Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

So the reason God seems to be non-existent is that he chooses to behave as if he's non-existent? Convenient.

No, God does not behave that way. If God behaved that way nobody would believe that He exists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Because I do not have any way to know that it is possible. There are two buckets - possible and impossible - How can I know that a "spiritual reality" is in the possible bucket.

Before I can say something is possible, possibility has to be demonstrated.
Before I can say something is impossible, impossibility has to be demonstrated.

Haha...

 

[ppp]

Haha...

Very eloquent.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok we're close here, so I'll tread lightly. Is there any way I could misunderstand the deity you believe in, IF IT DID NOT WANT ME TO?

Sure you could, because God gave you a mind to think and God does not do your thinking for you.
Humans do lots of things that God does not want them to do, because God allows us free will to do what we want to do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Very eloquent.

I thought so.

 

[ppp]

I thought so.

You would.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, God does not behave that way.

What do you think God does that would be inconsistent with a non-existent god, as far as we can observe or measure?

If God behaved that way nobody would believe that He exists.

I'm sure that if you think about it, you can recognize any number of gods that even you agree don't exist, but that people believe in anyway.

 

[Sheldon]

It does not matter how you misconstrued what I said.

I have not misconstrued anything, and I also took a deal of time to explain it to you.

Right now I am saying I do not think all atheists are irrational

Groovy, but that contradicts your claim that "a rational person would look at the evidence god has provided." So now you are violating the law of non contradiction.

Now, are you going to argue with that and tell me what I really think and create a straw man?

I never told you what you think, I pointed out what you had said. So bizarrely this accusation is yet another straw man.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But at this moment, I think you would agree, that it would not be rational of him to take your claims about being aware of spiritual reality seriously.

The concept of spiritual reality is only an example, there are probably approaching an infinity of things most human beings are presently unaware of that actually exist. The physical universe only comprises 5% of the observable universe, the 95% of universal reality you are unaware of, surely will reveal its secrets in time.

On edit: I misspoke above wrt "The physical universe only comprises 5% of the observable universe...", it should read...."The physical observable universe only comprises 5% of the universe..."

 

[Trailblazer]

No, just discounting the religious ideas of those civilizations. We can still accept the scientific, mathematical, artistic, musical, literary, architectural, and other achievements of those civilizations.

Fair enough.

Evidence other than someone reporting what nobody else can verify? And discounting everything else?

Why have a religion at all?

God wants our faith so that is why there is no verifiable evidence which would be proof.
There is evidence and God wants us to look at it and make a decision to believe or not believe in the Messengers based upon that evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Haha...

Do you think possible and impossible are not mutually exclusive logical negations of each other?

How can one, as you implied in your question, know something is possible, if one is unaware of it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God wants our faith so that is why there is no verifiable evidence which would be proof.
There is evidence and God wants us to look at it and make a decision to believe or not believe in the Messengers based upon that evidence.

So then you agree that we can't verify that any purported "messengers" were actually sent by God?

 

[Trailblazer]

I never told you what you think, I pointed out what you had said.

What you did is tell me what I meant by what I said, but you did not know what I meant, only I know what I meant.

You just cannot let go of what I said and move on. You always have to be right about everything, but you are not right about me or other people. You just believe you are.

People can speak for themselves, they do not need the straw men you construct.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, I accept the above is your present understanding, but do you also accept that in the realms of possibility, there may exist certain properties of the universe of a nature suggested in religious teachings of which you are not yet aware of, or are you 100% sure of your present understanding that the universe is 100% physical?

Are there properties of the *physical* universe that we are not yet aware of? Almost certainly.

I don't see anything even remotely possible in most religious teachings.

Pantheists come the closest that I can see: identifying God with the universe has its benefits. But I am not convinced the universe is conscious in any meaningful way other than than the fact that some being within the universe are conscious.

 

[Trailblazer]

So then you agree that we can't verify that any purported "messengers" were actually sent by God?

Not in the way that you want them verified.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Ok we're close here, so I'll tread lightly. Is there any way I could misunderstand the deity you believe in, IF IT DID NOT WANT ME TO?

Sure you could, because God gave you a mind to think and God does not do your thinking for you.

Leaving aside what that says about the claim it is omnipotent, that would mean anyone you claim is a messenger of that deity could also be deceived, even if a deity specifically didn't want them to be.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do you think possible and impossible are not mutually exclusive logical negations of each other?

How can one, as you implied in your question, know something is possible, if one is unaware of it?

If a person is unaware that he is unaware of something, that does not mean that it is impossible for said person to become aware of that something.

Otoh, if something does not exist, no one in all eternity will ever become aware of that non-existence.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you believe something, you believe it is a fact, right? Otherwise, why would you believe it?

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

It would not be a belief if it was a fact. Everything cannot be proven as a fact but I believe it based upon the evidence that indicates that it is true.

 

[ppp]

The concept of spiritual reality is only an example

And my previous point stands.

there are probably approaching an infinity of things most human beings are presently unaware of that actually exist.

Hardly.

The physical universe only comprises 5% of the observable universe

As a great wordsmith once wrote ...

 

[Polymath257]

That is a Bible story, an anthropomorphism. God did not regret making mankind, nothing could be more inane. God has no regrets because God cannot make any mistakes. Only humans make mistakes so only humans have regrets.

And how do you know this? Remember that scriptures often talk about God having regrets or admitting to mistakes.

Purported to have done is not the same as done. The Bible is your excuse to blame God but it won't work because men wrote those stories about hat God allegedly DID and they are just stories.

Atheists don't 'blame God' because they don't believe God exists at all. It is silly to blame something that doesn't exist.

You like to point to scriptures as evidence of messengers and God, but then reject the stories those scripture give.

I already explained why God does not communicate directly to everyone. #428 Trailblazer

Now it is your turn to give me one good reason what God should communicate directly to everyone.

If God cares about people, and if the message is important to their well-being, then a good entity would want to communicate to everyone. This seems absolutely clear. if communication doesn't happen, therefore, it is either because no God exists, or the God doesn't care, or that God doesn't have the ability, or that the message isn't important to our well being.

Again, this isn't saying anything OTHER than God existing, being good, caring about our well-being, and the message being important to that well-being. It isn't even dependent on it being God: the difference is that an all powerful God that *wants* to do something would do it.

There is a logical reason why God uses Messengers and it is in #428 Trailblazer
You can take it or leave it but I am done with this idiotic subject.

Once again, you asked to the views of others. They don't agree with your conclusions to the point that they disagree what an all powerful, all knowing, all good God would do.

Ever hear of the world wide web? The message of Baha'u'llah is there for everyone in the world who wants it. If they don't want it that's their problem. God is not going to whisper all the 15,000 tablets that Baha'u'llah wrote in their ear. NOTHING could be more idiotic, which is why God would never do it. God is all-knowing and all-wise, that is why He knows to use Messengers as intermediaries between Himself and humans. It is completely logical, you just don't like it, but God does not care what YOU like.

Clearly. And a non-caring God isn't one that should be worshiped, I think.

Logically speaking, if communicating directly to everyone in the world was the BEST WAY to communicate then God would have communicated that way because an all-knowing God has to KNOW the best way to communicate to accomplish its goals....

I agree. And the fact that this was not done means that there is no God with those properties. I am comfortable with that conclusion.

There is NOTHING logical about God communicating directly to everyone, it is all based on emotion...
"I WANT God to talk to me directly" like a little child who wants a lollipop.

It seems that the desire to believe in a God at all is also based on emotion. It isn't based on facts, as you yourself have admitted.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are there properties of the *physical* universe that we are not yet aware of? Almost certainly.

I don't see anything even remotely possible in most religious teachings.

Pantheists come the closest that I can see: identifying God with the universe has its benefits. But I am not convinced the universe is conscious in any meaningful way other than than the fact that some being within the universe are conscious.

Ok, we can agree there are properties of the universe that you are unaware of. That means there remains the possibility that you will become aware of these properties.