Atheists: If God existed would God……

[ppp]

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

Non contradiction.

 

[ppp]

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.

I will go a step further and say that I do not believe that in serving an idealized god that we serve ourselves and each other. Even if that god is real.

 

[PureX]

Non contradiction.

So, you can't explain it. But then, I wasn't asking you.

 

[PureX]

I will go a step further and say that I do not believe that in serving an idealized god that we serve ourselves and each other. Even if that god is real.

It depends on how we idealize God, of course. Many have used it as an excuse to abuse themselves and others. But many more have used that idealization to strive to be better humans by very reasonable and positive criteria. Like many atheists, though, you ignore all those people because their existence contradicts your bias against theism.

 

[Yerda]

But why do you think that God would communicate directly to everyone? Why would that be necessary?

Because we communicate with those we love.

Well, since there are still atheists that means that if God exists God has not proven that He exists to everyone, and that means that if God exists God would not prove that He exists to everyone.

That would mean that God does not need everyone to believe in Him because an omnipotent God could surely prove that He exists to everyone IF He needed everyone to believe in Him.

It could mean any number of other things, like the description in the Bible isn't accurate, for example.

 

[F1fan]

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.

What God does is good since God decides what is good. But if humans acted the way God does then they would be immoral. For example if Jim was walking along and saw a child drowning in 4 feet of water and Jim just stops to watch the child drown, that would be immoral due to inaction. So it is immoral that Nazis committed the Holocaust because humans are held to moral standards, supposedly by God. But God can stand by and do nothing to stop the Holocaust because God doesn't answer to anyone, and apparently not even to God's own moral laws.

The dilemma is that if God is the moral arbiter, and God does something immoral, that sets the moral standard for humans, because for there to be objective morality that means that God has to BE the standard, not just have rules for humans that he himself can violate.

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.

So you don't think morals come from God. It would have been good for the Allies to stand by and let the Nazis murder the rest of the Jews that were still alive by April 1945? God stood by and did nothing, and that is good. So humans could stand by and do nothing and that would be good too, yes?

 

[F1fan]

Because we communicate with those we love.

But according to Trailblazer humans can't understand God when it communicates. I point out that this is a problem of God, not humans. God is all powerful yet it can't communicate with beings it created?

Humans had no choice in how they were created, so they can't be blamed. If God couldn't create beings that understood then God is not all powerful, but has limitation. If God can't even communicate in simple language then it is limited in that way too.

 

[F1fan]

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

Ciao

- viole

Then god is not the source of morals, so where did morals come from?

That's where science has answers. And we should listen to science and not religious claims.

 

[F1fan]

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

In logic and debate the claim is always presumed false until the proposition can be demonstrated true, or at LEAST likely true. Where it comes to Gods not only is there no compelling evidence, but Gods fall into a category of supernatural which isn't known to be a real phenomenon. So the default is that God claims are not true. We await credible evidence. Still, after millennia.

And your own wording, referring to God as an idealized form, suggest a mental construct, not a phenomenon outside imagination.

 

[Yerda]

But according to Trailblazer humans can't understand God when it communicates. I point out that this is a problem of God, not humans. God is all powerful yet it can't communicate with beings it created?

Humans had no choice in how they were created, so they can't be blamed. If God couldn't create beings that understood then God is not all powerful, but has limitation. If God can't even communicate in simple language then it is limited in that way too.

IThat is something of a pickle.

 

[F1fan]

IThat is something of a pickle.

Either god didn't want to communicate with humans, and basically says "Sorry, you're on your own.", or it doesn't exist. At least not how believers think.

 

[ppp]

So, you can't explain it. But then, I wasn't asking you.

You answer the logic. I told you the logic. Quit complaining when you get what you want.

 

[ppp]

It depends on how we idealize God, of course. Many have used it as an excuse to abuse themselves and others. But many more have used that idealization to strive to be better humans by very reasonable and positive criteria. Like many atheists, though, you ignore all those people because their existence contradicts your bias against theism.

In your black and white thinking, I either have to agree with you, or ignore the fact that there are plenty of people who have gained inspiration and done great things because of their religious beliefs. Those are the only two alternatives? Balderdash.

 

[PureX]

In logic and debate the claim is always presumed false until the proposition can be demonstrated true, or at LEAST likely true.

But that is not logical, and is not true. It is not part of the practice of debate to presume a proposition true or false. The whole reason for debate is to make this determination. If the determination had been made in advance, as you are suggesting, there is no reason, then, for the debate. So what you are claiming, here, is not logical. And is also simply not the case in debate.

Also, you are making this statement, but offering no logical support for it. Whereas I have rejected your statement, and I have offered the logical reasoning for my doing so. Can you please explain the logical reasoning by which you presume every proposition to be false until "demonstrated" to your satisfaction that it's true, or likely to be true? Because that just sounds like a massive bias, to me. Nothing logical about it.

Where it comes to Gods not only is there no compelling evidence, but Gods fall into a category of supernatural which isn't known to be a real phenomenon. So the default is that God claims are not true. We await credible evidence. Still, after millennia.

And your own wording, referring to God as an idealized form, suggest a mental construct, not a phenomenon outside imagination.

"Evidence" is not what is required, here. Logical reasoning is. The question is are there sufficiently logical reasons for we humans to presume that gods exist even though their existence cannot be objectively demonstrated. And for most humans through most of human history, the answer has been 'yes, there is'. The purpose of debate in not to convince YOU. It's to convince ourselves and each other.

 

[Sheldon]

Like many atheists, though, you ignore all those people because their existence contradicts your bias against theism.

Wrong again, relentlessly wrong. The hilarity of your throwing around words like bias is pretty funny though, so you get 1/2 a point for making me laugh.

That some theists do, or are motivated to do, good things, often despite their religion's doctrinal teachings, is of no more significance than Hitler liking dogs, or the Yorkshire Ripper being a good lorry driver. All it really demonstrates is that religion appears not to be a sole deciding factor in people's morality.

 

[PureX]

Wrong again, relentlessly wrong. The hilarity of your throwing around words like bias is pretty funny though, so you get 1/2 a point for making me laugh.

That some theists do, or are motivated to do, good things, often despite their religion's doctrinal teachings, is of no more significance than Hitler liking dogs, or the Yorkshire Ripper being a good lorry driver. All it really demonstrates is that religion appears not to be a sole deciding factor in people's morality.

Interesting. You tell me I'm wrong, and then proceed to demonstrate that I was right. Amazing.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

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.

I see, so it really isn't that God is or does immoral things, as much as it is God and God CAN DO anything God WANTS to do...whether WE puny humans approve of it or not, right?
Scripture is chocked full of examples of God not particularly being "moral" in some of his decisions...but since it IS God.....none of that matters.....just to some of US? And God apparently isn't concerned what WE think.

 

[Sheldon]

Interesting. You tell me I'm wrong, and then proceed to demonstrate that I was right. Amazing.

It's amazing you would make such an absurdly errant claim, that much I'll grant you. Well, it would be amazing, but given your track record perhaps amazing is slightly hyperbolic.

 

[F1fan]

But that is not logical, and is not true. It is not part of the practice of debate to presume a proposition true or false.

In any event the claim a person makes in debates are not accepted as true at face value. When Mark says X is true, and X is not immediately apparent as being true, then Mark needs to present evidence that demonstrates X is true, or at least likely true. If he can't, well we throw out Mark's claims. If Mark has no evidence to demonstrate why X is true then how did he come to a conclusion that it is? It wasn't via reason and facts.

The whole reason for debate is to make this determination. If the determination had been made in advance, as you are suggesting, there is no reason, then, for the debate. So what you are claiming, here, is not logical. And is also simply not the case in debate.

You seem to assume everyone has adequate information on any given claim. For example many creationists sign on and post claims that are not true and not factual. The rebuttal may be facts and science that the creationist has never seen. This can include politics, as if a conservative claims that Biden is corrupt and should be impeached. Well I'll bet you are no more informed of a credible reason than me, so do we accept this claim? No. We ask for facts and a coherent explanation for the claim. As we see on another thread there has been no basis in fact for this assertion, and the real reason is the sabotage of our federal government. Is it logical to reject the claim, or accept it?

Also, you are making this statement, but offering no logical support for it. Whereas I have rejected your statement, and I have offered the logical reasoning for my doing so. Can you please explain the logical reasoning by which you presume every proposition to be false until "demonstrated" to your satisfaction that it's true, or likely to be true? Because that just sounds like a massive bias, to me. Nothing logical about it.

Imagine what happens if 5 theists from 5 different religions sign on to a debate and they all claim that their God is the one true God, and the other 4 are incorrect. So how would you navigate this, accept the claims of all 5 even though they invalidate each other? That won't work. They all can't be correct, it's essentially a debate circular suicide. The truth claim of each person invalidates the claims of the others.

What does work is that all 5 are told that their claims are deemed untrue and each one has the opportunity to provide evidence that their God actually exists. At least 4 of them will be wrong, perhaps even all 5 if that they present is not factual, tries to appeal to emotion, or tradition, or popularity, or some other logical fallacy.

"Evidence" is not what is required, here. Logical reasoning is.

Um, logic requires evidence. Evidence is like bricks. Logic is the method to put bricks together to build a wall (argument). No bricks, no wall (no evidence, no argument).

The question is are there sufficiently logical reasons for we humans to presume that gods exist even though their existence cannot be objectively demonstrated. And for most humans through most of human history, the answer has been 'yes, there is'. The purpose of debate in not to convince YOU. It's to convince ourselves and each other.

There is ample science and social behavior to explain this. I often make reference to these explanations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If atheists are so happy and they don't care of God exists, why are there over 800 posts on this thread in the span of a few days?

I would be a millionaire if I had a dollar for every time an atheist asked me for evidence that God exists. If they don't care why do they ask?

If theists wouldn't bring gods up, they wouldn't ask.