Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

How the heck would I know what a god would or wouldn't do

How indeed. It is nice to see that you are logical.

 

[Trailblazer]

And that is why critical thinkers are not convinced.

No critical thinker would expect God to communicate directly to everyone in the world, only a small child would expect that. Any critical thinker would think it through and realize how it would be impossible to convey everything that God conveys to Messengers to all of the 7.8 billion people in the world. Even if God could convey all of that, very few humans could ever understand it, let alone do anything with it.

So what is God supposed to do, whisper in everyone's ear and say "Hi I am God and I exist." What would that accomplish? NOTHING.

And if God whispered in your ear and claimed to be God, how would you know it was really God, and not just an auditory hallucination or an alien from another planet?

Clearly, atheists who believe that God should communicate directly to everyone have not thought it through. Like a small child all they can think of is that they want what they want. None of this is based upon reason, it is all based upon emotion.

 

[Trailblazer]

These seem like silly questions to ask an atheist.

To me, this is like asking, "If aliens existed, what language would they speak?"

Why make an assumption that aliens speak, let alone have mouths, if one has never experienced an alien?

They are silly, but I would never have even thought to ask them if I did not have an atheist on another forum insisting that IF God existed, God would communicate directly to everyone and/or prove that He exists to everyone.

And since we do not observe either one of these occurring he things that means that God dos not exist. Nothing could be more illogical. It is as much as saying that if God does not DO what I expect Him to do God does not exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

So who you refer to God not communicating to humans you admit it's because it doesn't exist?

No, that is not the reason. the reason is because God does not choose to communicate to humans.
God only chooses to communicate to Messengers who are another order of creation, both divine and human.
According to my beliefs.

 

[ppp]

God did come on down here when He manifested Himself in the Messengers and they all did plenty of things. Jesus was one such Messenger but what applies to Him applies to all the Messengers, who were Manifestations of God.

I think he meant, what is CHILDISH about expecting God to do something both practical and useful? The very most that any alleged messenger has ever done is to foment more divisiveness and seed more chaos.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would any rational person decide a God exists when there is no evidence to base a judgment on?

They wouldn't. A rational person would look at the evidence that God provides.

But atheists aren't gambling on the idea that there's an afterlife. It's a religious thing so not relevant.

Atheists are gambling because they do not know there is no afterlife.

 

[Sheldon]

do you also accept that in the realms of possibility, there may exist certain properties of the universe of a nature suggested in religious teachings of which you are not yet aware of,

If we are not aware of something how can you assert it is possible?

 

[Trailblazer]

I think he meant, what is CHILDISH about expecting God to do something both practical and useful? The very most that any alleged messenger has ever done is to foment more divisiveness and seed more chaos.

That is absolutely false. The Messengers did not foment divisiveness or seed chaos.
Humans did those things.

 

[Sheldon]

They wouldn't. A rational person would look at the evidence that God provides.

Do you still not see the irony of claiming to be rational, in the same post you use a No True Scotsman fallacy, to infer anyone who doesn't share your belief that there is evidence for a dety is irrational?

 

[ppp]

That is absolutely false. The Messengers did not foment divisiveness or seed chaos.
Humans did those things.

You are just plain wrong. The culpability of humans for their actions does not absolve the so-called messenger of culpability from her own actions.

 

[Sheldon]

They are silly, but I would never have even thought to ask them if I did not have an atheist on another forum insisting that IF God existed, God would communicate directly to everyone and/or prove that He exists to everyone.

And since we do not observe either one of these occurring he things that means that God dos not exist. Nothing could be more illogical. It is as much as saying that if God does not DO what I expect Him to do God does not exist.

I think what that poster meant to infer was based on core claims for certain religions. Namely that if an omniscient and omnipotent and omni-benevolent deity exists, then it is irrational to imagine that deity would not make every effort to communicate with every human in an unequivocal way, if the consequence were an eternity of torture for those consequently disbelieved the claims of various adherents of different religions.

That is in fact a perfectly reasonable inference. It occurred to Epicurus centuries before Jesus is purported to have said a single word.

 

[Trailblazer]

Still waiting.

And I am afraid you will be waiting a long time, because God does not provide that kind of evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If we are not aware of something how can you assert it is possible?

Hmmm, because unless you are already omniscient, then there are many things you are presently unaware of, it is just a matter of time before you become aware of some or other of them.

 

[ppp]

Hmmm, because unless you are already omniscient, then there are many things you are presently unaware of, it is just a matter of time before you become aware of some or other of them.

That's not what he asked. He asked if you don't have an awareness of something then how can you assert that it exists? Any given something does not necessarily exist, right?

 

[Sheldon]

If we are not aware of something how can you assert it is possible?

Hmmm, because unless you are already omniscient, then there are many things you are presently unaware of, it is just a matter of time before you become aware of some or other of them.

What? My question was how can you assert something is possible if you are unaware of it? If you have no knowledge of a situation or fact, how can you say (as you did) it is possible? You seem to be answering a different question.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you still not see the irony of claiming to be rational, in the same post you use a No True Scotsman fallacy, to infer anyone who doesn't share your belief that there is evidence for a dety is irrational?

That is a straw-man. I do not expect anyone to share my belief and I did not call anyone irrational.
I said "A rational person would look at the evidence that God provides."
It is all up to you to decide if God has provided any evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are just plain wrong. The culpability of humans for their actions does not absolve the so-called messenger of culpability from her own actions.

What actions is the Messenger culpable of?

 

[Sheldon]

That's not what he asked. He asked if you don't have an awareness of something then how can you assert that it exists? Any given something does not necessarily exist, right?

Exactly, if we are unaware of something (as he stated), then how can we know it is possible, again as he claimed.

 

[ppp]

What actions is the Messenger culpable of?

I think he meant, what is CHILDISH about expecting God to do something both practical and useful? The very most that any alleged messenger has ever done is to foment more divisiveness and seed more chaos.

This is not absolving the followers of their responsibility.

 

[Sheldon]

Do you still not see the irony of claiming to be rational, in the same post you use a No True Scotsman fallacy, to infer anyone who doesn't share your belief that there is evidence for a dety is irrational?

That is a straw-man. I do not expect anyone to share my belief

Wow, you have actually replied to my post pointing to your straw man, with another straw man? I never asserted that you expected anything. You do know what an inference is right?

and I did not call anyone irrational.

I said "A rational person would look at the evidence that God provides."

So an atheist who does not see any evidence, would by inference be what? Come on you can surely join the dots here without me spoon feeding you this once? Your assertion implies those who don't see any evidence for a deity are irrational, that may not be what you intended to say, but it absolutely is what that claim says, and it is absolutely a straw man fallacy. The sub group is those who don't see any evidence and therefor demonstrably cannot "look at it" and are thus by inference irrational.

It is all up to you to decide if God has provided any evidence.

Yes of course it is, but you claimed that a rational person would look at the evidence, I see no evidence for any deity, thus I cannot look at it, so your assertion implies.....come on you can do this surely...