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

[Trailblazer]

If there was evidence of god, there would be no choice but to believe in god. Belief isn't a fancy.

There is evidence of God, just no proof. Evidence is not the same as 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

People can deny the evidence that God exists and they could even deny proof, if there was any proof....
People can choose to deny whatever they want to deny, such is human nature. That is why there is a flat earth society.
Modern flat Earth societies

 

[Trailblazer]

The truth is what it is; when it comes from messengers, people must take it with a grain of salt. God is what it is; if it's hidden behind the world, the great mystery, then belief in the words of the messengers is nothing more than that: belief in the words of messengers.

Some people take it with a grain of salt, others take it more seriously.
God is a great mystery, that is mostly what Baha'u'llah wrote about God.

“Exalted, immeasurably exalted, art Thou above the strivings of mortal man to unravel Thy mystery, to describe Thy glory, or even to hint at the nature of Thine Essence. For whatever such strivings may accomplish, they never can hope to transcend the limitations imposed upon Thy creatures, inasmuch as these efforts are actuated by Thy decree, and are begotten of Thine invention.
Far, far from Thy glory be what mortal man can affirm of Thee, or attribute unto Thee, or the praise with which he can glorify Thee!
No one else besides Thee hath, at any time, been able to fathom Thy mystery, or befittingly to extol Thy greatness. Unsearchable and high above the praise of men wilt Thou remain for ever. There is none other God but Thee, the Inaccessible, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Holy of Holies.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 3-5

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Trailblazer
You will never have anything to do with God first hand because God is concealed from ordinary human beings. There is always a Mediator in between and even they do not see God first hand.

Then I am not interested in that particular God.... I think the Vedanta doctrine is vastly more interesting and superior. God is everything including us, though we have not come to that realization just yet. Brahman is all things, including all dualisms, and all categories and thought. God is literally everywhere and seen in life everyday by simply living. No in-between fallible humans to worry about whether they got anything right or not, just one on one. I rather like my meals that way, and I will take God that way as well, that is, if Vedanta has any clue about it all. I am not so sure as of yet, like I say I am a seeking agnostic and looking at all views. The messenger view is simply faulty as it removes God away a tier instead of making God closer to us. That doesn't appeal to me at all. I don't care how much the messenger argues against me, or what he says, as it is just yet again another human opinion. I want God's word, not human interpretations of what God supposedly wants or is. They just reflect their own views onto God. Mormonism taught me that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer
You will never have anything to do with God first hand because God is concealed from ordinary human beings. There is always a Mediator in between and even they do not see God first hand.

Then I am not interested in that particular God.... I think the Vedanta doctrine is vastly more interesting and superior. God is everything including us, though we have not come to that realization just yet. Brahman is all things, including all dualisms, and all categories and thought. God is literally everywhere and seen in life everyday by simply living. No in-between fallible humans to worry about whether they got anything right or not, just one on one. I rather like my meals that way, and I will take God that way as well, that is, if Vedanta has any clue about it all. I am not so sure as of yet, like I say I am a seeking agnostic and looking at all views. The messenger view is simply faulty as it removes God away a tier instead of making God closer to us. That doesn't appeal to me at all. I don't care how much the messenger argues against me, or what he says, as it is just yet again another human opinion. I want God's word, not human interpretations of what God supposedly wants or is. They just reflect their own views onto God. Mormonism taught me that.

God is not everything including us, God is separate from His Creation. The Vedanta doctrine is a false doctrine. It has nothing to do with the original Hinduism of Krishna. It is a man-made doctrine that resulted from humans distorting the original Hindi scriptures over time to suit their purposes. Just like all the religious doctrines of all the older religions, it does not represent what is actually in the scriptures.

You are free to believe whatever you want to. You said "That doesn't appeal to me at all." Obviously you go shopping for for beliefs the way people go shopping for shoes. It is all about what you WANT, what fits your personality, not about what is actually the Truth from God.

The Messenger view is the truth and you cannot change that by believing otherwise. You can delude yourself into believing you can contact God directly, but it won't be God, it will simply be a figment of your imagination.

What Baha'u'llah wrote is God's word, not human interpretations of what God supposedly wants or is. Baha'u'llah did not reflect His views onto God like religious leaders do, Baha'u'lalh received a direct revelation from God and wrote it down in His Own Pen.

To assume the Baha'i Faith is the same as Mormonism is the fallacy of hasty generalization. We do not even have any religious leaders. We get our information directly from the scriptures and interpret it ourselves.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

God is not everything including us, God is separate from His Creation. The Vedanta doctrine is a false doctrine. It has nothing to do with the original Hinduism of Krishna. It is a man-made doctrine that resulted from humans distorting the original Hindi scriptures over time to suit their purposes. Just like all the religious doctrines of all the older religions, it does not represent what is actually in the scriptures.

You are free to believe whatever you want to. You said "That doesn't appeal to me at all." Obviously you go shopping for for beliefs the way people go shopping for shoes. It is all about what you WANT, what fits your personality, not about what is actually the Truth from God.

The Messenger view is the truth and you cannot change that by believing otherwise. You can delude yourself into believing you can contact God directly, but it won't be God, it will simply be a figment of your imagination.

What Baha'u'llah wrote is God's word, not human interpretations of what God supposedly wants or is. Baha'u'llah did not reflect His views onto God like religious leaders do, Baha'u'lalh received a direct revelation from God and wrote it down in His Own Pen.

To assume the Baha'i Faith is the same as Mormonism is the fallacy of hasty generalization. We do not even have any religious leaders. We get our information directly from the scriptures and interpret it ourselves.

Your religion is just another version of the Mormon idea. Been there, done that. If it makes you happy then you are in the right religion. I wish you well in it, as for me, I shall continue worshipping God by living my life.... if God wants me to know something he can talk to me anytime, if he doesn't its his loss....

 

[syo]

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

I was taught christianity at school. Christianity led me to atheism. when I was an atheist (approximately 10 years) I felt pagan Gods calling and I answered.

 

[Willamena]

There is evidence of God, just no proof. Evidence is not the same as 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

People can deny the evidence that God exists and they could even deny proof, if there was any proof....
People can choose to deny whatever they want to deny, such is human nature. That is why there is a flat earth society.
Modern flat Earth societies

Evidence is not the same of proof, but it is evidence that lends itself to belief. Facts are what we believe, they support us in our beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your religion is just another version of the Mormon idea. Been there, done that. If it makes you happy then you are in the right religion. I wish you well in it, as for me, I shall continue worshipping God by living my life.... if God wants me to know something he can talk to me anytime, if he doesn't its his loss....

I do not believe in my religion because it makes me happy, I believe in it because it is the Truth from God.
No, it is not God's loss, because God does not need your belief, or the belief of anyone....

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 136

It is your loss, never to have known the potential forces with which your inmost true self has been endowed, which is what happens when one rejects a Manifestation of God whenever He appears.

“From the foregoing passages and allusions it hath been made indubitably clear that in the kingdoms of earth and heaven there must needs be manifested a Being, an Essence Who shall act as a Manifestation and Vehicle for the transmission of the grace of the Divinity Itself, the Sovereign Lord of all. Through the Teachings of this Day Star of Truth every man will advance and develop until he attaineth the station at which he can manifest all the potential forces with which his inmost true self hath been endowed. It is for this very purpose that in every age and dispensation the Prophets of God and His chosen Ones have appeared amongst men, and have evinced such power as is born of God and such might as only the Eternal can reveal.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 67-68

 

[Trailblazer]

I was taught christianity at school. Christianity led me to atheism. when I was an atheist (approximately 10 years) I felt pagan Gods calling and I answered.

Christianity leads a lot of people to atheism.

 

[Trailblazer]

Evidence is not the same of proof, but it is evidence that lends itself to belief. Facts are what we believe, they support us in our beliefs.

That is true. We need facts to support our beliefs. Without them our beliefs are nothing more than blind faith.

 

[syo]

Christianity leads a lot of people to atheism.

Yup. In my opinion, it's a very complicated religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yup. In my opinion, it's a very complicated religion.

Yup, that is one way of putting it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"As an infant, your brain is pretty much hardwired to receive input in "overdrive". A chinese child can learn chinese in 2 years. It takes an adult 10+ years.

The learning you do in that stage in life, comes from all kinds of sources. Sound, touch, smell,... Pretty much everything you do, you are learning about the world.
A baby that's banging 2 objects together and throwing them around, is learning about tear, sound, gravity, hard and soft materials, ...

No, the "initial source" is not just "hearing" and certainly not listening to explanations. Since you need to learn how to speak and how to interprete language. Nobody is born speaking english.

Your first source are your primal senses. Touch, smell, sight and yes, hearing.
Once you master language, you're hardwired to pretty much swallow up everything your perceived authorities tell you. In most cases, these consist of your parents and teachers primarily, and other adults to some extent." Unquote

So, one/you agree that up to this stage one's teachers are the people around you and hearing from them is an important faculty rather the most important one at this stage. Right, please?

Regards

I'm not sure what about my explanation was confusing to you.

But no, I don't agree with the idea of "the most important" one.
It's just an important one. I don't think any single one is the "most" important. I think all experiences combined, including what "teachers" tell you, is what makes you learn things.

Also, good job on ignoring what comes after the "I'll blindly accept whatever perceived authorities tell me"-stage. Because that stage actually doesn't last very long. Think about how many christmasses you can make a kid believe that it's santa that brings the presents. It's not a big number.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, that is what I was asking, if you had enough good evidence that God exists in order to believe in God, would you like/want to believe in God.

The problem is that your choice of words is extremely confusion.
You are using the words "believe in" while you really mean "follow" or "worship".

These are not the same thing.
One can believe that a god exists AND not follow / worship said god for whatever reason.
In fact, it seems to me that that is the situation that the biblical devil finds himself in. He knows for a fact that god is real, yet does not follow / worship him. In North Korea, Satan would be a hero for daring to stand up to the dictator while it's known in advance that it's a lost cause. I don't know if I would have such courage.

What you are saying is that would depend upon what kind of God He turned out to be.

Well, yeah......... Isn't that rational?
If this God turns out a homophobic, genocidal, jealous, psychotic maniac... could you really sincerely worship the dude? I sure couldn't. And if this God is also all knowing, then it wouldn't be of much use either to "pretend" since he'ld see right through that.

Some people would like to believe in God regardless of how He turned out to be because they realize that if there is an All-Knowing God, believing in that God would be in our best interest.

An all knowing god would know your motivation. And in your very example, the motivation would be corrupt. So it would do no good.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, that is what I was asking, if you had enough good evidence that God exists in order to believe in God, would you like/want to believe in God.

The problem is that your choice of words is extremely confusion.
You are using the words "believe in" while you really mean "follow" or "worship".

These are not the same thing.
One can believe that a god exists AND not follow / worship said god for whatever reason.
In fact, it seems to me that that is the situation that the biblical devil finds himself in. He knows for a fact that god is real, yet does not follow / worship him. In North Korea, Satan would be a hero for daring to stand up to the dictator while it's known in advance that it's a lost cause. I don't know if I would have such courage.

Yes, I kind of mixed those up together. I should have asked (1) would you believe in God if you had good evidence, and (2) if you believed in God would you like believing in God. But the answer to the second question would depend upon the God you had good evidence for, what kind of God that was. You might believe in God but not like believing in God or you might believe in God and not like believing in God, depending upon the God. If you liked the God then you would want to follow/worship Him but if not you wouldn’t.

What you are saying is that would depend upon what kind of God He turned out to be.

Well, yeah......... Isn't that rational?
If this God turns out a homophobic, genocidal, jealous, psychotic maniac... could you really sincerely worship the dude? I sure couldn't. And if this God is also all knowing, then it wouldn't be of much use either to "pretend" since he'ld see right through that.

Yes, that would be rational not to want to worship a bad God.
Yes, God would know you were faking it if He was All-Knowing.

Some people would like to believe in God regardless of how He turned out to be because they realize that if there is an All-Knowing God, believing in that God would be in our best interest.

An all knowing god would know your motivation. And in your very example, the motivation would be corrupt. So it would do no good.

You are right about that. If you were worshiping God for the wrong reasons then God would know, so there is no point faking it. God only wants sincere believers.

And unless God was benevolent I do not think it would be in our best interest to worship God, even if God was All-Knowing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is evidence of God, just no proof. Evidence is not the same as proof.

You keep on saying this, but when asked about it, you don't ever seem to provide any evidence of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

You keep on saying this, but when asked about it, you don't ever seem to provide any evidence of God.

I told you, and everyone else on this forum, that the evidence of God is the Messengers of God, and of all the Messengers, Baha'u'llah is the best evidence.
I know that evidence is unacceptable to atheists but I don't have anything else because that is all that God provides.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I told you, and everyone else on this forum, that the evidence of God is the Messengers of God, and of all the Messengers, Baha'u'llah is the best evidence.
I know that evidence is unacceptable to atheists but I don't have anything else because that is all that God provides.

This "evidence" is just as consistent with the non-existence of God as it is with the existence of God, so it doesn't actually serve as evidence for God.

 

[Trailblazer]

This "evidence" is just as consistent with the non-existence of God as it is with the existence of God, so it doesn't actually serve as evidence for God.

That is what I told you: "I know that evidence is unacceptable to atheists."
Why would Messengers of God be consistent with the non-existence of God, because they cannot be proven to be from God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is what I told you: "I know that evidence is unacceptable to atheists."
Why would Messengers of God be consistent with the non-existence of God, because they cannot be proven to be from God?

Imagine two scenarios:

- God exists, and Baha'u'llah's writings were inspired by God.
- God does not exist, and Baha'u'llah's writings were all his own personal creation.

The evidence at hand fits both scenarios. Until you show how one is inconsistent - e.g. by showing that Baha'u'llah's writings are incompatible with every scenario that doesn't include God - your evidence does not support concluding that God exists over concluding that God does not exist.