Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

Which deity, and what objective evidence can anyone demonstrate that it exists, and what it's nature is?

Otherwise no answer is possible, only unevidenced assumptions and speculation. We would be dealing with hypotheticals. If a deity exists (as a hypothetical) how can we know anything about it, or what it might or might not do?

We can know what a God would not do by working backwards.
Think about it.

 

[Trailblazer]

How know that from just the assumption of a creator God?

I know the only way anyone can know anything about God, from Scriptures.

 

[ChristineM]

We can know what a God would not do by working backwards.
Think about it.

Eh? How does that work?

 

[Trailblazer]

Hasn't done, and would not do, are not the same statement.

That's right, glad you caught that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Eh? How does that work?

We cannot know what God will do in the future, but we can know what God has not done to date...

Has God communicated directly to everyone?

If not everyone in the world says that God has not communicated to them directly then we know that God has not communicated directly to everyone in the world.
.
Has God proven that He exists to everyone?

If God had proven that He exists to everyone there would be no atheists.
That is how we know that God has not proven that He exists to everyone.

 

[ChristineM]

We cannot know what God will do in the future, but we can know what God has not done to date...

Has God communicated directly to everyone?

If not everyone in the world says that God has not communicated to them directly then we know that God has not communicated directly to everyone in the world.
.
Has God proven that He exists to everyone?

If God had proven that He exists to everyone there would be no atheists.
That is how we know that God has not proven that He exists to everyone.

No communicated because perhaps there is no go to communicate
And no proven because perhaps there is nothing to prove

These would answer both your question without hypotheticals

Oh and i have a point. Even if a god existed and proved that he/she/it existed then just like now with no proof there is belief, with proof there will like be disbileaf. Humans are like that

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have posted the evidence innumerable times only to hear the same thing over and over again --
"That's not evidence."
Why would I post it again only to hear that again?

Well, of course, the other question might be, "if it's not evidence, why are you posting it as if it were?"

How would you determine whether Joseph Smith's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon provides evidence of Jesus in America? And how would you determine the truth of Smith's claim that the angel Moroni instructed him to translate the "reformed Egyptian" characters on golden plates into English, by using magic "seer stones" peering into a hat?

Please explain how you differentiate the claims made about the writing of Baha'i scripture and the Book of Mormon, in terms of the evidence available to make such differentiation.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I never said that God could not communicate to people directly, I said that nobody could EVER understand God if God communicated to them directly.

Only God's chosen Messengers can understand God speaking through the Holy Spirit and they can understand God because they have a divine mind. Nobody else has a divine mind so nobody else can understand God directly.

God sends Messengers who act like Mediators between God and man, and since they have a twofold nature, both divine and human, they can understand God and humans and they can relay communication from God back to humans.

Those are my beliefs FWIW.

Except, of course, when it was.

But it never 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.

Above, I just explained why God does not communicate directly to everyone and there are other reasons besides that reason.

What would God say to people if He communicated to them directly, "Hi I am God and I exist?" What would be the point of knowing that God exists if that is all you know, even if you could know that by God speaking to you directly? How would that change your life?

Moreover, how would anyone, let alone everyone, know it was God communicating to them?
It could just as well be an auditory hallucination.

Now imagine God communicating what Baha'u'llah wrote over the course of 40 years, 15,000 tablets - to every one of the 7.8 billion people in the world. Do you think all those people could understand what Baha'u'llah understood and write it all down? Do you think everyone would even care to do all that work, sacrifice their lives that way for 40 years?

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.

I am not complaining about any answers I got or saying they were wrong. My point is that based upon what we can see in the world and ask people about if God exists God does not communicate directly to everyone or prove that He exists to everyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

And how the hell could you EVER know that this broadcast was coming from God?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Yes, if God exists, it's nature and actions would have to be consistent with what we know and observe to be true, and that is what I was trying to get the atheists to think about.

Yes, it would have been clearer if I had asked:

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

But then it would have been too easy to answer and it would not have accomplished what I wanted to accomplish.
I said would because I wanted to get the atheists to think about what God would do if God existed, consistent with what we know and observe to be true in our world. (Of course, God could always do something different in the future, but I was thinking in terms of what has happened to date.)

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.

That is correct, so what I was trying to get atheists to realize is that if God exists, God would not communicate directly to everyone or prove that He exists to everyone, not unless God does something different in the future from what He has done to date. But why would God do what He has never done before? That would be like admitting He was wrong and God, if He exists, is infallible, so He cannot make any mistakes.

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.

What God would do (or does) would only matter to atheists if they are waiting for God to do something different, like communicating directly to everyone, something that God has never done before. I doubt many atheists are waiting for that to happen but I know one atheist who might be, ludicrous as it sounds. Expecting God to do an about face and suddenly start communicating directly to everyone is just as ludicrous as expecting God to send Jesus from heaven through clouds down to earth, something God has never done before, yet multitudes of Christians believe that is going to happen when Jesus returns.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

That's right, and many false prophets have started false religions by making such claims, and many people have followed these false prophets, at least for a time, although most of these false religions have never flourished for long and most of them have died out.

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.

How do you define what is false? What is considered false to one person might be considered true to another person. It is all a matter of perspective.

From my perspective, if a new religion has teachings that are consistent with the older great religions then it is less likely to be false.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's right, and many false prophets have started false religions by making such claims, and many people have followed these false prophets, at least for a time, although most of these false religions have never flourished for long and most of them have died out.

It seems to me that many religions based on false prophets are still going strong, IMO.

How do you define what is false? What is considered false to one person might be considered true to another person. It is all a matter of perspective.

That's the thing: I don't need to define that. If there's nothing to distinguish a religion from a false religion, that religion is one I don't feel the need to waste my time with.

From my perspective, if a new religion has teachings that are consistent with the older great religions then it is less likely to be false.

I don't think that's a valid perspective. Old age is not a measure of truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

It is not about me but it is not about you either.
The God claim cannot be supported by facts since there are no facts about God.
God is not a fact since God cannot ever be proven to exist. God is either believed based upon what comes through Messengers of God or not.

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.

No, it does not have to be a fact to be obvious. God exists is obvious to all religious people and we have no facts. There is no factual knowledge about God. Knowledge about God comes through Messengers of 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.

I never made any factual claims about God. I cannot explain why it is obvious to me, other than what I have already explained, which you have rejected.

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.

That haughty attitude "It's about the consensus of thinkers and the high standard of reasoning" which implies that believers have a low standard of reasoning, does not get you anywhere except to smugness. Here I am, the only believer on a thread with all atheists. I'd like to see one atheist go onto a thread that is comprised of all believers and see how well they hold up.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Of course we could be wrong, or we could be right.

 

[HonestJoe]

But then it would have been too easy to answer and it would not have accomplished what I wanted to accomplish.

Maybe you should try not playing silly games and just say what you want to say so it can be discussed without confusion.

I said would because I wanted to get the atheists to think about what God would do if God existed, consistent with what we know and observe to be true in our world.

I still don't see why that is relevant to atheists. In fact, one of the reasons people don't believe in various proposed gods is their proposed characteristics or actions don't appear to be consistent with observed facts.

But why would God do what He has never done before?

Your fundamental logical error here is assuming that God exists in the context of a question of whether God does exist or not. If you really want to understand atheism, you have to be able to understand the concept of not believing in a god, including not believing in a god because you believe it's definition is inconsistent with reality.

Expecting God to do an about face and suddenly start communicating directly to everyone is just as ludicrous as expecting God to send Jesus from heaven through clouds down to earth, something God has never done before, yet multitudes of Christians believe that is going to happen when Jesus returns.

Atheists obviously don't expect anything of God. The expectation is on believers in gods to present internally and external consistent definitions of those gods. If a proposed god would logically do something that hasn't actually happened, that doesn't necessarily make the expectation ridiculous. It could also mean that god never existed in the first place.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, it depends on His intentions.

If His intentions are to make Himself known, then He should talk directly to anyone.

You are making an assumption, that God could make Himself known by speaking directly to anyone, but you do not know that.
I explained why that would not work to Polymath: #428 Trailblazer, Today at 2:32 PM

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.

Please let me know when you find anyone who can do what the Messengers of God have done to get their messages out to humanity. What happened after they delivered the messages is all on humans, it is not the Messenger's fault or God's fault.

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.

No, by now God has realized that the Messenger method of communication has been fully successful for almost all people in the world, except for the 7% of the world population who are atheists.

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.

In that case you will never believe in God or know anything about God.

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

It is not that God is unable. I explained that to Polymath: #428 Trailblazer, Today at 2:32 PM

 

[muhammad_isa]

Religion is dying in every country except Africa, a trend that has continued for more than 50 years and accelerates with the advent of the internet and as education becomes better.

It is not about education .. it is about money.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man [who places his faith in wealth and status] to enter the Kingdom of G-d"
-Matthew 19-

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not about education .. it is about money.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man [who places his faith in wealth and status] to enter the Kingdom of G-d"
-Matthew 19-

I don't recall the bit in square brackets actually being in the Bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Religious beliefs can be either true or false. It has nothing to do with faith.
With evidence faith is still required because there is no proof that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

You do not know a damn thing about me and why I believe.
I was never indoctrinated by anyone. I investigated my religion, determined that it was true, and and freely chose to believe.

You know nothing about my emotional state.
My religious beliefs appealed to my intellect, not to my emotions. I do not even like being religious.