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

[viole]

Because God does not want to and God only does what God wants to do.

God can do whatever He wants to do but God only wants to make Himself known to middle men who make God known to all the other humans. Humans who don’t like that will just have to miss out on knowing God.

Yes, very convincing. The problem with that is that i can make up any theory, and justify it by using exactly your arguments. In other words: it has zero explanatory power.

So, what you say is not right....it is not even wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[InChrist]

Wanna play semantics?

If the bible OT is a selective clone of the Tanakh and the hebrew word means sin then where is the argument?

The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 45:7 does not mean "sin". The Hebrew word translated in Isaiah 45:7 as "evil" is an entirely different word than the Hebrew word for "sin".
Strong's Hebrew: 7451. רָע (ra') -- adversity

The literal meaning of the Hebrew word for sin is "to miss the mark" or fall short of God's perfect standard.

Hebrew Word Definition: Sin | AHRC
Strong's Hebrew: 2403. חַטָּאָה (chatta'ah) -- sin
Strong's Hebrew: 2400. חַטָּאּים (chatta) -- sinful, sinners
Strong's Hebrew: 2398. חָטָא (chata) -- to miss, go wrong, sin

 

[QuestioningMind]

When as a child one gained consciousness for the first time, one had no proof/evidence of one's parents except other people telling you that they were your parents. So, it is not proof of your parents existed before you except hearsay. Right, please?

Regards

You are correct that it is POSSIBLE that the couple who claim to be my parents have lied to me all of my life. However, if the ones identifying themselves as my parents are not in fact my real biological parents, my basic comprehension of biology tells me that there WAS a couple who WERE my biological parents, because that's how baby human beings come into existence.

Unless of course you're under the impression that I'm the first human being to ever come into existence without being born biologically.

 

[QuestioningMind]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Can a conscious human being exist without that human being's parents first existing? Please

That was not my question, please. Please read the question again and answer it if you please. I did not talk of the "eternal consciousness" in my question.

Regards

And I did answer your question... please read my response again, please. I very clearly wrote
NO THEY CANNOT. Which is why I stated that my existence is proof on only one thing, that my parents procreated.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I am certainly NOT suggesting that you do that because I know it is not possible to WILL a belief in God. All I am suggesting, if even that, is that you might give it more careful consideration before you decide there is no God.

I do not think it is a fair comparison to compare God to magical pixies for two reasons:

1. There is no reason to think that magical pixies exist, no evidence at all
2. Even if magical pixies did exist, they would have no bearing on our lives

That said, I can certainly put myself in your shoes because I have been posting to atheists 24/7 on several forums for over five years, so I understand how they feel about evidence and proof of God.

In short, atheists do not see ANY evidence that God exists. I wouldn’t see any either if I had not stumbled upon the Baha’i Faith way back when. I did not have any problem accepting that it had a Divine Author because there was and still is no logical explanation for how it all came to be unless there was a God involved. In short, no mere human being ever accomplished such a mission against all odds and opposition or wrote what Baha’u’llah wrote. That is proof to me. Obviously YMMV.

The argument some theists make, that because the universe exists and humans exist, that must be proof that God exists is a weak argument at best because there are other possible explanations for those, but I do not see any other explanations for what the Messengers of God were able to accomplish and what was left in their wake.

I am certainly NOT suggesting that you do that because I know it is not possible to WILL a belief in God. All I am suggesting, if even that, is that you might give it more careful consideration before you decide there is no God.

Except that I have NEVER made the claim that there is no god... ONLY that due to a lack of verifiable evidence that it's impossible for me to believe that there IS a god. You yourself have stated that it's impossible to get verifiable evidence for god, so regardless of how much 'consideration' I give the matter, there will NEVER be sufficient evidence for me to genuinely believe.

I do not think it is a fair comparison to compare God to magical pixies for two reasons:

1. There is no reason to think that magical pixies exist, no evidence at all
2. Even if magical pixies did exist, they would have no bearing on our lives

I find it to be a perfectly apt example. Because:
1. There is EXACTLY as much verifiable evidence for your god claim as there is for my magical pixie claim. That is to say, absolutely ZERO.
2. Not according to my claim. IF you genuinely believe in the magical pixies THEN your every wish will be granted. Not sure how you can claim that being given the power to have your wishes all come true would have no bearing on your life.

Sadly your 'divine author' is no more convincing to me that the 'divine authors' of all of the thousands of other man-made religions out there. You may as well be telling me that Jesus could never have accomplished all that he did unless a god was involved. Or that Hercules could never have accomplished all that he did unless a god was involved. For that matter, I can claim that the magical pixies could never have accomplished all that they have, unless magical pixies were involved.

 

[ChristineM]

The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 45:7 does not mean "sin". The Hebrew word translated in Isaiah 45:7 as "evil" is an entirely different word than the Hebrew word for "sin".
Strong's Hebrew: 7451. רָע (ra') -- adversity

The literal meaning of the Hebrew word for sin is "to miss the mark" or fall short of God's perfect standard.

Hebrew Word Definition: Sin | AHRC
Strong's Hebrew: 2403. חַטָּאָה (chatta'ah) -- sin
Strong's Hebrew: 2400. חַטָּאּים (chatta) -- sinful, sinners
Strong's Hebrew: 2398. חָטָא (chata) -- to miss, go wrong, sin

But that is not the meaning understood by the vast majority of christianity.

 

[paarsurrey]

You are correct that it is POSSIBLE that the couple who claim to be my parents have lied to me all of my life. However, if the ones identifying themselves as my parents are not in fact my real biological parents, my basic comprehension of biology tells me that there WAS a couple who WERE my biological parents, because that's how baby human beings come into existence.

Unless of course you're under the impression that I'm the first human being to ever come into existence without being born biologically.

"lied to me all of my life"

I did not say it. I am just telling that when one/you got consciousness one believed things mostly or all out of hearsay. Is that OK, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

And I did answer your question... please read my response again, please. I very clearly wrote
NO THEY CANNOT. Which is why I stated that my existence is proof on only one thing, that my parents procreated.

"that my parents procreated"

Strictly speaking it was nothing less or more than out of hearsay. Right, please?

Regards

 

[wandering peacefully]

That is what Baha'is are enjoined to do, live in this world and make it a better place, rather than focusing on the world beyond, which we cannot know anything about.

I'm not sure I understand. I thought the entire purpose of religions was to find God (g's) in order to be able to live for eternity. I thought this material life was just a jumping off/returning place which is temporary and if you want the real life which is the eternal one with God, you have to believe one of the religions to be able to achieve that? And believe in God, which ever one and whatever that is?

I thought you hated this life and think it's useless?

 

[QuestioningMind]

"lied to me all of my life"

I did not say it. I am just telling that when one/you got consciousness one believed things mostly or all out of hearsay. Is that OK, please?

Regards

And I greed that it's POSSIBLE that the people who claim to be my parents aren't telling me the truth. How about where I went on to say that even IF they have in fact mislead me, I was STILL the product of two human beings procreating? My existence remains proof that such procreation took place, but proof of nothing more.

 

[QuestioningMind]

"that my parents procreated"

Strictly speaking it was nothing less or more than out of hearsay. Right, please?

Regards

As I already stated... yes it IS hearsay that the folks who claim to be my parents are actually my parents. But it is NOT hearsay that two human beings - be they my claimed parents or not - made my existence possible via procreation. Right, please?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Sorry, can't quite fit my answer against your three points.
If there was evidence of God (obviously this is my opinion) I'd believe. Regardless of if I wanted to. Like believing in my coffee table.

Whether I would worship God is a far trickier question, to which I'd say almost certainly not.

Despite his flaws, I might like God if I had evidence he was trying his best, or if I really thought children dying of diseases was part of a grand plan.

 

[paarsurrey]

And I greed that it's POSSIBLE that the people who claim to be my parents aren't telling me the truth. How about where I went on to say that even IF they have in fact mislead me, I was STILL the product of two human beings procreating? My existence remains proof that such procreation took place, but proof of nothing more.

You had no your own experience/observation that you were born of two specific human being/your parents except their own claims, a hearsay, and the other human beings, also a hearsay. Right, please?

Regards

 

[QuestioningMind]

You had no your own experience/observation that you were born of two specific human being/your parents except their own claims, a hearsay, and the other human beings, also a hearsay. Right, please?

Regards

Again, unless you have evidence of someone magically starting to exist without being the product of two human's procreating, then NO it is NOT just a hearsay claim. My understanding of basic biology tells me that I MUST be the product of human procreation.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Would I like to believe in God? That depends on what kind of God. And then again, does belief have anything to do with what is real? I'm somewhat suspicious of that...

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

I guess you mean that God would have to show up.
So what if God showed up and He w\as not what you hoped He would be, would you still believe in Him?

What if God is already here, and no one knows it? That seems to me to be an interesting question...

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

The Bible makes it clear, at least I see it that way, that the suffering in this world is not imposed by God,

It appears to me that an assumption being made here is that the Bible has the last word. I am not sure of that assumption. Why quote it and not some one else's scripture? And on the other hand, why bother quoting any scripture, which is just someone anciently who wrote their opinion on things? Why quote ancient peoples as to the nature of what is real when they didn't have a clue about cells, germs, and microrganisms, let alone the billions of galaxies with billions of stars? I am not so sure they have any kind of corner on understanding reality about much of anything.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

If God exists and is All-Knowing and All-Wise, that is enough of a reason to believe in God, Imo.

But doesn't it follow though that in order to actually know this about God, one would also have to be all knowing and all wise, or else how could one actually know a God is such? Since no one we are aware of in the vast concourse of human history approaches anywhere near these two ideals, doesn't it follow that they are just a myth invented by someone who wants to make a Superman of God? Simply quoting a holy book that says so doesn't make it so, because that is just yet again, someone's opinion, or hope. But that has nothing to do with what is real does it? There is literally no way to ever know if that kind of God even could exist, let alone actually does so.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Does it make sense that there is more than one God? Why would we need more than one God?

Well the question before this question appears to me to be why would we even need one God? Of course, the question before even that is what is God and how is it defined? And is there actual evidence of the definition or is it wishful thinking? Just musing with you...

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

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 read David and Marjorie Haight "The Scandal of Reason" University Press, 2004 4 times last year because it was so profound to me at the time. In it, the Haights demonstrate with absolutely impeccable logic and evidence that one can just as much prove the Devil is the only supernatural being as God is. They simply turned Anselm's proofs and arguments on their head and used the exact same reasoning as Anselm did for God, only they did it for the devil instead. The reason I bring this up is for this: there cannot be any kind of proof for God. It simply is a discussion and talking points. ALL arguments for God end up being circular. That was one of the singular most stunning revelations I have ever had in my life. I would sincerely suggest you avail yourself of this massive tome and read it carefully to see a phenomenal new insight into the idea, as it were, of God, and all that it entails. I promise, if nothing else, a rip roaring good time for your mind for a month or two as you get through this incredibly well written and well thought out text.