Are you closed minded?

[loverofhumanity]

I find your "messenger" to be... less than convincing. In fact? The very existence of self-aggrandizing people such as your "profit" to be high quality proof that gods cannot possibly exist.

What sort of god would stoop so low, as to send someone who is so... unbelievable?

What sort of god even needs to use an intermediary, anyway? That smacks of either laziness, or incompetence or?

Worse-- it plays Special Favorites. Playing Special Favorites is UnJust.

That's not good-- especially if you are wanting to take the moral high ground.

That’s fine Bob. But do you know anything about Baha’u’llah or is it just that you condemn all Messengers? I mean most people condemn Prophets having never read or known anything about them. Which is called prejudice not an opinion from an informed decision.

So are you just prejudiced or do you really know what you’re talking about?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That’s fine Bob. But do you know anything about Baha’u’llah or is it just that you condemn all Messengers? I mean most people condemn Prophets having never read or known anything about them. Which is called prejudice not an opinion from an informed decision.

I reject the very idea that a Caring God would stoop so low, as to use a spokes-person.

That elevates the spokes-person into Special Favored Status.

It also dilutes the message. No message if coming through a 3rd party, can be as accurate as a direct message.

Finally? Your messenger was 100% self-promoting-- utterly and completely without any actual God Support. Not dissimilar to people selling snake oil. Or door to door encyclopedia salesman.

As for a god? I would expect nothing less than Giant Sky Letters or something equally fantastic.

A god would know-- a real god, that is. Your god? Seems to lack competence, empathy, and most importantly? Ability.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I reject the very idea that a Caring God would stoop so low, as to use a spokes-person.

That elevates the spokes-person into Special Favored Status.

It also dilutes the message. No message if coming through a 3rd party, can be as accurate as a direct message.

Finally? Your messenger was 100% self-promoting-- utterly and completely without any actual God Support. Not dissimilar to people selling snake oil. Or door to door encyclopedia salesman.

As for a god? I would expect nothing less than Giant Sky Letters or something equally fantastic.

A god would know-- a real god, that is. Your god? Seems to lack competence, empathy, and most importantly? Ability.

What do you actually know about Baha’u’llah?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What do you actually know about Baha’u’llah?

I know more than enough: If he were a Real Messenger From God™

He would be known the world over-- who can go against someone who is backed by a Real God™?

The fact that this person is so very obscure, is telling. Not in a good way...

 

[loverofhumanity]

I know more than enough: If he were a Real Messenger From God™

He would be known the world over-- who can go against someone who is backed by a Real God™?

The fact that this person is so very obscure, is telling. Not in a good way...

Bob. All the Prophets of God were at one time obscure. Jesus only had 12 followers in the beginning but look now. . It took time. At that time people said the same thing you’re saying now and they were wrong weren’t they?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I know more than enough: If he were a Real Messenger From God™

He would be known the world over-- who can go against someone who is backed by a Real God™?

The fact that this person is so very obscure, is telling. Not in a good way...

Bob, if you know more than enough then share your knowledge of the Quran or the Bible or Bhagavad-Gita or Book of Certitude with us.

Or are you just bluffing and all you have in your hand are a pair of 2’s? I have a Royal Flush so you don’t want to mess with me. Lol

 

[Shantanu]

I propose that people who are absolutely certain about a topic, especially one as controversial as this, are closed minded.

If I was not closed minded the day before yesterday I am closed minded now: God exists but not in the manner in which Religions perceive.

 

[syo]

before humans knew how the sun warms the earth unevenly

Who created the sun?

 

[Polymath257]

Either one would do, you would be God.

OK, but what does that *mean* in terms of alreasy existing abilities?

Also, if you think about it, speaking stuff into existence or using technology to put your ideas into action, either one would be made out of the substance of you. If you make technology, it would be made out of you. If you speak stuff into existence, it be spoken out of you. Either way, the "stuff" would be made out of and from you.

So, panentheism, huh? Sorry, I don't follow your conclusion that it would be all 'out of me'. The process and details are important here.

Im not sure in your case, youd have to tell me. My gauss though would be to have fun, to express yourself, to pour yourself out in love, ect. To be an artist.

Nope. No interest in that. I've never been inclined to that type of art. Even as a kid I hated art class: except for the historical part and seeing what others have done. I've never had a drive to produce art.

So, to have fun? After you saw the different results, what would you do with them?

Compare and contrast. Try to figure out what ranges of parameters give effects I found interesting. See what I could learn from the situation.

Yes, it would. Which means a multiverse dont disprove God.

Nobody has claimed such as far as I know. But it also doesn't prove the existence of a deity.

 

[Polymath257]

I think that everybody cares about God, because on a subconscious level, we all know God exists... and that is why I cannot get away from that Fella... He has infiltrated my mind!

I disagree. I only think about God because people around me do and like to bring up the subject.

 

[Jollybear]

Yet... if your god was really good? And even one millionth as powerful as you claim? It would do whatever needed, to be convincing to people such as I. It would know what to do, and it would definitely not send such as you to represent it's interests.

How do you know this God would not send anyone to represent his interests? Thats an assumption. The fact is, that OPTION to send a representative is available to this God. How do you know he would not choose it?

Because you, and people like you, are excellent reasons not to believe in god.

Im confused. What is it about me that makes it an excellent reason to not believe in God?

All this time i thought i was an excellent reason to believe in God.

But you won't even consider what I just said, because you are so sure you're doing the right thing... in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Evidence to the contrary? No, the evidence is in favor of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I disagree. I only think about God because people around me do and like to bring up the subject.

I said "I think" which means I might be wrong.
But just because you are not "thinking" about God on a conscious level does not mean God is not in your mind.

 

[Polymath257]

I said "I think" which means I might be wrong.
But just because you are not "thinking" about God on a conscious level does not mean God is not in your mind.

Well, by pushing it to the unconscious mind, it isn't something I tend to worry about.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I find your "messenger" to be... less than convincing. In fact? The very existence of self-aggrandizing people such as your "profit" to be high quality proof that gods cannot possibly exist.

What sort of god would stoop so low, as to send someone who is so... unbelievable?

What sort of god even needs to use an intermediary, anyway? That smacks of either laziness, or incompetence or?

Worse-- it plays Special Favorites. Playing Special Favorites is UnJust.

That's not good-- especially if you are wanting to take the moral high ground.

God necessarily MUST use an intermediary. Or take the form of a human. Same difference.

Why, you ask? Well let's have a psychology lesson. What happens when the average person (Moses was a bit odd) sees a burning bush. That's right, he doesn't talk to it. And if it ever talks to him, he believes himself crazy and/or runs away. Now is it any different if it is a dog or cat talking, an angel (still an intermediary but a decidedly not human one), or a giant glowing Triforce? No, regardless of the form, it takes time that God doesn't have to talk to ppl.

So it isn't laziness or lack of power. It's that we as a species tend to be scared of the supernatural. So much so that "don't be afraid" in some form is always said in the Bible when one has an encounter.

As to choosing a person, this is how relationships are built, one on one. If the auditorium approach worked, alot more messages would be given by huge crowds. And intermediary typically has to convince followers personally. If you don't believe me, walk into Times Square on a busy day, and scream "The world will end in 9 days." At worst, you'll be arrested for public disturbance, at best those nine days will pass without anyone heeding your warning. God has to come to us indirectly through humans, and has to talk to us one on one.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Ungrounded assumptions from an egocentric perspective for the reasons other people believe what they do to justify your belief.

You haven't denied it though.

I don't need other ppl to justify my belief.

But it seems like an awful lot of atheists who logically should believe "if there is no god, I don't have to care about religion" don't . All the ones I ever see in this forum (which would again logically be the only ones I'd encounter, since real atheists would ignore this forum entirely) are those with the approach, "God isn't real and you are wrong" or "God doesn't exist and I hate him."

This isn't atheism. In order to be hostile to religion, you would have to presuppose that it's a threat to you. Why is something not real a threat to you?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Bob. All the Prophets of God were at one time obscure. Jesus only had 12 followers in the beginning but look now. . It took time. At that time people said the same thing you’re saying now and they were wrong weren’t they?

Yes. Moreover? Jesus never actually existed as a mere human (or at all, really).

But that simply drives my point home even harder: A Real God would never need such as these, to disseminate God's Message(s).

My standard for Gods is very high; I expect-- as a bare minimum-- superior Responsible Behavior.

So far? None of the gods described by men, have managed to live up to even modest standards.

And make no mistake: All Gods are Described By Men.

Which brings up the Main Point: Real Gods would never need Men to be their advocates.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Bob, if you know more than enough then share your knowledge of the Quran or the Bible or Bhagavad-Gita or Book of Certitude with us.

Or are you just bluffing and all you have in your hand are a pair of 2’s? I have a Royal Flush so you don’t want to mess with me. Lol

All I need to know is THIS: A Real, Existing God? Would never need to stoop to such Parlor Tricks as these immoral books you listed.

Books entirely written by.... men. Why would the Ultimate Creator need to use such obviously fabricated parlor tricks?

Laziness? Incompetence? Ignorance?

... or simply is it that these "gods" are suffering from an extreme case of not-being-real?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How do you know this God would not send anyone to represent his interests? Thats an assumption. The fact is, that OPTION to send a representative is available to this God. How do you know he would not choose it?.

Because the Message Must Be Divine-- else why bother?

Since all humans are very fallible and subject to mistakes? Especially anyone with such obvious ego issues as all--repeat--all self-professed Speakers For God!

A bare minimum of responsibility would be direct communication -- no middlemen.

Would you trust a toddler to teach moral lessons to the class?

Im confused. What is it about me that makes it an excellent reason to not believe in God?.

The fact that this confuses you? Ought to be your first clue.... ironically, it is not.

All this time i thought i was an excellent reason to believe in God.
.

Clue #2.

Evidence to the contrary? No, the evidence is in favor of God.

Clue #3.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God necessarily MUST use an intermediary. Or take the form of a human. Same difference..

Why? Is this god so incompetent? Lazy? Stupid? A low-grade moron?

Because that is the only reason to be so irresponsible.

Why, you ask? Well let's have a psychology lesson. What happens when the average person (Moses was a bit odd) sees a burning bush. That's right, he doesn't talk to it. And if it ever talks to him, he believes himself crazy and/or runs away. Now is it any different if it is a dog or cat talking, an angel (still an intermediary but a decidedly not human one), or a giant glowing Triforce? No, regardless of the form, it takes time that God doesn't have to talk to ppl..

So Moses was an idiot? Sure! That makes sense.

So it isn't laziness or lack of power. It's that we as a species tend to be scared of the supernatural. So much so that "don't be afraid" in some form is always said in the Bible when one has an encounter..

LMAO! So god is too INCOMPETENT TO NOT FRIGHTEN THE STUPIDS?

LMAO! Oh, my, that's funny! Thanks for the laugh.

A COMPETENT god would know EXACTLY HOW to not scare everyone-- but still prove it is god, and get the message(s) across.

Your god is kinda stupid.

As to choosing a person, this is how relationships are built, one on one. If the auditorium approach worked, alot more messages would be given by huge crowds. And intermediary typically has to convince followers personally. If you don't believe me, walk into Times Square on a busy day, and scream "The world will end in 9 days." At worst, you'll be arrested for public disturbance, at best those nine days will pass without anyone heeding your warning. God has to come to us indirectly through humans, and has to talk to us one on one.

LMAO!


You just contradicted yourself: "God has to come to us indirectly through humans, and has to talk to us one on one."

THESE TWO ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Who created the sun?

How stars are formed