Atheists: If God existed would God……

[ppp]

That's a weird answer. How would 'what we are talking about' manifest in reality?

Well, if the book is about the nature of granite then I would go study granite. If the subject was about deductive reasoning then I would test out the 256 forms and determine whether or not the list is exhaustive and accurately characterized.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have no reason to believe that that is A WAY to know anything about God and Jesus, let alone the ONLY WAY.

Maybe the Bible is not A WAY, but what other way would there be to know about Jesus?

No, the Bible is not the ONLY WAY to know anything about God or Jesus. The Qur'an and the Writings of Baha'u'llah are also a way, and a better way, since they are more authentic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, if the book is about the nature of granite then I would go study granite.

and if the book is about the nature of God where would you go to study the nature of God?
You atheists are so much fun.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Those are just subjective unevidenced assertions, you just asserted unequivocally that your deity is in no way demonstrable,

Those were subjective evidenced beliefs

Which you asserted in your post.

The Essence of the deity is in no way demonstrable, but the attributes of the deity are seen in the Messengers of the deity, who are Manifestations of the deity.

Two more unevidenced claims, and not what you claimed originally. Here:

Trailblazer said: ↑
Nothing that is outside the natural physical material universe is demonstrable.

Sheldon said: ↑
That wasn't your claim though, so again how can you both claim to believe things about those concepts are true, and at the same time claim they are a mystery?

Simple. We can know from scriptures that they exist but that they are a mystery.

Moving the goal posts again, you claimed to know things about that deity, and claimed it was a mystery, those claims are mutually exclusive.

The nature of God and the nature of the soul and the nature of afterlife are a mystery, but we can know the attributes of God, the function of the soul and some things about the afterlife.

Nature
noun
2. The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

Attribute
noun
1. a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

Oh dear...the contradictions are simply piling up.

 

[ppp]

Maybe the Bible is not A WAY, but what other way would there be to know about Jesus?

Why do you say that like there must be a way. There may not be for a myriad of reasons, including, but not limited to there being no Jesus to get to know.

No, the Bible is not the ONLY WAY to know anything about God or Jesus. The Qur'an and the Writings of Baha'u'llah are also a way, and a better way, since they are more authentic.

I don't see any reason to believe that any of the writers of any of those texts knew what they were talking about with respect to a god; Any god. I don't see any evidence that they knew, or were capable of knowing such.

 

[Sheldon]

Everything about God, the soul, and the afterlife is not a mystery.

things like God and the soul and the afterlife, which are a mystery.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you say that like there must be a way. There may not be for a myriad of reasons, including, but not limited to there being no Jesus to get to know.

No, there is not necessarily a way to know about Jesus or God.
I said that because you said:
"I have no reason to believe that that is A WAY to know anything about God and Jesus, let alone the ONLY WAY."
So I thought that you were saying there might be another way.

I don't see any reason to believe that any of the writers of any of those texts knew what they were talking about with respect to a god; Any god. I don't see any evidence that they knew, or were capable of knowing such.

I see that they did but we all see things differently and you can only see what you see.

 

[ppp]

and if the book is about the nature of God where would you go to study the nature of God?
You atheists are so much fun.

That is my point. When the existence of a deity, demon or Minbari is undemonstrated, there is no rational justification for accepting any text asserting things about them.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is my point. When the existence of a deity, demon or Minbari is undemonstrated, there is no rational justification for accepting any text asserting things about them.

If the deity does not demonstrate itself how can it be demonstrated to exist?
The text is the evidence that was revealed by the deity to the Messenger of the deity, and it is the only evidence we have.

 

[ppp]

@Trailblazer In any case, you asked, How do you think anyone can know what the evidence is if they do not read about it? And the answer is to go look at it.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer In any case, you asked, How do you think anyone can know what the evidence is if they do not read about it? And the answer is to go look at it.

And how are you going to go look at God?

 

[ppp]

If the deity does not demonstrate itself how can it be demonstrated to exist?

How is that relevant?

 

[ppp]

And how are you going to go look at God?

Which one? It matters.

Actually, never mind. We are talking about whether or not reading a book is sufficient grounds for rationally justified existential belief. Not looking for a road map to your deity.

 

[Trailblazer]

How is that relevant?

Read it again and then think about what I meant.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually, never mind. We are talking about whether or not reading a book is sufficient grounds for rationally justified existential belief. Not looking for a road map to your deity.

Books are where we get information. How else could we ever know if there is a deity?

 

[samtonga43]

The text is the evidence that was revealed by the deity to the Messenger of the deity, and it is the only evidence we have.

But you have no objective evidence that it WAS revealed by the deity to the Messenger of the deity. You're going round in circles, chasing your tale / tail.

 

[ppp]

Read it again and then think about what I meant.

No. I am not going to play guessing games. If you want to be done with the conversation. That's fine. Not going to try and twist your arm

 

[ppp]

Books are where we get information. How else could we ever know if there is a deity?

Books are not the primary source of knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you have no objective evidence that it WAS revealed by the deity to the Messenger of the deity. You're going round in circles, chasing your tale / tail.

I never claimed that I had any objective evidence that it WAS revealed by the deity to the Messenger of the deity.
Likewise, you have no objective evidence that anything WAS revealed by the deity to Jesus.
All you have is a book called the Bible telling you what Jesus and the deity allegedly did.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. I am not going to play guessing games. If you want to be done with the conversation. That's fine. Not going to try and twist your arm

Never mind, moving along to the next post...