Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

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

Based upon God's track record God will never provide what you are waiting for but good luck waiting.

 

[ChristineM]

Based upon God's track record God will never provide what you are waiting for but good luck waiting.

Again, convenient.

However, if you take the OT at its word then yes, god is capable of and has provided exactly what you say he will never do. Of course claiming the OT is allegory is also convenient don't you think?

 

[HonestJoe]

The only characteristic of God I ever hear atheists mention is omnipotence...

Maybe you're not really listening. There are lots of characteristics of various proposed gods that are commonly discussed in this context, but they're all based on the characteristics defined and presented by believers. Key ones I've seen in discussions involved omnibenevolence and omniscience but there are also specific things such as creation or direct communication with some people (as with your Messengers). They key question is typically whether these sets of characteristics are internally logically consistent in addition to being consistent with general observations and evidence.

Probably not entirely, because I cannot know what it is like to NOT believe in God, I can only imagine it.

So do you accept that your perceptions of how atheists actually think and perceive things could be simply wrong?

I believe that this definition of God is consistent with reality because there is no indication that God is seeking to demonstrate His existence to everyone. The God I believe in would never seek to demonstrate His existence to everyone since He wants us to choose to believe on faith and evidence.

Fair enough, but that is only about the God you specifically believe in. You can't frame your OP question in that context because you've already defined your God as not doing the things you asked about.

Again, you are still fudging the distinction between a question of could such a god have existed and does such a god exist. You need to decide which question you're asking and stick to it. The answers to both are very simple ("yes" and "no" respectively), the only complication comes from your merging the two.

And God is failing because God is not living up to their expectations and doing what they would expect Him to do.

Again, you're failing to get in to the atheist headspace. The idea of God not living up to expectations makes zero sense if you don't believe God exists. The only thing not living up to atheist expectations here are the proposed definitions of gods from believers. You can't spin this in to an attack on God.

The difference between me and atheists is that I am not proposing a hypothetical God,

You are proposing a God, and the fact you already believe that God is real makes no fundamental difference to the proposal in itself. I'm sure I've said this to you before but there is nothing special about the idea of gods and no reason to treat those ideas any differently to anything else. A hypothesis is a hypothesis regardless of how many people believe it is true or not. The whole point of a hypothesis is to move beyond subjective belief to objective fact.

Of course, if you believe God doesn't want his existence to be an objective fact but to remain a belief, there seems to be literally no point in this entire discussion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

realize that the reason you are rejecting the deity is because it is not doing what you want it to do.

OK. That's not quite correct. I reject the claim that there is evidence for a tri-omni deity that wants to be known by mankind. If a deity exists, it either is incapable or unwilling to make itself known.

The problem here is the different ways we approach this matter. I go from evidence to conclusion. The evidence for a god is insufficient to say it exists.

You begin with an unsupported belief as premise and then look at the evidence, well, since God exists, that must be evidence of God.

I do not assume that God exists, I believe that God exists and sends Messengers

That's the same thing. You are starting with your god belief as a fact: It exists and sends messengers.

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?

Reason. I have some experience communicating. I know how to be understood and what doesn't work. Sending messengers only works on people that are willing to believe the messenger, and no god is necessary for such people to exist or to hold such beliefs, so it will be ineffective with human beings that require more. That would be a method that only a god that wanted to be believed by faith or one who couldn't do better or doesn't care to do better would choose. How do I know that? Reason.

I am only saying that an omniscient God would know the best option to accomplish its goals and it would employ that option.

Agree, but that's an argument against a tri-omni deity that has a message for all of humanity existing, since the best method wasn't used.

You are assuming that it is important to the deity to be known by everyone

No, I am not. I have already acknowledged the logical possibility that a deity could exist that was unable to communicate effectively or wasn't interested in so doing. Such a deity would not be expected to produce compelling evidence of its existence nor effectively deliver its message. This is why most of the world does not hold your belief that your holy writings are from a deity.

There is no evidence for God other than the Messengers

And the messengers are not evidence of a god, so agnostic atheism is the only logical position. Any other position requires a leap of faith.

How do you know that the words and deeds of Baha’u’llah did noy transcend human potential?

There is nothing there that a human being could not have done, or that they haven't done repeatedly through history.

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.

Faith is a deviation from reason. If you can only believe something by faith, your belief is unsound. A chain of valid logic is like a footbridge, where each step is a valid inference. The critical thinker goes where the path of fallacy-free reasoning takes him. A leap of faith will take you where the path does not. It is a violation of the rules of reason, meaning it is a logical fallacy. It's the one called non sequitur, which means does not follow (from what came before). The conclusion leapt to by faith is not supported by reason, nor reasonable to believe.

 

[ppp]

No, like a fool, I do whatever people ask me to do, unless I have done it 100 times already.

I have yet to see you demonstrate that your belief that a god exists is true when some has asked you to do so.

 

[ppp]

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.

It has nothing to do with want, trailblazer.you are just sticking that in there.

 

[ppp]

And you know more than Messengers do about the Nature of God?
Where are you getting your information?

The sending of messengers is just one of your many claims about the nature of God that do not hold up.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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?

Good for him and good for you that he has achieved what he wanted to achieve, I believe wars and diseases, murders and rapes, floods and droughts, earthquakes and volcanoes, tsunamis and meteorite strikes, falsehood and charlatanry, leaving human kind in distress.
I do not believe in existence of any God. But yes, I am Brahman,I am none other than what constitutes all things in the universe.

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.

Again opening your bundle of contradiction. Believing without reason is a deviation from reason as @It Aint Necesarily So said. If there is no proof then why should I believe in what a charlatan says.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And you know more than Messengers do about the Nature of God?
Where are you getting your information?

Well, for me there is no God, no message and no messengers. Whoever claims that and does not provide convincing evidence is a charlatan.

Based upon God's track record God will never provide what you are waiting for but good luck waiting.

Who waits? Atheists are living their life happily. No evidence, no belief; it is as simple as that. Fools wait, and have waited for promises undelivered, like God's heavenly kingdom and everlasting life.

 

[viole]

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?

If I had that power? And I were interested in being known by humans? I can guarantee you I would have done a much better job. And it would be amazingly simple.

Look what a mess of thousands of different gods, goddesses, mini gods, maxi gods, gods with son, without son, gods with daughters. Gods asking kids to be sacrificed, gods requiring people to be all equal, other gods requiring people to be divided in castes. Gods that cause wars, hate, discrimination by people believing in different gods. etc. etc.

And what else is that but an epic failure in communicating things? Would you really call it a successful endeavour?

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

Fools wait, and have waited for promises undelivered, like God's heavenly kingdom and everlasting life.

Nope. All you have is this life and its ups and downs.
Those who have faith and knowledge have the best of both worlds.
Yes, they sometimes have to make sacrifices and be patient .. but nothing foolish about it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If I had that power? And I were interested in being known by humans? I can guarantee you I would have done a much better job. And it would be amazingly simple.

The guarantees of a mere created being mean nothing in comparison to G-d.
Your hypothetical rhetoric is useless.

 

[viole]

The guarantees of a mere created being mean nothing in comparison to G-d.
Your hypothetical rhetoric is useless.

Why? Look at the result. It's terrible. Don't you think you would have done better?

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why? Look at the result. It's terrible. Don't you think you would have done better?

No. I don't consider myself as the saviour of the human race.

 

[viole]

No. I don't consider myself as the saviour of the human race.

Well, maybe He is better in saving human races. Less so in communicating things effectively. We all have our strength and weaknesses.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ppp]

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

G-d has no need to threaten.

I wasn't talking about God. I was talking about your religion; which consist of humans and your sacred text.

 

[F1fan]

How death and consciousness works is irrelevant because you do not know what is after death.

It's death. Our brains cease to have consciousness. What's confusing about this? Is there any reason to adopt the claims that there's an afterlife? No. It makes no sense, has no facts, isn't plausible as characterized by believers. So we throw it out.

What is absurd is to think that this is the only life we have, that God would expect humans to suffer in this world for no reason. But unless you believe in God that is irrelevant.

It's absurd to you because you assume there's an afterlife. That itself is irrational and unwarranted. The fear of death is certainly a motivation to adopt this absurd idea.

You will just have to find out for yourself. That is what I say to all the atheists.

I'm not living my life assuming irrational things.

You have never heard what the Baha'i Faith says about eternal life, although I don't see how it would matter. It would only matter if you believed in God.

If it has no facts, just talk, then how is it relevant to people grounded in fact and reason? I have no interest in giving in an illusion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I was talking about your religion; which consist of humans and your sacred text.

Yes .. Abrahamic religion acknowledges that there are those who wish evil on believers.
We are promised reward for righteous behaviour, and punishment for bad behaviour.
For a disbeliever, it makes no difference .. they follow a path of their own desire.

I take the warnings seriously. Ii don't see this as threatening as I see that G-d is not a person, but of infinite nature and warns us that we ruin our own souls by sneering and turning away.

The reason for this, is that souls are immortal and everything we do in this life has consequence. Turning away from G-d, means turning away from righteousness.

 

[F1fan]

..another no true strawman fallacy.

Actually it was a metaphor. If your God is aware and has the ability to help those in trouble, but it does nothing, then it is an amoral bystander. It's fine that your God just watches the Holocaust and does nothing, but then you can't label your God as moral and loving.

And what is the "no true straw man" fallacy? Are you mixing the "no true Scotsman" and the "straw man" fallacies? It's ok because neither applies to my comment.

 

[F1fan]

No more absurd than the fact you experience awareness right now..

Not accurate. That we experience awareness is a fact that is self-verifiable. There is no evidence of any afterlife, and it is inconsistent with what we know of how brains and consciousness functions. It's an incoherent idea with no basis in fact.

The body is a mere shell .. it can be replaced at will .. it is easy for G-d.

I'm not convinced. Prove it.

No G-d, means no life.

This is an irrational claim. Life is observed existing. No gods are known to exist.

It is a lie to suggest that an intelligent universe can evolve from complete nothingness.

Who says the universe in intelligent? If you are curious about how the human brain, and the brains of other animals, evolved intelligence well there is science. Intelligence isn't magic, it's just an ability that brains have at varying degrees.