If God existed, under these conditions, would there be any atheists?

[Nimos]

Do you mean that we can't prove that there would not be any atheists under the set of conditions in my OP?

I do not think it could be proven that there would not be any atheists under that set of conditions, so it is just a personal opinion that there would not be any atheists. It seems as if there would not be very many atheists under those conditions, but there might still be some atheists. The caveat is free will, as people can choose to disbelieve something even if it has been proven to them by God Himself.

Agree, you can always find the odd one, that wouldn't believe simply because... but if we are talking God convincing people, then there wouldn't be any given the characteristics he have. At least I think so

 

[Willamena]

I disagree. They would be theists but pretend to be atheists.

What does "believe" mean?

 

[Trailblazer]

God exists, is omnipotent, omniscient. He wants everyone to trust Him but gives people free will--which is why there are atheists.

As I just said to halbhh, I can always count on Christians to give me the best answers.

 

[Koldo]

What does "believe" mean?

To consider something true.

 

[Trailblazer]

No there would not be any atheists, logically.

But there might still be atheists, actually.

 

[Willamena]

What does "believe" mean?

To consider something true.

Then perhaps this conversation hinges on what it means to pretend.

 

[Trailblazer]

We almost agree on something, wow ;-)

I think given falsifiable evidence most would have no choice but to believe the evidence. After all, to deny it is to deny your own belief in the validity of evidence. That is not to say they would bow down and worship this newly proven god but they would have to believe its its existence.

I guess you mean evidence that cannot be proven wrong.

What is a falsifiable statement?
Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong. ... The requirement of falsifiability means that conclusions cannot be drawn from simple observation of a particular phenomenon.
What is falsifiability? - Definition from WhatIs.com

I "believe" that is the kind of evidence I have, since it cannot be proven wrong to me.
Of course, it can be proven wrong to other people, so it is not falsifiable evidence to everyone.

Where we almost agree is that i believe that no amount of evidence will change some minds just as now, no amount of evidence will educate a creationist

We do not "almost agree." I fully agree that no amount of evidence will change some minds.
I mean even if God showed up on Earth some people would still deny it was God.

 

[Koldo]

​

Then perhaps this conversation hinges on what it means to pretend.

To state or act in an insincere manner as to what one considers to be true.

 

[Koldo]

I mean even if God showed up on Earth some people would still deny it was God.

Curiously, showing up by itself wouldn't be a good evidence. Just to exemplify why: I am God and I have shown up on Earth. Do you believe I am God now?

Do you get what I am saying?

 

[Trailblazer]

You could make the argument that God's condemnation is just, but if you believe he's going to come and mercilessly slaughter everyone that doesn't worship him then you can't say those people are condemning themselves. It's pretty clearly God that's doing all of the genocide, isn't it?

So it's a good thing that there is no proof that those Bible stories ever took place, isn't it?

And even if they did take place, they were misinterpreted by many Christians, to suit their chosen beliefs.

And in the future, God is going to wipe out everyone who does not believe like I do.
There is no proof of that either, it is simply based upon interpretations made to suit a given agenda.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are correct. An omniscient God would know what it would take to convince everyone that He exists, but my OP did not say that God wanted to convince everyone that He exists. It says: God wants everyone to believe in him.

They mean the same thing here, but if you're going to pretend that they don't, then you're going to be playing this game on your own.

 

[Willamena]

To state or act in an insincere manner as to what one considers to be true.

Denial is a different beast.

 

[Aupmanyav]

An omniscient God would know what it would take to convince everyone that He exists, but my OP did not say that God wanted to convince everyone that He exists. It says: God wants everyone to believe in him.

That is a very strange kind of God. Unless he convinces people of his existence and the need to believe in him, why would people do so?
Do you believe that your father took a million USD from me as loan?
Always keeps on sending uneducated messengers, but without any clear-cut evidence for him or for them. Your Allah is a strange creature.

An omnipotent God could provide easy evidence but the logical reason that God does not provide easy evidence is because in that case we would not have to have faith.

Yes, there is a very good reason for this requirement God makes -- that we must believe (have faith) first, before proof, and it is summed up in this verse:
Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

God wants us to have faith and God rewards those who earnestly seek Him with proof.

That is a silly statement. If there was clear evidence, then there would not be the need for faith or belief. It would be a fact. No one will differ on that. I do not agree with what you mention as a 'good reason'. Go to a court and say that you have evidence, but you would not provide it to judges for a 'good reason' known only to you. Why would the judges or the jury care for what you say?
The last sentence, 'God rewards those who earnestly seek Him with proof'. What proof when Allah (since I am replying to a Bahai) does not provide any? What does your sentence mean?

God might eliminate those atheists who want to believe in Him, but there would still be atheists who would deny the evidence that God provided.
Indeed, if God made everyone believe in Him that would be a horror.
That is one reason what God does not do what would be within his omnipotent power in order to prove to everyone that He exists.

One silly statement after another. What you mention as evidence may not be any evidence. For example if I say that I am sent by an Allah, would it be an evidence for Allah or for my 'devine' mission?
Then, leave Bahaollah and follow me. He did not provide any better evidence than what I provide. As for the vision of the 'Maid of Heaven', I can also say that she came to me.
And why would it be a horror if everyone believed in Allah? Is that not what you want? How will it be a one world under the Bahai banner if all people do not believe in Allah?
Trailblazer, for a change, say something sensible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is a follow up thread to my previous thread:

If God existed, would there be any atheists?

If God existed, and God is omnipotent (meaning that he could do anything not logically impossible), and if God is omniscient (meaning he would know how to get everyone to believe in him) and if God wants everyone to believe in him, and if God were to do what would be within his omnipotent power in order to prove to everyone that he exists, would there be any atheists?

I still maintain that it would take a god
to know a god.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, it can be proven. Any atheists remaining would violate at least one of your premises.

Those are not separate premises; they have to be taken together as one premise, all of them being the case.

You cannot prove that as the premise states if God wants everyone to believe in him, and if God were to do what would be within his omnipotent power in order to prove to everyone that he exists, there would be no atheists.

If there are any atheists at all, then either:

- God didn't have the power to convince them that he exists, or
- God didn't know how to convince them, or
- God doesn't want to convince them.

Part of the hypothetical premise is that God is omniscient (meaning he would know how to get everyone to believe in him) and God wants everyone to believe in him, but nowhere was it stated that God was trying to convince atheists to believe in Him.

From the stated premise, we know that the omnipotent has the power to convince atheists, and we know that the omniscient God has the knowledge to convince atheists, so that leaves only one possibility -- God doesn't want to convince atheists.

This violates your premises.

You said that God "would know how to get everyone to believe in him." The implication of what you're saying now is that he doesn't actually know how to do this.

The implication of what you're saying now is that he doesn't actually know how to do this.

That God "would know how to get everyone to believe in him" does not mean God would be able to convince everyone to believe in Him, and it does not mean that God wants to convince everyone to believe in Him….. God just knows how because God is omniscient.

Right... so how is any of this relevant?

You say that free will is "the will/ability to make choices based upon their desires and preferences." Well, if God decides what those "desires and preferences" are, then God can control what you do, regardless of you being free to choose between the desires that God has given you.

That is true; God could override our desires and preferences and make us believe in Him against our free will. But that was not included in my premise that God would do that: The premise states: God wants everyone to believe in him, and if God were to do what would be within his omnipotent power in order to prove to everyone that he exists.

IOW, free will as you've described it wouldn't stop God from being able to choose any outcome he wants.

No, it would not stop God from doing anything He wanted to do.

And if it did stop him, you'd be violating your own premises again: you said that "God wants everyone to believe in him." If God doesn't want everyone to believe in him because it would violate their free will, then the premise that God wants everyone to believe in him would be false.

No, it would not be false because the premise does not state that God wants everyone to believe in Him even if it violates their free will. It simply states that God wants everyone to believe in Him.

The premise does not state that God wants everyone to believe in Him by overriding their free will and forcing everyone to believe in Him.

The premise states that God would know how to get everyone to believe in him and God wants everyone to believe in him, and God would do what would be within his omnipotent power in order to prove to everyone that he exists. The premise does not say that God would be successful on getting everyone to believe in him. Free will is the fly in the ointment.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not an atheist.

If they denied the knowledge of God's existence despite the proof offered they would lack belief in the existence of God so they would be atheists.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. atheist def - Google Search

 

[Trailblazer]

Wait. Is that significant?

(It's kinda what "personal" means.)

It is significant, but only to the person who had the experience.

 

[Trailblazer]

I disagree. They would be theists but pretend to be atheists.

Okay, that works for me.

 

[CG Didymus]

That is a very strange kind of God. Unless he convinces people of his existence and the need to believe in him, why would people do so?
Do you believe that your father took a million USD from me as loan?
Always keeps on sending uneducated messengers, but without any clear-cut evidence for him or for them. Your Allah is a strange creature.
That is a silly statement. If there was clear evidence, then there would not be the need for faith or belief. It would be a fact. No one will differ on that. I do not agree with what you mention as a 'good reason'. Go to a court and say that you have evidence, but you would not provide it to judges for a 'good reason' known only to you. Why would the judges or the jury care for what you say?
The last sentence, 'God rewards those who earnestly seek Him with proof'. What proof when Allah (since I am replying to a Bahai) does not provide any? What does your sentence mean?
One silly statement after another. What you mention as evidence may not be any evidence. For example if I say that I am sent by an Allah, would it be an evidence for Allah or for my 'devine' mission?
Then, leave Bahaollah and follow me. He did not provide any better evidence than what I provide. As for the vision of the 'Maid of Heaven', I can also say that she came to me.
And why would it be a horror if everyone believed in Allah? Is that not what you want? How will it be a one world under the Bahai banner if all people do not believe in Allah?
Trailblazer, for a change, say something sensible.

This Baha'i and maybe all Baha'is believe that ordinary people can only learn about God by manifestations. I know that they also have a lower level of prophets also to accommodate the Hebrew prophets. Those prophets would say things like, "thus says the Lord," and then usually pronounce that judgement was coming against them. But in Hinduism aren't there many that have reached a state of enlightenment, or whatever it might be called, to where they are able to communicate with the God and receive things that could be considered inspired knowledge? And aren't even every Guru like that? Anyway, regardless, Trailblazer wouldn't care or find some Baha'i reason to discount it. Like with you, apparently Baha'is don't recognize any of the spiritual wisdom and knowledge you have, because it didn't come from a Baha'i approved manifestation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If they denied the knowledge of God's existence despite the proof offered they would lack belief in the existence of God so they would be atheists.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. atheist def - Google Search

I don't know why I bothered. I forgot how frustrating it is to talk to you.

I'm done.