Robertus

I love to discuss the faith, God etc. will all kinds of people. Sometimes I even get into little impromptu debates with my friends on these subjects. When I get into a debate with an Atheist I often throw the Modal Ontological Argument at them.

Roughly:


1.It is possible that God exists

2.If it is possible that God exists, God exists in a possible world.

3.If God exists ina possible world, then he exists in all possible worlds.

4.If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in reality.

5.Therefore, God exists in reality.

6.Therefore, God exists.

It's a real brain teaser, especially for those who aren't very philosophical in thought. But premises 2-5 aren't controversial, it's only point 1 that's argued amongst Theologians.

So, what do you guys think of this? What arguments do you use?

cire perdue

1. No sign can come from a non-existent thing.

2. Any sign or evidence of existence that has warranted being named must be considered a reality.

3. There are two kinds of knowledge:
a. knowledge of the essence of a thing, and
b. knowledge of its qualities.
Knowledge of a thing's essence is beyond the reach of human Knowing powers; knowledge of the qualities of a thing is acquired by experience, discovery and revelation.

4. Understanding or comprehension is an inherent ability of man, manifesting in vision which, in turn, functions through three degrees of Knowing Power:
physical, mental and spiritual.

5. What a person sees determines his feelings and reactions to life; and how what faces him appears to him is determined by his viewpoint.

6. We are out of touch with the reality of what we are dealing with unless or until we are aware of its fifth dimension which is its Purpose-and-Power.

Investigate Your Spiritual Reality

This group got permission and had THE COMPREHENSIVE DEEPENING PROGRAM reprinted. I have only briefly scanned their site. It seems relevent to your thread.

ahanu

Well . . . .

Yes, but it is possible people can imagine impossible things too.

What usual replies do you get to your argument?

I use the argument from human perception.

For example if you crossed a room twenty-one feet in length at 99.9999999 percent of light speed, then the room no longer is twenty-one feet . . . but only slightly larger than the period at the end of this sentence. This tells us space is not absolute. If you were traveling at that speed, your experience of time would be different too. This tells us space and time are not absolutes, and since they are not absolutes, then everything we see and can study in microscopes is not all there is.

After that I wait for the atheist's reaction:

LordOfGoblins

LOL for the above post.

I know no easy way to teach athiests. Probably the best way is the science of love!
Or show them how willing people were to die for the cause in the early history of the faith.
How to prove God exists scientifically? I dont have a good answer and even if I did I am not sure I would use it. Scientists are even confused by their own science. You need a scientific proof that conforms to the science of the day.
For example one proof Abdul'Baha gives in some answere Questions is creation is the proof of existance of a creator. That might satisfy the Bahai or philosopher but scientists are not used to such a proof in their fields of work so it might not satisfy them.
Anyway just adding those thoughts, but that is the one I would use.

"the table cannot understand the animals powers and the animal cannot understand the human powers. The human therefore cannot understand the God-like state. We try to sense God with human powers and cannot see him. An animal sees humans only as an animal. Ie it weighs us with its animal powers and declares us as animals too!"
Anyway I havnt had a chance to teach athiests for along time. If the opportunity recently arises, I will post more as I am very rusty.

LordOfGoblins

Hello friend.
I am not sure how you go in 4 "If he exists in all possible worlds he exists in reality". Otherwise I certainly think it is an interesting approach..

Fadl

Hi!

It's a nice try, but this argument doesn't work for me because I reject the proposition that God exists 'in' this world or any other for that matter. As proofs go, The Hatcher logical proof of God is the best one I've seen so far.

When I speak with athiests, I admit readily that God doesn't exist and that there is no God, for how could it be otherwise? All existence and isness is the handiwork of God, and God is transcendant above his creation. Whether one says there is a God or there is no God, they both really say the same thing, although inacurately, if you think about it.

Human language and the human mind lack the capacity to accurately attribute anything to God. I like to ask athiests what sort of material proof of God they might accept. Once it's acknowledged that no such proof could possibly be conceived, time can then be spent on more fruitful topics.

Robertus

Actually you cannot imagine something impossible.

By impossible I mean something that is logically impossible.

Can you conceive of a square circle? A Married Bachelor? A 4 pointed triangle? You could conceive of a mile long Elephant on Pluto but as far fetched as it is it isn't an impossibility.


This is good.

It'll get the Atheist to start questioning their pre-suppositions about the universe.


Is this reality a possible world?

I think it is since it exists!

So if premise three is correct then since God must exist in all possible worlds then he must exist in this world since it is a possible world.
Then you would be an atheist? Or at least one in this sentence.

Is it possible that the highest conceivable being exists?


Eh, I would disagree. If this is all God's Handiwork and if God is seperate from his creation then he must exist in some way, shape, or form. I could say that God doesn't exist but also say that God created everything, but that's illogical. To say that God both exists and doesn't exist doesn't really help anything in my opinion.


This is true.

If the Atheist will admit that there is no way that you can prove God's Existence then instead of leaving it there I would start to question their pre-suppositions.

Thank you for your responses so far everyone! Keep them up!

tonyfish58

Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá - 166

O servant of Bahá! Be self-sacrificing in the path of God, and wing thy flight unto the heavens of the love of the Abhá Beauty, for any movement animated by love moveth from the periphery to the centre, from space to the Day-Star of the universe. Perchance thou deemest this to be difficult, but I tell thee that such cannot be the case, for when the motivating and guiding power is the divine force of magnetism it is possible, by its aid, to traverse time and space easily and swiftly. Glory be upon the people of Baha

Fadl

No, I'm not an atheist at all. I believe in God, and I also believe that belief is the most anyone can hope for when it comes to the unknowable essence, and I'm content with that.

I also don't think God is part of this or any other the Universe(s), because all that 'is' is only his handiword, and I believe that God is absolutely transcendant and unknowable. To say God exists doesn't make sense because all that exists is only his handiwork. We simply do not have the capacity to express him in any way, and the limitations of human language force us to say illogical things about God such as "He" or "is."

You are trying to fit God into our experience of reality in a contingent and physical universe, and that can't be helped, for what choice have we? However, God is above our comprehension and anything we may ascribe to him. God does not need to 'exist' at all, nor does he need have any shape, or any form. God is absolutely transcendant. He is the creator of all that exists so how can you say God is 'existing?"

It's not illogical at all, it's merely incomprehensible. If you think about it it's actually illogical to say "God created all that exists, and God exists." God is the creator of all existence, but God is himself uncreated and not existent because God is in a unique category that contains only God; whereas everything other than God is in the category of existence and is his handiwork.

LordOfGoblins

Personally I think saying God does not exist is somewhat confusing in light of the writings.

"I bear witness, O my God, that Thou hast created me to know Thee and to worship Thee. I testify, at this moment, to my powerlessness and to Thy might, to my poverty and to Thy wealth.

There is none other God but Thee, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.
"

We should ponder deeply on what it means to Know or worship God.
THe closer we grow the more we become aquanted with God and his messenger(s). Thats not to say we will ever know his essence. That stays hidden from time immemorial, wrapped up within its own divine sanctity.

Fadl

I realize it's confusing what I'm saying, but consider: "There is none other God but thee" what verb can you conceive of to replace "is" with? Human language is limited to human experience and so we use the word be or is for God just like any other thing, however, this is due to the necessity of the limitations imposed upon us and our language. God is not a thing, however, and is not confined to states of being or of not being like everything else.

Often times, the way we understand the property of one thing is learning something of it's opposite. For example, color is an attribute of light because when there is darkness there is no color, or we know something about happiness through sorrow, or of sorrow through joy, etc. However, God is absolutely unique, and has no opposite, and for this reason hidden from us. For a fascinating discourse on the matter, read story 5 in Rumi's Mathnavi.

I say the obligatory prayers the same as anyone, and therefore testify that there is no God but God. But I also understand that this is merely the highest statement I can make and the closest approximation possible, but it is does not encompass God or his essence, and it does not limit him to being or not being because such states cannot be applicable to him.

LordOfGoblins

I definatly would agree language is limited. I also think though that language is a very powerful tool into giving humans understanding. This understanding transcends any immediate apparent meanings that are within the phrases themselves. For example something so simple as the short obligatory prayer that just says why we are created testifying to this and acknowledging our powerlessness in the face of Gods power, is in fact like a light shining onto the spirit of man, illumining him with understanding that transcends words.
What I am saying is that the word of God transcends the limitations of words. Yes they are just words but in another sense a living word, breathing new life into all things. Personally I do not think we should be overall concerned about the limitations of grammer. THe translations are okay and the even if meaning is lost with the imperfections of the language, we can still become illumined through the understanding of the spirit, even as Abdul'Baha says, "it is the heart that speaks".
There will be no need for words in the next world, that much is probably evident. But i dont think we should belittle language and the power of the words that come from what Baha'u'llah has provided.
I know you are not doing this of course.
As for God existing versus not existing. Well I guess that comes down to personal choice how you want to see things. The way I see 'the unknowable essence' phrase from Baha'u'llah is that it simple means Gods essence is unknowable. Other aspects of God are knowable, which is why he have the short obligatory prayer. Ie he is not completely shut away from us in the sense we can come to know him through better knowing our own self.
How this process looks like is probably different for everyone.
Anyway its fine to have different opinions I hope we can all keep growing in understanding despite whatever difference in opinion.
cheers

Yeshua

Fadl I think that this is an excellent strategy when engaging and debating with atheists! I mean - wow! Its so darn obvious when you think about it. God is above all dualism, all opposites. He is the ground of being and existence, so in essence you can say that he does not "exist" because he created "existence". But neither does he "NOT" exist because he is the ground of existence. This is called the "double negative" according to Muslim medeival thinkers and polymaths

The great Catholic theologian and mystic Meister Eckhart (who lived in the 1300s) wrote extensively on this very topic.

Its some quotations from his writings. In it Eckhart, nearly 1,000 years ago, spelled exactly the same ideas Fadl is currently stating. Here are some brief excerpts:

"I say, if one knows anything in God and affixes any name to it, that is not God. God is above names and above nature. GOD is nameless, for no man can either say or understand aught about Him. If I say, God is good, it is not true; nay more; I am good, God is not good. I may even say, I am better than God; for whatever is good, may become better, and whatever may become better, may become best. Now God is not good, for He cannot become better. And if He cannot become better, He cannot become best, for these three things, good, better, and best, are far from God, since He is above all. If I also say, God is wise, it is not true; I am wiser than He. If I also say, God is a Being, it is not true; He is transcendent Being and superessential Nothingness. I say that God is neither a being nor intelligent and He doesn’t ‘know’ either this or that. God is free of everything and therefore He is everything. I pray God to make me free of God, for [His] unconditioned Being is above God and all distinctions. We ought not to have or let ourselves be satisfied with the god we have thought of, for when the thought slips the mind, that god slips with it. What we want is rather the reality of God, exalted far above any human thought or creature. God is above being. But if i say that God is not a being and that he is above being, I do not by doing so deny isness to God. On the contrary I embrace it in him. Concerning this St Augustine says: "The finest thing that we can say of God is to be silent concerning him from the wisdom of inner riches." Be silent therefore, and do not chatter about God, for by chattering about him, you tell lies and commit a sin. If you wish to be perfect and without sin, then do not prattle about God. Also you should not wish to understand anything about God, for God is beyond all understanding. A master says: "If I had a God that I could understand, I would not regard him as God." If you understand anything about him, then he is not in it, and by understanding something of him, you fall into ignorance."

Meister Eckhart, Catholic mystic

So said the great Catholic mystic Meister Eckhart. So yes I agree Fadl! You are so wise!!!! I'm in awe of you my friend!

LordOfGoblins

The problem with the above though is you end up just not applying any names at all to God because nothing is sufficient testimony to God. Although that is true, it does not matter. We should still extol Gods names. Look at how Baha'u'llah did.

LordOfGoblins

Look at the long healing prayer...

http://www.bahaiprayers.org/healing6.htm

Yeshua

Of course! Judaism, Islam, Christianity and the Baha'i Faith are revelation-based religions. God has certain attributes positively ascribed to Himself in our faiths. This type of reasoning is known as cataphatic theology. But this can only go so far. The more we progress spiritually in the "knowledge" of God the more we learn that we actually know so very little about God - we have to "unknow" to "know" God, ironically.

Tertullian says, “That which is infinite is known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our conceptions—our very incapacity of fully grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is. He is presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known and unknown.”

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Homilies says: "For we explain not what God is but candidly confess that we have not exact knowledge concerning Him. For in what concerns God to confess our ignorance is the best knowledge."

John of the Cross explained how the apparent contradiction between knowing God's attributes and God's essence being unknowable is not a contradiction:

"Saint John of the Cross speaks of God in many ways. Most basic is God as eternal, infinite Being. Present in the simplicity of God's unique, changeless being are innumerable attributes such as infinite beauty, infinite wisdom, infinite goodness, and infinite light. By contrast with the infinite being of God, creatures are nothing. In His own divine essence, God is incomprehensible and inaccessible, insusceptible of being limited or measured by human experience, totally beyond the powers of human understanding and imagination. Although he uses anthropomorphisms when speaking of God (e.g., He is angry with some persons and pleased with others), he sees God as incomprehensible, indescribable, and ultimately unknowable except to Himself" - Carmelite nuns of Eldrige

So on the one hand John of the Cross speaks of God as "Being" as you do, and then on the other as "above being" and "not-being" as Fadl is currently doing.

Catholics call this "Learned Ignorance".

Yeshua

This is my all time favourite descrition of God's Unknowable Essence from St John of the Cross. I've quoted it before!

Verses on the Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation


I entered where there is no knowing,

and unknowing I remained,

all knowledge there transcending.

I

Where no knowing is I entered,
yet when I my own self saw there

without knowing where I rested

great things I understood there,

yet cannot say what I felt there,

since I rested in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

II

Of peace and of holy good

there was perfect knowing,

in profoundest solitude

the only true way seeing,

yet so secret is the thing

that I was left here stammering,

all knowledge there transcending.


III


I was left there so absorbed,

so entranced, and so removed,

that my senses were abroad,

robbed of all sensation proved,

and my spirit then was moved

with an unknown knowing,

all knowledge there transcending.


IV


He who reaches there in truth

from himself is parted though,

and all that before he knew

seems to him but base below,

his knowledge increases so

that knowledge has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.


V


The higher he climbs however

the less he’ll ever understand,

because the cloud grows darker

that lit the night on every hand:

whoever visits this dark land

rests forever in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.


VI


This knowledge of unknowing

is of so profound a power

that no wise men arguing

will ever supersede its hour:

their wisdom cannot reach the tower

where knowing has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.

VII


It is of such true excellence

this highest understanding,

no science, no human sense,

has it in its grasping,

yet he who, by self-conquering

grasps knowing in unknowing,

goes evermore transcending.





VIII



And in the deepest sense,

this highest knowledge lies,

of the divine essence,

if you would be wise:

his mercy so it does comprise,

each one leaving in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.



John of the Cross also wrote:


“Its source I do not know because it has none.
And yet from this, I know, all sources come,
Although by night.

"I know that no created thing could be so fair
And that both earth and heaven drink from there,
Although by night.

Its radiance is never clouded and in this
I know that all light has its genesis,
Although by night.
......................

The current welling from this fountain's source
I know to be as mighty as its force,
Although by night. " (John of the Cross)

LordOfGoblins

Okay so forget what you know in the first instance and then learn. At some point you have to learn though otherwise you are left with nothing. Likewise at somepoint you have to assign attributes and names however innadequate or again you are left with nothing. Thats all im really trying to say.

Yeshua

Yes, you are left with "nothing" and yet paradoxically speaking the ground and source of "everything" "Nothingness" is precisely what Baha'u'llah means when he talks of the last valley being that of "Absolute Poverty and Nothingness". And this nothingness is the very heart of Catholic mysticism as well!

Read:

"Meister Eckhart taught that achieving such mystical connection with God began by understanding that God Himself exists as pure, sacred nothingness; nameless and hidden in a super-essential invisibleness; infinite and ultimately inaccessible through any finite, human effort. Since God created all that is out of nothing, Eckhart asserted that the eternal nothing that preceded creation comprises God's pure, unmediated essence. However, don't confuse this sacred nothingness with absence. Far from it. What Eckhart meant by nothingness was that God is no-thing; He is actual rather than analogous, He defies human metaphor, projection, imagery or idealization. How then, you ask, can a finite creature, bound by images and concepts, ever know the infinite and actual God? You can't"

From: Being Known by God: Preaching Meister Eckhart

LordOfGoblins

Dude.
Those states of the seven valleys apply to us not God. They are stages of growth. It is described with a name to best befit the stage, however dont confuse that stage with God himself.
THe last stage of true povert and nothingness is more a reflection of mans self-dying. God is very real and very alive and existing. It is us who is the illusion, dont get confused.

LordOfGoblins

all this silly nothingness. Great, Ok I quit.

Yeshua

Yes your right they do apply to us I'm not suggesting that the Seven Valleys are a description of God in his essence. I recognize that they are speaking of the spirtual journey of man towards self-annihilation in God. However, I also feel (but I admit that I may be wrong) that the final stage in the human journey is somehow also reflective of God's innate nature, namely, that God in his essence is "Absolute Nothingness". Do you see where I am coming from? Knowing God is ultimately being known by God. This happens only once we become nothing ourselves, debasing ourselves of all our fanciful ideas and mediated notions of God and His attributes, allowing our own pure nothingness to emerge - reflecting exactly God's nothingness! Afterall we are made in his "Image". This is what Eckhart taught.

Yeshua

OK lol I apologize for irking you with "silly nothingness"! Can we at least agree that God in his essence is "No-Thing" as Eckhart teaches? He is unknowable, above all things and so is "Nothingness" or more accurately broken down, "No-Thing-Ness".

LordOfGoblins

one minor change "reflecting Gods somethingness" as opposed to Gods nothingness.

Yeshua

lol ok :d

Yeshua

Regarding the initial post, my answer would be that - for me personally - the first proposition is uneccessary at best and even possibly limiting with regards to God:

1. It is possible that God exists

- Does he "exist"? Can the source of all existence and reality, who is so transcedent that he is infinetly above that created reality, be described as "existing"? Its debatable but I think not. He cannot exist, that Absolute One who is above and beyond existance. Perhaps it can be said that he exists in relation to us, since we created beings can only comprehend a God who is being and who exists. However God as he is in himself must surely transcend existence and so does not "exist". For him to "exist", for him to be "something" brings him down to the world of "things", which he created out of nothing. For me this not quite accurate. Existence is a property of the created universe - that is the spiritual and physical dimensions. God transcends and precedes both so I must say, in sum, that I do not believe God exists, since "existence" is a property of created reality.

An existent God is not God. A God beyond existence, is God - the First Mover, the Source of All Things. In himself then, he is "No-Thing", the great originator of all "Things".

We cannot conveive of God. Words and human understandings will never comprehend him as he is in Himself. It is fine to use anthropomorphisms in relation to God, that is the attribution of human charachteristics and attributes, so long as it is remembered that God is not limited by these attributes and that these attributes are meant for our meagre, limited comprehension and do not in any way define the true reality of the infinite Essence of God.

That is why Christianity believes that God became man in Jesus. It is why the Baha'i Faith believes in Manifestations of God. We have no other means for knowing God except through the lives and teachings of the holy prophets who fully reflect his likeness, and to the Christian mindset, in the Person of Jesus Christ within whom resides all the fullness of the deity, making an incomprehensible God at least "knowable" although certainly not "comprehensible".

We can know God only by negation - by recognizing that our humanly knowledge of him has limits and thus by resting in this state of "unknowing".

This is also the reason why Orthodox Christians and Eastern Catholics see a distinction between God's Essence and Attributes. In Essence he is unknowable but he is knowable in his Attributes ie Light, Love etc. which are "God".
I believe 100% in God but I feel that there is a certain degree of futility in applying the word "existance" to God.

Yeshua

No, I'm actually a Law Student with straight A's If I can be trusted in dealing with an old lady's will, do you really think I would be psychologically challanged? lol

So I can assure you that I am 100% rational and am in possession of my full cognitive faculties

If it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense. That's because nothing about God does or will ever make sense to our poor human minds. We are created and limited in our intelligence. God is infinite. We cannot fully come to know him. We can only rest in that blissful state of perfect unknowing, and see him reflected in those special few who Manifest him.

If you think I am wrong or insane then so be it That will not make me change my opinion, nor will it apparently change the childishness of your above statement. I suppose some would see it as attractive...hmm...At least you have a sense of humour, which I admire but I do find it kind of off-putting given the gravity of the context of our current discussion ie the very nature of God.

BTW I'm not being offensive, I usually love your dry wit and humour! I just think its a tad bit immature though when I'm trying to discuss concepts that are a billion x a billion x a billion times above my intelligence!

LordOfGoblins

Sorry i was abit rude, feeling grumpy. Im going to bed though, so goodnight, I deleted the post.

Yeshua

Apology duly accepted This shows humility by the way. A very under-rated quality in our modern world! I know so many people who cannot admit to ever being "rude" or missing the mark. God Bless you dear brother

Yeshua

3.If God exists in a possible world, then he exists in all possible worlds.

This proposition also gives me pause. Is it not a huge leap to go from stating that God exists in an imagined possible world (which might not exist) to the statement that he exists in "all possible worlds"? In addition, that "possible world" does not necessarily have to exist, just as that possible "deity" can be imagined but that in itself does not equate to the actual existence of a God.

I get the reasoning, and the attempted philosophical trap which is being laid, but I can't say I'm utterly convinced. I think that a smart, well-read and thoughtful atheist could counter-answer this rather well, is what I'm suggesting.

Perhaps though I'm just dense and lacking in philosophical intellect! I am (or rather hopefully will one day become) a lawyer after all, not a philosophy professor

However it just doesn't cut it for me. I believe that it ultimately fails as proof for the existence of God and so isn’t likely to convince any hardened atheist out there. It does however posses merits. It could very well enhance the understanding of a theist and when viewed from that perspective the ontological argument - including the modal one you prpose - does actually suceed in many respects as a means to using pure logic rather phenomenal or spiritual experience, which cannot be verified and is often derided by atheists, to investigate the existence of God.

I just don't see it as a useful tool in the armoury of any theist who wants to take on someone like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris

But as I say I might be way off and totally misunderstand the nature of the Modal Ontological arguement you propose!

Fadl

Remember, friend, that the ultimate attainment in the Seven Valleys, is True Poverty and Absolute NOTHINGNESS. WOW! Nothingness is where it is at, and if you are feeling bewildered and in a state of Wonderment in contemplating God, then good. You are on the right path!

These are two of my favorite quotes which speak of the limitations of even God's attributes to describe him:

And:

aidan

When I was studying for the Catholic priesthood 30 years ago I always found St Anselm's ontological arguement very perplexing and prone to the accusation of being nothing more than word-play.For me a good piece of evidence for God's existance is the case of the man who runs into a burning building to rescue a baby.It is totally Illogical for a man to do this as a baby contributes nothing material to society.Yet the man does it because of an inate knowledge that it is the correct thing to do.What drives the man is his sense of a higher being and what that higher being would want him to do

Fadl

Very well said, Yeshua, and I share in your views completely. I wanted to add too that, this understanding, that we both seem to share, I have arrived at only after many long years of pondering over these things while also primarily reading the Baha'i writings, Qur'an, and to lesser extent writings of sufi mystics such as Rumi, ibn 'arabi, etc, and the philosophers.

I can tell you that these things are perfectly consistent with Baha'i teachings because if they weren't, I wouldn't know of them, since I have now been a Baha'i most of my life, and that is what has instructed and trained me, alhamdu lilah. If this is also consitent with Catholic thought, then halelujah! But I'm not surprised. After all, the religions are really only one religion, so I would not expect to find any contradiction in it, but only light upon light.

LordOfGoblins

I definately agree God is far far far exalted above the comprehension of man. However I do see evidences in the writings that we can extol him and describe his names and attributes. These attributes do not do justice to him, as Baha'u'llah has said, however we as poor humans that we are, do what we can to extol our creator.
I dont find evidence though amongst his names that he is non-existant. Hidden, unseen, unreachable yes, all those things, but I am afraid this one I will have to part with my opinion with you guys as I do believe God is existant, just unsearchable and unkowable. This does not frustrate me, it used to be a frustrating thing for me but there are untold knowledges that I do not possess, so why should the fact that I do not know God be of any significance. There are people will go through their whole lives not gaining any knowledge of spiritual things.
Praise be to god, the lord of all the worlds.

tonyfish58

LOL

I love it when people try to explain what it all is/about

http://bahaiblog.net/site/2011/07/15...at-god-exists/

http://bahai-library.com/provisionals/basit.html

Two links worth pursuing

Cheers Tony

LordOfGoblins

Okay... Not sure what you are trying to say here. I did a search on this thread and the word nothing came up 52 times and nothingness came up 32 times. How often do you see those words used in the writings when describing God?

tonyfish58

I'm with you - God exists and is unknowable to the Human mind - No Issue

This does not mean God is nothing?

The rock Can not understand the Human, this does not mean we are nothing, just that our attributes will never be comprehended by the rock. Rocks we are when we think about God

Cheers Tony

Fadl

Guys, come on! Nothing = no thing. Can God be a thing? Things are created, and God is the creator of things. Can God also, then, be a thing? Think about the nature of things, and how they either are or are not. On the table there is either a book or there is not a book. The room can be illuminated or not illuminated. Do you think it is possible to treat God in this way? In other words, to say "there is God, or there is not God?" You cannot. God is super essential and absolutely necessary. There can be no condition of "not God" so it makes no sense to say "is God." In Genesis, where God said "let there be light" and then there was light, what possible meaning would that have had at all, if all was light already? It was possible to command light into being because there was darkness for us to know light. But what is the absence of God by which to know God? Such a condition is illogical because God is necessary for all states and a state of "not God" is to have no states, no conditions, no comparisons, no observers to observe and nothing to know or be known. Therefore, God can neither be nor not be, and God transcends being and thingness.

So what IS (I use 'is' because English demands it, not because it is suitable for God) God? I don't know. If I did know, then I would be God, and I most certainly am not. Baha'u'llah tells me he is unknowable, and I am content with that. God sends us his manifestations to know, and I content myself with that too.

Fadl

I totally agree with you. We should extol and worship God, because only God is worthy of worship. We should reflect on, and mention his attributes as we do in the prayers, and meditate upon them in the writiings. When we do this, and when we realize that God is actually more than these, we should feel the awe and mystery that is due God, and that will give our worship and exaltation of him the spirit of sincerity and wonder that it should. "O Lord, increase my astonishment at Thee!"

Yeshua

Hey

Let me try to explain this as easily as possible

Extolling God's act of creation, Bahá'u'lláh said:

"All-praise to the unity of God, and all-honor to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things, Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and subtle elements of His creation"


This passage affirms that it is Baha'i dogma to believe that God created reality and all things out of "nothingness".

If he created all things out of "nothingness", it means that there really was "nothing" before the creation of reality - of "things".

We cannot then conclude that God is a "thing". This is illogical. God came before THINGS and created THINGS out of NOTHING - NO-THING.

Brother Fadl has provided a most excellent illustration of this - for which I thank him

Here is what the dictionary says about the "root" meaning and "derivative" of the word "nothing" which I do not think people are aptly understanding:

nothing
noun

1. No thing; not anything.

Derivative: nothingness

The state of being nothing or of not existing

Nothing actually means "No-Thing".

For Baha'u'llah to teach that God created the world out of "Nothingness" means that God created the world out of a state of "non-existence" of "No-Thing-Ness".

If there was "No-Thing" before there were "Things" and "Non-Existence" before there was "Existence" then God cannot possibly be called "something" or "existent".

God isn't anything - Any-Thing.

Sometimes we use words without properly understanding what we are actually saying at the roots.

The human mind finds it difficult to say that God is "Nothingness" that is "No-Thing-Ness" and is at the same time concious and aware. It then follows this up with the belief that "Nothingness" leads to "atheism", the denial of God because God is not a thing and does not exist. That is because our understanding is limited by the world of "Things" and of "existence" which God created. The fact that God is a "No-Thing" does not negate the truth, the revealed reality, that God is conciously aware of Himself, of creation and of every one of us. God is pure conciousness (and again I use feeble human language because I must), pure ISNESS, pure infinte Being - so exalted that he is at once not a "Being" because he created "beings" and is before "being" and yet he is the most Infinite and Ultimate Being, since he is the Source of all reality as Eckhart says, "If I also say, God is a Being, it is not true; He is transcendent Being and superessential Nothingness".

For God to be "Nothing", that is "No-Thing" and "above existence" does not mean that he is not there, absent or not conciously aware. He IS.

God revealed to Moses the Divine Name, "I AM WHO AM". He IS.

But he is not any-Thing. He is No-Thing. And ironically we must use "Things" - vain words and concepts - to even explain this.