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

[Trailblazer]

Here's the difference in my opinion. You and I both agree that there is MORE than enough evidence to accept that the Earth is a sphere. It's OBVIOUS to both us us and to most people. However, as reliable and verifiable and WE might find all of the evidence, there are people who genuine do NOT see the same evidence we see as reliable evidence. They've been convinced that it's 'made up' evidence, they've deluded themselves into believing that it's all a huge conspiracy to fool people into FALSELY believing that the Earth really isn't flat. No one has ever show them the evidence that THEY would require to accept the truth that the Earth really IS a sphere... what that 'evidence' may or may not be, I have no idea. And until someone does show them that elusive evidence, they'll continue to have a lack of belief that the Earth is round.

Now in your current OP you've stated that there is a god capable of knowing PRECISELY what evidence each and every atheist would require in order to MAKE them believe that god actually exists, that is to say this god has the power to make it IMPOSSIBLE for them to NOT believe, then of course there would be no one who lacked a belief in god, and thus no atheists.

People don't have free will to CHOOSE what they genuinely believe and what they genuinely lack belief in. People either have enough of what THEY consider to be sufficient evidence for something to be believed or they don't. For instance, you can't simply choose to believe that fire isn't hot if you've ever touched it and received convincing evidence that it IS hot.

What people do have free will to choose is whether or not they admit what they genuinely believe or don't believe. For instance I'm certain that there are people who have reviewed the mountains of evidence for evolution and in their hearts believe that it's a real process, but who will publicly deny that the theory is valid, because it conflicts with what their church teaches, but that wouldn't be a genuine lack of belief in evolution, that would just be them PRETENDING to lack a belief in evolution.

Likewise, it's certainly possible that you could have someone who 'didn't want to believe in any god' who was presented with evidence they couldn't deny in their hearts that a god exists who would then publicly claim that they lack such belief, but that wouldn't be a genuine lack of belief in god, it wouldn't be a genuine atheist, it would just be someone PRETENDING to be an atheist.

Fair enough, I looked for holes in your argument but it was carefully thought through so I could not find anything that jumped out at me. However, what you said would only apply if God had done what would be within his omnipotent power to do in order to prove to everyone that He exists AND everyone was thereby convinced that God existed by the evidence God provided. The OP does not say the atheists would all be convinced; it says that God used His omnipotent power in order to prove to everyone that he exists. IF everyone was not convinced by the evidence, then some people might still be atheists.

But now I want to point out something that immediately came to mind as I was reading your first paragraph:

You said: Here's the difference in my opinion. You and I both agree that there is MORE than enough evidence to accept that the Earth is a sphere. It's OBVIOUS to both us and to most people. However, as reliable and verifiable and WE might find all of the evidence, there are people who genuinely do NOT see the same evidence we see as reliable evidence. They've been convinced that it's 'made up' evidence, they've deluded themselves into believing that it's all a huge conspiracy to fool people into FALSELY believing that the Earth really isn't flat. No one has ever shown them the evidence that THEY would require to accept the truth that the Earth really IS a sphere... what that 'evidence' may or may not be, I have no idea. And until someone does show them that elusive evidence, they'll continue to have a lack of belief that the Earth is round.

So here is what came to mind. Hypothetically speaking, what if there was MORE than enough evidence to accept that God exists. It's OBVIOUS to most people (93% of the world population who are believers) that God exists. However, as reliable (although not verifiable) WE believers might find all of the evidence, there are atheists who genuinely do NOT see the same evidence we see as reliable evidence. They've been convinced that it's 'made up' evidence, that all the Messengers of God that have come throughout human history are either deluded or con-men, so these atheists have deluded themselves into believing that religion is all a huge conspiracy to fool people into FALSELY believing that God exists. No one has ever shown these atheists the evidence that THEY would require to accept the truth that God exists... what that 'evidence' may or may not be, I have no idea. And until someone does show them that elusive evidence, they'll continue to have a lack of belief that God exists, even though God does exist.

 

[rational experiences]

Science today is arguing against a statement in the bible that said no man is God.

For they have been in secret doing psy op mind coercion and mind contact AI computer and satellite studies of our life and Nature. Even if they deny it, the reason we argue today is because of evil minded humans, group mentality and secrets....always did.

As an occult science status that tries to infer that a human by dimension owns all of the forces of the Universe inside of their owned body...and if only they could contact it, we would have eternity and the infinite says the greedy power mongering lying science of the occult community.

What none of you actually discuss as being relative to the science argument of a non occult science group versus God occultists...yet both science groups claims self correct.

It is a rational and natural human being who says both of you are wrong, for you both own the same irrational purpose....to have our life attacked in a higher quota of radiation mass by pretending life on Earth owns a cosmological radiation back ground.

When our atmospheric gas background goes back to God the Earth the stone as "back" information of conscious equating..to the physical mass of stone.....not cosmic radiation.

Hence when science does an equal signs, it means what it wants is what it is perusing and persuing.

So he formed new sink holes in Earth knowing Earth's cycle by 12 around the Sun and had waiting for us Earth science caused removal of cold radiation mass held frozen naturally in spatial emptiness and pressure, which he says is the highest state in the term stories and themes science...which is not background cosmic radiation.

Therefore the life argument...first we are all created equally.

In medical sciences there is a human science awareness about why DNA is damaged by environmental conditions, which is sporadic unnatural radiation events.

Seeing radiation levels supports natural bio existence...too much radiation kills us off before our survival against radiation ceases....which is determined to be human death.

Now science in both occult science and modern day science use and infer the information discussed relative to science owning a non stop huge resourcing of the body of infinite/eternal, if only they claim that they can contact it and then own a string of its interaction with planet Earth God.

All based on the premises of God the Earth...stone, for science and maths is about removal of the physical mass energy of God the Earth for any science machine purpose....as involved in all Earth formulas...which they also do not discuss as being relative.

What thoughts and themes that they personally own to the claim of changing the physical body mass of our Planetary body....that was titled a self Creator entity for a religious medical healer science purpose.

Relative to human life destruction, what the stories about the sacrifice of life were written for.

The documents were not a correlation for any liar today in science to claim that they will understand the powers of the Universe, in God themes...seeing they use the same quotes that any human does...about how God historically was the Creator owned eternal body first/origin in the Universe.

The same story lines that spiritual humanity claim without stating it for a science purpose.

A mass of the eternal, always had and did exist forever was forcibly changed/converted.

Now if science wants to argue about how they think and what they impose as a science quote...that is their owned science quote actually...to own in their minds a copy of that history for the status science.

Proving that they are possessed by their own theist memories and theories and studies of the past sciences....for the eternal body does not exist anymore.

Then he would argue against us....talking about an eternal body after life had died....and claim it is Jesus in the cloud mass.

What his research is about, how a human life gained their own male image as a human in clouds...as the basis of all his themes today about machines and reactions.

That is how much lying is involved in his scheming......all he is actually discussing is cloud mass and lightning and the want of electricity.

 

[Tiberius]

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?

There would probably be some who would refuse to believe, but assuming that such a God existed, and such a God actually came and gave me whatever evidence was sufficient to convince me, I'd change my mind and I'd be a believer.

 

[Deeje]

So are you admitting that it is God who's condemning them, then?

Am I admitting that God owns this earth and has a right as Universal Sovereign to make the rules for our tenancy here...yes I am.

Do you have a problem with the one who gave life, taking it back from unappreciative and ungrateful ones who have abused it, and broken his laws in order to gratify their own selfishness?

God is not condemning them without reason.....he gave us life and therefore gave us the rules for living it. Because we are not robots but free willed, the need for some limits was obvious. If those limits set the boundaries for our continued existence, then we either abide by them or forfeit the gift.....its not rocket science surely?

If we can break man made laws and suffer the death penalty, why complain if God does that as well? Its not like we don't have a choice.....are you saying that's not fair?

 

[Deeje]

. . . .assuming that such a God existed, and such a God actually came and gave me whatever evidence was sufficient to convince me, I'd change my mind and I'd be a believer.

But then you would need no faith.....and your decision would not be based on a relationship with God, but only what you see with your eyes. How long do you think that would last? Israel saw many miracles with their own eyes, but that was not enough to prevent them from forgetting those amazing displays of God's power and getting themselves confined to wandering as nomads in a wilderness for 40 years.

If people put faith in science, believing in evolution based on nothing but the suggestions and unprovable assertions made by imperfect men promoting an imperfect theory, then that is their choice. We all demonstrate faith in small ways every day....and our lives depend on many of them.....but our future lives depend on our faith in God. Faith and trust go hand in hand....you can't have faith and trust in someone you don't know. Without God there is nothing to look forward to in the future....

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no proof, only evidence. That evidence is what Baha'u'llah revealed.

Evidence does not mean what a person said or wrote. Did he provide any proof to substantiate what he said?
I say there is no God or 'manifestation'. Do you agree to my revelation?

Allah sent Messengers so people would get messages and believe in Allah. Baha'u'llah provided evidence that showed He was a Messenger but not everyone considered that evidence sufficient.

What use is the evidence if it is not enough, it is not convincing. Nobody in the modern times is going to be impressed when he says that a 'Maid of Heaven' appeared to him. People would say that he was seeing things, hallucinations. Seeing fairies in jail. I think many prisoners dream of them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But obviously God does not want His existence to be a fact that everyone agrees upon and that is why there is no clear evidence.
Religious belief is not criminal law since there is no conviction for not believing.
It would be a horror if Allah forced everyone to believe in Him. Universal belief is not what I want.
I have proven it to myself so I have proof. It is evidence to me. Indeed He did.
.. But everyone will believe in Allah by that time.

Can you give any reason for that?
But then, your manifestation requests Allah to punish those who do not believe in Allah or his 'divine' mission. Is that not a desire for universal belief?
You have believed something for which you have no evidence to show to any other person. You are like the courtiers of the naked emperor. Only you see things. We would not get our noses cut for any desire to see your emperor's new clothes.
Won't that be a horror?

 

[Trailblazer]

Evidence does not mean what a person said or wrote. Did he provide any proof to substantiate what he said?

I have told you what the evidence is.
What I consider the evidence is everything that surrounds His Life, including His early life; His character as demonstrated by His works; what He did during His mission on earth; the scriptures that He wrote; prophecies that He fulfilled by His coming; the predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established as the result of His Revelation.

That is my more comprehensive list, whereas Baha’u’llah explained how we are supposed to establish the truth of His claim. First, we examine His own Self (His character); then we examine His Revelation (everything that surrounds His Mission on earth); and then we look at His words (His Writings).

I say there is no God or 'manifestation'. Do you agree to my revelation?What use is the evidence if it is not enough, it is not convincing. Nobody in the modern times is going to be impressed when he says that a 'Maid of Heaven' appeared to him. People would say that he was seeing things, hallucinations. Seeing fairies in jail. I think many prisoners dream of them.

It does not matter if the evidence is convincing or if anyone believes in Baha'u'llah. It only matters if He was who He claimed to be, period. We either discover reality or fail to do so. Evidence does not create reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

Can you give any reason for that?
But then, your manifestation requests Allah to punish those who do not believe in Allah or his 'divine' mission. Is that not a desire for universal belief?

Show me where Baha'u'llah ever wrote that Allah punishes people who lack belief in Allah or the divine mission.
Baha'u'llah did write that we endure our own punishment for turning away from Him, but that is not Allah doing anything to us.

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 339

You have believed something for which you have no evidence to show to any other person.

It is not my job to find and show evidence to other people. Everyone has to do their own independent investigation to find the truth. What I discovered would not necessarily be evidence to anyone else.

 

[Nimos]

But the premise does not state that God would be convincing people. Read it again. It says that God would know how to get everyone to believe in him and it says God wants everyone to believe in him and it says God would do what would be within his omnipotent power in order to prove to everyone that he exists. It says nothing about God convincing everyone to believe in Him.

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 don't think it would make any difference, when he uses is omnipotent power to prove to everyone that he exists it would automatically convince anyone.

Let's try to just imagine a scenario for fun... if I were God

You would wake up every morning feeling amazing, when you walk out of your unlocked house, the whole sky is a heavenly miracle, with angels in the air, people traveling back and forth from heaven on sight seeing, no suffering, no fear, just love and beauty. I wouldn't have to convince anyone, they could see and feel it within themselves and if they wanted to, they could come see me and have a chat.

So there wouldn't be any atheists, but you might have people claiming they were, but not really I think when it comes to it.

 

[ChristineM]

You might not want to know something to the point you do not want to check the evidence, but how does 'wanting to know' something matter when it gets on your face?

If the question was more like: "If God wanted and could prove that he exists but people had to choose whether they wanted to have this proof, would there be atheists?", I would say 'Yes.'.

Deliberate ignorance is a common trait.one doesn't need to believe evidence presented to them, especially when it pops your bubble. It happens so often today that i see no reason it won't happen if the evidence is god

 

[ChristineM]

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.

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.

I notice you highlighted "to me" this is considerably different from falsifiable evidence. To me means that even falsifiable/falsified evidence is unlikely to change your mind.

Well said god would have some very searching questions to answer before i accepted it as being one of the gods currently worshiped

But yes, as i stated, some outright denials will be flying around

 

[rational experiences]

Every story ever told is told by humans living as humans, on behalf of humans.

If a human said to their own self, I came from somewhere else, they would say it was higher than their owned form and that they became less than by being a human.

What condition in the creation of O a planet of stone, and a gas mass atmosphere is greater than what we are? Actually?

So if science says I can convert form with higher energy x mass and that mass equates to his machine colder than a metal radiation reactive conversion......and he says I use water to own reaction/change and end result.

Is there a human there in any of that information?

The scientific answer would be a no.

Human bio life existence is mainly water and some chemicals to say scientific review of a living life form. We are of a high percentile of just being water and use oxygen and water and microbes as information within us.

Water and oxygen and microbes being the higher spirit body forms in the atmosphere.

Hence we own self proof that we came from a higher place, of spirit.

Therefore historically the argument of natural life is against science/the occult converter/forced changer of the history of all bodies natural.

Science can therefore use the human applied theme science to study science in the past by use of science to claim, yes human science changed the past.

So the spirit of the past was removed, the spirit of the past lived changed and converted, then it healed and returned as if by some miracle.

Yet science says that status is evolution.

It is not cellular personal bodily manifestation of evolution....it was a changed atmospheric gas state. What the atmosphere gases as a mass once were originally compared to a changed gas mass, as compared to an ICED cooled atmosphere.

You would know that giant bodies cannot just suddenly conceive small babies.

Then you would ask so where did the Nature come from?

From out of a spirit of higher form is the only true answer.

If AI were not less than a human, who owns design and the ability to force change by control of, then we would not be enabled to theory.

God in science was claimed to be the planet O a mass of energy as stone, natural, self present, a Creator body for it formed its own heavenly spirits and the God reaction as per science machine formed a changed/sacrifice image of self man in the Heavenly reaction.

Reason…..2 forms of humans are that proof. If a body were a Creator Deity/entity as a human but an androgynous human, what would they look like? As just a human? Being who they claim a spirit form as a God would be as a higher form of self in explanation of self, by the self, humans.

When humans gave up their own use of water and oxygen and microbes by mass supply, it formed an image in ground fission God stone reaction.

And the proof that human males as scientists did it.

When humans state I once existed in a higher spirit body, and was sent out of it to become a human, and when I die I still own one higher spirit than a human, we are discussing the real eternal spirit. Science does not believe that the explanation of the eternal being real eternal is how natural humans explain it.

They want that body to be considered as the power that formed everything...hence they want to own it and find it to resource it. Being the sort of mentality that natural spiritual humanity argue against. It was always the spiritual humanity who argued against the scientist.

In its natural form it is not any power, for it burst and burnt to become energy.

 

[Trailblazer]

I notice you highlighted "to me" this is considerably different from falsifiable evidence. To me means that even falsifiable/falsified evidence is unlikely to change your mind.

Because of their nature (having an unprovable God involved), religious beliefs are also unprovable so they cannot ever be proven true or false.

That is why we have to take a logical approach and look at the evidence that might indicate that the alleged Messenger of God was telling the truth about His claim to have heard from God. That is all we have because only he knew what he heard the Voice of God; we did not hear it so we either choose to believe he heard it or not based upon His credibility or lack thereof. Se we look at his life, his character, his mission, and everything that surrounds his claimed Revelation from God. We have this kind of information for Baha'u'llah because it has all been recorded in the annals of the Faith by those who lived in the 19th century, but we do not have this kind of information for the Messengers of the past such as Jesus, so we would have to base our beliefs solely upon faith that the gospel accounts are true.

In determining if a religious belief is true or false, we have to use reason and common sense. For example, a Christians can say that Jesus rose from the grave, but there is no way to prove that is true or false. If God is omnipotent, allegedly God can do anything, so Jesus could have come back to life, but how likely is that to be true? As a Baha'i, I cannot believe anything is true if it is contradicted by science, so Jesus coming back to life after three days or Jesus floating up onto the clouds in a physical body and then returning in the clouds in the same body he had 2000 years ago is not believable, nor can I believe that dead bodies will rise from graves when Jesus returns. But because of religious tradition millions of people believe these things without question.

Using my reason I think to myself that Christian beliefs do not discredit Jesus as a Messenger because Jesus never claimed that he would do any of these things Christians believe he did or will do in the future. These are claims of Christianity based upon what I believe is a misinterpretation of the NT. So as a Baha'i, I believe that the historical Jesus existed and he was a Messenger of God based upon what my religion says about Jesus, but I do not believe all that was attributed to him by Christianity because it does not comport with reason and common sense. As for the bodily resurrection, I believe those were stories about Jesus that were written but a story is not proof that the story is true. There were no witnesses other than those in the story but those do not count because they are part of the story.

Well said god would have some very searching questions to answer before i accepted it as being one of the gods currently worshiped.

I can certainly understand why that would be the case, and God wants people to ask these questions rather than just believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think it would make any difference, when he uses is omnipotent power to prove to everyone that he exists it would automatically convince anyone.

It would probably convince most everyone, but not necessarily everyone. The caveat us that we can all reject the proof because we have free will, so unless God overrode the free will of those who tried to reject the proof, they would not believe in God.

Let's try to just imagine a scenario for fun... if I were God

You would wake up every morning feeling amazing, when you walk out of your unlocked house, the whole sky is a heavenly miracle, with angels in the air, people traveling back and forth from heaven on sight seeing, no suffering, no fear, just love and beauty. I wouldn't have to convince anyone, they could see and feel it within themselves and if they wanted to, they could come see me and have a chat.

So there wouldn't be any atheists, but you might have people claiming they were, but not really I think when it comes to it.

Well, this material world will never be like that, but that is how I envision heaven, so when we get to heaven there will be no question as to whether God exists or not. The thing is that I do not believe everyone will be going to heaven, so not everyone will have that experience. It is entirely possible that those who denied that God exists will continue to deny that even after they die. It is a scary thought.

 

[ChristineM]

No point is discussing much of your post, we have discussed most of it before so you know my view. I will comment on...

In determining if a religious belief is true or false, we have to use reason and common sense.

To determine if something is true or false we have to use fact or reality, it has nothing to do with reason or common sense, in fact truth can often pop the bubble of reason or common sense.

This is one of the things i don't approve of with religion, taking precise words and redefining them with emotive egotism.

I can certainly understand why that would be the case, and God wants people to ask these questions rather than just believe.

You are thinking for your god again, how do you know what your god wants?. I suggest you god wants exactly the same as you, think on that for a moment

 

[Trailblazer]

To determine if something is true or false we have to use fact or reality,

If you believe what can be proven as a fact and the physical reality is all that exists that is a way of thinking that is not conducive to religious beliefs. Of course I do not believe that but you are entitled to believe it.

it has nothing to do with reason or common sense, in fact truth can often pop the bubble of reason or common sense.

What truth?

This is one of the things i don't approve of with religion, taking precise words and redefining them with emotive egotism.

I do not know what you mean by that.

You are thinking for your god again, how do you know what your god wants?. I suggest you god wants exactly the same as you, think on that for a moment

I believe the only way we can ever know what God wants is through Messengers of God.
God does not want the same as what I want because I do not always want what God wants.

 

[Nimos]

Well, this material world will never be like that, but that is how I envision heaven, so when we get to heaven there will be no question as to whether God exists or not.

Well God can do anything he want in this scenario, so it would be no issue, in this case?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well God can do anything he want in this scenario, so it would be no issue, in this case?

I guess not.

 

[February-Saturday]

Do you have a problem with the one who gave life, taking it back from unappreciative and ungrateful ones who have abused it, and broken his laws in order to gratify their own selfishness?

Yes, because that's not how gifts work.

ETA: But that's not what I was saying, I just wanted to point out that you were contradicting yourself.

I don't view people who aren't loyal to God as "unappreciative and ungrateful" or abusing his free will, nor do I see selfishness as a bad thing. I also don't support the death penalty. So you're barking up the wrong tree if you're wanting me to see the God you're describing as just or good, it's never going to happen. My values are the polar opposite of that.

I definitely don't believe that God, even if he existed in the way you portray him, has any "right" over anyone's lives. If he wanted people to obey him, he shouldn't have given us the free will not to.