Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

but He likes to do it in the most inefficient way

You have no way of knowing any other way would be more efficient, since it has never been tested.
You only imagine you know.

 

[Trailblazer]

Even if they are logically consistent, someone else could come to another logical consistent system by picking a different messenger.

I thought you said logic and belief don't mix?
I did not pick my Messenger based upon logic.

 

[Heyo]

That is true, I only have a belief, but the hundred-dollar difference between me and the other believers is that I believe that all the previous Messengers are also right and I believe that religion is essentially one.

But you are still picky about those previous messengers (only Abrahamic) and especially picky about successive messenger (none allowed).

 

[Heyo]

I thought you said logic and belief don't mix?
I did not pick my Messenger based upon logic.

I thought you said you could justify your belief logically?
Since you don't, we are in agreement.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How indeed. It is nice to see that you are logical.

Implied attempt at being insulting is noted.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The odd thing is that you have God on your side and I'm all alone, and you lose.

Do me a favour..

 

[viole]

You have no way of knowing any other way would be more efficient, since it has never been tested.
You only imagine you know.

Well, it comes without saying, doesn't it? Again, you need to know a bit of communication theory to see it. Communicating X to anyone instantly, is vastly more efficient than communicating X to a few, who can only introduce entropy to the original message, when they spread it. Like Chinese whisper. And that is why all those Gods look so different.

So, the only logical conclusion, is that a God with that Modus Operandi is not a God. No God would achieve His will in such a suboptimal way. And whoever claims to have directly spoken with Him, either deluded himself, or he just made that up.

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think you mean a false dichotomy fallacy.

..or even a no true strawman fallacy..

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I'd be in the water before I could think and do what I can to save the kid.

..another no true strawman fallacy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Gotta love a religion that is so unbelievable that it has to resort to threats.

G-d has no need to threaten. We are so insignificant compared to Him. Try warning. I warn my children. Whether they take any notice or not, is another matter.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..people who are good and in balance don't need guidance.

Well, G-d knows what He creates. Sure, you can learn by your mistakes.
However, some people just never learn.

 

[joelr]

No, there is no proof that God has spoken to any Messengers, but there is evidence that indicates that is what God has done.

No there is absolutely no evidence that there is any God and absolutely no good evidence that he gave messages to any person. Those are claims. People make claims every day on forums that they have gotten a message from some God or deity. We have been over this several times. There is not one single piece of reasonable evidence for the messenger claim. There is good evidence that
it wasn't a messenger from a God based on the 3 criteria laid out in the book that was linked to that said a messenger must provide new science, philosophy and prophecy. all 3 were a complete disaster and much of the science was literally wrong.

I never said that God could not speak to all humans at once, but what would be the point?
What would that accomplish?

If you were announcing you were the new unexpected leader of a country would you tell one person and have them tell the country or would you speak to the country in front of a large crowd broadcast online? why wouldn't a deity speak to all humans? It's an infinite limitless being yet its choice is to have one human take notes? Even worse is you just tell the messenger basic stuff everyone knows like "be good and get along"????

 

[muhammad_isa]

The idea of an afterlife is absurd...

No more absurd than the fact you experience awareness right now..
The body is a mere shell .. it can be replaced at will .. it is easy for G-d.
No G-d, means no life. It is a lie to suggest that an intelligent universe can evolve from complete nothingness.

 

[joelr]

What do you think about the Baha'i Faith as an updated, liberal form of Shia Islam?

Then... Baha'is believe that God has revealed himself to everybody through his manifestations. But most people don't get a personal visit with the manifestation. They have to go by what others have said about them. And, with the Baha'i Faith, what the manifestation wrote. For some, that is enough to convince them that their guy was telling the truth... that he was sent from God. But obviously, it's not all that convincing to everybody.

Then... wasn't there some people where their God was accessible to everybody? That anybody could get a vision directly from their God? Like even with Christianity, especially Catholics, they get visions of angels and Mary. Then the Baha'is can get visions of Abdul Baha. Then the next question... Is the vision real or imagined? Which eventually gets to God... Is God real or imagined?

Since some people's Gods aren't considered to be real, especially by people in another religion, then some people might very well have imaginary Gods. But why are those Gods imaginary but not the Gods of all religions? Even Baha'is don't believe in the God of Trinitarian Christians. So, going back to your "borrowing" from other religions, how do you see the evolution in the beliefs about God and who God is?

It's pretty simple. Everyone thinks their God or their version of God in their religion is real and all the others are wrong. In the early OT times each nation had 1 or more national Gods. Early OT scripture even recognizes other Gods. In an early version of Deuteronomy there was a passage about Yahweh sitting at a council of all the Gods. El was the most high. Yahweh got Israel as his to rule over. Eventually after being invaded a few times the Hebrew leaders decided they needed to be more Yahweh-centric and decided all other Gods were false. After Hellenism (the Greek occupation) Yahweh became the supreme God. During the Middle Ages Christian theologians moved Yahweh from the 7th heaven in outer space to a different dimension and added Platonic concepts of "the One" to him. Tri-omni features making him infinite in several ways. Other versions of God also followed this progress.

The Hindu version of God is completely different.

At any rate, it's all speculation. At least for theism, it's all fiction.

 

[ChristineM]

And I am afraid you will be waiting a long time, because God does not provide that kind of evidence.

How convenient that you know precisely what god will and will not provide, almost as though you too were a messenger

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: 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.

Disagree. That is why I reject the claim that a tri-omni deity with a message for man exists.

Go ahead and reject it then but realize that the reason you are rejecting the deity is because it is not doing what you want it to do. That is the main reason atheists reject the deity, because it does not do what they want it to do, communicate the way they want it to, prove it exists, etc.

You're assuming that such a god does exist, and since it has done nothing more than send messengers, that must be the optimal method of communicating. It's no longer a conditional statement. You've moved the goalpost.

I do not assume that God exists, I believe that God exists and sends Messengers, but even if I had no such belief or any belief in God I could present the same argument based upon God’s omniscience. Whatever God did (what there is evidence for) has to be the optimal way of communicating if God is omniscient. Moreover, there is no evidence that God has ever tried to communicate with humans in any way other than Messengers, so the three logical possibilities are as follows:

1. God exists and communicate via Messengers (theist), or
2. God exists and does not communicate to humans (deist), or
3. God does not exist (atheist)

Trailblazer said: 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.

Yes, this is a fine example of what I just posted. That's faith speaking. Since this god DOES exist (unshared premise held by faith), it's choice must have been optimal.

No, it is logic speaking. Whatever an omniscient God did has to be optimal since an omniscient God would have all options available to Him and pick the option that would best achieve His goals.

Trailblazer said: do you know what the best method of communication would be in order to garner the belief of the maximum number of people?

No.

But this discussion isn't about what the best method would be for such a deity. It's more about what wouldn't be the best method for a tri-omni god to choose.

Okay then, do you know what wouldn't be the best method for a tri-omni God to choose? If you know that how do you know that?

It is you that is saying that messenger is the best option open to such a deity. I'm saying that that is not a tri-omni deity's best option, not what is. Actually, it's hard to think of a less effective means for a deity to reach all of humanity.

No, I am only saying that an omniscient God would know the best option to accomplish its goals and it would employ that option. Since there is no evidence that the deity has ever tried to use any method other than Messengers there cannot be another option a deity would use if it existed, not unless the deity did an about face and decided to do something differently, but I would not hold my breath waiting for that.

It does not help to say that Messengers are not the best option unless you (a) have a better option and (b) you know that option would work better. You have a theory but you have no way to test it.

Trailblazer said: You have no idea what a omnipotent deity that wants to be heard would do

I have some idea, a pretty good one in fact. Also, I know what it wouldn't do. Can you imagine a worse way to get a message out to mankind? I can't.

How do you know what a deity wouldn’t do if it existed? Have you spoken with the deity? The way we know what it wouldn’t do is by looking as what it has not done, and it has never communicated directly to everyone or spoken from a loud speaker in the sky. So we know the deity would not do either of those things if it exists, not unless it suddenly changed its methods.

Actually, I cannot imagine a better way for a deity to get a message out to all mankind such that every human would have access to what the deity wants us to know. The Writings of Baha’u’llah are on the world wide web for everyone to read, also available in audio and braille for the blind and they have been translated into 800 languages and will eventually be available in every language.

How have governments with access to modern communications technology trying to get the message out to humanity to take the vaccine if eligible and it's available? Why didn't they choose to send Fauci out on foot preaching to whomever was in his presence?

As I just said, the message of Baha’u’llah is on the world wide web for everyone to read. Aside from the Baha’i Reference Library, there are all kinds of Baha'i websites with information about the religion and its teachings

How do political candidates get their messages out? They use the most effective means available to them, not the least.

God is not going to come on down to earth and use the media to get His message out but I sure wish the Baha’is would make better use of the media, as this is the information age. Some of the Baha’is have some that, the ones who are responsible for the BahaiTeaching.org articles.

It would be no different for a deity. I know that your position is that I can't know that, but I disagree. If a tri-omni deity exists and uses messengers who deliver very human messages that can't be recognized as superhuman, then it is not trying to be an effective communicator or even trying very hard to be known.

You are assuming that it is important to the deity to be known by everyone, but there is no reason to think that. Most people in the world are religious and believe in the deity so it is already known by them, which means that the method thus far used has been successful to garner belief in God. The Baha’i Faith is still fairly new so it is going to take a long time for it to grow as large as the older religions.

Trailblazer said: 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.

Disagree. Every option I named is logically possible until it can be shown to be impossible.

It is highly improbable that a deity would communicate directly to everyone since there is no evidence that it has ever has done so, and it would not do so unless the it changed its mind and decided to do that. What are the chances of that?

Trailblazer said: These claims are believable to everyone in the world except atheists, who comprise a mere 7% of the world population.

Most people in the world aren't skilled critical thinkers. They believe what they are told. Critical thinking rejects believing insufficiently supported beliefs.

So only atheists are skilled critical thinkers and the world is being run by believers who are unable to think correctly? It does not seem very logical that all the scientists and politicians and educators who believe in God are not thinking critically.

Trailblazer said: 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.

What you offer as evidence for a god is not that. It is evidence that people make claims for gods. The words and deeds would need to transcend human potential to be considered evidence of a deity.

There is no evidence for God other than the Messengers since that is what God offers as evidence. How do you know that the words and deeds of Baha’u’llah did noy transcend human potential? There is evidence that they did.

Trailblazer said: 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.

That is not evidence that Jesus or Muhammad were messengers of a god. It is evidence that people can have a significant impact on history.

It is not proof that they were Messengers of God, but it is evidence that they were more than mere men.

Trailblazer said: you are the one who is claiming that only atheists are rational.

I am saying that agnostic atheism is the only rational position for a skilled critical thinker to take. Any other position requires a leap of faith, which is a deviation from reason.

I am saying that faith is not a deviation from reason because any reasonable person would be able to understand that faith is necessary to believe in God since there is no proof that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you are still picky about those previous messengers (only Abrahamic) and especially picky about successive messenger (none allowed).

No, Baha'is believe in all the Messengers of God, not only the Abrahamic ones, and we also believe there will be more Messengers of God in the future, because God will continue to send Messengers as long as humanity exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

I thought you said you could justify your belief logically?
Since you don't, we are in agreement.

I can justify my belief logically but I did not pick my Messenger based upon logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Implied attempt at being insulting is noted.

That was a compliment, not an insult.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, the only logical conclusion, is that a God with that Modus Operandi is not a God. No God would achieve His will in such a suboptimal way.

So now you know what God would do.

The only logical conclusion is that you think you know more than an all-knowing God would know about how to communicate to humans which is logically impossible since nobody can be more than all-knowing.

God achieved what He set out to achieve which is not what you imagine God wants to achieve.

Why not just declare yourself God and get it over with?