these as some of their key arguments against God and they have a powerful influence over people in the modern day and age. Some people look at these kind of arguments and think the atheists win it (which they really do for the most part) and give up on belief in God. For this Baha'i, that means these old scholastic arguments are of interest and concern to me.

LordOfGoblins

Yes that is your definition of lift and unliftable which is limited to your human understanding of material existance and what makes a stone unliftable. But we dont know Gods definition. That's all I am saying...
Am I not allowed to give my opinion now?

Fadl

Very true. Logic is but an instrument, like any other instrument, of knowing and an instrument is only as good as the mechanic weilding it.

I could use a measure tape to measure a man's shadow just as easily as a man, but a shadow is not a man, and can possibly even be a distorted or disproportianate representation of a man. This is often what people do with logic; measuring shadows and drawing conclusions about actual forms.

LordOfGoblins

my intention was not to debate. Just to give my understanding..

Fadl

God's definition??

I thought 'lift' was an English word in use by mortal men. Since we are engaged in human scholastic argument 'how lift is defined by God' is as meaningful as 'what a bone means to man' in the mind of a dog.

LordOfGoblins

Well as soon as you bring things into the constraint of human definition you are confining Gods power which is impossible anyway to begin with.

LordOfGoblins

In other words you are trying to concieve a scenario which he cannot lift the stone with your non-infinate mind and declaring that scenario a condition of unliftable.
But then give the scenario to God and he laughs at it cos he then comes up with a scenario where the stone is even more unliftable than the one you provided.
If you want to constrain things to that scenario then you are not letting him use his full power to begin with thus omnipotence is no longer applied and you are not being fair to God so to speak..

Fadl

Well, my friend, if what you've stated is the case then they had better ban human language from this God orientated forum altogether, hadn't they?

What a conundrum you've started now! But I get the feeling you will continue to say things about God with your weak reason and imperfect language--and despite what you've said above! No worries. I never held it against you for being a limited being, now if you can go easier on yourself we can carry on in our woefully human discussion without guilt, ok?

arthra

Modern athiests use these as some of their key arguments against God and they have a powerful influence over people in the modern day and age.

I had no idea medieval scholasticism continued to have such interest today!

Fadl

You need to go hang out with atheists on their forums sometime. Omnipotence paradox and others are very much alive and relevant, and their weapon of choice when debating with any person of faith they encounter.

Also, talk to people who have recently expressed disbelief in God and you will often find that it was this sort of argument and reasoning that was the last nail in the coffin of their belief.

LordOfGoblins

theres no need to be like that.
Thats just how it works in relation to Gods omnipotence IMO. I am just trying to draw peoples attention to our inablity to relate to his power. Not everyone sees things the same way.

arthra

Well I do frequent interfaith forums regularly but maybe not the same forums you do... I dunno....

but it occurs to me that sometimes people have a concept of God that they've developed that's simply based on their thoughts... Check out thhis reference by Abdul-Baha:

All the people have formed a god in the world of thought, and that form of their own imagination they worship; when the fact is that the imagined form is finite and the human mind is infinite. Surely the infinite is greater than the finite, for imagination is accidental while the mind is essential; surely the essential is greater than the accidental.

Therefore consider: All the sects and peoples worship their own thought; they create a god in their own minds and acknowledge him to be the creator of all things, when that form is a superstition -- thus people adore and worship imagination.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 381

The "last nail on the coffin of their belief" could be sealing their own beliefs that are based on idle fancies and vain imaginings and they need to expand their awareness of God beyond their "world of thoughts"...

What I've found is that a good grounding in the history of the Manifestations conveys an awareness beyond mere speculations that people have developed and this along with having immersion in the Writings promotes certitude.

tonyfish58

Well I count myself as very lucky

I feel no need to get into this type of Topic I would also not bother to get in to any debate over it

But it takes all to make a world so I hope anyone that does, gets some reward from the contemplation

"I swear by Thy Beauty, O King of eternity Who sitteth on Thy most glorious Throne! He Who is the Day-Spring of Thy signs and the Revealer of Thy clear tokens hath, notwithstanding the immensity of His wisdom and the loftiness of His knowledge, confesseth his powerlessness to comprehend the least of Thine utterances, in their relation to Thy most exalted Pen — how much more is He incapable of apprehending the nature of Thine all-glorious Self and of Thy most august Essence". Long Obligatory Prayer of Bahá'u'lláh

Cheers Tony

Mdef

Bro, without gods laws that he revealed through the messengers/prophets..thier will be chaos. refer to the the ten commandments given to moses..

thanks

Iconodule

Thank you, God can make the logically impossible possible in the bahai view. He can make Pie plus fish equal cake right? He can at one time be a true trinity and then shift to a pseudo trinity right? I think im begining to understand the bahai. God changes throughout history and different modes if this logic is to be taken seriously in the bahai view and thus this explains the contradiction in history between Bahai, Muslims, Christians and pagans (which Bahai think are true as well, those pagans being Hindus).

Iconodule

Mirza hussain praised constantine who called the council of Nicea and rectified its position in the church, of course Constantien was sympathetic to the arrains as he wanted Christians to be united. Though his ignorance was a lapse on his part. Its indirect I know, but theres also the indirect evidence that Christians were Gods people (by the admission of the bahai) they were the ones in authority untill Christ without any warning left them for the muslims and then without much warning left the muslims for you. Well your not bahia you reject Mirza's teachings on miracles, so at least your more consistent than he ever was.

But I would also add from the quran which Bahais somehow accept while it rejects their claims, we are told that the true followers of Christ would be victorius to the end of days, to the day of ressurection, obviously this indicates the end times event in which the general ressurection would happen. Which Bahai reject. But regaurdless of that, the classical islamic interpreters those earliest and closest to Muhammad interpreted this to mean the roman empire, the Byzantines, the Christians. It was the Christians who were victorius and there were no muslims or Bahai or these ideas in any group within history existing back then. So it follows that if the bahai truely accept the quran and what it says they must accept this verse which indicates that the Christians would be victorius to the end of days and that same church from the time of Muhammad exists to this day. Well four or so churches, the roman church, the Eastern Orthodox Catholic church, the Oriental Ethiopian Coptic church and the Syrian church. All of which accept Nicea which was called by Constantine. Now the bahai here have a legitimate contradiction and you can explain this away, simply say that the Bahai accepts the view Logic can be changed by the will of God.

But in answer to the guy with the lego ogre king thing avatar, in bringing up a square circle as an example I mean only to ask. Can God do the logically impossible? Is it possible in any given world there can be A having and not having B at the same time? It seems to me like american fundamentalism the bahais accept this view. And this would best explain away any contradiction in bahai history.

LordOfGoblins

Iconodule.
now you are just having fun. Now you are just turning religious discussion into a nintendo game or paintball (shoot and dodge). Pity you cant discuss these serious topic with a bit more maturity. As usual nothing gets resolved with you.

ahanu

Unlike conservative Christianity, the truth of the Baha'i Faith does not rest on miracles. Here's what Abdu'l-Baha himself said:

". . . in the Holy Books an especial terminology is employed, and for the Manifestations these miracles and wonderful signs have no importance. They do not even wish to mention them. For if we consider miracles a great proof, they are still only proofs and arguments for those who are present when they are performed, and not for those who are absent."

Imagine a conservative Christian theologian, say, William Craig, saying that about the resurrection of Christ. Miracles are critical for Craig's faith, but they are of "no importance" to the people of Baha. Your point about miracles is a non-issue for me. Abdu'l-Baha also says:

"The outward miracles have no importance for the people of Reality."

He says:

"The meaning is not that the Manifestations are unable to perform miracles, for They have all power. But for Them inner sight, spiritual healing and eternal life are the valuable and important things."

Notice what Abdu'l-Baha calls important. Contrast this with what Craig would say is important. Craig writes:

"Against this background of the modern predicament, the traditional Christian hope of the resurrection takes on an even greater brightness and significance. It tells man that he is no orphan after all, but the personal image of the Creator God of the universe; nor is his life doomed in death, for through the eschatological resurrection he may live in the presence of God forever.

This is a wonderful hope. But, of course, hope that is not founded in fact is not hope, but mere illusion. Why should the Christian hope of eschatological resurrection appear to modern man as anything more than mere wishful thinking? The answer lies in the Christian conviction that a man has been proleptically raised by God from the dead as the forerunner and exemplar of our own eschatological resurrection. That man was Jesus of Nazareth, and his historical resurrection from the dead constitutes the factual foundation upon which the Christian hope is based."

Jesus’ Resurrection | Reasonable Faith

I've provided quotes showing Craig's views on miracles with Abdu'l-Baha's views on miracles. Tell me, Iconodule, do you see a difference? If so, what does this difference mean? Does this mean that, as a Baha'i, I must accept physical miracles? Are physical miracles critical to my faith?