Atheists: If God existed would God……

[muhammad_isa]

..we do not believe in Gods.

I know that is the claim.

A Buddhist told me that "theists" are at a disadvantage in debate.
I suppose he could have used the term "religionist" as well.

These terms cover so many different possibilities, that it ends up relatively meaningless to me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The deity is not incapable but it is unwilling to prove to humans that it exists because it wants humans to prove to themselves that it exists by looking at the evidence.

I think it's because there either is no deity, or, if one exists, it is unaware of us, indifferent to us, or unable to communicate effectively. You say that the deity wants us to be convinced by evidence that isn't convincing. But even if you were correct, it remains logically unsound to believe that such a deity exists absent sufficient evidence. You describe a deity that doesn't want to be known by people who have strict, empiric criteria for belief. If that deity exists, it failed to make itself known to those that aren't convinced by messages from people claiming to represent gods. Either way, there is nothing there for people like me, so we walk away.

Obviously Messengers will be ineffective for human beings that require more, but God is not going to accommodate every single person in the world and make sure they all become believers.

There is no reason to believe that, but even if we stipulate to it, it simply means that such a deity is uninterested in people not convinced by messengers, as it should be clear to a deity what such people require and refuses to provide it. Fine. And off we go on our merry way living life as if there is no deity.

Messengers are a method for a God who wants to be believed on faith

That leaves critical thinkers out.

there is evidence that indicates that the Messengers are more than mere men.

No, there isn't. If you have such evidence, why haven't you presented any? Everything you've cited from messengers, which you usually change to blue, is words that any number of people could have written. I could write like that. If I wanted to start a new religion, I could write a lot of flowery words about peace, love, what God wants, what God has done, and the like. I've grabbed a bunch of Baha'u'llah quotes as examples:

• Ye are the fruits of one tree and the leaves of one branch.
• O king! I was but a man like others, asleep upon my couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over me, and taught me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing.
• Through affliction hath His light shone and His praise been bright unceasingly: this hath been His method through past ages and bygone times.
• We desire the good of the world and the happiness of the nations that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened... what harm is there in this?... these fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the 'Most Great Peace' shall come.

Is that what you mean by evidence of God? If so, you underestimate humanity. How many thousands or millions of people could have written that? I guess you must believe that you couldn't have written them to consider such words evidence of the Almighty, but that's not how I feel. I could write in vague, exhortative, laudatory language

O Almighty! Ye are the Sons and Daughters of a glorious God, who hath made a place for you, and who singeth a lilting song of unity and peace that is like honey unto the ear, a song of love and bonding, a glowing beacon of the Tabernacle that sustaineth like mother's milk and the fruit of the tree. Silence the tongue and lift ye unto Him, for there are no greater riches than communing with the All-Knowing.

I could throw in phrases like forked-tongued viper, throughout the ages, worship, betterment, brothers, the light of the sun, the moon guarding the night, the endless sea of stars, beyond understanding, etc.. How much of this would I have to write to convince a few hundred thousand people that I was a messenger of God?

Apologies if this seems like mockery. That's not my purpose. I am merely rebutting your claim that such language is evidence of divinity.

You cannot say the best method was not used unless you know of another method that would be better, and you cannot know that another method would be better since no other method has ever been used.

That is incorrect. You don't know what is knowable to others. You only know what is knowable to you given your ways of knowing.

Of course other methods of communicating have been used, just not by any deity. I've used other methods, and so have you. We are now.

And that is the jist of the argument. Whatever cannot equal man cannot be called a deity.

I've been mentoring a budding bridge player who is a quick learner with a good, analytical mind. He considers it like magic when I point out to him that East must have had the queen of diamonds or declarer must have a spade void, and explain how I knew. He tells me that it is his goal to arrive at the place where he can use inference to appear to do magic at the table. He knows what he doesn't know, and he knows that others can know more than he does, and can be certain where he can't.

I don't think you are aware that there are ways of thinking that can generate knowledge that you don't know about. It comes out whenever you write that something is only opinion when others can know it for fact. We see it all the time, as when anti-vaxxers assert themselves and contradict the scientists, people who think any opinion is as good as any other because they're all just created out of thin air.

That faith is a deviation from reason is just your personal opinion.

Here's a fine example.

No, that is a fact, whether you agree or not, assuming that we are talking about religious-type faith, or unjustified belief, and not trust based on prior experience, as in faith that the car will start based on the last several hundred successful tests of it starting. That's a different word - a homonym - with a different definition (justified belief, or belief derived from the application of valid reasoning to evidence).

In fact, you ought to be able to see that faith and reason are mutually exclusive ways of knowing by recognizing that one produces justified belief and the other unjustified belief.

I know how much you dislike reading such words, and you see them as arrogant. Sorry if that's still the case, but you can't expect me to concede that what I know as fact is nothing more than ungrounded opinion because you don't follow the argument.

 

[F1fan]

I said no such thing. I said:
God is not responsible for his own immoral inaction because God is not subject to morality.

Right, you say God isn't subject to morality so it isn't responsible for its immoral inaction. You are referring to God's immoral inaction here, and that God gets away with it. Of course since we have morals we humans can assess God's immorality, but God isn't answerable to us. God isn't good, it just isn't responsible for immoral inaction.

Perhaps you are a victim of your sloppy language usage, but I am using your words as you presented them.

But I agree, if a God exists it is guilty of immorality due to not acting morally, in part due to inaction, like allowing the Holocaust.

 

[F1fan]

Because you said "Who says?"

Because you are buying into something some guy wrote and offer no test that any of it is reliable and true.

Any text that makes references to a god needs to establish that the God exists, otherwise we reject this fantastic claim at face value.

God is not subject to morality because God is not a human.
It is as simple as that.

moral
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. moral means - Google Search

So God can do whatever it wants and it will be good regardless how many humans are harmed. If God isn't subject to morality then God isn't good or bad. But we humans can suffer from the results if what God does harms us.

 

[F1fan]

I know that is the claim.

Actually it is the fact. Those who believe some sort of deity exists fall into the category "theist". Those who do not believe in any sort of deity fall into the category "atheist". Atheist means non-theist, not a theist.

A Buddhist told me that "theists" are at a disadvantage in debate.
I suppose he could have used the term "religionist" as well.

I'm not sure how that is a better term. Theist/atheist as a binary set of categories is broad and clear.

And yes, theists are at a disadvantage in debate since their whole premise is notoriously lacking of credible evidence. Not only is there a lack of direct evidence, the supernatural category that Gods fall into are not known to be a real phenomenon. So it's largely irrelevant that a Baha'i claims one version of God exists versus a Muslim claiming another version of God exists, or Hindus claiming that many gods exist, or Hawaiian Islanders claiming their creator gods exist, etc. The claims are based on tradition and lore, not any set of facts. Theists tend to argue from the perspective of their personal testimony versus what objective facts suggest about reality outside of human imagination.

These terms cover so many different possibilities, that it ends up relatively meaningless to me.

Feel free to offer terms that mean something to you. Be sure to define them.

 

[Polymath257]

I know that is the claim.

Do you think we are lying? is it so hard to believe that others do not believe in a deity?

A Buddhist told me that "theists" are at a disadvantage in debate.
I suppose he could have used the term "religionist" as well.

These terms cover so many different possibilities, that it ends up relatively meaningless to me.

And ignosticism is not an unreasonable position: that the concept of God is so ill-defined that existence isn't possible to address.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you think we are lying?

..some people might be..
I suppose it all depends what one means by "believe".
Furthermore, the concept of gods is not that straightforward.
People can worship all kinds of things.

 

[ppp]

I suppose it all depends what one means by "believe".

To be convinced that a proposition is true. In this case, the proposition is that "God exists." For however you define (or fail to define) God.

People can worship all kinds of things.

For very mushy definitions of 'worship'.

 

[Sheldon]

I know what God does and does not do and I know why.

That seems a dubious claim, you may believe those things, but you have not shared any knowledge about them.

 

[F1fan]

To be convinced that a proposition is true. In this case, the proposition is that "God exists." For however you define (or fail to define) God.

Or even to just be conditioned to assume a proposition is true. For example a child who grows up with parents going to church and the child will adopt the beliefs of the parents ONLY because they are trusting the parents. There might be a case where a Protestant marries into a Catholic family and there's a deliberate change of belief and ritual, and this is typical of how humans evolved to conform to social norms to help feel they belong. Social and peer pressure is a huge influence on how people think, and it often processes in the subconscious, thus the person feels the stress to conform but it not completely aware of why they feel that way. There is an explanation in psychology called Stress Reduction which is how our minds seek ways to reduce causes of stress, asocial path of least resistance. This is how many German citizens cooperated with Nazis, the alternative would have meant arrest, the destruction of their family, perhaps execution, etc.

 

[Polymath257]

..some people might be..
I suppose it all depends what one means by "believe".
Furthermore, the concept of gods is not that straightforward.
People can worship all kinds of things.

And some people don't 'worship' anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

That seems a dubious claim, you may believe those things, but you have not shared any knowledge about them.

God does and does not do lots of things... What do you want to know?
Would you believe me if I shared them?

 

[Trailblazer]

Just leave it alone, you don't need to argue.

I do not like to argue. I want to have discussions. There is no point covering the same ground over and over again.

Baha'u'llah said that if two people argue they are both wrong. He also said that if religion becomes the source of strife then we are better off with no religion at all.

 

[Sheldon]

Nope. All you have is this life and its ups and downs.

I agree, it's good to see you finally come on board.

 

[ChristineM]

I do not like to argue. I want to have discussions. There is no point covering the same ground over and over again.

Baha'u'llah said that if two people argue they are both wrong. He also said that if religion becomes the source of strife then we are better off with no religion at all.

i say the same. Do you think i class as a messenger

 

[Trailblazer]

Not an omnipotent deity then obviously.

God could not communicate to ordinary humans and be understood because of the limitations of humans, not because of the limitations of God. Humans could never understand God directly and that is why God sends Messengers who act as mediators between God and man.

The Omnipotent God does whatever He damn well pleases and does nothing He does not choose to do, so even if God could communicate directly to humans and be understood, that is NOT what He chooses to do, obviously. We know that God does not choose to do it because He does not do it. Logic 101.

This is what flies completely over the head of atheists. Atheists think Omnipotent means that God can do anything, which really means God should be doing everything I expect Him to do. They have no clue what Omnipotence really means. It is rather comical.

Here, Baha'u'llah explained what Omnipotence means. In a nutshell it means that God is all-powerful and that He only does what He chooses to do which is what He wants to do.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings, p. 209

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, p, 284

“God witnesseth that there is no God but Him, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. All grace and bounty are His. To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish. He, verily, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.” Gleanings, p. 73

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.” Gleanings, p. 278

 

[Trailblazer]

i say the same. Do you think i class as a messenger

You are on the right track.

 

[Trailblazer]

As you probably read, my arguments are all predicated on the premise that God wants to be known to humans.

good to know He is not interested.

ciao

- viole

God does want to be known to humans, but only in the way that He chooses to make Himself known.

 

[Trailblazer]

Right, you say God isn't subject to morality so it isn't responsible for its immoral inaction.

Logically speaking, since God is not subject to morality God cannot be responsible for immoral inaction.
Case closed.

 

[Trailblazer]

So God can do whatever it wants and it will be good regardless how many humans are harmed.

That's right, but God is not harming anyone.