Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?

[paarsurrey]

Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?

Yea.

It is a positive statement. I like it.
Quran/Islam/Muhammad present G-d who is only attributive, and is not a physical and or spiritual being. So, the "evidence" won't be physical or material. Does one understand it and notes it, please?

Regards

 

[LiveBetterLife]

Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?

It is a positive statement. I like it.
Quran/Islam/Muhammad present G-d who is only attributive, and is not a physical and or spiritual being. So, the "evidence" won't be physical or material. Does one understand it and notes it, please?

Regards

What?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, it always comes down to that choice doesn't it?

Pick the wrong one, and one is effed for eternity eh?

No thanks and very silly.

I do not know that anyone is effed up for eternity just because they did not believe in God. Evil people who do evil deeds might be effed up though, whether they are believers or not, because they effed themselves up.

Just do good things and have good thoughts about others. Stop looking for revenge and look to compassion.

Even if you cannot understand the position of another, trust they are telling you the truth as they see it as a sentient being.

Just because one has a mindset they are completely right and have all the answers does not mean they do no matter how much they believe it.

We have one life for sure. My theory is to stop blaming everyone but our individual selves for not taking actions that could possibly make a difference in real life.

Sounds good to me and no different from the principles I follow.

How much time do proselytizers spend avoiding real life , trying to convince others of a maybe life?

I do not know. Baha'is are enjoined to live life and be part of society and never to try to convince anyone because free will is sacrosanct.

How many people waste their talents on silly speculation of things no one can know?

Others know they cannot know so they spend their lives actually doing good things for all life, wondering about the unknowable but mostly learning about the reality in front of them. And doing their best to be kind and helpful to all who need it.

That is what Baha'is are enjoined to do, live in this world and make it a better place, rather than focusing on the world beyond, which we cannot know anything about.

 

[paarsurrey]

Of course. That would require an actual God. It wouldn't be belief though. Belief is thinking and convincing yourself of something that's true that you're not entirely sure of.

I mean I don't have to believe in the sun because it's right there on a nice sunny day.

If God doesn't meet up to the standards the sun brings, then there's simply no point in even considering that one exists.

So, one wouldn't believe in the existing of the Sun on a cloudy day when the Sun is not visible. Will it be a reasonable approach, please?
If a blind man by birth has not seen the Sun whole life, would it be reasonable for him to deny existence of the Sun,please?

Regards

 

[Duke_Leto]

Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?

It is a positive statement. I like it.
Quran/Islam/Muhammad present G-d who is only attributive, and is not a physical and or spiritual being. So, the "evidence" won't be physical or material. Does one understand it and notes it, please?

Regards

So what would this evidence look like?

 

[paarsurrey]

What?

Quran does not present G-d who is physical and or material entity/being, so no physical or material "evidence" is reasonably possible for Him. Understand?

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

This would be a great topic for a new thread:

“Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?”

Please answer 1, 2 or 3.

1) Yes, I would like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
2) I am not sure. I might like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
3) No, I would not like to believe in God even if there was evidence that was good enough.

* By good enough I mean evidence that was sufficient for you to believe that God exists, evidence that proved to you that God exists.

I find this to be a very strange question. I want to believe whatever is true. So, if there is a deity I would like to believe such a thing exists. if there is no deity, I would like to not believe such exists.

But liking to believe is rather irrelevant. I follow the evidence and either believe or not based on that evidence.

Now, it is a different question whether I would find the existence of a deity to be likable. So, I want to believe the truth, so I would like to believe in a deity if any such exists *even if* that deity is, itself unlikable.

So, I find the deities based on the Old Testament to be thoroughly unlikable beings. They are petty, vindictive, authoritarian, and rather nasty in numerous ways. So, while I would like to believe in them if they do, in fact, exist, I find them to be very unlikable characters. I'm *glad* that I don't find sufficient evidence that they exist because the universe would be much worse off if they did.

So, liking to believe in the truth is one thing. Finding the truth to be likable is a different thing.

 

[paarsurrey]

So what would this evidence look like?

I just want to make my friends in the forum to realize that the word "evidence" has been loaned by science from the ordinary conversation and has been given a specific term/meaning valid only in physical/material sciences. Human life has a wider spectrum of which science is only a part. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It's certainly not going to harm anything to have a personal conviction of God. I used to have that too.

However since then I've raised my standards of believability on par with things that we collectively acknowledge forthright. Like that of the Sun or the rain for instance that requires no convincing or believing.

You mean one must believe in existence of things that are only collectively acknowledged, else existence of other things is to be denied?
Is it a reasonable approach, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I find this to be a very strange question. I want to believe whatever is true. So, if there is a deity I would like to believe such a thing exists. if there is no deity, I would like to not believe such exists.

But liking to believe is rather irrelevant. I follow the evidence and either believe or not based on that evidence.

Now, it is a different question whether I would find the existence of a deity to be likable. So, I want to believe the truth, so I would like to believe in a deity if any such exists *even if* that deity is, itself unlikable.

So, I find the deities based on the Old Testament to be thoroughly unlikable beings. They are petty, vindictive, authoritarian, and rather nasty in numerous ways. So, while I would like to believe in them if they do, in fact, exist, I find them to be very unlikable characters. I'm *glad* that I don't find sufficient evidence that they exist because the universe would be much worse off if they did.

So, liking to believe in the truth is one thing. Finding the truth to be likable is a different thing.

So, one would believe G-d if the truth is that "G-d exists". I like one's stance, as it is reasonable.

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

I find this to be a very strange question. I want to believe whatever is true. So, if there is a deity I would like to believe such a thing exists. if there is no deity, I would like to not believe such exists.

But liking to believe is rather irrelevant. I follow the evidence and either believe or not based on that evidence.

I can always count on you for a rational answer. I also follow the evidence.

Now, it is a different question whether I would find the existence of a deity to be likable. So, I want to believe the truth, so I would like to believe in a deity if any such exists *even if* that deity is, itself unlikable.

Another good answer. I think the same way. I do not always find God likeable but I feel compelled to believe in Him because I want to believe the truth and the truth as I see it is that God exists.

So, I find the deities based on the Old Testament to be thoroughly unlikable beings. They are petty, vindictive, authoritarian, and rather nasty in numerous ways. So, while I would like to believe in them if they do, in fact, exist, I find them to be very unlikable characters. I'm *glad* that I don't find sufficient evidence that they exist because the universe would be much worse off if they did.

I also find God as he is (mis)represented in the Old Testament to be very unlikable, but I do not believe that God was accurately represented in the Old Testament, so I am not concerned.

So, liking to believe in the truth is one thing. Finding the truth to be likable is a different thing.

I fully agree.
I do not always like believing in God, not because He is that unlikable, but because it is a lot of a responsibility, but but I am in a Catch-22 because I cannot unbelieve in God.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
So, what if it is true that God exists? Have you ever entertained that possibility or have you ruled it out?

 

[Twilight Hue]

You mean one must believe in existence of things that are only collectively acknowledged, else existence of other things is to be denied?
Is it a reasonable approach, please?

Regards

Of course. The very fact that you need to try to convince people of something should raise a few red flags if multiple attempts over the course of time continue to fail time and time again.

Look at how many thousands of years have passed already over the issue of the existence of a God, and still people don't know? That alone should tell you something.

Point to the Sun and it only takes a second or two if even.

Apparently with all the alleged majesty, power, and omnipresence, God can't even match up with a simple standard by which we acknowledge the Sun.

 

[Trailblazer]

First off, if there was verifiable evidence that a god exists then I would believe in the existence of that god. My like or dislike of the god wouldn't have any bearing on the matter. Now, if the question is, would I like to find verifiable evidence for a god, I'd first have to ask what god you are talking about.

So, what I hear you saying is that you would believe in God if you had verifiable evidence but if God was not a God you would like then you would not want to find verifiable evidence for God?

In other words, if God was a God you would not like you’d rather not know if God exists.

If it's the god that's depicted in the bible, then my answer would be no, I would definitely not like to find verifiable evidence that such a being actually exists. That's because I find the god depicted in the bible to be a vile and despicable being.

But what if that Bible God actually exists and that is reality? Would you prefer to live with your head in the sand and not know reality? What if there were consequences for not believing? Do you think you would be off the hook just because you do not believe that God exists?

Finally, do you think that one reason you do not go looking for evidence for God is because you are afraid it might lead to the Bible God?

 

[Trailblazer]

I notice that you refer to belief as if it was a switch that you can choose to turn on and off at will. IF there is verifiable evidence that something exists, whether you 'like' that something or whether it's not what you hoped it would be, is completely irrelevant as to whether or not you believe it. The verifiable evidence that the something does in fact exist means that you would have to ignore established reality in order to NOT believe in it.

Well, I am glad to hear that you understand that. However, there has never been any verifiable evidence for God and given God’s track record, I don’t think there will ever be any, so you won’t have to worry about whether God is what you might hope for.

 

[Trailblazer]

Look at how many thousands of years have passed already over the issue of the existence of a God, and still people don't know? That alone should tell you something.

What it tells us is that God does not want us to know if He exists. God wants us to believe on faith.
However, God provides evidence of His existence, so that faith can be a reason-based faith.

 

[Sand Dancer]

That is not how God works.

Exactly. That is why it is belief and not fact. That is what I meant.

 

[Polymath257]

ISo, what if it is true that God exists? Have you ever entertained that possibility or have you ruled it out?

I always have definitional problems there. What, precisely, do you mean by the term 'God'?

For example, if there is a race of higher dimensional beings and some teenager of this race made our universe for a school project, got a 'C' on it and forgot about it, would that make the teenager 'God'? What about the adults of that race?

Do I believe in such? Nope. But it is at least a possibility. Most versions of deities I don't even see going that far.

 

[InChrist]

The bible also makes it clear that god made everything, including sin.

Of course cherry picking is an acceptable way to shift responsibility away from the omniscient god of the bible but i prefer to read it as a book, not just selected verses

What makes you think the Bible makes it clear that God made sin? Even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals that God made everything good, but that it was rebellion against God which brought sin into the world. Sin is lawlessness and a contradiction to the very Nature and Being of God.

Did God create sin? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Trailblazer]

I always have definitional problems there. What, precisely, do you mean by the term 'God'?

When I think of God, I think of the God that has revealed all the great religions throughout history, the one true God. God does not belong to any one religion. God does not love anyone anymore than anyone else, God loves everyone.

"How ignorant therefore the thought that God who created man, educated and nurtured him, surrounded him with all blessings, made the sun and all phenomenal existence for his benefit, bestowed upon him tenderness and kindness, and then did not love him. This is palpable ignorance, for no matter to what religion a man belongs even though he be an atheist or materialist nevertheless God nurtures him, bestows His kindness and sheds upon him His light."
('Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 8, issue 7, p. 78)

For example, if there is a race of higher dimensional beings and some teenager of this race made our universe for a school project, got a 'C' on it and forgot about it, would that make the teenager 'God'? What about the adults of that race?

Do I believe in such? Nope. But it is at least a possibility. Most versions of deities I don't even see going that far.

Why is it that you do not lend any credence to any of the versions of deities that are revealed by religions?
To me it makes most sense that religion and God are associated with each other and that any other God would be man-made.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Religion cannot be proven true or false.

Which religion? Some can.

Proof is not what makes anything true.

True that.

Proof is just what atheists want.

That is what I want, yes.

I gave up on the idea that atheists might become believers a long time ago, although with God, all things are possible, IF an atheist has the desire to believe in God.

That's the core of the conundrum right there: One must want to believe first, then convince themselves that it is true.

How atheists manage to maintain non-belief in the face of evidence and make atheism the core of their belief systems and their lives is fascinating.

Atheism is not the core of my belief system. Atheism subscribes to no universal belief, save for perhaps nonbelief.

I have seen no convincing evidence for God. Many have tried for millennia to provide the evidence, and the evidence always fails under scrutiny.

But when one wants to believe something, they tend to find evidence to substantiate that which they already want to believe.

That is why theists find teleological, ontological, and other failed arguments for god convincing ... not because they are convincing; but because they already want to be convinced.