Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?

[Trailblazer]

What evidence?

Messengers of God and their religious scriptures.

You could ask that question to yourself.

I mean, unless we're talking about a hypothetical scenario where the world and its evidence are different than what they are now, then we're talking about a scenario where none of the mainstream religions are justified but some other god exists.

What would be the evidence for that other god?
With no evidence why would we even think there is some other god?

 

[Trailblazer]

I frankly don't like the question, as it seems to be asking 2 things at once, while demanding only a single answer to cover both questions:

1. Would I believe in God if there were sufficient evidence? Of course.
2. Would I like to? Can't answer that until I know what kind of God the evidence suggests exists. But if it were the one from the Old Testament, certainly not. I might be terrified of it, but being terrified is not something I particularly enjoy.

Thanks for pointing that out.
I can now see what happened on this thread. What I was asking was one question: Would you like to believe in God if you had good evidence for God. I was not asking if you would like the God that you had evidence for. That is a separate question.

However, these are related because whether you would like to believe in God might depend upon the God in question. Some people might like to believe in God regardless of whether that God was appealing to them, but others would simply realize that if God exists, it is not about what appeals to us, we just accept God as-is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Isaiah 45:7, although a favorite verse misused by atheists, does not say God creates sin or moral evil.

Obviously, it does not mean that, so what exactly does it mean?
I rather trust your opinion since you are a Christian and know the Bible better than I do by far.

 

[Trailblazer]

In other words, if God was a God you would not like you’d rather not know if God exists.

But that is NOT what I said. IF there is a god be it one I approve of or one I disapprove of, I WOULD want it to reveal itself with verifiable evidence. That's not the same as stating that I HOPE to find evidence that a god I disapprove of exists. It would be my PREFERENCE that they do NOT exist, but if they DO, I'd want to know about it.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I think I got it now. If God exists, you would like God to provide verifiable evidence of His existence because if there is a God you would want to know that God exists, even if it is not a God you would approve of or like.

But what if that Bible God actually exists and that is reality? Then I WOULD want to know about it. Would you prefer to live with your head in the sand and not know reality? No, I wouldn't be happy that a god I disapprove of exists, but I would certainly want to know about it. What if there were consequences for not believing? Do you think you would be off the hook just because you do not believe that God exists? Absolutely not... that is IF it's the God of the Christian bible. Which is one of the reasons that I find the god of the bible to be so despicable. I find it absurd to punish someone for a simply lacking belief in a fantastical claim.

So, from what you are saying, if the God of the Christian Bible exists, you don't think you are off the hook for not believing in Him even though you find it absurd that such a God would punish you for not believing in Him.

So you are taking a pretty big gamble if that God indeed exists, don't you think? You must be fairly certain that this God does not exist.

I think that the God of the Bible exists but not as portrayed by Christians, and I do not think this God punishes people for not believing in Him. Rather, we simply miss out on the rewards we could have had if we had believed in Him.

What happens after we die is unknown. Personally, I do not think there is any scriptural evidence which indicates that atheists go to hell, but there is evidence that indicates that evil people go to hell, although hell is not a geographical location, it is a state of the soul. Judging by the following quote, it could be that God was more into punishment in the Bible days but God has now lightened up. God can do that because God has all power.

Abdu'l-Baha considered those nonbelievers who had good deeds and morals far preferable to those of His followers who claimed to believe in words but whose actions did not follow. Rather, they followed their own selfish desires, which is what is meant by a follower of satan.

"This cycle is the cycle of favor and not of justice. Therefore, those whose deeds are clean and pure, even though they are not believers, will not be deprived of the divine mercy; but perfection is in faith and deeds. Undoubtedly, a person, who is not a believer, but whose deeds and morals are good, is far better than one who claims his belief in words but, who, in actions, is a follower of satan. The Blessed Beauty says, 'My humiliation is not in my imprisonment, which, by my life, is an exaltation to me; nay rather, it is in the deeds of my friends, who attribute themselves to us and commit that which causes my heart and pen to weep!'"
(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 9, issue 3, p. 29)

 

[Polymath257]

That certainly is a perspective that has some validity, because all the tampering with the scriptures that was done by man over time made them religions of man rather than religions of God.

Add to that the fact that it is far from clear that a God even exists. For me, it is far simpler and more in line with the evidence that humans make up things and that no deities actually exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, I am glad to hear that you understand that.

What is it that you're glad that I understand?

I am glad you understand that verifiable evidence that the something does in fact exist means that you would have to ignore established reality in order to NOT believe in it, so if there was verifiable evidence for God you would have to believe in God.

Because what I understand is that somehow you have this switch in your head that you can choose to turn your belief in something on or off at will, regardless of what the actual verifiable evidence might show. That's called ignoring reality in favor of your delusions.

I do not know where you got that idea. I believe whatever the evidence indicates, whether I like it or not.

MY brain doesn't work like that. I require actual verifiable evidence before my brain will allow me to accept something as true. ESPECIALLY a fantastical claim like a god being.

MY brain doesn't work like that. I do not require actual verifiable evidence before my brain will allow me to accept something as true. This not only applies to a God belief, it applies to other things.

If I know I cannot acquire verifiable evidence of something I might still believe it, if I know it is impossible to acquire verifiable evidence. For example, I might hire a contractor to work on my house even if I could not verify exactly what kind of job he would do. I would look for evidence that he is trustworthy and competent by way of references from people he worked for in the past, but that would not prove unquestionably that he would do a good job for me.

I accept the reality that God does not provide verifiable evidence so I look for the best possible evidence in lieu of that. I cannot GET something God does not provide, but that does not mean that God does not exist. It only means that God does not CHOOSE to verify His existence.

An atheist on my forum who I have been posting to for over five years on several forums says that only imaginary gods require faith but a real God would not require faith. In other words a real God (if it existed) would provide verifiable evidence of its existence. Here was my response to him last night:

You talk about what a imaginary god would require (faith) as a way to say that if God was real God would not require faith. But you are wrong, because if God exists then God requires faith because God does not provide proof of His existence; so there are only two logical possibilities:

1) God exists and requires faith, or
2) God does not exist

 

[Trailblazer]

Add to that the fact that it is far from clear that a God even exists. For me, it is far simpler and more in line with the evidence that humans make up things and that no deities actually exist.

That is a lot simpler and easier. I wish I could do it but I see evidence for God so I cannot ignore it.

Had I never discovered the Baha'i Faith it probably would have been a different story, because there is no other religion that I can fully accommodate in my logical mind. Although some religions do contain some good spiritual teachings I could never have believed that a God revealed them, but for whatever reason, it is obvious to me that Baha'u'llah speaks with the Voice of God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Messengers of God and their religious scriptures.

Ah - that old argument of yours. No: I don't find any of that compelling.

What would be the evidence for that other god?
With no evidence why would we even think there is some other god?

You tell me what that evidence would be; it's your hypothetical scenario.

My point is that even if evidence fell into humanity's lap right this minute that justified some sort of belief in a god or gods, it's still useless for justifying any pre-existing religion. Only the evidence that the founders of that religion had at the time is relevant to saying whether the religion was made up or based in fact.

So even if we acquired compelling evidence for a god, odds are it wouldn't be compelling evidence for your god, IMO.

 

[Nakosis]

On another thread….

Trailblazer said: Many atheists say they would like to believe in God if they only had the evidence.

@ ecco said:
Name one. Show where he/she said "they would like to believe in God if they only had the evidence." That isn't what atheists say. That's what theists would like to believe atheists say.

Trailblazer said: Holy moly! ~~~ This is practically all atheists say, at least to me. Sorry, I cannot quote atheists from other forums because that is not right. They posted to me on other forums in confidence. Sure, they are public forums, but it is bad practice to take posts from one forum to another forum. But it is not only on the “other forums” where atheists have said this. They have also said it on RF. I am not saying that ALL atheists would like to believe in God if they had the evidence, since some atheists probably have no interest in God. But if they don’t have any interest in God, why is this forum comprised of as many atheists as believers? Hmmmmm.....

This would be a great topic for a new thread:

“Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?”

Please answer 1, 2 or 3.

1) Yes, I would like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
2) I am not sure. I might like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
3) No, I would not like to believe in God even if there was evidence that was good enough.

* By good enough I mean evidence that was sufficient for you to believe that God exists, evidence that proved to you that God exists.

I'd be happier if you defined "God" first.

I've always felt that a God could be defined into or out of existence. For example I could pick a particular rock I like and choose to worship it as God. If you didn't believe in my God, I could knock you in the head with it. "Do you believe now?"

So what are the attributes of this God you are trying to prove and how do you go about proving your God has these attributes?

If someone can prove the attributes of the God they worship, sure, I'm happy to acknowledge their God exists,. Whether or not I choose to worship this God is a different story.

 

[Polymath257]

MY brain doesn't work like that. I do not require actual verifiable evidence before my brain will allow me to accept something as true. This not only applies to a God belief, it applies to other things.

Hmmm...I can hold some propositions *provisionally*, neither believing nor disbelieving. If I have a report from someone I consider to be reliable, *and if it is the type of knowledge they would have access to*, I can take their stated opinion as a basis for making at least some decisions. Opinions where they don't have the means of knowing, I typically disregard, even if they are otherwise reliable.

If I know I cannot acquire verifiable evidence of something I might still believe it, if I know it is impossible to acquire verifiable evidence. For example, I might hire a contractor to work on my house even if I could not verify exactly what kind of job he would do. I would look for evidence that he is trustworthy and competent by way of references from people he worked for in the past, but that would not prove unquestionably that he would do a good job for me.

Note: evidence that he is trustworthy. And what would that consist of? Well, statements of previous clients, examples of his work, reviews from websites, etc. That is all evidence and, given enough, there is a high degree of verifiability.

After that, I still would NOT *believe* that he would do a good job. I would *hope* he would do a good job.

I accept the reality that God does not provide verifiable evidence so I look for the best possible evidence in lieu of that. I cannot GET something God does not provide, but that does not mean that God does not exist. It only means that God does not CHOOSE to verify His existence.

Note that you are *assuming* prior to any evidence or knowledge, that God exists.

I, on the other hand, require actual evidence *prior* to actual belief (as opposed to provisional belief).

An atheist on my forum who I have been posting to for over five years on several forums says that only imaginary gods require faith but a real God would not require faith. In other words a real God (if it existed) would provide verifiable evidence of its existence. Here was my response to him last night:

You talk about what a imaginary god would require (faith) as a way to say that if God was real God would not require faith. But you are wrong, because if God exists then God requires faith because God does not provide proof of His existence; so there are only two logical possibilities:

1) God exists and requires faith, or
2) God does not exist

And, if a God exists that requires faith, then that existence is indistinguishable from non-existence. In that case, the easier position, which requires fewer metaphysical assumptions, is non-existence. That is the default position on any existence statement for anything else, after all.

 

[Polymath257]

That is a lot simpler and easier. I wish I could do it but I see evidence for God so I cannot ignore it.

Had I never discovered the Baha'i Faith it probably would have been a different story, because there is no other religion that I can fully accommodate in my logical mind. Although some religions do contain some good spiritual teachings I could never have believed that a God revealed them, but for whatever reason, it is obvious to me that Baha'u'llah speaks with the Voice of God.

Hmmm....it would take *a lot* to convince me that *anyone* speaks with the 'Voice of God'. In fact, for me, a *precondition* would be to establish the existence of a God. Only after that would I see it as reasonable to ask whether someone is speaking with the voice of that being.

 

[InChrist]

I provided verses. Your interpretation is not my affair


And you asked about sin, not love

The Bible interprets and clarifies itself and verses you provided do not say God creates sin.

Yes, I asked about sin, yet throughout the scriptures it is made clear that sin is contrary to love and God is Love.

 

[InChrist]

Obviously, it does not mean that, so what exactly does it mean?
I rather trust your opinion since you are a Christian and know the Bible better than I do by far.

When read in context the passage elaborates what it means when it says God creates "evil" . The word in Hebrew can be translated: adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, or misery. The Old English King James Version of the bible translated the word as "evil", but many other versions do not. The context shows that the word does not mean sin or moral wickedness. What is means is that at times God allowed or brought on distress, calamity, or adverse situations as a form of judgement on the nation of Israel to get their attention and turn them from their wrong doing and back to Himself.

Why does Isaiah 45:7 say that God created evil? | GotQuestions.org

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When read in context the passage elaborates what it means when it says God creates "evil" . The word in Hebrew can be translated: adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, or misery.

God still doesn't come off well with any of those redefinitions.

 

[InChrist]

God still doesn't come off well with any of those redefinitions.

Maybe not in your opinion or even mine sometimes, nevertheless I do believe God has the right as the Creator to pass judgement according to His perfect wisdom. Not only that, from my reading and understanding of the scriptures as well as my relationship with God I have no doubt that everything God does is done out of love with the ultimate purpose to be the best for each person's life in light of eternity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe not in your opinion or even mine sometimes, nevertheless I do believe God has the right as the Creator to pass judgement according to His perfect wisdom.

"God has the right to do it" <> "God can do it without being monstrous."

Not only that, from my reading and understanding of the scriptures as well as my relationship with God I have no doubt that everything God does is done out of love with the ultimate purpose to be the best for each person's life in light of eternity.

That's a pretty messed up worldview, IMO. It also stands in stark contrast to every example of Christian charity: the idea that everything God does is done out of love is incompatible with the idea that we need to help others to make up for deficiencies in God's creation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah - that old argument of yours. No: I don't find any of that compelling.

Of course I know that.

You tell me what that evidence would be; it's your hypothetical scenario.

The evidence would have to be better than the evidence we have for the established religions.

My point is that even if evidence fell into humanity's lap right this minute that justified some sort of belief in a god or gods, it's still useless for justifying any pre-existing religion.

Unless that new evidence validated the pre-existing religions.

Only the evidence that the founders of that religion had at the time is relevant to saying whether the religion was made up or based in fact.

True.

So even if we acquired compelling evidence for a god, odds are it wouldn't be compelling evidence for your god, IMO.

Maybe or maybe not.
According to Baha'u'llah, eventually everyone will know who He was which means everyone will believe in God.

“Warn and acquaint the people, O Servant, with the things We have sent down unto Thee, and let the fear of no one dismay Thee, and be Thou not of them that waver. The day is approaching when God will have exalted His Cause and magnified His testimony in the eyes of all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 248

I see that as a fulfillment of the following Bible verse:

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd be happier if you defined "God" first.

I've always felt that a God could be defined into or out of existence. For example I could pick a particular rock I like and choose to worship it as God. If you didn't believe in my God, I could knock you in the head with it. "Do you believe now?"

After you had good evidence for that God you would know something about God although God is beyond definition, undefinable.

So what are the attributes of this God you are trying to prove and how do you go about proving your God has these attributes?

Some of the attributes of the God I believe in are as follows:
Eternal, Holy, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, Righteous, and Immaterial, Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Forgiving, Patient.

But I cannot prove that there is a God or that He has these attributes. All I have is evidence from scriptures:

If someone can prove the attributes of the God they worship, sure, I'm happy to acknowledge their God exists,. Whether or not I choose to worship this God is a different story.

I guess you are out of luck because nobody can prove anything about God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unless that new evidence validated the pre-existing religions.

No new evidence can validate pre-existing religions. If the religion can't be justified on the basis of the evidence on hand when it was founded, then it's unjustified, period.

If some future evidence in line with the religion comes to light later, the religion was still unjustified. The mere fact that it was a lucky guess doesn't imply that it wasn't a fabrication in the first place.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hmmm...I can hold some propositions *provisionally*, neither believing nor disbelieving. If I have a report from someone I consider to be reliable, *and if it is the type of knowledge they would have access to*, I can take their stated opinion as a basis for making at least some decisions. Opinions where they don't have the means of knowing, I typically disregard, even if they are otherwise reliable.

That is also how I think and operate.

Note: evidence that he is trustworthy. And what would that consist of? Well, statements of previous clients, examples of his work, reviews from websites, etc. That is all evidence and, given enough, there is a high degree of verifiability.

After that, I still would NOT *believe* that he would do a good job. I would *hope* he would do a good job.

That is also how I think and operate. I have a lot of dealings with contractors, landscapers, plumbers and electricians since we own three houses, so I have learned a few things about what to look for when hiring. When hiring someone new I do not believe, I hope, but when hiring someone who has done good work for me in the past, I believe, even if I don’t know. Humans are not like science experiments that can be verified,since there are many variables to consider. I can screen a tenant every possible way and still get a bad tenant, or I can rent to a tenant I have not screened and get a good tenant.

Note that you are *assuming* prior to any evidence or knowledge, that God exists.

No, not at all. I had to see the evidence first. I never even thought about God before I saw evidence for God.

I, on the other hand, require actual evidence *prior* to actual belief (as opposed to provisional belief).

Without actual evidence I would not even have provisional belief because there would be no reason to believe.

And, if a God exists that requires faith, then that existence is indistinguishable from non-existence. In that case, the easier position, which requires fewer metaphysical assumptions, is non-existence. That is the default position on any existence statement for anything else, after all.

What you are saying would be true, if God expected us to believe on faith alone, with no evidence at all, but that would be unjust. God provides evidence, just not proof. Evidence is different from proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

The caveat is that the evidence for God can become proof to us although it will not constitute proof to other people, since it cannot be established as a fact that everyone will accept.

With no evidence at all that a contractor would be trustworthy, I would not even consider him for a job. I am so careful about who I hire it often takes a long time to get jobs done, but once I find a good contractor I do not have to look around anymore. It is all in how well you do your research and investigation. The same applies to God beliefs, why wouldn’t it?