Atheists: If God existed would God……

[ppp]

I did not claim an objective fact. That is my belief based upon scriptures and logical reasoning.
See what I just said to Sheldon.
#1917 Trailblazer, 3 minutes ago

I did see it. You did claim it.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think it's both important, and beneficial to search for truthful answers in the right place.
Where do you think we can find those answers?

Could it be the Bible? Or is it the Quran or the Baha'i writings.

Those that truly seek G-d will find out.

And I assume they will find Islam. Or Jesus, or Baha'u'llah?

 

[ppp]

Of course I believe it, why else would I post it?
I can only explain why God does x according to what I believe.

If you had sound reasoning that your beliefs were true, your responses would not be so loaded with deception.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then your God is accountable for what it created and has reasons for it, unless your God makes mistakes.

God is not accountable to humans for anything. It is humans who are accountable to God.

So? That is how nature operates. The universe doesn't care if you are an old evil person or a baby, and there is no justice in how the universe functions. If it did, no children would suffer from genetic flaws.

The alternative is that our Creator is evil.

What you claim is highly subjective and it is only a personal opinion.
What you are really saying is that God must be evil because things were not created the way I think they should have been created.

I could just as well say that if God was good I would not have any genetic flaws so I believe that God is evil because I have genetic flaws.
That would be an emotion-based response, not a reasoned one.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you had sound reasoning that your beliefs were true, your responses would not be so loaded with deception.

What you just said is a personal opinion and nothing more. Can you prove your personal opinion is correct?

I think my reasoning is perfectly sound but you think it is unsound.
Which one of us is right and what is the basis for deciding?

 

[Trailblazer]

I did see it. You did claim it.

I never claimed that my beliefs are objective facts, I only ever said that there are objective facts about my religion that people can research.

 

[F1fan]

I was not referring to objective facts, I was referring to objective evidence.

Facts ARE objective evidence. There are no subjective facts (unless you are Kellyanne Conway and have alternative facts, lies).

Objective evidence has to be available for anyone to examine without any special assumptions or beliefs. This self cannot condition evidence to be something it is not. For example let's say Bob killed his boss by beating him to death with a Bible. The Bible is just a book regardless of what some believers think of it. At trial the evidence is a book, and it happens to be a Bible and not some other book. But Bob insists that he's innocent because the Bible he used was divine and thus the killing was approved by God, and Bob should walk free.

See the problem, Bob can't impose his belief about the Bible to become a material fact about it. In evidence it is just a book.

God can never be proven as an objective fact because God does not want to be known as an objective fact.

But you cannot know this about God since you can't know God exists as a fact, so you are guessing at best.

You can't cite characteristics of things that we cannot know exists.

 

[ppp]

I think my reasoning is perfectly sound but you think it is unsound.

You haven't used any reasoning yet. Sound or otherwise. You have merely stated what you believe. Stating what you believe is not the definition of reasoning. It is the definition of stating. Or asserting.

Do you even know what reasoning is?

 

[F1fan]

God is not accountable to humans for anything. It is humans who are accountable to God.

Since you admit we can't know that god exists this must be a guess on your part.

But since we are all guessing here, God does have to be accountable for what it creates IF it is a loving deity.

What you claim is highly subjective and it is only a personal opinion.
What you are really saying is that God must be evil because things were not created the way I think they should have been created.

No, I'm saying if God is the creator then it acts outside of the morals that many believers claim it is the cause for. Now I know you think God isn't accountable at all, and that is inconsistent with how morality works. Morals govern our right action, and if God isn't following the morals we humans are supposed to follow, then there are no moral absolutes and God can't hold us accountable for violations.

I could just as well say that if God was good I would not have any genetic flaws so I believe that God is evil because I have genetic flaws.

Well if God doesn't like you, or you are a threat to humanity, perhaps God is trying to get rid of you.

But if you get cancer at 3 years old, well, it's hard to justify killing a child. Nature is created by God, cancer is natural, thus the reason cancers exist are because God allowed it, if not deliberately created it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Facts ARE objective evidence. There are no subjective facts

No, not exactly. Facts are things that have been proven to exist.

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

Objective evidence has to be available for anyone to examine without any special assumptions or beliefs.

That is correct.

What is subjective and objective evidence?

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves thus it is objective evidence
What we determine after examining the objective evidence is not evidence, it is a subjective opinion of the evidence.

But you cannot know this about God since you can't know God exists as a fact, so you are guessing at best.

You can't cite characteristics of things that we cannot know exists.

I do not need to know that God exists as a fact as there are other ways of knowing that God exists.

I can cite characteristics of God tat have been revealed in scriptures.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And I assume they will find Islam. Or Jesus, or Baha'u'llah?

You tell me?
What have you found?
What is your intention in discussing religion?
Are you truly looking for G-d, or is it just a pastime?

 

[Trailblazer]

Since you admit we can't know that god exists this must be a guess on your part.

No, it is a belief based upon the evidence.

But since we are all guessing here, God does have to be accountable for what it creates IF it is a loving deity.

I am not guessing because I have a belief.
You have a personal opinion of what a loving deity would be like, but I have a belief. I do not believe God is accountable for anything He does, simply because He is God.

No, I'm saying if God is the creator then it acts outside of the morals that many believers claim it is the cause for. Now I know you think God isn't accountable at all, and that is inconsistent with how morality works. Morals govern our right action, and if God isn't following the morals we humans are supposed to follow, then there are no moral absolutes and God can't hold us accountable for violations.

I thought we already covered this. God is not subject to being moral because God is not a human.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=moral+means

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

God cannot have violations because God is infallible so cannot ever make mistakes.

Well if God doesn't like you, or you are a threat to humanity, perhaps God is trying to get rid of you.

But if you get cancer at 3 years old, well, it's hard to justify killing a child. Nature is created by God, cancer is natural, thus the reason cancers exist are because God allowed it, if not deliberately created it.

Everything in this material world exists because God allowed it. Why should God disallow cancer and not disallow heart disease or Alzheimers or the coronavirus or other diseases?

God did not create any diseases, they developed from natural causes.
God is not out to kill anyone, people simply die from various causes.

 

[Trailblazer]

You haven't used any reasoning yet. Sound or otherwise. You have merely stated what you believe. Stating what you believe is not the definition of reasoning. It is the definition of stating. Or asserting.

Do you even know what reasoning is?

You haven't used any reasoning yet. Sound or otherwise. You have merely stated what you believe. Stating what you believe is not the definition of reasoning. It is the definition of stating. Or asserting.

If you cannot understand what I just said that will prove that you have an inability to reason and everything you say is driven by your emotions and your ego.

Hint: Everything you say about my reasoning is based upon your personal opinion that I cannot reason, nothing more. You have no evidence to back up what you are saying and that is why it is only a personal opinion.

I certainly do have an ability to reason, you just don't like the conclusions I come to because they differ from your conclusions... As I said, ego.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then your previous comment of how you know God exists wasn't the truth.

No, I know God exists, but not as a fact. God can never be a fact because God does not want to be a fact.

But none of that is being taught in schools because it isn't good enough as far as being knowledge and factual. So you're left with just another religion that is in the eye of the beholder.

No, it is not taught in schools because knowledge of God is not factual.
I am left with just another religion that is in the eye of the beholder, a religion that could be true or false.
If true, then there are major implications.

 

[Trailblazer]

You present your beliefs, including that you know a God exists, and can't explain how you arrived at that conclusion with anything other than desire and faith, not reason.

I have explained how I arrived at my conclusion numerous times and it was by reason, not desire or faith.

 

[ppp]

You haven't used any reasoning yet. Sound or otherwise. You have merely stated what you believe. Stating what you believe is not the definition of reasoning. It is the definition of stating. Or asserting.

If you cannot understand what I just said that will prove that you have an inability to reason and everything you say is driven by your emotions and your ego.

Hint: Everything you say about my reasoning is based upon your personal opinion that I cannot reason, nothing more. You have no evidence to back up what you are saying and that is why it is only a personal opinion.

I certainly do have an ability to reason, you just don't like the conclusions I come to because they differ from your conclusions... As I said, ego.

Parroting me is not a sign of comprehension. Lot of things can do that. Even a parrot.

 

[F1fan]

No, not exactly. Facts are things that have been proven to exist.

Which is objective evidence.

We can examine and evaluate the evidence for the Baha'i Faith for ourselves thus it is objective evidence

Only insofar as critical thinkers recognize no facts or compelling reason to consider the writings of messengers to be adequate that a God exists. In that sense the evidence is assessed objectively and it falls short of being factual and convincing.

Subjective would be anyone who IS convinced by poor and weak evidence. Many critical thinkers point put your bias to be convinced by weak evidence of Baha'i texts.

What we determine after examining the objective evidence is not evidence, it is a subjective opinion of the evidence.

In law it is what jurors do to consider the evidence in deliberation. This is why there are 12 jurors and there has to be unanimous decisions of guilt or acquittal.

I do not need to know that God exists as a fact as there are other ways of knowing that God exists.

This is a nonsense statement and internally contradictory. This illustrates that you don't have any real, true, or coherent path to what you believe about your belief in God.

I can cite characteristics of God tat have been revealed in scriptures.

This doesn't mean you are citing facts about a God, only that you are repeating elements of religious stories that include a character of God. There are many stories about many different Gods, and anyone can claim to know these Gods because they read the stories. So the next step for the believer is to demonstrate there stories are true and factual, and credible as evidence.

 

[F1fan]

I have explained how I arrived at my conclusion numerous times and it was by reason, not desire or faith.

And your explanations do not follow a pattern that is not consistent with reason. It is typical of faith in religion. Your being convinced by weak evidence and the fantastic claims of religious texts that do not convince critical thinkers is the biggest proof of this. The thinkers are explaining why the texts are poor evidence and not convincing. You offer no reason to believe except that you do, as if your endorsement is enough.

 

[Trailblazer]

Parroting me is not a sign of comprehension. Lot of things can do that. Even a parrot.

No, it is a sign that I can reason, for the reasons I pointed out.

 

[ppp]

No, it is a sign that I can reason, for the reasons I pointed out.

Yep. Just like I can weave because I can say words like weft. And loom. And wooooool.lol