Atheists: What would you consider credible communication from God?

[icehorse]

That is not what I said. I said that God can do anything, but God only does what God wants to do, not what humans think He should do. There is nothing mysterious about that. It is based upon logic, if God is omnipotent.

That seems mostly like a variation on a theme, and still different than the OP. Nothing can be falsified about god if god does only what god wants to do. given that premise, end of discussion, and no real discussion to begin with.

 

[Trailblazer]

Logical Fallacy: You cannot use your claim as "proof" of your claim.

The Bible is not my claim.

 

[YmirGF]

Well there you have it, then. God is NOT omnipotent, by the definition you just presented. Even if, as you suppose, it is by God's own choice, his own choice has rendered Him powerless whenever we mere humans decide to make Him so.

I am extremely unimpressed by a strongman who backs down every time I say I'm not interested in whatever he's plying...

Let me try to spell it out for you a little more clearly:

• Omnipotent means "can do anything at all, without hindrance"
• Not being able to stop humans failing to do what He wants is a hindrance to God actually getting what He wants
• Therefore, God is NOT omnipotent, and the reason for that is not at all important

Have to add a little more: the school yard bully is more powerful than your God, because all too often, the bully gets the targeted kid to hand over his lunch money. Your God seems to want, by your own description, that he can't get, if I choose not to give it to Him. So, sorry, you just have to get over this omnipotence stuff.

The god described is certainly not pretty from a psychological standpoint.

 

[Trailblazer]

Communication is vital but ultimately insufficient by itself.

Communication is no big deal. Enough folks communicate with their inner voice which may or may not have anything to do with an external deity.

It would take an entity with extraordinary superpowers which could be displayed on a 100% consistent basis.

Hopefully this would be a benevolent God but benevolency is not a necessity. A God would have to display their "Godhood". No long distance relationships, no occasional phone calls or postcards from heaven.

The hundred-dollar question is why God should do any of that.
In other words, why should an Omnipotent God do what you think He should?

 

[YmirGF]

That seems mostly like a variation on a theme, and still different than the OP. Nothing can be falsified about god if god does only what god wants to do. given that premise, end of discussion, and no real discussion to begin with.

Exactly. We can all come up with ideas about what our spiffy little god can or cannot do but it is really almost meaningless babble. This is even more pronounced (as babble) when the authority card is played.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Only God would know what He is trying to accomplish so only God would know the best way to accomplish it."

That's my point. You're asking a bunch of fallible humans beings a question that you admit only God can answer.

I just wanted to see what atheists would say. So far, you are one of the most logical atheists on board this ship.

"That worked okay for a while but God's method has been upgraded for the new age"

Not sure how you determined that it 'worked okay for a while' when the world has thousands of religions and hardly anyone can agree on what God (IF god exists) happens to want from us.

It only worked out in the sense that most people believed in God. Aside from that, it really went south as you said.

 

[Trailblazer]

If all believers wake up tomorrow believeing in the same god, I would be impressed.

How could expect that to happen, logically speaking? Only if God took over everyone's minds and made them all believe in the same God could that ever happen. Why should God do that?

Does it even matter to people what what is logical, reasonable and rational or does it just matter what they want? This is insane.

Until then, either there is no god, or he does not communicate or he is a very bad communicator. No fourth alternative, I am afraid.

Go ahead blame God for the failure on the part of humans to recognize Baha'u'llah, who explained that there is only one God. It is your choice to blame God for human failure because you have free will.

 

[Trailblazer]

The god described is certainly not pretty from a psychological standpoint.

No worries... that is not the Real God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly. We can all come up with ideas about what our spiffy little god can or cannot do but it is really almost meaningless babble. This is even more pronounced (as babble) when the authority card is played.

But haven't you ever heard of a science experiment?

 

[Trailblazer]

That seems mostly like a variation on a theme, and still different than the OP. Nothing can be falsified about god if god does only what god wants to do. given that premise, end of discussion, and no real discussion to begin with.

You are catching on... I only wish that more people would catch on...
The only other discussion would be what God actually does and why God does it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: No, we do not have an omnipotent god trying to do something but failing. We have an omnipotent god trying to do something and humans failing to do what God wants them to do. Since God does not override free will choices, the outcome is wholly determined by humans, not by God.

Evangelicalhumanist said: Well there you have it, then. God is NOT omnipotent, by the definition you just presented. Even if, as you suppose, it is by God's own choice, his own choice has rendered Him powerless whenever we mere humans decide to make Him so.

God is still Omnipotent because whatever humans think or do has no effect upon God. God is who God is... You cannot change that by trying to make God in your own image. Do you think you have that kind of power?

I am extremely unimpressed by a strongman who backs down every time I say I'm not interested in whatever he's plying...

Do you really think that an OMNI-everything God cares if you are impressed or what you are interested in?

Let me try to spell it out for you a little more clearly:

• Omnipotent means "can do anything at all, without hindrance"
• Not being able to stop humans failing to do what He wants is a hindrance to God actually getting what He wants
• Therefore, God is NOT omnipotent, and the reason for that is not at all important

• But God does not want anything for Himself, I guess you missed that part.

God does not want to stop humans from failing because if they fail, they will be the only losers, not God. An Omnipotent God cannot lose since He has all power, even though He does not choose to exercise it all the time..

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 339​

Have to add a little more: the school yard bully is more powerful than your God, because all too often, the bully gets the targeted kid to hand over his lunch money. Your God seems to want, by your own description, that he can't get, if I choose not to give it to Him. So, sorry, you just have to get over this omnipotence stuff.

Maybe your reading comprehension is not very good..... I said that God does not want anything that He cannot get. God could get 100% belief in Him if He wanted it, but God does not need 100% belief or even any belief in Him, so God has no reason to make anyone believe in Him.

So, God does not care if you choose not to hand over your belief. It won't hurt God, it will only hurt you. The only reason God cares is because God cares about you. I hope I cleared that up.

 

[Shad]

No, because God could exist and not communicate at all.

Which is merely repeating what I said in a different way. Lack of communication is not evidence of non-existence.

This thread is not about whether Messengers are true or false. It is about what would constitute credible communication for atheists who presumably do not believe in Messengers. The only evidence we have of God communicating is from Messengers, so if they are all false, the only alternatives are 2. or 3.

You added a modification which I was addressing. I added point you never considered, all of which are valid. I think you misunderstood my points.

Said modification ".So, since God does not do that, there are only three logical possibilities to choose from"

Results might matter to you but you are not the one setting the goalposts. God is.

You included results in your own post as per "My position is that God wants everyone to believe in Him". This is still an expectation thus results matter. Result which can be evaluated include method of communication. You can not use your posted objection as it invalids a major part of your own thread ergo you made a self-defeating objection. So either you own argument is invalid by your own objection or you must withdraw said objection. Pick one

My religion has nothing to do with the concept of Messengers as effective communication.

Yes it does as you believe your religion is based on actual communication with God ergo results matter.

93% of people in the world already believe in God

In a God not the God. Many religious concepts are mutually exclusive such as the Trinity for example. So some religions are wrong ergo their concept of God is wrong and they worship a false God

and almost all of them believe because of a religion that was established by a Messenger. There is no hurry for them to become Baha’is.

No they believe in those religion mostly due to family and location.

Remember how you said your religion does not matter? Your very point is based on your religion. Islam does not consider your messenger to be authentic. Many Christians believe Muhammad is not a prophet, etc, etc, etc. You are using subject standard which change on a whim.

 

[YmirGF]

But haven't you ever heard of a science experiment?

I'm going to call you out as being disingenuous. You're not the slightest bit interested in any opinion that even slightly conflicts with your own. All you want to do is bandy about your puerile sense of what god supposedly is. Play with someone else.

 

[Trailblazer]

First off: HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Thanks, I saved your post for last, not because you are last but because I always save the best for last. Also, I wanted to answer it when I had enough time to give it. I must have answered 50 posts today and God answered my prayer not to get any posts on the other forums I post on. If my atheist friend only knew how popular he is on this forum with some atheists. He will become famous someday if I keep starting threads on his behalf... I think this is the fourth thread I started for him. He just doesn’t know how important he is to me. I think to him I am just another annoying religious person to refute, or so he thinks.

I do not know why some people think it is about me winning a debate with him. Maybe years ago it was but I have changed a lot since then. Now I just care about him and his eternal destination. The way he talks about the god he does not believe in it is not looking good for him. I do not know why people can just think they can do that with no consequences.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not worried about atheists in general; all my best friends on my other forums are atheists, but they do not call God evil and blame God for everything. That is cruising for a bruising.

I get that is your opinion but quoting a scripture whose authority I do not recognize is amusing. As a theist, it would be helpful if you appreciated that I do not care what is written in ANY religion's sacred book. I simply do not recognize their authority. SO, the net result is that this is not a great way to make a point to an atheist. At least you have backed up your opinion with an example, however tarnished.

Sorry, I just grabbed that verse because I was in a hurry, as I have been ever since I posted this thread. It is not my scripture either but I just wanted to make the point that God is not a man and I was having a difficult time of it. If God was a man, God would be living on earth, not in the spiritual world.

Also, you never revealed your particular persuasion so I did not know you were an atheist. Now I have a new atheist friend. My dad was an atheist, I took after him, and I have an atheist bent.

Good. I see that rankled you a tiny bit. Excellent. The point is, I was fully aware that that was only what you believed. I chose to come from that angle because you don't seem to appreciate the need to add, "I believe" to neuter otherwise authoritarian, definitive statements that are mere and slightly wild speculations. It's the pretend authority that is annoying.

I know this rankles people, but I believe and I also know; but I do not know in the sense of being able to prove it as a fact, I know because I have certitude. This knowing is beyond my comprehension, it comes from God. I sure do not know why I would deserve it, but I was guided for a reason. I do not mean chosen in a Christian sense; that is different from the Baha’i concept of guided.

As for the wild speculations, I understand how they seem that way to atheists, but it has taken a while to understand that, a lot of atheists letting their hair down and telling me why.

That is probably why you have managed to drag on this straight forward discussion for 5 torturous years. (I'm kidding about the torture.)

I am not trying to win any argument with this man. I explained that above so no need to repeat myself. It has been torture at times and what is torturous is his illogical arguments. But I have to understand as my other atheist friend said to me yesterday, this atheist in the OP has just as much certitude as I do about his position on direct communication from God being the “only way” as I have about my position of Messengers being the only way. This is no doubt why we knock heads.

But he is not logical, and it drives me crazy. For example, his position that because all imaginary gods used messengers (his way of saying that there are many false prophets pretending they speak for God) no real God would use a Messenger is so illogical. It is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization to assume that just because many or most messengers were false all Messengers were false.

Then you should appreciate that arguing about belief level ideas is a tricky path. Since it's about beliefs you cannot ground yourself in facts otherwise you would simply trot out a given fact. So, belief arguments have to precise in their definitions and even the parameters of the discussion, I suppose. And it would be wise to avoid making definitive statements about those belief level ideas.

Oh but my beliefs are based upon facts, facts that surround the Revelation of Baha’u’llah that can be verified. That is where the belief starts. Why do you think so many people attack the Baha’i Faith? One reason of course is that we have a “new” religion and it is competition, but the other reason is because we have facts and all they have is fiction. The older religions cannot prove anything about Moses or Jesus for example, or the history. It is at best speculative. So what they do is try to misrepresent our facts, such as our history and what our institutions such as the UHJ are doing.

You can comfort yourself with that lie but I wouldn't get too cozy with it. Where your scriptural quotes fail is because the person you are presenting them to does not recognize them as authoritative. It is really that simple. You might as well include a quote from "Huck Finn" for the impact it would make.

You are right that atheists do not recognize my quotes as authoritative, but some atheists also do not understand them. A case in point is @ ecco , who asked me to explain a couple of quotes I cited. Lookit, I do not even understand some of them completely, so when I explain them to someone else I always learn something I had not known before, I get new insights.

To pound this into the ground securely, the average atheist has nothing against religious texts, as a rule. I have personally read most of the "big" ones, many on several occasions. That is what began to cause me to openly question their authority! You're not the only on to do their own homework. I have poured through the religious writings made available over the centuries and found them wanting. You found that they buttressed your thinking. Who looked more closely?

Perhaps you have a misconception about me and how I view religious texts. I do not view any of them the same way I view the Writings of Baha’u’llah because all of them were written by fallible men and all of them have transcription and translation errors. I am sure that raises a red flag when I say I consider Baha’u’llah infallible, but sine he speaks for God that is the logical conclusion since God is infallible. The older scriptures were just someone speaking about God or speaking as if they knew what Jesus said decades after He said it. I absolutely do not trust the Bible at all. The Qur’an is definitely the most authentic scripture besides the Baha’i Writings but I do not know enough about how it came to be written to speak intelligently about it, so I won’t. The Baha’i Faith is the only religion that has the Original Writings of its Messenger. That sets it apart at the get go.

People sometimes ask me how I could know that the Baha’i Faith is the truth if I have not studied all the other scriptures and compared them. My answer is that logic tells me sp I don’t have to compare. Progressive revelation makes sense to me and none of the other religions teach that. I could never believe that all the other religions are false and only my religion is true. I could never believe that God spoke through one Messenger and all the others are false, or that God suddenly stopped speaking after the OT or the NT were recorded. There is no reason why God’s hands would be tied. What kind of a God would speak once and never again? What kind of a God would prefer one religion over all the others? It makes no sense.

I realize that people believe that because they were raised in those traditions, but thank God and my parents that I was raised in no religion. Luckily, the Baha’i Faith was the first religion I encountered at age 17. I was not searching for God or a religion, but I knew it was the truth so I became a Baha’i. Shortly after that, I fell away from the Faith for decades but I never dropped out because I always knew it was the truth. I only came back about six years ago. During the interim years I was not into religion or God at all. I was into inner healing and academia.

It actually sounds a little weird, frankly.
Oh, I get it.... You are one of those folks who thinks it is impossible to meet god, face to face, right?

I do think that, because God has no face. Baha’u’llah wrote that after its separation from the body the soul will continue to progress until it attains the presence of God, but I have no idea what that means. I do not generally even think of what I will be doing tomorrow, let alone that far down the road.

Good (that you are including a quote here, as your stance is utterly alien to my way of thinking. LOL.)

What is your way of thinking? One thing that has drawn me to forums is that I am curious about what how and why people think, since psychology is my other hat, and one I have worn a lot longer than my religion hat.

I'm beginning to see why you would never want to meet him! Who would? How can a human animal possibly love something so unapproachable? Wait for him to have a good day?

Lol. I am not much of a social animal myself, except on forums, so this suits me just fine. I feel I will be lucky to meet and converse with the Bab and Baha’u’llah in the spiritual world and that is as lofty as I care to go. I could change my mind later, I don’t know. I live one day at a time.

 

[Trailblazer]

You included results in your own post as per "My position is that God wants everyone to believe in Him". This is still an expectation thus results matter.

God wants does not mean God expects. God wants everyone to believe in Him for their own sakes, not for His sake. So the results do matter to God only because God wants what is best for us, not because it matters to Him for Himself.

Moreover, God does not expect everyone to believe in Him or His Messengers. God is omniscient so God knows we won’t all believe. I cannot speak for God but the results might matter because God might feel sad for us, not because God needs us all to believe in Him or His Messenger. God needs nothing from humans.

Result which can be evaluated include method of communication. You can not use your posted objection as it invalids a major part of your own thread ergo you made a self-defeating objection. So either you own argument is invalid by your own objection or you must withdraw said objection. Pick one

Sorry but you lost me. I just clarified my position so maybe that will help address your issues.

Yes it does as you believe your religion is based on actual communication with God ergo results matter.

Results do not matter because they do not prove anything about the truth of any religion.

In a God not the God. Many religious concepts are mutually exclusive such as the Trinity for example. So some religions are wrong ergo their concept of God is wrong and they worship a false God

There is only one God. So, they have the wrong understanding of God, but they still believe in God. The religions might be wrong but they still worship the God. That matters more than anything else, how they relate to God.

No they believe in those religion mostly due to family and location.

Yes, that is why most people believe in their religion.

Remember how you said your religion does not matter? Your very point is based on your religion. Islam does not consider your messenger to be authentic. Many Christians believe Muhammad is not a prophet, etc, etc, etc. You are using subject standard which change on a whim.

I did not say that my religion does not matter. I said that it does not matter if everyone believes in it right away. It takes time for people to change their religions, a lot of time.

 

[Trailblazer]

icehorse said: That seems mostly like a variation on a theme, and still different than the OP. Nothing can be falsified about god if god does only what god wants to do. given that premise, end of discussion, and no real discussion to begin with.
YmirGF said: Exactly. We can all come up with ideas about what our spiffy little god can or cannot do but it is really almost meaningless babble. This is even more pronounced (as babble)
Trailblazer said: But haven't you ever heard of a science experiment?

YmirGF said: I'm going to call you out as being disingenuous. You're not the slightest bit interested in any opinion that even slightly conflicts with your own. All you want to do is bandy about your puerile sense of what god supposedly is. Play with someone else.

I was just joking. I meant that discussing God could be kind of like a science experiment, an experiment in order to see what *we* might come up with in the science lab.

You can call me out all you want but apparently you misunderstood me and then you judged me. I am calling you out on that and I am calling you out on speaking for me as if you know how genuine I am and what I think and feel. You do not know those things about me. Moreover, it is nobody's right to speak for another person.

That is completely false. I am very interested in what other people think and believe. You do not have to believe that but I know that it is true so that is all that matters to me. I cannot control what others think of me nor do I want to.

 

[Lily Riekert]

Message through Whatsapp is good enough.

 

[YmirGF]

I was just joking.

Try to bone up on your humor then, it needs work.

I meant that discussing God could be kind of like a science experiment, an experiment in order to see what *we* might come up with in the science lab.

In many respects that's all humanity is doing anyways. It's just the finger paintings of small children, really. I don't intend that in a mean way, it's just so bloody apt.

You can call me out all you want but apparently you misunderstood me and then you judged me. I am calling you out on that and I am calling you out on speaking for me as if you know how genuine I am and what I think and feel. You do not know those things about me. Moreover, it is nobody's right to speak for another person.

Full Disclosure: Earlier today I got some upsetting news that I am wrestling with involving the ongoing drama with one of my sisters. In my frustration, I was a bit sharp and rude to you. For that I am truly sorry. You deserve better. Plus, I am entering day 32 without a cigarette and am occasionally testy as a result of that.

Without meaning to jab a large stick into your eye I was rather intrigued by your comment, "Moreover, it is nobody's right to speak for another person." I found that striking and also has direct bearing on the topic. You might remember those wise words the next time you wax on about what god wants/like/whatevers... Jus' sayin'

That is completely false. I am very interested in what other people think and believe. You do not have to believe that but I know that it is true so that is all that matters to me. I cannot control what others think of me nor do I want to.

Well, if you are still reading, I am truly happy to hear that. I won't question this again. I could have phrased my response a tiny bit more diplomatically.

You never did answer one of my questions though. Are you one of those folks who does not believe it is possible to see god face to face?

 

[Dawnofhope]

This is a carryover from a dialogue that has been ongoing between me and an Atheist on another forum for about five years... Yes, five years and we are still going around in the same circles. I posted something about this about six months ago but I am back with a slightly different slant.

Synopsis: The issue at hand is that this Atheist thinks that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world (all 7.4 billion people) because that is “what he considers” the only credible method of communication. In his opinion, if God does not communicate directly to everyone, that is evidence that God does not exist. One of his premises is that a God would want everyone to believe in Him, and direct communication to everyone would be “the only way” to accomplish that.

My position is that God wants everyone to believe in Him but God does not need everyone to believe in Him because an omnipotent/omniscient/fully self-sufficient God does not need anything from anyone. If an omnipotent God needed everyone to believe in Him, He could have communicated directly to everyone. So, since God does not do that, there are only three logical possibilities to choose from:

1. God uses Messengers, knowing that not everyone will believe in them.
2. God does not communicate at all.
3. God does not exist.

There is no option #4, that if God exists, God would communicate directly with everyone, because God has not communicated directly with everyone.

In other words, since there is no evidence that God has ever communicated directly to everyone we can assume that is not what God wants to do, if God exists.

Credibility is not the issue here, this issue is the best way to communicate to accomplish what God is trying to accomplish.

Who would know the best way to communicate to humans in order to accomplish what God wants to accomplish, humans or God?

I haven't read through the responses. Its an interesting question. I hope you don't mind me answering as I'm not an atheist. I tried atheism for about year but it didn't work out. Agnosticism was a good fit when I was younger. Then I became open to the idea that God may exist and he seemed to make Himself known to me. Then I wondered if He had been trying to communicate with me all along. Maybe there's an option #4. God does communicate with everyone AND sends Messengers. Perhaps He communicates in a way that requires reading between the lines. Maybe some have the capacity to perceive Him better than others and/or recognise His Messengers.

 

[masonlandry]

What type of supernatural beliefs about god do you want them to have evidence of?

You assume I have a desire for evidence about particular gods or aspects about gods, when I don't. Not of my own accord for my own beliefs. I don't start with an end belief I want to find evidence for, I take evidence as I find it and draw a conclusion from it. For a person who is arguing for a particular god or aspects of their god, that which they are arguing for is the thing for which I'd want evidence if we're going to have a debate about the thing. if I'm not in a debate, I'm not really looking for evidence for a particular thing, just evaluating what evidence I do have.

That is silly. I didnt say that. Where did you get transportation to entities???

By taking DMT. If you don't know what that is, listen to some Terrence Mckenna videos or something. And yes, you said

"DMT? Thats nothing close. Do you have a passion that you cant live without? or family members the essence of your life or so have you?
That feeling of connection you can't live without is what people call god.

To say that DMT is nothing close to god, but that the connection to a passion or other people is, is absurd if you have any idea what DMT is like when you take it, But I think maybe you aren't familiar with DMT based on your reply.

What is the description of god in your view?

The transcendent force or forces that shape Being. The prime mover if there is one, and I think there must be. The forces that hold reality together as it is. The forces that cause us (us being all living things, past present and future) to evolve the way we do. The Ultimate Good which, when aimed at as a moral/ethical guide demonstrably leads to well-being. If you want to understand how I conceive of God, be careful not to insert anything extra into that description. Notice I don't describe any consciousness, awareness, purpose, or added power. I don't know anything about god other than what it has done. What has been done has some cause or group of causes at the highest level, and that is what I call god.

Okay.... I am an atheist who has only been catholic four years of my adult life. I am a Buddhist (not atheistic). I am an artist. I am one. Doesnt matter, really.

No, not really. I only gave the description I gave because you asked if I was looking for a Christian description of God.

How do you describe god in contrast to the list of commonalities I mentioned Christians have when they describe god?

Christians believe God to be conscious for one thing, I don't. Christians believe God to be omnipotent and omniscient, I don't. Christians believe Jesus was God, I don't. Christians believe that God has a plan, I don't. Most of what Christians and I agree on are what outcome god produces in the real world, but the difference is they conceive of God as a living, thinking being who does those things on purpose, whereas I don't. To me, God just is, and God does what God does, and I don't ascribe any more to God than that because I have no justification for doing so.