Atheists: If God existed would God……

[F1fan]

Responding to a question that says if We have a choice to disbelieve in the existence of God!

And we do. Even theists in specific Gods make the choice to disbelieve in all of the other thousands of Gods, except their own.

Or do you think the existence of God is something as obvious as a pen?

That was not the question and I don't know how to prove that to you

Really? Your name and address would be enough. I can come by. See that you exist, and leave.

And how do you explain that people who were not born in a Muslim family converted to Islam and it is the fastest-growing religion in the world!

That's easy, and there are a host of reasons. Some people are rebellious to their childhood tradition and take on another to find their own way. Some are abused in their tradition, like gay people, and seek to escape it. Some marry into another tradition. Some simply like something else. Etc. People love options. I have heard that some Muslim countries forbid their citizens from converting to another religion, is that true?

That is your asumption - Wrong

False, science. Results in science are not my assumption.

But I can understand why you might recoil at the suggestion that children are indoctrinated. Children in many religious household are not given options for their religious preference. This is why some escape their tradition for something more open minded.

I have been in forums like this for years

Me too, since 1996. And believers do find ways to confirm their own beliefs even when their justifications are shown to be faulty.

Logic and life experience unless you have an example you can show

Fine, show us the facts and logic that demonstrates that what exists couldn't happen by accident and that there MUST be a creator.

Since you've been in forums for years I'm sure you've been asked this and have ready, definitive answers that don't rely on religious assumptions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Fine, show us the facts and logic that demonstrates that what exists couldn't happen by accident and that there MUST be a creator.

Is that it?
When asked to give an example of life coming about by accident, rather than give an example, you ask why it couldn't happen?

I would have thought it obvious .. if you can't show us an examplle of it happening, then what reason do we have that it actually could?

 

[F1fan]

Is that it?
When asked to give an example of life coming about by accident, rather than give an example, you ask why it couldn't happen?

First I defer to science. Second, I was dealing with the poster who made these two statements out of the blue. I did not bring this up:

This amazing word can't happen by accident. There must be a creator
As I said above, This amazing universe can't be by accident​

So. I asked the poster to offer a factual and logical basis for these assertions.

Do you have a problem with me asking this? I defer to science.

I would have thought it obvious .. if you can't show us an examplle of it happening, then what reason do we have that it actually could?

That's why I am asking the poster to show facts and logic of a Creator existing and it creating the universe, or anything at all. There is nothing in science that suggests this is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're still fudging the huge difference between "(currently) beyond our understanding" and "fundamentally beyond the scope of science and logic", leaning towards whichever one you find most convenient for dismissing specific challenges to your beliefs.

I am not trying to dismiss anything. I just state what I believe according to my understanding, but I certainly don’t know everything there is to know and I am could be wrong.

I believe that the soul and the spiritual world is currently beyond our understanding but nobody knows what the future holds, nobody except God.

You can believe anything you like, but that is meaningless in our discussion about logic and science. You can't use what you believe as a basis for what we can know.

Do you think you know what science can know?

And I still think it is irrational. You also have the issue with God being omnipotent too, which means not only would he know all events but control all events. What God desired and what is would be exactly the same thing.

I do not consider that logical. Just because God is omnipotent that does not mean God is controlling everything. God gave man free will so man could make choices and determine his own destiny. Just because God can control everything that does not mean he chooses to control everything.

What God desires and what is are not the same thing because God allows man to do what man desires. God does not desire war or murder; those are human desires and human choices.

So do you accept that your previous statement that religious things are beyond the scope of science was simple wrong? Maybe you could think about who told you that and why?

Some but not all of religious things are beyond the scope of science. God is beyond the scope of science, and presently, the soul and the spiritual world cannot be known by science, but

nobody but God knows what the future holds. Bahaullah wrote that nature of the soul and the spiritual world is a mystery no man has thus far ever grasped, but those scriptures were written to apply to the present age. More religious truth will be revealed by the next Messenger of God and by that time maybe we will be able to understand more about the soul and the spiritual world.

Do you think that everything in existence is within the scope of science? It makes sense that everything in the material existence is within the scope of science but I believe there is more than this material existence.

Do you think someone is trying to dupe me into believing that things are beyond the scope of science when they are not beyond the scope of science? Why would anyone want to do that? The Baha’i Faith is not anti-science, quite the contrary.

“Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion, a notion that became prevalent in intellectual discourse at a time when the very conception of each system of knowledge was far from adequate. The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith, which teaches that religion, without science, soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism.”

From: Science and Religion

Just because you say it isn't what you're doing doesn't necessary mean they're wrong.

So these atheists know what my intentions are better than I do? I am either trying to make a logical argument or not.

You have essentially presented is as logical argument though, because you say you've assessed it yourself and concluded that it is true. The convenient exception you made was that you somehow can't demonstrate that logic to anyone else. If you're going to be honest about this, you need to stop talking about logic or knowledge in the context and just be open about that fact that all you have is a belief.

When I say I am not presenting a logical argument I mean I am not trying to prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God or that God exists with a formal logical argument that contains premises and a conclusion.

I assessed my belief and concluded that it is true by means of logical reasoning so I believe it makes logical sense. I can explain my thinking process to others but other people are not going to reason the way I do so they will not come to the same conclusions. Baha’is came to the same conclusion I came to but they used a different reasoning process.

What I have is a belief since it cannot be proven as a fact, but I think my belief is logical. I believe I have knowledge of God, as much as has been revealed to date, because knowledge of God comes only through Messengers of God.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with "all-or-nothing thinking" in logic, and in many cases it is perfectly valid. You would need than your opinion to dismiss it out of hand here.

Likewise, you would need more than your opinion to prove it is valid in this case.

And yet again, that is a pure statement of faith. You believe it to be true. You been taught to believe it because there are logical issues in the faith that has been presented to you. As I said before, it is nothing more than a convenient get-out clause.

Only according to your understanding of God are there any logical issues in my faith. According to my understanding of God there are no logical problems in my faith. It is perfectly logical and everything fits together like a hand in glove.

It can't be studied. You are literally defining it as impossible to study. You can't have your cake and eat it.

The Essence of God cannot be studied since it is unknowable, what I meant is that we can try to understand what it is by reading the scriptures.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

You're still fudging the huge difference between "(currently) beyond our understanding" and "fundamentally beyond the scope of science and logic"

Pray tell, what gravity do you give Agrippa's trilemma (Münchhausen trilemma)?

 

[Sheldon]

Is that it?
When asked to give an example of life coming about by accident, rather than give an example, you ask why it couldn't happen?

As opposed to life being magic'd into existence you mean?

No one knows or fully understands how organic life emerged on this planet, least of all the creation myths in archaic unevidenced superstitions. your demand is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, you're trying to pretend that people not making up a contrary explanation to your unevidenced belief in a risible creation myth, lends it some credence, it doesn't, it is an irrational argument, posing as a question.

"Asteroids colliding with the Earth four billion years ago created the building blocks of life on our planet and possibly even on ancient Mars, a new study claims.

Researchers from Tohoku University in Japan recreated the conditions present in seabed craters made by the space rocks crashing into the young Earth.

The team say these seabed craters hold the secret to how these ancient space rocks brought vital organic molecules to both worlds - billions of years ago."

While this is far from conclusive of course, it is supported by some objective evidence, it doesn't involve superstition, and it doesn't make unevidenced assumptions based on risible archaic creation myths.

 

[Sheldon]

I would have thought it obvious .. if you can't show us an examplle of it happening, then what reason do we have that it actually could?

FYI, we know random events lead to the emergence complexity, we know that natural phenomena exist for a fact, we know organic life has emerged on at least one planet, there are roughly 100 billion stars in our galaxy, and roughly 200 billion galaxies in the known universe, which is 13.8 billion years old. So if you want to rule out random events on that scale producing organic life, then fine, crunch the maths and publish your work, it's way beyond my pay grade. NB once simple organic life emerged, the scientific fact of evolution explain the complexity of life we know see, and it is supported by all the overwhelming scientific evidence from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny. Denying species evolution is now no less absurd than denying the rotundity of the earth.

However, if you want to have Occam spinning in his grave, but adding an unevidenced deity, from the many thousands humans have imagined, and insist it used inexplicable magic, based on a risible archaic creation myth, expect me to point that out, and laugh, loudly.

 

[Sheldon]

I assessed my belief and concluded that it is true by means of logical reasoning so I believe it makes logical sense. I can explain my thinking process to others but other people are not going to reason the way I do so they will not come to the same conclusions.

You do realise you just contradicted yourself? Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, you can't have your own version.

 

[Sheldon]

Pray tell, what gravity do you give Agrippa's trilemma (Münchhausen trilemma)?

If it is valid reasoning, then what happens when you submit that trilemma to it's own argument?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..an unevidenced deity, from the many thousands humans have imagined, and insist it used inexplicable magic, based on a risible archaic creation myth, expect me to point that out, and laugh, loudly.

You can laugh as loudly as you like .. that's exactly what I expect.
i.e. mocking

..yet when you suggest that life is all one big coincidence, I'm supposed to take that seriously.
I don't find that notion rational at all.

 

[Sheldon]

You can laugh as loudly as you like .. that's exactly what I expect.
i.e. mocking

It's rather satisfying when one's expectations are fulfilled, happy I was able to help.

 

[HonestJoe]

I believe that the soul and the spiritual world is currently beyond our understanding but nobody knows what the future holds, nobody except God.

That would be fine in itself but you contradict yourself when you go on to declare that some things are fundamentally beyond science or logic and so can never be understood. The core issue here (far from unique to you) is holding a specific set of beliefs and then trying to support them unconditionally using science and logic, significantly what you do when the science and logic contradicts (or at least doesn't support) your beliefs.

Do you think you know what science can know?

Science is an abstract concept, it can't know anything. It is a set of processes and methods that can be used to study things. At it's core, all it requires is observation and thought and so can theoretically be applied by any being capable of that thought on any phenomena that being is able to observe. Our extensive limitations to not limit science.

Just because God can control everything that does not mean he chooses to control everything.

Being capable of something but choosing not to do it is still an application of control.

What God desires and what is are not the same thing because God allows man to do what man desires. God does not desire war or murder; those are human desires and human choices.

But if God didn't desire war and murder, he wouldn't have created humans in such a way that would inevitable have those consequences. God can't really give humans choice, only the illusion of choice, since God already knows what choices we would make if permitted. Our choices are limited by simple practical factors so it must be possible for God to give us a limited (perceived) choice that would lead to the consequences he desired.

Some but not all of religious things are beyond the scope of science. God is beyond the scope of science, and presently, the soul and the spiritual world cannot be known by science, but nobody but God knows what the future holds.

The "scope of science" has no temporal quality. If something was beyond the scope of science it would always be beyond the scope of science. If something might be studied using science at some point in the future, it is within the scope of science by definition. Yet again, you are conflating human limitations with limitations of science.

Bahaullah wrote...

That is still irrelevant. We are discussing science, not faith.

Do you think that everything in existence is within the scope of science? It makes sense that everything in the material existence is within the scope of science but I believe there is more than this material existence.

"Material existence" is a fuzzy definition. Anything that could be observed by someone or something is within the scope of science. Simply believing in something and calling is "non-material" doesn't change that.

Do you think someone is trying to dupe me into believing that things are beyond the scope of science when they are not beyond the scope of science? Why would anyone want to do that? The Baha’i Faith is not anti-science, quite the contrary.

Duped would be a harsh term. I think there are a lot of aspects of a lot of religions based on unquestionable accepting the words or certain people and texts and if anything appears to contradict them, that thing must be wrong for some reason. That leads to unsupported statements of faith like some things being "beyond science" or that there is some spiritual aspect to the world that non-believers can't understand (but the scripture, messengers and priests can somehow make clear and definitive statements about).

When I say I am not presenting a logical argument I mean I am not trying to prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God or that God exists with a formal logical argument that contains premises and a conclusion.

I assessed my belief and concluded that it is true by means of logical reasoning so I believe it makes logical sense. I can explain my thinking process to others but other people are not going to reason the way I do so they will not come to the same conclusions. Baha’is came to the same conclusion I came to but they used a different reasoning process.

Yes, but that approach are contradictory and flawed. You are selectively applying logic to elements of your belief, those elements you feel you can rationalise logically, but any elements that can't be logically rationalised, you apply the blind faith about those elements being magically "beyond science" or "only known to God". But you still treat them as if they're truth anyway.

If you were correctly applying logic, you wouldn't have belief. You'd have some things you know and some things you don't know. Faith in general is about filling the scary holes of all the things we don't know. We all do it to some extent, just not always in the formalised structure of a religion.

Only according to your understanding of God are there any logical issues in my faith. According to my understanding of God there are no logical problems in my faith. It is perfectly logical and everything fits together like a hand in glove.

I have no understanding of God. My challenges are based entirely on your own words. If your "logical" approach was legitimate, it wouldn't only apply to your God.

For example, someone else could (and probably do) say they know your God doesn't exist because their "logic" tells them so, but they can't demonstrate that knowledge to you. Honestly now, would you accept their knowledge as truth or would you consider it false belief?

The Essence of God cannot be studied since it is unknowable, what I meant is that we can try to understand what it is by reading the scriptures.

Unknowable means unknowable. If there is any way of knowing something, it is not unknowable by definition. If it can be understood by reading scriptures, scientific method could be applied to that reading and scientific conclusions reached (they're unlikely to be definitive but they would be scientific).

 

[Sheldon]

That would be fine in itself but you contradict yourself when you go on to declare that some things are fundamentally beyond science or logic and so can never be understood. The core issue here (far from unique to you) is holding a specific set of beliefs and then trying to support them unconditionally using science and logic, significantly what you do when the science and logic contradicts (or at least doesn't support) your beliefs.

Science is an abstract concept, it can't know anything. It is a set of processes and methods that can be used to study things. At it's core, all it requires is observation and thought and so can theoretically be applied by any being capable of that thought on any phenomena that being is able to observe. Our extensive limitations to not limit science.

Being capable of something but choosing not to do it is still an application of control.

But if God didn't desire war and murder, he wouldn't have created humans in such a way that would inevitable have those consequences. God can't really give humans choice, only the illusion of choice, since God already knows what choices we would make if permitted. Our choices are limited by simple practical factors so it must be possible for God to give us a limited (perceived) choice that would lead to the consequences he desired.

The "scope of science" has no temporal quality. If something was beyond the scope of science it would always be beyond the scope of science. If something might be studied using science at some point in the future, it is within the scope of science by definition. Yet again, you are conflating human limitations with limitations of science.

That is still irrelevant. We are discussing science, not faith.

"Material existence" is a fuzzy definition. Anything that could be observed by someone or something is within the scope of science. Simply believing in something and calling is "non-material" doesn't change that.

Duped would be a harsh term. I think there are a lot of aspects of a lot of religions based on unquestionable accepting the words or certain people and texts and if anything appears to contradict them, that thing must be wrong for some reason. That leads to unsupported statements of faith like some things being "beyond science" or that there is some spiritual aspect to the world that non-believers can't understand (but the scripture, messengers and priests can somehow make clear and definitive statements about).

Yes, but that approach are contradictory and flawed. You are selectively applying logic to elements of your belief, those elements you feel you can rationalise logically, but any elements that can't be logically rationalised, you apply the blind faith about those elements being magically "beyond science" or "only known to God". But you still treat them as if they're truth anyway.

If you were correctly applying logic, you wouldn't have belief. You'd have some things you know and some things you don't know. Faith in general is about filling the scary holes of all the things we don't know. We all do it to some extent, just not always in the formalised structure of a religion.

I have no understanding of God. My challenges are based entirely on your own words. If your "logical" approach was legitimate, it wouldn't only apply to your God.

For example, someone else could (and probably do) say they know your God doesn't exist because their "logic" tells them so, but they can't demonstrate that knowledge to you. Honestly now, would you accept their knowledge as truth or would you consider it false belief?

Unknowable means unknowable. If there is any way of knowing something, it is not unknowable by definition. If it can be understood by reading scriptures, scientific method could be applied to that reading and scientific conclusions reached (they're unlikely to be definitive but they would be scientific).

Do you ever wonder if people realise the paradox that is implied, when they claim to know something, but that can't be examined or tested because it provides no data?

Science cannot examine anything that does not exist, that is axiomatic, so you would think given that fact, people would be reticent of placing their deities and beliefs in that category.

Ironically of course just as many theists, are forever claiming there is scientific evidence for various deities they imagine are real. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it.

 

[RAYYAN]

And we do. Even theists in specific Gods make the choice to disbelieve in all of the other thousands of Gods, except their own.

Or do you think the existence of God is something as obvious as a pen?

Did you really read where this started! or you don't get it
Believe in something or not, if something exists then it exists regardless of your belief
The same thing, my belief doesn't matter. If God doesn't exist then he doesn't exist

Really? Your name and address would be enough. I can come by. See that you exist, and leave.

Well, that is if I want to provide the information, otherwise, You won't be able to

That's easy, and there are a host of reasons. Some people are rebellious to their childhood tradition and take on another to find their own way. Some are abused in their tradition, like gay people, and seek to escape it. Some marry into another tradition. Some simply like something else. Etc. People love options. I have heard that some Muslim countries forbid their citizens from converting to another religion, is that true?

Still, that doesn't explain why Islam is the fastest-growing religion
Why not other religions!

False, science. Results in science are not my assumption.

But I can understand why you might recoil at the suggestion that children are indoctrinated. Children in many religious household are not given options for their religious preference. This is why some escape their tradition for something more open minded.

I forgot what was said here
But, still see the question above

Me too, since 1996. And believers do find ways to confirm their own beliefs even when their justifications are shown to be faulty.

You have not met me yet
We will see

Fine, show us the facts and logic that demonstrates that what exists couldn't happen by accident and that there MUST be a creator.
Since you've been in forums for years I'm sure you've been asked this and have ready, definitive answers that don't rely on religious assumptions

As I said, I can't prove the existence of God
Are you reading!

 

[Trailblazer]

You can laugh as loudly as you like ..

Sadly for the atheists it is the believers who will have the last laugh.

 

[Sheldon]

Sadly for the atheists it is the believers who will have the last laugh.

Which one of you is going to Hell, since you believe in different deities?

I'm as scared of Hell as I am the Minotaur, or Medusa, or Lord Sauron.

 

[Trailblazer]

Still, that doesn't explain why Islam is the fastest-growing religion
Why not other religions!

The reason that Islam is the fastest-growing religion is because it is one of the two newest major religions, and newer religions grow faster than older religions. Christianity is not growing very fast and it is losing many adherents to atheism. By 2070 Islam will overtake Christianity as the largest religion in the world. Take six minutes to watch this very interesting video about the growth of the major religions from 1800-2100.

Statistics show that from 1910-2010, the Baha’i Faith grew at a rate of 3.54%, whereas during that time Islam grew at a rate of 1.97% and Christianity grew at a rate of 1.32%.

From 2000-2010 Islam became the fastest growing religion (1.86 %) and the Baha’i Faith was the second fastest growing religion (1.72%).

Statistics from: Growth of religion

The growth rates of the Baha’i Faith were higher than Islam from 1910 to 2010 because it includes the “formative age” of the Baha’i Faith (1921-1944) FOURTH PERIOD: THE INCEPTION OF THE FORMATIVE AGE OF THE BAHÁ’Í FAITH 1921–1944

Growth of the Baha’i Faith has slowed down since 2000 because the new goal is consolidation and community building, so the emphasis is not spreading the Faith all over the world as it was before in the 20th century.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which one of you is going to Hell, since you believe in different deities?

There is no reason to think that any of the sincere believers of any religion will go to hell.
I do not think that atheists will go to hell, but they won't go to heaven either since heaven is nearness to God.
I think hell is reserved for very evil people who committed heinous crimes.
Gordon Stewart Northcott - Wikipedia

 

[KWED]

Let me give you an example;
If Wal-mart sells a pen that writes all colors, but you have not seen it
You can't have a choice to say it doesn't exist because it does

Of course you can say it doesn't exist. You'd be wrong but you can still say it. Even after being told that it does exist, you could still keep on denying it.

But, you have a choice to believe its existence or not
However, your choice doesn't make a difference because it exits

Indeed, just as your belief in him doesn't make god exist.

As I said above, your decision doesn't make a difference. If something exists or it doesn't, your belief is irrelevant in regards to its existence

And yet you refuse to accept this principle yourself. How ironic.

for me, I refuse to believe that the whole thing started with no designer and no creator

But as you just stated, your belief does not affect reality. It is entirely likely that no god was involved in the formation of the universe, but you just refuse to accept the possibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sadly for the atheists it is the believers who will have the last laugh.

How should I understand this?
That believers will rejoice in heaven that atheists are being tortured?
This would make you laugh?