Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Sheldon]

It bothers atheists when believers say "I know God exists" because they do not think that a believer can know that God exists, but we can know, and that bugs the hell out of some atheists.

It certainly doesn't bother me, as it is never ever substantiated with knowledge, only bare subjective claims. I think more often my atheism seems to bother theists, after all you don't typically see atheists blowing people up who don't agree with them, or gleefully damning them to an eternity of torture.

 

[Trailblazer]

The inference is manifest.

but only to people who can reason logically.

 

[CG Didymus]

It certainly doesn't bother me, as it is never ever substantiated with knowledge, only bare subjective claims. I think more often my atheism seems to bother theists, after all you don't typically see atheists blowing people up who don't agree with them, or gleefully damning them to an eternity of torture.

As if all believers believe in the same God. We've all heard the same thing from Christians that tell us, "I know God is real." Because the Bible tells them so? They can feel God in their hearts? But the God they "know" and love is God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. A God that Baha'is deny exists. It is only their belief that makes this trinitarian God, or any God, real.

Not that it is necessarily a bad thing to believe in God. But some people in some religions find ways to make it a bad thing. Usually by insisting that their God and their beliefs are true.

 

[ppp]

They did exist in the natural world but nobody can prove that they were 'Messengers of God.'
That is why it is considered a religious belief and is not within the purview of science.

That's all? TB, science doesn't even have to be brought into this. You are simply not rationally justified in your belief.

 

[Sheldon]

religion is not within the purview of science.

Neither are unicorns, mermaids, wizardry, or Santa Claus, The inference is manifest.

but only to people who can reason logically.

Is that why you seem to have missed the inference here, of accidentally placing your religion in a category of non-existent things that science can't examine?

 

[Trailblazer]

Is that why you seem to have missed the inference here, of accidentally placing your religion in a category of non-existent things that science can't examine?

No.

 

[Sheldon]

No.

Perhaps you would like to address the coincidence then? Science can't address any non-existent thing, as non-existent things don't [resent any data for science to examine. So claiming religion is beyond the purview of science, might lead to a different inference from the one you were suggesting. Though of course anything that influences the natural physical world or universe, are absolutely not beyond the purview of science, obviously.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps you would like to address the coincidence then? Science can't address any non-existent thing, as non-existent things don't present any data for science to examine. So claiming religion is beyond the purview of science, might lead to a different inference from the one you were suggesting.

I was suggesting that everything that exists is not within the purview of science.
Obviously science cannot address existent things that are not within the purview of science.

Though of course anything that influences the natural physical world or universe, are absolutely not beyond the purview of science, obviously.

No, not necessarily.

 

[samtonga43]

No, I do not think it is that at all.
It bothers atheists when believers say "I know God exists" because they do not think that a believer can know that God exists, but we can know, and that bugs the hell out of some atheists.

Depends how you are using the word 'know'.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Perhaps you would like to address the coincidence then? Science can't address any non-existent thing, as non-existent things don't present any data for science to examine. So claiming religion is beyond the purview of science, might lead to a different inference from the one you were suggesting.

I was suggesting that everything that exists is not within the purview of science.

No you quite specifically said religion and god are not within the purview of science, and I have pointed out that would be true of all non-existent things, and asked if you wanted to address that correlation you created, but it seems you don't.

Obviously science cannot address existent things that are not within the purview of science.

Like all non-existent things, so asserting something is outside of the purview of science, and without any objective evidence, infers a rather obvious question.

Sheldon said: ↑
Though of course anything that influences the natural physical world or universe, are absolutely not beyond the purview of science, obviously.

No, not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily and by definition, since science is the study of the natural physical world and universe.

 

[Sheldon]

Depends how you are using the word 'know'.

Well as I said to TB's original post, it doesn't bother me at all, let alone "bug the Hell out of me", but I am dubious about the claim, as knowledge contains facts and information that can be shared or demonstrated, and this claim is only ever supported by subjective or anecdotal claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

No you quite specifically said religion and god are not within the purview of science, and I have pointed out that would be true of all non-existent things

That does not mean that God and religion are nonexistent.
There is no reason to think that everything in existence is within the purview of science.
I believe there are existent things that are beyond the purview of science.
I cannot prove that and that is why it is a belief.

Like all non-existent things, so asserting something is outside of the purview of science, and without any objective evidence

If there was objective evidence the thing would not be outside of the purview of science, it would be WITHIN the purview of science.

Yes, necessarily and by definition, since science is the study of the natural physical world and universe.

Not necessarily, because there could be something that influences the natural physical world or universe that is not within the purview of science.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
No you quite specifically said religion and god are not within the purview of science, and I have pointed out that would be true of all non-existent things

That does not mean that God and religion are nonexistent.

It is a possible inference from your claim.

There is no reason to think that everything in existence is within the purview of science.

Define existence, as this was not what I said.

I believe there are existent things that are beyond the purview of science. I cannot prove that and that is why it is a belief.

Then it is a pretty meaningless claim.

If there was objective evidence the thing would not be outside of the purview of science, it would be WITHIN the purview of science.

There might be objective evidence, that we are as yet unaware of. That was once true for all currently understood scientific ideas and facts.

Sheldon said: ↑
Yes, necessarily and by definition, since science is the study of the natural physical world and universe.

Not necessarily, because there could be something that influences the natural physical world or universe that is not within the purview of science.

All you have done is repeat your unevidenced claim, but the study of the natural physical world and universe is the purview of science by definition.

 

[Trailblazer]

Define existence, as this was not what I said.

Existence

• the state or fact of existing; being.
• continuance in being or life; life: a struggle for existence.
• mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.
• all that exists: Existence shows a universal order.
• something that exists; entity; being.

Definition of existence | Dictionary.com

 

[Trailblazer]

You can believe that but you can't support it in any way what-so-ever so it is irrelevant outside your own personal belief. It is of absolutely zero help in our discussion of what actually is (indeed, I think the concept was created by early believers to block that kind of discussion).

I know can't support it in any way what-so-ever so it is irrelevant outside your own personal belief, but my personal belief is all I have and the same can be said for you, unless you think you can prove God is not beyond science and the Essence of God is not beyond logical analysis.

There is nothing in the definition of "religious belief" that requires it to be something that can't be proven.

No, but can you prove that God exists, or that humans have a soul, or that a spiritual world (aka heaven) exists?

If there is a bomb about to go off and I have a button that will disarm it, choosing not to press that button would still be an application of my control over the situation, just as choosing to press a button to trigger the bomb would be.

Fair enough, so by the same token God being capable of something but choosing not to do it is an application of control, and thus it logically follows that an omnipotent God would not necessarily do everything He is capable of doing, like preventing the suffering in the world or proving that He exists to everyone, common atheist expectations.

That would have been one viable option he could have taken. He could have alternatively created a world where only the good (or at least not most evil) options were available.

What would that world look like? Do you like having sex? With the good comes the evil. There would be no rape and a lot less murder if there was no potential to have sex.

Do you like a roof over your head and food to eat? With the desire for money comes the potential to commit evil deeds.

Why should God create a world where there is no potential to do evil deeds when humans have the ability to choose NOT to commit evil deeds?

Or he could have simply not created humans in the first place.

Sure, but is that an option most people would choose, to never have existed?

He apparently took the option which he knew would lead to all the evil in the world. I don't think you can absolve a hypothetical omnipotent and omniscient deity of that decision (however meaningless our objection would be).

Of course God knew that giving humans free will would lead to both good and evil in the world but it does not logically follow that God is responsible for evil. God would only be responsible if God committed evil but God does not commit evil, humans commit evil.

I do not need to absolve the deity of anything He chose to do because an omniscient deity would have to know more than any human about how to create a world in order to accomplish His goals, and after all the deity created the world He would be the only one who knew what those goals were. Likewise, if you created something you would be the one who knows what you created it for.

Every court of law in the world knows that adult humans are fully responsible for the choices they make because they have free will to choose, unless they are mentally ill, mentally challenged, or brain damaged. Why is it that some atheists cannot understand what everyone else in the world understands?

No, but we're talking about a god defined as omniscient and the omnipotent creator of everything. The first part states that they know everything that will happen and the second states that they caused (if only indirectly) everything that will happen.

The only way God caused anything to happen is by making it possible by creating humans with a brain and free will to choose, but God is not responsible for what humans choose to do because God does not cause humans to choose anything.

It is literally impossible for us to have any true free choice if anything is capable of knowing the future. If the future can be known, the future must be fixed and therefore our choices fixed, even if we remain ignorant of the fact. This is a wider philosophical concept beyond specific questions of gods.

No, just because the future can be known by God, that does not mean the future is fixed by God, because what God knows is sometimes subject to change, according to what humans choose to do. This gets into the subject of impending fate and irrevocable fate. An impending fate can be altered by God according to what we choose to do, such as praying. An irrevocable fate is never altered by God, even though God has the power to alter it.

The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur and it is known that it will take place at a certain time, that is what will happen, but these are natural events, not based upon what humans might choose to do, so they are bound to happen.

What God knows will happen in the future (what God foresaw) is not what causes it to happen in the future. God's knowledge is identical with what will happen in the future simply because the All-Knowing God knows what will happen in the future.

“The Prophets, through the divine inspiration, knew what would come to pass. For instance, through the divine inspiration They knew that Christ would be martyred, and They announced it. Now, was Their knowledge and information the cause of the martyrdom of Christ?......

The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Surely this discovery does not cause the eclipse to take place.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 138-139

Human free will decisions and the ensuing actions are what causes things to happen and thus these decisions and actions determine what God already knows will happen in the future. We cannot deviate from what God knows we will do simply because what God knows is IDENTICAL with what we will choose to do (since an omniscient God knows what we will choose to do). However, it is not God’s knowledge that causes us to do what we do; it is us who causes it to happen.

Again, what God foresaw is not what causes anything to happen, not any more than a scientist who foresaw an eclipse caused that eclipse to take place.

Every court of law knows that humans have free will so God does not make our moral choices, we do. Just because God perfectly foresaw what our moral choices would be that does not mean God made those moral choices for us.

I didn't say "material world". That term has been too corrupted and misused to be of use here. I specifically said "anything that could be observed by someone or something". There is no fundamental restriction within that definition. If you wish to propose anything that outside the scope, you would need to specifically define why that thing can never be observed by anything.

For example, I believe that the soul and the spiritual world exist but the reason they can never be observed is because they are not visible to the human eye.

Not really, you just repeated another example of blind faith Christians are expected to believe because it is written in scripture and repeated by the priests. It is not meant to be questions or challenged.

That was my point. It is believed without question even though it makes no rational sense and defies what is physically possible.

That is impossible, you literally declare part of what you believe (the "Essence of God") as being beyond logic.

You took that out of context. Everything is not subject to logic. I cannot approach what cannot be known with logic. What I meant is that I can approach everything I believe with logical reasoning.

Logical: characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=logical+means

Evidence is a aspect of scientific method. If you are assessing evidence to determine the validity of a claim, you are applying science.

Verifiable evidence is part of the scientific method, but there is no verifiable evidence for any God; if there was such evidence the existence of God would be a fact, not a belief.

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

What if they said they know their god is the only one, because they have the evidence of Messengers from their god, though they can't demonstrate that evidence to you and the Essence of their god is beyond logic anyway?

I would ask them what they have for evidence of their claims.

Yet again, you would first need to construct logically consistent hypotheses based on all those proposed attributes. For example, if there was an all-powerful, all-knowing, infallible and good god, what would you expect to see (or not see) in the world. Note that you can't add any additional characteristics at this point (such as what this god desires) without including them in the initial definition, and therefore constructing hypotheses covering them too.

As soon as you start talking about what you would “expect to see (or not see)” that becomes an ego projection. Do you understand what I mean? That is why this method will not work to prove or disprove any of those proposed attributes of God.

I personally don't think that is possible because some of those characteristics are incompatible but that is what you'd need to do, and could try to do if you wanted. I've seen other believers try exactly that (typically falling at the logical inconsistency hurdle).

I do not think any of these characteristics are incompatible. Which ones do you think are incompatible and why are they incompatible?

 

[KWED]

It bothers atheists when believers say "I know God exists" because they do not think that a believer can know that God exists, but we can know, and that bugs the hell out of some atheists.

But you have already admitted that you don't know, you merely believe. And you have no way of knowing if your belief is justified.

 

[ppp]

But you have already admitted that you don't know, you merely believe.

"For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard; and ’t shall go hard"
---Hamlet Act 3, Scene 4

 

[HonestJoe]

I know can't support it in any way what-so-ever so it is irrelevant outside your own personal belief, but my personal belief is all I have and the same can be said for you, unless you think you can prove God is not beyond science and the Essence of God is not beyond logical analysis.

Science and logic apply to anything by default definition. This point has nothing to do with gods specifically, you just need to establish how anything that actually exists could be outside the scope of logic or science (not our ability to apply them, outside the fundamental concepts). You can't do that.

Fair enough, so by the same token God being capable of something but choosing not to do it is an application of control, and thus it logically follows that an omnipotent God would not necessarily do everything He is capable of doing, like preventing the suffering in the world or proving that He exists to everyone, common atheist expectations.

They are only common expectations based on what believers claim God wants or does. If God can make anything happen and wants a particular thing to happen, why does that thing not happen?

Sure, but is that an option most people would choose, to never have existed?

What humans want is a meaningless irrelevance if we're just tools for what God wants. The fact remains that it is a perfectly viable option that would better achieve the ends you say God wants. Yet God did not do that. The only possible conclusions are that God does not actually want what you believe he wants, God is not omnipotent or, of course, God doesn't exist at all.

God would only be responsible if God committed evil but God does not commit evil, humans commit evil.

If God created humans knowing they would inevitably commit evil, he would be responsible for that evil. If you push an empty car down a hill, you're responsible for it crashing at the bottom. If there is someone in the car who could hit the breaks but you know they won't, you'd be equally responsible for the crash at the bottom. Omnipotence renders our "choice" irrelevant since it renders them predetermined.

I do not need to absolve the deity of anything He chose to do because an omniscient deity would have to know more than any human about how to create a world in order to accomplish His goals, and after all the deity created the world He would be the only one who knew what those goals were.

Well then stop claiming to know what God wants then. If we can't know what God wants, you can't declare that God doesn't want evil in the world.

No, just because the future can be known by God, that does not mean the future is fixed by God, because what God knows is sometimes subject to change, according to what humans choose to do.

That is just adding meaningless levels of perceived choice. The fact remains that whatever is ultimately going to happen will happen at some point in time. Ever choice eventually becomes fixed after it is made. A truly omniscient being must be aware of that final point (and everything after it) by definition and so couldn't be unaware of what the ultimate decision will be.

What God knows will happen in the future (what God foresaw) is not what causes it to happen in the future. God's knowledge is identical with what will happen in the future simply because the All-Knowing God knows what will happen in the future.

Yet again, it is not the omniscience which renders God responsible for everything, it is the combination of omniscience and omnipotence.

For example, I believe that the soul and the spiritual world exist but the reason they can never be observed is because they are not visible to the human eye.

Again, science is not limited to "humans" or "eyes". Something being theoretically observable by any consciousness by any means is sufficient for it to be within the scope of science. Or, in simplified terms, "anything".

I cannot approach what cannot be known with logic.

How can there be anything that cannot be known? Remember that this is in the context of you proposing an omniscient God.

Verifiable evidence is part of the scientific method, but there is no verifiable evidence for any God; if there was such evidence the existence of God would be a fact, not a belief.

Please stop playing word games. Part of the scientific process is about verifying evidence. The fact remains that if you're using (and indeed verifying) evidence, you are applying scientific method. If you are declaring something as "beyond science" somehow, you can't use evidence in relation to it at all.

I would ask them what they have for evidence of their claims.

They've already told you they have evidence of the Messengers from their god but they can't demonstrate their evidence to you?

As soon as you start talking about what you would “expect to see (or not see)” that becomes an ego projection. Do you understand what I mean? That is why this method will not work to prove or disprove any of those proposed attributes of God.

I fully understand and it is recognised as part of the limitations of humans applying scientific method, limitations that can be mitigated to a significant extent. Those limitations would apply to literally any scientific hypothesis on any topic though, so if you're dismissing this process out of hand in relation to your God, you are dismissing scientific method entirely.

I do not think any of these characteristics are incompatible. Which ones do you think are incompatible and why are they incompatible?

I'm not willing to answer any further questions like this as long as you're choosing to dismiss logic and science as soon as they become inconvenient to your beliefs. I totally support your freedom to believe anything you like. I don't support you declaring special rule that only apply to your beliefs to prevent them from being legitimately questioned (especially where those beliefs are intended to be the basis for peoples behaviour).

 

[samtonga43]

Existence

• the state or fact of existing; being.
• continuance in being or life; life: a struggle for existence.
• mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.
• all that exists: Existence shows a universal order.
• something that exists; entity; being.

Definition of existence | Dictionary.com

Your definitions contain the word you are asked to define. Illogical.

 

[Sheldon]

Existence

• the state or fact of existing; being.
• continuance in being or life; life: a struggle for existence.
• mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.
• all that exists: Existence shows a universal order.
• something that exists; entity; being.

Definition of existence | Dictionary.com

So how do you know any of that is outside of the purview of science, as you claimed?

Since science is the study of the natural physical world and universe, claiming there are things beyond science's purview, is the same as the belief things exist beyond the physical material universe, so this is not a knowledge based claim about the limits of science, but a subjective belief. Now ask yourself why one would want to ringfence a belief from scientific scrutiny, one reason springs readily to mind.

What we know exists outside of logic, is irrationality, clearly.