Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Sheldon]

I know God is immaterial

I don't believe you do, but perhaps you could demonstrate this "knowledge" for us, with something beyond a bare claim?

 

[Polymath257]

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?

So God is unable to make most people understand via direct communication? It strains its ability to communicate with more than one or two people per century? Really?

That sounds like a pretty poor excuse for a deity to me.

It was not as if God just picked up some guy on the street in a back alley to communicate with.

Except, of course, when it was.

Why would God choose a Messenger instead of communicating to everyone? Like I said, assuming there was a creator God, it is possible it no longer exists, doesn't know about us, doesn't care about us, or is simply unable to communicate effectively.

Your OP asked us to imagine a scenario. It appears you don't like the answers you got. But I don't see anything showing that those answers were wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

You do not believe that God would use Messengers or some other kind of Intermediary because you think that God would speak directly to humans, but there is no basis for such a belief. You believe that would be more effective, but you do not know that, you just believe that, based upon no evidence whatsoever.

Of course we do. If you want to communicate your message accurately to many people, a broadcast is far better than word of mouth.

 

[HonestJoe]

That is a fine distinction but I understand your point. Then I should have worded by OP If God exists because that is what I meant to convey. If God actually does exist, would God...
So I was thinking in terms of if God actually does exist, NOT if God might exist.

1. If God exists would God communicate directly to everyone?
2. If God exists would God prove that He exists to everyone?

Ok, so yes, your question was very confusingly worded. Not only is the "exists" and "existed" distinction important, your "would" questions might be clearer as "does". That would make the nature of the question clearer but also make clearer whether there is any point or meaning behind the question in the first place. Obviously if some kind of god exists, it's nature and actions would have to be consistent with what we know and observe to be true. That isn't unique to ideas about gods of course, the same principle applies to any hypothesis.

The kind of God that would communicate directly to everyone cannot exist, since there is no evidence that any God has ever communicated directly to everyone in the world.

Such a god could have existed though (after all, anything is possible, especially if you're talking about supernatural beings). You've just shown that kind of god does not exist.

I'm don't see how this matters though, to atheists specifically or in general. Gods that would make grass pink, create two moons or give humans wings could have existed but clearly don't either, along with a literally infinite number of other hypothetical gods you might care to come up with.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You only imagine that some other kind of communication would be more effective, you do not know that. It is only your personal opinion, not a fact.

No, I actually have experience communicating in a variety of ways, and I understand that they are not all equally effective. It is a fact that having a person walk the land is an inefficient means of communication. If an tri-omni deity existed, had a message for man, wanted to be believed, it could do better. However, human beings who are only claiming to speak for a deity and lived over a century ago would be limited to that. As soon as preachers had better methods for reaching potential believers, such as radio and television, that's where they went to be heard by more people. Before that, they probably mostly wandered the land or set up camp and had people come to them.

The only thing I object to is atheists who say what God should do, as if that could ever know more than God.

It's not about a deity. It's about getting your message out. I don't believe in gods, and have no advice for them. My advice is for anybody who has a message to communicate to the most people possible. If a deity exists and wants to do that, it should use the best means available to it, not the best means available to human beings.

But since you are not God you do not know what would be the most effective kind of communication for God to employ towards humans in order to accomplish what God wants to accomplish.

You keep coming back to this - trying to disqualify the opinions of those who disagree with you with comments like these. The fallacy has a name: the Courtier's Reply: "The courtier's reply is a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever." It's a tactic intended to allow only the believer to have opinions about gods. They want to be free to say "God did this, and God wants that," but to disallow any contradiction as you are doing here. How dare I disagree with you. How could I know anything about it? God is too great for me to make comments about.

Sorry, but I don't accept that. I bring reason to the issue. It's why I am an atheist. Why would I abandon it now when explaining why I don't believe that a tri-omni deity would send messengers with nothing but words, but I do believe that human beings claiming to represent a deity and who could do no better than that would? You seem to want others to join you in abandoning that. 'Just stop thinking. Just stop reasoning. Your reasoning is useless here. You have no idea what a omnipotent deity that wants to be heard would do. Stop saying should.'

Moreover you do not know anything about God do you don't know that God could communicate directly to humans and be heard.

I know that no deity has communicated directly with me and probably nobody else, either. I've told you what that means to me. One of the logical possibilities must be the case - either no such deity exists, the deity is unaware of us, the deity is indifferent to us (or maybe just me), or the deity simply cannot communicate directly with all of us. You can pick the one you like. I don't need to pick, and actually can't pick one since I have no test, observation, argument, algorithm, etc.. that can distinguish between them.

But I can roughly order them, and I put the last option at the bottom of the list. It's the least reasonable. It requires that a deity can only occasionally communicate with a single human being, and even then, leaves nothing more than a very human sounding, oral message (at least Moses produced tablets) for somebody to deliver to the rest of us. I think we need to be a little more skeptical than to buy that. Well, I do.

You do not believe that God would use Messengers or some other kind of Intermediary because you think that God would speak directly to humans, but there is no basis for such a belief.

There is precedence. My conscience speaks to me directly, as does my memory. When I am inspired or feel a creative urge, I get a direct message. Maybe an original tune comes to mind. Or a dream. No messengers needed. Does the deity not have access to any of that hardware?

You, on the other hand, have no basis to believe that a deity exists or that communicates through messengers beyond the claims of various individuals over history, which simply aren't believable. What is believable is that men would invent such stories and that some would tell others that a deity told them to pass along a very human message. That's not a basis for belief.

what we have evidence of is that God has used Messengers or Prophets throughout human history

No, we haven't. What we have evidence of is that people have made that claim repeatedly. There is no evidence that they are telling the truth. They may believe that they are special and have a special relationship with a deity, but I don't. You can hear it on cable TV every Sunday morning - what the Lord told somebody to tell the rest of us. Do you believe them, too? I don't. I also reject their claims for lack of evidence.

The 7% of people who are atheists are outliers and they believe that they are right and all the believers are wrong. That is an untenable belief.

No, atheism is not an untenable belief. Agnostic atheism is the only rational position possible on gods. Theism is the untenable belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, there is no proof that God has spoken to any Messengers, but there is evidence that indicates that is what God has done.

I never said that God could not speak to all humans at once, but what would be the point?
What would that accomplish?

If someone wanted to create a false religion, what would they do? Claim that they were a special conduit for God's message, and that everyone else would have to rely on them.

If everything about a religion is consistent with it being false, it's not going to matter to me whether I can absolutely disprove that it's real. It's still not worth my time.

 

[F1fan]

It is not implausible to me. In fact, it is implausible that there would be no God.

But this isn't about you. It's about how humans use their reasoning to the best of our ability. We apply the rules of logic and we can make sound and rational assessments about reality. There is no factual category about reality that a claim of a God existing can be deemed plausible. The claim needs to be supported by facts and a lucid explanation. There are none.

I don't even need a Messenger to believe in God, it is obvious that God exists.

It isn't obvious at all. If it was obvious it would be a fact. You have admitted there are no facts regarding a God. You admit you have no knowledge of a God.

If you have a box of cereal on the shelf and you pick it up and it is heavy, then it's obvious there is cereal in it. You offer no example of how it's obvious that a God exists. You often bluff and make factual claims about God when you get flustered.

You need extraordinary evidence. I already have extraordinary evidence. That is why I know that God exists, without factual proof.

This isn't about you and your low standard. It's about the consensus of thinkers and the high standard of reasoning. Your evidence and explanations fall way short. That's not a problem in your own mind. It's your problem when you debate.

 

[F1fan]

I do not necessarily believe that all the content of the Bible is accurate, but I believe that God is immaterial because God resides in a spiritual realm where there is nothing material. What the Essence of God is comprised of nobody knows, as the Essence of God is a mystery.

Then mortals like yourself could be dead wrong about all this. You admit we mortals can't verify the idea of God is true. Immaterial is equal to imaginary.

 

[F1fan]

Why, oh why, do so many people claim "there is evidence" and stop right there? Wouldn't it be better to lay out that "evidence" before us?

It's followed by "The evidence is obvious." And "If you can't see it it's your fault."

Of course, something so obvious would be easy to point out, but instead they go on and on how they don't have time to do it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are these opinions enough for you, Trailblazer and others, or you will still continue with your taketh, giveth, delivereth, goeth, eateth, snoreth, sleepeth, belcheth, farteth, ........

 

[viole]

I have noticed the lack of activity and I actually got bored and went back to the other forums I had been on before I came here, although I have been going back and forth.

I got the idea to post this thread because there is an atheist I had been posting to for about seven years on those other forums who insists that if God existed God would communicate directly to everyone and/or prove He exists to everyone in some way. So I wanted to see if atheists here would agree with him, but I never imagined I would get swamped like this!

Again, it depends on His intentions.

If His intentions are to make Himself known, then He should talk directly to anyone. Using middle men is not only useless, but it is detrimental. Consider how His message has been messed up over the centuries, to cause a plethora of different versions of Himself, whose believers were, and still are, even ready to kill each other for the right version.

And by now, God should have realized that it goes nowhere. Not to speak that He should have known it from the beginning, if He is omniscient. My impression, is that not only He is not omniscient, but He has very little clue on how to be more effective, even though it looks pretty trivial how.

Skeptics like me, for instance, will never accept the claims of self declared prophets, with no other evidence but their words, who are therefore vastly more likely to have made everything up.

and if He can talk to them, why is He unable to talk to me?

the solution to this simple riddle is left as an exercise for the reader

ciao

- viole

 

[lukethethird]

A belief that could be true.

Beliefs of a religious nature are not true, that is why they are beliefs and nothing more. With evidence faith is not required, that is why religion has you believe.

 

[lukethethird]

What is foolish to you is not foolish to me.
To me it would be foolish not to believe in God.

What is justified as a true belief to me is not justified as a true belief to you.

What amazes me is that atheists have not figured this out by now.
All they can see is what is justified for them, not another person's perspective.
I understand why atheists do not believe in God but they cannot understand why I believe in God.

You believe because you are fully indoctrinated and because of your emotional state which is the only thing that religious beliefs appeal to, they certainly don't appeal to the intellect.

 

[F1fan]

Skeptics like me, for instance, will never accept the claims of self declared prophets, with no other evidence but their words, who are therefore vastly more likely to have made everything up.

and if He can talk to them, why is He unable to talk to me?

The answers I've been given include "Because you're not listening."

The answer to "How do I listen?" tends to be:

1. believe a God exists,
2. have faith that what you hear is from God.​

 

[CG Didymus]

Surely your god is capable of letting his creation know it was him. Perhaps he could end a famine by making it rain; stop children dying, stop childhood cancer, etc

And the Bible is filled with those types of stories. If they really happened that would be great proof that God is real. But didn't any of them happen? Especially the ones about Jesus. If he came back to life that would be amazing proof that God is real. But even Baha'is say that didn't happen. It was only "symbolic". That only his spirit rose.

If God doesn't want to make a personal appearance, then why not send an angel or a prophet? The prophet could say, "Thus says the Lord, in three days such and such is going to happen." But no, everything is vague enough that every religion can claim it is the truth and have enough things to "prove" it to convince at a least a few people.

 

[Altfish]

And the Bible is filled with those types of stories. If they really happened that would be great proof that God is real. But didn't any of them happen? Especially the ones about Jesus. If he came back to life that would be amazing proof that God is real. But even Baha'is say that didn't happen. It was only "symbolic". That only his spirit rose.

If God doesn't want to make a personal appearance, then why not send an angel or a prophet? The prophet could say, "Thus says the Lord, in three days such and such is going to happen." But no, everything is vague enough that every religion can claim it is the truth and have enough things to "prove" it to convince at a least a few people.

The trouble is ... how do you know it is not a false prophet? There are plenty of idiots claiming to be a prophet.

 

[lukethethird]

The trouble is ... how do you know it is not a false prophet? There are plenty of idiots claiming to be a prophet.

Careful bud, I'm a prophet.

 

[CG Didymus]

The logic?
First there is no evidence that a God communicated to anyone ever. There are claims. There is no information received from a God that a human didn't already know, all prophecies are vague or written after the fact. The Israelites had religious leaders who supposedly spoke to a God yet their stories are all re-workings of Mesopotamian myths, their laws are exactly like the laws of all surrounding cultures. Egyptian myths already had deities giving laws on stone as well as most of the stories about Moses life. Instead of learning about a big bang or any modern science (even a solar system) they got a re-hash of the Mesopotamian 2 creations stories complete with 7 heavens, a cosmic ocean above heaven (the reason why the sky is blue), a lower heaven where the stars and planets dwell and another where the celestial versions of the temple and garden are.
Later "God" seemed to really enjoy Persian and Hellenistic religions because Christianity is exactly described as a syncretic blend of Judaism, Persian and Greek myths. In Judaism dead people dwelled in Sheol (gravesites). In Hellenism people have souls that are fallen and can be redeemed by a savior figure so they can get back to heaven where they originated from. Hebrew thinkers added these ideas into Judaism right as Christianity was emerging.
So the evidence is people made stuff up using older stuff that was also made up. There are no Gods in any of this?

There is no evidence for any God and definitely no evidence a God ever communicated with people. So if a God exists you cannot say that it could not speak to all humans at once.

What do you think about the Baha'i Faith as an updated, liberal form of Shia Islam?

Then... Baha'is believe that God has revealed himself to everybody through his manifestations. But most people don't get a personal visit with the manifestation. They have to go by what others have said about them. And, with the Baha'i Faith, what the manifestation wrote. For some, that is enough to convince them that their guy was telling the truth... that he was sent from God. But obviously, it's not all that convincing to everybody.

Then... wasn't there some people where their God was accessible to everybody? That anybody could get a vision directly from their God? Like even with Christianity, especially Catholics, they get visions of angels and Mary. Then the Baha'is can get visions of Abdul Baha. Then the next question... Is the vision real or imagined? Which eventually gets to God... Is God real or imagined?

Since some people's Gods aren't considered to be real, especially by people in another religion, then some people might very well have imaginary Gods. But why are those Gods imaginary but not the Gods of all religions? Even Baha'is don't believe in the God of Trinitarian Christians. So, going back to your "borrowing" from other religions, how do you see the evolution in the beliefs about God and who God is?

 

[CG Didymus]

Para 1 is falsehood, because all regions carp on brotherhood and peace. Abrahamic religions, in addition, carp on accepting their proponent as the only true or only the latest to do that.

Para 2 is contradictory in itself. You do not want to talk to people from other religions because they are mired in their beliefs. I wonder, with this view, how can you bring about a union of religions or world peace. You do not want to talk to the 2.4 billion Christians, 1.9 billion Muslims, i.2 billion Hindus, half a billion Buddhists and more than half a billion people of other organized and pagan religions (figures from Wikipedia). Then whom are you trying to talk to?

And you want to talk to atheists who do not give two hoots for your religion or your manifestation because they do not believe even in existence of any God or Allah. You do not like to argue but the atheists will not miss any opportunity to argue.

Therefore, I fail to see any sense in your talking to anyone at all. Basically, all what you are writing is total BS.

Exactly. How do Baha'is bring understanding and peace and unity to all people of all religions without talking to them? But it is worse when they do? What do we know about the Baha'i Faith? That it has "abrogated" all other religions. That all the others had their springtime. Now they are in their winter. They are virtually dead. But are any of them teaching the truth anyway? No, Baha'is believe all of them have added in false doctrines and beliefs into the religion and have lost the "original" teachings of the manifestation.

So, what do Baha'is tell other religions? At best, "You used to be right, but not anymore. Now you need to recognize our prophet as being the fulfillment of your religion." Then what do they say to Atheists? "God is real and our prophet was sent from God. And we have evidence... just no evidence that you'll accept as being objective evidence."

So, why would a Baha'i talk to anyone? Because they are told to spread the word... actually lots of words. Pages and pages of words.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

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

That's advice you should take. Because it's YOU who can't give me one rational reason why god shouldn't communicate directly with everyone, except for the fact that you don't want your god to want to do that... because the only way your god has any chance of actually existing is if this god doesn't care if everyone gets its message.