Atheists: If God existed would God……

[Trailblazer]

Absolutely nothing. That is the problem with religious beliefs (certainly theistic ones).

I do not see a problem with a God that is beyond our understanding who does not provide objective evidence of His existence, because it makes no sense that humans could understand God, and it makes no sense that there could ever be any objective evidence of God.

What nontheistic religious beliefs do you not see a problem with?

That is the same thing! God can choose to do anything means God can do anything. These word games are getting you nowhere.

My point is that God does not do everything that God can do just because God can do it. God could destroy this world and all its creatures if God chose to do that but God does not want to do that so God does not do that. God could make everyone into believers if He chose to do that but God does not want to do that so God does not do that.

But you've already said there are some things God can't do (e.g. stop being a God or go against nature) so something (not necessarily somebody) must be capable of preventing him from doing some things.

Nothing or nobody can prevent an all-powerful God from doing anything He chooses to do, and that is why humans are completely at the mercy of God! My point was that if God went against His nature (what defines God) then God would not be God anymore.

You need to stop focusing on humans in this context. We're talking about the nature of God here. Humans are an irrelevant speck at this scale. The question is essentially what (if anything) exists at Gods level (remembering that "I don't know" remains a perfectly valid answer).

God has no peer or equal. Nothing in existence is comparable or equal to God, so nothing exists at God’s level according to my beliefs.

Baha’u’llah summarized God’s High position:

“He is, and hath from everlasting been, one and alone, without peer or equal, eternal in the past, eternal in the future, detached from all things, ever-abiding, unchangeable, and self-subsisting. He hath assigned no associate unto Himself in His Kingdom, no counsellor to counsel Him, none to compare unto Him, none to rival His glory.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192

Is there though? Evidence that is entirely independent of both scripture and his own words?

The evidence is His character as demonstrated by what He did in His life, from early childhood through old age. His Life includes His 40-year mission from God that He completed successfully. The scriptures are also evidence because part of His mission was to write scriptures which would guide humanity during this age.

https://bicentenary.bahai.org/bahaullah/life-bahaullah/

It really isn't. It is a confusing and scary concept but in and of itself it is perfectly possible for free will to be an illusion and for us to have no true control of our actions. I'm not sure whether that is the case but it is certainly a possibility, regardless of how scary it might be (after all, a lot of people find the idea of an all-powerful God equally terrifying).

It makes no sense to me that humans have no control over their actions because that would mean that something or someone outside of ourselves is controlling our actions, and what would that be?

Although what we refer to as free will is very circumscribed, humans have a will and volition, the faculty or power of using one's will. If we had no will we could not do anything at all as we have to will something and then act on it in order to get anything done.

It is terrifying if we think of an all-powerful God, unless we believe that God has our best interests in mind, and if we believe that then God being all-powerful acts to our advantage.

Again, these mean exactly the same thing. If God gave humans free will, he must have known that we will do bad things as a consequence. He could have prevented that (either the will or the consequences) in an endless number of ways but apparently chose not to.

That’s right. An all-powerful God could override our free will choices and prevent any ensuing actions if He wanted to. The fact that God allows people to do bad things does not mean God wants people to do bad things, it only means God wants us to choose between good and bad and we thereby become the person we will be, good or bad. Of course, that is an oversimplification to make my point.

If you have a free and uninfluenced choice to do something will full knowledge of the consequences but you choose not to do it, the only reason could be that it is not what you wanted. You talk a lot about human free will but wouldn't God have free will as well? Why wouldn't he be responsible for his conscious actions (and inaction) in the same way we all are?

That’s right, controlling the actions of humans is not what God wants, so that is why God allows us free will to choose and act on our own behalf.

God is responsible for His conscious actions, such as creating this world, but other than creation we cannot know any of God’s actions or even if God is acting in this world. God is not responsible for inaction because God is not accountable to humans to act in any certain way. That would be putting an expectation on God that He should do something, implying that piddly humans could know more than an all-knowing God about what needs to be done. That makes no logical sense at all.

 

[HonestJoe]

I do not see a problem with a God that is beyond our understanding who does not provide objective evidence of His existence, because it makes no sense that humans could understand God, and it makes no sense that there could ever be any objective evidence of God.

Sure, but that means you can't make any definitive statements about the nature or actions of that God. You are making all sorts of definitive statements about God though, and only bring up the "God can't be understood/evidenced" when your beliefs are challenged or questioned. It is an all too common double standard in this area.

What nontheistic religious beliefs do you not see a problem with?

None specifically, it is just that we're talking about gods specifically. Non-theistic religions can have similar concepts, presented as unproven or beyond non-believers understanding and they have the same issues. Other religions don't have that aspect (though can have other issues).

My point is that God does not do everything that God can do just because God can do it.

Yes, and I keep saying that is irrelevant. The question isn't about what God could do, it is about what God would/did do, and the logic and internal consistency of those proposed actions (or inaction).

Nothing or nobody can prevent an all-powerful God from doing anything He chooses to do

You did previously suggest that there are things God literally can't do because it goes against his nature though. You really need to get your story straight.

The evidence is His character as demonstrated by what He did in His life, from early childhood through old age.

Being a good or successful isn't evidence that you're a Messenger from any specific God though. There are loads of people in history who have had similarly effective lives and many of them have claims some kind of association with various gods. They're all effectively marking their own homework.

It makes no sense to me that humans have no control over their actions because that would mean that something or someone outside of ourselves is controlling our actions, and what would that be?

You literally believe in God, who could and is already depicted significantly influencing or affecting humans lives, up to the point of executing all but the entire population of the world. I don't see how directly control would be impossible regardless of how unpleasant the idea is.

It is terrifying if we think of an all-powerful God, unless we believe that God has our best interests in mind, and if we believe that then God being all-powerful acts to our advantage.

Exactly, that is why you need to believe that, regardless of whether it is logical or not. Just because it is terrifying doesn't mean it couldn't be true (and if it was true, God would make sure we never found out).

That would be putting an expectation on God that He should do something, implying that piddly humans could know more than an all-knowing God about what needs to be done. That makes no logical sense at all.

That only applies if God actually exists though. If God is just an invention of other "piddly" humans, it can be rationally and logically challenged. Indeed, the very fact it can be supports that possible explanation.

You can't use the assumption God exists in the form you belief and a basis to support that belief. If you can't support it independently then you can't support it at all and you have no logical reason for anyone to believe (you're still free to believe, you just can't claim it has any rational basis).

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure, but that means you can't make any definitive statements about the nature or actions of that God. You are making all sorts of definitive statements about God though, and only bring up the "God can't be understood/evidenced" when your beliefs are challenged or questioned. It is an all too common double standard in this area.

I can't make any definitive statements about the nature or actions of that God because I can never know what they are. However, I do make statements about God, because I believe we can know something about God by what has been revealed by the Manifestations of God (what I refer to as Messengers of God.)

The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

Yes, and I keep saying that is irrelevant. The question isn't about what God could do, it is about what God would/did do, and the logic and internal consistency of those proposed actions (or inaction).

How do you think you could know what God would do if God exists?
How do you think you could know what God did do if God exists?

Only If we propose a God that has certain attributes could we even begin to analyze the logic and internal consistency of any proposed actions (or inaction) of that God.

You did previously suggest that there are things God literally can't do because it goes against his nature though. You really need to get your story straight.

That’s true, I did say that God cannot do what goes against God’s nature. For example, God cannot become less than all-powerful because God is all-powerful and God cannot become less than all-knowing because God is all-knowing and God cannot become a man because then He would no longer be God.

God cannot do evil things because God is benevolent by nature and God cannot do unjust things because God is just by nature and God cannot become unloving because God is loving by nature.

Of course, these are only religious beliefs, and you can call them claims if you want to because atheists seem hell bent on calling my stated believe claims.

Being a good or successful isn't evidence that you're a Messenger from any specific God though. There are loads of people in history who have had similarly effective lives and many of them have claims some kind of association with various gods. They're all effectively marking their own homework.

That is correct. A good character and being successful are not evidence that someone is a Messenger of God, not by a long shot. Much more would be necessary to qualify as a Messenger of God.

You literally believe in God, who could and is already depicted significantly influencing or affecting humans lives, up to the point of executing all but the entire population of the world. I don't see how directly control would be impossible regardless of how unpleasant the idea is.

I believe that God could control human actions if He chose to but I do not believe God is directly controlling human actions, as I believe humans control their own actions. However, I think it is possible and even likely that God is influencing human actions.

I do not believe that God caused a Great Flood that wiped out the entire population of the earth as depicted in the Old Testament. I believe that is just a story that has metaphorical meanings and spiritual significance but not a real event that happened in history.

Exactly, that is why you need to believe that, regardless of whether it is logical or not. Just because it is terrifying doesn't mean it couldn't be true (and if it was true, God would make sure we never found out).

Hypothetically speaking it could be true but it is not logical to me that a God that created humans would not have their best interests in mind. If it is true that God does not have our best interests in mind, don’t you think we would have found out by now?

That only applies if God actually exists though. If God is just an invention of other "piddly" humans, it can be rationally and logically challenged. Indeed, the very fact it can be supports that possible explanation.

So do you agree that if God exists God is not responsible for inaction because God is not accountable to humans to act in any certain way?

Of course any of this only applies if God exists. The fact that the idea of God can be can be rationally and logically challenged by humans is because God created humans with a rational mind, so it follows that God would want us to use our mind to think rationally and logically.

You can't use the assumption God exists in the form you belief and a basis to support that belief. If you can't support it independently then you can't support it at all and you have no logical reason for anyone to believe (you're still free to believe, you just can't claim it has any rational basis).

I do not assume that God exists, I believe that God exists. I cannot support my beliefs independently of revealed scriptures because that is all I have to support my beliefs.

I am not claiming that God exists because I cannot prove that God exists.

 

[samtonga43]

Tb says:
"Of course, these are only religious beliefs, and you can call them claims if you want to because atheists seem hell bent on calling my stated believe claims".
***
Rational theists also call your stated beliefs claims, Tb.

 

[Trailblazer]

Rational theists also call your stated beliefs claims, Tb.

So what if they call them claims? It does not bother me. Claim is just a word. Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me.

Please note that atheists and rational theists also call your belief in the Triune God a claim.

 

[samtonga43]

Tb says:
"Please note that atheists and rational theists also call your belief in the Triune God a claim".

Of course. It is a claim. I recognize this.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course. It is a claim. I recognize this.

and you think that I do not recognize what I have is only a claim?

 

[samtonga43]

Tb says ..."and you think that I do not recognize what I have is only a claim?"

Tb implies that she recognizes that she is making claims when she speaks of her faith.
I feel that this is a move in the right direction.

 

[Sheldon]

and you think that I do not recognize what I have is only a claim?

What the....????

 

[HonestJoe]

I can't make any definitive statements about the nature or actions of that God because I can never know what they are. However, I do make statements about God, because I believe we can know something about God by what has been revealed by the Manifestations of God (what I refer to as Messengers of God.)

Saying those people are Messengers of God is a definitive statement about God though, as are all the things they said about God which you're repeating without challenge or question.

Only If we propose a God that has certain attributes could we even begin to analyze the logic and internal consistency of any proposed actions (or inaction) of that God.

I'm not making any claims about God though, I'm only addressing yours. One of my main points about your initial question is that it is flawed because atheists don't make such statements about God other than in response to the assertions, claims and beliefs theists present.

God cannot do evil things because God is benevolent by nature and God cannot do unjust things because God is just by nature and God cannot become unloving because God is loving by nature.

Those are more definitive statements about God that you said you can't make.

Of course, these are only religious beliefs, and you can call them claims if you want to because atheists seem hell bent on calling my stated believe claims.

You started the thread. If you just have your beliefs, why not just have them and be done with it? You're only going to be challenged if you publicly state that (you believe) these things are truth.

So do you agree that if God exists God is not responsible for inaction because God is not accountable to humans to act in any certain way?

No. These lines were about humans not being able to question God (or allowed to question what theists say about their gods).

I am not claiming that God exists because I cannot prove that God exists.

Well again, that renders this entire thread completely meaningless. It just seems to be an excuse for you to present your beliefs but dismiss any questions or challenges with the "we can't know God" angle (despite your beliefs relying on you and others knowing things about God).

 

[Truthseeker]

Saying those people are Messengers of God is a definitive statement about God though, as are all the things they said about God which you're repeating without challenge or question.

Yes, but she investigated first a long time ago, in 1970, I believe, the claims of our religion, and was satisfied that the claim was true, and since then has been on forums since January 2013, and has learned more in the process of doing that of how solid to her the claims are. I know all this because I was there when she first got engaged in forums, and she has told me and others about how she investigated the Baha'i Faith.

Those are more definitive statements about God that you said you can't make.

She believes that because Baha'u'llah has said that, and she believes in what Baha'u'llah said about God, because, like I said, she ascertained for herself His claims.

You started the thread. If you just have your beliefs, why not just have them and be done with it? You're only going to be challenged if you publicly state that (you believe) these things are truth.

Yes, that's true. I don't know why myself very well why she does this. In a debate thread she will be challenged. I myself wish debate wasn't the order of the day, but that's the way it is.

She'll be by later to talk to you herself. She speaks highly of you.

 

[ppp]

Tb says ..."and you think that I do not recognize what I have is only a claim?"

Tb implies that she recognizes that she is making claims when she speaks of her faith.
I feel that this is a move in the right direction.

Don't get too excited. She will say whatever works for her in the moment.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't get too excited. She will say whatever works for her in the moment.

I am not looking for anything to 'work for me' because I am not trying to win any debates here.

I will say whatever I believe to be the truth, and since I am open to learning from what others say I sometimes change my position when I realize something I had not realized before.

 

[samtonga43]

Tb says:
"I will say whatever I believe to be the truth, and since I am open to learning from what others say I sometimes change my position when I realize something I had not realized before."
***
So you have realized that you are making claims when you speak of your faith.
As I said, I feel that this is a move in the right direction.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, but she investigated first a long time ago, in 1970, I believe, the claims of our religion, and was satisfied that the claim was true, and since then has been on forums since January 2013, and has learned more in the process of doing that of how solid to her the claims are. I know all this because I was there when she first got engaged in forums, and she has told me and others about how she investigated the Baha'i Faith.

Yet can demonstrate nothing to support all this "research", beyond quoting the religion's texts. No objective evidence and relentlessly irrational arguments, not very compelling, given the claims and arguments are ostensibly the same as all other religions.

 

[joelr]

I know I'm not an atheist but have thoughts on this.

God is an evangelist of himself. So he does let people know he exists. The very fact his words were recorded and preserved in the Bible is a testament to this fact.

Jesus prayed to God to glorify his name and Jehovah responded from heaven in the following passage:

"Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have glorified it and will glorify it again.”-John 12:28.

When did Jehovah glorify his name in the past? One prime example is when he brought the 10 plagues upon Egypt. Each plague was a blow to a different Egyptian god. And Jehovah told Moses the reason why he kept the hard-heartened, arrogant, evil Pharaoh who was committing genocide on the Hebrews alive was for this reason:

"But for this very reason I have kept you in existence: to show you my power and to have my name declared in all the earth."-Exodus 9:16.

Jehovah told Jesus he would glorify his name again? When will this be?

Jesus foretells of a coming great tribulation. During that time the earth's political rulers will turn upon and destroy all religion earth-wide. Afterwards Jehovah's witnesses will give a worldwide proclamation of the impending doom of this wicked world at Armageddon, and during that time supernatural signs and portents will be shown in heaven as the "sign of the son of man" at Jesus' glorious return and he will defend his people as the entire earth will be gathered together by satanic inspired expressions of demons to fight them. And Jehovah says repeatedly during that time that the nations will have to know who Jehovah is. Thus in a fear-inspiring way Jehovah will make his name known in all the earth and everyone will have to acknowledge Jehovah when he brings destruction upon the ungodly and disobedient masses of humankind:


Jehovah has already made himself known to his witnesses. He works miraculously in their lives today, answers their prayers, opens their hearts to understand truths about his word, and gives them wisdom and insight. He hides himself from the haughty and arrogant and wicked. It will be too late for these who do not repent and do not obey the good news about Jesus Christ and his incoming heavenly kingdom government when they will be forced to acknowledge his existence.

The lowest form of religious argument is "it's true because it says it's true".
Now Islam can pull out the Quran and cite scripture. Hindus can cite Krishnas words. Mormons can cite the Angel Moroni and this never ends and it get you nowhere.

You mention the plagues on Egypt? Let's check out a historical paper:

Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.


KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)


As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. Almost as problematic as an historical source is the book of Exodus. This book tells the story of Israel's long enslavement in Egypt and of it's eventual emancipation; it also narrates the first stages of Israel's migration from Egypt toward Palestine. The trouble with this story, historically speaking, is that the Egyptians seem to have known nothing of these great events in which thousands of Israelite slaves were released from Egypt because of a series of natural (or supernatural( catastrophes - supposedly including the death of every firstborn Egyptian man and beast.)

Exodus from an archaeologist:

REMEMBERING THE EXODUS
Q: So even though most of the early Israelites had not themselves made the exodus from Egypt, they adopt this story as part of their heritage.

Caroyl Meyers: Yes. While very few Israelites may have actually made the trek across Sinai, it becomes the national story of all Israelites and is celebrated in all kinds of ways. Their agricultural festivals become celebrations of freedom, for instance. Many aspects of a new culture emerge and are linked with the "memories" of exodus.

The people who made the exodus from Egypt remember the experience, relive it, recreate it in rituals. They pass their rituals on to others, to future generations and to other people. We do this in our own American lives: Very few of us have ancestors who came over on the Mayflower, and yet that story has become part of our national story.

"The theme of the Exodus is an archetype in not only the Bible but in western culture in general."

Q: When was the story of the Exodus first written down?

Meyers: It's really hard to know when the story of the exodus first was put into written form. But it appears in one of the earliest poems in the Bible, the Song of the Sea, found in the middle of the book of Exodus [Exod 15:1-22]. This victory hymn probably dates to the 12th century B.C.E.

It's also important to note that the Exodus is a theme that's mentioned over and over again in various parts of the Bible. And it's interesting to think about that in contrast, for example, to the early chapters in Genesis about the creation of the world and of Eve and Adam in the Garden of Eden. That motif rarely recurs in the Bible. It doesn't seem to be as important an aspect of biblical culture as was the exodus. The theme of a real people achieving freedom from oppression—that's something that resonates strongly with the biblical authors.

Q: And it's a theme that still resonates with us today.

Meyers: Absolutely. The theme of the exodus is an archetype in not only the Bible but in western culture in general. Even though it may be rooted in some cultural memory experienced by only a few people, it became a way of looking at the world that would have great power for generations and millennia to come—the idea that human beings should be free to determine the course of their own lives, to be able to work and enjoy the rewards of the work of their own hands and their own minds.

 

[Trailblazer]

Tb says:
"I will say whatever I believe to be the truth, and since I am open to learning from what others say I sometimes change my position when I realize something I had not realized before."
***
So you have realized that you are making claims when you speak of your faith.
As I said, I feel that this is a move in the right direction.

Whether or not I am making a claim is contingent upon what you mean by a claim.

What is a religious claim?

In religion, a truth claim is an assertion that the belief system holds to be true; however, from the existence of an assertion that the belief system holds to be true, it does not follow that the assertion is true. For example, a truth claim in Judaism is that only one God exists.
Truth claim - Wikipedia

Assertion: a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
assertion means - Google Search

I confidently express my belief, and since I believe it is true you can call it a truth claim, so if that is what you mean by a claim, I concede to making a claim.

 

[Sheldon]

God is an evangelist of himself. So he does let people know he exists. The very fact his words were recorded and preserved in the Bible is a testament to this fact.

No it isn't, anymore than the Harry Potter books are testament to wizardry. This is an asinine claim.

 

[samtonga43]

Tb said:
"Whether or not I am making a claim is contingent upon what you mean by a claim".
***
Here is what I mean by a claim: a statement or assertion that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

Tb said:
"Whether or not I am making a claim is contingent upon what you mean by a claim".
***
Here is what I mean by a claim: a statement or assertion that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

No, I have not stated or asserted that what I believe is true without providing evidence.