Atheists: If God existed would God……

[F1fan]

If God existed God would know it, but give me one good reason why anyone else would know it.

You claim messengers is proof, yes?

So are you admitting you don't know God exists, and you doubt the messengers?

 

[Trailblazer]

Most every comment responding to your posts is critical of your thinking process.

What does it prove if atheists are critical of my thinking process. If you had any logical abilities you would be able to answer that immediately.

For example that you think your personal beliefs are good evidence is an example of poor critical thinking.

That is a straw man because I do not think that my personal beliefs are evidence of anything, and I have said that many times. What you said just shows you do not listen to what I say, or else you misconstrue it.

You often cite logical fallacies and don't apply them accurately. This is a daily pattern. You don't seem to listen to others correcting your errors.

Talk is cheap. Give me some examples of logical fallacies I cite and explain why I do not apply them properly. Whenever I tell atheists they are illogical it is in response to what they said and I cite the fallacy and explain why it applies. Atheists do not seem to listen to me correcting their errors.

I was in Journalism in high school and college. I also took debate and logic classes in college. But being able to think objectively is easily understood if you have a true intent to learn. There are a set of rules and it requires a good set of introspection and self-awareness skill.

You might have this skill but you don't reveal it in religious debate.

As I have told you before I am not here to win a debate. I have no interest in winning, I consider that to be egotistical.

I have been told by all my counselors that I am very introspective and self-aware. These are professionals, not just someone on a forum who has a personal opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

You claim messengers is proof, yes?

So are you admitting you don't know God exists, and you doubt the messengers?

I claim that the Messengers are evidence that God exists.
No, I am not admitting that I don't know that God exists or that I doubt the Messengers.

When I said "give me one good reason why anyone else would know it" I just wanted to know why @Evangelicalhumanist thought that it would be obvious to everyone that God existed if God existed, as he implied.

 

[F1fan]

I claim that the Messengers are evidence that God exists.
No, I am not admitting that I don't know that God exists or that I doubt the Messengers.

Then why did you ask this:

If God existed God would know it, but give me one good reason why anyone else would know it.​

This implies no one would know if a God exists, and you asking for "one good reason" a person would know. Why ask this when you repeat often that you think Messengers inform you that a God exists? You are negating your own claim in your question.

Consider this evidence that your critical thinking skill is not quite there yet.

When I said "give me one good reason why anyone else would know it" I just wanted to know why @Evangelicalhumanist thought that it would be obvious to everyone that God existed if God existed, as he implied.

Here again if you think your justification is good enough for you, and you repeat it often, you obviously think it should be good enough for anyone else.

Don't you think everyone should consider messengers evidence of God existing, or just you and you alone? If you think everyone should agree with you, why don't they? Are they faulty, or are you? You seem to think everyone else is wrong.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Don't you think everyone should consider messengers evidence of God existing, or just you and you alone?

It's all about our hearts. i.e. intentions

G-d has created both believers and disbelievers.
He knows why we claim what we claim.
I don't expect everybody to be believers.
I've been around ~70 years and know better.

 

[F1fan]

What does it prove if atheists are critical of my thinking process. If you had any logical abilities you would be able to answer that immediately.

It proves your thinking doesn't follow the rules of logic. Look how many times critics have pointed out logical fallacies in your posts. That should tell you something.

That is a straw man because I do not think that my personal beliefs are evidence of anything, and I have said that many times. What you said just shows you do not listen to what I say, or else you misconstrue it.

You often admit that the evidence that is weak for thinkers is "good enough for you". It's irrelevant if it's good enough for you. When you frame an argument the evidence has to be good enough for those who you debate. But you don't respect this, it's about you.

Talk is cheap. Give me some examples of logical fallacies I cite and explain why I do not apply them properly.

Above you cited straw man fallacy, and my comment was that you use your beliefs as evidence. This is a fact, not a straw man. You insist you are convinced God exists because of what messengers have written. That is YOUR BELIEF in what is means, and you conclude a God exists. You then tells us that your belief in messengers is evidence of God existing.

A straw man argument would be me saying something like you believe you are a messenger and can tell us that God exists personally. See, a straw man argument is making up something the person ISN'T arguing and replying to the invented claim. You never claimed to be a messenger, but if I argued against you as if you did, that is a fallacy on my part. Does that clear it up?

Whenever I tell atheists they are illogical it is in response to what they said and I cite the fallacy and explain why it applies. Atheists do not seem to listen to me correcting their errors.

Sorry but I don't remember ever seeing you accurately citing a fallacy. I see you make a lot of errors.

As I have told you before I am not here to win a debate. I have no interest in winning, I consider that to be egotistical.

You are 100% accomplishing your goal.

I have been told by all my counselors that I am very introspective and self-aware. These are professionals, not just someone on a forum who has a personal opinion.

That has numerous different meanings. Some folks have high anxiety and have a type of hyper self-awareness, but this doesn't mean this awareness is interpreted by the reasoning brain accurately. You might have emotional self-awareness, but this is different than awareness of subconscious motives and impulses. the subconscious can project fear or joy or anxiety or other emotions onto the conscious mind, and the mind is self-aware of these feelings. Where these feelings are rooted can often be hidden from awareness, often because the emotions themselves are a distraction from more inner goings on.

 

[F1fan]

It's all about our hearts. i.e. intentions

G-d has created both believers and disbelievers.
He knows why we claim what we claim.
I don't expect everybody to be believers.
I've been around ~70 years and know better.

You draw a line between believers and disbelievers. Do you draw a line between good and bad people? Hearts and intentions, right? Religious people can do bad things, yes?

Are you aware that there are good atheists and bad theists? How do you explain religious people who commit terrorism? Do you think they are better people than atheists who are good people?

 

[CG Didymus]

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?


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

Those were pretty big knockers.

It is kind of funny how some people get obsessed with the beliefs of their religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

No Gods are known to exist, so no, the theist is just guessing what the God they imagine would do assuming it exists.

No, if scriptures says what God would do then we know what God would do.

And even if a God did exist how can this mortal know what a God will do? It's like Jim saying your mayor will have you arrested for playing the trumpet, but that isn't up to Jim to decide. Jim can't know for sure, he's just throwing out a threat because he feels powerless. Jim using such a threat is arrogant because he isn't the mayor nor has authority to compel the mayor to arrest you.

We can't know what God will do, not unless it is revealed in scripture, but scripture is never specific, it is usually quite vague. For example, the following passage says that God will exalt His Cause (the Cause of Baha'u'llah) and magnify His testimony to everyone in heaven and on earth, but we cannot know how or when God will do that:

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248

Like I said, there is no jail, no hell, no threat. Atheists aren't afraid of this threat. It only works on believers to keep them in line and obedient.

Whether atheists believe hell exists or not is irrelevant. If hell exists it exists. Of course the converse is also true.

I find none of this convincing or genuine. I find this a manipulative ploy to coerce agreement. We atheists aren't weak or manipulatable. It is our skill of critical thinking that allows us to recognize what you are trying to do here. Do you have awareness of doing it?

Maybe that is because I am not trying to convince you of anything that you are not convinced, and maybe you do not think it is genuine because you cannot recognize genuineness.

Your critical thinking skills are not working very well if you think I am trying to manipulate atheists, as NOTHING could be further from the truth. I have no dog in this fight because I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists. Other believers don't understand why I talk to atheists so much because they have no interest in talking to atheists since they consider them hopeless, but I don't look at it that way because if I can save one soul it would be worth all my time.

What you call your 'skill in critical thinking' is really just your ego and that is what bars you from ever recognizing evidence for God but if you don't care that does not matter.

You have no idea how I think or what my motives are, that is just more display of your ego.

I said "I just have concern for atheists. This is not a game for me. I have many other things I could be doing and many things I should be doing. Instead I am here with you, talking about God."

So now you are saying that I am lying and that you know what I am "trying to do here" and I don't know.
Nothing could be more arrogant.

What you call your skill of critical thinking that allows you to recognize what you I am trying to do here is nothing more than your own ego projection. Do you have awareness of doing it?

I don't pretend to know what you are doing here unless you tell me and I believe you when you tell me, and of course both of us have unconscious reasons for being here that we are unaware of since over 90% of the human mind is unconscious.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

And as we all know, even Baha'is, every religion defines God differently. Baha'is explain away the contradictions by saying that the followers misinterpreted their own Scriptures. But in most religions, it was the followers that wrote the Scriptures.

One thing for sure, the Baha'i writings clears everything up. All the other religions were right, then they all got screwed up, and now the Baha'i Faith has the only true message. Unfortunately, all that has done is to add one more religion to the list that of religions that believes it is the only one that has the truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

You draw a line between believers and disbelievers. Do you draw a line between good and bad people? Hearts and intentions, right? Religious people can do bad things, yes?

Are you aware that there are good atheists and bad theists? How do you explain religious people who commit terrorism? Do you think they are better people than atheists who are good people?

I see nothing in the post from @muhammad_isa that is implying any of what you said.

He said:
G-d has created both believers and disbelievers.
He knows why we claim what we claim.

I did not see him draw a line between believers and disbelievers or say that atheists are bad.
I think you are reading into his post the same way you read into my posts.

For the record, I don't think that believers are superior to atheists. It is what we do that is most important, not what we believe. The value of religion is that it has teachings and laws that can help us improve our character and help us understand how we should treat other people.

“5: O SON OF DUST! Verily I say unto thee: Of all men the most negligent is he that disputeth idly and seeketh to advance himself over his brother. Say, O brethren! Let deeds, not words, be your adorning.”
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 23-24

“The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds; he whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than his life.” Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 156

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Supposedly, Baha'is, Christians, whoever, thinks they have the truth and that they know the truth. Yet so few can communicate that truth to others. And lots of people are so bad at communicating the "truth" of their religion to others, that it turns people off to their religion.

 

[CG Didymus]

What do you mean?
Some pictures that readily come to mind, are these...

What this reveals, is that ills and dangers are due to activities - selfish, careless, greedy, and in some cases, ignorant activities.
So, do you still think it's strange, or does that paint a picture of how diseases are caused.
We have a lot of dirty people living, don't we... and it did not just start yesterday.
God created the people. The people... by their own choice of activities, cause the problems.

Before there was a pollution problem was there disease?

 

[Polymath257]

Lest we forget.

Wait. Where are the satellites?

Except that this picture isn't true. It is a picture of the Andromeda galaxy, not our own. We are a couple of million light years away from where the arrow is pointing.

 

[CG Didymus]

False and misleading. The evidence is weak and often subjective, and what isn't liked is this poor and weak evidence, and presented by theists as if it is excellent and something is wrong with objective thinkers.

Very misleading... as if Baha'is believe the "evidence" that the other religions offer.

 

[Trailblazer]

It proves your thinking doesn't follow the rules of logic. Look how many times critics have pointed out logical fallacies in your posts. That should tell you something.

No, it only shows that atheists think that my thinking doesn't follow the rules of logic. That does not mean that my thinking does not follow the rules of logic.

I have seen no believers comment on my logic. This is not about logic. It is about atheists disagreeing with my beliefs and they try to use logic as a smokescreen.

How many times have I pointed out the logical fallacies atheists commit? That should tell you the same thing you think I should be able to see,

You often admit that the evidence that is weak for thinkers is "good enough for you". It's irrelevant if it's good enough for you. When you frame an argument the evidence has to be good enough for those who you debate. But you don't respect this, it's about you.

That the evidence is good enough for me does not mean that I think that my personal beliefs are evidence of anything. There is no logical connection whatsoever. WHAT I BELIEVE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING.

You have it backwards and you are projecting. That it is not good enough for you means that it is not evidence. I never said that it is good enough for me and that means it is evidence. This is not about ME. All Baha’is see the same evidence that I see that indicates to them that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and that is why they are Baha’is.

Talk is cheap. Give me some examples of logical fallacies I cite and explain why I do not apply them properly.

Above you cited straw man fallacy, and my comment was that you use your beliefs as evidence. This is a fact, not a straw man. You insist you are convinced God exists because of what messengers have written. That is YOUR BELIEF in what is means, and you conclude a God exists. You then tells us that your belief in messengers is evidence of God existing.

I believe that God exists because of the Messengers, but it is not my belief in Messengers that is evidence of God existing. It is the Messengers who are the evidence! What I believe about the Messenger has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether they were actually Messengers of God or not.

It was a straw man because you said that I said that my beliefs are evidence. Nothing could be more ridiculous or untrue. My beliefs are not evidence of anything because no beliefs are evidence of anything.

A straw man argument would be me saying something like you believe you are a messenger and can tell us that God exists personally. See, a straw man argument is making up something the person ISN'T arguing and replying to the invented claim. You never claimed to be a messenger, but if I argued against you as if you did, that is a fallacy on my part. Does that clear it up?

F1fan said: For example that you think your personal beliefs are good evidence is an example of poor critical thinking.

Trailblazer said: That is a straw man because I do not think that my personal beliefs are evidence of anything, and I have said that many times. What you said just shows you do not listen to what I say, or else you misconstrue it.

That is exactly what you did. You made up something that I was not arguing. You said “you think your personal beliefs are good evidence” but I do not think that my personal beliefs are evidence, as I just explained above. I never said my beliefs are evidence of anything. You misrepresented me and therefore it is a straw man.

I will leave you with this analogy. If I believe that my mechanic is an excellent mechanic is that evidence that he is an excellent mechanic? No, the evidence that would show that he was an excellent mechanic would be that he had performed his work to many people's satisfaction and their cars were repaired correctly and were running well, and that he was reliable and trustworthy and honest.

 

[ppp]

Fair enough, but I disagree with your character analysis.

Fair enough.

. I think it is based upon what atheists would expect a good God would do if it was good according to what they think would be good for God to do.

Yes. If you tell me that your god does things that I consider to be effing evil I don't really care what your (or your god's) definition of "good" is. Why on earth would I?

They are not off the hook with God either for the horrific things that say about God such as calling God evil. God hears their every thought. I would not want to be in their shoes in the afterlife.

Yep. For atheists who are characters in your story, I suppose that would be true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes. If you tell me that your god does things that I consider to be effing evil I don't really care what your (or your god's) definition of "good" is. Why on earth would I?

I would not expect you to.

Yep. For atheists who are characters in your story, I suppose that would be true.

I have no story. God is the one who wrote the Book of Life, so those atheists are in God's story.

 

[ppp]

No, it only shows that atheists think that my thinking doesn't follow the rules of logic. That does not mean that my thinking does not follow the rules of logic.

But you have no idea whether or not you're thinking follows the rules of logic because you don't know what the rules of logic are. You copy and quote without understanding what it is that you are copying and quoting.

For instance, you said this to me earlier:

That is patently illogical as well as being an oxymoron.

Can you provide sound reasoning to support that sentence?

 

[ppp]

I have no story. God is the one who wrote the Book of Life, so those atheists are in God's story.

People who smile at the prospect of the suffering of others disgust me.