Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Heyo]

I believe lots of things about God.

Exactly. And with each new thing you bring up, my answer to your initial question might change.

Your first qualifier was "creator". Creators gonna create. When that is the only thing I know, the rational inference is that it is gone off to create more. It is also in line with the evidence. Except for the universe, we know pretty well how everything came into being, just combinations from things already there, no new creation. I think I answered your question in the most logical way.
Then you started moving the goal posts by adding assumptions, lots of assumptions, every single one without logical connection or evidence and I don't know when you gonna stop.

 

[Trailblazer]

You asked others for their opinion. Why are you trying to make this about you?

I did not make this about me. You shared what you believe about God and then I shared what I believe.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have already done that dozens of times. Why would I do it again?

Because what you offered as evidence is too flimsy "His life, his actionshis words". Nothing that proves his divinity or that his mission was in any way divine. He was just selling himself.

So, if God exists
No, there is no evidence that shows that either one of those has ever occurred.

The car stops here. The engine of the car does not start again (by your own admission). Then what tale are you spinning?

I do have evidence but you have none.

How can atheist provide evidence for something that does not exist? It is the absence of evidence for God or manifestations which makes us atheists.

 

[Trailblazer]

No one is suggesting God have a beer with us at the pub, we are just questioning the wisdom of only (allegedly) communicating through a select few. Why wouldn't a God interact with those who need guidance, which is often those who think they don't need it.

Why do you assume that God provides no guidance? I believe that God provides guidance to people who are open to receiving guidance, but that is not the same as communicating a message to a Messenger.

 

[F1fan]

I never claimed to have any factual knowledge about God.

Which is why you should avoid using declarative sentences when you mention a God.

For example, if I post: God is angry because he has a bad rash on his ***.

That suggests knowledge and facts.

 

[F1fan]

\\\\\\\\\\

Why do you assume that God provides no guidance? I believe that God provides guidance to people who are open to receiving guidance, but that is not the same as communicating a message to a Messenger.

If there's a God, and it's giving guidance to people who need it, it's doing a terrible job of it. Not impressed.

So are you asking me to believe in an inept God? OK.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did not make this about me.

Yes, you did.

You shared what you believe about God and then I shared what I believe.

Exactly.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then he isn't loving, patient, just, etc. In a way humans can emulate and understand as you mentioned earlier. To be loving, just, patient, merciful and all that jazz in a way human can emulate and understand you have to be interactive with humans.

God reveals Himself through Messengers who reflect God's attributes -- loving, just, patient, merciful -- in a way humans can emulate and understand. These Messengers are perfect reflections of God's attributes.

Messengers of God are also Manifestations of God. For example, Jesus was like a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21), meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that Jesus and God have the same attributes.

I knew this could be a problem since the deity you described is hilariously self contradictory and fraught with problems of logical compositions and paradoxes.

The deity I believe in is fraught with no contradictions.

If your deity doesn't associate with its creation it cannot even be sovereign over it since that would require association and even a sense of duty to it.

No deity ever associates with humans.
There is no necessity for a deity to associate with humans in order for the deity to be sovereign over humans. A deity that associated with humans would have to come down to their level so it would no longer be sovereign over humans. The deity has no duty towards humans, humans have a duty towards the deity.

What you are doing is projecting onto the deity what it would have to be like in order to meet your expectations.

 

[Heyo]

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists). Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

God's method of communication actually worked quite well because 84 percent of the world population has a faith. Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are holy men who founded the religions, so they are intermediaries between God and man. Sure, there are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers or holy men very few people would believe in God.

A school class went for a trip into the woods.
The first child reports: "We saw an animal." (Believable.)
Second child: "It was a deer." (Deer live in the woods, possibly true.)
Third child: "It was pitch black." (Now, that is exceptional for a deer.)
Forth child: "And it had wings." (That is the point when I start to question not only that report but all of them.)

The fact that the majority of people believe in a god (or multiple) doesn't add to your assumption of communication but subtracts since they all have different descriptions of god(s). It seems to me they all came to their image of god by the same method you did: by assuming without any evidence or logic.

Or, going back to the children, a) they are talking about multiple animals, b) they are talking about the same animal but haven't really seen it and added assumptions to their description or c) all of it is made up.

 

[epronovost]

God reveals Himself through Messengers who reflect God's attributes -- loving, just, patient, merciful -- in a way humans can emulate and understand. These Messengers are perfect reflections of God's attributes.

Then he does interact with humans.

No deity ever associates with humans.

That's incorrect. No deity define as the one you mentioned earlier has ever associated with humans which is of course in complete contradiction with what you said above of such a deity having contact with a bunch of messengers (your deity is so contradictory you didn't even realized you contradicted yourself in the very same post).

Other types of deity associates with humans. Hell some deities are literally human beings.

There is no necessity for a deity to associate with humans in order for the deity to be sovereign over humans. A deity that associated with humans would have to come down to their level so it would no longer be sovereign over humans. The deity has no duty towards humans, humans have a duty towards the deity.

You need to google what sovereign means. To me sovereign is to have power, control and authority; to rule over something. To rule, you must interact else you are just observing. Ruling implies directing, commanding, guiding and the likes. To be sovereign over humans, you must interact with them in some way.

 

[Heyo]

This is an exercise in logic.

Don't do that. Belief and logic don't mix. People who start to think logically become atheists or agnostics.

 

[Trailblazer]

No more of an interference than your mother telling you not to put your finger on a hot stove. You'd probably do it anyway. Your free will. You'd learn to trust Mom.

But your God doesn't even bother to say anything to those who need guidance. God lets them round up and murder 6 million Jews, and stand by as the Allies die to defeat the Germans and Italians.

Sure, God is just an innocent bystander (who could stop all evil acts with a little intervention. But free will is more important than young girls being raped and murdered. God just takes notes: don't create anymore serial killers. Ha, just kidding. More serial killers on their way.

The hundred-dollar question no atheist can answer is why God should stop the evil acts of humans from taking place.

The only answer atheists ever come up with is “because God is omnipotent so God can do anything.” God can also eliminate the entire world and everything in it in a heartbeat but that does not mean that God would or should do that.

There is no reason why God should do what some atheists believe that God should do, except for that is what they want God to do, like a little child who wants a lollipop.

I would AT LEAST whisper to those ready to do horrible things. I wouldn't stop them, but I'd make them stop and think (assuming they were mentally sound). The mentally ill, well I'd whisper to law enforcement where they could find the criminally insane just before they could do real harm.

My idea of Me as God is vastly more moral than yours. And no free will interfered with. I'd just make it so criminals wouldn't cause too much harm.

God does not intervene and whisper in people’s ears. God reveals teachings and Laws so humans have what they need to act morally. People who are not moral will suffer the consequences. The structure of world stability and order has been reared upon, and will continue to be sustained by, the twin pillars of reward and punishment. It is called justice.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it was an actual God it would know to say things that would confirm to be it was an actual God. Alas, it doesn't happen.

Only if it chose to do so. It doesn't happen because God does not choose to make it happen.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly. And with each new thing you bring up, my answer to your initial question might change.

Your first qualifier was "creator". Creators gonna create. When that is the only thing I know, the rational inference is that it is gone off to create more. It is also in line with the evidence. Except for the universe, we know pretty well how everything came into being, just combinations from things already there, no new creation. I think I answered your question in the most logical way.
Then you started moving the goal posts by adding assumptions, lots of assumptions, every single one without logical connection or evidence and I don't know when you gonna stop.

It might change if I have something different to say.
I don't have assumptions, I have beliefs, and there are always more where those came from.

There is no reason to think that a Creator is always creating. Actually, what I believe is that God and His Creation have always existed although life on earth has evolved over time.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because what you offered as evidence is too flimsy

So why would I offer it again just to hear you say that again? I don't have anything I did not have last time.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is why you should avoid using declarative sentences when you mention a God.

It might sound declarative but that doesn't mean I am declaring it.

 

[Trailblazer]

If there's a God, and it's giving guidance to people who need it, it's doing a terrible job of it. Not impressed.

How do you know that God is not giving guidance to people who need it?

So are you asking me to believe in an inept God? OK.

I am not asking you to believe in any God.

 

[Heyo]

The hundred-dollar question no atheist can answer is why God should stop the evil acts of humans from taking place.

That's because no atheist has ever demanded that god should stop the evil acts of humans. (Okay, some have, but they didn't understand the problem of evil, just as you don't.)
The problem of evil (or, as I just learned, it should be named "problem of suffering") is not the suffering humans cause but the suffering caused by "acts of god", floods, earthquakes, childhood leukaemia, etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

The fact that the majority of people believe in a god (or multiple) doesn't add to your assumption of communication but subtracts since they all have different descriptions of god(s). It seems to me they all came to their image of god by the same method you did: by assuming without any evidence or logic.

There is a logical explanation as to why people describe many different Gods. It is because God has revealed Himself through many different religions over the course of history. Not only that, but humans have corrupted what God revealed so that it no longer resembles the original message.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

 

[Heyo]

There is a logical explanation as to why people describe many different Gods. It is because God has revealed Himself through many different religions over the course of history. Not only that, but humans have corrupted what God revealed so that it no longer resembles the original message.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

That is a self defeating explanation. When you know that the message from god can be corrupted, how do you know the one you got isn't?