Atheists: If God existed would God……

[ppp]

No, you are not smarter than them but you are living in the present age so you understand those things that pertain to this age.

That is incorrect. It was still immoral to own people's property 2000 years ago. It was still immoral to subjugate women 2,000 years ago. It was still immoral to persecute gays 2000 years ago. There's nothing special about this present age.There is nothing that I understand about morality today that Bob in Jerusalem was not capable of understanding 2,000 years ago.

 

[ppp]

Fair enough, but I disagree with your character analysis. 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. It is nothing but ego projection.

In what way is my disgust at the genocide of a people save for the virgin girls ego projection? In what way is my disgust at the pointless torture of other human beings ego projection? In what way is my disgust at people who attempt to claim that those things are good ego projection?

 

[ppp]

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.

I agree.

It is a tiresome and vicious circle where not only do believers fail to learn from history, but failed to believe that there's any history that does not fit their desired view of themselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I can read and understand logical fallacies so I can see when they have been committed.

For instance, you said this to me earlier:

Can you provide sound reasoning to support that sentence?

You said: The burden of proof applies even if the belief cannot be proven.
I said: That is patently illogical as well as being an oxymoron.

If a belief cannot be proven how can it be subject to being proven (i.e., how can someone have the burden of proof for something that cannot be proven?)

 

[Trailblazer]

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

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

Why would you think that means that I am smiling at the suffering of others?
That those atheists are in God's story does not mean that they have a bad fate.

 

[ppp]

You said: The burden of proof applies even if the belief cannot be proven.
I said: That is patently illogical as well as being an oxymoron.

If a belief cannot be proven how can it be subject to being proven (i.e., how can someone have the burden of proof for something that cannot be proven?)

Asking a question is not providing one's reasoning, sound or otherwise.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is incorrect. It was still immoral to own people's property 2000 years ago. It was still immoral to subjugate women 2,000 years ago. It was still immoral to persecute gays 2000 years ago. There's nothing special about this present age.There is nothing that I understand about morality today that Bob in Jerusalem was not capable of understanding 2,000 years ago.

Yes, it is immoral by our present-day standards of human behavior but people living in those days were not ready to hear that yet, because of the societies they lived in and because they had not progressed spiritually, and that is why it was not revealed in the Bible.

There is nothing that you understand about morality today that Bob in Jerusalem was not capable of understanding 2,000 years ago why did Jesus say the following?

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

 

[Trailblazer]

In what way is my disgust at the genocide of a people save for the virgin girls ego projection? In what way is my disgust at the pointless torture of other human beings ego projection? In what way is my disgust at people who attempt to claim that those things are good ego projection?

Who did that?
I am not sure what you are referring to.

 

[Truthseeker]

Still hammering away with mostly atheists I see, @Trailblazer. You know this is not good for your spirits. How about finding people with whom you have more common ground? Though maybe your background gives you something in common with them, and you see believers as illogical. Restless Soul is someone you would have more common ground, and there are others.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well they should talk about what they would expect to see. Everyone should talk about whether their beliefs are actually consistent with observed reality, especially if they're using those beliefs as a direct basis for their actions.

I agree, one’s beliefs should be reflected in observed reality and they should be the basis for their actions.

It doesn't matter how much you repeat it, that last statement remains simply wrong. If anything was different to how it actually is in the universe, that difference would have inevitable consequences and knock-on effects of some kind. You obviously can't say that if something about the universe was different, the universe would be exactly the same. I honestly don't know how much more clearly I can explain this.

That is not what I am saying. Of course, if anything was different to how it actually is in the universe, that difference would have inevitable consequences and knock-on effects of some kind. What I was saying is that some atheists think that if God exists we would ‘expect to see’ something different from what we actually see in the world. That is based on their belief that no God exists, and they believe that if God did exist God would do x or y so things would look a lot different.

I think the key distinction you're not accepting is that any question based on "if" is a hypothetical, asking about how the universe would be in that context. How the universe actually is wouldn't be directly relevant to those hypotheticals.

That’s correct. How the universe actually is is not directly relevant to those hypotheticals.

The hypothetical isn't illogical. If is perfectly legitimate to propose a hypothetical god which would communicate with everyone. Because our observations aren't consistent with that, it is also logical to conclude the specific god doesn't exist.

Sure, atheists can talk about a hypothetical god that might communicate directly to everyone, but since no such God exists we know that if a real God exists it does not communicate directly to everyone.

If God is defined as omnipotent, that doesn't really matter. God can make it happen by definition. These kind of debates come up precisely because of how gods are defined by believers.

If God is omnipotent God can make it happen but that does not mean God will make it happen and this is what atheists do not understand. Just because God is omnipotent that does not mean that God will do everything that God can do. For example, God can obliterate the whole earth and everything on it in a split second but that does not mean that God will do that. An omnipotent God only does what it chooses to do, which is what it wants to do.

They're not telling God anything because that God doesn't exist in this scenario. They are telling believers that they don't think the believers definition of God is consistent with observed reality.

Why isn’t the believer’s definition of God consistent with the observed reality?

I don't think they're comparable though. Neither is automatically absurd, any absurdity comes from the logic of the "If X then Y" consequence, and there is an element of opinion in that.

We both agree that your husband loving you doesn't necessarily imply he will do the dishes. We disagree on whether a specifically definition of God would imply that God would communicate it's existence to everyone.

Do you think that God existing would necessarily imply that God would communicate directly to everyone? In other words, is the observable fact that God does not communicate directly to everyone a sufficient reason to declare the nonexistence of God?

You keep saying that but it isn't true. Anything could be called a religious belief (remember than religion doesn't necessarily involve gods) so what would render anything defined as religious magically impossible to assess scientifically.

I am referring to religions that are associated with a God, since I define true religion as a revelation from God through a Messenger of God. Nobody can ever prove that a Messenger got a message from God or assess that scientifically.

Then I would respectfully suggest you're misusing the word "know" to try to raise your beliefs above those of others (especially those of atheists). I think you need to accept that you just have belief, no different to anyone else, and there is nothing special about yours that makes it "knowledge".

I do not say “I know” in order to raise my beliefs above others, I say it to express certitude of my beliefs, and I explain that I do not know in a factual way and or have factual knowledge.

However, I can understand why it is better to say “I believe” since nobody can know that God exists according to the commonly accepted definition of know. We cannot know that God exists through observation, inquiry, or information.

Know: be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
https://www.google.com/search

 

[Trailblazer]

Still hammering away with mostly atheists I see, @Trailblazer. You know this is not good for your spirits. How about finding people with whom you have more common ground? Though maybe your background gives you something in common with them, and you see believers as illogical. Restless Soul is someone you would have more common ground, and there are others.

I don't think about my spirits, I think about other people. I think that I have an ability to understand atheists because I have had some of the same issues with God but I have worked through them and I also understand why they do not believe in God even though to date I have been unable to make any difference....

Yes, I do see some believers as illogical and I think they believe based more on faith than on logic but I understand why faith is also necessary.

 

[Truthseeker]

I don't think about my spirits, I think about other people. I think that I have an ability to understand atheists because I have had some of the same issues with God but I have worked through them and I also understand why they do not believe in God even though to date I have been unable to make any difference....

Yes, I do see some believers as illogical and I think they believe based more on faith than on logic but I understand why faith is also necessary.

The more you find common ground, the more you make friends, and can have some influence on their ideas in a positive way, and even if you don't have any effect on their ideas you develop friendship which is helpful to you and them. Are atheists the ones you have the most common ground? It looks like you argue with them a lot, so the common ground doesn't seem to be found very much.

 

[Trailblazer]

Looking at all of the above and what I recall of your previous words, I am having a difficult time understanding what you are actually claiming. Is it correct that you believe that a God exists and that the life and writings of a man called Baha'u'llah is evidence of this? You also say at times that faith is required to believe such a thing.

I say that the Baha’i Faith and Baha’u’llah are what was evidence to me that God exists, but I think there is other evidence. It would not be logical to say that Baha’u’llah is the only evidence for God since people believed in God long, long before Baha’u’llah ever came to earth.

Of course, faith is required to believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God since it can never be proven that He got communication from God. However, I do not believe mostly on faith but rather I believe mostly because of the evidence which is why I have certitude of my beliefs.

What's so confusing is that, if I understood you correctly, you also say that you don't want to believe in this God, don't really like or love it, but find the evidence for it too compelling to not believe, then present an argument as unconvincing as any that a somebody looking for reasons to believe in his deity would make - somebody rationalizing his beliefs. People left and right tell you that your argument is unconvincing to them, but you disagree and remain in a religion you don't seem to really want to be a part of.

How I sometimes ‘feel’ about God is completely separate from what I believe about God and the evidence for Baha’u’llah and the Baha’i Faith. I have had my issues with God but I do not dislike God, although I cannot say that I love God. However, that is a personal thing and not a requirement to be a Baha’i.

There have been times you probably remember when I said I did not want to believe in God or be a Baha’i but times change and people change. I am on a spiritual journey and sometimes it is a struggle, not to believe that God exists, but to believe what I am supposed to believe about God as a Baha’i -- that God is all-loving and all-good, but I know in my mind and heart that He is and that it is just my ego that gets in the way.

Of course atheists tell me that my arguments are unconvincing and I tell them that I have no desire to convince them. Are atheists any more convinced by Christians or Muslims?

It is not true that I do not want to be a Baha’i, but it is a huge sacrifice to try to live up to the Baha’i ideal. I am sure you have heard me say that I would rather be sunning myself on beach somewhere, but that is the selfish material side of my nature; my higher nobler spiritual nature says quite the opposite, but there is a conflict between my two natures. This is something only I can resolve, but at least I am aware of what is going on.

Another reason I say I do not want to be a Baha'i is because I don’t feel like I fit in with other Baha’is since I don’t like religious practices or observances and I don’t particularly like the social aspect of being a Baha’i. However, I share the same beliefs as the other Baha'is and I am a Baha'i in spirit and that is what matters.

I don't find an argument for the existence of a deity that depends on there being things that it can't do but that you and I can do very compelling.

There is no logical reason to think that a deity would do things that humans do, since the deity is not a human. The deity would have to step down from His High Place in order to do what humans do. There are things that humans do that the deity does not do and things that the deity does that no human could ever do.

It's funny that I was involved in a discussion about the meaning of "made in His image." It was pointed out how little we have in common with this deity. It's immortal, we die. It's invisible, we're material. It lives outside time and space and know the future, we don't. It was never born, was never sick, was never lonely, was never cold, was never humiliated, never met a soulmate and fell in love, never got tired or sleepy, nor thirsty nor hungry, and on it goes. So, in what sense ware we made in His image?

That we are made in the image of the deity simply means that we have the ‘potential’ to reflect the Attributes of the deity. An agnostic poster on another forum asked me about that a few days ago so I will post what I wrote to him.

Terry said: It supposedly created humans in its own image.

Do you know what that means Terry? It means humans were created with the 'capacity' to reflect the attributes of God.

Certain attributes are unique to God. Only God is Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, and Immaterial, so nobody except God can have those attributes.

Some of God's other attributes are Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient. Humans have the 'potential' to reflect all of these attributes of God and we reflect them to a greater of lesser degree, depending upon how spiritual we are.

Humans do not reflect any negative attributes of God since God has no negative attributes. God can be wrathful and angry but only when it is warranted and justified. Humans, being made in God's image, can also be wrathful and angry, but in many cases human anger is not warranted or justified, given the circumstances.

And then the answer comes that we reason and have moral intuitions, which distinguishes us from the beasts that lack these. Presumably, these are somewhat like that which occur in this good, all-knowing God, but on a smaller scale if one is said to be made in the image of the other.

Humans can reason and have moral capacities because God created man with a rational soul, that which the lower animals do not possess. Humans also have a spiritual nature as well as a material nature and free will to choose to act according to either of these two natures.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

To read more: THE TWO NATURES IN MAN

But later, in discussions like this one, we are told that we can never know the mind of God, that His reasoning transcends ours as you are doing here implying that man could never understand how God makes choices or why He would use what seems like an inefficient method to us.

No man can never understand the Mind Of God because God is God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived by humans. Such an entity can never be subject to human analysis and it is absurd is to expect to be able to encapsulate an infinite God with human logic.

Elsewhere, it the with the moral prong that we are told that we are not in God's image, either - man is not qualified to judge the moral status of the words and actions of the deity. I can't imagine a description of any conscious agent that man has less in common with.

You got it. Humans do not have anything in common with God although we can reflect some of the Attributes if God that are not unique to God, as noted above. Depending upon how spiritual we are we can reflect the Attributes of God to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[Trailblazer]

The more you find common ground, the more you make friends, and can have some influence on their ideas in a positive way, and even if you don't have any effect on their ideas you develop friendship which is helpful to you and them. Are atheists the ones you have the most common ground? It looks like you argue with them a lot, so the common ground doesn't seem to be found very much.

I am not looking to influence people but I like educating people, sharing what I know about God.
I would not mind getting to know other believers but I simply don't have time right now, as you can see what this thread has become. I consider it my responsibility to answer posts here because I started the thread.

One goal I have is to find common ground with atheists and become their friends and I have succeeded in doing that on other forums and even here. I do not have to argue with them just because we disagree on the existence of God.

As you know, the basic message of Baha’u’llah was the interconnectedness of all created things and the Unity of Mankind, meaning that we are all part of one whole and that we all proceed from the same Source, God.

“The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Who knoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 288

 

[joelr]

God is not trying to convince people that He exists since God has no need for our belief.
The same applies to Baha'u'llah.

“Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.”
Gleanings, p. 85

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.”
Gleanings, p. 136

Right so according to this your God also doesn't care about holy wars, people choosing the wrong religion, smart people who want to choose a religion based on good evidence and many otherthings.
"Let him seeketh"........uh, well the science is wrong, no new philosophy, the prophecies are vague and not impressive, no new medical science, physics, clearly riffing off Islam and the OT. SO it looks like a writer claiming to be a prophet. So God doesn't care that it looks all made up? Doesn't care that there are over 4 billion people already deep into other faiths and would no way change based on that crummy evidence. So he just doesn't care about anything at all?
ALthough in the Gospels and OT God is super concerned about believers and hates non-believers. Yahweh is very concerned with his followers, for Bahaullah to even say that and then claim it's the same God is bizarre? So that doesn't track either? This is clearly not the God in Judaism or Christianity.

This God you present is incredibly uncaring and seems fine with humans fighting over religion forever? Yet a real God could clear this all up very easily.

Plus there are thousands of revelatory religions. One person claims to be a prophet and if they are smart and can write and they stick to it, it often becomes a religion. Mormonism, Luddites, Scientology, there are so many. You actually think a God would use this method that so many people have abused? And then give terrible information that is incredibly unconvincing and actually wrong at points?
No chance? Although people obviously make attempts at it. Because the masses will believe anything, even when facts are wrong. They will find ways to justify it.

 

[joelr]

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.

The Bahai prophet is completely confused if he thinks he is speaking for Hinduism or Buddhism? They do not have personal deities who speak to people? In Hinduism people do not have souls. He's trying to say all Hinduism is wrong and his new version of Islam light is now the actual religion. So disrespectful to Eastern religion. The Vedantic philosophy is very deep and covers many aspects of life, and different paths to knowledge.

 

[night912]

That's true, a belief can be a guess or it can be based upon critical scrutiny, but as a belief it cannot be proven so the burden of proof does not apply.

And this is a clear example of the equivocation fallacy, the same one that you've been committed on numerous occasions. You used the word "belief" as both an actual belief and the things that you believe in.

 

[PureX]

I would say that objective reality is imperfectly experienced by humans and that it is verified by many different processes. And it is quite different than being 'fiction'. The equivalence with religious beliefs is, to me, clearly bogus. We *can* verify the existence of atoms, and of dark matter, and of other galaxies in ways that we simply cannot verify the existence of deities.

All you mean by "verify" is that you experience and understand the experience within the context of other things you've experienced and understood within the context of those experiences. All you have are experiences and the conceptual context within which you "understand" those experiences. A big, elaborate, life-long story that you call "reality", and presume to be "objective". But that is logically subjective because you (and we) are the subject(s) and we have no 'external' experience or understanding of anything by which we can objectively assess validity. Looking through a telescope to see further then you can with the naked eye does not change the fact that "seeing is believing". Neither does 1000 people looking through the same telescope and "believing" what they see. There is no escape from the limitations of the human condition. The 'story of reality' keeps changing as we get better at elaborating and manipulating it to our advantage, but it always remains a story.

Except to the 'true believers'. To them, it IS reality.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

It would be trivially easy for a god to give everyone evidence of His existence and give clear instructions and knowledge. If God likes to pretend He's not around and stay out of things, than it's analogous to not being there at all. If God likes to be vague, play tricks, be selective with who has privileges, and allow needless suffering caused by these actions, than what does that say about God? He either can't change this or doesn't care to; so He's either evil or incompetent.

Or does not exist.

 

[PureX]

It would be trivially easy for a god to give everyone evidence of His existence and give clear instructions and knowledge. If God likes to pretend He's not around and stay out of things, than it's analogous to not being there at all. If God likes to be vague, play tricks, be selective with who has privileges, and allow needless suffering caused by these actions, than what does that say about God? He either can't change this or doesn't care to; so He's either evil or incompetent.

Or does not exist.

This is why anthropomorphising (humanizing) God fails under scrutiny. Of course, this tells us nothing at all about God; only that we are not it.