Atheists: If God existed…

[Trailblazer]

That feels like a distinction without a difference to me. “Mind” and “Will” are the same kind of thing in this context, at the very most, one would implicitly lead to the other. It still boils down to you saying “God is an impenetrable mystery” but then “This is exactly what God wants you to do”.

The Mind of God is unknowable because that is part of God’s intrinsic nature, but the Will of God (what God wants for humanity) is what comes from God’s Mind to a Manifestation of God (Messenger) so that can be made known to humans via scriptures.

Scriptures are an ocean of evidential issues in themselves. There are a vast range of difference (often contradictory) scriptures, writings and revelations presented by different monotheistic faiths, with all sorts of provenance, interpretations, compilations and exclusions and nothing to say which, if any, are legitimately created, dictated or inspired by an actual god.

I understand why that is problematic and I would be lost if I did not just stick to one religion I believe was revealed by God to Baha’’ullah, who wrote His own scriptures. The older religions are not authentic and we cannot even know who wrote the scriptures. Besides, there are certain errors in transcription and many different translations so it is difficult to know what was actually said by any Prophet (Messenger of God). For Jesus, all we have is oral tradition. I think the essence of what Jesus said was captured in the NT, but there is no way it can be exactly what He said, as we can know in the case of Baha’u’llah, since we have the original scriptures.

Using (selected) scripture to support your idea of God and then the existence of that God to validate your scriptures strikes me as implicitly circular. That’s why there is this challenge to believers to offer independent evidence, outside of that circle.

It is my belief that the scriptures are only one way to know that the religion was from God. There is also the Person of the Messenger and everything that surrounds His mission on earth, the history of His religion. All this constitutes evidence that can be researched in the case of Baha’u’llah, since it is recent history and it has been chronicled.

There is other evidence outside the religion, other people who wrote about it, but most of them became Baha’is as the result of their research. Unfortunately, much of what is written by non-Baha’is is written by detractors because they see our religion as a threat to their religious traditions given the claim we make to be the current religion God wants everyone to follow in this new age. I understand that is a huge claim, but it has a lot of evidence to back it up.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is circular reasoning. You cannot actually claim that any words necessarily come from God, and if you have to rely on faith then you might as well believe Nursery Rhymes are from God. You just believe the messenger is from God because you believe the messenger is from God, and because you have faith that the messenger is from God, this equates to evidence that God sent the messenger.

The caveat is that I do not “just believe” that because Baha’u’llah made a claim. I have evidence that He was who He claimed to be. That is what sustains my belief. That is as good as it gets because nobody can ever prove anyone received messages from God.

The fact is, as you admit, you cannot truly communicate with God, and you have no way of verifying whether or not a particular message or messenger comes from God, and faith cannot truly justify any such position.

We all only need to justify what we believe in our own minds. We cannot justify it to other people, they have to do their own homework, if they care to.

No, I cannot verify that anyone got messages from God, but I do not have to, because I have verified the Messenger, His life, His character, what He did during His mission on earth. I do not expect other people to think the way I do about it, that is just how I reason. We not only have what I just listed, we have Baha’u’llah fulfilling all the Bible prophecies, and these things that happened and places that exist on earth are verifiable. This is as good as it gets for any religion, but obviously it is not good enough for most people. One reason is that they never get out the door past their bias in order to do research. I am a person who likes to do research, as I spent over 15 years in college getting various degrees and I researched many subjects and wrote many papers. Now I write papers on forums.

 

[Trailblazer]

Good evidence is observable.

We can never observe God and we cannot know the effects God has upon the universe. All we have to observe of God are the Messengers he sends to earth on His behalf.

Anything that affects the universe is measurable. There maybe many things that affect the universe that we can't measure. If humans can't measure it, it is irrelevant to humans. Either God is affecting humans, which means it has to be measurable to be an affect or God is not.

There is no way we can know the effects that an unknowable God has upon the universe or even upon individuals. I consider it the naïve believer syndrome when believers claim that God did x, y or z in their life. There is no way anyone can know what God is “doing” at any point in time so this belief “what God is doing in my life” is rather naïve. Of course it is based upon a hope and a need to believe God is personal, a belief I do not share with Christians. Only in the sense that God intervenes in the world when He sends Messengers is God personal. Humans cannot relate to the transcendent ineffable God on a personal level, only through the Messengers.

But people can believe whatever they choose to believe. I am not into emotional belief systems, I care only about reality.

Any affect that is not measurable by humans is irrelevant to humans. If God has no measurable affect on humans then God's existence is irrelevant to humans.

Isn't that the reason some pray? Because they believe God will have a measurable affect?

I do not look at it that way because it is obvious to me that nobody can know what God is doing at any time, thus how could we measure the effects of God? But that does not mean there are no effects just because we cannot measure them. We just cannot know what they are.

Of course people pray believing that God will answer their prayers; that is their hope, but there is no way to know if God answered a prayer, since it could have been a coincidence.

It's like gravity, if gravity didn't affect humans it's existence or not wouldn't matter to humans. An affect that is not measurable by "X", whatever X is, is not an affect on X. It could be affecting "B", but the existence or non existence of this affect doesn't matter to X.

Gravity would still exist even if we could not measure it. In ancient times, do you think people could measure gravity? Yet it still existed.

The same applies to God. If God exists, God exists. We do not have to observe God in order for God to exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps because we (if sufficiently knowledgeable although not necessarily) do know that humans in general are so often deceived by their own senses, their thinking, and their feelings, and that they also have a propensity to deceive others, intentionally or otherwise, for their own purposes - whether good or bad. Perhaps we see religious beliefs as not much different from other beliefs, and where the human perspective often has little regard for truth as long as any objective is fulfilled. Put simply, we don't reasonably trust such people. Especially where the so-called evidence is not simply a black-and-white issue, and from so long ago when those around them hardly knew anything factual. Is it likely that people couldn't reasonably tell a deceiver from a truth-teller when much of what they said possibly did strike a resonance with them? To me it is. The rest is history.

Whereas it is true that people can be deceived it is not logical to conclude that therefore all people are deceived. One has to look at the author of the religion, the Messenger, and try to figure out if He could have a personal motive for deception. If not the only other possibilities are that He was deluded or He really got messages from God.

Given the amount of conflict that seemingly has stemmed from such 'messengers', something seems to be amiss in Heaven. Incompetence?

All that conflict was caused by humans since we have free will. God and the Messengers have nothing to do with it.

Perhaps because they have served other purposes? Like control, and ensuring the hierarchy remains to effect this. Many things have withstood the test of time (or for a time), but it doesn't necessarily mean they are good for us are have any truth. I think there is a fallacy in this notion somewhere.

It is illogical to say that because some religions have resulted in this it is the fault of the Messengers. Again, when humans are involved anything is possible, so unless a religion has some way to prevent humans from corrupting a religion and using it as a means of control, that will happen. The Baha'i Faith has in place what is necessary to prevent that from happening since Baha'u'llah foresaw it.

If a religion does not have in it teachings that are good for us, it should be discarded.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, but it would mean that, in every way we can measure, God is indistinguishable from a god with no effects at all (e.g. a non-existent god).

True.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Abrahamic God was known to be jealous, and said there will be no Gods before me.

God said that because all the other gods were false gods, not because he was jealous.
God has nobody to be jealous of since He is at the top of the totem pole.

 

[Trailblazer]

If there were proof of god (absolute or otherwise) then there would be no athiests.

I guess God does not mind atheists, or else God cannot prove He exists. I see not other possibilities.

The problem here that different people have different thresholds of what constitutes evidence

Yes, we all have different requirements given we are all different, even within the same religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think the best question to ask an atheist is "what evidence would they accept for God?"

I have asked and i have gotten some interesting answers.
I do not think any of them would constitute proof because any of them could be explained by another phenomenon.
For example, writing in the sky "I am God and I exist" could have been done by aliens.

 

[ChristineM]

I guess God does not mind atheists, or else God cannot prove He exists. I see not other possibilities.

Yes, we all have different requirements given we are all different, even within the same religion.

How about the most obvious possiblity? No god's exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

How about the most obvious possiblity? No god's exist.

That seems obvious to you but God exists seems obvious to me...
See the problem?

I think it is about more than just evidence.

 

[David J]

God said that because all the other gods were false gods, not because he was jealous.
God has nobody to be jealous of since He is at the top of the totem pole.

Wow.

That makes him more of a superficial prick.

 

[ChristineM]

I have asked and i have gotten some interesting answers.
I do not think any of them would constitute proof because any of them could be explained by another phenomenon.
For example, writing in the sky "I am God and I exist" could have been done by aliens.

Or even some guy in a plane with a smoke generator.

 

[ChristineM]

That seems obvious to you but God exists seems obvious to me...
See the problem?

I think it is about more than just evidence.

As i said, threshold of evidence.

Sure, its about faith

 

[Nakosis]

We can never observe God and we cannot know the effects God has upon the universe. All we have to observe of God are the Messengers he sends to earth on His behalf.

Then the messengers are relative. God is not.

There is no way we can know the effects that an unknowable God has upon the universe or even upon individuals. I consider it the naïve believer syndrome when believers claim that God did x, y or z in their life. There is no way anyone can know what God is “doing” at any point in time so this belief “what God is doing in my life” is rather naïve. Of course it is based upon a hope and a need to believe God is personal, a belief I do not share with Christians. Only in the sense that God intervenes in the world when He sends Messengers is God personal. Humans cannot relate to the transcendent ineffable God on a personal level, only through the Messengers.

Again making only the messengers relative.

But people can believe whatever they choose to believe.

That's arguable, IMO. I suspect a majority cannot choose what they believe. Most are influenced by external forces in what they believe.

I am not into emotional belief systems, I care only about reality.

I think our conscious interface with reality is on an emotional level. It is hard to escape our feelings when it comes to what we believe. Faith for example, I believe occurs at an emotional level.

I do not look at it that way because it is obvious to me that nobody can know what God is doing at any time, thus how could we measure the effects of God? But that does not mean there are no effects just because we cannot measure them. We just cannot know what they are.

I agree, which is why I choose to be an atheist. Since I cannot know anything about God personally, there is no knowledge to believe in.

Of course people pray believing that God will answer their prayers; that is their hope, but there is no way to know if God answered a prayer, since it could have been a coincidence.

Gravity would still exist even if we could not measure it. In ancient times, do you think people could measure gravity? Yet it still existed.

The same applies to God. If God exists, God exists. We do not have to observe God in order for God to exist.

Sure, God could exist but God's existence has no value, meaning, effect on my life. Since God's existence does not affect my life in any measurable way, God might as well not exist.God's existence does not affect my life any more or any less than God's non-existence.

Choosing to believe or not believe does affect my life. However I don't see where choosing to believe would make my life better. I can see where choosing to believe could possibly make my life worse.

 

[Earthtank]

That seems obvious to you but God exists seems obvious to me...
See the problem?

I think it is about more than just evidence.

It is, its about the "tools" being used to find god and what constitutes as evidence in this particular case. Just because we can explain something in a natural way, does that automatically eliminate "god"? Also, knowing and understanding the limitations of each "tool" is important to reach a conclusion. Logic, rational and science (among other things) should all be "tools" used to establish if its logical or illogical to believe in a higher power. Science alone is not sufficient "tool" for such "job".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the best question to ask an atheist is "what evidence would they accept for God?"

And the best answer I've heard to that question is "I don't know, but any god worth the title 'god' would know hpw to convince me."

 

[Earthtank]

And the best answer I've heard to that question is "I don't know, but any god worth the title 'god' would know hpw to convince me."

"I don't know" is not an answer. You can say you deny something then, say you don't know what you all accept in order not to deny it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wow.

That makes him more of a superficial prick.

Why? Is it God's fault He is the Creator of the Universe?
Are you jealous? I don't think you are qualified for that job.

 

[Trailblazer]

As i said, threshold of evidence.

Sure, its about faith

Faith is necessary at first but once one has certitude faith is no longer necessary.

It's like I had to have faith that my husband would not cheat on me but once I had certitude I no longer needed faith.
So I don't need any hidden cameras in the house to collect evidence of what he does while I am at work.

 

[David J]

Faith is necessary at first but once one has certitude faith is no longer necessary.

It's like I had to have faith that my husband would not cheat on me but once I had certitude I no longer needed faith.
So I don't need any hidden cameras in the house to collect evidence of what he does while I am at work.

If I may butt in,

What does faith mean to you?