Atheists: If God existed would God……

[samtonga43]

I think you are getting used to the criticisms, and you are learning to repeat yourself in different ways.
Debate, discussion, these are the same thing with a distinction. Either way you make your comments and ask your questions, and we give feedback and answer them. You don't like the answers and criticisms that do not align with your beliefs.

I once said that Tb has brainwashed herself, and this is why I really don't think she will understand your accurate conclusion of what is happening here.

But thank you for helping others to see.

 

[HonestJoe]

What new evidence and observations would those be? How would they show that my God does not exist?

It's a hypothetical. The question is whether you're willing to look for information that may contradict your beliefs (which would require defining what you would expect to see if your beliefs are true). That is, after all, what you're expecting non-believers to do.

I do not know what God wants...

You missed the point. You had just agreed with my statement that God doesn't (can't!) have any wants or needs. It is simply irrational to agree with that statement but them immediately go on to talk about what God wants (even in the context of us not knowing what God wants). This is a classic example of internally inconsistent definitions of gods and religious beliefs.

Baha’u’llah made it perfectly clear that God has no needs since God is self-sufficient, thus God cannot have a “need” for humans to believe He exists

Which poses the question of why both Baha’u’llah and you put so much effort in to convincing people that God does exist.

You are preaching to the choir. I only wish you could convince your fellow atheists to shift away from the simplistic idea of theist vs atheist, believer vs non-believer, and that we're all just individuals, each with a unique set of beliefs and viewpoints that can't be generalized.

Maybe it would help if you weren't promoting a generalised set of beliefs to be held by lots of people?

How could you test your hypothesis unless you were able to know what the hypothesized God was actually doing?

Any well defined hypothesis will have logical consequences. We test a hypothesis by observing or experimenting around those predicted consequences. If the results are consistent with the hypothesis (and no other), it is supported, if the results aren't consistent with the hypothesis, it is challenged or countered, and a new or adjusted hypothesis is required.

I am not asserting what I believe about the soul, I believe it. The reason I believe it can never be studied and measured by scientists is because Baha’u’llah wrote that the soul is a mystery.

With respect, just because he wrote it isn't a valid reason to believe it as truth. As it stands, all you have is the empty claim that such a thing a "souls" even exist but that they are (ever so conveniently for you) impossible to test for. With literally zero evidential or logical basis, there is no justification for giving that claim any serious consideration. You certainly can't use it as a basis for your wider claim that "the religious" in general is somehow beyond the reach of science.

If the existence of God(s) cannot be proven as a fact where does that leave this discussion?

Well, that would be the conclusion of the discussion, though that would really require you it also accept that you can't somehow "know" your God exists anyway. That gods haven't been and can't be proven to exist is generally agreed (though sometimes for different reasons). It issue is when theists expect people to accept the existence of their god anyway (though not any of the others).

I do not expect anyone to accept my beliefs as truth, but I try to use logic to get my points across.

Sorry, but you are not succeeding there.

Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God.

That's just another empty assertion (or "belief" if you prefer). If that is true though, you can't apply "logic" to God either, which is what you literally just said you're doing.

 

[F1fan]

Trailblazer said: ↑​

Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God.

That's just another empty assertion (or "belief" if you prefer). If that is true though, you can't apply "logic" to God either, which is what you literally just said you're doing.

She doesn't understand that her belief/claim/comment above is a logical fallacy, which is special pleading. Her idea of God is not subject to logic. And who says? The claimant. The God is not present to declare it is off limits. The God is an idea with a human representative, and that human can't assume the qualities that God is claimed to have.

If God is not subject to logic then there can be no assertions about God either. This is because when a God claim is made that implies there is knowledge, this presumed knowledge is held by a human, and the human uses the tools of logic to frame claims and arguments, thus IS subject to assessment and criticism via logic. The idea of God is NOT off limits. It's more accurate to claim that if a God exists much of it is unknown to humans, thus cannot be claimed or argued. Of course this doesn't stop believers, as they cite all sorts of disputable sources which typically falls into another logical fallacy, circular reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, but who said that? How do you know it's true?

I believe it is true because it makes sense to me. How else can we judge a person except for their track record, their deeds? Their character is also important but that can be seen in their deeds.

But that is not the point. The point is that you cannot possibly know God's intentions. For what you know, your will being is not important. By voting a president you do it so that you and others have a better life. You have control on that. But you cannot possibly have any control on God's intentions. You cannot choose God (oh, well, it seems you do, in fact).

This was not about God's intentions, it was about judging whether a person was a true Prophet or a false prophet. No, we cannot know God's intentions, but we can know the intentions of a Messenger of God (Prophet) since he reflects God's intentions.

IOW: your metaphor just shows additional evidence that believe in a God with some properties is wishful thinking not based on any logical compelling justification. You have no logical warrant to my claim: God does not like your happiness, therefore only the messengers that bring bad fruits are reliable messengers of God. You cannot possibly deny this claim without begging the question.

What God I believe in is based upon the evidence for God which is the Messenger of God.
According to my beliefs the Messenger and the scriptures he writes is the only way to know anything about God. I am not claiming this, I believe it.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. All of them, including gods, are supported by the exact same kind of non-evidence.

The one true God is supported by one kind of evidence, Messengers of God.
The false gods are supported by non-evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you just said that there is no objective evidence.
That leaves you with subjective evidence only. Which is to say: unverifiable hearsay and anecdotes. This isn't evidence at all, as those are just claims.

The only evidence for the existence of God are the Messengers of God.
Their claims are not the evidence that they were Messengers because that would be circular reasoning. The evidence that indicates that they were Messengers of God is their character, their mission and works, and the scriptures that they wrote or scriptures that were attributed to them.

There is no proof that a Messenger ever got communication from God, there is only evidence that indicates that.

 

[Sheldon]

No problem.
I used a comparison - pollution, to help you see that just as pollution is not created by any god, but rather, is caused. Disease does not have to be created by any god, but rather, is caused.
It's the effect of a cause. The cause does not have to be God. In fact, common sense reasoning will help us to see that it can't be God... and it's not.
We just have to look at the creation, to see that.
That's it in a nutshell. Let me know if you need a more thorough explanation.

Thanks for being humble enough, to ask. That's a good attitude to have.

You seem to be asserting that a deity only does the good things, are you familiar with a special pleading fallacy? It involves a from of selection bias.

I think this is best expressed by Monty Python, here.

 

[Trailblazer]

And your "evidence" doesn't fit these definitions.
Your "evidence" consists of anecdotes, claims and hearsay.
There's nothing verifiable there.

Do you see the word verifiable in any of these definitions? No, because verifiable evidence is proof. Atheists want proof that God exists but there is no such proof. All we have is evidence and if you don't like the evidence that God provides you are out of luck.

The evidence is not anecdotes, claims and hearsay. It is the Messengers of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

What insults?

When atheists call believers illogical, irrational, lacking the ability to think critically, and emotionally needy, those are insults.
Do believers call atheists any of those things?

 

[Sheldon]

If that is true, then I prefer to be with primitive people.

Educated "primitive people", that is.

Don't you deny species evolution? I apologise if I'm mixing you up with someone else, do you accept that the universe is 13.8 billion years old? I'm for all education, but if you cherry pick out facts, in order to cling to a single belief, it's hard for me to see that as education.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who here has done this?
Don't forget to include links to posts where that is being said / stated / claimed.

I am not going to mention names because I have no need to embarrass anyone.

I never said that you did any of this, but certain atheists do it.
Even when they do not say it outright they imply that believers cannot think critically when they brag about how they are critical thinkers within the context of a conversation.

 

[Trailblazer]

I never "just believe" what people say.

Neither do I.

 

[Trailblazer]

What was his evidence?

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 His words (His Writings).

 

[Trailblazer]

The answers depend entirely on god's intentions.

So, what are this particular version of god's intentions?

I don't know what God's intentions are, only God knows that.
I can only guess based upon what I believe God has done.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, but which one? There are several about whom that claim is made. They can't all be right. (But they can all be wrong )

Logically speaking, there can only be one true God who created the universe because an omnipotent/omniscient God does not need any helpers.

Yes, there are many 'conceptions' of God, but there is only one true God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Don't you deny species evolution? I apologise if I'm mixing you up with someone else, do you accept that the universe is 13.8 billion years old? I'm for all education, but if you cherry pick out facts, in order to cling to a single belief, it's hard for me to see that as education.

I think you are mixing me up .. but I see you have just cherry picked some facts there, yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah, you are asking if the god that you believe exists has communicated with everyone or proved his existence to everyone, or not.
Well, the answer is clearly "no, he has not".

Yes, that is what I was getting at. Not many people who replied figured that out.

The next question is therefore clearly, "why hasn't he?"
The answer is either because he doesn't want to, or he cannot.

Yes, it has to be one of these. It is nice to see that you are a logical thinker.

If he cannot, then he isn't god.
If he doesn't want to, why not?

Excellent questions. According to my beliefs, God could prove His existence to everyone if He wanted to do that, but He does not want to do that and that is why He doesn't do that.

If there are no consequences for not believing in him, it's not an issue.
However, if there are consequences then why doesn't he want to communicate with or prove his existence to everyone? Why does he only select a few people?

More good questions.

There are consequences but I am not God so I cannot say exactly what they are. I can only explain what I believe they are according to scripture. The consequences in this life is that we will not know God or what God's will is for us, and that will have implications for the afterlife although I cannot say exactly what those will be.

I do not believe there is any eternal hellfire because there is nothing in the Baha'i scriptures that says that. I believe that in the afterlife the consequence of never having known God in this life is that we won't be close to God. We won't gain heaven, which is nearness to God, and that is what hell is, distance from God.

According to my beliefs, God does not want to prove His existence to everyone because God wants our belief to be a choice. God also wants us to have faith, and if God proved that He exists to everyone then nobody would have to have faith. God does not want us to have blind faith but rather evidence-based faith. That is one reason we were created with a rational mind, to be able to recognize the evidence for God.

According to my beliefs, God does not communicate to us directly because nobody could ever understand God if God communicated to them directly. Only God's chosen Messengers can understand God speaking through the Holy Spirit and they can understand God because they have a divine mind. Nobody else has a divine mind so nobody else can understand God directly.

God sends Messengers who act like Mediators between God and man, and since they have a twofold nature, both divine and human, they can understand God and humans and they can relay communication from God back to humans in a form that humans can comprehend.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well how convenient for the Messenger. This doesn't make you suspicious at all?

No, it does not make me suspicious of the Messenger. Why would it make me suspicious? What personal benefits do you think that the Messenger got for His sacrifices in service to God? He got nothing but suffering and rejection and torment for most of the years of His life.

However, I would be suspicious of any man who gained personal benefits by claiming to be a Messenger of God as that would be a dead giveaway that he is a con-man.

How does God reward them?
Am I denied this because I am skeptical of the evidence and guarded against false prophets?

The reward is in knowing God and God's will for you in this life and the next life and that is what you are denied of.

You should be skeptical and guarded against false prophets, but the existence of false prophets does not mean there are no true Prophets/Messengers of God. That is not logical. That would be like saying that the existence of junky cars in a junkyard is evidence that there can be no nice new cars in the car lot down the street.

 

[Trailblazer]

So God wants us to believe Baha'u'llah and end the fighting.

Yes, that is what I believe.

Epic Fail. As I said before, God could easily, directly or indirectly, end the fighting, but He does not.

God could do that if He wanted to but God sent Baha'u'llah to do that because that is what God wanted to do.
An Omnipotent God only does what He wants to do, not what humans want Him to do.

 

[samtonga43]

When atheists call believers illogical, irrational, lacking the ability to think critically, and emotionally needy, those are insults.
Do believers call atheists any of those things?

I'm not an atheist. You are often illogical, irrational and you lack the ability to think critically. I also believe that you are addicted to this type of communication (forums) with others.