Atheists, if God existed, would it be reasonable to expect God to...

[Trailblazer]

There is a reason I am posting this question and it is for the same reason I posted the other thread I posted about a week ago:

Would/Should God communicate directly to everyone in the world?

The reason I am posting this is because I have been posting to an atheist on some other forums for over five years and he insists that if god existed god would communicate directly to every single person in the world rather than using messengers. He should really come here and post his own question but he won’t come here so I am posting EXACTLY what he wants me to post this time, since he said that the questions on my other thread were not what he would have asked.

Here it is, a direct quote from him, turned into a question for you:

“Is there every reason to believe that if God existed, and wanted to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing any message he wanted them to get and believe, that he would use the same method used by all imaginary gods (messengers) which achieves results worse than reason demands would be achieved by using what only a real god could use: direct communication?”

Of course he is making an unfounded assumption that God is trying to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing His message, although there is no way he can know that is what God is trying to achieve.

His premise is that since imaginary gods use messengers a real God would never use a Messenger. What he is really saying is that because there are false messengers (men who claim to speak for God), God would never send a Messenger who speaks for God. Of course this is patently illogical. That is like saying that just because there is a junkyard with junky cars that do not run there cannot be a new car lot down the street with cars that run nicely.

 

[j1i]

Since you are just out of science and truth in the subject
Keep track of the facts through the waves of life
Go to the company
You will see that there is one general manager of the company and under it and employees
The employee receives a written and written alert
The Director decides to promote an employee to be responsible to the staff and is similar to the system of the Prophet and messenger

Thus we follow the reality of our existence through the logic of our way of life
There is no more than one general manager in every company
Many claim to multiple gods and this is contrary to the principle of the way of life experienced by humans

There are no two presidents in one country at the same time
The roles of the presidency are changed because man does not live
The sun does not change because it is more than billions of years old
And how the creator of this sun?

As well as the universe in which I live
There is one general manager and we are staffed by him
We have a role in life

regard
Truth Seeker
detective conani
Imgur

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Playing devil's advocate (since I neither know or care if there is a god at all, let alone what it may want from me), I agree the above is a bad argument relying on the notion god wants followers. However, the argument shifts drastically if the argument instead becomes:
A. God is omnibenevolent
B. God wants to do everything in its power to keep its creation from [x eternal danmnation].

So if God sits idly by and does not communicate with creation except through vague, unverifiable and fallible human written and human interpreted ancient texts, it's not doing everything within its power to stop them from experiencing [x eternal damnation]. Which is not very benevolent.

 

[Augustus]

If there were an omniscient, omnipotent, infinite God, anthropomorphising him and trying to work out what he 'should' do based on human logic seems a somewhat pointless endeavour.

 

[Polymath257]

A deity that doesn't do whatever is necessary to save people from eternal torture is evil. Now, if you can accept an evil deity, then nothing else need be said. But if you desire a *good* deity, then only having Messengers is clearly not enough since they don't maximize goodness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course he is making an unfounded assumption that God is trying to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing His message, although there is no way he can know that is what God is trying to achieve.

Sure: since we're dealing with hypotheticals, we can invent a god with any desires we want.

... but if we're trying to reconcile this hypothetical god against what we see in reality, then we can make inferences about this god based on what we see. For instance, if a god only gives his message to humanity through a messenger or a prophet, then we can infer that he's only interested in convincing people who can be convinced by hearsay... i.e. gullible people.

It's like phishing emails: people who are looking to defreaud people or steal their identity make their emails generally unconvincing and crappy on purpose: that way, they weed out a lot of the people who wouldn't fall for their scam anyway and can instead focus their efforts on the people they have a better chance of swindling.

... so that isn't necessarily the reason for a god to use as crappy a method to reach humanity as a messenger or prophet, but yes: if a god just doesn't reach most people, then there are two possibilities:

- it's not what the god wants, so the god us failing to realize its will, or
- it is what the god wants, so there's some reason behind it.

His premise is that since imaginary gods use messengers a real God would never use a Messenger. What he is really saying is that because there are false messengers (men who claim to speak for God), God would never send a Messenger who speaks for God. Of course this is patently illogical

Seeing how you disagree with this mystery atheist's position, I think it's unfair to them and to the people on RF for you to take this approach.

In our conversations, there's been a long trend of you misunderstanding my positions; why should I trust that you understand this mystery atheist's position well enough to represent it accurately?

 

[Trailblazer]

Playing devil's advocate (since I neither know or care if there is a god at all, let alone what it may want from me), I agree the above is a bad argument relying on the notion god wants followers. However, the argument shifts drastically if the argument instead becomes:
A. God is omnibenevolent
B. God wants to do everything in its power to keep its creation from [x eternal danmnation].

So if God sits idly by and does not communicate with creation except through vague, unverifiable and fallible human written and human interpreted ancient texts, it's not doing everything within its power to stop them from experiencing [x eternal damnation]. Which is not very benevolent.

That might be true is (a) the ancient texts were the only communication from God and (b) there was eternal damnation if we did not understand and accept them as the Word of God.

I do not believe that either one of these is the case.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure: since we're dealing with hypotheticals, we can invent a god with any desires we want.

But it won't be the real God, if there is a real God, it will be an imaginary god.

... but if we're trying to reconcile this hypothetical god against what we see in reality, then we can make inferences about this god based on what we see. For instance, if a god only gives his message to humanity through a messenger or a prophet, then we can infer that he's only interested in convincing people who can be convinced by hearsay... i.e. gullible people.

That is a personal opinion you have that these people are all gullible because that would make you more circumspect, wouldn't it? But since 84 percent of the world population has a faith it makes no sense that all of these religious people are gullible and the atheists are just too sharp to fall for that.

... so that isn't necessarily the reason for a god to use as crappy a method to reach humanity as a messenger or prophet, but yes: if a god just doesn't reach most people,

But God did reach most people because 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

then there are two possibilities:

- it's not what the god wants, so the god is failing to realize its will, or
- it is what the god wants, so there's some reason behind it.

It is the second possibility, there is a reason that God does not want to reach everyone.

Seeing how you disagree with this mystery atheist's position, I think it's unfair to them and to the people on RF for you to take this approach.

No, I do not think it is unfair, because he can come here and state or defend his position if he wants to.
Also, I am not doing this behind his back, he knows I am posting this here.

In our conversations, there's been a long trend of you misunderstanding my positions; why should I trust that you understand this mystery atheist's position well enough to represent it accurately?

I asked him exactly what he wanted me to write and I wrote it exactly as he told me he would write it:
Delphi Forums Login

I have also invited people from this forum to come to my forum and see for themselves that what I am saying is the very truth. It is difficult to believe that I am still posting to him and he to me after all these years, but it is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

A deity that doesn't do whatever is necessary to save people from eternal torture is evil.

Why do you believe in eternal torture? Did you buy off on Christianity?

Now, if you can accept an evil deity, then nothing else need be said. But if you desire a *good* deity, then only having Messengers is clearly not enough since they don't maximize goodness.

Why don't you think that Messengers maximize goodness?
What else do you think would work better?

 

[j1i]

There is a reason I am posting this question and it is for the same reason I posted the other thread I posted about a week ago:

Would/Should God communicate directly to everyone in the world?

The reason I am posting this is because I have been posting to an atheist on some other forums for over five years and he insists that if god existed god would communicate directly to every single person in the world rather than using messengers. He should really come here and post his own question but he won’t come here so I am posting EXACTLY what he wants me to post this time, since he said that the questions on my other thread were not what he would have asked.

Here it is, a direct quote from him, turned into a question for you:

“Is there every reason to believe that if God existed, and wanted to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing any message he wanted them to get and believe, that he would use the same method used by all imaginary gods (messengers) which achieves results worse than reason demands would be achieved by using what only a real god could use: direct communication?”

Of course he is making an unfounded assumption that God is trying to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing His message, although there is no way he can know that is what God is trying to achieve.

His premise is that since imaginary gods use messengers a real God would never use a Messenger. What he is really saying is that because there are false messengers (men who claim to speak for God), God would never send a Messenger who speaks for God. Of course this is patently illogical. That is like saying that just because there is a junkyard with junky cars that do not run there cannot be a new car lot down the street with cars that run nicely.

The human personality is ingratitude and ignorant
If you notice that the first source was Adam and he was educated and wearing clothes, but because of differences and discord between people and killed each other
They dispersed and headed away and you find primitive people of Adam, but they don't wear clothes and put strange colors, dyes and beliefs that don't make sense.


If we count the last 3,000 years in human history, we only sat 271 years without war

Imagine you want to help people and they always refuse.
The claim that God is evil is wrong
Evidence that God is good and generous is your sense of pain when you hurt yourself or beat yourself up to keep your body safe from damage

Now man knows the truth of the seriousness of things and ignores them is the real evil
Drugs, dangerous sports and wars, Slavery of people and trade members

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is a reason I am posting this question and it is for the same reason I posted the other thread I posted about a week ago:

Would/Should God communicate directly to everyone in the world?

The reason I am posting this is because I have been posting to an atheist on some other forums for over five years and he insists that if god existed god would communicate directly to every single person in the world rather than using messengers. He should really come here and post his own question but he won’t come here so I am posting EXACTLY what he wants me to post this time, since he said that the questions on my other thread were not what he would have asked.

Here it is, a direct quote from him, turned into a question for you:

“Is there every reason to believe that if God existed, and wanted to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing any message he wanted them to get and believe, that he would use the same method used by all imaginary gods (messengers) which achieves results worse than reason demands would be achieved by using what only a real god could use: direct communication?”

Of course he is making an unfounded assumption that God is trying to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing His message, although there is no way he can know that is what God is trying to achieve.

His premise is that since imaginary gods use messengers a real God would never use a Messenger. What he is really saying is that because there are false messengers (men who claim to speak for God), God would never send a Messenger who speaks for God. Of course this is patently illogical. That is like saying that just because there is a junkyard with junky cars that do not run there cannot be a new car lot down the street with cars that run nicely.

If God doesn't want to communicate, fair enough.
If God isn't perfect, fair enough.
If you believe in a perfect God, and believe they are trying to communicate but are doing so in an unclear fashion...

Meh. I mean, I don't care, I wouldn't worship God even if he existed. But doing the whole 'God is mysterious' thing whilst also WORSHIPPING that God seems almost disingenuous to me.

Still, people can do as they will. Not like lots of other things about humans don't seem strange to me too.

 

[stvdv]

Would/Should God communicate directly to everyone in the world?

Sai Baba is very clear on this:
God wants to communicate directly to you. No need for a medium. And He says "I don't use a medium, and when I want to tell someone, I'm perfectly capable to tell the person, I do not need a medium". Those, claiming to be a medium, and claiming Sai is speaking through them to tell the other a message, suffer from mental delusions.

I love this teaching of Sai Baba. Especially the end, it's very true,

 

[bobhikes]

There is a reason I am posting this question and it is for the same reason I posted the other thread I posted about a week ago:

Would/Should God communicate directly to everyone in the world?

The reason I am posting this is because I have been posting to an atheist on some other forums for over five years and he insists that if god existed god would communicate directly to every single person in the world rather than using messengers. He should really come here and post his own question but he won’t come here so I am posting EXACTLY what he wants me to post this time, since he said that the questions on my other thread were not what he would have asked.

Here it is, a direct quote from him, turned into a question for you:

“Is there every reason to believe that if God existed, and wanted to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing any message he wanted them to get and believe, that he would use the same method used by all imaginary gods (messengers) which achieves results worse than reason demands would be achieved by using what only a real god could use: direct communication?”

Of course he is making an unfounded assumption that God is trying to achieve the result of the maximum number of people getting and believing His message, although there is no way he can know that is what God is trying to achieve.

His premise is that since imaginary gods use messengers a real God would never use a Messenger. What he is really saying is that because there are false messengers (men who claim to speak for God), God would never send a Messenger who speaks for God. Of course this is patently illogical. That is like saying that just because there is a junkyard with junky cars that do not run there cannot be a new car lot down the street with cars that run nicely.

The problem I see is that most religions humanize God making it so that God can speak to us just like we can speak to each other. This being that has been around forever created everything and is part of all of it can have a conversation with you like another Human would. The God relationship should be more like You and a pet. You will hear sounds coming from God and you may grasp a concept, and you may be able to read God's feeling but you never fully be able to understand.

 

[dybmh]

Of course he is making an unfounded assumption

Just curious: If the question is based on an unfounded assumption, why go further than that? Isn't the simple answer, "God doesn't want that." ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But it won't be the real God, if there is a real God, it will be an imaginary god.

Just stop. Please.

That is a personal opinion you have that these people are all gullible because that would make you more circumspect, wouldn't it? But since 84 percent of the world population has a faith it makes no sense that all of these religious people are gullible and the atheists are just too sharp to fall for that.

I don't care enough to delve deeper into whether your "84%" stat is correct. When I click on your link, I just get a 5-year-old headline with no story to go with it.

Regardless:

- there are many theists who don't belong to a religion.
- a large chunk of the religious people on Earth belong to "non-revealed" religions.
- a lot of the people in "revealed" religions aren't in the religion because they were convinced by some prophet's message.

And in any case, however large the relative size of people who believe in your "messengers" versus people who don't, we have a difference in outcome that needs to be explained.

When two people hear the same message from a "messenger" - or through a few more levels of hearsay from one of the messenger's followers - and one is convinced but the other isn't, what do you think is the difference between those people? What is it about them that results in the different outcomes?

I think it's a reasonable starting point to consider that the difference in outcome could be because the two people had different standards for what they'd accept, and a hearsay "message from God" from a "messenger of God" only cleared the bar for one of them.

But God did reach most people because 84 percent of the world population has a faith.

So you think that the beliefs of every theist on the planet, including the vast majority who disregard the Baha'i faith or believe it to be wrong, became theists because they were convinced by a message from God?

Really?

It is the second possibility, there is a reason that God does not want to reach everyone.

So then we can ask why. We can also recognize that the method that God is alleged to use to communicate his message is pretty crappy: it lends itself to errors and it depends on the audience having trust not only in God, but in the human being claiming to be a messenger.

No, I do not think it is unfair, because he can come here and state or defend his position if he wants to.
Also, I am not doing this behind his back, he knows I am posting this here.

It sounds like you know he won't come here, so you know he's not going to come here and correct you if you mis-speak.

I asked him exactly what he wanted me to write and I wrote it exactly as he told me he would write it:
Delphi Forums Login

He told you to say that his position is illogical?

I have also invited people from this forum to come to my forum and see for themselves that what I am saying is the very truth. It is difficult to believe that I am still posting to him and he to me after all these years, but it is true.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I don't see anyone chiming in here to confirm that you're representing the mystery atheist accurately, so I don't see how this is relevant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just curious: If the question is based on an unfounded assumption, why go further than that? Isn't the simple answer, "God doesn't want that." ?

If we're exploring assumptions, I'd like to go back several steps and have a closer look at the assumption the God is the only god in the scenario.

After all, even if we assume that there's some way for gods to exist doesn't mean we'd also have to assume that there's anything that limits the number of gods to one.

@Trailblazer - any thoughts on this?

 

[dybmh]

If we're exploring assumptions, I'd like to go back several steps and have a closer look at the assumption the God is the only god in the scenario.

After all, even if we assume that there's some way for gods to exist doesn't mean we'd also have to assume that there's anything that limits the number of gods to one.

@Trailblazer - any thoughts on this?

That's interesting. I did assume there was only one god in the scenario.... thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Trailblazer]

Imagine you want to help people and they always refuse.
The claim that God is evil is wrong
Evidence that God is good and generous is your sense of pain when you hurt yourself or beat yourself up to keep your body safe from damage.

Yes, God tries to help people with His teachings and laws and most people refuse them, which is why there is evil in the world. To blame God for this is completely illogical and unjust.

“God hath in that Book, and by His behest, decreed as lawful whatsoever He hath pleased to decree, and hath, through the power of His sovereign might, forbidden whatsoever He elected to forbid. To this testifieth the text of that Book. Will ye not bear witness? Men, however, have wittingly broken His law. Is such a behavior to be attributed to God, or to their proper selves? Be fair in your judgment. Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend? This same truth hath been revealed in all the Scriptures, if ye be of them that understand.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 149-150

 

[Trailblazer]

If God doesn't want to communicate, fair enough.
If God isn't perfect, fair enough.
If you believe in a perfect God, and believe they are trying to communicate but are doing so in an unclear fashion...

It is not unclear to everyone.

Meh. I mean, I don't care, I wouldn't worship God even if he existed.

Then it does not matter if you get communication form God that is clearer to you.
So you are one case in point why God does not communicate directly to everyone; some people would not even worship God if they knew God existed.

But doing the whole 'God is mysterious' thing whilst also WORSHIPPING that God seems almost disingenuous to me.

The Essence of God is a mystery and will always remain a mystery, but we can know something about God's Attributes and God's Will through the Messengers of God. That is enough for 'some people' to want to worship God.

Still, people can do as they will. Not like lots of other things about humans don't seem strange to me too.

Yes they can because we all have free will.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just curious: If the question is based on an unfounded assumption, why go further than that? Isn't the simple answer, "God doesn't want that." ?

I have been telling this atheist poster that for over five years.
He does not understand that an omnipotent God only does what He wants to do, not what humans want Him to do.

To him, God is omnipotent so God can do anything translates to God is omnipotent so God should do anything I think God should do because He can do it...

And he just does not understand how illogical that is.