Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

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

It is much more bold because it necessitates discounting entire civilizations that are based upon these religions as well as all the millions of people who believe in these religions.

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

If a religion did not rely upon messengers of prophets, what would it rely upon?

 

[Trailblazer]

But stubbornness is not goodness. So if a deity takes that tactic, we can conclude it is not a good deity, but a selfish amoral or immoral deity.

I did not say that the deity was being stubborn it was @Altfish who suggested that.
Just because a deity does not DO what you want it to DO that does not mean the deity is stubborn.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

It's not even a true perspective. Baha'is know that their beliefs are not consistent with the beliefs of some of the other religions. Like Krishna being an incarnation and the Hindu and Buddhist belief in reincarnation. And the Christian beliefs about inheriting sin from Adam, about Satan, and the resurrection of Jesus. Instead, they explain away the inconsistencies.

 

[F1fan]

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.

So the 7% of atheists are the smart one's to not take this bet. No evidence means they won't decide a God exists. Yet theists do. And as you testify to you have decided a god exists but can't explain why you have. Science reveals it is biology and our social brains needing to conform to group norms.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I should have said that Scriptures are *the most direct way* to know anything about God.

One can also know about God *indirectly* by looking at Creation because everything in Creation, including humans, is a reflection of God.

“Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that Most Great Light. Methinks, but for the potency of that revelation, no being could ever exist.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 177

 

[F1fan]

It is not fishy. I explained why to Polymath: #428 Trailblazer, Today at 2:32 PM

It was a weak post. For example you wrote:

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

This statement claims a knowledge that God exists and how it behaves. This is false. You've acknowledged you have no knowledge of a God.

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?
​

As I have noted a God wouldn't necessarily have to reach out to cool and hip people. It would be helpful if God contacted bad people about to do bad things, and suggest they not be naughty. These folks would still have free will but they would certainly be rattled from their bad mind set and may change their minds before doing evil.

 

[F1fan]

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

So you're gambling that you are correct when you decide a God exists. Thanks for the honesty.

As an atheist i can't be so arrogant as to think I can decide a God exists without any evidence for that conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is much more bold because it necessitates discounting entire civilizations that are based upon these religions as well as all the millions of people who believe in these religions.

So?

If a religion did not rely upon messengers of prophets, what would it rely upon?

Why would that be my problem to figure out?

 

[Trailblazer]

The God claim cannot be supported by facts since there are no facts about God.

And that is enough for me to consider the issue irrelevant. if there are no facts, there are only opinions. And those opinions are not based on facts. Which means they are based on desires, not truths.

And that is quite enough to say the existence of a God isn't worth believing in.

When I said that the God claim cannot be supported by facts since there are no facts about God, what I meant is that there is nothing about God that can be proven as a fact. All we have are beliefs which are based upon revealed Scriptures, but that does not mean those beliefs are based upon desires and it does not mean the beliefs are not true.

You have to also assume there *are* messengers. And if there is no fact about God, then there are also no facts about people being messengers of that God. And that is enough reason to dismiss their claims to be messengers.

No, we have to *believe* that there are Messengers based upon the evidence that surrounds those Messengers. It cannot be proven as a fact that any man was a Messenger of God, but there is evidence that indicates that. There are facts that can be known about Baha'u'llah, but whether those facts indicate to us that He was a Messenger or not is a subjective call.

That, to me, is a contradiction. Knowledge is justified true belief. But the word of a messenger cannot be justification.

A Messenger of God can be justification to believe in God if we believe that He got knowledge from God.

You have made claims that there are messengers from God, which is a claim about God: that it would send messengers.

I have said that I *believe* the claims of the Messengers of God so obviously I believe that God would send Messengers.

Many do so and survive quite well. Have you ever heard of street epistemology?

I have not seen them holding up on this forum, but I guess that all depends upon what is meant by holding up.

 

[F1fan]

I should have said that Scriptures are *the most direct way* to know anything about God.

And The Hobbit is the most direct way to know anything about Hobbits.

One can also know about God *indirectly* by looking at Creation because everything in Creation, including humans, is a reflection of God.

Of course there is no way to be sure that any God exists, yes? Looking at the world only proves the world exists, it doesn't;t prove it was created, nor that there is a creator. So these statements are assumptions.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

It does not mean that at all. It is not about what God can do, it is about what humans can do.
Humans cannot understand God speaking to them directly. I already explained that in post #428

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.

That's right, because God never intended to communicate to anyone else except Messengers.
There is no reason why God would create everyone with a divine mind, because everyone does not need a divine mind.

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

That's right, the Messengers can do what God cannot, because they are both human and divine.God is not human so God cannot do what a human can do, appear on earth and write Scriptures.

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

But God did not just pick them up on the street and decide to communicate with them.

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

And what are those reasons, because God won't do what you want Him to do?

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

God has already done that. God has communicated in such a way that He changed the lives of believers, 93% of the people in the world.

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

Why? Because they provided evidence to back up their claims.

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

Even if the message was that important, ordinary humans would be able to do what Baha'u'llah did. If all of the 7.8 billion people took 40 years off to write scriptures the world would come to a complete standstill.

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.

So just because God does not communicate directly to everyone or prove that He exists to everyone that means God dos not exist? That is completely illogical because it presumes that if God existed God would.communicate directly to everyone or prove that He exists to everyone.

NOTHING could be more illogical. It is an ego projection - what YOU would expect God to do if God existed. It is not based upon anything except what YOU would expect God to do. If you cannot understand why that is illogical I cannot help you..... God should do what you expect Him to do, or God does not exist, as if you KNOW MORE about what God should do than God knows, which is logically impossible, since God is all-knowing.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

God did communicate, just not the way you want Him to, but God is all-knowing and all-wise so God knows the *best way* to communicate to humans.

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.

God does care, but only because He cares about humans, not because He needs our belief for Himself. God has no needs because God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

 

[F1fan]

When I said that the God claim cannot be supported by facts since there are no facts about God, what I meant is that there is nothing about God that can be proven as a fact.

And that includes whether Gods exist in any way. So there is no basis to assume or decide any Gods exist.

No, we have to *believe* that there are Messengers based upon the evidence that surrounds those Messengers.

No we don't have to believe at all.

It cannot be proven as a fact that any man was a Messenger of God, but there is evidence that indicates that. There are facts that can be known about Baha'u'llah, but whether those facts indicate to us that He was a Messenger or not is a subjective call.

Yet as is often repeated there has been no compelling evidence.

A Messenger of God can be justification to believe in God if we believe that He got knowledge from God.

So two fallible people could be mistaken. This is a poor reason.

I have said that I *believe* the claims of the Messengers of God so obviously I believe that God would send Messengers.

And we don't care. We care about evidence that will compel others to agree with your conclusions.

 

[F1fan]

God did communicate,

So now you assert God does exist.

You offer a subject and an action. Those are facts.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would that be my problem to figure out?

It isn't, not unless you care.

 

[Trailblazer]

What a silly attempt to frighten the atheists.

Funny how you interpret that. I have no desire to frighten any atheists.

 

[F1fan]

It does not mean that at all. It is not about what God can do, it is about what humans can do.
Humans cannot understand God speaking to them directly. I already explained that in post #428

So it is a fact that God exists. And this God can speak to humans but is unable to make itself comprehensible to them. So God is not as capable as a 5 year old asking mother for a glass of milk. Explain why God is incapable of being comprehensible to humans.

 

[Trailblazer]

So now you assert God does exist.

You offer a subject and an action. Those are facts.

I believe that God communicated but I am not asserting it as a fact.
That is obvious by the context of the conversation.

 

[Trailblazer]

So it is a fact that God exists. And this God can speak to humans but is unable to make itself comprehensible to them. So God is not as capable as a 5 year old asking mother for a glass of milk. Explain why God is incapable of being comprehensible to humans.

Straw man. I never said any of what I believe is a fact.
This is not about what God is capable of. Humans are incapable of comprehending God directly.
That is my belief, not a fact.

I have already explained why ordinary humans cannot comprehend God directly many times so I have to assume that atheists just refuse to accept it. If they want to continue to believe that God could/would/should communicate to them directly if God existed that is their own business. It will be their own loss, not mine.

 

[F1fan]

I believe that God communicated but I am not asserting it as a fact.
That is obvious by the context of the conversation.

You wrote in a manner that asserted facts. Do you not understand the technique of concise writing?