Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?

[Trailblazer]

Hmmm....it would take *a lot* to convince me that *anyone* speaks with the 'Voice of God'. In fact, for me, a *precondition* would be to establish the existence of a God. Only after that would I see it as reasonable to ask whether someone is speaking with the voice of that being.

I understand why you think that way but that is a Catch-22 since you cannot establish the existence of God without a Messenger of God, one who speaks as a Representative of God.

If people bothered to really think about this it would become obvious why God would use a Messenger to establish His existence. God is not a man who can show up on Earth so how else could God prove His existence. I have been asking atheists this question for years, but I still have not received any reasonable answers.

 

[leov]

I understand why you think that way but that is a Catch-22 since you cannot establish the existence of God without a Messenger of God, one who speaks as a Representative of God.

If people bothered to really think about this it would become obvious why God would use a Messenger to establish His existence. God is not a man who can show up on Earth so how else could God prove His existence. I have been asking atheists this question for years, but I still have not received any reasonable answers.

Imo, God does not really care about humans worship God, God cares for humanity to become worthy companion in God's environment.

 

[Trailblazer]

No new evidence can validate pre-existing religions. If the religion can't be justified on the basis of the evidence on hand when it was founded, then it's unjustified, period.

Those older religions must be justified based upon the evidence on hand when it was founded. All I meant to say is that a new religion can also validate the older religions. I believe that because I believe that all the religions originated from the same God, and as such each successive religion validates the previous religions.

If some future evidence in line with the religion comes to light later, the religion was still unjustified. The mere fact that it was a lucky guess doesn't imply that it wasn't a fabrication in the first place.

Yes, it would be unjustified, if that religion was not justified when it was originally revealed.

 

[Dell]

On another thread….

Trailblazer said: Many atheists say they would like to believe in God if they only had the evidence.

@ ecco said:
Name one. Show where he/she said "they would like to believe in God if they only had the evidence." That isn't what atheists say. That's what theists would like to believe atheists say.

Trailblazer said: Holy moly! ~~~ This is practically all atheists say, at least to me. Sorry, I cannot quote atheists from other forums because that is not right. They posted to me on other forums in confidence. Sure, they are public forums, but it is bad practice to take posts from one forum to another forum. But it is not only on the “other forums” where atheists have said this. They have also said it on RF. I am not saying that ALL atheists would like to believe in God if they had the evidence, since some atheists probably have no interest in God. But if they don’t have any interest in God, why is this forum comprised of as many atheists as believers? Hmmmmm.....

This would be a great topic for a new thread:

“Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?”

Please answer 1, 2 or 3.

1) Yes, I would like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
2) I am not sure. I might like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
3) No, I would not like to believe in God even if there was evidence that was good enough.

* By good enough I mean evidence that was sufficient for you to believe that God exists, evidence that proved to you that God exists.

Well yeah... who would not like a true assurance of everlasting life and heaven after you die? Who would not like to know God the creator.. and if your a Christian, Jesus Christ who died so you could be forgiven of sin and be saved. Yeeaah.. that would be awesome..

POP... back to reality... dang....

 

[Trailblazer]

Well yeah... who would not like a true assurance of everlasting life and heaven after you die? Who would not like to know God the creator.. and if your a Christian, Jesus Christ who died so you could be forgiven of sin and be saved. Yeeaah.. that would be awesome..

POP... back to reality... dang....

It's your choice.

 

[InChrist]

"God has the right to do it" <> "God can do it without being monstrous."

I don't think you or I with our finite view can legitimately say that God does things in a monstrous way when we can't know all the details, see the entire picture, or comprehend the eternal dimension and ramifications of a situation.

That's a pretty messed up worldview, IMO. It also stands in stark contrast to every example of Christian charity: the idea that everything God does is done out of love is incompatible with the idea that we need to help others to make up for deficiencies in God's creation.

Maybe you could more clearly elaborate exactly what you mean here or the point you are making.

 

[Dell]

It's your choice.

Very true.. one that should be considered by everyone.. choose to believe by faith "evidence not seen" or choose to not believe due to no evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Very true.. one that should be considered by everyone.. choose to believe by faith "evidence not seen" or choose to not believe due to no evidence.

There is evidence, just no proof.
Evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

 

[ChristineM]

The Bible interprets and clarifies itself and verses you provided do not say God creates sin.

Yes, I asked about sin, yet throughout the scriptures it is made clear that sin is contrary to love and God is Love.

If the bible interpreted and clarified itself, then please explain why there are more than 50,000 different sects of christianity each with a different interpretations of their preferred version of the hundreds of different versions of the bible?


Yet i i provided a couple of verses that state otherwise. And there are many more.

 

[Peter Sawrie]

There already is proof God exists: you. The fact that you exist is proof God is. Can a conscious being exist without eternal consciousness first existing? People fail to realize that the only factual evidence is consciousness and facts must be used to create theories, or they are not reasonable: nor can they be.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I think I got it now. If God exists, you would like God to provide verifiable evidence of His existence because if there is a God you would want to know that God exists, even if it is not a God you would approve of or like.

So, from what you are saying, if the God of the Christian Bible exists, you don't think you are off the hook for not believing in Him even though you find it absurd that such a God would punish you for not believing in Him.

So you are taking a pretty big gamble if that God indeed exists, don't you think? You must be fairly certain that this God does not exist.

I think that the God of the Bible exists but not as portrayed by Christians, and I do not think this God punishes people for not believing in Him. Rather, we simply miss out on the rewards we could have had if we had believed in Him.

What happens after we die is unknown. Personally, I do not think there is any scriptural evidence which indicates that atheists go to hell, but there is evidence that indicates that evil people go to hell, although hell is not a geographical location, it is a state of the soul. Judging by the following quote, it could be that God was more into punishment in the Bible days but God has now lightened up. God can do that because God has all power.

Abdu'l-Baha considered those nonbelievers who had good deeds and morals far preferable to those of His followers who claimed to believe in words but whose actions did not follow. Rather, they followed their own selfish desires, which is what is meant by a follower of satan.

"This cycle is the cycle of favor and not of justice. Therefore, those whose deeds are clean and pure, even though they are not believers, will not be deprived of the divine mercy; but perfection is in faith and deeds. Undoubtedly, a person, who is not a believer, but whose deeds and morals are good, is far better than one who claims his belief in words but, who, in actions, is a follower of satan. The Blessed Beauty says, 'My humiliation is not in my imprisonment, which, by my life, is an exaltation to me; nay rather, it is in the deeds of my friends, who attribute themselves to us and commit that which causes my heart and pen to weep!'"
(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 9, issue 3, p. 29)

So you are taking a pretty big gamble if that God indeed exists, don't you think? You must be fairly certain that this God does not exist.

Me taking a gamble suggests that I have some sort of a choice. Again, you are saying this as if I have a switch in my head I can activate that will automatically allow me to believe. I can't just DECIDE to believe in a god just because people claim there would be some benefit if I do.

If someone told you that magical pixies are real and that if you sincerely believe in them they will grant your every wish, would you somehow be able to 'make' yourself genuinely believe in magical pixies? If you couldn't, then you understand why I can't 'make' myself genuinely believe in your god.

 

[QuestioningMind]

There already is proof God exists: you. The fact that you exist is proof God is. Can a conscious being exist without eternal consciousness first existing? People fail to realize that the only factual evidence is consciousness and facts must be used to create theories, or they are not reasonable: nor can they be.

There already is proof God exists: you. The fact that you exist is proof God is.

Nope... the fact that I exist is ONLY proof that I had parents that procreated. FIRST you would need to provide verifiable evidence that some 'god' exists and THEN you'd need do demonstrate that it was this god that is responsible for my existence.

Can a conscious being exist without eternal consciousness first existing?

Since there is no verifiable evidence that any sort of 'eternal consciousness' exists and we know that conscious beings do exist, then it certainly seems possible if not likely that conscious beings can exist without some 'eternal consciousness' existing first.

People fail to realize that the only factual evidence is consciousness and facts must be used to create theories, or they are not reasonable: nor can they be

I don't understand what you mean by 'the only factual evidence is consciousness'. It is true that people use their consciousness to determine what is and what isn't factual evidence, but that's hardly the same as saying consciousness is the 'only factual evidence'. I agree that you must use factual evidence to establish theories. Unfortunately, as noted above, you have NOT provided any factual evidence for the the claims that you made.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand why you think that way but that is a Catch-22 since you cannot establish the existence of God without a Messenger of God, one who speaks as a Representative of God.

I don't see it as a cacth-22 at all. It just means the default (non-existence) is maintained.

If people bothered to really think about this it would become obvious why God would use a Messenger to establish His existence. God is not a man who can show up on Earth so how else could God prove His existence. I have been asking atheists this question for years, but I still have not received any reasonable answers.

OK, fine. But all that only applies if God actually exists. If not, then there is no messenger and no need to validate that messenger.

And that means we only have two possibilities:
1. God does not exist
2. God exists, uses a messenger, but you can't know the messenger is legitimate.

Once again, the logical position seems to gravitate to 1.

 

[Polymath257]

There is evidence, just no proof.
Evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

But I would go further. The evidence available is of incredibly poor quality. The *possible* existence of 'messengers' or 'prophets' with no way to verify either seems like a weak position, at best.

So, not only do we not have proof, but the quality of the evidence is so poor that even accepting it as valid is a stretch.

 

[Polymath257]

There already is proof God exists: you. The fact that you exist is proof God is.

Um, not even decent evidence of the existence of a God. It shows, given known biology, that my parents existed. Not much more.

Can a conscious being exist without eternal consciousness first existing?

I don't see why not. Consciousness evolved just like our other abilities.

People fail to realize that the only factual evidence is consciousness and facts must be used to create theories, or they are not reasonable: nor can they be.

And I see no reason why the bare existence of consciousness implies the existence of any sort of deity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand why you think that way but that is a Catch-22 since you cannot establish the existence of God without a Messenger of God, one who speaks as a Representative of God.

If people bothered to really think about this it would become obvious why God would use a Messenger to establish His existence. God is not a man who can show up on Earth so how else could God prove His existence. I have been asking atheists this question for years, but I still have not received any reasonable answers.

If you want a reasonable answer, try asking a reasonable question.

Your question is so loaded with assumptions that I don't know where to start unpacking it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you are taking a pretty big gamble if that God indeed exists, don't you think? You must be fairly certain that this God does not exist.

In the same sense that I'm taking a gamble by not wearing my flame-resistant suit (which I actually have from my racing days) when I leave the house to protect me from dragons' fire-breath.

Do you think I'm reasonable not to do that? If so, then explain why I should take the threat of God more seriously than the threat of dragons.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Obviously, one would need to remove their confirmation bias before they would consider embarking on a search for a religion. Extreme bias precludes open-mindedness and being fair in your judgment.

I think my confirmation bias came after I looked at the claims from all the various major religions. Not having the time to assess all.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think my confirmation bias came after I looked at the claims from all the various major religions. Not having the time to assess all.

Fair enough.
By contrast, I had NO confirmation bias, since I never looked at any other religions before I became a Baha'i.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There already is proof God exists: you. The fact that you exist is proof God is. Can a conscious being exist without eternal consciousness first existing? People fail to realize that the only factual evidence is consciousness and facts must be used to create theories, or they are not reasonable: nor can they be.

And if we eventually discover that many other animals do have some form of consciousness - possibly a step towards ours - and that this has developed over time as all the various species became more complex, will that change your mind? Is their existence proof for them?