Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Trailblazer]

“Is there any reason to think that God, if God exists, would want 100% of people in the world to believe in Him?”

Yes: that’s how the character has often been written... like how Winnie the Pooh likes honey: he’s that way because the authors decided he would be that way.

Does there need to be a deeper reason?

No, there does not need to be a deeper reason FOR ME; what is written should be the reason, but that depends upon what you are reading and how you interpret what is written.

Also, sometimes one needs to read between the lines. Where in the Bible does it explicitly say that God wants everyone to believe in Him?

Besides, I was asking atheists and agnostics what they think about the hypothetical god, whether they think that god would want everyone to believe in him. I assumed they would not derive their answer from the Bible since they do not believe in the Bible.

“If God wanted everyone to believe in Him, what do you think God would do in order to accomplish that?”

As a starting point, consider things that are universally accepted as true. What convinced everyone that, say, rain is made out of water or that fire is hot? There are beliefs that everyone holds, so this suggests it’s definitely possible for everyone to believe in something.

As for the specifics of how a god could do this... if we’re talking about an all-knowing god, then it’s necessarily true that he knows how to do it even if we don’t... right?

Of course, it is logically possible for everyone to believe in God and of course if that was God’s objective, to get 100% of people in the world to believe He exists, God would know exactly how to accomplish that objective, since God is omniscient.

“Do you think that God can show up on earth? If so, how would God do that?”

If “magic poofing” works as an explanation for everything else God does, why not this?

You make a good point – why not?

How would God create a universe? How would God communicate with prophets? Seems to me you’re asking others to clear a bar you haven’t cleared yourself.

You make another good point. We believers do not have the answers to these questions. I was not suggesting that nonbelievers have the answers either, I was just asking them to use their imagination.

Some atheists insist that God could show up because God is omnipotent, but they have been unable to tell me how God could do that. I was just trying to find out if any atheists here have any ideas.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is it fantastical for the flea to think there might be a dog? Even though all it can work with is a lot of (hair) trees obscuring the reality of the forest and of what the forest grows from, etc?

It's not fantastical for the flea to think that their MIGHT be a dog, but if the flea has no verifiable evidence that shows that there IS a dog, it would be premature for the flea to conclude that the dog IS real. I'm open to the possibility that their MIGHT be a god. However, unless or until I have verifiable evidence that there actually IS a god, it would be ridiculous for me to conclude that there IS. Otherwise I would have to accept EVERY fantastical claim without evidence as being true as well.

 

[ERLOS]

It's not fantastical for the flea to think that their MIGHT be a dog, but if the flea has no verifiable evidence that shows that there IS a dog, it would be premature for the flea to conclude that the dog IS real. I'm open to the possibility that their MIGHT be a god. However, unless or until I have verifiable evidence that there actually IS a god, it would be ridiculous for me to conclude that there IS. Otherwise I would have to accept EVERY fantastical claim without evidence as being true as well.

Thank you! That's all I wanted to hear. Provided you mean what you say.

 

[SalixIncendium]

@SalixIncendium , have you had the opportunity to read this text?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/a-ghost-in-the-machine/

I find it rather useful at dispelling some popular misconceptions.

Thanks for sharing.

First, in case you are not aware, I am not a theist.

Secondly, I reject dualism. I do not support the idea of a soul that inhabits or animates our bodies and survives after death. Likewise, I reject materialism. Experience has shown me there is more to existence than matter. My views are quite different than either of these doctrines.

I'm also quite familiar with the work of Andrew Newberg with regard to how religious and enlightenment experiences impact the brain.

Was there a specific misconception you thought might be relevant to this discussion?

 

[ERLOS]

It's not fantastical for the flea to think that their MIGHT be a dog, but if the flea has no verifiable evidence that shows that there IS a dog, it would be premature for the flea to conclude that the dog IS real. I'm open to the possibility that their MIGHT be a god. However, unless or until I have verifiable evidence that there actually IS a god, it would be ridiculous for me to conclude that there IS. Otherwise I would have to accept EVERY fantastical claim without evidence as being true as well.

I mean it's going to be quite difficult for the flea from the flea dimension, to prove the dog? But it would be a silly little flea to assert itself as the most intelligent species in the entire universe, based on its flea knowledge? Lol?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Interesting that they were all working on the brain and not the realm of pink unicorns though wasn't it?

You seem to be operating under the impression that I'm suggesting that the brain and consciousness are mutually exclusive.

 

[Trailblazer]

“God does not operate as humans do by applying logic to a problem He is trying to solve. God chooses His Method based upon many factors, not just how many people will believe in Him. There are other reasons to use Messengers, not the least of which there is an important message God wants to make available to everyone, and a Messenger is the only way to accomplish that.”

How so? It seems to me that using “messengers” would interfere with clear communication. Have you ever heard of broken telephone?

Chinese whispers
(redirected from Broken telephone)

1. (Games, other than specified) a game in which a message is passed on, in a whisper, by each of a number of people, so that the final version of the message is often radically changed from the original

2. any situation where information is passed on in turn by a number of people, often becoming distorted in the process
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Broken+telephone

I understand that the Bible was a broken telephone scenario, but this is a new day in history. No longer do we have to rely upon what has been passed down by oral tradition, thereby radically changed or distorted in the process, thus unreliable as a source of information about God.

Why would Messenger have to interfere with clear communication? Why couldn’t they write something down in their own pen for everyone to read and interpret? Even if we got the exact same information directly, we would still have to interpret what it means.

 

[Trailblazer]

Regarding the self-centered:
Anyone who speaks on God's behalf seems to do so without any authority and is therefore attempting to borrow God's infallibility and paste it onto their own personal ideas in an effort to avoid any and all argument from critical evaluation if their message. In short, they are trying to sound right without being right.

That would be true unless God chose the Messenger, gave Him the authority to speak on His behalf, and conferred infallibility upon the Messenger.

Regarding humility:
I do value humility, but everything has its place. Arrogance has its uses, as well. Behavior is a tool box. Pick the tool to fit the work. In my current environment humility is often expected and is typically mimicked to that effect. I refuse to play that particular game.

I am not sure what place arrogance has. Why is it ever necessary to be arrogant? It is sometimes necessary to stand up for what we think or believe but we do not ever have to insist we are right and everyone else is wrong. Arrogance is an attitude of superiority.

I can see how it would seem humble to admit a lack of knowledge, but I really only do so out of a fierce desire to be right instead of just sounding right (as those I mentioned above). If I don't know, then saying so is correct and becomes another thing to be right about. Speculation notwithstanding.

Admitting a lack of knowledge and saying you don’t know something you don’t know is what I consider humility. That is why I said I considered you humble. That does not mean you are never arrogant. I was just going on what you said in a post.

I think we all like to be right because deep down we all want to know the truth, whether it is about God or anything else. We all just go about finding the truth differently.

 

[ChristineM]

You seem to be operating under the impression that I'm suggesting that the brain and consciousness are mutually exclusive.

From your posts #131, #135, #168, #187 and #188 its an easy assumption to make, if that assumption is wrong then i apologies .

I was providing papers, easily available on the internet that you told SJ and me didnt exist.

And of course pointing out anomalies and hypocrisy.

 

[Trailblazer]

God, as described by most religions, could easily reveal himself to everyone if he chose to. So, either this type of God doesn't exist, or he doesn't want everyone to believe in him, and thus hides himself.

What you say makes sense, but what reason do you have to think that God has not revealed Himself to everyone?

But even if God did reveal Himself to everyone, what reason do you have to think that everyone would believe in Him?

What reason do you have to think that God would reveal all of Himself? There might be a reason why God reveals only part of Himself and keeps the rest hidden.
Do you tell everyone everything about yourself?

 

[SalixIncendium]

From your posts #131, #135, #168, #187 and #188 its an easy assumption to make, if that assumption is wrong then i apologies .

No need to apologize. In going back and reading those posts, I see that it's not unreasonable for one to have drawn such a conclusion.

I was providing papers, easily available on the internet that you told SJ and me didnt exist.

I never claimed papers researching the possibility that consciousness' origination in the brain didn't exist. I stated that there were only hypotheses...that there existed no conclusive evidence or scientific theories that would support that consciousness originated in the brain.

And of course pointing out anomalies and hypocrisy.

Your opinion, of course.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I never claimed papers researching the possibility that consciousness' origination in the brain didn't exist. I stated that there were only hypotheses...that there existed no conclusive evidence or scientific theories that would support that consciousness originated in the brain.

They will not find this.

There is no doubt Mind is not part of the body.

Personally it is a bounty to be given this life to understand what it is to be a spiritual being, but the material constantly draws us away being what we really are and in the end we would love to be free of it, which again is a material thought

Peace be upon all.

 

[ChristineM]

No need to apologize. In going back and reading those posts, I see that it's not unreasonable for one to have drawn such a conclusion.

Cheers

I never claimed papers researching the possibility that consciousness' origination in the brain didn't exist. I stated that there were only hypotheses...that there existed no conclusive evidence or scientific theories that would support that consciousness originated in the brain.

Quote
"If no internet article can be cited to support an idea, "
Quote
"Your opinion that both are directly associated with the brain and mental ability is noted."

Again assumption on my part based on your posts

And i provided 3 of many recent papers that support consciousness originating in the brain

Your opinion, of course.

What else would you call it if you pulled someone up and criticized them for an action then did exactly the same thing yourself?

 

[ChristineM]

They will not find this.

There is no doubt Mind is not part of the body.

Personally it is a bounty to be given this life to understand what it is to be a spiritual being, but the material constantly draws us away being what we really are and in the end we would love to be free of it, which again is a material thought

Peace be upon all.

Can you show me a mind without a body?

 

[Trailblazer]

There is rather strong evidence that the brain is the source of thought. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

The evidence is in religious scriptures, but we believers know that you atheists do not accept this as evidence; you only accept science as evidence... Too bad that science does not have the answers that religion has.

The source of thought is the soul which interacts with the brain while we are living in a physical body and allows us to think. The soul is not the mind; it is beyond the mind and beyond any human understanding. It is one of the signs of God, a mystery among His mysteries.

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

After the physical body dies, the soul takes on another form made up of heavenly elements that exist in the spiritual world, and the thought process continues for eternity.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 155-156

 

[SalixIncendium]

What else would you call it if you pulled someone up and criticized them for an action then did exactly the same thing yourself?

Ah, but I didn't...

ERLOS did not claim to have any evidence, therefore it was uncalled for to demand that he provide citations.

SZ claimed to have "rather strong evidence." I simply asked him to share it.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're taking the watch apart to find where the time is hiding?

I honestly have no idea of what you mean to say with that.

Thanks for sharing.

First, in case you are not aware, I am not a theist.

Secondly, I reject dualism. I do not support the idea of a soul that inhabits or animates our bodies and survives after death. Likewise, I reject materialism. Experience has shown me there is more to existence than matter. My views are quite different than either of these doctrines.

I'm also quite familiar with the work of Andrew Newberg with regard to how religious and enlightenment experiences impact the brain.

Was there a specific misconception you thought might be relevant to this discussion?

Nothing too specific.

I am not very interested in this kind of discussion; the concepts are far too slippery for my taste, and the practical significance is not at all clear. I find the anthropological implications of the existence of so much interest far more interesting than the subject itself.

I just find that text useful in bringing some lucidity to a subject matter that often starves for that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Can you show me a mind without a body?

I have no need at all to prove this

Look within your own self and you will find the Mind that we are all created of, or do not do this. That is the choice of this life.

Peace to you ChristineM and all

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no doubt Mind is not part of the body.

I have discussed this at length with atheists on other forums. We determined that the mind has been studied by science so scientists know the mind exists. They just do not know how it operates and they never will because it operates in conjunction with the soul, which cannot be studied by science.

I have a lot more written on this subject, but I just stumbled upon the following that was part of a dialogue:

The mind also exists; it is part of the brain. The mind is associated with the brain while we are alive in a physical body. The soul expresses itself through the mind while we are alive in a physical body but the soul is not physical, it is immaterial. The soul animates the physical body while we are alive on earth, but it is a mystery no mind can ever hope to unravel, it is a sign of God.

 

[ChristineM]

Ah, but I didn't...

ERLOS did not claim to have any evidence, therefore it was uncalled for to demand that he provide citations.

SZ claimed to have "rather strong evidence." I simply asked him to share it.

Your opinion of course