Atheists: What would you consider credible communication from God?

[Trailblazer]

I personally like the example of a written message on the moon, readable in all languages, that claims that some particular set of beliefs is valid. Each person sees the message as being in their language (with those who are blind getting the message a different way).

I would find that pretty convincing. Mass hallucination of that scale would be a poor explanation.

How would we know that the message came from God and not some space aliens?
Otherwise, I think it is a pretty good idea because I am tired of defending my beliefs.

 

[Sunstone]

God does not exist because if God did, He would tell me so.
However, ANY visit from God to me personally telling me He exists would be a hallucination because
God doesn't exist.

I honestly don't see a difference in the fallacy, do you?

You're misrepresenting my position. I never said anything remotely like "God does not exist because if he did he would tell me so". Nor did I say anything remotely like, "ANY visit from god to me personally telling me he exists would be an hallucination because god doesn't exist". In fact, I argue against the first premise in another post in this thread. Obviously, the views and reasoning you ascribe to me are not my views.

As for the rest of your post, it's pretty much in the same vein as the part I just quoted, so I won't trouble myself with it. If you want to convince me of something -- anything -- you should begin by not misrepresenting my views. As it is, you have only demonstrated to me that you're pretty good at going off half cocked and misrepresenting my views.

 

[Sunstone]

Its not a matter of telling the truth, it's about believing in life.

That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought of that. But to clarify: Are you suggesting that a god would reveal himself to at least some people so that they or their followers could believe in life? And if so, are you claiming only that some people need such a thing in order to believe in life, or are you claiming that all people need such a thing in order to believe in life?

I'm not interested in a debate. I'm just curious what your views are.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK. Now, how do you know that to be the case? You are making the mistake of pretending your assumption is true or reflects reality. The reality is, we have no way of knowing, currently.

If God is God, then God is not human because that is a logical contradiction.

For that matter, it does not matter if god is a human being or not. In theory, God created human beings (and everything else), so he should be able to relate to his creations on some level. I do not see how that is an unrealistic expectation.

Any expectation humans put in on God is an unrealistic expectation, Imo. That is especially true if we expect God to relate in the way we want, as opposed to the way God wants to relate to us. Moreover, an All-Powerful God is under no obligation to relate to humans at all, just because He created us, so whatever we do get from God is by His Mercy alone. And then people complain because they do not get what they want, as if God is a short order cook. I just do not understand why people do not understand how unreasonable this is.

In theory, what we are, came from god. Is it logical to assume God would harbor similar traits found in human animals, his creations, or the "god equivalent" of those limited human traits? Perhaps God used an aspect of itself as a blueprint to make us? Like, you're god, how the hell else would you do it even allowing for being able to magically poof things into existence.

Yes, I believe God made us in His own image, including giving us free will, so we could have some understanding of what it is like to exercise our own power and make choices. However, human free will is limited whereas God’s will has no limits.

So, the Origin of Communication itself is not a very good communicator. Makes sense.

I did not say that God is a poor communicator, but communication has to be received, and humans don’t have God receptors. God did not create us that way because God never intended to communicate to us directly.

 

[Trailblazer]

His argument is invalid as lack of communication does not equate lack of existence.

No, because God could exist and not communicate at all.

4. All claimed messengers are frauds
5. Records of messengers were lost and/or change thus not authentic. (Your own faith believes, in part, this is not only possible but true.)

This thread is not about whether Messengers are true or false. It is about what would constitute credible communication for atheists who presumably do not believe in Messengers. The only evidence we have of God communicating is from Messengers, so if they are all false, the only alternatives are 2. or 3.

Irrelevant point. The question is about effectiveness. Single "dose" messengers are not effective given your own religion is not even close to be a major one. Results matter.

Results might matter to you but you are not the one setting the goalposts. God is.

My religion has nothing to do with the concept of Messengers as effective communication. 93% of people in the world already believe in God and almost all of them believe because of a religion that was established by a Messenger. There is no hurry for them to become Baha’is.

 

[MonkeyFire]

That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought of that. But to clarify: Are you suggesting that a god would reveal himself to at least some people so that they or their followers could believe in life? And if so, are you claiming only that some people need such a thing in order to believe in life, or are you claiming that all people need such a thing in order to believe in life?

I'm not interested in a debate. I'm just curious what your views are.

Faith is a living thing and he's going to start saving other human things.

 

[YmirGF]

If God is God, then God is not human because that is a logical contradiction.

It cannot be both because, exactly?

Any expectation humans put in on God is an unrealistic expectation, Imo.

(Hehe, I agree with that, to a degree, but there are exceptions, I'm sure.) Doesn't that make prayer moot though or do followers get it both ways by default?

That is especially true if we expect God to relate in the way we want, as opposed to the way God wants to relate to us.

I thought this too obvious a point to make.

Moreover, an All-Powerful God is under no obligation to relate to humans at all, just because He created us, so whatever we do get from God is by His Mercy alone.

How could you possibly know something that is little more than assumption. Again, you are pretending your apprehension of reality is correct. There is no way to currently validate this phenomena. A valiant effort though.

And then people complain because they do not get what they want, as if God is a short order cook. I just do not understand why people do not understand how unreasonable this is.

I agree on the short order cook thingy, but to pretend to know much more about the topic is disingenuous even though God could be a short order cook in Queens, for all we know.

However, human free will is limited whereas God’s will has no limits.

Again, that's a pretty obvious line of reasoning but once again enters into the realm of assumption. We don't REALLY know for sure, one way or the other.

I did not say that God is a poor communicator, but communication has to be received, and humans don’t have God receptors.

You are giving your opinion on something that no one knows for sure. Such definitive statements will not win your argument against any self-respecting atheist. I have no problem, whatsoever, with your opinion. Please understand that. Essentially, what I am saying is that such statements are "over the edge" as it were and should be avoided, unless for some ungodly reason you are quoting scripture to an atheist, where you then put it all in quotes. LOL (I am trying to help you here!)

God did not create us that way because God never intended to communicate to us directly.

You make him almost sound like he ain't worth the bother. (Seriously.)

 

[Milton Platt]

This is a carryover from a dialogue that has been ongoing between me and an Atheist on another forum for about five years... Yes, five years and we are still going around in the same circles. I posted something about this about six months ago but I am back with a slightly different slant.

Synopsis: The issue at hand is that this Atheist thinks that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world (all 7.4 billion people) because that is “what he considers” the only credible method of communication. In his opinion, if God does not communicate directly to everyone, that is evidence that God does not exist. One of his premises is that a God would want everyone to believe in Him, and direct communication to everyone would be “the only way” to accomplish that.

My position is that God wants everyone to believe in Him but God does not need everyone to believe in Him because an omnipotent/omniscient/fully self-sufficient God does not need anything from anyone. If an omnipotent God needed everyone to believe in Him, He could have communicated directly to everyone. So, since God does not do that, there are only three logical possibilities to choose from:

1. God uses Messengers, knowing that not everyone will believe in them.
2. God does not communicate at all.
3. God does not exist.

There is no option #4, that if God exists, God would communicate directly with everyone, because God has not communicated directly with everyone.

In other words, since there is no evidence that God has ever communicated directly to everyone we can assume that is not what God wants to do, if God exists.

Credibility is not the issue here, this issue is the best way to communicate to accomplish what God is trying to accomplish.

Who would know the best way to communicate to humans in order to accomplish what God wants to accomplish, humans or God?

You have eliminated the best means of communication in your opening post (direct communication). Obviously, if there is a deity that wants to communicate for some reason, he uses sub-optimal methods for some reason.

But what I always say is an all knowing deity would know exactly what each individual needs to believe and an all powerful deity would be able to provide that evidence. So if there is a deity, he either does not know, or cannot do it, or is purposefully being a jerk.

 

[Milton Platt]

A thunderous boom & a brilliant flash would precede the sky parting as God drove
his flaming golden chariot pulled by a team of 4 winged pink unicorns from Heaven
down to Earth. They descend upon the Capitol dome & White House, grinding
government and its wicked edifice to dust beneath their holy carriage. Alighting
from his holy conveyance carried by eagles beneath his feet, he stands before us
in all his glory....tentacles gracefully writhing, and expansive white beard fluttering
in the wind...he then begins to speak to every human across the planet in every
language simultaneously.

At this point, I plan to listen.

or have your mobile phone on record, because this is definitely something you are going to post on Facebook.

 

[Trailblazer]

It cannot be both because, exactly?

God is not a man. The Bible says that.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?​

(Hehe, I agree with that, to a degree, but there are exceptions, I'm sure.) Doesn't that make prayer moot though or do followers get it both ways by default?

We can say prayers but there is no guarantee that we will get an answer, or the answer we want.

I thought this too obvious a point to make.

Maybe for you, but not for the atheist I was referring to in the OP.

How could you possibly know something that is little more than assumption. Again, you are pretending your apprehension of reality is correct. There is no way to currently validate this phenomena. A valiant effort though.

No, I do not pretend it is correct, I just believe it is correct. I cannot validate it because it is a belief, not a fact. And I do question God’s Mercy at times, bad Baha’i that I am.

I agree on the short order cook thingy, but to pretend to know much more about the topic is disingenuous even though God could be a short order cook in Queens, for all we know.

I do not pretend I know, I just believe I know. Do you understand the difference? I might believe I know other things that cannot be proven, like that I have a good tenant for my house all picked out, only to find out later I was wrong. Life is a risk. We cannot prove everything.

I go by what I consider logical, not just what is in scriptures. Why would God be a short older cook?

Again, that's a pretty obvious line of reasoning but once again enters into the realm of assumption. We don't REALLY know for sure, one way or the other.

True about God, but we can know about humans and free will, since we know we make decisions.

You are giving your opinion on something that no one knows for sure. Such definitive statements will not win your argument against any self-respecting atheist.

I never try to win arguments. I just present what I believe. People can take it or leave it or ask questions about it. Moreover, I do not *just believe it* because my religion teaches it, I believe it because it makes sense to me. I realize it won’t make sense to everyone, but part of the reason is because I have studied it a lot so I know how all the pieces fit together.

I have no problem, whatsoever, with your opinion. Please understand that. Essentially, what I am saying is that such statements are "over the edge" as it were and should be avoided, unless for some ungodly reason you are quoting scripture to an atheist, where you then put it all in quotes. LOL (I am trying to help you here!)

I hesitate to put in quotes because most atheists don’t like them. And now I am coming to realize that part of the reason is because they do not understand them.

You make him almost sound like he ain't worth the bother. (Seriously.)

What I do not understand is why anyone would want to hear from God directly or have a personal relationship with God. Err what Even if I thought I could hear from God I would not want to. But I guess I feel that way because of what I believe about God and that God *belongs* in His own high place, and I think it is rather cool...

I do not want to be *partners* with an Almighty God because then He would no longer be Almighty in my eyes. He would be taking a demotion to come down to my level. Okay, here is one short quote that explains it, there are many more like it.

“And now concerning thy reference to the existence of two Gods. Beware, beware, lest thou be led to join partners with the Lord, thy God. 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. To this every atom of the universe beareth witness, and beyond it the inmates of the realms on high, they that occupy the most exalted seats, and whose names are remembered before the Throne of Glory.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192​

 

[Trailblazer]

You have eliminated the best means of communication in your opening post (direct communication).

Explain why it is best. How exactly would it work? What would happen? How would people react? Have you thought this through?

Obviously, if there is a deity that wants to communicate for some reason, he uses sub-optimal methods for some reason.

Why are Messengers sub-optimal, because you have to trust that they are really speaking for a God? How do you think you would know it was God if God spoke to you directly?

But what I always say is an all knowing deity would know exactly what each individual needs to believe and an all powerful deity would be able to provide that evidence.

Yes, the deity knows, but why should the deity cater to individuals when He can instead send out an all-points bulletin with one Messenger?

So if there is a deity, he either does not know, or cannot do it, or is purposefully being a jerk.

It is none of the above. The deity knows and the deity can do it but the deity does not want to do it. Do you call everyone a jerk who does not do what you want him to do, or is that reserved just for God?

 

[Revoltingest]

or have your mobile phone on record, because this is definitely something you are going to post on Facebook.

Don't you watch sci fi movies?
Useful things like recording devices fail
to work when you want them most.

 

[masonlandry]

By the nature of the belif, it is subjective. You would need to go deeper and understand it from your observation. Christians will tell you a dime a dozen experiences and "facts" so its best to draw your own conclusions.

What type of god do you want them to convince you of? It isn't a man in the sky.

I don't want to be convinced of any type of god. either there is a god or there isn't, I don't know. The god I believe in isn't a conscious entity with a will and isn't tri-omni. My Christianity is based on the ethics, not the supernatural beliefs that most Christians hold.

DMT? Thats nothing close. Do you have a passion that you cant live without? or family members the essence of your life or so have you?

That feeling of connection you can't live without is what people call god.

You've clearly never used DMT. To say the love of a family member is more god-like than the alternate dimension I've been transported to multiple times to meet entities that not only meet but exceed the ancient descriptions of God is, well it's a little silly from my perspective. Everything I've seen in sober reality is rather mundane compared to that. But the love or passion you feel isn't god, it's a human emotion. god is something transcendent, otherwise, god would die with humanity.

Are you trying to find a christian definition for the feeling you know? Maybe christianity isnt your thing. God isnt christian.

No. I am more than Christian, as is god. I call myself Christian because I follow the teachings of Jesus and the good ethics that underly the horrid morality of the old testament. I am also Taoist and Buddhist with a smattering of other Dharmic beliefs. I don't think any of the man-made religions fully encompass the reality of god (or whatever it is that I call god) so I see no need to limit myself to one religion over another.

​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Its not about knowledge. Im not any more special then anyone else. I also make no claims to having any special prophet or relation status with God. Its about the most logical explanation for our reality we all share.

Sorry, but I disagree that it's the most logical explanation for our reality. It might be, if there actually were a God such as you and others describe (or any of the other descriptions given). But I find the most logical explanation for our reality is first to assume that no such entity exists -- for the very simple reason that there is zero evidence for such a thing. It exists in the minds of lots of people for no other reason than that they simply didn't have anything by way of explanation for pretty much anything, and can't stand admitting, "I don't know." So they invent a God -- who by the way is being whittled away bit by bit as science provides the answers that were previously unavailable.

But, on top of it, i have had my share of spiritual experiences which convince me of the reality. And thousands of others have too. These range from NDEs, OBEs, ESPs, spiritual regenerations and apparitions.

Lots of people experience all sorts of things that are not real. Because of how experience works (it happens in the brain, you see), then if something in the brain causes an experience unprompted by anything outside of the brain, it would be indistinguishable from an experience resulting from some outside stimulus.

Not being able to tell the difference doesn't make them the same sort of thing at all.

Also, might i add. Do you also not assert to know what God would do when you think he should communicate a certain way? So, why do you then question my assertion when i give reasons why God would not communicate the way you think he should?

Well, since I don't believe in a god, that would be silly, wouldn't it. However, the God that has been described to me, including by you, includes that deity's wants. And the thing about being God is that when You want something, that something is. That goes along with "omnipotence." And that is why all such descriptions of God completely fail for me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't want to be convinced of any type of god. either there is a god or there isn't, I don't know. The god I believe in isn't a conscious entity with a will and isn't tri-omni. My Christianity is based on the ethics, not the supernatural beliefs that most Christians hold.

What type of supernatural beliefs about god do you want them to have evidence of?

You've clearly never used DMT. To say the love of a family member is more god-like than the alternate dimension I've been transported to multiple times to meet entities that not only meet but exceed the ancient descriptions of God is, well it's a little silly from my perspective.

Everything I've seen in sober reality is rather mundane compared to that. But the love or passion you feel isn't god, it's a human emotion. god is something transcendent, otherwise, god would die with humanity.

That is silly. I didnt say that. Where did you get transportation to entities???

What is the description of god in your view?

No. I am more than Christian, as is god. I call myself Christian because I follow the teachings of Jesus and the good ethics that underly the horrid morality of the old testament. I am also Taoist and Buddhist with a smattering of other Dharmic beliefs. I don't think any of the man-made religions fully encompass the reality of god (or whatever it is that I call god) so I see no need to limit myself to one religion over another.

Okay.... I am an atheist who has only been catholic four years of my adult life. I am a Buddhist (not atheistic). I am an artist. I am one. Doesnt matter, really.

How do you describe god in contrast to the list of commonalities I mentioned christians have when they describe god?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a carryover from a dialogue that has been ongoing between me and an Atheist on another forum for about five years... Yes, five years and we are still going around in the same circles. I posted something about this about six months ago but I am back with a slightly different slant.

Synopsis: The issue at hand is that this Atheist thinks that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world (all 7.4 billion people) because that is “what he considers” the only credible method of communication. In his opinion, if God does not communicate directly to everyone, that is evidence that God does not exist. One of his premises is that a God would want everyone to believe in Him, and direct communication to everyone would be “the only way” to accomplish that.

I get the sense that you might not be representing this atheist's position faithfully, since what you describe doesn't really make sense.

My position is that God wants everyone to believe in Him but God does not need everyone to believe in Him because an omnipotent/omniscient/fully self-sufficient God does not need anything from anyone. If an omnipotent God needed everyone to believe in Him, He could have communicated directly to everyone.

Even if this omnipotent god only wanted everyone to believe in him, you have a problem, because you still have an omnipotent god trying to do something but failing.

So, since God does not do that, there are only three logical possibilities to choose from:

1. God uses Messengers, knowing that not everyone will believe in them.
2. God does not communicate at all.
3. God does not exist.

There is no option #4, that if God exists, God would communicate directly with everyone, because God has not communicated directly with everyone.

If we're talking in the hypothetical, then there's no reason to exclude option #4... or the wide spectrum of other options you didn't mention.

BTW: option 1 implies that God doesn't want everyone to know him.

In other words, since there is no evidence that God has ever communicated directly to everyone we can assume that is not what God wants to do, if God exists.

Set aside "everyone" for a moment; is there evidence that God has communicated directly with anyone?

Credibility is not the issue here, this issue is the best way to communicate to accomplish what God is trying to accomplish.

Who would know the best way to communicate to humans in order to accomplish what God wants to accomplish, humans or God?

I think credibility is absolutely the issue here. Another way of looking at your question ("what would you consider communication from God?") is to ask "what sorts of purported 'communication from God' couldn't be faked or mistaken interpretation?"

That's the lens I'm looking at, anyway. And from my perspective, your purported "messengers" don't even pass the smell test. Is there an easier way to fake a communication from God than just announcing things that you claim God told you with no evidence to back it up?

I mean, at least augurers in ancient Rome had the sacred chickens and whatnot. The interpretation might have been questionable, but anyone nearby could have watched and said "yes, the chickens really did what the augurer said they did." Your messengers don't even have that level of support.

 

[wandering peacefully]

That is an interesting OP. God wants people to believe in him but God doesn't care if anyone believes in him.

Why would god send messengers if he doesn't care if anyone believes in him? What is the point? And if he does want people to believe in him, he would obviously send direct messages and being omni everything would be a simple task for him/her/it god.

It does match the results of sending messengers. He sends so many different and conflicting messages that a rational person wouldn't believe it was an omni everything sending messages. Fewer and fewer people are believing in him so I don't think his method of communication is working for him anymore if he "wants" people to believe. But if he doesn't care or need people to believe in him he is using the correct method of communication in using messengers to achieve that goal.

So why would he send messengers if he doesn't care if people believe in him?

I can't see that argument going on for 5 years unless people are stuck on having to prove what they can't possibly know is true, is true. A very different way to live for sure.

Certainly not the way people who follow Buddha's teaching about living in the moment would live.

And they certainly wouldn't hit their husband because of an unwinnable argument on an Internet forum with someone they don't even know for 5 years.

People who believe they are holy and special and know what God wants shouldn't be committing assault on an elderly man who has nothing to do with the Internet argument. And someone who got that upset about an argument on the Internet would have little to no credibility with anyone sane.

Maybe it's time to do something else? But if not, please don't hit old people.

 

[icehorse]

Yes. God can do anything, but God only does what God wants to do, not what humans think He should do.

Well if your argument is some variation on "god works in mysterious ways", then there cannot be a debate, because you're making an unfalsifiable claim.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This is a carryover from a dialogue that has been ongoing between me and an Atheist on another forum for about five years... Yes, five years and we are still going around in the same circles. I posted something about this about six months ago but I am back with a slightly different slant.

Synopsis: The issue at hand is that this Atheist thinks that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world (all 7.4 billion people) because that is “what he considers” the only credible method of communication. In his opinion, if God does not communicate directly to everyone, that is evidence that God does not exist. One of his premises is that a God would want everyone to believe in Him, and direct communication to everyone would be “the only way” to accomplish that.

My position is that God wants everyone to believe in Him but God does not need everyone to believe in Him because an omnipotent/omniscient/fully self-sufficient God does not need anything from anyone. If an omnipotent God needed everyone to believe in Him, He could have communicated directly to everyone. So, since God does not do that, there are only three logical possibilities to choose from:

1. God uses Messengers, knowing that not everyone will believe in them.
2. God does not communicate at all.
3. God does not exist.

There is no option #4, that if God exists, God would communicate directly with everyone, because God has not communicated directly with everyone.

In other words, since there is no evidence that God has ever communicated directly to everyone we can assume that is not what God wants to do, if God exists.

Credibility is not the issue here, this issue is the best way to communicate to accomplish what God is trying to accomplish.

Who would know the best way to communicate to humans in order to accomplish what God wants to accomplish, humans or God?

(Pardon me, if this is already said-- I have only read the OP so far)

1) Only true if the god in question is Immoral/Un-Ethical. Lowly humans comprehend the idea of Fairness. Studies show that even 2 year old's recognize Fair and Unfair.

If #1 is true? The god in question is Infinitely Unfair (because it's an Infinite Being: everything it does has that quality)

It's not a matter of want/need: It is a matter of Playing Special Favorites, to the detriment of everyone else. Therefore, such a god is Evil.

2) God would then be infinitely indifferent. As such, may as well not exist at all-- either way (believe or don't: same outcome).

If, however, the outcome is different if one believes vs one does not? Back to Infinitely Unfair-- because without communication? It's random chance. Evil. Again.

3) This is the only Fair scenario: The outcome is the same, if believe or don't.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I agree. No true deity would need our belief. The only reason that a deity would want us to believe in it would be for our own benefit.

Or? The god in question is malicious, and knows that deluding a section of the population into false belief, will cause strife and bring about chaos and war.

Since you are simply guessing? May as well include as many possible scenarios as we can imagine.

Your assumption that this "god" is good? Is an obviously false one: Look at the Earth, and take note of all the god-preventable evil that runs wild on the planet.

Clearly, if there is a god, it cannot possibly be Good. It can be indifferent, or evil.

But absolutely not good.