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).
Then we have to ask, what is best for our well being? If God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, then God knows what is best for our well-being. Is it best for our well-being for God to make us believe in Him or is it best to leave that up to us?
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.
The solution to that is that the literal classical hell does not exist. Hell is a state of the soul that is distant from God, and it is a choice we make by not believing in and being close to God. The gray area is that everyone cannot just believe in God and be close to God just because they want to, so then we have the mercy of a God who understands all things and knows everyone’s heart. God can thus choose to draw closer to him those who wanted to believe but couldn’t. God won’t be able to draw people who hate Him closer so they have created their own hell. I am afraid that is what this atheist I have referred to has done.
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 ?
This atheist I speak of has no basis and that is why he only picks one attribute, omnipotence, the attribute that serves his purposes to try to win arguments. Maybe he selectively picked omnipotence out of the Bible and left everything else behind. He won’t consider anything else in scripture as valid. He won’t consider anything else anyone thinks as being valid unless they agree with him.
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.
That is true, some people believe in God without a Messenger but it is the minority of people. 93% of people believe in God and
84 percent of the world population has a faith so that means that only about 9% of people in the world do not have a religion of some kind, and all those religions had a founder of some kind, call it a Messenger or whatever. Maybe they already believed in God before joining the religion though.
It is my contention that God is not obligated to prove He exists in a distinct way for each individual, but rather Messengers are “the method” God uses. That does not mean people need them to believe in God, but if they do not believe in them, then they are not going to get the information God revealed to the Messenger. So what good does it do to believe in God if we do not know (a) anything about God or (b) what God wants for us? That is what the Messengers reveal, a and b.
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.
Yes, I am vaguely aware of this scripture, but I do not believe the risen body of Jesus appeared to Thomas, although His spirit might have, because I do not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead. Along these lines, I do know some former atheists (now believers) who told me that God showed them a sign that was verifiable proof for them that God exists. So I believe that is possible, although both these atheists had one thing in common; they humbled themselves before God and they cried out for help, wanting to believe, quite a difference from my atheist friend who calls God stupid and orders God around like a short order cook.
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.
So there you have it, one more reason why God communicating directly to
everyone is a bad idea. This atheist just assumed that everyone wants to believe in god, but some people don’t want to believe in god. That is what God leaves that choice up to us.
If somebody really wants to believe in God they will find a way to believe in God, so I conclude that some atheists just do not want to believe in God. I see nothing wrong with that. I was never searching for God when I stumbled upon my religion. I could not have cared less about God. I just accidentally ran into God during my first year of college when I found out about the Baha’i Faith.
It is only because I believe in Baha’u’llah that I believe in God and there are many days I would just as well drop God off at the nearest bus stop, but He won’t get out of my car.
Do I want to believe in God? Yes and no, depends upon the day.
