If God existed, would there be any atheists?

[Trailblazer]

This contradicts what was being said in the video. If Bahai believes that the truth is the truth is the truth, then your beliefs should be reviewed by others.

No, the video says nothing about our beliefs being reviewed by others.

Individual investigation of truth means it is an individual investigation and it involves nobody else.

It does not matter what other people think because the beliefs have to be our own beliefs because we alone are responsible to God for our beliefs.

If not, then your personal beliefs are nothing more than you personally wanting non-truths to be truth.

There is no reason to think that what we determined in our individual investigation would be what we wanted to be true. That has no basis in logic.

If you put all your knowledge (unbeknownst to yourself that they are all untrue) into the box, no matter how much you have investigated, you will never be get to or near the truth.

There is no reason to think that it would not be possible to determine the truth by doing an individual investigation of the facts related to the religion.

Due to your bias, you've missed an important factor here, which is, individual investigations. Note that it is plural. For you, the investigation stops once you have fulfill your personal wants and decided to call them "truths."

There is no reason to think that bias has anything to do with missing any of the facts related to the religion.
There is no reason to think that wants has anything to do with what is found in the independent investigation. That is just your personal opinion and it has no basis in reality.

When peer review is allowed, the investigator does not end there. After obtaining the recently gained new knowledge, you do more investigations in order to be closer to the truth.

That is not new knowledge about the religion in question; it is just another person’s opinion of the religion. That would get us no closer to the truth. The truth about the religion comes from the facts related to the religion. Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. Nobody else's opinions carry any more weight than our own opinions.

That investigation is only performed to determine whether you genuinely believe your beliefs, and nothing more.

Did you watch the video? If you did you would know that is false, because prior to the investigation one has not accepted any beliefs as true.

Fear has played a part in this. Fear of knowing the truth have turned your quest for that knowledge into a quest of comfort, regardless of you actually finding the truth.

There is no reason to think anyone is afraid of anything or that anyone is seeking comfort rather than truth. That is just your personal opinion and it has no basis in reality.

Rather than rewriting what I already said to Tiberius, here were my parting thoughts:

And I have explained countless times that if something is checked and verified by others, then we should not believe it because it is not our own belief if we have to have it checked and verified by other people.

I think we are at the end of this road because there’s never going to be any agreement and you cannot understand why I am saying what I do. I do not just pull these things out of my hat; they come from the Writings of my religion. So I will leave you with a very important passage that says it all, and makes it perfectly clear why we would never want out beliefs checked and verified by anyone else.

“Suffer not yourselves to be wrapt in the dense veils of your selfish desires, inasmuch as I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure? If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

In brief, what that passage means is that everyone has the capacity to believe in God... If they didn’t, God could not hold anyone accountable for not believing... It goes on to say that we cannot blame anyone else for not believing in God. If not one single person believed in God we are still accountable because no man’s faith can be determined by anyone except himself.

In brief, what that passage means is that everyone has the capacity to recognize God in the Person of the Messenger... If they didn’t, God could not hold anyone accountable for not believing in Him... It goes on to say that we cannot blame anyone else for our failures. If not one single person recognized the Messenger of God (which equates to recognizing God) we are still accountable because no man’s faith can be determined by anyone except himself.... That is why I cannot prove anything to you or to anyone else... You have to look at the evidence and decide for yourself. That is also why peer review of beliefs is completely out of the question, because then we would be involving other people and putting our eternal life in someone else’s hands.

Pay close attention to the last sentence. What Baha’u’llah is saying is that the faith of no man should be determined by anyone except himself. We are all responsible for our own belief in God, so we cannot look to other people for their opinions or blame other people for why we chose not to believe.

 

[FirstCowboy]

If God existed, would there be any atheists?[/SIZE]

Yes, if people have free will, which they do.
No, otherwise.

 

[night912]

No, the video says nothing about our beliefs being reviewed by others.

Individual investigation of truth means it is an individual investigation and it involves nobody else.

It does not matter what other people think because the beliefs have to be our own beliefs because we alone are responsible to God for our beliefs.


There is no reason to think that what we determined in our individual investigation would be what we wanted to be true. That has no basis in logic.

There is no reason to think that it would not be possible to determine the truth by doing an individual investigation of the facts related to the religion.

There is no reason to think that bias has anything to do with missing any of the facts related to the religion.
There is no reason to think that wants has anything to do with what is found in the independent investigation. That is just your personal opinion and it has no basis in reality.

That is not new knowledge about the religion in question; it is just another person’s opinion of the religion. That would get us no closer to the truth. The truth about the religion comes from the facts related to the religion. Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. Nobody else's opinions carry any more weight than our own opinions.

Did you watch the video? If you did you would know that is false, because prior to the investigation one has not accepted any beliefs as true.

There is no reason to think anyone is afraid of anything or that anyone is seeking comfort rather than truth. That is just your personal opinion and it has no basis in reality.

Rather than rewriting what I already said to Tiberius, here were my parting thoughts:

And I have explained countless times that if something is checked and verified by others, then we should not believe it because it is not our own belief if we have to have it checked and verified by other people.

I think we are at the end of this road because there’s never going to be any agreement and you cannot understand why I am saying what I do. I do not just pull these things out of my hat; they come from the Writings of my religion. So I will leave you with a very important passage that says it all, and makes it perfectly clear why we would never want out beliefs checked and verified by anyone else.

“Suffer not yourselves to be wrapt in the dense veils of your selfish desires, inasmuch as I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure? If, in the Day when all the peoples of the earth will be gathered together, any man should, whilst standing in the presence of God, be asked: “Wherefore hast thou disbelieved in My Beauty and turned away from My Self,” and if such a man should reply and say: “Inasmuch as all men have erred, and none hath been found willing to turn his face to the Truth, I, too, following their example, have grievously failed to recognize the Beauty of the Eternal,” such a plea will, assuredly, be rejected. For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

In brief, what that passage means is that everyone has the capacity to believe in God... If they didn’t, God could not hold anyone accountable for not believing... It goes on to say that we cannot blame anyone else for not believing in God. If not one single person believed in God we are still accountable because no man’s faith can be determined by anyone except himself.

In brief, what that passage means is that everyone has the capacity to recognize God in the Person of the Messenger... If they didn’t, God could not hold anyone accountable for not believing in Him... It goes on to say that we cannot blame anyone else for our failures. If not one single person recognized the Messenger of God (which equates to recognizing God) we are still accountable because no man’s faith can be determined by anyone except himself.... That is why I cannot prove anything to you or to anyone else... You have to look at the evidence and decide for yourself. That is also why peer review of beliefs is completely out of the question, because then we would be involving other people and putting our eternal life in someone else’s hands.

Pay close attention to the last sentence. What Baha’u’llah is saying is that the faith of no man should be determined by anyone except himself. We are all responsible for our own belief in God, so we cannot look to other people for their opinions or blame other people for why we chose not to believe.

I never said anything about you not deciding for yourself.

There is no reason to think that wants has anything to do with what is found in the independent investigation. That is just your personal opinion and it has no basis in reality.

It's not just my personal opinion because your whole response shows that. It's apparent that you didn't read what I wrote.


no man’s faith can be determined by anyone except himself

I understand that statement that's why my whole point emphasis on it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I never said anything about you not deciding for yourself.

You said: Due to your bias, you've missed an important factor here, which is, individual investigations. Note that it is plural. For you, the investigation stops once you have fulfill your personal wants and decided to call them "truths." When peer review is allowed, the investigator does not end there. After obtaining the recently gained new knowledge, you do more investigations in order to be closer to the truth.

You are assuming that a person doing the investigating is looking to find something they want, but there is no reason to assume that. I was not looking for anything when I first investigated the Baha’i Faith, I was just curious. I did not want a religion and I did not want to believe in God. I simply discovered what I believed to be the truth.

And I told you before that peer review is just another opinion about the religion, not new knowledge about the religion under investigation. More facts about the religion would constitute new knowledge.

It's not just my personal opinion because your whole response shows that. It's apparent that you didn't read what I wrote.

I read everything you wrote and responded to it point by point, and I just read it again. What does my whole response show you?

no man’s faith can be determined by anyone except himself

I understand that statement that's why my whole point emphasis on it.

If you understand it what does it mean to you and what is your problem with it and why do you have a problem with it? Do you think that someone else should determine what a person believes? If so, why?

I will leave you with what I had previously posted to Tiberius. He never acknowledged it, but rather he just kept talking about peer review, which I told him us the exact opposite of what this passage is saying.

What Baha’u’llah wrote in The Kitáb-i-Íqán (The Book of Certitude) on the very first pages is vitally important. The following is part of the last sentence of a longer paragraph, the part I want to point out and explain.

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say or do.

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves.

How to Independently Investigate the Truth

 

[FirstCowboy]

God exists and Theists exist for a very good reason. They are teaching Atheists lessons Atheists need to learn.

This reminds me of a story of the following conversation between two kids:

— Why do you think the roosters exist?
— They exist in order to protect the hens.
— And who do they need to protect them from?
— Well, from other roosters of course!

 

[night912]

You said: Due to your bias, you've missed an important factor here, which is, individual investigations. Note that it is plural. For you, the investigation stops once you have fulfill your personal wants and decided to call them "truths." When peer review is allowed, the investigator does not end there. After obtaining the recently gained new knowledge, you do more investigations in order to be closer to the truth.

You are assuming that a person doing the investigating is looking to find something they want, but there is no reason to assume that. I was not looking for anything when I first investigated the Baha’i Faith, I was just curious. I did not want a religion and I did not want to believe in God. I simply discovered what I believed to be the truth.

And I told you before that peer review is just another opinion about the religion, not new knowledge about the religion under investigation. More facts about the religion would constitute new knowledge.

I read everything you wrote and responded to it point by point, and I just read it again. What does my whole response show you?

If you understand it what does it mean to you and what is your problem with it and why do you have a problem with it? Do you think that someone else should determine what a person believes? If so, why?

I will leave you with what I had previously posted to Tiberius. He never acknowledged it, but rather he just kept talking about peer review, which I told him us the exact opposite of what this passage is saying.

What Baha’u’llah wrote in The Kitáb-i-Íqán (The Book of Certitude) on the very first pages is vitally important. The following is part of the last sentence of a longer paragraph, the part I want to point out and explain.

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say or do.

What then do we do? We investigate the truth for ourselves.

How to Independently Investigate the Truth

I already said that I have no problem with doing personal investigation to find personal beliefs. It's method of investigation that is flawed because of the refusal of peer review. Your method has no way of verifying the correctness of your discovery. And my method of investigation align exactly what your link about independent investigations say, but your do not. I've been explaining to you why yours is flawed but so far you've just been cherry picking things here and there instead looking at it as a whole. You assumed that I said something and responded accordingly to that. And I've been telling you that that's not what I was talking about.

 

[Trailblazer]

I already said that I have no problem with doing personal investigation to find personal beliefs. It's method of investigation that is flawed because of the refusal of peer review. Your method has no way of verifying the correctness of your discovery. And my method of investigation align exactly what your link about independent investigations say, but your do not. I've been explaining to you why yours is flawed but so far you've just been cherry picking things here and there instead looking at it as a whole. You assumed that I said something and responded accordingly to that. And I've been telling you that that's not what I was talking about.

Let's start over again from scratch. Please answer some questions for me.

1. How would peer review of my findings verify the correctness of my discovery?
2. Can anyone verify that that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God?
   
3. How does my link align with your method?

Here are the highlights of what is on the video, everything that is relevant to independent investigation of truth. i copied it down word for word. I see nothing that even suggests peer review. It says nothing about involving anyone else in our personal investigation of truth or having it reviewed by anyone else after we have come to our conclusions.

He said that nobody should follow religious beliefs just because it was what their family believes or because it is a long held tradition of a certain religion.

He said that every aspect of every belief should be questioned and examined by each person to make sure that it makes sense, that they’re true.

He said our belief should not be something that we heard from another and have to believe on faith but rather it should be something that has been thoroughly examined and has been found to be solid enough to build a foundation of beliefs from. He said that once a person finds a real solid truth they can be completely confident in that truth.

He said that truth is a truth is a truth so it cannot be contradicted by another truth.

He said there reality is only one reality and we just need to discover the truth of this reality.

He said that we should call into question any of the previously beliefs that we held dear.

He said that we have to take everything we have been taught and put them into a box and call it the box of unproven beliefs, and then we have to carefully examine that belief to see where it came from -- does it makes sense logically, does it agree with other truths, do I have emotions that are informing this belief, a prejudice or past experience?​

 

[night912]

Let's start over again from scratch. Please answer some questions for me.

1. How would peer review of my findings verify the correctness of my discovery? - see if you made mistakes, have bias, being illogical, etc. If you are doing those things, you cannot know that you are not doing them. If you are being illogical but think that you are logical, no matter what, you won't know that you are illogical. If you never know what logic is, you won't know if you are being logical or not, so how is that getting any closer to the truth?
2. Can anyone verify that that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God? No, but if supposedly the message is the truth, and you interpret it to mean one thing, you won't know if it is the truth or not. But by looking at what others have interpreted it, you compare it to yours.
   
3. How does my link align with your method? "He said that every aspect of every belief should be questioned and examined by each person to make sure that it makes sense, that they’re true." This go with being illogical. It is illogical but may make sense to you because you misunderstood and/or don't understand logic, but someone else may point out what's wrong. With new knowledge you do more investigations and discover the truth.

That's why I said "investigations" doing it in layers upon discovery new knowledge. One can know that they genuinely believe in something but they can be wrong due to the variables I've mentioned above. Therefore you are believing false information. But if someone corrects your mistakes, then you can know that you genuinely believe in something and it's the truth.

You do your own investigations but sometimes you cannot see the mistakes until someone points it out for you. If you are looking for a red needle in a haystack when it is supposed to be a yellow needle in a different haystack.

Here's a question that only the individual can answer for themselves. "Are you seeking for belief or truth?"

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Let's start over again from scratch. Please answer some questions for me.

1. How would peer review of my findings verify the correctness of my discovery?

see if you made mistakes, have bias, being illogical, etc. If you are doing those things, you cannot know that you are not doing them. If you are being illogical but think that you are logical, no matter what, you won't know that you are illogical. If you never know what logic is, you won't know if you are being logical or not, so how is that getting any closer to the truth?

Okay, fair enough. I did not know that is what you meant by peer review. I see that is just getting someone else’s opinion of how you went about your investigation, or perhaps they knew something you had not found out during your investigation, in which case you would want to check out that new information, say something about Baha’u’llah or the history of the religion.

2. Can anyone verify that that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God?

No, but if supposedly the message is the truth, and you interpret it to mean one thing, you won't know if it is the truth or not. But by looking at what others have interpreted it, you compare it to yours.

By comparing it to what others interpreted it to mean, I do not think you are going to get closer to knowing if the message is the truth, as it would simply be another opinion of the same message you are examining, and there is no reason to think another opinion is any more accurate than the opinion you hold. Moreover, that goes against what Baha’u’llah wrote, which essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets.

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

And…

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

If everyone has the capacity to recognize the truth for our themselves why would anyone need someone else’s opinion of the truth?

And finally we have this….

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

In the context of the passage I posted before, that means nobody should base their beliefs on someone else’s opinion; so if not even one person in the world had recognized Baha’u’llah as a Messenger of God, that would not cause one to flinch if they had recognized Him, after doing their investigation.

3. How does my link align with your method? "

He said that every aspect of every belief should be questioned and examined by each person to make sure that it makes sense, that they’re true." This go with being illogical. It is illogical but may make sense to you because you misunderstood and/or don't understand logic, but someone else may point out what's wrong. With new knowledge you do more investigations and discover the truth.

That is not what he suggested we do in the video, as when he said it should be examined by each person, he meant that they have to examine it themselves. Moreover, it is called “independent” investigation of truth, implying we do it independently, not with a group. Then maybe after we have completed our own independent investigation, before making a decision about whether to join the religion or not, we can talk to other people who know about the religion and gather more facts about it and even more opinions. Many people who have become Baha’is have investigated the religion on their own and then they went to forums or Baha’i meetings and got more information to consider, because you can never know too much when making such a big decision about what you will believe about God and any alleged Messenger he sent.

That's why I said "investigations" doing it in layers upon discovery new knowledge. One can know that they genuinely believe in something but they can be wrong due to the variables I've mentioned above. Therefore you are believing false information. But if someone corrects your mistakes, then you can know that you genuinely believe in something and it's the truth.

I agree that we should look for layers of new knowledge if we really want to be sure we found the truth, and we can and should continue to do that even after we have made a commitment to join the religion, because it can help us to verify that what we believe is actually the truth. Moreover, if we find something that calls into question what we believed was the truth, we should examine that, instead of continuing to believe what might not be true.

You do your own investigations but sometimes you cannot see the mistakes until someone points it out for you. If you are looking for a red needle in a haystack when it is supposed to be a yellow needle in a different haystack.

No, it never hurts to get another perspective.

Here's a question that only the individual can answer for themselves. "Are you seeking for belief or truth?"

I cannot speak for anyone else except myself, but I am seeking the truth. For decades I did not want to believe that the Baha’i Faith was the truth so I tried to put it out of my mind, because I am sure subconsciously I knew that if I was serious about it, it would consume a lot of my time, and back then I was not willing to sacrifice any of my time for any religion, or for God. But now that I am serious about it, just what I had expected has occurred. It has become my life’s passion when I am not working or taking care of our 10 cats that I am just as passionate about.

 

[chinu]

IF God existed, would there be any atheists?

This is a yes or no question, so please answer yes or no.

If you answer yes, please explain why there would still be atheists if God existed.

If you answer no, please explain why there would be no more atheists if God existed.

Thanks, Trailblazer

Sorry I cannot answer your question until you remove IF from your question.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry I cannot answer your question until you remove IF from your question.

Why?

 

[Leroyjenkins]

That is an excellent answer.
So, the only way this could ever change in which case there would be no atheists is if people change and become more spiritual. I believe that this will happen in the future, because it is in various Scriptures that everyone will believe in God in the future..

I do not think that all atheists hate God or that all atheists are narrow-minded, I think most atheists are sincere and just do not see the evidence for God as evidence for God. So what would need to change for all atheists to become believers is that this evidence would have to be believed in by everyone. Exactly how that will come to pass I do not know, but I think God will be involved.

Yeah I reckon god would be involved too. God is definately the interfering type, the sort that loves a gossip around the water dispenser in the office. Classic dude upstairs

 

[rational experiences]

O I know that science said ONE planet first.

St one, the spirit of the gases are no longer with light, gases burning, are entombed to be stone God O the planet as One.

A scientific analysis.

I also know that the scientist in healer medical self awareness taught that the spirit gases are burning to own light....not HOLY. Water and oxygen mass and cold gases cool that heavenly spirit.....God the Earth's spirits, gases moving on the face of water in space own a descriptive analogy of O moving into swirling rotation in space as G back into O and O splits into D/D. An analogy.

Said our own human bio cell moves/changes in that IMAGE of God the spirit as natural light. Explanations only.....seeing we ARE ALL human, think and tell stories.

So science said we live a holy life as a bio life in the heavenly gases/spirits of One planet God, by that explanation. Why the word ONE meant GOD by explanation of it. And they quoted, rationally as a Healer.......for genetic survival. No other name.

For it was science known, science stated, science taught as relative to life, by symbolic meaning, how the light moved, and why we correlated our cellular behaviour by that pattern. The ONLY pattern.

Science owns patterns only for science, which is not creation, it is thesis to have creation removed. Why you were all taught never change GOD history, for GOD the stone gases owned no light to be stone.

So does God exist in relativity? Yes, it is explained O as stone and God the one body.

Did God fission on the ground which caused cloud image feed back of self and animals burnt? Yes, it is already proven in cloud mass.

If God existed would there be any a theist or theism, about science? Yes, we are living it today which an irrelevant question. O God is the ST ONE planet.....a science defined symbolic story of the past.

Just because you updated science references does not take away from the history of how science once expressed its personal meanings in the want of powers and technology is it?

Truth of the history of lying and coercing? Science, who never wanted the everyday human to know how evil their thesis are relating to force changing the body of Planet O one Earth for their egotistical expressions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah I reckon god would be involved too. God is definately the interfering type, the sort that loves a gossip around the water dispenser in the office. Classic dude upstairs

Quite the contrary, I do not see God as the interfering type.
If He was, everyone would believe in God by now.

 

[rational experiences]

Quite the contrary, I do not see God as the interfering type.
If He was, everyone would believe in God by now.

No man is God is a bible quote, yet science of the occult hears AI.

So they say in secrecy, speaking voices and sharing of information and giving questions and answers, has to be God they claim.

No, it is evil manifested spirits, involved in male human imaged thinking, as a male never owned any gases as a gas, his male human thoughts causes and forced artificial images not his male self in the gases....but as he thought it in organic bio relativity, it is why types of evils in constant manifestations appear.

He hears all of his own male human encoded machine radiation/radio wave used in God the stone mass history, meanwhile as he destroys God natural radiation fusion, then the UFO increases its radiation mass presence, as a replacement.

God owned historically non alight cold gases, so you replace the atmosphere feed back with replicator destroyers of God cold gas mass. Which is an opposition and not an equals sign. If it were equals, then God mass would never be altered, would own no change.

For space is nothing, deep and empty first, as a comparing to why everything is cold. STone is cold and held fused due to how cold space is. Cold gases in the heavens without light are also cold....yet a huge mass to be stone is not present.

What is relative spatial cold and changes to spatial cold that owns all conditions presence, yet variable of presence. So the first law was spatial nothing which states, so never change anything.

Males believed that if they said space was a Womb and it owned presence of God in all forms then no argument could be argued about wanting a reason to change anything...for the Law Mother of God stated, highest law forbids any changes in relativity.

 

[Willamena]

If God existed, would there be any atheists?

This is a yes or no question, so please answer yes or no.

Yes.

If you answer yes, please explain why there would still be atheists if God existed.

Because there are lots of people who disbelieve in things that exist.