Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

You don't need to know such. But the statement

'If God is good, knows about humans, has the power to communicate, and there is a consequence to them for not knowing, then everyone would be convinced of the message sent.

That isn't a statement about what God wants or not. it is a question of goodness, ability, consequences leading to communication.

Even if there are consequences for not knowing, if God communicated and some people did not receive that communication either because they did not know about it or they knew about it and they rejected it, how would that be a reflection of God's goodness?

And the evidence around us shows this isn't the case.

What evidence is that and what does it show and how does it show it?

 

[ppp]

I beg your pardon, do you mean you were unaware of that? We may put this becoming aware of something you were not aware of possibility to the test.

The physical universe only comprises 5% of the observable universe

Point to something in the observable universe that is not physical.

 

[Sheldon]

Yet, the Bible stories make it clear that God had several ways to get his point across. "You ate the fruit Okay you are hereby cursed." "You people are all evil, and I'm sorry I even created you. I'm going to drown all of you except Noah and his family." "Jonah, go tell the people of Nineveh I'm going to destroy them and their city." Plus, angels appearing. Stopping the Sun for a day. Jesus walking on water, casting out demons and rising from the dead. That God got involved all the time. He wrote on a wall and on a stone tablet. And he spoke a couple of times. And he sent the Holy Spirit to those that believed in Jesus.

But some Baha'is don't think much of those stories. And, ironically, they agree with Atheists that they are fiction. So, the Baha'i concept of God doesn't communicate except through special manifestation every 500-1000 years. Or maybe not, Baha'is still believe in a lesser type of prophet. God could send some of those. And again, some Baha'is were paid a visit by Abdul Baha' himself.

To think that an all-powerful God can't find a way to communicate to everyone? I'm sure he could, but that's not what Baha'is want. They need the people of the world to turn to their guy and his writings as the "only" way to know about God.

I am inclined to agree. Anyone speaking to a deity can fill their boots, more power to their elbow. The minute a deity speaks back, anything they claim should be ignored as a matter of moral principle.

 

[CG Didymus]

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?

But religious people, me too when I tried to believe, felt God. Felt his love. Felt him speaking to my heart and all that religious stuff. But then, in each religion I got involved in and tried to believe in, and that all taught something different, and one of them was the Baha'i Faith, I felt those same things. So, my conclusion was... it was all in my head. It didn't matter what I believed. And I still feel God's presence... but in a negative way. He keeps causing little annoying things to happen to me. But I don't know which version of God that's messing with me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Point to something in the observable universe that is not physical.

Ok I misspoke. The physical observable universe is 5% of the total universe.

 

[ppp]

If a person is unaware that he is unaware of something, that does not mean that it is impossible for said person to become aware of that something.

Otoh, if something does not exist, no one in all eternity will ever become aware of that non-existence.

So how do you demonstrate that your "spiritual realm" goes in to the possible bucket? As opposed to the impossible bucket.

 

[Heyo]

They are silly, but I would never have even thought to ask them if I did not have an atheist on another forum insisting that IF God existed, God would communicate directly to everyone and/or prove that He exists to everyone.

And since we do not observe either one of these occurring he things that means that God dos not exist. Nothing could be more illogical. It is as much as saying that if God does not DO what I expect Him to do God does not exist.

The folly of the atheists, thinking to know the nature of god. It puts them on the same level as the theists.

 

[Sheldon]

Point to something in the observable universe that is not physical.

I think the sporting parlance is a "slam dunk".

 

[Sheldon]

The folly of the atheists, thinking to know the nature of god.

You know they're dealing in hypotheticals, based on claims made by theists and religions right? Atheists don't make assertions about the nature of any deity. Well some of them might assert they are imaginary of course.

 

[ppp]

But religious people, me too when I tried to believe, felt God. Felt his love. Felt him speaking to my heart and all that religious stuff. But then, in each religion I got involved in and tried to believe in, and that all taught something different, and one of them was the Baha'i Faith, I felt those same things. So, my conclusion was... it was all in my head. It didn't matter what I believed. And I still feel God's presence... but in a negative way. He keeps causing little annoying things to happen to me. But I don't know which version of God that's messing with me.

Me too. I got involved with different religions, and got the feelings from each of them.

Have you tried Recovering From Religion? They won't try to proselytize you. They had better not!), but they will help you sort things into manageable chunks.

 

[Polymath257]

Even if there are consequences for not knowing, if God communicated and some people did not receive that communication either because they did not know about it or they knew about it and they rejected it, how would that be a reflection of God's goodness?

That would be a reflection upon God's power. It showed that God was unable to communicate the message so that people accepted it.

What evidence is that and what does it show and how does it show it?

Let me put it this way.

Suppose that there was a frog. And suppose that God cared about that frog.

Suppose that the well-being of the frog depended on it getting and understanding a message about quantum mechanics.

If God is good, then would WANT to communicate quantum mechanics to the frog. That is part of what it means to be GOOD and to care about the frog.

If God is all powerful, God would also be ABLE to communicate quantum mechanics to the frog in a way it would understand. Yes, even a frog. That is part of what it means to be all powerful.

So, if the frog does not understand quantum mechanics, one of the following has to be the case: either there is no God, OR that God does not care about the frog, OR the well-being of the frog does not depend on it understanding quantum mechanics, OR God is not all powerful.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok I misspoke. The physical observable universe is 5% of the total universe.

If you are talking about dark matter and dark energy, then I would point out that both of them are 'physical'. So your statement would be wrong.

 

[ppp]

Ok I misspoke.

Fair enough. It happens.

The physical universe is 5% of the total universe.

I do not think that is true either, but maybe I am not catching what you mean. Where are you finding this number? Are you talking about baryons vs "dark" energy and matter? Because those are physical.

 

[Heyo]

That is absolutely false. The Messengers did not foment divisiveness or seed chaos.
Humans did those things.

If I understand the Baha'i faith correctly, it was intended to find a way, an idea to unity the Abrahamic religions. But, as it has always been, the only thing that resulted from the dream to unite was just one religion more.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not in the way that you want them verified.

And also not in the way that you want them verified. You just said there's no verifiable evidence for God.

 

[CG Didymus]

Me too. I got involved with different religions, and got the feelings from each of them.

Have you tried Recovering From Religion? They won't try to proselytize you. They had better not!), but they will help you sort things into manageable chunks.

No, I'm thinking of trying another religion. It's super cool. And they swore to me that everything they say is the truth. Nice people. I know God sent them, because they came right to my house and knocked on my door.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you are talking about dark matter and dark energy, then I would point out that both of them are 'physical'. So your statement would be wrong.

Haha, while I understand this from the scientific viewpoint, the omnipresence of dark energy opens up the question of its nature. I do not want to waste my time arguing for candidates such as spirit and aether as meaningful concepts that fill the same omnipresence space as the concept of dark energy, but it is my understanding the question has not been fully answered yet. Please make as neutral a comment as you can polymath, I understand your view and you pretty much understand mine, I'm trying to withdraw from this thread.

 

[CG Didymus]

You like to point to scriptures as evidence of messengers and God, but then reject the stories those scripture give.

Yep, Baha'is are very careful on what they accept is true in the Scriptures of the other religions. If it's a prophecy, or can be made into a prophecy, that is true. That and any verses that are quoted by the Baha'is prophet, those are true. The rest is questionable and if it disagrees with the Baha'i Faith it is symbolic or has been misinterpreted.

I'd imagine that you know that Baha'is believe Jesus is dead and never physically came back to life. So, that story is one of those that is symbolic. Then there's a place where the Baha'i prophet claims that the Bible is wrong. And that is where it says that Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed. Baha'is believe it was Ishmael. Which, to me, is strange because in that story God tells Abraham to go kill his son as a sacrifice.

Now why wouldn't that a story be written off as being symbolic and not "literally" true? Yet, it is important for Baha'is to make Ishmael more important than Isaac. But I don't think there's much else in Genesis that Baha'is believe really happened. Except maybe the Tower of Babel and the Nephilim.

 

[Trailblazer]

And how do you know this? Remember that scriptures often talk about God having regrets or admitting to mistakes.

I already explained that.That is a Bible story, an anthropomorphism, meaning it is not what God ever said. God did not regret making mankind or make any mistakes. That is absurd.

Atheists don't 'blame God' because they don't believe God exists at all. It is silly to blame something that doesn't exist.

You like to point to scriptures as evidence of messengers and God, but then reject the stories those scripture give.

I am not a Christian. I reject much of the Bible as literal truth as I believe much of it is figurative and much of it is anthropomorphism. The Bible is not evidence of Messengers and God because it was written by fallible men, not by Messengers of God. As such it is fraught with errors.

If God cares about people, and if the message is important to their well-being, then a good entity would want to communicate to everyone. This seems absolutely clear. if communication doesn't happen, therefore, it is either because no God exists, or the God doesn't care, or that God doesn't have the ability, or that the message isn't important to our well being.

God did communicate to everyone through a Messenger. Who are you to tell God that He should communicate in some other way?

Again, this isn't saying anything OTHER than God existing, being good, caring about our well-being, and the message being important to that well-being. It isn't even dependent on it being God: the difference is that an all powerful God that *wants* to do something would do it.

God wanted to do something and He did it. God sent Messengers to represent Him.

Once again, you asked to the views of others. They don't agree with your conclusions to the point that they disagree what an all powerful, all knowing, all good God would do.

It is not a matter of disagreeing. It is not a dialogue when you just keep digging in your heels.
I explained the logical reasons why God used Messengers and you can give me no logical reasons why God would communicate directly to everyone. You think that would be more effective and you cannot even explain WHY it would be more effective.

What God would do is what we have evidence for. There is no evidence that God has ever communicated directly to everyone, and that means God did not do that if God exists.

Clearly. And a non-caring God isn't one that should be worshiped, I think.

How does what I described make God uncaring? Can you answer that with a logical answer? Otherwise I will assume that the only reason you say that God is uncaring is because God does not do what you want Him to do.

I agree. And the fact that this was not done means that there is no God with those properties. I am comfortable with that conclusion.

The fact that God does not communicate directly to everyone, which is what you want, means God is not all-knowing? Demoting God to less than all-knowing because God does not do what you want Him to do? You are going to have to do better than that. Logically speaking, you are NOT all-knowing so you cannot know as much or more than God. The best you an say that you do not believe God exists because you don't believe there is any evidence.

I said: "Logically speaking, if communicating directly to everyone in the world was the BEST WAY to communicate then God would have communicated that way because an all-knowing God has to KNOW the best way to communicate to accomplish its goals...."

Try to refute my logic. Give me one good reason why God would not know the best way to communicate to the humans He created.

It seems that the desire to believe in a God at all is also based on emotion. It isn't based on facts, as you yourself have admitted.

Why are you deflecting from what I said?

There is NOTHING logical about God communicating directly to everyone, it is all based on emotion...
"I WANT God to talk to me directly" like a little child who wants a lollipop.

Who says I have a desire to believe in God? I believe in God because of the evidence, not because I want to. Just ask my husband who has spent many nights listening to me complaining about God and religion.

There are no facts about God because God can never be proven as a fact but there are facts about the Messengers who are Manifestations of God on earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think your question is impossible to answer, it would just be speculation. I can say that no God has ever communicated with me and if I were a God the fair thing to do would be communicate to everyone equally and in a way they could understand.

It would not be mere speculation, it would be based upon the evidence.
You could ask yourself if there is any evidence that God communicated directly to everyone, and you could ask yourself if there is any evidence that God has proven that He exists to everyone.

If people say that God has not communicated to them then we can logically deduce that if God exists God would not communicate directly to everyone...
Since atheists exist we can logically deduce that God has not proven that He exists to everyone.

OK, so now I'm sitting here in my living room and thinking, how would God communicate with ME to let me know He exists? How do you think? (and I believe He exists--just to say I did not always believe there is a God but now I do -- but how would you think he'd let anyone and everyone(?) know he exists?)