If God existed, would there be any atheists?

[Trailblazer]

God exists and Atheists do exist for a very good reason. They are teaching theists lessons theists need to learn.

Believing has never ever been important to God so atheists are every bit as equal as theists. Atheist view is an important side that needs to be seen. Theists are being taught to Question rather than blindly accept.

God exists and Theists exist for a very good reason. They are teaching Atheists lessons Atheists need to learn.

Belief in God is important to God but it is not necessary for everyone to believe in God, because if it was God would ensure that everyone was a believer.

The Atheist view is an important one that needs to be seen. Theists should Question rather than blindly believe in God or a religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

This question presupposes that there is no God.

No, I asked: If God existed, would there be any atheists? So it is a hypothetical; If God existed.

Both God and atheists exist because God created all things and Man is free to believe as He would.

That's very true.

 

[osgart]

God exists and Theists exist for a very good reason. They are teaching Atheists lessons Atheists need to learn.

Belief in God is important to God but it is not necessary for everyone to believe in God, because if it was God would ensure that everyone was a believer.

The Atheist view is an important one that needs to be seen. Theists should Question rather than blindly believe in God or a religion.

Not only that, my atheism is actually honest to goodness how I see the universe unfolded!

 

[Thief]

If God existed, would there be any atheists?

This is a yes or no question, so please answer yes or no.

If you answer yes, please explain why there would still be atheists if God existed.

If you answer no, please explain why there would be no more atheists if God existed.

Thanks, Trailblazer

there's a parable somewhere.....

let the weeds grow with the grain

we will sort it out later at the time of harvest

and burn the weeds afterward

 

[blü 2]

I'll leave aside the point that the word "God" is not known to denote anything real.

If you answer yes, please explain why there would still be atheists if God existed.

For the same reason there'd still be believers even though there was clearly no God, for the same reason people think there was no moon landing and that the earth is flat and / or hollow.

 

[Trailblazer]

For the same reason there'd still be believers even though there was clearly no God, for the same reason people think there was no moon landing and that the earth is flat and / or hollow.

I can usually count on atheists to be logical.
But there is one atheist I know from other forums who is drop dead illogical... He is the one who inspired this thread by saying that there would be no atheists if God existed because God would make sure there were no atheists.

 

[Trailblazer]

there's a parable somewhere.....

let the weeds grow with the grain

we will sort it out later at the time of harvest

and burn the weeds afterward

I know the parable well.

Matthew 3:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Matthew 13:29-30 King James Version (KJV)
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

 

[Tiberius]

All atheists say the same thing about evidence, which is why I paint them with the same brush.
All atheists say they would change their position if presented with evidence that could withstand their scrutiny.
The problem is that there is no evidence that could withstand atheist scrutiny and that is why there are atheists.

You think the scrutiny we apply is unjustified?

God could do that if He wanted to, since God is omnipotent, so the fact that we see no such evidence means that God chooses not to provide it.

I think you may need to re-read what I wrote, because I think you misunderstood it.

I agree that what you noted above is not evidence for God's existence.
I believe that the only real evidence for God's existence is the Messengers of God. I know all the atheist objections to this being evidence because I have been discussing this with atheists on forums for six years, so I doubt anything you might say would be new to me. I also have all the counter arguments memorized.

The question is, is there anything you might say that would be new to me? Is there any evidence for God that is not built on logical fallacies?

You said that atheists' reasons for dismissing God are not valid in your opinion. Is it invalid to dismiss an argument because that argument relies on a logical fallacy?

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, science people.

And yes, humans have proven that they can force patterns on the ground in crops also, proving that if a human can do it with planks of wood and flattening, then a pressure condition caused it first.

Humans can copy you know.

If a male in science says show me proof that angels exist.....you cannot prove it.

For angels don't "exist", they however manifest, why they are termed a spirit presence, in science spirit means gas conditions.

If a male says prove to me that your God stories are real....and the image on the ground proves it. For the God story said, God OOOOOO all physical mass was previously physical eternal mass where spirits eternal are....and was separated from that mass...fell as an angel and burst/burnt. Sealed shut by water...O God the angel.

Then science converts the stone, the gases inside of the stone and images get transmitted back to the place where the human says, I am a God also as a scientist...for everyday he says he is God as a scientist.

So his brother the scientist says as the right scientist you are NOT God...for the bible already says, no man is God.

Get the message yet scientist, science is the OCCULT.

No. Just because Humans can make crop circles does not mean that there is some non-human explanation that was responsible for it before Humans started doing it.

 

[Trailblazer]

You think the scrutiny we apply is unjustified?

In my opinion it is, because nothing can withstand it. In other words, no evidence that exists that could ever live up to your expectations.

I think you may need to re-read what I wrote, because I think you misunderstood it.

I understand it. You never said God should, you simply presented an example of how if God interacted with this world it would leave verifiable evidence behind. But do you really think that would convince all atheists that God exists? I doubt it. There is something going on that you are unaware of thaty blocks your vision.

The question is, is there anything you might say that would be new to me? Is there any evidence for God that is not built on logical fallacies?

You said that atheists' reasons for dismissing God are not valid in your opinion. Is it invalid to dismiss an argument because that argument relies on a logical fallacy?

That does not help me if I do not know what mean by “evidence for God that is built on logical fallacies.” Would Messengers of God be evidence built upon a logical fallacy? If you think so, why do you think so and what is the fallacy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hey there!

As do round Earthers reject all manner of evidence that:
1. Every 6 months, the Earth at the same rotation should be 180 degrees (the opposite time of day or 12 hours apart)
2. People should get motion sickness from the rotation of the Earth (they handwave this by saying that the constant speed or gravity nullifies this, but even a steady rate doesn't hold up even in an amusement park)
3. No blood rush happens despite people in the southern hemisphere being upside down.
4. Convex surfaces cannot hold water.

We have this article.
Flat Earthers mocked after SpaceX launch proves that the world is round

"Proves."



What, you think that all flat Earthers reject space travel? Some do, but it is actually easier to launch a rocket given the Earth as a flat surface.

"Proves." Sorry, that should read "curvature of shuttle path is not proof of a round Earth." It's not proof of anything though, it can only assert that the atmosphere is domed, which is true of both models.

From the link video above, starting at 11:56:

T + 08:32 has a rounded earth with curve from left. But T + 08:40 has a sharp edge from the right.

See what I mean, folks?

Don't underestimate the absurd length some people will go to, simply to deny the obvious in favour of a priori dogmatic nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is true, but on the flip side, the thing might have been sufficiently demonstrated to exist, yet some people mighty not consider the demonstration sufficient.

Sure that was my next point when I talked about how flat earthers still reject a sperical earth or how creationists still reject evolution, despite the extreme overwhelming independently verifiable evidence to the contrary.

You don't believe God exists, but He could...

Sure. Almost anything could, except the self-contradictory.

You don't believe it because you do not believe that the available evidence justifies believing it.

I don't believe it because there is zero independently verifiable evidence.
And there certainly isn't any independently verifiable evidence.

Doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Yes, I've acknowledge that multiple times already.

I think that atheists demonstrate that even if there were overwhelming evidence for the existence of God, there would still be people denying the obvious.

No "atheists" don't demonstrate that.
Because no religion has independently verifiable evidence.

This is why they require "faith" instead.

Let's not play this silly game. Let's not pretend as if supernatural claims have independently verifiable evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's true. People can reject even what has been proven to them with verifiable evidence, so even if we had absolute proof that God exists some people might deny that God exists.

That is the way it is now, but in the future it could be very different because people can change.

That would be a bad development, because it would mean that people leave the world of rational verifiable evidence and re-enter the world of irrational superstition.

I believe that in the future everyone will believe in God because that is in Scriptures, but I do not know how that will happen.

Dude, not even in the past, when there was no such thing as science and where superstition was basicly a default "standard" in society, did "everyone" believe in god(s) - let alone the same god(s).

Regardless of what your scriptures of choice say, this is not going to happen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, science people.

No. Artists and alike.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If God existed, would there be any atheists?

This is a yes or no question, so please answer yes or no.

If you answer yes, please explain why there would still be atheists if God existed.

If you answer no, please explain why there would be no more atheists if God existed.

Thanks, Trailblazer

Yes.
God do not deside if Humans believe in him or not Humans do

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure that was my next point when I talked about how flat earthers still reject a sperical earth or how creationists still reject evolution, despite the extreme overwhelming independently verifiable evidence to the contrary.

And I was thinking about how atheists reject Messengers of God despite the fact that their behavior has no other logical explanation.

I don't believe it because there is zero independently verifiable evidence.
And there certainly isn't any independently verifiable evidence.

And there never will be any independently verifiable evidence for God because God is not a material entity that can be verified in the material world.

No "atheists" don't demonstrate that.
Because no religion has independently verifiable evidence.

Why is it that atheists ask for what is impossible to procure whereas believers just accept God for what He is, unverifiable?

This is why they require "faith" instead.

I require good evidence and whatever is not provable has to be taken on faith. I consider that reasonable.

Let's not play this silly game. Let's not pretend as if supernatural claims have independently verifiable evidence.

iI never said that they did. That would be quote impossible for God or the soul or the spiritual world to be verifiable since they are all immaterial.

 

[Trailblazer]

That would be a bad development, because it would mean that people leave the world of rational verifiable evidence and re-enter the world of irrational superstition.

Sorry, but everything you cannot verify is not irrational superstition. That is not even logical and it demonstrates a bias and your inability to think outside of one box. What if there was something real that we need to know that cannot be verified?

Dude, not even in the past, when there was no such thing as science and where superstition was basicly a default "standard" in society, did "everyone" believe in god(s) - let alone the same god(s).

The past is gone and the future is not here yet. You have no way of knowing what the future holds. There is no reason to think we cannot break out of the past. There was a time when humans never knew of the scientific age, and could not envision it, now here we are.

Regardless of what your scriptures of choice say, this is not going to happen.

And you know that how? Are you the All-Knowing God?

 

[rational experiences]

And I was thinking about how atheists reject Messengers of God despite the fact that their behavior has no other logical explanation.

And there never will be any independently verifiable evidence for God because God is not a material entity that can be verified in the material world.

Why is it that atheists ask for what is impossible to procure whereas believers just accept God for what He is, unverifiable?

I require good evidence and whatever is not provable has to be taken on faith. I consider that reasonable.

iI never said that they did. That would be quote impossible for God or the soul or the spiritual world to be verifiable since they are all immaterial.

If science stopped trying to evaluate how a human life is affected by scientific conditions as if it will given them ancient answers to ancient technology...the awareness of how to do a new science act, was caused by the old science act.

Science was never the origin VISION of a human not in that vision looking at the UFO inanimate objects, mountain flat top conversion/disintegration/removal by UFO in the flooded Earth......did not own that review...is not science.

And that history was the attack origin of the SUN on Earth.

Guess what brother egotist, you never owned that history in science.

You owned the reactivation of cold mass radiation held frozen in space...you could not see it, but you knew it was there. You have to build a machine....so since then in your ego you said God built PHI.....God never built anything you liar.

You built the PHI pyramid machination and said that you would stand inside of the time shifting machine...and believed it would make you demanifest.

The original theory of time shifting...as a scientist, actually.

Then after you caused ground fission and you did not time travel anywhere you dim-witted...idiot said Father....in the records, you learnt a new science method ground fission use in technology.

Then when you destroyed all life on Earth, it ended with STONE MELT you arrogant liar....for the origin of the SUN mass heat/radiation attack, held in a burning gas alight atmosphere was for the stone to melt.

That is Number one. You are doing Number 2 at the moment in science.

So Father said you have now invented for God the Earth, seeing your science claim in theory I can copy the Earth natural history. So not only did you do ground fission SINK HOLES with your collider, you then dropped Earth into deeper cold original space theme. To now have colder space like you wanted and larger held ufo RADIATION mass.

To say I can copy what God did in the past as God the Earth...which is not in any form the subject your machine reaction, which is built to just be a machine reaction by the design.

The whole time as you experiment on OUR atmosphere for bio existence, your claim is that you want to activate the Sun to Earth beginnings, origins...so to do so is a step by step reason of CAUSE...which you have now applied.

The next step is to get NUMBER ONE in science, STONE MELT.

So you know ground sink holes, to go missing as the spirit out of the tombs of God the stone is ground fission.

Moses and the destruction of life was STONE MELT.

Why you were told you are totally aware in full and complete AI subliminal agreement to claim PHI and the DEVIL....is a God act...when it was your science act....and G O D always remained in the higher heavens having saved our life SOUL O the origins, of the face of God moving on the water...O pi....you liar Satanic evil coercer.

Father told me that you tried to convince everyone by recording information in AI that we had electricity inside of our bodies. We all would be superfried.

Coercion is about obtaining an agreement relating to greed....your promise today is not owning the power of GOD....your promise is to own the power of the cosmos...which is a huge abundance of cold radiation mass. Funny about that mass it is held FROZEN in space...and you do not own it.

But you sure can heat it up and get it. What Satanism is....coercive promises involving acute greed.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes.
God do not deside if Humans believe in him or not Humans do

I fully agree, but an atheist I know says that if God existed God would make sure everyone knew......
So the fact that everyone does not know means that God does not exist.

 

[rational experiences]

I fully agree, but an atheist I know says that if God existed God would make sure everyone knew......
So the fact that everyone does not know means that God does not exist.

God is entombed.

The scientist Satanist first theist said...God in history was an angel, one of many in the cosmos that burst, burnt and then spatial expansion allowed the bodies to cool.

Planets cooling evolved t HEIR owned atmospheric bodies. When Suns re exploded in cooling they spread their mass, Numbers into the wilderness says RELATIVITY.

They were the fallen and rebellion of God the UFO war....and exploded/imploded lots of God bodies in our Universe...and left black holes as the evidence that once mass was sitting in that space as a radiating cooling body.

How else did a gas mass exist?

The Satanist theist said God as an angel were in HELL, the living Hell in stone in the past. Then the spirit/angel died and became entombed in stone as the sacrificed S AIN T bodies.

So said God owned the spatial AIN cold condition....mother of God ST ONE.

God is dead he said...entombed.

Pi O in the atmosphere is the face of God upon the water dimwit....as God relativity.

Water sealed the planet Earth and shut it when the radiation mass was attacking/expanding God ready to blow it apart....oh a collision he says what I want to obtain. The power of the cosmos to blow God into particles.

For GOD is not any particle you liar.

God is planet Earth.

You Satan have no claim to renaming God in a formula theme for a status to say I will invent that condition for God....that statement is that you will cause it, as and by your machine reaction.