Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Shad]

I see no reason why we would need more than one Messenger at a time, if that Messenger had the knowledge of God, which is all knowledge.

The "if" is the rub and the standard is a religious one. Look at it from an outsiders view. Person X claims they have the knowledge of God yet never produces anything but babble. No new technology, no cures for diseases. Claims vs demonstrating are very different.

That is what I believe they have. Having many Messengers at a time could lead to competition and it would be like God competing with God.

That competition already exists. Christians say X, Muslims say Y. Jews says it's Z and kosher. God could simply cut off the person from the message from the group of messengers.

I do not believe He does. We all judge ourselves after we die and estimate the worth of our deeded and realize what our hands have wrought.

How would a person with a warped moral compass judge themselves?

No, argument from scriptures.

Then as I said you are not talking about history.

No, how could they? They never even bother to look at the new Messenger and what He wrote. If they did they would realize there are no errors in logic.

You are speculating. You have no idea what any read or did not read. Beside I found two logical errors. One made by you and one within your quote. I didn't need to read the whole text.

His communication was just fine. There is no better Method. If there was, an omniscient God would have used it.

Considering how divides people are between different religions and I already pointed out better methods you are just sticking to dogma.

That means that God cannot communicate directly with anyone except His Messengers, to whom God communicates through the Holy Spirit. In the following passage, the pure and stainless Soul is the Messenger of God.

“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself.....The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.””
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

Speculation and self-serving rubbish. God only talks to me not thee.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It seems like you’re expressing an idea that I’ve had many times, just in a different way: that Gods are anthropomorphisms of human ideas of virtue and perfection. I’ve always seen this as reason to believe that gods were fabricated. I take it that you don’t share this approach, right?

Thank yoi for the response and you are Correct. For me there is no life without God, life begins when we live to serve all people for the Love of God. We are dead without knowledge of God.

All unselfish good comes from our One God, all selfish action and evil is from our own animal selves. We can acknowledge the source of that good if we choose to.

If one does good for their own gain, it is part of ones own self.

Peace be with you and all.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Not a problem, there are plenty of of evidence about. Of course you are free to deny the evidence but thats your choice.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.01122

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7151

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7151

https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.1633

As it is your choice not to look at the Spiritual Evidence.

If Science is trying to say there is no God in the source of mind, it is wrong science. I need not look at wrong science. I see it made you happy to post links.

Peace be upon you.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I have a LOGICAL REASON to believe what I do. I have a religion that has scriptures that came from the real God to a real Messenger...
By contrast, all he has is his imagination and his big ego

The salient difference is that he has absolutely no evidence to back up his personal opinions. By contrast, I have a boatload of evidence to back up the claims of my religion.

NONE of what I believe is my personal opinion. Sure I might have a personal opinion about the meaning of my scriptures but the scriptures themselves are not based upon a personal opinion.

The caveat is that all theists do not have the latest revelation from God, so what they believe God can do is based upon old scriptures that have since been superseded by new scriptures. It is now been made perfectly clear that God cannot do anything and why God cannot do anything; that was made clear my Muhammad, and now it has been made even clearer by Baha’u’llah.

There is scads of evidence that God has used Messengers and that evidence is contained in the scriptures revealed by the various Messengers of God, as well as what we know about their lives and the history of their religions, as well as how that have affected the course of human history.

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273

That might seem logical to you, but it is only logical if you are willing to forgo belief in God, since there will never be any verifiable evidence of God’s existence. We have plenty of evidence but God does not want to be verified. If He did, He would have verified Himself by now.

I have a LOGICAL REASON to believe what I do. I have a religion that has scriptures that came from the real God to a real Messenger...
By contrast, all he has is his imagination and his big ego

The only real difference that I see is that he took the time to make up his god himself, while you are simply allowing someone else to make up your god for you. Not sure how that constitutes a 'logical reason' for believing what you do.

The salient difference is that he has absolutely no evidence to back up his personal opinions. By contrast, I have a boatload of evidence to back up the claims of my religion.

Actually, he appears to have just as much VERIFIABLE evidence as you do. Sadly people are capable of accepting any ridiculous claim as 'evidence'. So unless evidence is VERIFIABLE it's pretty much worthless. After all, the idiots who flew airplanes into building on 9/11 thought THEY had enough evidence that god wanted them to do so that they forfeited their lives for it. Too bad they didn't insist on VERIFIABLE evidence first.

NONE of what I believe is my personal opinion. Sure I might have a personal opinion about the meaning of my scriptures but the scriptures themselves are not based upon a personal opinion.

Again, I really don't see why you think it's better that you don't rely on your own personal opinion, but have instead decided to rely on someone ELSE's personal opinion. Why is that a good thing... in your opinion?

The caveat is that all theists do not have the latest revelation from God, so what they believe God can do is based upon old scriptures that have since been superseded by new scriptures. It is now been made perfectly clear that God cannot do anything and why God cannot do anything; that was made clear my Muhammad, and now it has been made even clearer by Baha’u’llah.

And how have you determined what are 'revelations from god'? Is anyone who CLAIMS to speak for god a genuine messenger from god? Was Joseph Smith a messenger from god with important 'revelations from god'? If not, what verifiable evidence do you have that Joseph Smith ISN'T a genuine messenger from god, but OTHER self-proclaimed messengers actually ARE? Seems to me that ultimately it all comes down to YOUR personal opinion on the matter.

There is scads of evidence that God has used Messengers and that evidence is contained in the scriptures revealed by the various Messengers of God, as well as what we know about their lives and the history of their religions, as well as how that have affected the course of human history.

Again, people can claim virtually ANYTHING as evidence. The 9/11 terrorists THOUGHT they had evidence that god wanted them to slaughter a bunch of people. I'm convinced that they were WRONG. I contend that if they had relied on VERIFIABLE evidence, they would never have come to such a faulty conclusion.

If your 'scads of evidence' that god used messengers is not VERIFIABLE, then it's no more useful than anyone's personal opinion. Which I believe is PRECISELY the point that the atheist you were talking to was trying to make.

 

[ChristineM]

As it is your choice not to look at the Spiritual Evidence.

If Science is trying to say there is no God in the source of mind, it is wrong science. I need not look at wrong science. I see it made you happy to post links.

Peace be upon you.

Spiritual evidence??? Could you please provide some?

Science says nothing about god, it does not deal with mythology.

You asked for the links (assuming, wrongly, that i could not provide any). Are you saying you requested them but ignored them?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Spiritual evidence??? Could you please provide some?

Science says nothing about god, it does not deal with mythology.

You asked for the links (assuming, wrongly, that i could not provide any). Are you saying you requested them but ignored them?

I told you I do not need links.

Science without knowledge of God is not Science.

The greatest Spiritual Evidence is Gods Messengers, the greatest example of a life lived as evidence of the power of Faith in a Manifestation of God, would be Abdul'baha. I live in awe of that life, truly amazing person.

I am sure you are now clear as to where I stand. Science and Religion must work in Harmony, not trying to prove each are the only way.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Trailblazer]

I’ve been browsing through this thread trying to understand what it’s about, for you. It might help me understand what it’s all about, if you can think of some good this discussion might possibly do for someone. Can you think of some difference this conversation might make for someone, some good it might possibly do for someone, to understand or believe whatever you’re trying to say?

I did not want to divulge this before because I thought it would bias the answers I got to my questions, but now that most people have responded I can explain the reason I posted this thread.....

There is an atheist on another forum who insists that if god were real god would want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him. He thinks that anything less than 100% has to be a failure on the part of god to communicate properly. According to him, none of this can be human failure to believe in what god communicated through messengers; it is all god’s fault for communicating improperly. He does not believe humans have free will or that they are responsible for anything. He does not even think criminals are responsible for their behavior although he will admit they have to be put in jail to protect society.

He thinks that the best way god could accomplish the 100% belief would be to communicate directly to everyone, to each and every human being in the world, to all 7.44 billion people. There is absolutely nothing more ridiculous, to think that god owes every person on earth their own personal message, or that god would have to communicate that way to prove he exists. Just because 7% of the population is atheists who reject God’s messengers, God is not obligated to send them a personal message to prove He exists.

He thinks that using Messengers is a very poor method of communication because (a) only 93% of people in the world believe in God, and (b) hardly anyone believes in the “new” Messenger when He appears or for a long time afterwards. He completely disregards history, and the fact that all new Messengers of God are rejected when they first appear and for a long time afterwards. He thinks that if Baha’u’llah was a real Messenger of God, everyone would instantly believe in Him as soon as he showed up.

He completely disregards the human element of choice, so he cannot understand why the main reason people do not to believe in the new messenger is because they are attached to their older religions and messengers, and they believe they are the only true religions and messengers; or if they are nonbelievers they do not believe god would have messengers. In his mind, it is all a failure on the part of god to communicate properly because humans cannot fail. He thinks god is omnipotent so god should prove he exists. He also thinks that since god is omnipotent god can show up on earth.

So I posted this thread because I wanted to find out what other atheists and agnostics thought about this. As I expected, when I went back and told him nobody agreed with him, he said he did not care what anyone else thinks, so he asked me why I even bothered to tell him. I told him that there are other atheists on that forum who might be interested in what other atheists think, and that I do not only post to him for him to read what I post.

This person is the most arrogant person I have ever met in my entire life. He thinks he knows more than god about what god should do to communicate to humanity. He thinks god is stupid for using messengers. He thinks that Jesus accomplished nothing at all. He is so ignorant of history and religion, and he thinks he can determine what god should do with logic, based only upon one attribute of god, omnipotence. He completely ignores God’s attribute of omniscience, since that would mean that god knows more than he knows, thus god could not have been wrong if god sent messengers.

He thinks he is the king of logic but he cannot even understand simple logic, such as the fallacy of hasty generalization; to say that there have been many false messengers therefore there cannot be a true messenger is the fallacy of hasty generalization, but he has no answer to this. When backed into a corner, all he does is deflect and hurl insults at me.

He also thinks he knows what god should do in general, such as eliminating all suffering in the world, but that is another subject we are not discussing right now. He knows more than god so why didn’t he just create the universe himself?

This is the third thread I have posted here which was precipitated by a dialogue I was having with this man. The atheists and agnostics on this forum have not agreed with this man on what I have posted as hypothetical god/messenger questions. He is in a class by himself and he does not CARE what anyone else thinks and does not to hear what anyone thinks. Unless they agree with him they are all wrong, even if they are atheists. I am not exaggerating. In over three years of constant dialogues, he has never admitted he was wrong about anything. If I did not know better I would think he was God because only God is right about everything.

 

[Koldo]

I told you I do not need links.

Science without knowledge of God is not Science.

The greatest Spiritual Evidence is Gods Messengers, the greatest example of a life lived as evidence of the power of Faith in a Manifestation of God, would be Abdul'baha. I live in awe of that life, truly amazing person.

I am sure you are now clear as to where I stand. Science and Religion must work in Harmony, not trying to prove each are the only way.

Peace be upon you.

It must be really intriguing to communicate with others through a machine that was built with Science that is not Science.

 

[ChristineM]

I told you I do not need links.

Science without knowledge of God is not Science.

The greatest Spiritual Evidence is Gods Messengers, the greatest example of a life lived as evidence of the power of Faith in a Manifestation of God, would be Abdul'baha. I live in awe of that life, truly amazing person.

I am sure you are now clear as to where I stand. Science and Religion must work in Harmony, not trying to prove each are the only way.

Peace be upon you.

You said and i quote

You are free to quote all the undeniable proof as to where mind resides to correct any confusion you see I have .

Nonsense. Science has nothing to do with myhology

You have evidence that Abdul'baha or is it just what he said and you believe him?

Oh i knew where you stood from the start. The faith is strong in you.
If there were any evidence religion can provide for a gods existence then science would evaluate it. As it stands all religion can do is claim an invisible, none appearing god dun it wiv magic out of nothing. Hence, science is not interested.
However in the cases where evidence disproves religious claims, it seems religion are the ones up in arms in a futile attempt to discredit science,

 

[Koldo]

I did not want to divulge this before because I thought it would bias the answers I got to my questions, but now that most people have responded I can explain the reason I posted this thread.....

There is an atheist on another forum who insists that if god were real god would want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him. He thinks that anything less than 100% has to be a failure on the part of god to communicate properly. According to him, none of this can be human failure to believe in what god communicated through messengers; it is all god’s fault for communicating improperly. He does not believe humans have free will or that they are responsible for anything. He does not even think criminals are responsible for their behavior although he will admit they have to be put in jail to protect society.

This is a tad bit confusing because both of you seem to have different expectations from God. But it is unclear whether the divergence comes from how you view God's attributes or from what those attributes would entail.

For instance, it is not a given that God would want 100% of people in the world to believe in him.
God might not care one iota about that. To have a debate about God you need to clarify what exactly you mean by God, because it might mean a lot of different things.

However, if both of you agree that God wants 100% of people in the world to believe in him, and he is omnipotent, then it is to be expected that everyone in the world would believe in him. You as a mere human has done more than enough for me to consider you a real person. You are not omnipotent and yet you accomplished this, therefore, God should have no trouble doing the same. If you disagree with this then this is a disagreement about what God's attributes would entail.

On the other hand, you might say that God wants 100% of people in the world to believe in him but yet only through a specific method. And this specific method entails that not everyone believes in him. There is no inherent problem with this view, but this is distinct from a God that merely wants 100% of people to believe in him. It has a distinct attribute. If I, or anyone else for this matter, was to insist this new attribute is false then this is a disagreement about attributes.

He thinks that the best way god could accomplish the 100% belief would be to communicate directly to everyone, to each and every human being in the world, to all 7.44 billion people. There is absolutely nothing more ridiculous, to think that god owes every person on earth their own personal message, or that god would have to communicate that way to prove he exists. Just because 7% of the population is atheists who reject God’s messengers, God is not obligated to send them a personal message to prove He exists.

I find it weird to frame it as an obligation.
If I want you to believe that I am a real human being and not a mere AI robot, am I under the obligation to prove to you that I am a real person ? I don't think 'obligation' enters the picture. I think it is more pertinent to say that the mere fact that I want you to believe that I am a real human being would make me behave in certain ways to try to convince you of that. Wouldn't you agree ? And the more I cared about it, the more I would try to find ways to reach out to you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It must be really intriguing to communicate with others through a machine that was built with Science that is not Science.

That is the way you have chosen to look at it.

Apart from the science and the material gain, was there a motivation to provide a benefit to humanity in this invention?

Thus we have the science, the material and we have the God given Spiritual motivation for the project.

The more we balance the Science with the Spiritual, and eliminate the personal material aspects, the better it will be.

This is a proof that the spirit comes before the invention, I was amazed when I first came upon this passage many years ago;

"A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity. A world metropolis will act as the nerve center of a world civilization, the focus towards which the unifying forces of life will converge and from which its energizing influences will radiate....In such a world society, science and religion, the two most potent forces in human life, will be reconciled, will cooperate, and will harmoniously develop....The enormous energy dissipated and wasted on war...will be consecrated to such ends as will extend the range of human inventions and technical development, to the increase of the productivity of mankind,...to the extension of scientific research,...to the sharpening and refinement of the human brain, to the exploitation of the unused and unsuspected resources of the planet, to the prolongation of human life, and to the furtherance of any other agency that can stimulate the intellectual, the moral, and spiritual life of the entire human race." (Shoghi Effendi).

This passage was written in 1939, in the dark beginnings of a World War at a time when few had ever even dreamed of such prospects, yet here is a clear and definite anticipation of the communications system which our modern scientific age has made into reality and the remainder are unfolding.

Peace be upon you

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You said and i quote

You forgot to quote the applicable part that confirmed what I said. No worries here it is for you again;

"I do not need you to do this in case you are wondering , only do it if it makes you happy, as Life is so great!"

Thus I assume you did it to make yourself happy.

Peace be with you.

 

[Trailblazer]

“I have a LOGICAL REASON to believe what I do. I have a religion that has scriptures that came from the real God to a real Messenger...
By contrast, all he has is his imagination and his big ego.”

The only real difference that I see is that he took the time to make up his god himself, while you are simply allowing someone else to make up your god for you. Not sure how that constitutes a 'logical reason' for believing what you do.

No, Messengers of God are not making up God. Nobody could make up all that is written in scriptures nor would they have any reason to spend their time doing so. It is not logical to think that all religious scriptures came from mere men and had nothing to do with any god. Surely, some of the Bible was written by men, but the Writings of Baha’u’llah are His own Writings and Hos Writings alone indicate that He was more than a man. Of course that is a belief, but because of all the evidence I have it gives me a good reason to believe it is true.

”The salient difference is that he has absolutely no evidence to back up his personal opinions. By contrast, I have a boatload of evidence to back up the claims of my religion.”

Actually, he appears to have just as much VERIFIABLE evidence as you do. Sadly people are capable of accepting any ridiculous claim as 'evidence'. So unless evidence is VERIFIABLE it's pretty much worthless. After all, the idiots who flew airplanes into building on 9/11 thought THEY had enough evidence that god wanted them to do so that they forfeited their lives for it. Too bad they didn't insist on VERIFIABLE evidence first.

He has no evidence at all. All he has is what he calls “the use of reason.” He means the use of his reason, and the implication is that anyone who reasons differently than him is unreasonable, because he knows what god would do if god were real. You may as well read what I wrote about him on this post. I did not make any of that up. It is all verifiable by reading what he has written over a period of three years. #267

“NONE of what I believe is my personal opinion. Sure I might have a personal opinion about the meaning of my scriptures but the scriptures themselves are not based upon a personal opinion.”

Again, I really don't see why you think it's better that you don't rely on your own personal opinion, but have instead decided to rely on someone ELSE's personal opinion. Why is that a good thing... in your opinion?

Simply put, because there is a lot of evidence that indicates that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God who got a message from God. How could I possibly know more than Him? There is verifiable history that demonstrates that even before He got His revelation from God, Baha’u’llah had innate knowledge, knowledge of things He could never have known if he was not more than an ordinary human being, since He had only a very rudimentary education. For example, He knew more about the Qur’an than the Muslim scholars knew, and they even had to admit that when He presented His arguments to them. How did He know all this, if He was not more than a mere man? I just use my logic to figure things out.

“The caveat is that all theists do not have the latest revelation from God, so what they believe God can do is based upon old scriptures that have since been superseded by new scriptures. It is now been made perfectly clear that God cannot do anything and why God cannot do anything; that was made clear my Muhammad, and now it has been made even clearer by Baha’u’llah.”

And how have you determined what are 'revelations from god'? Is anyone who CLAIMS to speak for god a genuine messenger from god? Was Joseph Smith a messenger from god with important 'revelations from god'? If not, what verifiable evidence do you have that Joseph Smith ISN'T a genuine messenger from god, but OTHER self-proclaimed messengers actually ARE? Seems to me that ultimately it all comes down to YOUR personal opinion on the matter.

No, it is not based upon my personal opinion. It is based upon what my religion teaches about the other Messengers. Baha’is believe that Joseph Smith was a Seer. A Seer is an inspired individual who can prophesy, see visions, and receive Revelations but they are not Prophets. I do not even think Smith claimed that He got a revelation from God. He claimed Jesus spoke to him, and that is possible, but Jesus speaking is not the same thing as God speaking. There is also evidence that Smith prophesied the coming of Baha’u’llah.

Baha’u’llah identifies some of the Messengers of the past, most of which are mentioned in the Bible, and Muhammad was also a Messenger. Baha’is also believe that Buddha, Krishna and Zoroaster were Messengers of God. There might be more that have not been mentioned in the Writings (what we call our scriptures).

“There is scads of evidence that God has used Messengers and that evidence is contained in the scriptures revealed by the various Messengers of God, as well as what we know about their lives and the history of their religions, as well as how that have affected the course of human history.”

Again, people can claim virtually ANYTHING as evidence. The 9/11 terrorists THOUGHT they had evidence that god wanted them to slaughter a bunch of people. I'm convinced that they were WRONG. I contend that if they had relied on VERIFIABLE evidence, they would never have come to such a faulty conclusion.

There is good evidence and there is bad evidence, and there is worthless evidence. The fact that evidence is verifiable does not mean it is evidence that supports a claim of a real Messenger of God.

The history of the Baha’i Faith is recent history so there are documented records of everything that has transpired from the time the Bab appeared (1844) to announce the coming of Baha’u’llah, moving forward to the present time. What I say about Baha’u’llah can be verified if people want to take the time to do the research about His Life and His Mission. None of the previous Messengers of God can be verified this way because there are no clear records of who they were or what they did.

If your 'scads of evidence' that god used messengers is not VERIFIABLE, then it's no more useful than anyone's personal opinion. Which I believe is PRECISELY the point that the atheist you were talking to was trying to make.

The Life and Mission of Baha’u’llah are verifiable facts. The only thing that cannot be verified is that Baha’u’llah got a message from God. That is why we look at all the evidence that supports His claim, in order to determine if we are willing to believe that what He claimed was the Truth.

Having good evidence that “indicates” that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is better than having a personal opinion that He was not. Mind you, this atheist never even looked that the evidence. He just scoffs at it because he does not like the “idea” of god using messengers... He is like a baby crying for mommy (god) to bring him a bottle (direct communication from god). It is really rather sad because God is not his short order cook.

 

[Jim]

... insists that if god were real ... God is not obligated to send them a personal message to prove He exists. ... thinks god is omnipotent so god should prove he exists."

I'm wondering what you're thinking of when you think of God, to say that He exists or that He's real. For example, if I said that I think the Grand Canyon is real, or that it really exists, I mean that if I went to where people say it is, I would see something that looks like what I've seen in the pictures, or heard people describing, and be able to walk on the trails. To me, saying that something exists or is real means that if I could go to where people say that it is, I would experience something that fits their description of it. It looks to me like the God that you're talking about has no place, and is impossible to even begin to describe, or even to imagine. Is that right? If so, what are you saying when you say that He exists, or that He is real? What difference could there be between what's happening in your mind thinking that He exists or that He's real, and what's happening in someone else's mind who is not thinking that He exists, or that he's real? What would change in a person's mind or imagination, going from not thinking that He exists, or that He's real, to thinking that He does exist, or that He is real?

 

[Koldo]

That is the way you have chosen to look at it.

Apart from the science and the material gain, was there a motivation to provide a benefit to humanity in this invention?

Nope. That's the way you have claimed to look at it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Nope. That's the way you have claimed to look at it.

Well a quick look shows virtue based motivation. Virtues are God within us and not for our own self.

So the World wide web had such thoughts behind it;

"He was the master and he could have monetized what he has created, but he chose to provide the service world wide web with no royalties and no patent due."

That part is selfless.

“The world’s urban poor and the illiterate are going to be increasingly disadvantaged and are in danger of being left behind. The web has added a new dimension to the gap between the first world and the developing world. We have to start talking about a human right to connect.”

Thats a worthy motivation.

Now if we go back we will find pure motivation amongst the science and the material based self. That is the Spiritual aspect that science needs to embrace.

I offer that source is God, you may say it is just the material mind.

Peace be with you and all.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a tad bit confusing because both of you seem to have different expectations from God. But it is unclear whether the divergence comes from how you view God's attributes or from what those attributes would entail.

You are sure right about that. I have no expectations from God and by contrast he expects god to do what he thinks god should do, according to what he calls “the use of reason.” So because he thinks it is reasonable to expect god to do something, to him that means that if god does not do that god is stupid. He bases his entire argument upon the idea that god is omnipotent so god can do anything, which to him means that god should do everything he thinks god should do. The problem is he is not omnipotent or omniscient so he cannot know as much as God or make God do anything that God does not want to do. This completely flies over the head of this atheist, yet he says he uses reason.

I believe that God is both omnipotent and omniscient, among other things, so God knows more than any human and God has more power than any human. Who then are we to be ordering God around like a short order cook?

For instance, it is not a given that God would want 100% of people in the world to believe in him.
God might not care one iota about that. To have a debate about God you need to clarify what exactly you mean by God, because it might mean a lot of different things.

You are right, it is not a given that God would want 100% of people in the world to believe in him, but this atheist has decided it is a given and he has absolutely no reason to think that except that he thinks that.

By contrast, I have a religion that teaches that God does not necessarily want everyone to believe in Him, as there are requirements that must be met by the believers. Not only that, but by using logic we can figure out that if God is omnipotent then God could make everyone believe in Him, so since everyone does not believe in Him, God must not want everyone to believe in Him.

However, if both of you agree that God wants 100% of people in the world to believe in him, and he is omnipotent, then it is to be expected that everyone in the world would believe in him. You as a mere human has done more than enough for me to consider you a real person. You are not omnipotent and yet you accomplished this, therefore, God should have no trouble doing the same. If you disagree with this then this is a disagreement about what God's attributes would entail.

Yes, that is what I just said above. If God wanted 100% of people in the world to believe in Him, and God is omnipotent, then it is to be expected that everyone in the world would believe in God. We know that everyone in the world does not believe in God, so if God is omnipotent that means one of two things: (1) God does not want everyone to believe in Him, or (2) God does not exist.

But the ploy this atheist uses is that if an omnipotent god existed he would want everyone to believe in him, so that means that god probably does not exist, although he thinks it is possible that god might later be around to deliver personal messages to everyone so that everyone will believe in god.

On the other hand, you might say that God wants 100% of people in the world to believe in him but yet only through a specific method. And this specific method entails that not everyone believes in him. There is no inherent problem with this view, but this is distinct from a God that merely wants 100% of people to believe in him. It has a distinct attribute. If I, or anyone else for this matter, was to insist this new attribute is false then this is a disagreement about attributes.

That is what I believe, that God wants everyone to believe in Him, but only on God’s terms, which means through a specific method, which is the Messengers God sends. That does not mean that God is going to reject people who believe in Him for other reasons, but it does mean that God is not going to provide other evidence of His existence just so that 100% of people will believe in him.

Yes, there sure is a disagreement between me and this atheist about this attribute (requirement) God has and that discussion has been going on for over three years. He says that since imaginary gods use messengers a real god would never use a messenger to prove he exists. He cannot see how that is illogical, because the fact that there have been many false messengers does not mean that a God could not have a true Messenger. This is logic 101 stuff.

I find it weird to frame it as an obligation.

You’re telling me? Weird does not quite cover it. It is highly arrogant for anyone to think that an Almighty God owes everyone on earth their own personal message.

If I want you to believe that I am a real human being and not a mere AI robot, am I under the obligation to prove to you that I am a real person ? I don't think 'obligation' enters the picture. I think it is more pertinent to say that the mere fact that I want you to believe that I am a real human being would make me behave in certain ways to try to convince you of that. Wouldn't you agree ? And the more I cared about it, the more I would try to find ways to reach out to you.

I fully agree. If God wanted everyone to believe that He existed He would provide the best possible evidence of His existence. That is what I think God has done by sending Messengers who are a perfect mirror image of God’s attributes. However, for some reason, atheists cannot accept the idea that God would use a messenger, although in the five years of my posting to them not one atheist has come up with a better way for God to communicate to humanity. This atheist I posted about thinks direct communication to everyone is a better way, yet there are so many reasons why it is not better, and reasons why it would not even accomplish what God wants to accomplish.

Of course since I have a religion I have belief about what God is trying to accomplish. By contrast, since this atheist knows nothing about god so he can only think of one thing, that god could make everyone believe in him by communicating directly to everyone. He does not even think of what would happen to everyone after that, or how that would affect society as a whole.

I told him that one problem with the “direct communication to everyone” method is that in doing that God would get the wheat and the chaff (the godly and the ungodly) to believe in him and God does not want the ungodly to believe in him. That is one reason why God uses messengers, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Those who believe in God’s Messenger are the wheat because they were willing to search out the Messenger and accept that this is the evidence God provides. By contrast, the chaff thumbs their noses at God’s Messenger and so God leaves them to their own fate. That is the way it has always been according to the scriptures, so there is no reason to think otherwise.

Sure, one can make up stories about what a god would want if god were real, but there is nothing to base those stories upon except one’s own imagination. It makes a lot more sense to search for what God might have provided as evidence than to dig in one’s heels and insist that God do something differently; that is if someone wants to believe in God. If they are just trying to win an argument on a forum that is another matter. It seems silly to me that anyone would waste that much time just to prove they are right and that religious believers are wrong, but we humans all have different priorities and ways we choose to spend our time.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm wondering what you're thinking of when you think of God, to say that He exists or that He's real. For example, if I said that I think the Grand Canyon is real, or that it really exists, I mean that if I went to where people say it is, I would see something that looks like what I've seen in the pictures, or heard people describing, and be able to walk on the trails. To me, saying that something exists or is real means that if I could go to where people say that it is, I would experience something that fits their description of it. It looks to me like the God that you're talking about has no place, and is impossible to even begin to describe, or even to imagine. Is that right? If so, what are you saying when you say that He exists, or that He is real?

God either exists or God does not exist. If God exists God is real. God is not physical so we cannot SEE GOD or prove that God exists. All we have to go on are the scriptures revealed by the Messengers of God. They attest to God’ existence, reveal Gods attributes and God’s will for humanity. They claim to speak for God, so logically speaking unless they are lying, God has to exist. Moreover, Baha’u’llah says that he beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, so how could be have knowledge of a God that does not exist?

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5

Now, we know that Jesus said that nobody has ever seen God and Baha’u’llah said that every way is barred to the comprehension of God, which means that even Baha’u’llah cannot know the Essence of God. All the Messengers have heard God speak through the Holy Spirit, but they did not SEE God, so how can we expect to see God?

“Nay, forbid it, O my God, that I should have uttered such words as must of necessity imply the existence of any direct relationship between the Pen of Thy Revelation and the essence of all created things. Far, far are They Who are related to Thee above the conception of such relationship! All comparisons and likenesses fail to do justice to the Tree of Thy Revelation, and every way is barred to the comprehension of the Manifestation of Thy Self and the Day Spring of Thy Beauty.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

The God that I am talking about is impossible to even begin to describe, or even to imagine, so how could we ever know where His place is? God could have a place but it is not a physical place, it is a place in the spiritual realm.

What difference could there be between what's happening in your mind thinking that He exists or that He's real, and what's happening in someone else's mind who is not thinking that He exists, or that he's real?

The difference is that I have a reason to think that God is real, because Baha’u’llah revealed God. In fact the while purpose of His Revelation was to reveal God and God’s Will for humanity. If God is not real, then Baha’u’llah was a liar. If Baha’u’llah was telling the truth then God is real. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have Baha’u’llah as a Messenger of a God that does not exist.

What would change in a person's mind or imagination, going from not thinking that He exists, or that He's real, to thinking that He does exist, or that He is real?

Believing in a Messenger of God, be it Baha’u’llah, Jesus, Muhammad, or any other Messenger who revealed God.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I told him that one problem with the “direct communication to everyone” method is that in doing that God would get the wheat and the chaff (the godly and the ungodly) to believe in him and God does not want the ungodly to believe in him. That is one reason why God uses messengers, to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I see another issue.

It is the same that we can not look directly at the sun or get closer to the sun on this earth or we burn our eyes or burn up. Thus we are protected by our inability to see God or get too close to God in our current human spirit spiritual state.

Thus the rays are given to us as a Manifestation, born of the Holy Spirit.

Peace be unto you.

 

[Koldo]

You are sure right about that. I have no expectations from God and by contrast he expects god to do what he thinks god should do, according to what he calls “the use of reason.” So because he thinks it is reasonable to expect god to do something, to him that means that if god does not do that god is stupid. He bases his entire argument upon the idea that god is omnipotent so god can do anything, which to him means that god should do everything he thinks god should do. The problem is he is not omnipotent or omniscient so he cannot know as much as God or make God do anything that God does not want to do. This completely flies over the head of this atheist, yet he says he uses reason.

I believe that God is both omnipotent and omniscient, among other things, so God knows more than any human and God has more power than any human. Who then are we to be ordering God around like a short order cook?

The classical attribute that delineates what God wants is omnibenevolence. Without something of the sort, it is impossible to determine how God would act if he exists. If God has the utmost desire to increase everyone's well-being then acting in a way that doesn't maximize our well-being is logically contradictory ( not stupid as the guy says ).

Without omnibenevolence, the 'Problem of Evil' doesn't work, at all. And honestly, most people don't really believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god. Just to cite one example: Think of the literal classical hell. How does it fit with omnibenevolence ? It doesn't.

You are right, it is not a given that God would want 100% of people in the world to believe in him, but this atheist has decided it is a given and he has absolutely no reason to think that except that he thinks that.

By contrast, I have a religion that teaches that God does not necessarily want everyone to believe in Him, as there are requirements that must be met by the believers. Not only that, but by using logic we can figure out that if God is omnipotent then God could make everyone believe in Him, so since everyone does not believe in Him, God must not want everyone to believe in Him.

Exactly.

Yes, that is what I just said above. If God wanted 100% of people in the world to believe in Him, and God is omnipotent, then it is to be expected that everyone in the world would believe in God. We know that everyone in the world does not believe in God, so if God is omnipotent that means one of two things: (1) God does not want everyone to believe in Him, or (2) God does not exist.

But the ploy this atheist uses is that if an omnipotent god existed he would want everyone to believe in him, so that means that god probably does not exist, although he thinks it is possible that god might later be around to deliver personal messages to everyone so that everyone will believe in god.

That is what I believe, that God wants everyone to believe in Him, but only on God’s terms, which means through a specific method, which is the Messengers God sends. That does not mean that God is going to reject people who believe in Him for other reasons, but it does mean that God is not going to provide other evidence of His existence just so that 100% of people will believe in him.

Yes, there sure is a disagreement between me and this atheist about this attribute (requirement) God has and that discussion has been going on for over three years. He says that since imaginary gods use messengers a real god would never use a messenger to prove he exists. He cannot see how that is illogical, because the fact that there have been many false messengers does not mean that a God could not have a true Messenger. This is logic 101 stuff.

A disagreement about attributes, if I may say, is the sort of debate that generally makes no sense for an atheist to be in. As I see it, it is up to each theist to define what they mean by 'God' and up to the atheist to evaluate the claim. On what basis would the atheist claim that God has/has not certain attributes if he doesn't consider scripture and ( others ) personal revelations as a reliable source ?

You’re telling me? Weird does not quite cover it. It is highly arrogant for anyone to think that an Almighty God owes everyone on earth their own personal message.

I fully agree. If God wanted everyone to believe that He existed He would provide the best possible evidence of His existence. That is what I think God has done by sending Messengers who are a perfect mirror image of God’s attributes. However, for some reason, atheists cannot accept the idea that God would use a messenger, although in the five years of my posting to them not one atheist has come up with a better way for God to communicate to humanity.

The very best way without any restriction whatsoever ?
I think it doesn't have to be one specific way for everyone. God could, in principle, do it in a distinct way for everyone. There are plenty of people that don't believe in Messengers. It works for some, not for others.

I don't know if you are aware of John 20. Thomas, one of the twelve apostles, didn't believe the witnesses claiming that Jesus had risen up after being declared dead. And that's an apostle. What did Jesus do ? He appeared in front of him to prove he had risen up.

This atheist I posted about thinks direct communication to everyone is a better way, yet there are so many reasons why it is not better, and reasons why it would not even accomplish what God wants to accomplish.

Of course since I have a religion I have belief about what God is trying to accomplish. By contrast, since this atheist knows nothing about god so he can only think of one thing, that god could make everyone believe in him by communicating directly to everyone. He does not even think of what would happen to everyone after that, or how that would affect society as a whole.

I told him that one problem with the “direct communication to everyone” method is that in doing that God would get the wheat and the chaff (the godly and the ungodly) to believe in him and God does not want the ungodly to believe in him. That is one reason why God uses messengers, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Those who believe in God’s Messenger are the wheat because they were willing to search out the Messenger and accept that this is the evidence God provides. By contrast, the chaff thumbs their noses at God’s Messenger and so God leaves them to their own fate. That is the way it has always been according to the scriptures, so there is no reason to think otherwise.

Sure, one can make up stories about what a god would want if god were real, but there is nothing to base those stories upon except one’s own imagination. It makes a lot more sense to search for what God might have provided as evidence than to dig in one’s heels and insist that God do something differently; that is if someone wants to believe in God. If they are just trying to win an argument on a forum that is another matter. It seems silly to me that anyone would waste that much time just to prove they are right and that religious believers are wrong, but we humans all have different priorities and ways we choose to spend our time.

My only criticism here is that I don't really see the point of wanting to believe in God.
As I see it, either one does, or does not.