Atheists: If God existed would God……

[CG Didymus]

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.

Teri Garr was stunning in Young Frankenstein.

Now where was I? Oh yeah, Prior to the Baha'i Faith, what religion was on the same page as the Baha'is? People didn't know God the way Baha'is know him by what the messengers said, even Muhammad. So, no matter how any Baha'i tries to word it, Baha'is are the only ones that know and teach the real truth about God... that he is unknowable, unprovable and invisible. There is no such thing as knowing him through his "manifestations". They all taught and believed different things.

And Baha'is know that and explain it away by saying the followers corrupted the true "original" teaching. Of which is are none. Those "original" teachings are also unknowable, unprovable and invisible, because they don't exist. Sorry, got off on another tangent. Where were we? Oh yeah, Teir Garr.

 

[ppp]

Teri Garr was stunning in Young Frankenstein.

Now where was I? Oh yeah, Prior to the Baha'i Faith, what religion was on the same page as the Baha'is? People didn't know God the way Baha'is know him by what the messengers said, even Muhammad. So, no matter how any Baha'i tries to word it, Baha'is are the only ones that know and teach the real truth about God... that he is unknowable, unprovable and invisible. There is no such thing as knowing him through his "manifestations". They all taught and believed different things.

And Baha'is know that and explain it away by saying the followers corrupted the true "original" teaching. Of which is are none. Those "original" teachings are also unknowable, unprovable and invisible, because they don't exist. Sorry, got off on another tangent. Where were we? Oh yeah, Teir Garr.

Young Frankenstein is one of my favorite movies. In no small part due to the wonderful! Teri Garr. I often curse the name of Gene Roddenberry for whatever he did to make Teri hate Star Trek. Apparently her time on set was a horrific experience.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

And what did any of the Abrahamic religions have to do is Hinduism and Buddhism? Their progression seems to be just an easy way to make all the religions "one". And of course, they are the fulfillment of all of them.

 

[F1fan]

Teri Garr was stunning in Young Frankenstein.

Now where was I? Oh yeah, Prior to the Baha'i Faith, what religion was on the same page as the Baha'is? People didn't know God the way Baha'is know him by what the messengers said, even Muhammad. So, no matter how any Baha'i tries to word it, Baha'is are the only ones that know and teach the real truth about God... that he is unknowable, unprovable and invisible. There is no such thing as knowing him through his "manifestations". They all taught and believed different things.

Right, well those knockers, I mean, those old beliefs of other religions is something i asked Trailblazer about and why Bahai is different. She said the messages are different to the times. I said that was a bad design for a God to keep sending confusing and conflicting messages. And through single messengers. And look at the religious diversity and chaos that we have. Am I wrong?

And Baha'is know that and explain it away by saying the followers corrupted the true "original" teaching. Of which is are none. Those "original" teachings are also unknowable, unprovable and invisible, because they don't exist. Sorry, got off on another tangent. Where were we? Oh yeah, Teir Garr.

It's faith superseding faith, and no means to test any of it except more faith, which leaves a person with no truth.

 

[ppp]

Right, well those knockers, I mean, those old beliefs of other religions is something i asked Trailblazer about and why Bahai is different.

Ahem. " Magnificent knockers" Let's be accurate here. For science!

 

[Trailblazer]

No just atheists, anyone. Loads of different people disagree with you on the existence or nature of God, not just atheists. Also, this principle applies to anything, not just the existence of specific gods.

When I said “what atheists would expect to see if God had these characteristics” that would apply to anyone, not just atheists. The salient point is that believers do not talk about what they would 'expect to see', what the world would look like if God exists; they simply accept what they actually see.

Some atheists seem to think that IF God exists THEN the world would be different, but the world is what it is and it would be the same whether God exists or not. So if God exists, then this is what the world would look like if God exists and if God does not exist this is what the world would look like if God does not exist.

Again, that not how you worded your OP question. The answer to the question of whether a god who directly communicates with everyone is an obvious and unconditional "No". End of thread.

When I said if God existed, I meant if God exists. I think that people reading this thread understood it to meant.

It would have been better if I had said if God exists because if God existed is past tense and it would imply that God used to exist but no longer exists. I cannot see what else that could mean.

The correct verbiage would be as follows:

1. If God existed did God communicate directly to everyone?
2. If God existed did God prove that He exists to everyone?

1. If God exists does God communicate directly to everyone?
2. If God exists does God prove that He exists to everyone?

That is an otherwise meaningless and pointless question though. What is the point of asking whether something exists which is directly contradicted by observable evidence?

I asked:
1. If God existed would God communicate directly to everyone?
2. If God existed would God prove that He exists to everyone?

As I told you before, I meant if God exists would God, and the reason I said would instead of did is because I wanted to see if any atheists would figure out what you figured out, so these were trick questions.

Of course, if God exists God would not communicate directly to everyone because that is directly contradicted by observable evidence. As such, atheists who say that if God exists God would communicate directly to everyone are highly illogical. The only thing they can say is that they believe that God does not exist because they believe that if God exists God would communicate directly to everyone, although there is no basis for such a belief.

The meaningful questions in this context are whether the various gods people do propose are consistent with observed evidence. That includes assessing what evidential consequences we'd expect to see from those proposals. So, if someone says "God wants X to happen" and "God can make anything happen", we would expect to see that "X" to happen. If we don't see that "X" happening, it would support the conclusion that specifically defined god doesn't actually exist.

Sure, if someone says "God wants X to happen" and "God can make anything happen", and we know X to be the case, then we would expect to see that "X" to happen. The problem is HOW God would make X happen. Let’s say that X = everyone believing in God. Many atheists assume that God would do what they believe God would do (Y) to ensure that X happens, not knowing if Y would accomplish X. Then, when God does not do Y they say that God does not exist. In other words, they are telling God HOW He should accomplish X.

The problem with your example is that your husband exists and so there is someone real to reflect the perceived attack on.

A better example would be something we both agree doesn't exist. If leprechauns existed, we could find pots of gold under rainbows. Since we've not found any pots of gold, we conclude leprechauns don't actually exist. Would you call that an attack on leprechauns? Or what about our (presumably) mutual conclusions that the gods Odin and Zeus don't exist? Are we attacking Odin and Zeus by saying that?

I am not saying there is an attack on God, I am just saying these are the same scenarios because they are both expectations of what would happen if an unknown exists.

Whether my husband loves me is an unknown (could be true or false) just as whether God exists is an unknown (could be true or false).

If my husband loves me (unknown) he would do x.
If God exists (unknown) God would do x.

The implications of these expectations are as follows:

My husband does not love me because he does not do x (the dishes)
God does not exist because God does not do x (communicate directly to everyone)

I hope you can understand how absurd both of these statements are.

That is because nobody asserts that pink unicorns exist, that we will face some punishment for not believing in them or that the religious rules laid down by pink unicorns should be used as the basis for our laws and societies.

Fair enough.

No, from a human perspective I treat any belief as a hypothesis if it has not been progressed beyond that.

Your idea that there is anything special about religious belief that prevents it being treated like anything else is simply wrong. Calling a belief "religious" doesn't actually change it in any way at all. For example, belief in extra-terrestrials isn't religious in itself but some fringe religions are based around beliefs in extra-terrestrials in place of gods, so from them, the belief is religious. The exact same belief is viewed as religious or not simply based on context.

hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hat+is+an+hypothesis

Fair enough, but since religious beliefs cannot be proven true no matter how much we investigate them, they will always be hypothetical.

If that is the case, what is to prevent me from simply declaring that I know God doesn't exist?

You certainly can declare that if you believe it with conviction.
When I say “I know” I am not saying that is proof that God exists, not to anyone except me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Prove what, exactly? That you didn't demonstrate your assertion? You posted no text that demonstrated your assertion. There.

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

You said: Your premise is not true.

I said: That sounds like an assertion. Prove it.

I never said that I could prove that my premise is true, nor can you prove that my premise is false.
That is why you cannot say "Your premise is not true."

 

[CG Didymus]

What objective evidence can you demonstrate to support that claim?

Well duh... Baha'u'llah said so and he's infallible because he is a manifestation of God. And, because there are manifestations of God, there must be a God. And this is not circular reasoning... a few zigzags perhaps, but it's not a circle.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, but I do not see where that sort of reasoning even applies here. It's not that atheist are necessarily "clueless about God", as much as THEY are being HONEST in NOT declaring things about God that the have no way of knowing, unlike many "believers" who themselves don't really KNOW anything about God, but they like to TALK like they do.

But we believers DO KNOW about God because we have scriptures that revealed God.

 

[ppp]

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

You said: Your premise is not true.

I said: That sounds like an assertion. Prove it.

I never said that I could prove that my premise is true, nor can you prove that my premise is false.
That is why you cannot s

ay "Your premise is not true."

I did not say your promise was false. I said it was not true. We've been over this before. Apparently, you were not paying attention. Or maybe you are intentionally avoiding recalling your lessons. Should I get a flail and some cording?

 

[ppp]

But we believers DO KNOW about God because we have scriptures that revealed God.

No you believers believe that you know about God because of the scriptures that you have.

 

[Trailblazer]

I did not say your promise was false. I said it was not true.

Not true is still an assertion and unless you can back it up with proof it is a bald assertion.

 

[Trailblazer]

No you believers believe that you know about God because of the scriptures that you have.

And you atheists believe that you know about God because of zero, zilch, nada.

 

[viole]

Atheists want to turn God into a human so God won't know more than you or be greater than you but that is a futile effort because God is greater than you and knows more than you.

God is not subject to morality because God is not a human.
God does not have actions or behavior, God has a Will and wills things to happen.
Atheists are so funny.

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

mmh nope. We got that from Christians, and others, that morality comes from God, as the supreme moral being. Some even use it as an argument for the existence of God.

I would say, theists are funny. Even though, confused might be more appropriate. You guys really need to make up your mind if you want to give a somewhat unified view of what you believe in. That could only increase your credibility.

Anyway, is that confusion about God and morality another instance of that communication failure we talked about before?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

I think it's because there either is no deity, or, if one exists, it is unaware of us, indifferent to us, or unable to communicate effectively. You say that the deity wants us to be convinced by evidence that isn't convincing.

No, I do not believe that the deity wants anyone to be convinced by evidence that isn't convincing, I think that the deity hopes that the evidence will be convincing, but if it isn’t convincing it isn’t convincing. Unless you changed the way you think about the evidence, I cannot see how you would ever be convinced.

If that deity exists, it failed to make itself known to those that aren't convinced by messages from people claiming to represent gods. Either way, there is nothing there for people like me, so we walk away.

I can understand why you walk away but I don’t know that there is any solution to that except disbelief.

There is no reason to believe that, but even if we stipulate to it, it simply means that such a deity is uninterested in people not convinced by messengers, as it should be clear to a deity what such people require and refuses to provide it. Fine. And off we go on our merry way living life as if there is no deity.

I am sure the deity knows what atheists require since He is all-knowing. Since the deity is not going to provide anything different the only thing you can do is go on your merry way living life as if there is no deity.

No, there isn't. If you have such evidence, why haven't you presented any? Everything you've cited from messengers, which you usually change to blue, is words that any number of people could have written. I could write like that. If I wanted to start a new religion, I could write a lot of flowery words about peace, love, what God wants, what God has done, and the like.

I did not say there was proof that Baha’u’llah was more than a man, nobody can prove that except to the selves, but there is evidence, but not everyone will view that evidence the same way so not everyone will consider it evidence.

Is that what you mean by evidence of God? If so, you underestimate humanity. How many thousands or millions of people could have written that? I guess you must believe that you couldn't have written them to consider such words evidence of the Almighty, but that's not how I feel. I could write in vague, exhortative, laudatory language.

You overestimate humanity if you think anyone could have written what Baha’u’llah wrote, but the main point is not the way it sounds, it is the content. Nobody else could have known what He knew about God since they would not be a Messenger of God. Moreover, nobody could have known everything He knew about the future, and everything he predicted continues to come true.

I could throw in phrases like forked-tongued viper, throughout the ages, worship, betterment, brothers, the light of the sun, the moon guarding the night, the endless sea of stars, beyond understanding, etc.. How much of this would I have to write to convince a few hundred thousand people that I was a messenger of God?

You made your point. No, I never said that the Writings of Baha’u’llah are sufficient evidence to believe that He was a Messenger of God and I am pretty certain that I told you it was not.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and lastly, if those were insufficient, His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

Apologies if this seems like mockery. That's not my purpose. I am merely rebutting your claim that such language is evidence of divinity.

I never claimed that Baha’u’llah’s Writings were evidence of divinity, and they were never intended to be evidence of divinity.

Of course other methods of communicating have been used, just not by any deity. I've used other methods, and so have you. We are now.

My point was that you don’t know any other method that was used by the deity, so you cannot compare another method to Messengers. It is illogical to compare other methods of human to human communication to God to human communication because God is not a human. This is what flies right over the heads of atheists who believe God can communicate like a human would.

He knows what he doesn't know, and he knows that others can know more than he does, and can be certain where he can't.

I don't think you are aware that there are ways of thinking that can generate knowledge that you don't know about. It comes out whenever you write that something is only opinion when others can know it for fact. We see it all the time, as when anti-vaxxers assert themselves and contradict the scientists, people who think any opinion is as good as any other because they're all just created out of thin air.

I don't think you are aware that God has knowledge that you don't know about. It comes out whenever you think you know that God could have done a better job communicating to humans.

There are no facts about God, so you cannot know any facts about God. Knowledge of God comes through Messengers who reveal scriptures. People can take it or leave it.

In fact, you ought to be able to see that faith and reason are mutually exclusive ways of knowing by recognizing that one produces justified belief and the other unjustified belief.

No, I do not see that because it is reasonable to believe in God on faith when there is sufficient evidence. There is absolutely no reason to think that there would be proof of God.

Faith alone is insufficient and that is why God provided evidence, but I know you don’t consider it evidence, so there is no point beating a dead horse.

I know how much you dislike reading such words, and you see them as arrogant. Sorry if that's still the case, but you can't expect me to concede that what I know as fact is nothing more than ungrounded opinion because you don't follow the argument.

I do not expect you to concede to anything. You have your beliefs and I have mine, and never the twain shall meet. I do not consider myself superior, we are simply different in how we think and reason.

 

[Trailblazer]

mmh nope. We got that from Christians, and others, that morality comes from God, as the supreme moral being. Some even use it as an argument for the existence of God.

I would say, theists are funny. Even though, confused might be more appropriate. You guys really need to make up your mind if you want to give a somewhat unified view of what you believe in. That could only increase your credibility.

Anyway, is that confusion about God and morality another instance of that communication failure we talked about before?

Ciao

- viole

As you know believers are not a unified bunch.

What does it mean to say that morality comes from God? It certainly does not mean that God is subject to being moral, it means that God reveals teachings and laws through His Messengers that tell humans how to be moral.

Any Christian should know that God is all-good, which means that God cannot be subject to morality, because an all-good God cannot have unacceptable or wrong behavior.

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

 

[viole]

As you know believers are not a unified bunch.

What does it mean to say that morality comes from God? It certainly does not mean that God is subject to being moral, it means that God reveals teachings and laws through His Messengers that tell humans how to be moral.

No, but it provides additional evidence that God's favourite way to communicate (via middle men) does not work at all. And that the thesis, that those middle men just made the whole things up, is vastly more likely.

What do we need more to see it, when we come too conclusions about the nature of God that are totally contradictory?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

No, but it provides additional evidence that God's favourite way to communicate (via middle men) does not work at all. And that the thesis, that those middle men just made the whole things up, is vastly more likely.

No, the differences in religions are not evidence that Messengers of God is not a good way to communicate, it is only evidence that religions differ in every age because that is what humans require.

One reason that religions are different is because the world changes dramatically over time and people also change over time as they evolve spiritually. As such the message from God cannot be the same in every age and still be useful to the people to whom it is revealed. Revelations from God are always suited to the needs of the people and the times. Speaking of all the religions collectively, Baha'u'llah wrote:

“These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings, pp. 287-288

 

[muhammad_isa]

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

If my experience in life showed me that it was harming me or others, I would want to know why.

I would want to know why G-d asked me to believe something that was destroying human society etc.

I don't choose to believe due to some criteria, it is that experiences in life can weaken or strengthen faith .. faith being a positive thing.
Faith brings hope. We all need that .. anybody who claims they don't lies to themselves.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Agreed. Over the years of debating theists and the morality of God, and them asking me what would convince me their God exists, I've said that I would be impressed if children never got very sick until they hit, say, 16, the age of consent.

You wouldn't be impressed by that. You wouldn't have known anything different. You would take it all for granted.

I prefer to live in reality, and not hypothesise how this life could be better if only "----".
It is what it is. It's supposed to be like this.
If we put our child in a fast car and it smashes up, it is not G-d's fault for not stopping us.
If we put our child in a highly polluted city, and it contracts serious respiratory disease, it is not G-d's fault.
If we obtain wealth in a greedy way and cause people to be envious and hateful, we achieve war, and not peace .. it is not G-d's fault.
G-d has given the responsibility to us. If we want to drill for oil and make nuclear bombs, it is our responsibility. We have to police ourselves.
Whether you think that is fair or not is neither here or there.

This life is mortal .. we know that .. we can behave well, or we can behave badly. One day, we will see the results of our endeavours.