How would you know if God is lying?

[The Conservative Atheist]

Humans.

Ok, well people can't just make up a definition that they expect to apply to a being they believe is real. I mean I agree that the definition of God is man-made but that's because I also believe God to be man-made.

 

[Glaurung]

Well for starters I my belief in the world is not based simply in that I want to believe in it, I believe what I believe because that is what there is evidence for.

That's what you may sincerely tell yourself, I did when I was an atheist. But I think your wants play a much bigger role than you'd admit. An example, since many atheists claim a dedication to science as a bulwark of their worldview, how much scientific literature do you actually go though yourself? Or are you reliant on others telling you about the supposed evidence of this and that? You have far more faith than you realise.

But I can't know your heart.

 

[George-ananda]

Ok, well people can't just make up a definition that they expect to apply to a being they believe is real. I mean I agree that the definition of God is man-made but that's because I also believe God to be man-made.

To me, the God concept is confirmed and formed by those who have perceived and experienced beyond the physical.

 

[Yerda]

My mum used to make me stick my tongue out to see if it was black. Apparently this is a sound method for detecting lies. I don't know if it works on God.

 

[The Conservative Atheist]

That's what you may sincerely tell yourself, I did when I was an atheist. I think your wants play a much bigger role than you'd admit.

But I can't know your heart.

Not sure what your getting at here. Are you saying I'm not actually an atheist or that I'm trying to believe?

 

[Glaurung]

Not sure what your getting at here. Are you saying I'm not actually an atheist or that I'm trying to believe?

I'm saying that your beliefs are as biased on faith and authority as mine. The difference is that I admit it, while you pretend at an uncompromising rationality that is in reality post hoc for what you are already inclined to believe anyway.

 

[The Conservative Atheist]

I'm saying that your beliefs are as biased on faith and authority as mine. The difference is that I admit it.

No the difference is that mine aren't based on faith and authority. To be clear I am an agnostic atheist

 

[McBell]

We hold God to be true by faith. Faith is not an arbitrary certainty, but a life long process of trust in what we believe God to have revealed. Can I know with utter certainty that Christianity is true? No, no more than you can be certain that materialism is true except by the strength of your belief in it.

Define "materialism.
Please be so kind as to explain how/why it is you have arbitrarily assigned said "materialism" to me.

You can prattle on about reason and science justifying your views, but we both know that's not what the whole atheism/theism thing is really about. It's all post hoc and we believe what we believe because we want to.

So it is your claim that all beleif is a choice?
Can you support said claim with something other than your wanting it to be true?

I feel that inner voice telling me that there really is something much bigger than me at play in this world, and this bigger thing is God.

And?

As much as you may refuse to understand that, tell me I'm irrational and preach the message of logical positivism and social liberalism, you're just not going to quell the inner voice calling me to faith.

Again with the assumptions.
Though I do find it interesting that you claim my "refusal" to understand...
More interesting is your assumption i do not understand.

Is this need of yours to dictate to me what I do and do not understand, believe, etc. stem from your faith?

Despite what you may think, I'm constantly struggling with doubt.

Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else?

Constant uncertainty is not the inner state of someone rigidly believing some arbitrary proposition simply for the hell of it.

And you base this claim on what, exactly?

 

[McBell]

I did not say God is 'unable' to do anything. I said that falsehood is incompatible with God, as God does not tolerate, yet alone commit, what He opposes. But.. But.. God could really be some kind of demiurge liar... Well, sure, but where do you think such arguments are going to go? I don't believe that.

How is this anything other than a bunch of double talk?

Not when it comes to the important questions concerning the metaphysical realities of our existence and the means to supposed salvation.

And yet many a theist resort to blatant lies in order to protect their faith....

 

[McBell]

I'm saying that your beliefs are as biased on faith and authority as mine.

Bold claim.
Can you substantiate it?

The difference is that I admit it, while you pretend at an uncompromising rationality that is in reality post hoc for what you are already inclined to believe anyway.

Again with assigning others what they think, believe, etc.
One wonders who it is you are trying to convince.

 

[Glaurung]

Define "materialism.
Please be so kind as to explain how/why it is you have arbitrarily assigned said "materialism" to me.

The belief (more or less) that nothing exists beyond physical reality. Atheism doesn't demand materialism in itself, but the overlap between materialism and the worldviews of people who are typically described as atheists is pretty clear. Do you believe in a non-physical reality?

So it is your claim that all beleif is a choice?

To a large extent yes. Do people wake up on any given morning and choose to believe X or Y out of the blue? Of course not. But they do have motivations and desires which will drive them towards believing things which serve those desires. I loss my faith originally, not out of an sudden desire for atheism but because I did not like the implications of Christianity. Overtime I rationalised my atheism until eventually I became completely convinced of my position and laughed at those silly Christians telling me that my atheism was a product of self-serving motives rather than circumstances of which I had no input. Eventually I saw this, or rather, I became honest about it and realised that they were right.

Though I do find it interesting that you claim my "refusal" to understand...
More interesting is your assumption i do not understand.

I'm sorry, but when the overreaching theme of your interactions with atheists have been that you're irrational if you dare hold to anything other than our core beliefs, which are the non-existence of God, empirical demonstration as the only basis of knowledge, the compete relativity of morality and the evilness of religion, then you tend to start to see it as all the same.

 

[Sapiens]

The conventional wisdom, based upon the internal inconsistency of his book, not to mention the lack of consistency between the different versions of such books touted by his believers, is that you know he is lying because you see his lips moving. The only problem with that approach for atheists is that since he does not exist neither do his lips.

 

[Quintessence]

Ok, well people can't just make up a definition that they expect to apply to a being they believe is real.

I'm very confused by this. The entire point and exercise of language is to define and categorize things around us. This applies for words like "god" as much as words like "pencil" and "running" and "bystander." All language is a human construct... it's all "made up" by us.

At any rate, the first and most obvious question to ask is to look at what it is you're labeling a god and ask if it is reasonably capable of lying. None of the gods I worship on any regular basis are capable of lying, because they don't possess the attributes necessary for deception. I imagine humans might project lying onto them, but that's the human's attribution. Sometimes I will say Blue Jay is a liar, because it's feathers are not actually blue, but black; yet Blue Jay itself is not really a liar, that's an attribute I am applying to it based on my human point of view. There are some plant spirits I could call liars too, because they engage in mimicry to manipulate animals but again, me calling that "lying" is something of an anthropomorphism and attribution.

 

[McBell]

The belief (more or less) that nothing exists beyond physical reality. Atheism doesn't demand materialism in itself, but the overlap between materialism and the worldviews of people who are typically described as atheists is pretty clear. Do you believe in a non-physical reality?

I merely have no active belief, for or against, any deity.
That is why I am an atheist.

To a large extent yes. Do people wake up on any given morning and choose to believe X or Y out of the blue? Of course not. But they do have motivations and desires which will drive them towards believing things which serve those desires. I loss my faith originally, not out of an sudden desire for atheism but because I did not like the implications of Christianity. Overtime I rationalised my atheism until eventually I became completely convinced of my position and laughed at those silly Christians telling me that my atheism was a product of self-serving motives rather than circumstances of which I had no input. Eventually I saw this, or rather, I became honest about it and realised that they were right.

So because YOUR atheism was a product of "self serving motives" all atheists are?
Are you fine arguing against your assumptions and strawmen?

I'm sorry, but when the overreaching theme of your interactions with atheists have been that you're irrational if you dare hold to anything other than our core beliefs, which are the non-existence of God, empirical demonstration as the only basis of knowledge, the compete relativity of morality and the evilness of religion, then you tend to start to see it as all the same.

Ah, so basically you saying you treat all atheists the same based on how some atheists have treated you?

So you would be ok with me treating you like a Westboro Baptist Church member, right?

 

[Tumah]

Recently I was talking to a friend about religion and this question popped into my head; how would you be able to tell if God was lying to you? While I'm sure many people will say that God does not lie or even possibly that he cannot lie but if you say that then I must ask where did you get that information? So I'm curious what the people on this site have to say.

I ask that people refrain from posting questions such as "why do you even care about this?" or any similar response regarding my reasoning, if you feel so inclined you can PM me or simply not comment.

I would ask instead, what would change if He was?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Recently I was talking to a friend about religion and this question popped into my head; how would you be able to tell if God was lying to you?

Har har!
Hah hah!
Tee hee!
<<<chortle>>>
(((GUFFAW)))

Oh! Lemme get ahold of myself!

:::dries eyes:::

Answer: God can't lie.

While I'm sure many people will say that God does not lie or even possibly that he cannot lie but if you say that then I must ask where did you get that information?

Umm. Because it says so in the Bible that God can't lie? Duh-uh!

So there you have it. Ironclad proof that transcends any and all additional questioning. Thanks for playing. Be sure to leave your tithe in the collection plate on your way out.

 

[The Conservative Atheist]

I would ask instead, what would change if He was?

I imagine quite a bit would change, for starters I would hope people would no longer worship him or die in/kill in his name as well as stop trying to prevent science from being taught and stop allowing the earth to be destroyed.

 

[The Conservative Atheist]

I'm very confused by this. The entire point and exercise of language is to define and categorize things around us. This applies for words like "god" as much as words like "pencil" and "running" and "bystander." All language is a human construct... it's all "made up" by us.

At any rate, the first and most obvious question to ask is to look at what it is you're labeling a god and ask if it is reasonably capable of lying. None of the gods I worship on any regular basis are capable of lying, because they don't possess the attributes necessary for deception. I imagine humans might project lying onto them, but that's the human's attribution. Sometimes I will say Blue Jay is a liar, because it's feathers are not actually blue, but black; yet Blue Jay itself is not really a liar, that's an attribute I am applying to it based on my human point of view. There are some plant spirits I could call liars too, because they engage in mimicry to manipulate animals but again, me calling that "lying" is something of an anthropomorphism and attribution.

Well allow me to clarify this, when I said that I was trying to say that defining a living creature with thoughts and feelings, one that can communicate with us as being unable to lie for a.) because we think it to be a god or b.) because it said it couldn't is not sound. The way this differs than your blue jay analogy is that we call the blue-jay blue, whereas we do not speak for god(or more accurately religious people claim not to speak for God)

 

[Tumah]

I imagine quite a bit would change, for starters I would hope people would no longer worship him or die in/kill in his name as well as stop trying to prevent science from being taught and stop allowing the earth to be destroyed.

Why would they if they believe that this is what G-d wants them to do?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, the six-day creation is a complete lie.