Does God want everyone to believe in him?

[Ingledsva]

then who created the universe?

No God had to create the universe.

*

 

[use_your_brain]

No God had to create the universe.

*

but who?

 

[Reflex]

But again - this is a religious person's idea of proof, - because they believe in a God that created All.

There is no proof of this, and obviously a lot of people don't believe it.

*

Of course there's proof. You just don't want to see it. Watch the video (or, rather, listen to it).

 

[Scuba Pete]

Most science doesn't agree with you.

O rly? Which science would that be? Science says nothing about the existence of God, for or against. You can't quantify the super natural with the natural any more than you can measure radio frequencies with a potato. It's a most illogical approach.

Oh, yeah... we'll want to see some proof of that as well.

 

[Scuba Pete]

A proof is sufficient evidence ...

There is sufficient evidence for me. What's wrong with you? You see, we've considered our life experiences and the evidences we are willing or unwilling to accept and have arrived at a conclusion. It's a very personal conclusion and both of us rely heavily on faith to get there. Oh, I know. You think faith is a four letter word. That it is evil and beneath you. Ironically and almost tragically so, we are all creatures of faith. Only the true agnostic can claim to be without any faith.

Your belief in an invisible man is not real/sufficient proof for non God believers.

That's funny, but you can't see me and yet you have no problems believing that I exist. Why? You can see the evidence of my existence just as I can see the evidence of God's existence. Differing conclusions based on our pre-existing biases and collective experiences. Is it a choice? For both of us, yes.

 

[FearGod]

I assume by that - you mean there had to be a God for there to be creation?

Most science doesn't agree with you.

*

Do you mean scientists know how the universe existed when there was nothing to start with.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I often sent out one of my kids to tell my other kid to come home. That didn't mean I didn't talk to them once they got there. It was nigh on to impossible until that point.

Next time, send a stranger and see how that goes.

Also - would you, as a father, have felt it okay not to have physically connected with your child for their entire life up to that point that you mention? I don't believe you would have. You know to what I am referring. Yours is only a temporary, and somewhat misdirected "reprieve" from the real question.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

It would make sense why certain people never come around to believing in God in this case then. The reason why people never believe in God is simply because he never reveals himself to them, as a result they have no choice but to disbelieve. God could reveal himself to them through people around them but he doesn't. This is partially God's fault and partially the fault of those who claim to be God's servants.

I don't know... What do you guys think?

Well there are three possibilities.

1) A god could make everyone believe and does not. Therefore god doesn't want people to believe.

2) A god cannot make everyone believe. Therefore god cannot make people believe.

3) No god exists. Therefore there is no god.

 

[cambridge79]

It would make sense why certain people never come around to believing in God in this case then. The reason why people never believe in God is simply because he never reveals himself to them, as a result they have no choice but to disbelieve. God could reveal himself to them through people around them but he doesn't. This is partially God's fault and partially the fault of those who claim to be God's servants.

I don't know... What do you guys think?

i think that i'm not concerned about what god wants. my problem starts when people think GOD WANTS THEM TO FORCE ME INTO BELIEVING IN HIM.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well there are three possibilities.

1) A god could make everyone believe and does not. Therefore god doesn't want people to believe.

2) A god cannot make everyone believe. Therefore god cannot make people believe.

3) No god exists. Therefore there is no god.

I feel I'm reading a bad copy of the HHGTTG

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I feel I'm reading a bad copy of the HHGTTG

If you are going to respond can you please do so meaningfully instead of trying to satirizing my response?

 

[Tyho]

It would make sense why certain people never come around to believing in God in this case then. The reason why people never believe in God is simply because he never reveals himself to them, as a result they have no choice but to disbelieve. God could reveal himself to them through people around them but he doesn't. This is partially God's fault and partially the fault of those who claim to be God's servants.

I don't know... What do you guys think?

The free-will argument usually serves as a good defense against your point. God gave us reason and free will. If He reveals Himself in a direct manner and interfere with our evolution as spiritual entites in human form than that undermines our free will and the whole experience of living.

 

[cambridge79]

The free-will argument usually serves as a good defense against your point. God gave us reason and free will. If He reveals Himself in a direct manner and interfere with our evolution as spiritual entites in human form than that undermines our free will and the whole experience of living.

That could be a valid point if it wasn't inconsistent with the fact that at least according to the more popular books, the ones that speak about such free will at least, in the past he used to speak directly to people and according to many he still performs miracles here and there.

 

[Ingledsva]

Indeed, you were taking him to task for replying to the OP, just as you questioned me for replying to the OP. I'm not sure why you are so bent on hijacking this thread, but that is what I don't like. No, your responses are not that well thought out, but it's you questioning people for being on topic that alarms me.

To that end, the discussion presupposes a certain belief in God. A non believer is certain to not care if God wants or does not want everyone to believe in him. You regard him as little else than a faerie, which is your right.

Actually this topic is in General Religious Debates, which means anyone can debate.

I wasn't taking him to task for replying to the OP. I was joining the debate, - replying to what he said.

Nor am I the first to question, - as post number two says there is no God, - and we make this stuff up.

And I suggest you re-read the topic starter Red Dragon 94's post # 1 - which obviously opens the discussion up.

If debate alarms you perhaps you shouldn't be on a debate forum.

My reference to fairies was to point out that fairies and gods are both beliefs that are invisible, thus they are beliefs, with no real proof.

*

 

[Scuba Pete]

Blah, blah, blah de blah...

My reference to fairies was to point out that fairies and gods are both beliefs that are invisible, thus they are beliefs, with no real proof.

Your reference was used to be condescending. The irony is that you keep using the word proof and don't have a clue to what it means. Your words are both evidence and proof of that contention.

 

[Ingledsva]

hell and heaven are the part of religious teaching.

Yes I understand that, and you are welcome to believe that.

However religious texts are not actually proof of any God, - most of them claim to be information sent from God.

For instance - you as a believer in Islamic texts, probably consider Pagan texts to be false, - though they claim to be about Gods too.

In that same manner I don't believe in the writings of the Abrahamic religions.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Your reference was used to be condescending. The irony is that you keep using the word proof and don't have a clue to what it means. Your words are both evidence and proof of that contention.

Baloney - this is a debate site and you are going to get rebuttals you don't like. That does not make them condescending.

And do not change the text of my posts again.

*

 

[Scuba Pete]

If you are going to respond can you please do so meaningfully instead of trying to satirizing my response?

If your response was meaningful and well thought out, I would have been glad to respond in kind. As it is, Douglas Adams brilliantly satirized your response long before you made it. If a picture tells a thousand words a video must be worth a million. Rather than plagiarize the man, I give him full credit. It's simply not my fault if your funny bone is broken.

 

[Ingledsva]

but who?

Again - there didn't have to be a who.

I'm afraid I prefer science to ancient religious texts and their understanding of how things work.

*

 

[Scuba Pete]

Baloney - this is a debate site and you are going to get rebuttals you don't like. That does not make them condescending.

And do not change the text of my posts again.

As are you... and your posts and texts are safe. I see them right up there. I only translated them so others could follow along. What? You don't like that? You want me to stop being condescending, then I suggest you stop as well. I believe there is a God and you don't. Both contexts require faith. At least I am honest enough to admit it.

Since this is a debate, maybe you should try using grown up logic and not this school yard "got ya" crap.