Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Sheldon]

Doesn't it?
@Sheldon has a fallacy for everything he doesn't agree with

Ad hominem fallacy.

It seems you still don't understand that logical fallacies are not subjective opinions. Then again your posts don't seem to grasp that your subjective opinions are not evidence, so perhaps this is to be expected.

 

[Sheldon]

Logically speaking, since God is not subject to morality God cannot be responsible for immoral inaction.
Case closed.

That claim is neither logical, nor a closed case.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

Okay.
God is not responsible for his own immoral inaction because God is not subject to morality.
God is all-good by nature so God cannot be bad or evil.
That means God is not morally responsible for not doing what you believe He should be doing.

So, what you are saying is essentially, that this is a "DO AS I SAY GOD", and not necessarily a "DO AS I DO GOD", right?
Just for example, in MOST civilized societies, it is NOT considered moral to take someone ELSES wife, who btw is only around 13 yrs old, and CAUSE her to become pregnant....simply because God WANTS her to have HIS kid? There was no "asking"....she was TOLD that this is what's going to happen.....the hell with what Joseph might think about it.
And YOU feel this is a good example of what a MORAL God should do, right?

 

[F1fan]

That's right, but God is not harming anyone.

But standing by and not helping people when they ARE being harmed, and you are capable of helping, is by non-action complicit with those causing harm.

So there is indirect harm caused by God allowing the Holocaust to happen.

Of course you deem your God not responsible for its behavior. So God may not be answerable to any authority, but that doesn't mean we can't judge God based on the morality we are supposed to follow due to its authority.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

The message of world unity applies to everyone.
The message about who God is also applies to everyone...
I could do on.

Yeah sure, the "message" applies to everyone...ok, got that. The PROBLEM is God has entrusted the spreading OF that message to just ONE PERSON...your Baha'u'llah.
There are some 7 BILLION people on this planet....as I mentioned before, by the time the 7th billion person GOT that message, it would probably be sometime in the next decade, AT LEAST!
An EXTREMELY inefficient way of getting something as important as THAT, across to the world's population...but obviously YOU don't think so....for the really LAME explanation that if it COULD have been done quicker, this ALL KNOWING GOD would certainly have DONE IT.

 

[CG Didymus]

Or what about our (presumably) mutual conclusions that the gods Odin and Zeus don't exist?

But if they existed what would they do that would prove to you that they existed?

 

[CG Didymus]

On the contrary, I have looked at the evidence and NOT been convinced. If anything, I have been convinced that there are no Gods.

I'm sure somewhere in all these posts something similar must have been said, but what you said there is so important. No, you're not waiting on the "real" God to give you the proof you want, you have looked at the "proof" religious people give and found it lacking.

The Baha'i prophet has made one of the biggest claims a person can make... He is the return of not of Christ but of all the messengers. He in ushering a new spiritual cycle. And he is not an ordinary man... he is a "manifestation" of God, a perfect reflection of God. He probably was a good guy. Probably very wise. He let himself be imprisoned for saying he was a prophet. Is that proof that he came from God? He claims he fulfilled all the prophecies of all the religions. I've looked at a few, and all of them are questionable.

So, what's left? The massive number of things he wrote. I've read some and the same thing, some I like some I don't. What bothers me is their goal to unite the world. Their most great peace sounds like it is their laws and their religious system running the world. I don't know if I'd like that.

 

[ppp]

So, what's left? The massive number of things he wrote. I've read some and the same thing, some I like some I don't. What bothers me is their goal to unite the world. Their most great peace sounds like it is their laws and their religious system running the world. I don't know if I'd like that.

I am pretty sure that I would become an insurgent in such a society.

 

[F1fan]

But if they existed what would they do that would prove to you that they existed?

Did you ever see the movie Oh God! from the late 70's? It starred John Denver, George Burns, and the adorable Teri Garr. And, um, what was I saying? Oh yeah, Teri Garr. No wait, there was something else. Oh, God.

Anyway God made a personal appearance to an ordinary guy and he tried to talk others into believing God existed, because no one else could see God. No one believed our hero. At the end God showed himself to the court to prove he existed since many doubted our hero's claim. But it was interesting how this illustrates how being invisible and relying on personal claims is a bad way to prove existence. The solution was to let everyone see for themselves that you exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, what you are saying is essentially, that this is a "DO AS I SAY GOD", and not necessarily a "DO AS I DO GOD", right?

No, I did not say that. I said that God is not subject to morality (being good or bad) because God is all-good, so whatever God does is good.

Just for example, in MOST civilized societies, it is NOT considered moral to take someone ELSES wife, who btw is only around 13 yrs old, and CAUSE her to become pregnant....simply because God WANTS her to have HIS kid? There was no "asking"....she was TOLD that this is what's going to happen.....the hell with what Joseph might think about it.
And YOU feel this is a good example of what a MORAL God should do, right?

There is no such thing as a moral God because only humans can be moral and God is not a human
God is always GOOD so God cannot be bad.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah sure, the "message" applies to everyone...ok, got that. The PROBLEM is God has entrusted the spreading OF that message to just ONE PERSON...your Baha'u'llah.
There are some 7 BILLION people on this planet....as I mentioned before, by the time the 7th billion person GOT that message, it would probably be sometime in the next decade, AT LEAST!
An EXTREMELY inefficient way of getting something as important as THAT, across to the world's population...but obviously YOU don't think so....for the really LAME explanation that if it COULD have been done quicker, this ALL KNOWING GOD would certainly have DONE IT.

I guess you never heard that God is patient. God is in no hurry to get the message out.

Everyone could have the message right now IF they (a) knew about it and (b) wanted it.
The Baha'i Faith is all over the internet.....
There is no more efficient way disseminate information than the internet, everyone knows that.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, you are clearly using the words in a *very* different way than I am.

Yes, proof is needed for *knowledge*, since knowledge is justified true belief. And the justification is the proof.

So, yes, if it cannot be proved, it cannot be known.

Knowledge of God comes through the Messengers of God who were proof of God and made God known. There is no other way to know that God exists or anything about God. We can know about God's Attributes by looking at Creation, but that is an indirect way.

You are correct, proof does not make anything exist. It is the justification for believing that something exists.

Evidence is also justification for belief, and good evidence constitutes proof.

You seem to think the existence of people calling themselves messengers of God is enough evidence to justify belief in a God. That means that you believe the messengers are proof of God (again, that is what proof means in this context).

I believe that the Messengers are proof of God but they are not the kind of proof that everyone is going to recognize as factual.

What I require is justification that these people are, in fact, messengers from some God. That requires *first* justifying that there is a God and *then* justifying that these people speak for that God.

Otherwise, you have someone who may be a very good person, may have done many good things, and may even say many wise sayings. But that does not justify the belief that they are messengers from God. it only shows they are good, wise, people.

If the Messengers are the only evidence (proof of God) how can you justify that there is a God *first*, before justifying the Messengers? I do not see how that is possible.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

All of the Messengers of God were also Manifestations of God and all of them were proof of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

On the contrary, I have looked at the evidence and NOT been convinced. If anything, I have been convinced that there are no Gods.

What evidence have you looked at? I don’t think you have looked at all the evidence.

You are correct, my belief doesn't change reality and neither does yours. We disagree as to whether there is a God. Those are our individual, personal opinions. I find the evidence for the existence of a God to be very weak and more easily explained by simpler explanations. You don't.

Fine, I hope we can agree to disagree.

Exactly. And if it was important for their well-being, a GOOD God would *want* to convince them. To be *good* means you want what is good for others.

The key word here is *convince.* God does not want to be the one who convinces us. God wants us to be convinced by looking at the evidence. If we are not convinced we will not believe, but God has always wanted belief to be a free choice.

The obvious conclusion is that God is not good.

You can conclude whatever you want, just realize what you are saying is that God is not good because God is not doing what I want Him to do.

It sounds to me that this God likes to torture people. I don't consider that to be good.

I see nothing in that passage that would indicate torture. God just expects people to do their homework and search for Him. Seek and you will find.

Why should people care about believing in him if he is not interested in demonstrating that he exists to them?

A better question is why would people expect God to *demonstrate* His existence to them when they can demonstrate it to themselves by doing their homework? I cannot imagine anything lazier than that.

Again, this God just sounds evil to me. A torturer.

It is all a matter of perspective. Is a teacher a torturer because he expects his students to do their homework? Do students deserve to get a college degree without doing anything to earn it? Why would belief in God be any different? There are no free rides in life.

 

[Trailblazer]

So are you claiming to be a messenger?

I am a 'messenger' for the Messenger and I serve His Cause on earth.
IOWs I am working for the Messenger kind of like a paralegal works for an attorney.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you defend scripture with emotion as well. You seem to have indignation that anyone would question whether the Bahai faith is correct or not and come to the conclusion that it is not.

Not at all. You sure are reading me wrong. I have no emotion attached to my belief at all. In fact, I sometimes envy Christians because they are so emotional about God and Jesus; but that is not how I approach religion, I approach it with logic and reason.

No, I have absolutely no indignation when people reject the Baha'i Faith, I am completely detached from people's reactions. I am no more interested in convincing people that my religion is true than God has in convincing people that He exists. I am a firm believer in free will and that belief has to be a personal choice.

 

[Trailblazer]

From my perspective, you asked us to imagine a different world in which God exists. That would be a different world because we don't believe God exists in this one.

Yes, I was asking atheists to imagine what God would do it God exists.

And we answered that, in that imaginary world in which God exists, we would *expect* to see direct communication convincing all people of the existence.

Yes, some atheists answered it that way, but not all did.

That universe is clearly NOT this universe. So the question arises as to why.

And I ask why it would be that way. Why would a God communicate directly to everyone in the world? I ask and I get no logical answer. All I get is that a good God would do that, but not why a good God would do that. You imagine that would be possible because you know nothing about the nature of God. God is immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, humans could never understand God directly and that is why God has always communicate through Messengers, from the beginning of human origins.

The most obvious answer, to me, is that no God exists in this universe, while one exists in that imaginary universe.

That is saying that God does not exist because God doesn’t communicate directly to everyone, so if God does not do what I think God should do then God does not exist. There is no reason to think that God would ever communicate directly to everyone, no reason why God would do that. This is all based upon what you want, not what God wants, and it is emotional, not logical.

Yes, in a universe in which an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God exists and in which belief in that God is important for human well-being, we would *expect* to see certain things that we do NOT see in this universe.

What you expect is what you want to see, a projection of your ego.

If your husband loves you, he would help you in whatever way he is able and that helps your relationship. If you ask him to do the dishes, he would.

That’s right but God is not a human being and that is what atheists do not seem to be able to grasp. It is the fallacy of false equivalence to expect God to act like a human because God is not a human who can communicate to you and be understood. God is immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived.

Yes, in an imaginary universe in which God exists and is omni, then we would *expect* to see certain things. We do NOT see such things, so we do not believe such a God exists in this universe.

Even if atheists had evidence for God it would not serve no purpose for atheists who think this way to believe in God because God would never live up to their expectations. So it is really a good thing that atheists do not believe in God.

And maybe we *should* put God on trial. Assume such a being exists and then hold a trial of that being. That sounds like a *very* good idea, in fact. Let's look at the characteristics of 'his' creation and see if that suggests a criminal mindset. I maintain that it does.

Now who is the one with the indignation?

It is really a good thing that atheists do not recognize the evidence for God because they could never do what God expects of believers with the attitude they have towards God. Why would you ever worship a God you think is a criminal. I hope you see the problem.

The only thing in creation that is criminal are humans who choose to do evil and that is no reflection on God. God gave humans laws to live by and God gave humans free will to choose so humans are responsible for all the evil that exists is in the world.

“God hath in that Book, and by His behest, decreed as lawful whatsoever He hath pleased to decree, and hath, through the power of His sovereign might, forbidden whatsoever He elected to forbid. To this testifieth the text of that Book. Will ye not bear witness? Men, however, have wittingly broken His law. Is such a behavior to be attributed to God, or to their proper selves? Be fair in your judgment. Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend? This same truth hath been revealed in all the Scriptures, if ye be of them that understand.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 149-150

What other ways of 'knowing' are there?

Knowing conferred by God.

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

 

[ppp]

There is no such thing as a moral God because only humans can be moral and God is not a human
God is always GOOD so God cannot be bad.

With an interesting statement. How do you define morality?

 

[joelr]

That's why I don't believe in the Baha'i Faith. I think people invented their religion and their Gods and borrowed concepts from others. The Baha'is say all the major religion were part of a progression. Each religion had a prophet/messenger founder that revealed new social laws from God, but the spiritual laws were always the same. Then Baha'is are left with explaining away why there's so many differences between the different religions.

Part of a progression? Bahai didn't even get that correct. Islam is full of passages that say straight out - do not trust or listen to Christians or Jews.

 

[Trailblazer]

With an interesting statement. How do you define morality?

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. moral means - Google Search

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

God is not human and God does not have behavior so God is not subject to being moral.

 

[joelr]

because it doesn't want to.

Yeah because that would be too unique and might actually convince people? Naw, lets go the old route and just have one person get messages so many people will doubt and more human suffering will arise.
Hmmm, and it also doesn't seem to want to present information to that one person that will convince most people it's actually a deity. So it's trying really really hard to make it seem super sketchy because single people claim to have revelations literally every day. And they also never seem to have anything impressive. Making it such that the billions in Islam and Christianity will no way convert and creating the possibility for more holy wars and religious separation. Wow, what a great deity! It's almost like this is just another prolific writer who is claiming to be a "prophet from God".