Why is God too limited to do this?The only way God could make humans capable of understanding Him is if God recreated humans so that they had a divine mind,
Tom
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why is God too limited to do this?The only way God could make humans capable of understanding Him is if God recreated humans so that they had a divine mind,
His position was that if God existed then God would communicate directly to everyone, therefore God does not exist because no God is observed communicating directly to everyone.If your alleged 'atheist' actually wanted some god to do something, then he would have to be believe that god was there to do things. In which case, he could not have been an atheist.
Show me where I ever said that God could not speak to humans.I do. But the thing is Trailblazer, that you started off by saying that your god could not speak to humans.
Show me where I ever said that. I will admit it if you have proof.And you tried to tell me I was wrong to say that an omnipotent being could.
No backpedaling was necessary because I never said that God could not speak to everyone.Now you have back pedaled on that, and agreed that if your god existed that he could speak to everyone. That is all that I said. Thank you for agreeing that I was right.
So do you think that God should wipe out the human race and recreate humans so that they have a divine mind just because a few atheists do not like to go through Messengers?Why is God too limited to do this?
Tom
God wipes out the human race every few decades. It's called death.So do you think that God should wipe out the human race and recreate humans so that they have a divine mind just because a few atheists do not like to go through Messengers?
Well, that is not wanting God to do something, That is just saying that if God existed then he would communicate to everyone. Which, I acknowledge would be wrong, if your purported atheist said it. But considering how dishonestly you just misrepresented me in your last few posts, I am not convinced that you are representing your other atheist accurately.His position was that if God existed then God would communicate directly to everyone, therefore God does not exist because no God is observed communicating directly to everyone.
Your "that means", does not follow. You are saying that under one hypothetical that God does exist in the current world, that it is clear God does not speak to everyone. That hypothetical is correct. If God exists currently, then he does not speak to everyone But that does not demonstrate your second hypothetical - that in some hypothetical world where God existed that he would not speak to everyone. You have no idea what God would do in some alternate hypothetical world.Of course this is patently illogical because if God exists we all know that God does not communicate directly to everyone, and that means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.
Show me where I ever said that God could not speak to humans.
Same thing. Communication requires that the communicator has the capability to make herself understood.No backpedaling was necessary because I never said that God could not speak to everyone.
All I ever said was that nobody except Messengers could understand communication from God.
Trailblazer?Do you always have to be right? Do you know what that is called when someone always has to be right?
True, but that dose not help the situation because new people who are born inherit the same traits and as such they will not have a divine mind. The only way that could be different is if God started from scratch and created humans with a divine mind.God wipes out the human race every few decades. It's called death.
If an omnipotent God did not want things this way they never would have been this way. That is logic 101 stuff.And this isn't about atheists. We're just the humans who recognize that religion is fiction. It's you theists who keep saying irrational things like God doesn't want things this way. But He's incapable of improving things.
Tom
Refusing the message is not the same as receiving ("getting") the message. See Exodus 5.Then how come atheists are not getting the message?
That is true, that is not necessarily wanting God to do something; it was just saying what he believed God would do of God existed.Well, that is not wanting God to do something, That is just saying that if God existed then he would communicate to everyone. Which, I acknowledge would be wrong, if your purported atheist said it. But considering how dishonestly you just misrepresented me in your last few posts, I am not convinced that you are representing your other atheist accurately.
He said that but he also said what I said he said. If you do not believe me all you have to do is come to the forums where he said it as it is all on the record. Besides that, I saved most if his posts in Word documents so I have what he said word for word.What he probably said was, if God existed, and wanted everyone to know that he exists, then he would communicate with everyone.
I can hardly believe I am hearing this. There is no alternate hypothetical world; there is just the real world. In the real world God does not speak directly to everyone. That is empirically observable and all we have to do to confirm it is take a survey and ask people if God communicated to them directly.Your "that means", does not follow. You are saying that under one hypothetical that God does exist in the current world, that it is clear God does not speak to everyone. That hypothetical is correct. If God exists currently, then he does not speak to everyone But that does not demonstrate your second hypothetical - that in some hypothetical world where God existed that he would not speak to everyone. You have no idea what God would do in some alternate hypothetical world.
No, that is NOT what I said. That is your interpretation of what I actually said.Trailblazer said: Show me where I ever said that God could not speak to humans.
Previous conversation. You said that God could only speak thru Messengers of God because other humans are too limited. See next.
NOT the same thing. Your claim was that I said that God could not speak to humans.Trailblazer said: No backpedaling was necessary because I never said that God could not speak to everyone.
All I ever said was that nobody except Messengers could understand communication from God.
Same thing. Communication requires that the communicator has the capability to make herself understood.
If an atheist becomes more like Orthodox Christian (atheist becomes closer to Orthodox Christianity), then he becomes closer to any religion, e.g. pantheism, Islam, Catholicism, antropotheism, deism.
Proof:
Atheism is infinitely remote from any religion.
Thus, the Pascal Wager has perfect sense. It is the step to improvement.
The theist thinks, that for any person the step towards God is an improvement. The atheism is infinitely remote from any theism and from any religion. Thus, if any atheist becomes more like a Christian, he becomes more like a Muslim. And if any atheist becomes more like a Muslim, he becomes more like a Christian. That is all message I bring in.
I mean, if an atheist would accept Christianity, he would become closer to Islam than ever before.
You would become "practical theist." You could ask the local church community: "are practical theists in Heaven?" Faith is deeds. Faith is faithfulness.
I have answered the question. The question was: what if an atheist starts to read the prayers, to go to church (and go through all the ceremonies, including baptism), to make good deeds, does he become saved from hell? If all that time he would remain an atheist? He would be practical theist. Hence - theist: "I will judge by deeds" (Jesus Christ).
No. The practicing theism (practical theism) is good as well. Why? Because Jesus has said: "I will judge by deeds." As well Jesus said: "I do not want the death of a sinner."
The faith is the faithfulness. If an atheist would faithfully follow the 10 commandments, including "Love your God", he can go to Heaven through practical theism. How could atheists love a "fictional" character? No problem, in my youth I was loving Robin Hood and took examples from him. It was my "invisible friend."
If there is no hell, then there is no bottom of hell. Hence, hell has no bottom. It is the "bottomless pit" (Bible).
I afraid, that not. They are infinitely remote. All good religions are angry against abortions and suicide. The atheism allows them. Thus, the atheism comes from satan, theism comes from God. "There is nothing in common between good and evil" (cf. Bible).
The atheists have no chance to defeat the logic of a single theist. Why? Because God's names are Truth, Logic, Mindfulness, and Reason. Theists always win the logic battle: "Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit." Mark 13:11 NIV
If an atheist becomes more like Orthodox Christian (atheist becomes closer to Orthodox Christianity), then he becomes closer to any religion, e.g. pantheism, Islam, Catholicism, antropotheism, deism.
Proof:
Atheism is infinitely remote from any religion.
Thus, the Pascal Wager has perfect sense. It is the step to improvement.
The theist thinks, that for any person the step towards God is an improvement. The atheism is infinitely remote from any theism and from any religion. Thus, if any atheist becomes more like a Christian, he becomes more like a Muslim. And if any atheist becomes more like a Muslim, he becomes more like a Christian. That is all message I bring in.
I mean, if an atheist would accept Christianity, he would become closer to Islam than ever before.
You would become "practical theist." You could ask the local church community: "are practical theists in Heaven?" Faith is deeds. Faith is faithfulness.
I have answered the question. The question was: what if an atheist starts to read the prayers, to go to church (and go through all the ceremonies, including baptism), to make good deeds, does he become saved from hell? If all that time he would remain an atheist? He would be practical theist. Hence - theist: "I will judge by deeds" (Jesus Christ).
No. The practicing theism (practical theism) is good as well. Why? Because Jesus has said: "I will judge by deeds." As well Jesus said: "I do not want the death of a sinner."
The faith is the faithfulness. If an atheist would faithfully follow the 10 commandments, including "Love your God", he can go to Heaven through practical theism. How could atheists love a "fictional" character? No problem, in my youth I was loving Robin Hood and took examples from him. It was my "invisible friend."
If there is no hell, then there is no bottom of hell. Hence, hell has no bottom. It is the "bottomless pit" (Bible).
I afraid, that not. They are infinitely remote. All good religions are angry against abortions and suicide. The atheism allows them. Thus, the atheism comes from satan, theism comes from God. "There is nothing in common between good and evil" (cf. Bible).
The atheists have no chance to defeat the logic of a single theist. Why? Because God's names are Truth, Logic, Mindfulness, and Reason. Theists always win the logic battle: "Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit." Mark 13:11 NIV
How do you know that God communicates messages to atheists?Refusing the message is not the same as receiving ("getting") the message. See Exodus 5.
Of course, even having any kind of "God" debate on "RF" is improvement, no matter against or favour.The theist thinks, that for any person the step towards God is an improvement.
I don't believe that you are accurately communicating what he said. After all, you misrepresent me on a regular basis. Assuming, of course, that he actually exists. What he probably said was, if God existed, and wanted everyone to know that he exists, then he would communicate with everyone.His position was that if God existed then God would communicate directly to everyone, therefore God does not exist because no God is observed communicating directly to everyone.
Spare me the rambling pedantry. I was talking about an omnipotent god being able to successfully communicate with humans. If you were merely talking about your god merely being able to babble incoherently, then you are not talking about anything pertinent or germane.No, that is NOT what I said. That is your interpretation of what I actually said.
You first. Withdraw everything that you cannot prove. Everything about your god. Everything about your Messengers. Everything about your religion. Everything.Talk is cheap. Prove that I misrepresented you or withdraw the accusation.
Unless you can prove that I ever misrepresented you, you should not assert it.I don't believe that you are accurately communicating what he said. After all, you misrepresent me on a regular basis. Assuming, of course, that he actually exists.
Yes, that IS what he said, among other things. Isn’t that what I just said?What he probably said was, if God existed, and wanted everyone to know that he exists, then he would communicate with everyone.
I am not a mind- reader; I just read what is on the page.Spare me the rambling pedantry. I was talking about an omnipotent god being able to successfully communicate with humans. If you were merely talking about your god merely being able to babble incoherently, then you are not talking about anything pertinent or germane.
How is this related to the subject at hand? But I will be happy to drop all the he said she said if you will do likewise.You first. Withdraw everything that you cannot prove. Everything about your god. Everything about your Messengers. Everything about your religion. Everything.
That is a rather hypocritical statement.Unless you can prove that I ever misrepresented you, you should not assert it.
It you are actually going to demonstrate something, demonstrate that your god exists.If you do not believe this atheist exists I will give you the link to the forums we both posted on for six years and you will see that I am telling the truth.
No.Yes, that IS what he said, among other things. Isn’t that what I just said?
Why should I?Why should I withdraw everything I cannot prove?
As a Christian, even Seventh-day Adventist, I basically agree with you. Pascal's wager is not a very good, or even convincing, argument, but is useful in a certain sense. It basically has the fundamental flaw of a 'God' that is not in character with the God [JEHOVAH Elohiym] of the Scripture (more of a deistic 'god', for Jesus Christ really isn't mentioned) because it is based in philosophy (Greek thought) rather than Scripture.Pascal's wager is a worthless argument coming from a very brilliant person.
Nobody can demonstrate that God exists to anyone except themselves.It you are actually going to demonstrate something, demonstrate that your god exists.
By the nature of "God is love", for if God is not love, you and I would not be here.How do you know that God communicates messages to atheists?
Pascal's Wager does not fail because it is based on Greek philosophy. In fact, considering that its target audience are non-believers, a logical argument would have far, far better chance to persuade than mere scripture. The primary reason that Pascal's Wager fails is that it makes an argument based on a false presumption. The presumption that the choice is only between belief in the Christian god, and no belief in any god. That is obviously a false dilemma. All of the other gods and their hells in all of the other religions are co-equal with Christianity.As a Christian, even Seventh-day Adventist, I basically agree with you. Pascal's wager is not a very good, or even convincing, argument, but is useful in a certain sense. It basically has the fundamental flaw of a 'God' that is not in character with the God [JEHOVAH Elohiym] of the Scripture (more of a deistic 'god', for Jesus Christ really isn't mentioned) because it is based in philosophy (Greek thought) rather than Scripture.
Don't hold me to standards that you are not willing to hold yourself.Nobody can demonstrate that God exists to anyone except themselves.
How is that related to my question:By the nature of "God is love", for if God is not love, you and I would not be here.