Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

Really? If you examine history, you can't find examples of dreadful sinners living full and rich lives, and dedicated believers dying in abject misery? I certainly can.

Doesn't seem like much proof to me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

And how do you know that? Do you have something other than what you usually tell us, which is that somebody told you and that's how you know?

 

[Aupmanyav]

That's right, and humans were not created, they evolved.

What is the seed from which they evolved? If you say your Allah placed that seed, then kindly continue to give me the evidence. Just don't stop at an assertion.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

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.

Gee, I really hate to be argumentative here, but the "faith" you are using here, is NOT the same sort of "FAITH" a religious person needs to accept some of the more preposterous claims put forth by OTHER believers.
The FIRST useage, is more along the lines of what I would call "trust"...in that you TRUST such and such is true. Religious matters on the other hand, require the 'believer' to accept that which is claimed, in the total and complete absence of any supporting evidence. BIG DIFFERENCE, ehhh?

 

[Trailblazer]

I am assuming when you say God, you are referring to something akin to what is described in the bible. If that is the case, I would say God would do both; but would mainly do #2. Why do I believe this? Because that would be the right thing to do, and if God is righteous, he would do the right thing.

Who are you to say what is the right thing to do, are you God?

If the God of the Bible exists He did not do either #1 or #2, and that is how we know that the Bible God would NOT do either one of those things.

We know that the Bible God does not provide proof because the Bible God says that He wants our faith. If God proved He exists to everyone then nobody would ever need faith. That is what YOU want but that is not what God wants. Guess who gets what they want? The Omnipotent God.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

My OP was an exercise in logic.

If God exists we can know certain things about how God operates, or should I say how God does not operate.

Is there any evidence that God has communicated directly to everyone?
Is there is any evidence that God has proven that He exists to everyone?

No, there is no evidence that shows that either one of those has ever occurred.

Since atheists exist we can logically deduce that God has not proven that He exists to everyone.
That means that if God existed God would not prove that He exists to everyone.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

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

Ya beat me to it a person has an unsupported claim, and employs an unsupported quote from a second-hand source, to support the FIRST unsupported claim. And THAT somehow makes it all "believable".
Simply astounding!

 

[Aupmanyav]

God did not create life, but God is responsible for everything in existence.

And your evidence for that is ..?

God is responsible for both the good and the bad.

If it is that, then throw the free-will in the fire-place, and don't ever blame humans for going astray.

Isaiah 45:5-7

How does a more than two and a half millennium old lore of uneducated Jewish shepherds from the Israeli deserts, and that too without any evidence, matter in 21st Century? Compare them to what Greek and Indian philosophers (don't know much about the Chinese) were saying around the same time.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

That is a straw man.

F1fan said: Rather, why do you believe this is true, because of the txt you quoted? Who says that is true?

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

Of course I have a reason to believe that whatever Baha’u’llah wrote is true. I believe because I researched the Baha'i Faith and determined that it is true. I don't just believe because I believe. That is one of the dumbest things I have heard all day, and I have heard some pretty dumb things today.

 

[Trailblazer]

And how do you know that? Do you have something other than what you usually tell us, which is that somebody told you and that's how you know?

I know it from scriptures. How else could I ever know it?

 

[Trailblazer]

What is the seed from which they evolved? If you say your Allah placed that seed, then kindly continue to give me the evidence. Just don't stop at an assertion.

I don't know what the seed is. You will have to ask God, if you can find Him.

 

[Trailblazer]

Religious matters on the other hand, require the 'believer' to accept that which is claimed, in the total and complete absence of any supporting evidence. BIG DIFFERENCE, ehhh?

No, we are not required to believe that which is claimed in the total and complete absence of any supporting evidence. There is evidence that supports the beliefs.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I know it from scriptures. How else could I ever know it?

So you CLAIM to "know it" from reading the "scriptures"? And of course, you KNOW who WROTE those scriptures, don't you?.....you DO, don't you?

 

[ACEofALLaces]

No, we are not required to believe that which is claimed in the total and complete absence of any supporting evidence. There is evidence that supports the beliefs.

Really? So IF there actually IS this "evidence" that you speak so highly of, then you wouldn't NEED "faith" to believe what is being claimed, right? It would BE FACTUAL TRUTH!~

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know it from scriptures. How else could I ever know it?

That is the problem and a pity. Do you think that there are no other sources of knowledge?

I don't know what the seed is. You will have to ask God, if you can find Him.

If you do not know then why are you making that assertion? And who is this God/Allah feller?

There is evidence that supports the beliefs.

That is exactly what the atheists are asking you all this time. What evidence?

 

[CG Didymus]

It's like a football coach showing up once a season for a few minutes and telling the team "Get your **** together and win." It's not enough.

And then the coach telling them something different each time. Like one time he says, "Go deep every play. It's the only way." Then the next year, "No more passing. I want you to run the ball." After a while some of the guys are going to question just how good this coach really is and if they're better off without him.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I know what special pleading is, it is an argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
This is what atheists do when they dismiss Messengers if God just because they don't like them..

 

[ACEofALLaces]

That is a straw man.

F1fan said: Rather, why do you believe this is true, because of the txt you quoted? Who says that is true?

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

Of course I have a reason to believe that whatever Baha’u’llah wrote is true. I believe because I researched the Baha'i Faith and determined that it is true. I don't just believe because I believe. That is one of the dumbest things I have heard all day, and I have heard some pretty dumb things today.

At YOUR insistence I HAVE looked into this "evidence" you claim that you have....and all I can find is that which supports the actual EXISTENCE of one called Baha’u’llah, and some interesting items regarding his lifes ambitions, trials and tribulations. NOTHING, however to support the claims that HE was receiving information DIRECTLY FROM GOD.....other than his sayso.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Reading the scriptures, you say? Scriptures which were NOT written BY God

God does not write scriptures, God has other things to do, like ruling and maintaining the universe.

Same problem, no evidence ANY scripture was EVER received FROM a God.

There is no proof but there is evidence, although evidence to one is not evidence to another.

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

I never said that simply because I accept it as "evidence" that makes it suitable and acceptable for anyone else.

 

[epronovost]

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.

Then go ahead. Those problems have been standing for about 26 centuries. If you have a convincing answer to them present them.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I know what special pleading is, it is an argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
This is what atheists do when they dismiss Messengers if God just because they don't like them..

THAT is nothing but a bald-faced LIE! I dismiss your claims regarding your "messenger", simply because the evidence that you provide, does NOT particularly support the claims that he was receiving messages DIRECTLY FROM GOD.
Why would an "atheist" dismiss that sort of claim, simply because the atheist just doesn't LIKE the idea of there being such a "messenger". You are making it SOUND as though atheists are just a bunch of wishy-washy people who simply don't LIKE stuff, and therefore reject it out of hand for no particular reason, just like that!