Why don’t you believe in God?

[YoursTrue]

paarsurrey said:
" sincerity of the (Christianity) people "

Sincerity of the Christianity people is and or could be there, depends, but in spite of that, as I understand, they have been mislead by Saul of Tarsus aka Paul, please, right?

I read the Bible NT and OT both of them, I could see it there, for myself, right?
On a side note, is it wrong to learn from others, if they say correct things after checking and verifying, right, please?
After all one has also been told by others, if it was correct for one, why it is wrong for me, right, please?

Regards

I certainly do not see anywhere that the early Christians were misled by Paul. So can you give me a few scriptures that might promote your viewpoints about this? (please...?)

 

[Copernicus]

The brain is where human thought originates but scientists are still in the dark about how it works. The brain is only the physical organ in our head that supports the functions of the mind. The mind gives us the ability to think, feel, and engage in physical activity. How the human mind works is largely unknown by scientists.

It is important to remember what you know about how the mind works and contrast that with what scientists know. People with expertise in cognitive science or neuroscience know a lot more about what is "unknown" in their field than you do. Arguments from ignorance are popular among believers, because they are so easy to make. My own opinion, having worked in cognitive science and with other scientists for a few decades, is that an awful lot is known that the general public has absolutely no awareness of.

I believe that the soul associates itself with the brain and mind while we are living in a physical body and it is the soul that animates the body and allows it to function. I believe the mind gets its power from the soul so the soul is like a lamp and the mind is the light that shines through the lamp.

I am not saying I believe that there are disembodied spirits that interact with physical reality and that we can detect them from physical activity, I don't believe that we can.

I understand that you believe those things. I don't believe that there are souls or minds that can exist independently of brain activity, as I said in my last post. The kind of dualism that you have faith in is really essential to most religious beliefs, so I am not surprised. However, people tend to compartmentalize their thinking when it comes to minds and bodies. They know that mental functions--awareness, memory, volition, emotions--are controlled by physical brain activity, but they also think that those functions are immaterial and therefore independent of the body. Hence, they can believe in the physical basis for the mind, and still believe in a "soul" that can leave the body after brain death. Belief in an immaterial "shadow" brain that does everything the physical brain does is very popular, and religions like the Abrahamic and Vedic ones depend heavily on this belief. If one rejects it, then belief in those religions falls away automatically with that rejection.

Regarding the alleged miracles in the Bible those are not verifiable evidence because they cannot be verified. Even if the miracles happened they were only evidence to the few people who witnessed them. Everyone else had to believe they happened. on faith.

So even if miraculous events occurred in modern times they would only be evidence for the people who witnessed those events.

Not necessarily. People do misinterpret natural phenomena, acquire false memories, and hallucinate. So there can be plausible explanations for those memories that have nothing to do with the way people interpret them subjectively.

No, I am not making an ad populum argument because I am not saying that "God exists" is true because many or most people believe that God exists...

You keep saying this, but you can't seem to stop crediting widespread belief in immaterial spirits as validation for believing in them. I think you are trying to have it both ways--giving lip service to the fallacious nature of the argument that you then use as evidence to validate belief.

I am only asking you some pointed questions that deserve answers. Why do most people believe in God? Why would most people believe in God if they had nothing to base their beliefs upon?

Please note your use of the expression "most people" in your language. You don't think you are using an ad populum argument, yet you really think "most people" somehow validate your claim. Everyone has false beliefs, so what "most people" believe about gods and spirits is not reasonable support for adopting their belief. You've already seen a lot of explanations for the popularity of god-belief from me and other atheists in this forum, so I don't see a reason to revisit them here. The question has a great many answers, and I think you already know a fair number of them.

What I am saying is that there is no verifiable evidence (proof) that God exists. I do not know whether or not there 'could be' verifiable evidence, only God knows that.

Let's leave God out of it on this one. I am only interested in what is verifiable to us humans. We're the ones with the beliefs and the doubts. Lack of evidence for the existence of something is a good reason to credit an existential claim. Validating such a claim only requires some reasonable evidence to support it.

Owing to the fact that I have a particular belief about the nature of God, I do not think there could ever be verifiable evidence (proof) that God exists, but I definitely believe that there is evidence and I believe that the Messengers of God are the evidence. I believe that are the only real evidence since they are the evidence that God has chosen to provide ever since mankind has existed on earth.

But I am not questioning what you believe. You've already made that clear. If you don't base it on verifiable evidence, that is your prerogative. For myself, I require that kind of evidence to credit the belief. I'm not comfortable with its lack. Divine silence makes a louder noise for me than for you.

All the atheists I have ever conversed with have told me that need to be convinced by evidence.
I guess you are saying that since people are prone to wishful thinking they could be fooled by anything that is presented as evidence.

I would say that that is one factor that contributes to the popularity of a belief, but not the only one. Nobody likes to hear bad news. Much of Florida is going to be flooded by rising sea levels in the next few decades, but Florida politicians can't stop doing everything they can to deny what scientists are telling them in no uncertain terms. Why? Well, they want to win reelection, and people won't vote for politicians who acknowledge what they don't want to believe.

Now that you have gotten my curiosity up you are not going to tell me where you have looked?
I will tell you that I did not have to look very far.

I have to look much farther, since I don't see what you see. I have neither the time nor the space here to talk about all the places that I've looked and found nothing. The burden of proof is on those who have found a place where they think they've seen something that isn't a mirage.

I have believed that for a long time but more recently I have has some paranormal experiences that corroborated by beliefs.
I have to admit it was pretty eerie. There are a handful of people in this forum who know what I am talking about.

There is no shortage of people on this planet who claim to have had such experiences, but the popularity of such claims does not validate them. Your personal experiences are not a place that anyone other than you can examine.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is important to remember what you know about how the mind works and contrast that with what scientists know. People with expertise in cognitive science or neuroscience know a lot more about what is "unknown" in their field than you do. Arguments from ignorance are popular among believers, because they are so easy to make. My own opinion, having worked in cognitive science and with other scientists for a few decades, is that an awful lot is known that the general public has absolutely no awareness of.

Of course scientists know more than the ordinary layman about how the brain functions. I do not pretend to know what they know about human thought process although I know about human thought and behavior more than the average person since I studied psychology for a long time and have an advanced degree in it.

What arguments from ignorance do you think believers make?

I understand that you believe those things. I don't believe that there are souls or minds that can exist independently of brain activity, as I said in my last post. The kind of dualism that you have faith in is really essential to most religious beliefs, so I am not surprised. However, people tend to compartmentalize their thinking when it comes to minds and bodies. They know that mental functions--awareness, memory, volition, emotions--are controlled by physical brain activity, but they also think that those functions are immaterial and therefore independent of the body. Hence, they can believe in the physical basis for the mind, and still believe in a "soul" that can leave the body after brain death. Belief in an immaterial "shadow" brain that does everything the physical brain does is very popular, and religions like the Abrahamic and Vedic ones depend heavily on this belief. If one rejects it, then belief in those religions falls away automatically with that rejection.

I know that mental functions--awareness, memory, volition, emotions--are controlled by physical brain activity, and I do not think that those functions are immaterial and therefore independent of the body, not while we are living in a physical body. However, I believe that the soul is responsible for consciousness, and the soul continues to exist after the death of the body, so consciousness can exist independently of the physical body AFTER the physical body dies

I understand that you have no reason to believe any of that since you are not religious.

Not necessarily. People do misinterpret natural phenomena, acquire false memories, and hallucinate. So there can be plausible explanations for those memories that have nothing to do with the way people interpret them subjectively.

What I was saying is that if a person witnessed a miracle, like a man raising someone from the dead, that would be evidence of a miracle to that person.

You keep saying this, but you can't seem to stop crediting widespread belief in immaterial spirits as validation for believing in them. I think you are trying to have it both ways--giving lip service to the fallacious nature of the argument that you then use as evidence to validate belief.

Please note your use of the expression "most people" in your language. You don't think you are using an ad populum argument, yet you really think "most people" somehow validate your claim. Everyone has false beliefs, so what "most people" believe about gods and spirits is not reasonable support for adopting their belief. You've already seen a lot of explanations for the popularity of god-belief from me and other atheists in this forum, so I don't see a reason to revisit them here. The question has a great many answers, and I think you already know a fair number of them.

Again, I was not saying that God exists is true because many or most people believe that God exists, I was only asking you why you think that most people believe in God if there is no evidence for God. Yes, I already know the arguments that atheists give for why they think people believe in God. I was asking you why you think they do, but I think you just answered that. You are saying that people believe in God because people are prone to hold false beliefs.

I am not suggesting that all religious beliefs are true since I don't believe that they are all true, but I believe that some of them are true.
The mere existence of some false beliefs does not mean that all beliefs are false. That is illogical since it is the fallacy of hasty generalization, but unfortunately the prevalence of so many false beliefs leads to atheists to question all religious beliefs and consider them false.

Let's leave God out of it on this one. I am only interested in what is verifiable to us humans. We're the ones with the beliefs and the doubts. Lack of evidence for the existence of something is a good reason to credit an existential claim. Validating such a claim only requires some reasonable evidence to support it.

The only evidence I believe there is for God are the Messengers of God and we each have to evaluate the evidence they presented to support of their claims, if they presented any evidence. Whether that evidence is reasonable evidence or not is n individual judgment call.

But I am not questioning what you believe. You've already made that clear. If you don't base it on verifiable evidence, that is your prerogative. For myself, I require that kind of evidence to credit the belief. I'm not comfortable with its lack. Divine silence makes a louder noise for me than for you.

I do not believe that God is silent since God has spoken through the Messengers. How else do you think God would communicate to humans if God existed?

I would say that that is one factor that contributes to the popularity of a belief, but not the only one. Nobody likes to hear bad news. Much of Florida is going to be flooded by rising sea levels in the next few decades, but Florida politicians can't stop doing everything they can to deny what scientists are telling them in no uncertain terms. Why? Well, they want to win reelection, and people won't vote for politicians who acknowledge what they don't want to believe.

So I guess you are saying is that belief in God is popular because that is what people want to hear since it is good news? How do you think we could ever know if that is the reason people believe in God given that 95% of human thought is subconscious? The reasons why people think and feel s they do are largely unconscious. All we can so is look at what is conscious, which is what thy tell us.

I have to look much farther, since I don't see what you see. I have neither the time nor the space here to talk about all the places that I've looked and found nothing. The burden of proof is on those who have found a place where they think they've seen something that isn't a mirage.

I think the only burden of proof people have is to prove a belief is true to themselves, if they want to know if it is true. I could tell you why I believe my religion is true, but that would take a month of Sundays.

The reasons why I believe are not going to be reasons for you to believe since you are a separate person who has had a completely different life experience, so we think differently about reality, as you have said before. However, I just remembered that I have posted the story of how I came to my religious beliefs on this forum about three years ago.

Why do you believe in the religious teaching you do?

This morning i was thinking. Why do I believe in the Sufi teaching as i do? (why do i believe the way i do) To ask my self this question give me time to reflect why i chose the path i did when i did. What is it with sufism that attract me so much? what if i has read about Baha`i first? would i...

www.religiousforums.com

There is no shortage of people on this planet who claim to have had such experiences, but the popularity of such claims does not validate them. Your personal experiences are not a place that anyone other than you can examine.

That is what I was just trying to say above. Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true.

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."

Independent Investigation of Truth

 

[Copernicus]

What arguments from ignorance do you think believers make?

Most of them fall under the category of God of the Gaps:

The "God of the gaps" perspective has been criticized for its association with logical fallacies, specifically the argument from ignorance fallacy. This fallacy asserts that just because something is not currently explained by science, it must be attributed to a supernatural cause. This type of reasoning is seen as inherently flawed and does not provide a robust foundation for religious faith. In this context, some theologians and scientists have proposed that a more satisfactory approach is to view evidence of God's actions within the natural processes themselves, rather than relying on the gaps in scientific understanding to validate religious beliefs.​

I know that mental functions--awareness, memory, volition, emotions--are controlled by physical brain activity, and I do not think that those functions are immaterial and therefore independent of the body, not while we are living in a physical body. However, I believe that the soul is responsible for consciousness, and the soul continues to exist after the death of the body, so consciousness can exist independently of the physical body AFTER the physical body dies

Yet there are many ways that people can lose consciousness. All of them that we know of result from changes to brain activity--for example, general anesthesia or brain trauma. Therefore, the only evidence we have of anything that affects consciousness relies on what happens to the physical brain. Death is the ultimate brain trauma. The relationship between the brain and the mind has been known throughout history. Ancient Egyptians are even known to have conducted primitive brain surgery.

What I was saying is that if a person witnessed a miracle, like a man raising someone from the dead, that would be evidence of a miracle to that person.

This is not under dispute. What is under dispute is whether that man actually witnessed a miracle like raising someone from the dead. In ancient mythologies, there are certainly lots of reports of resurrections. Apparently, they no longer happen, but people still suffer from hallucinations and delusions. Natural causes need to be ruled out first before one starts attributing extraordinary causes to such events.

Again, I was not saying that God exists is true because many or most people believe that God exists, I was only asking you why you think that most people believe in God if there is no evidence for God. Yes, I already know the arguments that atheists give for why they think people believe in God. I was asking you why you think they do, but I think you just answered that. You are saying that people believe in God because people are prone to hold false beliefs.

No, I am saying that that is one of several good explanations for the popularity of all of those gods and other religious beliefs. I don't need to provide a list of them for you here, since people have been giving them to you a lot in this forum and atheists who author books (e.g. Dawkins' The God Delusion and Guthrie's Faces in the Clouds) go into great detail on that subject.

I do not believe that God is silent since God has spoken through the Messengers. How else do you think God would communicate to humans if God existed?

Seriously? You think that a god is somehow forced to use "messengers" rather than just contact everyone like it contacts the messengers? I don't need to explain to you what is wrong with that argument. You need to explain to yourself and others how it makes sense.

So I guess you are saying is that belief in God is popular because that is what people want to hear since it is good news? How do you think we could ever know if that is the reason people believe in God given that 95% of human thought is subconscious? The reasons why people think and feel s they do are largely unconscious. All we can so is look at what is conscious, which is what thy tell us.

When JW proselytizers show up on my doorstep, they almost always start out by informing me that they have good news for me. That's when I tell them gently that I have bad news for them.

I think the only burden of proof people have is to prove a belief is true to themselves, if they want to know if it is true. I could tell you why I believe my religion is true, but that would take a month of Sundays.

I understand, so don't ask me to go into details on all the reasons I don't believe in your god or any of the thousands of others that exist in human mythological tales.

The reasons why I believe are not going to be reasons for you to believe since you are a separate person who has had a completely different life experience, so we think differently about reality, as you have said before. However, I just remembered that I have posted the story of how I came to my religious beliefs on this forum about three years ago.

Why do you believe in the religious teaching you do?

This morning i was thinking. Why do I believe in the Sufi teaching as i do? (why do i believe the way i do) To ask my self this question give me time to reflect why i chose the path i did when i did. What is it with sufism that attract me so much? what if i has read about Baha`i first? would i...

www.religiousforums.com

That is what I was just trying to say above. Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true.

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."

Independent Investigation of Truth

Fair enough. I'm not really here to question your religious convictions. That is for you to do on your own. I have been willing to spend some of my precious remaining heartbeats to explain my own rejection of god-belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Most of them fall under the category of God of the Gaps:

The "God of the gaps" perspective has been criticized for its association with logical fallacies, specifically the argument from ignorance fallacy. This fallacy asserts that just because something is not currently explained by science, it must be attributed to a supernatural cause. This type of reasoning is seen as inherently flawed and does not provide a robust foundation for religious faith. In this context, some theologians and scientists have proposed that a more satisfactory approach is to view evidence of God's actions within the natural processes themselves, rather than relying on the gaps in scientific understanding to validate religious beliefs.​

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Maybe some believers to make the claim that God exists is true because it has not yet been proven false, but I am not making that claim. I am only saying that "I believe" that God exists based upon the evidence. However, many atheists claim that God exists is false because it has not yet been proven true, so they are committing this fallacy. They commit the fallacy every time they say that if God existed there would be proof of God's existence.

Proof is just what most atheists want, but there is no logical reason to think that if God existed there would be proof of God's existence.
There would only be proof if God provided proof, but there is no reason to think that God would provide proof, although there is one good reason to think that God would not provide proof. The reason is that God wants us to believe based upon faith and evidence, not proof.

If God is omnipotent God could provide proof, so the fact that there is no proof means one of two things:

1. God exists but does not choose to provide proof,
2. God does not exist and that is why there is no proof.

Either one of those is a logical possibility.

God does not exist because there is no proof is not logical because it is an argument from ignorance.
If atheists say they cannot believe in God because there is no proof that God exists that is a different statement since they are only saying what they require in order to believe that God exists.

Yet there are many ways that people can lose consciousness. All of them that we know of result from changes to brain activity--for example, general anesthesia or brain trauma. Therefore, the only evidence we have of anything that affects consciousness relies on what happens to the physical brain. Death is the ultimate brain trauma. The relationship between the brain and the mind has been known throughout history. Ancient Egyptians are even known to have conducted primitive brain surgery.

I am not claiming that there is any evidence of anything that affects consciousness other than the physical brain. In fact, I said that there is no evidence for the soul because the soul is a mystery.

“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.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

This is not under dispute. What is under dispute is whether that man actually witnessed a miracle like raising someone from the dead. In ancient mythologies, there are certainly lots of reports of resurrections. Apparently, they no longer happen, but people still suffer from hallucinations and delusions. Natural causes need to be ruled out first before one starts attributing extraordinary causes to such events.

I could not agree with you more. Although I believe that miracles are possible, I do not believe that the resurrections in the Bible or other ancient mythologies ever happened. It is not a Bahai belief that Jesus rose from the dead s and I don't belieeve there is any evidence supporting that belief other than stories that were written, which are not evidence. Stories ar only evidence that someone can write a story, not evidence that the story is true.

No, I am saying that that is one of several good explanations for the popularity of all of those gods and other religious beliefs. I don't need to provide a list of them for you here, since people have been giving them to you a lot in this forum and atheists who author books (e.g. Dawkins' The God Delusion and Guthrie's Faces in the Clouds) go into great detail on that subject.

Okay, fair enough.

Seriously? You think that a god is somehow forced to use "messengers" rather than just contact everyone like it contacts the messengers? I don't need to explain to you what is wrong with that argument. You need to explain to yourself and others how it makes sense.

I am dead serious. Mind you, I am not saying that God is 'forced' to use Messengers rather than just contact everyone like it contacts the Messengers. What I am saying is that nobody except the Messengers could ever understand God if God spoke to them. Of course, this is a religious belief, so I cannot prove it, but you could figure it out using logic.

If God exists and could communicate to everyone and be understood by everyone, why didn't God ever do that?
We know that God nas never done that because if God had done that there would be no atheists.

The only evidence we have is of Messengers/Prophets who claimed to have heard from God so there are only three logical possibilities:

1. God exists and used Messengers to communicate to humans (theist), or,
2. God exists but does not communicate to humans (deist),
3. God does not exist (atheist).

When JW proselytizers show up on my doorstep, they almost always start out by informing me that they have good news for me. That's when I tell them gently that I have bad news for them.

I tell JWs the same thing.

I understand, so don't ask me to go into details on all the reasons I don't believe in your god or any of the thousands of others that exist in human mythological tales.

Fair enough. I was just curious but I won't ask you again.

Fair enough. I'm not really here to question your religious convictions. That is for you to do on your own. I have been willing to spend some of my precious remaining heartbeats to explain my own rejection of god-belief.

And I am not here to question your lack of belief. Since I have been posting to atheists for over 10 years I have a pretty good idea why they lack belief.

I have questioned my religious convictions, over and over and over again. That neveer resulted n my disbelief in God but I do question some of the claims that theists make about God. My late husband who was also a Baha'i used to tell me that I have to belieeve that God is loving because that is in the scriptures and I told him that I don't have to believe that. I do not have to believe ethat God is loving in order to believe that God exists. It imakes sense to me that God exists but it does not make sense to me that God is loving, given all the suffering in this world.

 

[Copernicus]

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false...

A false dichotomy is a different type of fallacy that simply fails to consider an excluded alternative, but your "insufficient investigation" is equivalent to ignorance and nothing more. So you are still making an argument from ignorance to preserve belief in an unnecessary entity--a god that explains nothing at all.

Maybe some believers to make the claim that God exists is true because it has not yet been proven false, but I am not making that claim. I am only saying that "I believe" that God exists based upon the evidence. However, many atheists claim that God exists is false because it has not yet been proven true, so they are committing this fallacy. They commit the fallacy every time they say that if God existed there would be proof of God's existence.

If you have evidence, then you would not need to appeal to ignorance, but you and I both know that atheists who reject belief do so on the basis of lack of evidence. You need to provide that convincing evidence. If you are saying that there has been "insufficient investigation" that is not supplying evidence. It is an appeal to ignorance.

Proof is just what most atheists want, but there is no logical reason to think that if God existed there would be proof of God's existence.
There would only be proof if God provided proof, but there is no reason to think that God would provide proof, although there is one good reason to think that God would not provide proof. The reason is that God wants us to believe based upon faith and evidence, not proof.

I think you are switching between two different senses of proof. Existential claims are empirical claims that depend on physical evidence to support them. They are not purely logical proofs.

Why would God want us to believe anything based on faith? If God is omnipotent, then he could simply reveal himself to us in the way he has allegedly revealed himself to select "messengers". Why choose middle men to deliver a message that God could provide much more effectively in person? After all, people make false claims about gods and religions all the time, so human messengers would seem a poor means of delivering a message that people are supposed to take seriously. At the very least, a shy God could provide a bunch of messengers in widely different locations delivering the same message and the same gospel springing up independently of each other. False messengers wouldn't be able to beat that kind of technique, and God would not need to show up and give speeches to everyone. Even I can figure that one out, and I'm neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

God does not exist because there is no proof is not logical because it is an argument from ignorance.
If atheists say they cannot believe in God because there is no proof that God exists that is a different statement since they are only saying what they require in order to believe that God exists.

You have characterized the atheist's position to make it sound less reasonable than it is. It is not a claim that God or gods do not exist because we lack evidence of their existence. It is a claim that belief in their existence is untenable because there is no evidence for their existence. Similarly, one might reject a belief in leprechauns because there is no evidence for their existence, but that would not be quite the same as saying leprechauns do not exist because we lack evidence of their existence. Maybe they exist, but it would require very good proof to convince anyone of that. Gods are taken more seriously than leprechauns by the general public, but not by atheists.

I am dead serious. Mind you, I am not saying that God is 'forced' to use Messengers rather than just contact everyone like it contacts the Messengers. What I am saying is that nobody except the Messengers could ever understand God if God spoke to them. Of course, this is a religious belief, so I cannot prove it, but you could figure it out using logic.

No, I couldn't figure it out, and I don't believe it for a second. It makes no sense to say "nobody except the Messengers could ever understand God if God spoke to them". How is it impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent being to be unable to communicate with ordinary people? You deny that "God is 'forced' to use Messengers", but then you say that only Messengers can understand God? Who set it up to work like that?

If God exists and could communicate to everyone and be understood by everyone, why didn't God ever do that?
We know that God nas never done that because if God had done that there would be no atheists.

I should not be the one explaining why God has not communicated to everyone. I'm the one who raised the question. And are you seriously saying that God wants there to be atheists? Why would God want that?

 

[Trailblazer]

A false dichotomy is a different type of fallacy that simply fails to consider an excluded alternative, but your "insufficient investigation" is equivalent to ignorance and nothing more. So you are still making an argument from ignorance to preserve belief in an unnecessary entity--a god that explains nothing at all.

I would only be making an argument from ignorance if I was claiming God exists is true because it has not yet been proven false, but I am making no such claim. I believe that God exists but I realize that whether or not God exists is unknown and it is also unknowable, since nobody can ever know if God exists, they can only believe it. That is the alternative to God exists is true or false.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

If you have evidence, then you would not need to appeal to ignorance, but you and I both know that atheists who reject belief do so on the basis of lack of evidence. You need to provide that convincing evidence. If you are saying that there has been "insufficient investigation" that is not supplying evidence. It is an appeal to ignorance.

The definition above says that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. It does not say that was necessarily the case. Maybe you have investigated sufficiently in order to come to the belief that God exists is false, just as I have investigated sufficiently in order to come to the belief that God exists is true.

I have provided the only evidence that I have on this forum repeatedly for over six years, but it has not been sufficient evidence for any atheist.
What is convincing evidence to me is not going to convince you or anyone else unless they process that evidence in their minds the same way I process it.

Why would God want us to believe anything based on faith? If God is omnipotent, then he could simply reveal himself to us in the way he has allegedly revealed himself to select "messengers". Why choose middle men to deliver a message that God could provide much more effectively in person? After all, people make false claims about gods and religions all the time, so human messengers would seem a poor means of delivering a message that people are supposed to take seriously.

Do you know the mind of God? Why wouldn't God want us to believe that He exists based upon faith and evidence rather than absolute proof?

Why do you assume that God could show up in person? Do you think God is a person? How could God show up in person if God is not a person?

You are correct in saying that people make false claims about gods and religions all the time, but that does not mean that so human messengers are a poor means of delivering a message that people are supposed to take seriously. It is our job to differentiate the false messengers from the true messengers and there are ways that can be done. At the very least it is easy to eliminate the false messengers.

At the very least, a shy God could provide a bunch of messengers in widely different locations delivering the same message and the same gospel springing up independently of each other. False messengers wouldn't be able to beat that kind of technique, and God would not need to show up and give speeches to everyone. Even I can figure that one out, and I'm neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

Yes, God could have done that, but God has always sent one messenger at a time to a particular place on earth, and that has been God's method ever since humans have existed. I don't question God's method since I believe an omniscient God has to know more than me.

You have characterized the atheist's position to make it sound less reasonable than it is. It is not a claim that God or gods do not exist because we lack evidence of their existence. It is a claim that belief in their existence is untenable because there is no evidence for their existence. Similarly, one might reject a belief in leprechauns because there is no evidence for their existence, but that would not be quite the same as saying leprechauns do not exist because we lack evidence of their existence. Maybe they exist, but it would require very good proof to convince anyone of that. Gods are taken more seriously than leprechauns by the general public, but not by atheists.

God does not exist because there is no proof is the hard atheist's position and it is not logical because it is an argument from ignorance.
If you are an agnostic atheist that is a different position. It is a claim that belief in God is untenable because there is no evidence for God's existence. However, that is only what you believe. You do not know that there is no evidence.

No, I couldn't figure it out, and I don't believe it for a second. It makes no sense to say "nobody except the Messengers could ever understand God if God spoke to them". How is it impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent being to be unable to communicate with ordinary people? You deny that "God is 'forced' to use Messengers", but then you say that only Messengers can understand God? Who set it up to work like that?

Who set it up to work like that? That is a very good question. I believe that God set it up to work like that,.

The Baha'i belief is that God never communicates directly to ordinary humans. This position is supported by the Writings of Baha'u'llah along with an explanation as to why this is the case..

“To every discerning and illumined heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. “No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving.” 1No tie of direct intercourse can possibly bind Him to His creatures. He standeth exalted beyond and above all separation and union, all proximity and remoteness. No sign can indicate His presence or His absence; inasmuch as by a word of His command all that are in heaven and on earth have come to exist, and by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the visible.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 98

“Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence, and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 318

The Baha'i belief is that God only communicates to His Messengers, who are pure and stainless Souls who have a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself.

“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.” Gleanings, p. 66


What Baha'u'llah wrote in the passages above makes perfect sense to me. After all, if God could communicate to ordinary people in the same way He communicates to the Messengers why has God not done so? God using Messengers also makes sense to me because there is no need for God to communicate to everyone directly, even if He could, since everyone can get the message from the Messenger.

I should not be the one explaining why God has not communicated to everyone. I'm the one who raised the question. And are you seriously saying that God wants there to be atheists? Why would God want that?

I am not saying that God wants there to be atheists. I cannot speak for God but I think that God wants everyone to believe in Him. However, God is not going to do anything differently from what He has always done in order to garner the belief of everyone. It is the people who have to adjust to God's method of communication, not God. An omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do.

 

[Copernicus]

I would only be making an argument from ignorance if I was claiming God exists is true because it has not yet been proven false, but I am making no such claim. I believe that God exists but I realize that whether or not God exists is unknown and it is also unknowable, since nobody can ever know if God exists, they can only believe it. That is the alternative to God exists is true or false.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

The definition above says that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. It does not say that was necessarily the case. Maybe you have investigated sufficiently in order to come to the belief that God exists is false, just as I have investigated sufficiently in order to come to the belief that God exists is true.

I have provided the only evidence that I have on this forum repeatedly for over six years, but it has not been sufficient evidence for any atheist.
What is convincing evidence to me is not going to convince you or anyone else unless they process that evidence in their minds the same way I process it.

Do you know the mind of God? Why wouldn't God want us to believe that He exists based upon faith and evidence rather than absolute proof?

Why do you assume that God could show up in person? Do you think God is a person? How could God show up in person if God is not a person?

You are correct in saying that people make false claims about gods and religions all the time, but that does not mean that so human messengers are a poor means of delivering a message that people are supposed to take seriously. It is our job to differentiate the false messengers from the true messengers and there are ways that can be done. At the very least it is easy to eliminate the false messengers.

Yes, God could have done that, but God has always sent one messenger at a time to a particular place on earth, and that has been God's method ever since humans have existed. I don't question God's method since I believe an omniscient God has to know more than me.

God does not exist because there is no proof is the hard atheist's position and it is not logical because it is an argument from ignorance.
If you are an agnostic atheist that is a different position. It is a claim that belief in God is untenable because there is no evidence for God's existence. However, that is only what you believe. You do not know that there is no evidence.

Who set it up to work like that? That is a very good question. I believe that God set it up to work like that,.

The Baha'i belief is that God never communicates directly to ordinary humans. This position is supported by the Writings of Baha'u'llah along with an explanation as to why this is the case..

“To every discerning and illumined heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. “No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving.” 1No tie of direct intercourse can possibly bind Him to His creatures. He standeth exalted beyond and above all separation and union, all proximity and remoteness. No sign can indicate His presence or His absence; inasmuch as by a word of His command all that are in heaven and on earth have come to exist, and by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the visible.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 98

“Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence, and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 318

The Baha'i belief is that God only communicates to His Messengers, who are pure and stainless Souls who have a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself.

“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.” Gleanings, p. 66


What Baha'u'llah wrote in the passages above makes perfect sense to me. After all, if God could communicate to ordinary people in the same way He communicates to the Messengers why has God not done so? God using Messengers also makes sense to me because there is no need for God to communicate to everyone directly, even if He could, since everyone can get the message from the Messenger.

I am not saying that God wants there to be atheists. I cannot speak for God but I think that God wants everyone to believe in Him. However, God is not going to do anything differently from what He has always done in order to garner the belief of everyone. It is the people who have to adjust to God's method of communication, not God. An omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do.

Thanks for the discussion, Trailblazer, but I feel that we have pretty much exhausted the subject matter. I don't want to get into a discussion with you about the details of your religious faith, and you are repeating many of the same things that I feel I've already responded to adequately. Of course, you know that I don't believe in the existence of God, so asking me questions about what I think God thinks or what God does is really asking the wrong person for an opinion. In my opinion, God thinks and does whatever people imagine, because he is an imaginary being. I don't have to explain gods. Those who believe in a god need to do that for themselves.

 

[metis]

Is it because of your inability to believe in anything that can’t be explained by science?

I neither believe nor disbelieve as I don't enough evidence one way or the other. Thus, my best answer is "whatever".

 

[paarsurrey]

Why don’t you believe in God?

I do believe in One G-d but Jesus is not god, please, right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I certainly do not see anywhere that the early Christians were misled by Paul. So can you give me a few scriptures that might promote your viewpoints about this? (please...?)

One may start with "Jesus/Yeshua died on the Cross" this never happened, it was an invention of Paul.

Regards

 

[YoursTrue]

One may start with "Jesus/Yeshua died on the Cross" this never happened, it was an invention of Paul.

Regards

So you say as well as some others. Thanks for not saying, yes please...

 

[YoursTrue]

One may start with "Jesus/Yeshua died on the Cross" this never happened, it was an invention of Paul.

Regards

Don't bother backing that up with evidence.

 

[McBell]

Don't bother backing that up with evidence.

Seems to me they have as much evidence for their version as you do for your version.

The only real difference is the alleged source of said evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Seems to me they have as much evidence for their version as you do for your version.

The only real difference is the alleged source of said evidence.

The Muslims have no evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross. All they have is a verse in the Qur'an which has been misconstrued.

This 200-year-old hypothesis continues to be the subject of debate in popular circles, but the scholarly literature considers it uncontroversial that Jesus died during his crucifixion.
Swoon hypothesis - Wikipedia
The death of Christ on the cross in confirmed by early historians, heathen and Jewish. Tacitus, the historian who was a heathen, wrote in the year A.D. 55, detailing passages about the crucifixion of Christ and his sufferings.
THE TESTIMONY OF SECULAR HISTORY

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is it because of your inability to believe in anything that can’t be explained by science?

Since neither science nor reason can either prove nor disprove God, people go with what their intuition says. Most people do intuit some kind of God or gods. A small but significant minority do not.

Although I do not agree with atheists, i have found them to be among those most devoted to truth, and most open to the idea that the majority could be mistaken.

Some atheists are materialists, which is what you are referring to above. But not all.

 

[McBell]

The Muslims have no evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross. All they have is a verse in the Qur'an which has been misconstrued.

This 200-year-old hypothesis continues to be the subject of debate in popular circles, but the scholarly literature considers it uncontroversial that Jesus died during his crucifixion.
Swoon hypothesis - Wikipedia
The death of Christ on the cross in confirmed by early historians, heathen and Jewish. Tacitus, the historian who was a heathen, wrote in the year A.D. 55, detailing passages about the crucifixion of Christ and his sufferings.
THE TESTIMONY OF SECULAR HISTORY

Christians have no evidence of Jesus death.
At least, outside the Bible.

So like I said, Christians and Muslims both have the same evidence for their claims.
The only difference is the name of their alleged source.

 

[gnostic]

Is it because of your inability to believe in anything that can’t be explained by science?

Me, becoming agnostic in 2000, had absolutely nothing to do with science.

It originally had the do the conflicts & contradictions between the Old Testament & New Testament…namely the messianic signs.

It all started when I re-read Matthew 1:23, and then re-read THE WHOLE original sign of Isaiah 7:14-17, in 2000, that I knew Isaiah’s sign had nothing to do with the birth of any messiah, nothing to do with Mary & Jesus, nothing to the miracle of Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth.

Isaiah’s sign in both Isaiah 7 & 8 (8:1-4), always had to do with the war that Ahaz had with Pekah & Rezin (7:1), the sign had to do when the child reached a certain age, Assyria will intervene…that’s what the sign really about.

Matthew 1:23’s version of the sign, omitted 3 important verses (15, 16 & 17).

Nothing in Isaiah 7 says that the boy to be born, will be the messiah. Nothing in the Tanakh or Judaism teach anything that the Isaiah 7 had anything to do with the Messiah…Isaiah’s Immanuel was never a messiah.

After this, I re-read other claims of messianic signs in the gospels, and compared them against the corresponding Old Testament passages, and found they have no relations to the messiah…not in accordance with Judaic version of the messiah.

That’s what began my path in agnosticism.

 

[gnostic]

The death of Christ on the cross in confirmed by early historians, heathen and Jewish. Tacitus, the historian who was a heathen, wrote in the year A.D. 55, detailing passages about the crucifixion of Christ and his sufferings.
THE TESTIMONY OF SECULAR HISTORY

excuse me. Tacitus was born in 56 ad, so he couldn’t have written anything in 55 ad.

 

[Trailblazer]

Christians have no evidence of Jesus death.
At least, outside the Bible.

Do historians believe Jesus died on the cross?

Most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable, as do Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan and James Dunn. Although scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it, e.g. both E.
Historical Jesus - Wikipedia