Atheists: If God existed would God……

[F1fan]

Straw man. I never said any of what I believe is a fact.

You're writing in a style that asserts facts, not propositions. Perhaps this is sloppiness or a subconscious intention. Either way what you write is at face value incorrect.

This is not about what God is capable of. Humans are incapable of comprehending God directly.
That is my belief, not a fact.

So you are speculating and can't assert anything true, only what you imagine. So the God you imagine has only one way to communicate while humans have tens of thousands. Why can't your idea of God do any better? Can't you imagine a God that can communicate to anyone?

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.

No God is known to exist, so how could a human comprehend it? There's nothing we know of to comprehend.

 

[Trailblazer]

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 am not responsible for how they appear to you. Everyone here knows that they are beliefs, not facts, because I have stated that over and over again. I don't see any other atheists confused.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I have said that my beliefs are not facts, over and over and over and over again.
You cannot do anything but criticize and it is always someone else's fault.
Nobody else is complaining about my style of writing. I (don't) wonder why.

 

[Heyo]

Yet, supposedly Baha'is do believe we are wired to believe in God.

And they are right - kind'a. We are naturally superstitious:

 

[Trailblazer]

Why can't your idea of God do any better? Can't you imagine a God that can communicate to anyone?

I can imagine it but I know it does not exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

There is the evidence God provides, Messengers, so believers are smart because they look at the evidence God provides.

 

[Trailblazer]

It was a weak post. For example you wrote:

You cannot do anything but criticize. That is obvious. Nothing is ever good enough for you.

 

[F1fan]

I am not responsible for how they appear to you.

You are the writer. How are you not responsible for what you write? Words are put together in a way that they have specific meanings. You constantly write in the form of assertions that then mire the debate because these are challenged, You then admit they are just beliefs. But then you continue your pattern of wording that suggests facts.

Everyone here knows that they are beliefs, not facts, because I have stated that over and over again.

Except you, I suspect.

I don't see any other atheists confused.

All other skeptics challenge your claims as well. I'm challenging your wording because you are in a cycle of making factual claims, then denial of fact, then factual claims, then denial of fact, then factual claims, then denial of fact, ad nauseam. You have us trapped in a cycle. You admit you have no facts and knowledge about a God, but then go on post after post about what God is, and does, or can't do, as if you have facts and knowledge.

You should be more transparent and state that you believe messengers and here's what messengers say. You keep writing posts as if you have absolute knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

There is no gamble on the part of believers, it is the atheists who are gambling, and I can guarantee you are going to lose the bet..

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

There is evidence, you just do not like it.

 

[F1fan]

There is the evidence God provides,

Yet a God isn't known to exist, so there is no such evidence.

Prove a God exists as a fact, and that it provides evidence as a fact, then this would be a correct statement. At face value it is false.

Messengers, so believers are smart because they look at the evidence God provides.

Again false for the reasons above.

 

[Trailblazer]

You should be more transparent and state that you believe messengers and here's what messengers say. You keep writing posts as if you have absolute knowledge.

Maybe it comes across that way because I have absolute certitude, but I have always said it is a belief.
Why does how I write bother you so much?

 

[F1fan]

There is no gamble on the part of believers, it is the atheists who are gambling, and I can guarantee you are going to lose the bet..

Atheists have nothing on the line. Believers do. Believers are invested in their religion so may be biased in how they think through the ideas and arguments. As you concede God isn't known to exist, so theists are gambling with their belief and faith that one does exist, and in the form they believe, not some other idea of God. That is the gamble, as made famous by Pascal.

There is evidence, you just do not like it.

False. As many skeptics point out the thinking you present as evidence is weak and insufficient for belief.

 

[Heyo]

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

Do I understand you right that you think that god wouldn't do what he obviously didn't do?
God hasn't directly communicated with everybody so it obviously wouldn't (or couldn't) communicate directly with everybody?

 

[F1fan]

Maybe it comes across that way because I have absolute certitude, but I have always said it is a belief.
Why does how I write bother you so much?

Your style is manipulative and incorrect. English as a language is sufficient to allow people a high degree of precision in how it is used to convey ideas, evidence, arguments, etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet a God isn't known to exist, so there is no such evidence.

Prove a God exists as a fact, and that it provides evidence as a fact, then this would be a correct statement. At face value it is false.

At face value it is true..
I said "There is the evidence God provides," I did not say that there is proof that God exists.
The only way that a God could be universally known to exist is if there was proof that established the existence of God. But some of us know without proof, because the evidence is so compelling.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

 

[Trailblazer]

Your style is manipulative and incorrect. English as a language is sufficient to allow people a high degree of precision in how it is used to convey ideas, evidence, arguments, etc.

You just can't stop criticizing can you?
There is nothing manipulative about my language.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do I understand you right that you think that god wouldn't do what he obviously didn't do?

God would not do what He has never done unless God changed His mind and decided to do what He has never done.

God hasn't directly communicated with everybody so it obviously wouldn't (or couldn't) communicate directly with everybody?

God wouldn't do that unless God changed His mind and decided to do what He has never done.
Nothing in the world could be more absurd than God communicating directly to everyone in the world. It is completely unnecessary because most people in the world believe in God because of a Messenger of God, Prophet or holy man, etc.

I am sorry some atheists cannot understand absurd it is to expect God to communicate to them directly, because they want what they want so reasoning goes right out the window.....
If the best way to communicate to humans was speaking to everyone directly, don't you think that an all-knowing God would have realized that by now? This is logic 101 stuff.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course there is no way to be sure that any God exists, yes?

There is a way to be sure, if that sureness comes from God.

 

[Heyo]

God would not do what He has never done unless God changed His mind and decided to do what He has never done.

So, what would god do?

We have assumed god to throw thunderbolts, send rain or help people find their keys. But on closer inspection there have been natural explanations for all of these. There are just a few gaps left where god could hide. Creation of the universe is the only bigger one.

And, according to you, communicating with messengers.

Anything else?

Remember the problem of evil we talked about? I brought up natural disasters and childhood cancer. You said you wouldn't hold god responsible for illness because it occurs naturally. Guess what, natural disasters also occur naturally, so god is off the hook for that also.

This is logic 101 stuff.

Yep, and it seems your god is shrinking at every step. Again my warning: proceed and it will fit in a test tube.

 

[Trailblazer]

So there is no basis to assume or decide any Gods exist.

Not for you.

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

Messengers are not fallible people. According to my beliefs, they are infallible.
That is a good reason to believe them.