Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Given what I understand people to mean when they speak of "God," let me put it this way: if He wanted anyone to know He existed, they would know it; and if He did not want anyone to know He existed, they would not.

 

[viole]

What God reveals through the Messengers is what humanity needs at the time of revelation. What was needed in past ages is not what is needed in the present age and what will be needed in a future age is not want people are in need of today. We should be concerned with the present and what humanity needs in this age.

So, do we still need, say, Christianity and Islam, today?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

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.

Yes, there is a lot of evidence against the existence of God based on that premise. For instance, Sean Carrol explains that if God existed, we would not expect the early universe to have such low entropy, because there is absolutely no need for it. If God existed, we would expect that entropy value to be 10 to the 10 to the 120 power greater than it is. Which is to say waaaay different than observed. And adding to my point above, we would also expect to have clear evidence, instructions, knowledge, etc if God existed.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Yes, there is a lot of evidence against the existence of God based on that premise. For instance, Sean Carrol explains that if God existed, we would not expect the early universe to have such low entropy, because there is absolutely no need for it. If God existed, we would expect that entropy value to be 10 to the 10 to the 120 power greater than it is. Which is to say waaaay different than observed. And adding to my point above, we would also expect to have clear evidence, instructions, knowledge, etc if God existed.

And I'm only basing this on YOUR description of God. I am not expecting anything from the creator. I'm saying the real world is different than what we might expect if your assertions of God were correct

 

[Polymath257]

You said: The burden of proof applies even if the belief cannot be proven.
I said: That is patently ilogical 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?)

it is because it fails to meet the burden of proof that it remains unproven. The burden of proof is still there. And if it cannot be proven, it will simply always fail the burden of proof.

But you want to believe in spite of the lack of proof. Just like I do NOT want to believe until there is proof. I want to avoid believing falsehoods.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And exactly HOW are these people evidence of God?

What makes you so sure that they *are* messengers?

What evidence convinces you that these people were, in fact, messengers from God?

Yes, your belief has no bearing on whether they were messengers or not. But it would still interesting to know why you concluded that they were, in fact, messengers.

By all accounts I can see, they were humans with ordinary drives, abilities, and perceptions. What convinced you that they were messengers? And then, more specifically, what convinced you they were messengers from a deity?

 

[HonestJoe]

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

But you literally just said that believers don't consider what they'd expect to see if (their) god existed.

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

That depends on the believer. There are loads of different definitions of gods (I'd argue one for each and every theist who ever existed). Many people (including many other theists) find elements of those definitions inconsistent with observed reality.

For example, I personally don't think a being deemed to be omnipotent and omniscient can also have anything we'd recognise as needs or wants and could never be mistaken or change their mind.

There are also people who describe their god as having created the world 6000 years ago or flooded it 4000 years ago and plenty of people consider that as inconsistent with observed evidence.

Do you think that God existing would necessarily imply that God would communicate directly to everyone?

No. I think some of the definitions of gods presented by some believers would carry the implication and so, given the lack of evidence for such consequence, that suggests that specifically defined god doesn't exist.

Again, the key point is that gods are defined by theists, not atheists. Atheists assess all the different proposed gods they're aware of and, if no definition has convinced them, they remain atheist for the time being.

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.

That is really evading my question; What exactly is it about your specific type of religion that renders it specially immune to scientific study in a way that absolutely nothing else is (note that human inability to access or understand is not that same as something being beyond science).

I do not say “I know” in order to raise my beliefs above others,

I didn't say you were necessarily doing it consciously. That is why this kind of discussion needs to move entirely away from faith, belief and religion to focus entirely on fact and reality, including recognising and accepting out limitations and weaknesses (like faith, belief and religion ).

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.

That is your belief. You've not even tried to establish that inability as truth.

Out of interest, do you believe this limitation only applies to the god you believe in or does it apply to all the other gods different people believe (or did believe) in, including all the ones that would directly contradict the existence of yours?

 

[Yerda]

God did communicate to us via Messengers, because He loves us.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

Hi again.

I'm saying this is not love.

God might want everyone to believe in Him...

Well, we're waiting for the proof still.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Speaking only for myself, here's why I ask:

- to see if there's anything in theism that's worthy of respect (so far, this is coming up "probably not," BTW).

- to better understand theism as a social and psychological phenomenon, since it has significant impact on the world.

- to figure out how to relate to theists, since there's quite a lot of them.

 

[PureX]

Given what I understand people to mean when they speak of "God," let me put it this way: if He wanted anyone to know He existed, they would know it; and if He did not want anyone to know He existed, they would not.

Yes, but the "he" and the "want" are just ideological projections made up by we humans. So if they are not being fulfilled that's hardly a surprise, is it?

 

[PureX]

Speaking only for myself, here's why I ask:

- to see if there's anything in theism that's worthy of respect (so far, this is coming up "probably not," BTW).

Well, there's the fact that theism has changed billions of people's lives for the better. Causing them to impact the lives of billions more, for the better. But I guess you can't see any of that. All you can see is when theism is abused to justify doing harm, for some reason.

- to better understand theism as a social and psychological phenomenon, since it has significant impact on the world.

- to figure out how to relate to theists, since there's quite a lot of them.

Well, you might start by being a bit more honest about and open to the real good theism does for humanity. Can you do that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, but the "he" and the "want" are just ideological projections made up by we humans. So if they are not being fulfilled that's hardly a surprise, is it?

That's the whole point of a god: to put a relatable face on the otherwise unrelatable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, there's the fact that theism has changed billions of people's lives for the better. Causing them to impact the lives of billions more, for the better. But I guess you can't see any of that. All you can see is when theism is abused to justify doing harm, for some reason.

How do you think theism changes people's lives for the better?

Well, you might start by being a bit more honest about and open to the real good theism does for humanity. Can you do that?

AFAICT, theism does no good whatsoever for humanity.

People who happen to be theists, OTOH, do a tremendous amount of good, but that's not the same thing (and often, the good they do is despite of, or diminished by, their theism).

 

[PureX]

That's the whole point of a god: to put a relatable face on the otherwise unrelatable.

That's certainly not the point of God, for me! I think you're confusing God with religion. I have little use for religion. But I have much use for "God" ... for the great and divine existential mystery at the heart of everything.

 

[PureX]

How do you think theism changes people's lives for the better?

Their theism gives them a focal point for their gratitude, and for their desire to be more honest, and courageous, and forgiving, and kind. It's an ongoing and unremitting reminder of this quest. It provides them with an ability to hope when nothing else does. It provides them with solace when nothing else can. It helps them see meaning in their suffering and loss, making it a little less horrible.

These are all very common and VERY REAL attributes that come from holding a theistic view of existence. And honestly I am stunned that you can't see this for yourself. Even more stunned that you will now try and dismiss them as if they aren't real, or significant, or meaningful.

AFAICT, theism does no good whatsoever for humanity.

People who happen to be theists, OTOH, do a tremendous amount of good, but that's not the same thing (and often, the good they do is despite of, or diminished by, their theism).

Yep, there is it; the total dismissal. Even though theism is the worldview of all those people who do all that good, somehow you still tell yourself that their worldview is of no consequence in this, at all. Even though every single one of those BILLIONS of people will tell you that it is of great consequence. That it is because of their theist worldview that they are willing and able to do so much good in life.

 

[lukethethird]

Their theism gives them a focal point for their gratitude, and for their desire to be more honest, and courageous, and forgiving, and kind. It's an ongoing and unremitting reminder of this quest. It provides them with an ability to hope when nothing else does. It provides them with solace when nothing else can. It helps them see meaning in their suffering and loss, making it a little less horrible.

These are all very common and VERY REAL attributes that come from holding a theistic view of existence. And honestly I am stunned that you can't see this for yourself. Even more stunned that you will now try and dismiss them as if they aren't real, or significant, or meaningful.
Yep, there is it; the total dismissal. Even though theism is the worldview of all those people who do all that good, somehow you still tell yourself that their worldview is of no consequence in this, at all. Even though every single one of those BILLIONS of people will tell you that it is of great consequence. That it is because of their theist worldview that they are willing and able to do so much good in life.

theism is the worldview of all those people who do all that good, on what planet is this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Cancer and disease existed WAY before industrial pollution.
It existed WAY before humans even existed.

So once again, you are wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is true, but it does not mean that God is nonexistent just because the Essence of God does not show up.

You could say the same about literally anything your imagination can produce.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

//facepalm

The burden of proof does not require "proving".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is patently illogical as well as being an oxymoron.

It's not.
At least it isn't to people who actually understand what a "burden of proof" means. You don't seem to be among them.