Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

Atheists have nothing on the line. Believers do.

We all have something on the line if there is an afterlife.
This life is a mere nothing compared to eternity.

 

[ppp]

1. If God existed would God communicate directly to everyone?

Depends on the god. Is it is a god that wants everyone to be justified in believing that he exists and he has things to communicate, then yes.

2. If God existed would God prove that He exists to everyone?

Depends on the god. If it is a god that wants everyone to be justified in claiming that he exists, then yes.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

I don't know. I do not have God's itinerary. Only God knows what God would do, if it is something not recorded in Scriptures.

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.

From my perspective, God is not on the hook for anything that happens because God is infallible. God might be responsible for certain things if He created them, but that does not mean He is on the hook. "It's God's fault" is an oxymoron since an infallible God cannot make any mistakes so he cannot be blameworthy.

Yep, and it seems your god is shrinking at every step.

Why is that?

 

[lukethethird]

We all have something on the line if there is an afterlife.
This life is a mere nothing compared to eternity.

You have no knowledge of an afterlife, it's just a belief that appeals to your emotions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..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.

There is plenty of people reminding others about G-d on these forums, but they continue to speak against G-d.

satan will never listen. he knows it all already. he uses his knowledge of religion to mislead others.

G-d is in constant "communication" with everyone .. you know, that "little voice" in our heads that reminds us that what we are doing is not right. The problem is, that the more we incline towards evil, the more that voice gets ignored and sneered at.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: 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.

If an tri-omni deity existed, had a message for man, wanted to be believed, it could do better.

If an all-knowing deity existed it could not do any better than it has already done in communicating to humans, or in anything else it does. That is logically impossible. An all-knowing deity cannot do better than it has done because it has always known the best course of action of all the available options by virtue of being all-knowing.

Trailblazer said: 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.

And do you know what the best method of communication would be in order to garner the belief of the maximum number of people? Mind you, we do not even know if that is the goal of the deity.

Logically speaking, if there is an all-knowing deity it would have to to know the best method of communication of all the available options to accomplish its goals and it would have already employed that method. Since a deity has never communicated directly to everyone it is logically impossible for that to be the best method for the deity to accomplish its goals.

Trailblazer said: 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.

I am not disqualifying anything, I am just making logical statements. 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.

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.

This is not about what I believe about God vs. your opinion about God.

Let's stay on task rather than deflecting. This is simple logic. Since you are not God and you are not all-knowing 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 have no idea what a omnipotent deity that wants to be heard would do. Stop saying should.'

I believe that the deity used Messengers but I do not claim to know that since I cannot prove it.
You have no idea what a omnipotent deity that wants to be heard would do, you just believe it would be direct communication to everyone. However, I doubt you have ever thought through what would happen if God ever did that.

Trailblazer said: 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.

Everyone knows that if a deity exists it has never communicated directly to everyone, and that is how we know that if a deity exists it does not communicate directly to everyone. This is grade school level logic.

The only option on your list that is logically possible is that no deity exists, so obviously it could not communicate directly to everyone or communicate in any other way.

Trailblazer said: 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?

If the deity has access to that hardware, it has chosen not to use it to communicate the most important message in human history, the message of Baha'u'llah, directly to everyone in the world. I cannot even imagine how humans would mess that up. Baha'u'llah on the other hand was chosen by God because God knew He would not mess it up, and He didn't.

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.

These claims are believable to everyone in the world except atheists, who comprise a mere 7% of the world population. Please don't start going into how atheists are critical thinkers so they know better than all the believers in the world because it does not help your case. It makes no logical sense that all the believers in the world are wrong and only the atheists are right because the world is being run by believers, not by atheists. That alone shows that they are just ding-bats as you would like people to think. Granted the world is a mess right now, but it is not a mess because most people believe in God, there is no correlation. It is a mess because most people have clung to the religions of the past rejected Baha'u'llah who came with the remedy that the world needs in this age.

You expect rational people to overlook the fact that all great civilizations just rose up on their own with no Messenger and no religion, but this is an untenable belief.

“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.......

But when we speak of religion we mean the essential foundation or reality of religion, not the dogmas and blind imitations which have gradually encrusted it and which are the cause of the decline and effacement of a nation. These are inevitably destructive and a menace and hindrance to a nation’s life,—even as it is recorded in the Torah and confirmed in history that when the Jews became fettered by empty forms and imitations the wrath of God became manifest...” Bahá’í World Faith, pp. 270, 272

If you read this chapter in its entirety you will get a broad overview of the Baha’i viewpoint on religion in general, within the context of history and its relationship to present day society.

RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION

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.

If you are referring to the Bible, that is what happened, but that is not what happened with the Qur'an or the Writings of Baha'u'llah. The Qur'an is much more authentic than the Bible because it was revealed by Muhammad directly to scribes who either memorized or wrote down what He said and those words were later compiled into the Qur'an. The Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah are completely authentic since they were penned by them and we have the originals.

Trailblazer said: 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.

The evidence is not the claim. The evidence is what these Messengers did on their missions, including the scriptures they wrote, in the case of Baha'ullah. The evidence of Messengers such as Jesus and Muhammad is also the impact they have had upon humankind for centuries of human history. That is undeniable.

Trailblazer said: 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.

That makes no sense that 93% of the world population hold an untenable belief and that only atheists are rational, but you are free to hold to that position of you want to since you have free will. Unlike you, I do not claim that only believers are rational, you are the one who is claiming that only atheists are rational.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have no knowledge of an afterlife, it's just a belief that appeals to your emotions.

And you know it appeals to my emotions exactly HOW?
I do not believe in an afterlife because it appeals to my emotions, I believe in it because it was revealed in Scriptures. The last thing I want is to continue to exist forever in some strange realm.

 

[Heyo]

Why is that?

It's logic 101.
Ever solved a Sudoku? You deduce numbers from given hints.
Trying to "solve" god is like trying to solve a Sudoku with no (or too few) hints.

 

[ChristineM]

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-

It is about education, the willingness of the educated to question, to research.

It doesn't matter whether you are rich or poor. Good education leads to questioning dogma

 

[ChristineM]

Do you have any actual statistics that show that this is the case?

Yes.

Most census records and their statistics analysis will confirm

 

[ChristineM]

What you are saying is true, but it would not answer the questions since they are predicated on If God exists.

That is a good point. In fact, God might already provided that proof, yet there are still nonbelievers.

Some will not accept a god exists without falsifiable evidence. You know this so why base questions that can only be answered to your personal liking?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists: If God existed would God do #1 or #2, as noted below?

These are two separate questions.

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

I am not asking if God could communicate directly to everyone or prove that He exists to everyone.
I am not asking if God should communicate directly to everyone or prove that He exists to everyone.

I am asking if God would God communicate directly to everyone or prove that He exists to everyone IF GOD EXISTED.

If you answer yes, please explain why you answered yes.
If you answer no, please explain why you answered no.

Thanks, Trailblazer

How the heck would I know what a god would or wouldn't do

 

[muhammad_isa]

It doesn't matter whether you are rich or poor..

Statistics show us otherwise.

 

[ChristineM]

Statistics show us otherwise.

Please show them or link to them or describe which statistics you are talking about do i can research them.

Edit. I did a little research, the first thing i found was this PEW article

While there is a strong and proven correlation between education and income, it's harder to know whether there also is a link between religion and wealth. ... About four-in-ten Jews (44%) and roughly a third of Hindus (36%) and Episcopalians (35%) live in households with incomes of at least $100,000.​

How income varies among U.S. religious groups

While i am not a great fan of PEW it is relevant.

 

[muhammad_isa]

While i am not a great fan of PEW it is relevant.

Not really.
You need to show us international statistics, and that apply to Abrahamic religion.

You have already mentioned Africa..

 

[ChristineM]

Not really.
You need to show us international statistics, and that apply to Abrahamic religion.

You have already mentioned Africa..

You know as well as me that international statistics do not exist, however they do exist by country.

And you claim was statistics show otherwise to my "is doesn't matter whether you are rich or poor". I have provided some of my research, your turn.

Oh, here is a quick wiki to get you going. It brings together much of the individual countries data.

Decline of Christianity in the Western world - Wikipedia.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You know as well as me that international statistics do not exist..

Do I?
What about this sort of thing?

Importance of religion by country - Wikipedia

I think that demonstrates quite well how people from poorer countries consider their religion more seriously.

Oh, here is a quick wiki to get you going. It brings together much of the individual countries data.

Decline of Christianity in the Western world - Wikipedia.

I'm not disputing that Christianity is not declining in the west.
What I dispute is the reason you give.

 

[ChristineM]

Do I?
What about this sort of thing?

Importance of religion by country - Wikipedia

What did you not understand about what you posted?

I think that demonstrates quite well how people from poorer countries consider their religion more seriously.

I already stated religion in Africa is increasing.

What I dispute is the reason you give.

Jolly good, prove me wrong. I have provided a couple of snippets for my case. Your turn now.

Edit: here is another snippet

In terms of identifying the relationship between education and religion from the negative perspective, previous studies have displayed that education erodes religious beliefs and attitudes in two ways; 1) Through familiarity with science and other cultures, 2) With being exposed to secular viewpoints (Johnson, 1997;​

https://www.researchgate.net/public...igion_Evidence_from_Compulsory_Schooling_Laws

 

[rational experiences]

If a belief says a type of God creator created creation then the God wouldn't be in creation.

Somewhere else and from somewhere else would be the human explanation.

Words. Words that science theists claim described all things are human thought.

Yet words don't describe reality. It is a thesis only.

Numbers he said came out of nowhere yet numbers owned mass.

So both words and numbers lie.

As the eternal God is an idea. Explained as unknowable even though words knowing were used.

So if a being entity released creation it did so by O.

Released creation burst burnt then cooled.

Loss of the release burnt out now empty.

How both mass and light formed.

So if we were with the creator it was once.

If O the release released first by an action it was still O communicating out and away.

O earth in emptiness a planet formed it's own heavens.

We were then sent out into the heavens by the same process at the ground state O. Mass of gas pressuring water holding a greater filled in space.

Above us not the same filled in space.

Why we aren't clouds.

O God from the eternal sung us out.

We walked through O standing up. We described it as a function the creator..eternal caused.

To reason...all life was destroyed as origin earth. It was released spiritually again when earths atmosphere refilled back in. Around the planet.

Giant life lived with the same garden nature we live with.

However ice frozen water allowed our life to come back return as water was remassed. Atmosphere cooler.

We came back we said after we had all died.

Death being real as destruction.

We argue. We came from spirit not a machine thesis.

Science argues against us from a machine thesis beginning.

Other scientists claim humans from an ape.

Machine theists agree with the ape thesis.

Spiritual humans claim direct from Spirit only. The eternal God term.

Spiritual humans don't own any science argument as the eternal isn't science.

 

[HonestJoe]

The question If God exists why would God do what He has never done before?...

Again, that isn't the question you asked; You said "if God existed", not "if God exists". I thought we'd clarified the significance of the difference between the two.

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?

Exactly the same way Christians do and the same way we do with any other proposed hypothesis. Any given god is defined with specific characteristics and so we can seek to determine whether those proposed characteristics are consistent with our observations. Some of those things will be relatively clear and direct (e.g. "God created he world 6000 years ago") and others will be less clear or indirect consequences (e.g. "God wants everyone to have the opportunity to be saved and therefore would ensure everyone has knowledge of his existence"). There are a whole load of technicalities, complications and debates involved in that but it is the core principles we're talking about here.

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.

I appreciate that, but I'm not convinced you've been able to entirely succeed.

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

We're talking principles and hypotheticals here, not specifics. The point is that depends on the various definitions of gods proposed by believers. If someone finds any given definition of God inconsistent with their observations, they will not believe that specifically defined God exists. Even you will do that for all the different kinds of proposed gods that you don't believe in. If a definition of God is proposed that states (or we think implies) that God would seek to demonstrate it's existence to everyone, that would be inconsistent with our observations and so we would not believe that specifically defined God exists.

In fact, the reason most atheists do not believe in God is because God has not lived up to their expectations.

Sorry, but your failure to get in to the atheist headspace is fudging subtle but key wording again. If someone doesn't believe in God, they literally can't think God hasn't lived up to their expectations. This would actually be, as I already said, that proposed definition of God not matching up with observed reality. It isn't about God failing at anything, just people failing to come up with a viable definition.

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.

Really? I would suggest that you are proposing a God you would expect to send messengers, which is (arguably) consistent with the observation of people who say they are Messengers of God. You'll also believe and say lots of things about the nature and actions of God, and in this context, they're all expectations, things you would expect to see reflected in your observations.

The bottom line here is that it shouldn't matter whether we (currently) believe in any gods or not, the logical process we should apply to any proposed god should be exactly the same for all of us, exactly the same as it would be for any other proposed hypothesis.