Atheists: If God existed would God… (Continued)

[Ella S.]

Atheists like to apply logic to God but logic cannot be applied to God

Then God is logically impossible and, thus, we can safely say that we know God does not exist, under epistemic logic.

Good discussion.

 

[samtonga43]

I have never said all, i have said many which is my experience

I am glad we agree that many hypocritical Christians cherry-pick from the Bible.
And of course, as I said above, the same goes for many hypocritical Bahia’s, Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims …

 

[Ella S.]

I'm human. So are you.

Pretty basic my natural life is first. Before any human theist spruiking a human opinion first.

O earth natural.
Heavens natural.

Life with nature natural first.

No stories allowed.

Ponder that situation. The answers as you ponder says natural is good and supportive of your life.

A part of just being human. Humans recognition.

If I don't change anything.

Therefore as medical terms religious brain entrainment had to introduce methods to try to cause a changed brain to become self aware again.

It's all your meeting places were caused for.

A greater success in human emotive feeling together as supportive family membership.

The exact terms rituals. Chants. Sounds. Movements. Smells. Voice. Music. Meditations.

To be with nature to relearn it's potents. Grow food. Tend herbs. Make remedies. Live mindfully and move through life mindfully of your self gain.

A teaching only given after life attacked had to save itself. From human only self destructive personality disorder.

Greed. Unnatural accumulated unnatural wealth. That the planet mass owned first.

Good is natural.

To preach about it means humans changed it.

This really struck a chord with me in a profound way. I'm kind of at a loss for words.

You just put a lot of ideas I had been considering into one simple passage. That's marvelous. It hits me more than any religious text I've ever studied.

I'm genuinely humbled by what you've written here. No joke. I think I'm going to set some time aside to contemplate it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then God is logically impossible and, thus, we can safely say that we know God does not exist, under epistemic logic.

Good discussion.

I said: Atheists like to apply logic to God but logic cannot be applied to God.
I believe the reason logic cannot be applied to God is as follows:

Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God. God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to human logic because one cannot encapsulate an infinite God with the finite human mind.

Why do you think that would make the existence of God logically impossible?

 

[Ella S.]

I said: Atheists like to apply logic to God but logic cannot be applied to God.
I believe the reason logic cannot be applied to God is as follows:

Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God. God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to human logic because one cannot encapsulate an infinite God with the finite human mind.

Why do you think that would make the existence of God logically impossible?

Because if something does not follow the laws of logic, then it is considered "metaphysically impossible" which is a subset of subjunctive/alethic possibility in modal logic.

Epistemic logic is (usually) based on modal logic, so it adopts the same concept of alethic possibility.

In plain English, it's logically impossible to not be subject to the laws of logic and it is illogical to believe in anything that isn't subject to them.

 

[Nakosis]

Firstly, I think it is illogical for any human to say what God should do. The minute we say what God should do that is merely a personal opinion based upon our personal expectations. If an all-knowing God exists, that God has to know what He should do better than any human can ever know that since no human is all-knowing.

Secondly, Not only is it impossible for any human to know what God would do under any given set of circumstances, what we might imagine God would do is yet another personal opinion based upon our personal expectations of God.

To this point I would agree. There is no reason to think any human would know what God would do.

According to my beliefs, the only way humans can ever know anything about God is through the revelations of God that come to man through Messengers of God, which are recorded in scriptures of religions.

Here, you choose to believe that God would send Messengers to tell humanity about themselves. Here you are doing the same you accuse some atheists of. Believing this is something God would do.

How is this any different from an atheist choosing to believe that God would do this or that and making an argument from it?

 

[Truthseeker]

Like my usual complaint against the Baha'is... I think the NT clearly says that Jesus came back to life. Baha'is say, "no", that those verses were symbolic.... that Jesus was killed and stayed dead. To me, that's not believing that all religions are true... In this case, Christianity.

There are contradictions between each gospel, which leads me to personally believe, this is only my opinion, that the accounts in some cases are incorrect, especially in Luke. Luke is where Christ said this:
24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
(King James Bible, Luke)

Also in Luke:
24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

This last could be symbolic and not incorrect: A fish in the early church was a symbol of Christ. Just a guess.

 

[Truthseeker]

In plain English, it's logically impossible to not be subject to the laws of logic and it is illogical to believe in anything that isn't subject to them.

That's because you've confined your concept of God to a small box.

 

[Truthseeker]

Here, you choose to believe that God would send Messengers to tell humanity about themselves. Here you are doing the same you accuse some atheists of. Believing this is something God would do.

We believe this not because we can any conception of what God is, but because our Messenger has said this. That's what a Messenger does, tell us something that otherwise we couldn't know about God otherwise. Of course believing in our Messenger should come after independent investigation. This Hidden Word of Baha'u'llah tells us this:

2. O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

In the original Arabic, Justice has the connotation of fairness. That is evident in context of this Hidden Word.

 

[rational experiences]

Father's life origin. Not yours baby human man. All men since.

Father's his story says.

Living equally. We Came from the eternal being themselves. Parents and animals. Nature kept underground roots in ice age.

Not you baby man liar. So Jesus isn't from the eternal. Fact.

Looking back brain damaged using science data only as letter number to make new words. You lied. As you already were lying first. Scientist theist man.

No man is God. Lawful. Legal. Men who knew father wrote that advice.....no man is God outright.

Exact. Get your incorrect mind state sorted. As baby man brother was God satanic science life sacrificer. You've always been wrong.

Proven as you don't stop self Idolating about DNA nationality. It's separation then new life as sacrificed DNA then separation again. Life sacrificed new tribes new men adult leadership thoughts about old wrong.

Still not father otherwise you would not seek leadership. As father was mutually paired with mother as parents grand parents great grand parents greater than grand parents.

Together forever mutual. Not leaders just mutual equal adult responsibility to nurture baby humans into their adult place. Mutual. Loved respected and nurtured.

No argument is even involved. Is how wrong you are. Claim. I have learnt. I want to learn. But I won't as I'm correct already.

That idealism father said is because you know you are his adult man father natural life. But not his consciousness.

You only talked about regain of correct conscious advice. As our holy mother taught you by her human abuses agreed by just about all men. That you'd rather agree in self idolations than her equal rights.

 

[Trailblazer]

Here, you choose to believe that God would send Messengers to tell humanity about themselves. Here you are doing the same you accuse some atheists of. Believing this is something God would do.

The reason I believe this is what God would do is because there is evidence that God did do it.

How is this any different from an atheist choosing to believe that God would do this or that and making an argument from it?

The difference is that there is no evidence for what some atheists believe God would do.

 

[rational experiences]

Evidence in creation that we hadn't existed in creation.

O mass burning firming by water droplets forming in space. That froze as water upon soils form as a mass.

Origin position is termed gods exact position by humans thinking.

Then on earth water it's type is a mass as water.

Human theist says mass belongs only to God.

We aren't God.

 

[samtonga43]

I understand why people in most any religion would be taught and think that their Scriptures are The Truth and without error.
But the problem with the claims of the Baha'is is that all the major religions are true. That means that the Baha'is have to find a way to reconcile all the differences and contradictions. Like my usual complaint against the Baha'is... I think the NT clearly says that Jesus came back to life. Baha'is say, "no", that those verses were symbolic.... that Jesus was killed and stayed dead. To me, that's not believing that all religions are true... In this case, Christianity.

All that accomplishes is to make Christianity not true. And what becomes true about Christianity is what Baha'is tell us is true. Salvation, Satan and hell, and most all the Christian doctrines get changed to mean something else. That's not believing in Jesus and the NT, that is changing it to fit the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. If it's true, fine. Let's all become Baha'is. But there's so many problems with the ways they try and show us how and why the Baha'i Faith is true.

Oh, I totally agree. There is so much hypocrisy around this idea that what the Bible says can be interpreted in a way that makes MrB’s words true. If one can do this, then of course the authors of the many books of the Bible can be seen to REALLY say what MrB says.

It’s just that the Bahai’s have to do an awful lot of jiggery-pokery to get to this point. Cherry-picking and eisegesis are just two examples.

Actually, Fundy Christians display the same narrow mindset, albeit in the opposite direction.. Many of these folk read the 66 books of the Bible and fail to understand that they contain different types and styles of writing. For example:

Laws and Rules
Historical narrative
Historical dramaPoetry & Songs
Prophecy
Wisdom Sayings & Proverbs
Gospels
Letters

 

[ChristineM]

I am glad we agree that many hypocritical Christians cherry-pick from the Bible.
And of course, as I said above, the same goes for many hypocritical Bahia’s, Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims …

I am glad you agree with me after all rhe crap.

 

[Ella S.]

That's because you've confined your concept of God to a small box.

A box called "the actual world" that leaves out what isn't true, yes. That's the whole point.

And that's not just snark, "actual world" is the technical term in modal logic.

 

[samtonga43]

I am glad you agree with me after all rhe crap.

Likewise, Christine! And I trust you also agree with me that there are many hypocritical Bahia’s, Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims …

 

[ChristineM]

Likewise, Christine! And I trust you also agree with me that there are many hypocritical Bahia’s, Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims …

I think i mentioned theists. What have atheiests to do with religion

 

[Sheldon]

it is not logical for atheists to attribute only the bad to the God they don't believe in, and disregard the good things that God has provided.

Of course it's not rational, because it is a straw man fallacy you have created, no atheist BY DEFINITION blames any deity for anything. As others have tried to explain, you are misunderstanding a rational extrapolation by atheists of the consequences of certain theistic beliefs, as if atheists themselves believe the result, when they quite obviously don't.

 

[samtonga43]

I think i mentioned theists. What have atheiests to do with religion

You've never come across an atheist who is hypocritical?
You've never come across an atheist who loves to talk about religion?

 

[samtonga43]

Of course it's not rational, because it is a straw man fallacy you have created, no atheist BY DEFINITION blames any deity for anything. As others have tried to explain, you are misunderstanding a rational extrapolation by atheists of the consequences of certain theistic beliefs, as if atheists themselves believe the result, when they quite obviously don't.

It's surprising that Tb cannot get to grips with this very obvious fallacy that every other poster can see. (And very ironic!)