Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

If nobody can know what God is like, then that renders any such truth claims made by supposed follower of this supposed God suspect or even absurd.

I did not say that nobody can know 'anything' about what God is like. I said "The only characteristics and traits I know about are the ones revealed in scriptures. The only way I can ever know what that deity did, does or might do in the future is by reading the scriptures."

And there is nothing intrinsic to the concept of a remote creator that even suggests such a being ought to be worshipped, or even desires to be worshipped to begin with, let alone in the specific manner prescriped by the followers of the many Abrahamic monotheisms.

Again, the only way we could ever know that God wants to be worshiped, or how God wants to be worshiped, is by reading the scriptures.

Even the idea that such a being had a message for humanity, let alone cared for them to hear it, is already an enormous, unproven assumption on your part that you cannot support with either evidence or coherent argumentation.

It is not an assumption, it is a religious belief. As a belief, it cannot be proven, but there is evidence that backs it up and I can support with evidence and coherent argumentation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Or maybe not, since this is only your belief and you have no knowledge.

Rather, why do you believe this is true, because of the txt you quoted? Who says that is true?

I believe it is true because I believe that whatever Baha’u’llah wrote is true.

Obviously there are many people who need to be guided that never hear from a God. It must be god's fault since it is powerful enough to make itself heard, yes? You offer no quote to explain who God "bestows his gifts" or doesn't. Obviously there are many humans not getting any gift, and the result is a lot of carnage.

This has nothing to do with power. Just because God is all-powerful that doesn’t mean that God is obligated to hop to and do everything that humans expect Him to do. Moreover, I am not God’s manager so I don’t know why He chooses to guide some people and not others; unless it is written in scriptures I cannot know why.

From my perspective God can never be ‘at fault’ since God can never make any mistakes since God is infallible, and that means that even if I do not like something I try to accept it as God’s will, knowing that God knows more than I do about what is best for me.

Then why bother believing in a God, or worshipping, or being religious? You keep adjusting your God to fit the arguments and questions. As you admit, you are not operating with a knowledge of God, so why act as if you are?

I am not adjusting anything, I am just responding to posts with what I believe. Even though I sometimes question if God is all-loving and wonder why God allows so much suffering, that does not mean I can just stop believing that God exists. Whether God exists or not is not contingent upon His characteristics or whether I like them.

Now you're saying God DID create the world and nature. Make up your mind.

I believe that God is responsible for everything in existence, but all living things evolved over time.

Well since your version of God doesn't care, then it doesn't care what happens to us. Maybe the messengers are just God messing with us, since God doesn't care about us.

Either you're confused, or your god is confused and you have excellent clarity about how confused God is.

I never said that God does not care about us, I only ever said that apparently God does not care if people suffer. Those are two different statements.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe it is true because I believe that whatever Baha’u’llah wrote is true.

Says it all right there, doesn't it? You believe because you believe -- not because you've got any reason to believe.

 

[CG Didymus]

The old "You are not trying hard enough", or "You haven't got enough faith" argument.

I'm sorry, but I'm very happy, I don't need guidance from an imaginary being.- I can manage on my own.

Funny how "God" guides people to Jesus... or to Muhammad... or to Baha'u'llah. They all probably can feel God's guidance, especially through the sacred writings of each religion. But some of them, or all of them, are being misguided and are hearing things.

 

[Trailblazer]

Christianity is dying but may be around for sometime yet. I don't think Baha'i will get to the lofty heights of Christianity or even Islam. But may merge with other religions, perhaps a modified Christianity or Buddhism. Loose its identity but become a part of a new religious movement.

It does not look that way now but I believe that the Baha'i Faith will exceed the lofty heights of Christianity and Islam in the future, because everyone in the world will recognize Baha'u'llah.

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248

How large do you think Christianity was in the first centuries?

“Most scholars of Christian origins tend to exaggerate the size and importance of the early Christian church. This is understandable in the light of the discipline’s intense concentration on the New Testament texts. By confining ourselves in particular to the letters of Paul, the Gospels and Acts, it is all too easy to create a limited and false impression of the ancient world and the place of the Christians within it. Yet the reality is that for all of the first century the Christians were a tiny and insignificant socio-religious movement within the Graeco-Roman world (Hopkins 1998:195-196). Christianity did of course grow considerably in later centuries and it eventually became the religion of the Roman empire, but we should take care not to retroject its later size and importance into the initial decades of its existence.

Just how small was the Christian movement in the first century is clear from the calculations of the sociologist R Stark (1996:5-7; so too Hopkins 1998:192-193).Stark begins his analysis with a rough estimation of six million Christians in the Roman Empire (or about ten percent of the total population) at the start of the fourth century... There were 1,000 Christians in the year 40, 1,400 Christians in 50, 1,960 Christians in 60, 2,744 Christians in 70, 3,842 Christians in 80, 5,378 Christians in 90 and 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.

These figures are very suggestive, and reinforce the point that in its initial decades the Christian movement represented a tiny fraction of the ancient world.”

How many Jews became Christians in the first century?

 

[Trailblazer]

The same way you know that there is one true God - reading stories and believing in them. Who is to say that those gods are any less real than your creator god? They all come from sacred texts, sacred places, sacred stories, communities of the faithful and regimes of the powerful - in this, I can see little difference between them and the creator gods of Zarathushtra or Moses, Mani or the Evangelists, Muhammad or Baha'ullah.

You do not see the difference but I see the difference.

I don't know, would the world we live in meaningfully change if it/they/he/she did exist?

If not, then who's to say which is which?

I believe that the world we live in will eventually meaningfully change owing to humans but that change would not be possible if God did not exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see... so I guess the logic breaks down if I happen to make up a god being that isn't capable of communicating or revealing itself to humans.

Sorry, I do not understand how that is related to what you are responding to.

 

[CG Didymus]

I read the linked page, it is of interest in that is tells another point of view.

The Baha'is carry that thing about Bible stories not being literal but symbolic all the way to Jesus and the resurrection. I have no problem believing that the flood or the resurrection never happened, but I do believe the writers wrote those stories to be taken and believed as having literally happened.

I can't see how the writers would have written a symbolic story about a flood and about Jesus coming back to life and not made it clear that the stories were symbolic and didn't really happen. But I can see how they could easily have written in made up stuff to embellish their stories with supernatural miraculous things about God and Jesus. I've never liked or agreed with how the Baha'i Faith makes so many things in the Bible "symbolic". I'd prefer if they just said it was lies.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, the Baha'i scriptures were written by a self-proclaimed "Messenger of God" who claimed to have received a revelation from God.

Think about that for a moment -- you have precisely zero confirmation, outside of what he claims, that his claim is reality. Nothing.

A claim meaning nothing unless there is evidence that backs up the claim.
There is plenty of evidence

Where would you expect to get confirmation? It won't be coming from God because God has given us all the capacity to recognize His Messengers.

 

[CG Didymus]

What if you only imagine a one true God that doesn't actually exist?

Baha'is describe God as being invisible and unknowable... the only way we know anything about God, according to Baha'is, is by what the manifestations of God tell us about him. Unless those things contradict what the Baha'i Faith says about God. In that case those other religions are wrong and have corrupted the "true" teachings of their manifestation.

So, they can't prove that God is real, but they know he is real because their prophet told them so. Oh, and they know those other Gods are false and just made up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What God would do is exactly what we see that God has done, communicate to Messengers of God. What God would not do is what we do not see God doing, communicating directly to everyone.

That's an argument that a God that could communicate more effectively than that and wants to doesn't exist.

So, if God exists we know that God would never communicate directly to everyone.

We know that if a deity exists, it either cannot communicate directly to human beings or is uninterested in doing so.

I made a special, point of saying: I am not asking if God could or should communicate directly to everyone or prove that He exists to everyone. I am asking if God would God communicate directly to everyone or prove that He exists to everyone.

And I answered you. I answered your question and more. You seem to object.

Who are you to tell the Almighty God, the Creator of the universe, what He should do?

A guy who knows how to communicate effectively. Of course, I don't believe in gods and so don't tell them what they should do. My advice is for anybody that wants to be heard and understood. I would give the same advice to you if you asked me how your words could get to more people. We could add additional discussion sites. You could start a blog or podcast. You might try to get a book published. But I wouldn't advise you to to find a messenger. Do it yourself, as directly as possible. Perhaps an infomercial. I'm sure that deities can do at least that well.

Do you think you can know more than an all-knowing God regarding the *best way* to communicate o humans?

Apparently - if you think that a deity would communicate to man through a human messenger telling people what this deity told him to tell them. Imagine there really were such a deity and it choosing that path. It's not an idea to seriously entertain unless you have to. Baha'is have chosen to believe that happened, and so are compelled to believe that a deity not only would do that, but did. You're not alone. Many other religions have done the same, and also tell us that a deity has communicated to humanity through other people.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yep, sure seems like you have to significantly twist logic and rational thinking in order to make it work.

No, you only have to get out of the way of what you want and start thinking logically.

Why on earth would God communicate directly to everyone a message they could never understand, when God can communicate to one Messenger who can understand God and disseminate the message to everyone? It was not as if God just picked up some guy on the street in a back alley to communicate with.

God is certainly not going to communicate directly to everyone just because a few atheists don't like Messengers.

Atheists who think this way don't use reason, they act on emotion -- I want.
Do you know how I know that? These atheists cannot give me one rational reason why God should communicate directly to everyone, except for that is what they want God to do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Couldn't demonstrate that your husband loves you? Of course you could! Nothing easier -- just get seriously ill and see what he does.

My lover came down with Guillaine-Barre Syndrome several years ago -- paralyzed from the neck down. He was in hospital for 8 1/2 months, and though I'm in my 70s now, I still work, and I ran to the hospital at lunch and after work 5 days a week and from home the other two days, to feed him myself, because the staff didn't have enough time to care for his needs properly. I've cared for him every day over the last 4 years since.

Do you think he wonders if I love him?

Maybe it can be demonstrated that my husband loves me but I cannot demonstrate that I will not get a disease and die in a few weeks. I cannot demonstrate that I will go out in my car and not have an accident.

All these things require faith to be believed.

 

[CG Didymus]

Says it all right there, doesn't it? You believe because you believe -- not because you've got any reason to believe.

And which religion doesn't say that? They can say it sounds true. It feels true. They can feel it in their heart. That it makes sense that there must be a God.

But I think a big part of belief is kind of like a self-fulling prophecy. They are told if they do good God will reward them. If they do bad God will punish them. But, sometimes, what seems like something bad, it's only God testing them to help that grow. And sure enough, that is exactly what happens. God rewards them, punishes them and tests them. That's gotta be proof he's real. Right?

 

[Trailblazer]

Really? And what do you know about "the nature of God?"

I just love such claims, but tragically I'm always, always, disappointed with the responses.

For starters, I know God is immaterial and as such God cannot ever be seen.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually you are making a slight fallacy here. As an atheist, if I am to assume your deity is real, I have to assume the universe isn't the same either. After all, the problem of evil and the problem of divine hiddenness, the problem of omnipotence, the problem of temporal paradox and others are all arguments derived from observation of the universe, based on logic that reject the possibility of the existence of a deity like the one your scriptures describes. It's my very knowledge about the universe, basic logic and about human history and culture that leads me to believe there is no god, at least none like the one you worship and certainly none that I would worship as such.

You see those as problems but that does not mean they ARE actually problems...
I can come up with a reason why all those so-called problems exist.

Based on logic I believe in the existence of a deity like the one my scriptures describe.
Human history and culture leads me to believe there is a God like the one I believe in.

It is all a matter of perspective. You have a certain perspective and I have another perspective.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A claim meaning nothing unless there is evidence that backs up the claim.
There is plenty of evidence

Where would you expect to get confirmation? It won't be coming from God because God has given us all the capacity to recognize His Messengers.

I would leave you with this one suggestion -- that you look up the meaning of "special pleading."

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I did not say that nobody can know 'anything' about what God is like. I said "The only characteristics and traits I know about are the ones revealed in scriptures. The only way I can ever know what that deity did, does or might do in the future is by reading the scriptures."

"Reading the scriptures, you say? Scriptures which were NOT written BY God, or no evidence to even suggest they were 'quoted' to whomever WROTE them, right?

Again, the only way we could ever know that God wants to be worshiped, or how God wants to be worshiped, is by reading the scriptures.

Same problem, no evidence ANY scripture was EVER received FROM a God...except for hearsay claims.

It is not an assumption, it is a religious belief. As a belief, it cannot be proven, but there is evidence that backs it up and I can support with evidence and coherent argumentation.

Well, the way I happen to see it, is ANY such religious belief, sans any supporting evidence, IS nothing more than an uninformed ASSUMPTION. I have see some of your "evidence" and find that "evidence" seriously lacking in meaningful SUBSTANCE.

Simply because YOU accept it as "evidence" does NOT make it suitable and acceptable for anyone else. Remember, something YOU like to say....that's logic 101

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Maybe it can be demonstrated that my husband loves me but I cannot demonstrate that I will not get a disease and die in a few weeks. I cannot demonstrate that I will go out in my car and not have an accident.

All these things require faith to be believed.

A rather inane argument, since you are now trying to compare "finding evidence for future events" with "finding evidence for claims of existential truths." Really, you've got to do better than that.

 

[CG Didymus]

Once again, it is clear, even under the assumption that there is a God, that the Messengers have given confusing and contradictory messages. Which means that 'God' hasn't figured out how to actually communicate with humans.

I'd imagine there's several people right now that believe God has communicated with them. Even some of the Christians I knew felt as if God was communicating with them through the Holy Spirit. And then some had an "angel" visit them. But even for Baha'is to think that they won't get some kind of spiritual type of communication from God? I think they probably do. In fact, some Baha'is I know were visited by Abdul Baha' in a vision or a dream. Now whether or not any of that is real, is another question.