Atheists: If God existed would God……

[viole]

God does want to be known to humans, but only in the way that He chooses to make Himself known.

And I argue that His way is disastrous. If we check at the final result, I would not how else to call it but an epic fail. I would have done better. Everybody would have done better.

Anyway, that is a tautology that explains nothing. You can basically explain everything, and therefore nothing, by using that strategy.

The question is why you ask our opinion. That is like asking: afairists, do you really expect fairies to appear to everyone? Nope, they appear only to the few ones and when they decide to do so.

I wonder what kind of debate you would expect with that premise. Apart from showing you that it is much more rational to conclude that fairies do not exist, rather than making up their motivations to inefficiently appear in broad light and only to the few chosen ones, there is not much we can do.

I mean, I suppose that is enough for you, but I would not expect that to win the context of the most compelling explanation in the world.

That is, I am afraid, theological bankruptcy.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

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

Ergo, He is not even responsible for His moral actions.He is, de-facto, amoral.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

just have one person get messages so many people will doubt and more human suffering will arise.

That's a good point

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I thought you agreed that all the harm in the universe can be traced back to God, but you just think that God is somehow exempt from normal (or any) morality. No?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Precisely. And how can you verify the messengers without first knowing there is a God?

So we have circular logic.

My resolution is simply: there is no God and these people were not messengers from a God.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

That is where I disagree. To be good means more than simply 'whatever God wants'. It means having properties such as kindness, caring, empathy, etc. If God does not have those properties, then God is not good.

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.

This goes back to an old dilemma about deities: Are they good because there is some standard (goodness) that they meet? Or are they good because whatever they do is *defined* to be good?

I think there are standards of goodness and God can, through actions, be either good or bad. We can then look at the proposed actions of God and *determine* whether God is good or evil.

For example, if God condones and encourages genocide, then God is evil, not good. That genocide doesn't not become good simply because God wants it. It is evil *even if* God wants it.

A God that chooses to ignore childhood suffering when it is able to do something about it is evil *even if* it chooses to ignore it. That childhood suffering does not become good simply because God wants it.

I can go on. The list is endless. And it shows that *if* there is a being (God) that is all powerful, then that being is evil.

At least, that is how I see it.

So yes, I expect certain things from a 'good God'. Not because I expect things from God, but because I expect things from goodness.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And I disagree with that. God takes actions and that is behavior. That behavior can be good or bad, leading to the question of whether God is good or evil.

If God condones genocide, then God is evil. If God does nothing about childhood cancer and is able to, then God is evil.

 

[PureX]

Precisely. And how can you verify the messengers without first knowing there is a God?

So we have circular logic.

My resolution is simply: there is no God and these people were not messengers from a God.

Except that conclusion is equally circular and equally illogical. "They aren't messengers because there is no God, and there is no God because these aren't messengers."

The facts are that we don't know if there is a God beyond our ideal, or if there have ever been any actual messengers from God. So it's illogical to proclaim or presume conclusions based on unknowing.

 

[Polymath257]

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

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

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.

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS TO BE GOOD.

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.

No, I find it to be impossible because I *do* know something about goodness.

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.

If God is good, then he would communicate because *that is what goodness requires*.

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

No, it has nothing to do with me. It has to do with what it means to be good.

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.

And that doesn't negate what it MEANS to be good. God having immense power simply means that the sins of omission are even more evil.

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.

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.

Yes, I see the problem. I refuse to worship an evil God.

Fortunately, I don't believe there is a God at all.

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.

And if God doesn't give good laws, or encourages humans to do evil, then that God is responsible for that evil. If god could have made humans with free will that do not do evil, and yet made us the way we are, then God is responsible for evil.

 

[Polymath257]

Except that conclusion is equally circular and equally illogical. "They aren't messengers because there is no God, and there is no God because these aren't messengers."

The facts are that we don't know if there is a God beyond our ideal, or if there have ever been any actual messengers from God. So it's illogical to proclaim or presume conclusions based on unknowing.

The default is non-existence. Existence needs to be proved. That is as true of deities as it is of anything else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except that conclusion is equally circular and equally illogical. "They aren't messengers because there is no God, and there is no God because these aren't messengers."

Not exactly a fair phrasing of the argument you're arguing against.

The facts are that we don't know if there is a God beyond our ideal, or if there have ever been any actual messengers from God. So it's illogical to proclaim or presume conclusions based on unknowing.

If we don't know if there is a god, then it stands to reason that any "messengers" either:

- don't exist, or
- didn't do a good job.

Either of these possibilities suggests a whole range of conclusions.

 

[PureX]

The default is non-existence. Existence needs to be proved. That is as true of deities as it is of anything else.

By what logic do you presume non-existence to be "the default"? Please explain.

 

[PureX]

Not exactly a fair phrasing of the argument you're arguing against.
If we don't know if there is a god, then it stands to reason that any "messengers" either:

- don't exist, or
- didn't do a good job.

Either of these possibilities suggests a whole range of conclusions.

It suggest only that if we don't know that God exists, we can't know that any proclaimed messengers are messengers. Their "job" has no established relation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think there are standards of goodness and God can, through actions, be either good or bad. We can then look at the proposed actions of God and *determine* whether God is good or evil.

..and what exactly can you achieve by that?
There are billions of people who see G-d is faultless.
You are condemning all those people to be gullible by your judgments.

It's your choice.

If G-d exists and He is evil, then there is no hope for any of us.
..but of course, that is not your agenda.
You are an atheist, and you would prefer others to be atheists, so you want us to see that G-d is evil.

 

[Polymath257]

..and what exactly can you achieve by that?
There are billions of people who see G-d is faultless.
You are condemning all those people to be gullible by your judgments.

Yes, many people are gullible. That is obvious in other ways as well.

It's your choice.

If G-d exists and He is evil, then there is no hope for any of us.
..but of course, that is not your agenda.
You are an atheist, and you would prefer others to be atheists, so you want us to see that G-d is evil.

I want people to see the stories and judge fairly. I think that will lead to the realization that the deity described isn't good.

Maybe that will be the first step to a better way to look at the world. Maybe not.

But I do think that one of the best ways to promote someone becoming an atheist is to have them read the different scriptures.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I want people to see the stories and judge fairly. I think that will lead to the realization that the deity described isn't good.

Well personally, I see that human beings are capable of evil.
I see that human beings suffer.
I don't blame G-d for that.
I really don't see how it can help me.

Would I want help from an "evil deity" or person?
No .. I would not.

 

[PureX]

Well personally, I see that human beings are capable of evil.
I see that human beings suffer.
I don't blame G-d for that.
I really don't see how it can help me.

Would I want help from an "evil deity" or person?
No .. I would not.

Atheists generally don't understand that in serving an idealized God we serve ourselves and each other whether the idealized God is real or not. They focus so intently on the 'is it real?' question that they miss the whole purpose of serving the ideal.

 

[Sheldon]

God is always GOOD

What objective evidence can you demonstrate to support that claim?

 

[Sheldon]

Atheists generally don't understand that in serving an idealized God we serve ourselves and each other whether the idealized God is real or not. They focus so intently on the 'is it real?' question that they miss the whole purpose of serving the ideal.

You know I don't think you have been right even once about what I think or believe since I've been here, that's uncanny. Yet you still keep telling me with unwavering confidence.

 

[ppp]

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.

I don't think that either of those definitions sufficiently describe morality. I don't think that either is wrong, but just too rough a sketch. It is like saying that Baha'i is a religion. That is true, but I think you will agree that "religion" is hardly an adequate description of Baha'i.

[begin hypothetical]
That being said, I am not sure how either definition supports your position. Under the hypothetical that your god exists, he is "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character", as evidenced by him giving your a moral code that tells you "some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong."

Also, everything that exists has behavior. Behavior and attributes are what make a thing what it is, and not something else. Any time you say anything about what your god does or does not, will or will not, or did or did not do, you are describing behavior.
[end hypothetical]