Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Polymath257]

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

Which simply means that this God is unable to communicate with everyone effectively. So this God is not all powerful.

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.

So God chose to only create some people with divine minds? And he did so knowing that those without divine minds would likely go wrong? That doesn't sound like a good being.

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.

So the messengers are able to do what God cannot? That doesn't sound like an all powerful God.

Those are my beliefs FWIW.

Yes, you have your opinion. And, as you have stated, you don't have any facts.

But it never was.

Jesus was from a poor area, Mohammad was supposedly illiterate.

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

I found the reasons about to only show that no good, all powerful, caring God exists.

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?

And an all knowing God would know how to communicate in a way that would change lives.

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

And that could be as easily true of the 'messengers'. So why would anyone trust what a self-proclaimed messenger says?

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?

If they would not, then the message may not be all that important.

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.

And that, to me, proves that either no God exists, or any that do exist are not all powerful, all knowing, or all good. I just take the logic one step further.[/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

I don't want my God to do that? How could I control an Omnipotent God and tell Him what He should do? And you call me illogical.

No, obviously it is God who chooses not communicate to humans directly, because an Omnipotent God could do that if He chose to do that.

But any deity that chose to not communicate shows itself as not caring.

Why would God care if everyone knows that He exists? Think about why an Omnipotent God would need humans to believe in Him.

Well, if the deity is *good* and the well being of people depends on the knowledge of his existence, then it *would* care.

So if it does not care, then either the deity is not good or the message isn't that important.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Please read that statement that you made. You said, "nobody could EVER understand God if God communicated to them directly," and yet you also claim to believe that the writers of the Baha'i scriptures did exactly that.

Are you unable to see the contradiction?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How do you know that scripture *is* a way to know anything about God?

And how do you know it is the only way?

In fact, it seems to me to be a much more reliable way to know something about God, assuming such exists at all, is to look at its creation. Doing so shows that any creator God was either a rather nasty entity or simply isn't aware of what happens in Earth.

You have a point, but the most important teaching of the bible imho is that the kingdom of God is within you. Looking externally at creation is a dualistic way of perception, the perceiver and that perceived. But since God is the source of all creation, everything you see is an expression of IT including yourself, so there is no real separation between God and you, except conceptually as a misunderstanding that God and you are totally separate entities.

If you practice meditation as in stilling the conceptualizing mind to realize the underlying unity of all that is, it will provide a new realization the next time you contemplate creation, and that is that at the deepest level of your being, you are that creation....awesome beyond understanding.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you name some of those religions?

All of the Abrahamic religions, IMO.

I believe that there is something that can be used to distinguish a true religion from a false religion.
A true religion was revealed by a Messenger of God whereas a false religion was started by a false prophet.

And I believe that when a religion relies on purported "messengers" or prophets, this is a sign that the religion is false.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I did say what I wanted to say to convey what I wanted to convey -- what would God do, not what did God do. Addressing atheists, it would not be appropriate to ask what did God do, since atheists don't believe that God ever did anything.

I still don't see why that is relevant to atheists.

The question If God exists why would God do what He has never done before? is not relevant to atheists unless they think that if God existed God would be doing something other than what they observe. Many atheists think that is the case. For example, many atheists think that if God exists God would communicate directly to everyone or prove that He exists to everyone.

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.

However, those observed facts are based upon what these atheists would expect to see if God existed. How can you ever know what you would see if God existed? To say that you know how the world would be different if God existed is nothing more than a ego projection.

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.

I believe that God exists but I am not assuming that God exists for purposes of this thread. I was trying to imagine I am an atheist who does not believe that God exists.

How do you think the definition of God is inconsistent with reality?

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.

That might be true for you but it is not true for all atheists. In fact, the reason most atheists do not believe in God is because God has not lived up to their expectations. Atheists say the reason they don't believe in God is because there is no evidence that God exists but right there we have expectation #1 -- If God exists God would do something differently to prove that He exists, other than sending Messengers, and many atheists say that God would communicate directly to everyone if God exists.

Many atheists also say that if God exists God would intervene in the world and prevent suffering caused by crime and diseases, and that God would even stop humans from committing atrocities (e.g. God should have stopped the Holocaust).

When you say what God would logically do that is an expectation based upon what you consider logical but that might not be what me or others consider logical. Who is to say what is logical? That is only a matter of personal opinion. I don't expect God to do anything although I believe that God sends Messengers for our benefit.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly! You believe. But your belief does not make it true, anymore than a child's belief in the Tooth Fairy reifies that silly meme.

I could have just as easily have said that I think it is evidence. What I think does not mean it is evidence but what atheists think when they say "that's not evidence" does not make it non-evidence. However, atheists cannot see that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I can understand why my evidence is not evidence for atheists but they do not even try to understand why it is evidence for me. They just say "that's not evidence" as if they would ever know what evidence for a Messenger of God would look like if it existed.

Easy enough to learn...and in fact I provided you with the most important bits. Why did you ignore that?

I did not ignore anything, I just did not understand what you were asking. If it is important to you to get an answer you have to be more specific.

 

[Trailblazer]

All of the Abrahamic religions, IMO.

Wow, that is a pretty bold statement, to say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all false religions, but you did say IMO.

And I believe that when a religion relies on purported "messengers" or prophets, this is a sign that the religion is false.

Can you explain why that would be the case?

 

[Trailblazer]

Please read that statement that you made. You said, "nobody could EVER understand God if God communicated to them directly," and yet you also claim to believe that the writers of the Baha'i scriptures did exactly that.

Are you unable to see the contradiction?

There is no contradiction if you read what I said in the next paragraph. When I said nobody I meant no ordinary human being. A Messenger is a human being, but not an ordinary human being. Below is what I said in context.

Polymath257 said: 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.

Trailblazer said: 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.

 

[lukethethird]

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.

I don't know anything particular about your emotional state, I just see how religious beliefs appeal to peoples emotions and prejudices. Evidence appeals to the intellect, and religious beliefs lack evidence, they are faith based, so no, religious beliefs do not appeal to the intellect.

 

[Trailblazer]

Correct. And you have a personal opinion that a God actually does exist, which you cannot prove. You having a personal opinion doesn't make that opinion correct either.

It is not a personal opinion, it is a religious belief.

I also have logic based on the definitions of the concepts involved. For example, all powerful implies the ability to communicate effectively. Caring implies that desire to help out. An all powerful being that has a desire will be able to do what it wants. So if effective communication has not happened, then either no God exists, the God doesn't know, the God doesn't care, or the God is unable to communicate, or our belief doesn't lead to any benefit for us.

What is effective communication? How do you know that effective communication has not happened?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know anything particular about your emotional state, I just see how religious beliefs appeal to peoples emotions and prejudices. Evidence appeals to the intellect, and religious beliefs lack evidence, they are faith based, so no, religious beliefs do not appeal to the intellect.

That is nothing but a BIASED personal opinion and as such it can be discounted.

 

[lukethethird]

That is nothing but a BIASED personal opinion and as such it can be discounted.

By all means, discount it if you think you can.

 

[Trailblazer]

That only works if you can distinguish between true and false prophets.

I can distinguish between them but not everyone can. Do you think that everyone would be able to distinguish between them and if so why do you think that?

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were true Prophets/Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the criteria.

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

What evidence do you have that there have ever been true prophets?

Religion and civilization are the evidence.

“The greatest bestowal of God in the world of humanity is religion; for assuredly the divine teachings of religion are above all other sources of instruction and development to man. Religion confers upon man eternal life and guides his footsteps in the world of morality. It opens the doors of unending happiness and bestows everlasting honor upon the human kingdom. It has been the basis of all civilization and progress in the history of mankind.......

What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.”
Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 270, 273

RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is no contradiction if you read what I said in the next paragraph. When I said nobody I meant no ordinary human being. A Messenger is a human being, but not an ordinary human being. Below is what I said in context.

Polymath257 said: 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.

Trailblazer said: 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.

Fascinating. So these were not "ordinary human beings," you say. In what way.

Did they eat? Drink? Smoke, talk, breath, fart?
Did they urinate and defecate? Did they get it on with women, or do a little "self-service?'
Did they sleep several hours every night, or talk to friends while drinking coffee or tea? Did they have pimples when they were teens?

You are making a rather large claim, that these somehow special people had "a divine mind," but you don't say either what that means or how it could be, if the rest of their bodies were just like ours.

This is, I'm sorry to have to say it, purest fantasy, based on absolutely nothing except a desire to believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's assuming the deity has the power to do those things. A creator deity may or may not have such power.

A creator deity who created the universe that is not all-powerful is unfathomable to me.
All-powerful means the deity has all power to do what it chooses to do.

But even if the deity was not all-powerful we could still observe what it has not done in the world by observing the world and not seeing these things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow, that is a pretty bold statement, to say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all false religions, but you did say IMO.

How is it any more bold than you saying that they're all true?

Can you explain why that would be the case?

We've been over this a few times: it fits the pattern of religious fraud.

 

[Trailblazer]

Fascinating. So these were not "ordinary human beings," you say. In what way.

Did they eat? Drink? Smoke, talk, breath, fart?
Did they urinate and defecate? Did they get it on with women, or do a little "self-service?'
Did they sleep several hours every night, or talk to friends while drinking coffee or tea? Did they have pimples when they were teens?

I am sure you have heard what Christians say about Jesus, that He was fully man and fully God. I do not believe that because that is logically impossible but they were on the right track since Jesus was kind of a hybrid since He had a twofold nature, a human nature and a divine nature.

Baha'is believe that Messengers (also referred to as Manifestations of God) are a different order of creation than ordinary humans because they have a twofold nature that ordinary humans do not possess.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself…. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

In fact, probably the main reason why most people have been unable to distinguish between a Messenger and an ordinary man is because they appear just like an ordinary men, eating, drinking, sleeping, etc.

You are making a rather large claim, that these somehow special people had "a divine mind," but you don't say either what that means or how it could be, if the rest of their bodies were just like ours.

I could explain what it means in more detail if you are interested because I have a detailed explanation, but for now I will simply say that the Messengers of God got their spiritual nature before they were born into this world since their souls had preexistence in the spiritual world.

This is, I'm sorry to have to say it, purest fantasy, based on absolutely nothing except a desire to believe.

I would not expect it to sound like anything but a fantasy to an atheist, or even to other believers who do not believe what Baha'is believe. Unless you understand it and it makes sense to you, it will sound like a fantasy. However, it is the crux upon which my beliefs rest, because if Baha'u'llah was just an ordinary human being there would be no reason for me to believe everything He wrote without question.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Then why did you decide a God exists? Why do you make statements bout God as if you have facts?

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.

You are all over the map. There's no knowledge of God, there is knowledge of God. Which is it?

That religious people believe is a social behavior, not a reasoned conclusion. So it's not relevant to cite the masses believing.

I never made any factual claims about God.

You make assertions that appear factual, then you deny they are factual. And you keep repeating this behavior and you don't seem interested in examining why.

I cannot explain why it is obvious to me, other than what I have already explained, which you have rejected.

Religious belief is largely a subconscious behavior, so of course you don't understand why you believe as you do. Other religious people don't either. They know what they believe, they cannot explain why they believe it. The social sciences can explain it.

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.

See how you try to intimidate and insult those who challenge your beliefs? That is a result of the inner conflict you're experiencing due to cognitive dissonance. The fact t is that objective thinkers do examine religious concepts at a higher level of scrutiny than believers. believers are too invested to consider the possibility they might be wrong.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Jeremiah 31:34
Isaiah 11:9
He will purge the whole earth in such wise that within the compass of His knowledge not a single soul shall remain unless he truly believeth in God, worshippeth none other God but Him, boweth down by day and by night in His adoration, ..

Good luck with your Statistics, and with Jeremiah and Isaiah, who mean nothing to an atheist. Isaiah can sit sit on his holy mountain for all that we care. Bab too can join him there.
What a silly attempt to frighten the atheists. We are not uneducated 19th Century superstitious Iranians following Shia Islam waiting for any Imam to appear again.