Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

I think what that poster meant to infer was based on core claims for certain religions. Namely that if an omniscient and omnipotent and omni-benevolent deity exists, then it is irrational to imagine that deity would not make every effort to communicate with every human in an unequivocal way,

Who are you to say what God would do if God exists?
There is absolutely nothing reasonable about a God communicating directly to everyone, which is one reason the all-knowing and all-wise God would never do such an inane thing.

God does not want what you want, and that is why you are never going to get what you want, absolute proof of God's existence. I would think this should be fairly obvious by now.

So what is the logical thing to do? It seems to me the logical thing to do is accept reality and look at the only evidence that God has ever provided, IF you have any interest in believing in God. The other logical option would be to just forget about God and stop talking about what God could/would/should do because that is not going to get God do do anything differently.

If God exists God has never communicated directly to everyone and that is how we know that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone, unless you think that God is suddenly going to realize that He made a mistake and start communicating directly to everyone.

if the consequence were an eternity of torture for those consequently disbelieved the claims of various adherents of different religions.

I do not believe that is the consequence. The only torture atheists will endure is distance from God, but most of them would not want to be close to God anyway.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is not absolving the followers of their responsibility.

No, the followers are responsible for their actions.

 

[Sheldon]

Who are you to say what God would do if God exists?
There is absolutely nothing reasonable about a God communicating directly to everyone, which is one reason the all-knowing and all-wise God would never do such an inane thing.

I am referencing theodicy, a school of religious thought that theologians have struggled with for millennia, and so I broadly outlined a logical inference that the school of thought is based on. You seem to be stamping your foot, and insisting you know better.

 

[Sheldon]

It seems to me the logical thing to do is accept reality and look at the only evidence that God has ever provided, IF you have any interest in believing in God.

Straw man fallacy...

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
If the consequence were an eternity of torture for those consequently disbelieved the claims of various adherents of different religions.

I do not believe that is the consequence.

It doesn't matter, it's one hypothetical to explain the concept of theodicy.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your assertion implies those who don't see any evidence for a deity are irrational,

I never said that or implied it.

Yes of course it is, but you claimed that a rational person would look at the evidence, I see no evidence for any deity, thus I cannot look at it, so your assertion implies.....come on you can do this surely...

I said that a rational person would look at the evidence God provided, THAT is all I said.
That means that if God provided any evidence a rational person would look at that evidence.
I did not say that God provided any evidence. I believe He did but that has nothing to do with what you see as evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What? My question was how can you assert something is possible if you are unaware of it? If you have no knowledge of a situation or fact, how can you say (as you did) it is possible? You seem to be answering a different question.

I do not understand why you think I implied your understanding. If you are not for example presently aware of spiritual reality, that does not mean awareness of spiritual reality will elude you forever. Karma will see to that lol.

 

[Trailblazer]

Straw man fallacy...

It seems to me the logical thing to do is accept reality and look at the only evidence that God has ever provided, IF you have any interest in believing in God.

Why is that a straw man?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's not what he asked. He asked if you don't have an awareness of something then how can you assert that it exists? Any given something does not necessarily exist, right?

I know what he asked but I don't understand where he is coming from, or you. I used the word possible, not an assertion iirc.
I will ask you then, if you are unaware of spiritual reality and you are not omniscient, why then would you deny it may be possible that spiritual reality could exist?

 

[Trailblazer]

Effective communication is communication that gets the message across in a way that is convincing.

That the message is not convincing shows the communication is ineffective (if there is a message, that is).

Either that, or it shows that a person has not looked at what has been communicated.

 

[Sheldon]

I said that a rational person would look at the evidence God provided, THAT is all I said.

Which infers those that can't look at it are irrational. Otherwise the assertion becomes utterly meaningless. Lets try this:

1. A rational person looks at the evidence god provided. (your assertion)

2. A rational person does not see any evidence for a deity. (this is a hypothetical example)

Now they are mutually exclusive positions yes? Thus each claim places a sub group outside of rationality. In point 1 (yours) it is anyone who doesn't see evidence for any deity, so me then for example, and all atheists. In point 2 my HYPOTHETICAL example, it would be anyone who sees evidence for a deity.

So you created a straw man fallacy that labelled all atheists as irrational. I accept you may have not intended to, but trust me, that is precisely what you did.

 

[Sheldon]

I do not understand why you think I implied your understanding. If you are not for example presently aware of spiritual reality, that does not mean awareness of spiritual reality will elude you forever. Karma will see to that lol.

It's pretty simple you asked:

do you also accept that in the realms of possibility, there may exist certain properties of the universe of a nature suggested in religious teachings of which you are not yet aware of,

I then asked how one could assert anything was possible if one was unaware of it?

Unaware
adjective

1. having no knowledge of a situation or fact.

Possible
adjective

1. able to be done or achieved.
2. that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.

 

[Trailblazer]

And being a creator only means it has the ability to get things startedi. The two are *very* different.

For example, I can *create* a piece out of wood, but that does not mean I have absolute control over the wood. So I am not all powerful, even for that wood. Sometimes I make mistakes. Sometimes my artistic ability to create exactly what I want.

So, a creator does NOT have to be all powerful.

No, but who is to say that God is nothing else but a Creator? There is no more proof that God is a Creator than there is proof that God is all-powerful.

And we find that the deity, through omission, is indistinguishable from a non-existent deity. So why would we assume such exists?

You and other atheists see omission, but me and other believers see evidence for the deity.
I did not say you should assume or believe that God exists. We all see things differently.

 

[Sheldon]

It seems to me the logical thing to do is accept reality and look at the only evidence that God has ever provided, IF you have any interest in believing in God.

Why is that a straw man?

You have again, created a sub group including anyone who doesn't see any evidence for a deity, with the added caveat for anyone who has no interest in believing in god, and labelled them irrational. Can you really not see it?

I see no evidence for any deity, I have no interest in believing in a deity (as I see no evidence for any deity), so if it is logical to do what I-AM-NOT-DOING, then WHAT-DOES-YOUR-CLAIM-INFER-ABOUT-ME???

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's pretty simple you asked:


I then asked how one could assert anything was possible if one was unaware of it?

Unaware
adjective

1. having no knowledge of a situation or fact.

Possible
adjective

1. able to be done or achieved.
2. that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.

Yes, of course it is possible, I my self was like you at one stage, I was unaware of spiritual reality. Just because you are unaware of it now does not mean you will always be unaware of it. I mean anyone who does efficacious religious practice becomes aware of spiritual reality in time.

 

[ppp]

I know what he asked but I don't understand where he is coming from, or you. I used the word possible, not an assertion iirc.
I will ask you then, if you are unaware of spiritual reality and you are not omniscient, why then would you deny it may be possible that spiritual reality could exist?

Because I do not have any way to know that it is possible. There are two buckets - possible and impossible - How can I know that a "spiritual reality" is in the possible bucket.

Before I can say something is possible, possibility has to be demonstrated.
Before I can say something is impossible, impossibility has to be demonstrated.

 

[ppp]

Yes, of course it is possible, I my self was like you at one stage, I was unaware of spiritual reality. Just because you are unaware of it now does not mean you will always be unaware of it. I mean anyone who does efficacious religious practice becomes aware of spiritual reality in time.

But at this moment, I think you would agree, that it would not be rational of him to take your claims about being aware of spiritual reality seriously.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, that is not the reason. the reason is because God does not choose to communicate to humans.
God only chooses to communicate to Messengers who are another order of creation, both divine and human.
According to my beliefs.

So the reason God seems to be non-existent is that he chooses to behave as if he's non-existent? Convenient.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you created a straw man fallacy that labelled all atheists as irrational. I accept you may have not intended to, but trust me, tat is precisely what you did.

It does not matter how you misconstrued what I said.
Right now I am saying I do not think all atheists are irrational
Now, are you going to argue with that and tell me what I really think and create a straw man?

 

[Sheldon]

Either that, or it shows that a person has not looked at what has been communicated.

Ok we're close here, so I'll tread lightly. Is there any way I could misunderstand the deity you believe in, IF IT DID NOT WANT ME TO?