Atheists: If God existed would God……

[ppp]

God does not have behavior because God is not a human or an animal.

Behavior has nothing to do with being a human or animal. Everything that exists has behavior. Behavior and attributes are what make a thing what it is, and not something else.

God has a will and wills things to happen and then they happen.

That is a behavior.

Any time I say anything about what God does or does not, will or will not, or did or did not do, I am describing what God has willed or not willed.

Yes, I know. That is a behavior.

What do you think you will accomplish by declaring that your god has no behavior. Do you even know? Or are you just doing a knee-jerk, Nuh-uh?

Quit declaring that it is duck season.

.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I do not see why it would be necessary to know that there is a God in order to be able to determine that the Messenger was sent by God. We have to try to verify that the Messenger was telling the Truth when He claimed to have heard from God. To some of us it is not that difficult but it is more difficult for other people and impossible for others. We all come from very different starting points and we all think very differently.

So we have circular logic.

It is circular but...

The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.
Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

So...
If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

The obvious way to go about this is to determine if Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or not by research and investigation.

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

That is the easy way out, and if you don't care if there if God exists it works.

 

[ppp]

It is circular but...

The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.
Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

So...
If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Your premise is not true.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

That is correct, and I believe that God has those properties.

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?

What you are really saying is that if God does not do what I consider to be good then God is not good.
God does not have to 'measure up' to human standards. God sets the standards for human behavior, not the other way around.

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.

But proposed actions are not actions. God never willed anything evil, these are just Bible stories. God is not a human so God does not have actions. Only humans have actions. God has a will and wills things to happen in this contingent world.

When I say that 'God sends Messengers' I only say that in order to convey it in human terms, so people will understand, but what really happens is that the Messengers hear the Voice of God through the Holy Spirit. God willed them to be Messengers and that is why God speaks to them.

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.

God does not want childhood suffering just because it exists. Lots of things exist that God does not want, but God allows them because God does not intervene in this world, unless He chooses to like when He answers prayers.

And what about adult suffering? How would God choose which suffering to end? If God ended all suffering that would nullify the purpose of this earthly existence, which is to learn and grow by experience and become stronger and more resilient and build our character. If I had not suffered so such in the past I could not have endured the suffering that came later. This world was not intended by God to be free of suffering, but that suffering pays off because most people will say that it has made them stronger.

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.

The thing is that you have no evidence that God ever did anything evil, and not rescuing people from suffering is not an evil act. But if you choose to see it that way then you will and nothing I say will make a difference.

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

But you do not accept it when I say what God has done that is good, and you have your own version of what would be 'good' for a God to do. There is nowhere for me to go with this. I guess we will have to just agree to disagree.

 

[F1fan]

That's right.

If humans all acted like God then all humans would be all-good.

So the Germans who saw the Holocaust happening and did nothing, just like God, were good. And the American, British, Canadian, French, and Russian soldiers who defeated Germany were not good because God allowed Nazi Germany to grow and exist for 12 years and these nations wrongly decided Nazis were bad.

Morals come from God because God reveals what is moral in His teachings and laws.

Except we don't know what are actual teachings and laws are. Too many different versions and conflicts. So without a God showing up to settle the disputes we are on our own and killing each other. And God stands by and does nothing.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

God does not take actions or have behaviors because God is not a human being. Only humans take actions.
God wills things to happen and they happen according to His will.

You are anthropomorphizing God, making God into a human being, but I really cannot blame you if you are going off the Bible. I consider the OT a travesty for all the harm it has done to people, especially atheists. The Baha'i Writings cleared all this up so now we can know what God really is and what God is responsible for.

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

God does not condone genocide and He never did.
So God should 'do something' about childhood cancer and leave everyone else to suffer?
That is neither logical nor just.

 

[F1fan]

How can you help anybody else, if you can't help yourself?

You could believe you are helping yourself but in stead doing damage, and then bring that damage to others people and you're confused by their pushback.

 

[F1fan]

Not to me..
G-d is the best of helpers. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

People can help themselves. Some might use an illusion of God as motivation for self-worth because the person doesn't value themselves on their own merit as a human being. The illusions goes: I'm not worth anything for my own sake, but I will work for God, because God loves me. This is also how 12-step programs work. The self's value is supplanted by the worth of God. Of course this is also why 12-step programs fail most of the time. It takes a lot of work to maintain this illusion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You could believe you are helping yourself but in stead doing damage..

Really?
The Bible and Qur'an are widely accepted in society worldwide.
Many countries accept swearing on these books in law courts.

.maybe pigs can fly.

 

[F1fan]

God does not take actions or have behaviors because God is not a human being. Only humans take actions.
God wills things to happen and they happen according to His will.

You should argue the timeless POV. God being timeless means there is no change in its state because change implies time.

Of course, this is all imaginary, neither of us are using facts about any actual God.

You are anthropomorphizing God, making God into a human being, but I really cannot blame you if you are going off the Bible. I consider the OT a travesty for all the harm it has done to people, especially atheists. The Baha'i Writings cleared all this up so now we can know what God really is and what God is responsible for.

Irony, as you refer to God as a "he". That is anthropomorphism.

And Poly and me and others are just using your statements to cobble together your profile of God. So your inconsistency, and lack of clarity, not to mention lack of facts, is your problem.

God does not condone genocide and He never did.

Odd that God created a world where genocide is pretty common, and then does nothing to stop it.

So God should 'do something' about childhood cancer and leave everyone else to suffer?
That is neither logical nor just.

Only if you admit your idea of God is absurd. But if a God does exist you might be correct that it is amoral, but wrong in asserting it is good by your human standards.

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. I'm not worth anything for my own sake, but I will work for God, because God loves me..

It seems that atheists have contradictory theories.
I was only told yesterday on RF that "theists" think too highly of themselves as being "special".

 

[F1fan]

Really?
The Bible and Qur'an are widely accepted in society worldwide.
Many countries accept swearing on these books in law courts.

Which is actually a constitutional problem given the separation of church and state. Today a person can reject any religious book to swear on. A person in court could swear on a dictionary if they asked for it. That's why it's rare that anyone swears on a Bible in court these days. People are just asked to swear before the authority of the court.

It is just a long traditional tradition that has no legal significance. It's symbolic only.

Didn't you know this?

 

[F1fan]

It seems that atheists have contradictory theories.

Like which theories do atheists promote that contradict? Give us a few examples. I'm curious if you are telling the truth or bluffing.

I was only told yesterday on RF that "theists" think too highly of themselves as being "special".

That is a claim, not a theory.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheists want to turn God into a human

 

[Sheldon]

TagliatelliMonster said: ↑
If theists wouldn't bring gods up, they wouldn't ask.

If atheists don't care about God why do that ask for evidence?

He just explained why??

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: 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.

No, that is not what it means to be good, that is what it means TO YOU to be good. You just cannot see beyond your own ego.

It would not be good at all because NOBODY could ever understand God communicating to them directly.
That is my belief based upon scripture, not upon my ego.

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

No, that is what YOU require.

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

What it means to be good is a projection of your ego. It is incredible that you cannot understand this, but that is because you cannot get past your ego. Moreover, you imagine that God could communicate directly to every human and that would be good, having absolutely NO knowledge about God. It is incredible to say the least.

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.

What you consider good is just an ego projection.

Now who is the one with the indignation?

I have no indignation, I think you are projecting your indignation onto me. I just call it like I see it according to what you say. You expect God to live up to your expectations and you think that God were He to exist would be evil because He does not live up to your expectations, so why would you want to worship an evil God who does not live up to your expectations?

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

So we can stop right there. Please do not post to me about this again because I consider it blasphemy to call God evil. Don’t worry, you will never have to worship God, because God has always left that as a free will choice we can all make.

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

That’s good.

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.

But God did reveal good laws and encourage people not to do evil.

It is because humans have free will that they can do either good or evil. If they could only do good they would not be free. There is nothing I can do with your thinking, it is too illogical.

You want God to be responsible for everything so humans will not have to be responsible for anything, but God gave man free will and teachings and laws so humans are responsible for their own evil actions. Everyone know that, except atheists.

Please do not post to me again just to repeat the same things about God. There is not purpose served by going over the same ground over and over again. If you want to talk about the evil God you will have to find someone else to talk to, but it probably won’t be a believer.

 

[Trailblazer]

Behavior has nothing to do with being a human or animal. Everything that exists has behavior. Behavior and attributes are what make a thing what it is, and not something else.

That is a behavior.

Yes, I know. That is a behavior.

What do you think you will accomplish by declaring that your god has no behavior. Do you even know? Or are you just doing a knee-jerk, Nuh-uh?

Quit declaring that it is duck season.

.

I am not going to waste my time talking about the meanings of words and what toy believe God has.

Happy Trails, again.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your premise is not true.

That sounds like an assertion. Prove it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except we don't know what are actual teachings and laws are. Too many different versions and conflicts. So without a God showing up to settle the disputes we are on our own and killing each other. And God stands by and does nothing.

We do know if we read the Writings of Baha'u'llah....
God already did His due diligence whe He sent Messengers..
God does not 'show up' because God is not a human being.
God does not 'stand by' because God is not a human being.

 

[Polymath257]

Not to me..
G-d is the best of helpers. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

OK, this makes no sense to me. You choose to believe something exists based on whether it can help you or not?