Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

Thus the answer to your question, "Books are where we get information. How else could we ever know if there is a deity?" is from the deity itself, as I said.

You can't get anything from the deity unless the deity chooses to give it to you.
Good luck with that.

 

[We Never Know]

I don't expend much energy at all, and it would be asinine indeed to argue against something I believed was true.

Just as its asinine to argue about something that isn't known.

I don't participate in try to demean or argue with people that have a belief in a diety.
Its their belief in which I don't share/have that belief and if it isn't affecting me I see no point in bothering with it.

Thats works both ways. People with a belief in a diety shouldn't demean or push their belief upon others either.

But thats me.

 

[PureX]

Just as its asinine to argue about something that isn't known.

I don't participate in try to demean or argue with people that have a belief in a diety.
Its their belief in which I don't share/have that belief and if it isn't affecting me I see no point in bothering with it.

Thats works both ways. People with a belief in a diety shouldn't demean or push their belief upon others either.

But that's me.

I think in 'real life' that's mostly how it is. This site is different, of course. Here we are tacitly invited to promote our 'beliefs' and debate them with others. Which I think tends to cause us (me) to look at why people want to do that. Why they want to promote their beliefs and debate them with others. And that, I think, can sometimes open up a can of worms that has a distinctly bad smell to it. But that's humanity ... "for we are wonderfully and frightfully made".

 

[Trailblazer]

They aren't your definitions, you're just echoing what you're been told. You really need your own definitions, certainly ones you understand, since you need to take the next step of explaining exactly how the things you describe can be "beyond" science and logic.

I already explained that.

When I said that the Essence of God is beyond logic I meant that it is not subject to the rules of logic and it is not based upon facts, because it cannot ever be known.

When I said that God and the soul and the spiritual world (afterlife) are not within the scope of science that is because they are not part of the physical and natural world which can be studied through observation and experiment.

Yes, so you keep repeating, but you've still not made any attempt to explain how and why they are and how you could possibly know this.

I know you do not find it acceptable but I know it from scripture that the Essence of God is unknowable, a complete mystery, and it makes sense to me that what cannot be known is not subject to logical analysis, which is what I mean when I say ‘subject to logic.’

Scripture is the only way to know anything about God. Where do you think you got the idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient? That originated in the Bible, you did not come up with it all by yourself.

Again, your faith isn't relevant here. If you simply want to state what you believe that is fine, but if you want to assert that there is anything to support that belief, simply quoting scripture as if it is definitive truth won't cut it.

I was referring to the attributes of God, and as I said above, I believe that scripture is the only way to know anything about God.

Can you please stop repeating this canard since it isn't what I'm saying. Gods omniscience would mean he knows what we will choose, his omnipotence is why he is also responsible for those consequences.

God’s omniscience mean God knows what we will choose, but why is his omnipotence is responsible for those consequences? You are the one making the claim so you need to back it up with an explanation.

If what God knows is not what causes us to do anything how can God be responsible for the consequences of our actions?

God causes everything with the full knowledge of what the consequences will be of those creations (which would include humans and everything we all go on to do).

Do you have any way to back that assertion that God causes everything with the full knowledge of what the consequences will be?

No. I was breaking my logic in to separate points, one leading on to the other.

1) If anything can exist with omniscience, everything must be predetermined. That is a general point regardless of the existence of any specific God.

That sounds like an assertion. Please explain why that would be the case.

2) If a specific creator God exists as both omniscient and omnipotent, everything must be predetermined and that God must be responsible for everything.

That sounds like an assertion. Please explain why that would be the case.

I disagree with both those assertions. I believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient but there is no reason to think that would mean that everything is predetermined or that God is responsible for everything. If God is omnipotent only what God predetermined will be predetermined. Everything else is subject to change. Moreover, God is only responsible for what we do not choose freely. God cannot be held responsible for the moral choices humans make. Did you ever see God go on trial for a crime?

Unless it is something you want to believe, in which case it is declare to be "beyond science".

It is not about what I want. If it is beyond science, it is beyond science.

Then I can't understand why you would worship a God who does bad things that he doesn't need to. Believing it exists would be one thing but following the religion based upon that feels flawed.

Does bad things? I am not a child.

God does not need to do anything since an omnipotent/omniscient God has no needs. Whatever God does is for the good of humans since God needs nothing for Himself. I realize that God knows more than I do regarding what is best for humans since God is omniscient.

Yet again, not necessarily by humans. Science does not require humans, it just requires someone or something capable of observation and thought.

I guess you don't think that science has any limitations. Please let me know when science has been able to observe God.

 

[samtonga43]

How we interpret the evidence is subjective but the evidence is objective evidence, by definition.The following evidence (1-4) is objective evidence according to the definition because it can be examined and evaluated:
1. The character of Baha'u'llah
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah

1. The character of Baha'u'llah
MrB had a character; this is objective evidence and this is all that can be said.
Everything else is subject to interpretation.
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
MrB had a life; this is objective evidence and this is all that can be said.
Everything else is subject to interpretation.
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
MrB had a mission; this is objective evidence and this is all that can be said.
Everything else is subject to interpretation.
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah
MrB. Wrote some stuff; this is objective evidence and this is all that can be said.
Everything else is subject to interpretation.

 

[samtonga43]

Subjective: “This carpet is my favourite shade of blue.”
Objective: “This carpet is blue.”

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Thus the answer to your question, "Books are where we get information. How else could we ever know if there is a deity?" is from the deity itself, as I said.

You can't get anything from the deity unless the deity chooses to give it to you.
Good luck with that.

That is irrelevant as I made no such claim, you asked where other than a book we could get knowledge of a deity's existence and obviously the answer is from the deity. You now appear to be moving the goalposts.

 

[Trailblazer]

you asked where other than a book we could get knowledge of a deity's existence and obviously the answer is from the deity.

The answer is not "from the deity" unless the deity chooses to give you the information.
We can't get knowledge from a deity unless a deity give it to us. Logic 101.

 

[HonestJoe]

I already explained that.

You're still just making declarations, you've not explained or demonstrated how these things could be beyond logic or science.

It'd be like me being stopped by the police for speeding and simply stating that the law doesn't apply to me. I think the officer would expect a little more than me simply declaring it to be true.

I know you do not find it acceptable but I know it from scripture that the Essence of God is unknowable

I've highlighted the obvious logical contradiction in that statement. Yet again, you don't know, you just believe, which in the context of this thread, is irrelevant.

Scripture is the only way to know anything about God. Where do you think you got the idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient? That originated in the Bible, you did not come up with it all by yourself.

Neither, the concept of omnipotent and omniscient deities comes before and beyond the Bible. It's just part of the common definition of monotheistic deities, as reflected in several religions and beliefs.

Yet again though, you're the one defining your God, not me. If you're not referring to an omnipotent and omniscient god, you just need to say so and we can discuss that God. If you are referring to an omnipotent and omniscient god, it doesn't really matter where you're getting that belief from.

God’s omniscience mean God knows what we will choose, but why is his omnipotence is responsible for those consequences? You are the one making the claim so you need to back it up with an explanation.

We're talking about a God who created everything with full understanding of all of the consequences of his creations. How could he not be responsible for those consequences?

Do you have any way to back that assertion that God causes everything with the full knowledge of what the consequences will be?

An omnipotent creator god causes everything by definition and an omniscient god has full knowledge of everything (including those consequences) by definition.

That sounds like an assertion. Please explain why that would be the case.

I'm not sure I can explain it any clearer but there will be other source which can explain the concept in detail much better than I can; Argument from free will - Wikipedia

Does bad things? I am not a child.

Hey! You brought up the concept of God doing good and bad. Don't pretend I'm doing anything wrong when I respond to it! So, does God do objectively bad things (as I clearly agreed with previously) or is everything God do ultimately for the good of humans (regardless of how horrific it may appear to us in the moment)?

I guess you don't think that science has any limitations. Please let me know when science has been able to observe God.

There is no limit to science as a concept in the same way there is no limit to "length" or "age". There are loads of existent things that have never been measured (at least, not by humans) and a literally infinite number of non-existent things which obviously haven't been measured either. We have no way of knowing which of those two categories your God sits it.

 

[Sheldon]

The answer is not "from the deity" unless the deity chooses to give you the information.
We can't get knowledge from a deity unless a deity give it to us. Logic 101.

You asked, and I answered, I see relevance to post ad hoc rationalisations sorry. Except the unevidenced assumptions you are making have nothing to do with logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except the unevidenced assumptions you are making have nothing to do with logic.

Your unevidenced assumptions about how we could get knowledge from God have nothing to do with logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Policy
Thanks for alerting me to my typos. I am the queen of typos.
It was supposed to read:
Your unevidenced assumptions about how we could get knowledge from God have nothing to do with logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're still just making declarations, you've not explained or demonstrated how these things could be beyond logic or science.

It'd be like me being stopped by the police for speeding and simply stating that the law doesn't apply to me. I think the officer would expect a little more than me simply declaring it to be true.

I explained it to the best of my ability. If you think they are not beyond science and logic please explain why you think they are not beyond science and logic, as you define science and logic.

Trailblazer said: I know you do not find it acceptable but I know it from scripture that the Essence of God is unknowable.

I've highlighted the obvious logical contradiction in that statement. Yet again, you don't know, you just believe, which in the context of this thread, is irrelevant.

There is no contradiction at all. I know the only way I can know anything about God (from scriptures) that the Essence of God is unknowable. You can say I cannot know, I only believe, since there is no verifiable evidence (proof) for what I believe is true.

Why is what I believe irrelevant in the context of this thread? Everything about God has to be believed, it cannot be known, so that makes any discussion about God impossible, if your requirement is that it must be known. That means you cannot talk about a God that is omnipotent or omniscient either, because you cannot know that about God.

Neither, the concept of omnipotent and omniscient deities comes before and beyond the Bible. It's just part of the common definition of monotheistic deities, as reflected in several religions and beliefs.

Yet again though, you're the one defining your God, not me. If you're not referring to an omnipotent and omniscient god, you just need to say so and we can discuss that God. If you are referring to an omnipotent and omniscient god, it doesn't really matter where you're getting that belief from.

Yes, that is what I am referring to, an omnipotent and omniscient God.

We're talking about a God who created everything with full understanding of all of the consequences of his creations. How could he not be responsible for those consequences?

The question is, why would God be responsible for all of the consequences just because God knows what those consequences will be? How does knowledge of everything make God responsible for everything? The mathematician knows by astronomical calculations that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Does that knowledge make the mathematician responsible for the eclipse occurring?

Unless God is determining what humans will do, I cannot understand how God would be responsible for what humans do.

An omnipotent creator god causes everything by definition and an omniscient god has full knowledge of everything (including those consequences) by definition.

An omniscient God has full knowledge of everything (including those consequences) but an omnipotent creator God does not cause everything.

An omnipotent God has all power to do anything, but an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, not everything He can do. Who has the power to make an omnipotent God do what He does not choose to do? Nobody. That is why the omnipotent God can do whatever He pleases and does nothing else.

God chose to give humans free will because God does not want to control what humans do. God is not responsible for the free will choices we make because we have free will to choose. God is however responsible for everything that is not within our control, that which is predestined, our fate. So, if a rapist rapes someone they are not responsible for what happened to them since they did not cause the rape to take place, that was their fate, but the rapist is responsible since he caused the rape by a free will choice that he made.

1) If anything can exist with omniscience, everything must be predetermined. That is a general point regardless of the existence of any specific God.

I'm not sure I can explain it any clearer but there will be other source which can explain the concept in detail much better than I can; Argument from free will - Wikipedia

Let’s look at a little piece of this:

Moses Maimonides formulated an argument regarding a person's free will, in traditional terms of good and evil actions, as follows:

… "Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that the man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand how he would act, otherwise, God's knowledge would be imperfect.…"[3]

This is an invalid argument. The man does not act good because God knows he will act good, the man acts good because the man chooses to act good. God is omniscient do God knows that the man will act good but God does not cause the man to act good.

Hey! You brought up the concept of God doing good and bad. Don't pretend I'm doing anything wrong when I respond to it! So, does God do objectively bad things (as I clearly agreed with previously) or is everything God do ultimately for the good of humans (regardless of how horrific it may appear to us in the moment)?

Do you mean does God do things that most people consider bad, like rape and murder? I do not believe that God actually does anything except rule and maintain the universe and send Messengers every 500-1000 years or so.

God wills things to happen and those are the things that are preordained/predestined to occur, and I believe that is ultimately for the good of humans regardless of how horrific it may appear to us in the moment. Once we start judging what is God’s will for us, as if we could ever know more about what is best for us than God would know, we are being illogical. Part of being a believer, probably the most difficult part, is accepting God’s will, both the good and the bad things that happen to us.

There is no limit to science as a concept in the same way there is no limit to "length" or "age". There are loads of existent things that have never been measured (at least, not by humans) and a literally infinite number of non-existent things which obviously haven't been measured either. We have no way of knowing which of those two categories your God sits it.

Fair enough, we have no way of knowing which of those two categories God sits in if you are looking at it from a non-scriptural, purely logical perspective. But from a scriptural perspective we can never discover, observe or measure God.

 

[ppp]

I explained it to the best of my ability. If you think they are not beyond science and logic please explain why you think they are not beyond science and logic, as you define science and logic.

You have already acknowledged that nothing is beyond logic, @Trailblazer. In a previous discussion. Are you back tracking on your previous statement?

 

[Trailblazer]

You have already acknowledged that nothing is beyond logic, @Trailblazer. In a previous discussion. Are you back tracking on your previous statement?

Show me where I ever acknowledged that. You might have thought I did but that does not mean I did.

 

[Sheldon]

You have already acknowledged that nothing is beyond logic, @Trailblazer. In a previous discussion. Are you back tracking on your previous statement?

That's not what's truly ironic here though. The only thing beyond logic, is irrationality - by definition.

If a deity, or the belief in it, or any claims made about it are "beyond logic", then by definition they are irrational. The claim was, and is beyond irony...

 

[ppp]

Show me where I ever acknowledged that. You might have thought I did but that does not mean I did.

[snort] like the search mechanisms on this site are even vaguely useful.

 

[ppp]

That's not what's truly ironic here though. The only thing beyond logic, is irrationality - by definition.

If a deity, or the belief in it, or any claims made about it are "beyond logic", then by definition they are irrational. The claim was, and is beyond irony...

The Dunning–Kruger effect strikes again. What can you do?

 

[ppp]

Show me where I ever acknowledged that. You might have thought I did but that does not mean I did.

Link

 

[Trailblazer]

View attachment 61198
Link

Policy said: You have already acknowledged that nothing is beyond logic, @Trailblazer. In a previous discussion. Are you back tracking on your previous statement?

Trailblazer said: Show me where I ever acknowledged that. You might have thought I did but that does not mean I did.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Policy said: Do you accept that there is something real that:

• is not what it is?
• is what it is not?
• both is and is not simultaneously and in the same way?

Trailblazer said: No.

Policy said: Then you don't accept that there are things outside the scope of logic.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I never acknowledged that nothing is beyond logic. I just said "no."
You are the one who said I don't accept that there are things outside the scope of logic.
What you said above in red does not mean that there is nothing that is outside the scope of logic.