Proof against the existence of God?

[Heyo]

So if Christ says ‘love one another’ how can He be blamed if people hate instead? How is it His or God’s fault?

Moses gave the commandment from God ‘Thou shalt not kill’. So how is it God’s fault if people kill? The commandment does not condone killing but opposes it. So I cannot see your rationale in blaming God. If people obeyed God then they would obey the law not to kill and the law to love one another then we would all be living in peace and happiness.

I don't blame god. I don't believe in god.
I blame people, religious people. Religion may have convinced people that gods exist but it couldn't convince them to stop killing each other. Instead religious people used their religion as an excuse to kill people of other religions, or the same religion for that matter.

Has religion really been tried? Are we obeying God’s law not to kill or to love one another? Humankind has mostly disobeyed these laws so yes our disobedience to the laws of God clearly has not worked but what if we obey these laws not to kill and to love one another? They will surely work if we obey them.

You know, it might if there was only one religion - or non. You don't need gods to see that killing people is immoral. Religions, almost all of them, have failed to teach that to their adherents.

 

[Trailblazer]

You know, it might if there was only one religion

One religion was what Baha'u'llah desired. What harm is there in this?

“We desire but the good of the world and the happiness of the nations; yet they deem Us a stirrer up of strife and sedition worthy of bondage and banishment…. That all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled—what harm is there in this?….” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. ix

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't blame god. I don't believe in god.
I blame people, religious people. Religion may have convinced people that gods exist but it couldn't convince them to stop killing each other. Instead religious people used their religion as an excuse to kill people of other religions, or the same religion for that matter.

You know, it might if there was only one religion - or non. You don't need gods to see that killing people is immoral. Religions, almost all of them, have failed to teach that to their adherents.

There are many billions of religious people who are of good character and do not kill or harm others and love one another so which people are you referring to as the majority are peace loving and people of goodwill?

People do kill regardless of religion as you put it.

I think the reason why people have not always obeyed their religion is due to lack of maturity and ignorance. But now in this age of learning where everyone has access to the internet I think humanity will mature faster and ignorant prejudices will vanish through the knowledge we are all one.

 

[Heyo]

One religion was what Baha'u'llah desired. What harm is there in this?

“We desire but the good of the world and the happiness of the nations; yet they deem Us a stirrer up of strife and sedition worthy of bondage and banishment…. That all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled—what harm is there in this?….” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. ix

No harm, just unrealistically optimistic.
Every time someone wants to unite religions, the result is just one more religion, resulting in more division.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The problem is that those "prophets of God" often do not appear to be any more real than fairies. Abrahams is probably a mythical character. The writings about him seem to have appeared during the Babylonian captivity. The oldest parts of the Bible are not the Pentateuch. All of those appear to be of more modern origin.

There isn't much we can say with any certainly in regards the Abrahamic story before the Babylonian exile.

However when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, scholars of antiquity are agreed He was an itinerant Jewish Preacher who was baptised and crucified. The Gospels and NT books were all written within a hundred years of His crucifixion.

In regards Muhammad and the Quran we have a lot more to go on.

So comparing Jesus and Muhammad to pixies and fairies is a poor comparison. There are certainly aspects of both men that have been mythologised somewhat (in my view a literal resurrection of Jesus and Muhammad splitting the moon). That's a very different proposition from a wholly imaginary character.

A lot of history just disappears with time. That doesn't mean some of the older Prophets didn't exist. Of course, stories about them are likely mythologized too.

 

[Trailblazer]

No harm, just unrealistically optimistic.

It seems that way now, but the future is not here yet.

Every time someone wants to unite religions, the result is just one more religion, resulting in more division.

Who has ever tried to unite all the religions into one?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Out of curiosity, why do we need a proof for the non-existence of God, but not for the non-existence of other things that we neither see nor actually encounter in any way that we know of?

If the God of Abraham exists, then according to Abrahamic scripture, we have a responsibility to recognize Him and to some measure follow Him. I personally would want to be certain God didn't exist before dismissing His Prophets. Others no doubt feel no such obligation.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If God exists, then I most certainly don't think that he is worthy of my respect and reverence, let alone my love and worship.

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way and for the terrible things you have experienced.

 

[Heyo]

There are many billions of religious people who are of good character and do not kill or harm others and love one another so which people are you referring to as the majority are peace loving and people of goodwill?

People do kill regardless of religion as you put it.

I think the reason why people have not always obeyed their religion is due to lack of maturity and ignorance. But now in this age of learning where everyone has access to the internet I think humanity will mature faster and ignorant prejudices will vanish through the knowledge we are all one.

I'm not so optimistic, at least I don't see knowledge and maturity in the near or mid future. (Though it is said that the internet is a place where religions come to die.)
And I surely don't see that coming through religion but the lack or unimportance thereof.

The religious approach is:

1. There is a god.
2. It is the one I believe in.
3. That god doesn't want you to kill.
4. So don't kill.

The irreligious approach is:

1. Killing people is bad, K?
2. So don't kill.

Just skip #1 and by all means skip #2 from the religious method. They are irrelevant. The bickering over them prevents you getting to the important part. Most religious people don't realize that, even many Baha'i.
Or for them #1 and especially #2 are more important than #4.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There isn't much we can say with any certainly in regards the Abrahamic story before the Babylonian exile.

However when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, scholars of antiquity are agreed He was an itinerant Jewish Preacher who was baptised and crucified. The Gospels and NT books were all written within a hundred years of His crucifixion.

In regards Muhammad and the Quran we have a lot more to go on.

So comparing Jesus and Muhammad to pixies and fairies is a poor comparison. There are certainly aspects of both men that have been mythologised somewhat (in my view a literal resurrection of Jesus and Muhammad splitting the moon). That's a very different proposition from a wholly imaginary character.

A lot of history just disappears with time. That doesn't mean some of the older Prophets didn't exist. Of course, stories about them are likely mythologized too.

Yes, there is evidence for the existence of Jesus, but what he taught is a bit dubious. And parts of the New Testament are simply wrong. There are both parts that are refuted by history and failed prophecies. And all messengers appear to be flawed. Are those the best that God can do?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I'm not so optimistic, at least I don't see knowledge and maturity in the near or mid future. (Though it is said that the internet is a place where religions come to die.)
And I surely don't see that coming through religion but the lack or unimportance thereof.

The religious approach is:

1. There is a god.
2. It is the one I believe in.
3. That god doesn't want you to kill.
4. So don't kill.

The irreligious approach is:

1. Killing people is bad, K?
2. So don't kill.

Just skip #1 and by all means skip #2 from the religious method. They are irrelevant. The bickering over them prevents you getting to the important part. Most religious people don't realize that, even many Baha'i.
Or for them #1 and especially #2 are more important than #4.

Enjoying reading your posts and trying to learn.

The only problem with the second irreligious approach is this:


Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost

• Joseph Stalin – 42,672,000
• Mao Zedong – 37,828,000
• Adolf Hitler – 20,946,000
• Chiang Kai-shek – 10,214,000
• Vladimir Lenin – 4,017,000
• Hideki Tojo – 3,990,000
• Pol Pot – 2,397,0003
• 
  The Myth that Religion is the #1 Cause of War
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  
• 
  

 

[Heyo]

Enjoying reading your posts and trying to learn.

The only problem with the second irreligious approach is this:


Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost

• Joseph Stalin – 42,672,000
• Mao Zedong – 37,828,000
• Adolf Hitler – 20,946,000
• Chiang Kai-shek – 10,214,000
• Vladimir Lenin – 4,017,000
• Hideki Tojo – 3,990,000
• Pol Pot – 2,397,0003
• 
  The Myth that Religion is the #1 Cause of War
  
  
• 
  View attachment 70518
  

Good reply, but

• not all those were irreligious or at least not openly. They used
• 1. There is a god.
  2. It is on our side.
  3. Now lets go kill a bunch of people.
• the others were irreligious but not pacifist. They used

1. There is no god but your country.
   
2. Your country wants you to fight.
   
3. Now lets go kill a bunch of people.

Note how you can distract if you are not leading with the important message?​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Enjoying reading your posts and trying to learn.

The only problem with the second irreligious approach is this:


Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost

• Joseph Stalin – 42,672,000
• Mao Zedong – 37,828,000
• Adolf Hitler – 20,946,000
• Chiang Kai-shek – 10,214,000
• Vladimir Lenin – 4,017,000
• Hideki Tojo – 3,990,000
• Pol Pot – 2,397,0003
• 
  The Myth that Religion is the #1 Cause of War
  
  
• 
  View attachment 70518
  

Try finding an honest source that claims the same. Hitler was "religious" by the way. He was a leader of a Christian country. Your source did a few things wrong. First they used high estimates for Mao and Stalin, and low estimates for Christian wars. They tried to claim that Hitler was not their problem. They ignored the wars of the Reformation. And they did not adjust for population. With just an adjustment for population and putting Hitler back on the religious side, that alone makes religious (aka Christian) wars worse than nonreligious.

How many people died in the Wars of Reformation? | Homework.Study.com

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I am happy for you that you have that much faith in God and Baha'u'llah, but even it that is true it does not take remove the suffering in the here and now. We are in this world now, not in the spiritual world. Not to sound crass, but I think God is a day late and a dollar short.

What if He pays back with a good interest rate?

 

[F1fan]

One can amplify and exaggerate the differences. In regards the Abrahamics we have texts that may extend over three thousand years that have emerged in castly different cultures. Of course there is differences in the way the massage is presented and applied I wouldn't expect anything else.

Exaggerate the differences? The differences are glaring, and in your face. You seem to be attempting the opposit, to minimize the differences.

Your post is not objectively true, and you will get called out in an open forum. There are serious problems between the texts that can't be resolved factually or rationally. The New Testament itself is incoherent and rampant with inconsistencies and errors. There is no obviousmmessage in any of the three holy books, and more if you include the Mormon Bible, the Baha'i texts, and the Urantia Book. Look at the research that has explained how any of these books were created by humans, and edited, and translated, and interpreted. THAT gives us a clear understand of these books, not the highly subjective and self-serving approach that any given believer makes of them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The argument comparing the God of Abraham to a belief in faries appears weak

You can compare any two fictional entities and you will discover that what they all have in common is that though people might talk about them, one can never experience them through the senses. Believers are offended when their god is compared to any fictional character that they agree is fictional, whatever one chooses, be it Santa Claus, Superman, or fairies. Maybe it would be less offensive if one chose another god like Zeus or Odin. People believed in them as fervently as you do in your god.

The belief in the God of Abraham is founded in the life and Teachings of the Prophets of God. The historicity of Jesus and Muhammad for example has strong evidence. The influence of their Teachings on the course of human history and civilization is clear. The millions who have been positively affected by Jesus and Muhammad is impossible to ignore.

None of that supports a belief in the god they wrote of, meaning that that god is just as unevidenced as those fairies.

Nor is it an argument for religion. Great ideas don't come from religions. They come from geniuses, and religions don't generate those. They are born, and these days, they are increasingly less likely to be zealous believers. Those are made, not born.

But I believe to abandon religion entirely is to abandon the most powerful uniting force in the world. Religion unites billions of people. Whether Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Christian there has never been nor will ever be a more potent force to unite people than religion and I believe to ignore it a grave mistake.

My experience has been the opposite. The greatest achievement of modernity was the Enlightenment, which saw superstation, received morals, and the divine right of kings give way to science and the modern liberal democratic state with citizens and individual rights rather than subjects. And the same happened in my own life when I left faith and Christianity, and returned to reason, empiricism, and rational ethics (humanism). Religion is divisive. It is in the United States right now. It has been in these threads.

What else can we put in its place that can unite our world and bring peace to humanity? Humanism has great ideas but cannot unite humanity as the majority of the world believes in God. At best it can help better some conditions.

You're saying that theists are interfering with humanists. That is correct. So are authoritarians, plutocrats, and kleptocrats. Humanists oppose them all, but it's a struggle against those that would slow human progress and return to the good old days of kings' fortunes, serfdom, and theocracies.

Only through a teachings revealed by God for THIS AGE can a world torn by strife and conflict be transformed into a world civilisation and a golden age of peace and prosperity.

That's never worked before, and hasn't worked this time, either.

"Religion. It's given hope in a world torn apart by religion." - Jon Stewart

If it never occurred to them to do do then they would not have freedom of thought and they would be like programmed robots.

You're equating thoughts not occurring to robotic thinking. By your own definition, you're a robot. We all are. And please explain again what the downside is of only having good, kind, and pure thoughts, and why a tri-omni deity should opt against that.

Our minds are programs that evolve with learning and forgetting. The hardware is the collection of neurons and their myriad and dynamic interconnections and electrochemical activity comprise the software. Your choices are limited to what those mechanisms can conceive and deliver to consciousness for consideration by the self. Our brains are unique in their possession of an intellectual faculty, which confers reasoning and symbolic thought (language and mathematics) capabilities. This is more than mere intelligence, which is the ability to identify and solve problems, and which the beast possess.

As a result, man has an extra voice in the mix at times contradicting the animal instinct or impulse arising from lower centers. These two voices are classically depicted as a devil and an anger sitting on one's shoulder and arguing through the earholes with one another. This is an accident of evolution, and a stage in it. If man survives long enough, he will gain progressively more control over those impulses. He will learn to silence the beast in him. Some already have to a great degree, almost all to some degree. When is raging a good choice? There can't be many times when having the free will to do that is a good thing.

Would it improve your life if you were programmed to believe in God instead of having a choice to do so?

If that were a good decision in every case, then yes. You don't see the problem with your line of argumentation here? You and I have made opposite decisions in that matter. If one choice were better than the other, one of us made a mistake. I still can't find value in arguments that posit that being able to make bad or cruel choices makes the world a better place as we would expect were it ruled by a tri-omni deity.

There is no free will (the same as we have it here) in the next world, aka heaven.

However you answered would reveal an inconsistency in the claim that God prefers that man have free will on earth and that heaven will be paradise, because man with free will sins in the Abrahamic vernacular, and that is an abomination intolerable to God. What are God's options here but to remove that free will and create that robot after all?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The evil souls will be far, far away from the good souls with no ability to harm anyone anymore.

Except one another, I presume.

Why should God create everyone nicer instead of expecting people to become nicer by themselves?

Because that would be the nice thing to do. Why should a parent try to teach their child to be nicer when they can just go find out for themselves? Because that's the loving thing to do. Are you sure that you wouldn't have been better off without having a religious option, that is, if the thought never occurred to you to believe in a god which belief has you making arguments like this one?

Spiritual things that exists outside of space and time (as we know it from a material world vantage point) are not detectable by instruments designed to detect material things.

Nothing that can be said to exist is undetectable in principle. Evidence of existence is the appearance in space and time of an object or process capable of interacting with other things that exist. That's what evidence means - things evident to the senses. It has no meaning to claim that something that does not impact reality exists. And you can't have it both ways and claim that this god does affect reality as you have, and then call it undetectable. Detection means impacting other elements of reality.

The deist god would be undetectable. But it is also irrelevant for that reason. It is no longer a part of our reality. It is a noninterventionist god. They don't matter by definition. Only those that can affect our lives would. And they would be detectable through those effects. You want your god to have the privacy on a noninterventionist god while claiming at the same times that he makes himself known through messengers, for example.

God is not like anything else in existence, so God is a special exception which is justified

Nope. No god is known to exist, and no idea is exempt from critical analysis. Gods don't get a pass just because they cannot withstand the scrutiny of reason. This is from an atheist firebrand named Pat Condell bemoaning and rejecting this special pleading and faith in general:

"Faith-peddlers like to put themselves beyond question by claiming that their faith transcends reason, the very thing that calls it to account. How convenient. Yes, faith transcends reason the way a criminal transcends the law. The word "transcendent" is very popular with religious hustlers because they never have to explain precisely what they mean by it, other than some vague superior state of understanding more profound than mere reason, which is crude and simplistic next to the subtleties and profundities of belief without evidence. If you hear a senior clergyman (and you will) using the word “transcendent" to explain the nonsense he claims to believe, then you know two things: one: he doesn't know what he's talking about, and two: he doesn't want you to know what he's talking about either.

Faith doesn't transcend reason at all. Faith sidesteps reason. It runs away from reason because reason threatens its cozy bubble of delusion, so faith disqualifies reason the way a Dutch criminal court disqualifies truth, and witnesses, and for much the same reason. If you're a believer, your faith allows you to adopt a set of beliefs that make absolutely no sense, knowing that you won't be measured by whether they make sense, but by the level of piety you exhibit in believing them. In other words, your willingness to deny reality becomes a measure of your virtue. No wonder religion is so popular."​

So, no to your claim above.

Are you abandoning omniscience? If it was the *best course of action* an omniscient God would have known that and chosen it as the option.

Your reasoning seems to be that an omniscient god exists that could have made reality in any way it chose, therefore, this must be the best of all possible worlds, or the best we should expect. That's typical motivated reasoning. Valid reasoning goes from evidence to conclusion, wherever that may lead. Motivated reason begins with its "conclusion," and then says that the evidence supports it whatever the evidence offered. And look at what you end up claiming and having to defend.

There are pieces of evidence that would constitute proof for some people, but it won't be proof to everyone.

Yes, but people trained in evaluating evidence come to consensus. People who haven't learned to do that offer evidence that experienced critical thinkers don't agree supports their claims about its significance. This is an idea I have presented you multiple times which I don't think you understand, since you never acknowledge seeing it much less rebut it. Evaluating evidence is not as subjective an affair as you suggest except in circles where the skill has not been developed well. Critical thought is prescribed and rigorous, not any thought that feels good or right or that one would like to be true. When performed correctly, it generates sound conclusions - demonstrably correct ideas. I suspect that many people are not aware that this can and does happen. For them, all opinions are equal, and if two people disagree, neither has more claim to truth than the other.

if this life was all that exists then you would never know what you missed out on by not believing.

You must have mistyped that. Didn't you mean that if I awaken to an afterlife, then I will know what I missed out on when I don't get it? If I am correct and consciousness is extinguished with death, then I know exactly what I "missed out" on. Hey, I could be on the Internet arguing for the existence of a god which belief evidence contradicts against people who specialize in evaluating evidence. How many hours of scriptural study and the wisdom contained therein have I forfeited to other reading? How many hours of hymns and sermons have I missed sleeping in and then going to Sunday brunch instead? I could be a homophobe.

What do you think I might have missed out on living outside of theism if this life is the end? I'm happy without religion and am comfortable with the possibility that we live in a godless universe. What could religion or a god belief for such a person?

 

[Alien826]

Why should God create everyone nicer instead of expecting people to become nicer by themselves?
Since nice people exist, we know it is possible for people to become nicer, if they do what it takes to become nicer.

Did you understand my point about morality and free will? You seem to be evading it.

My answer to your question is that the current system has huge collateral damage to innocent people. If the idea is to set up a training ground, then maybe one where people don't get so hurt when they fail?

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not view Jesus as literally God. However if God speaks through Jesus and declares Himself to be God then He speaks the truth. In a similar manner the Sun could be reflected in a mirror to provide the perfect image of the mirror. However the mirror is not the sun, nor is the Manifestation of God literally God.

That works if people like Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses were perfectly polished mirrors. In the Bible stories, I don't see that they were. Also, when prophets had a message from God they said, "Thus says the Lord" making it clear that it wasn't them speaking but God. Then with Muhammad, I thought the message came from an angel and not directly from God. That is... if it really happened at all.

Muslims believe that the Quran was orally revealed by God to the final prophet, Muhammad, through the archangel Gabriel.​

 

[CG Didymus]

Except one another, I presume.

I don't get it. What are Baha'is claiming? That God made evil souls? Or that souls became evil when the human body they were put into became evil? Or did Baha'u'llah just make this up based on beliefs from Islam and other religions?