How God could fail to convey His message?

[thedoc]

So you think that God could wish to leave people in state of doubt at the same time being a believer meaning that you believe that God attempted to Guid you? Your view is not consistent at all.

Did you miss the part where I said that I believe that God will respect our wishes, or are you ignoring it.

I don't think that any human being wish to stay in state of ignorance.

I think there you are wrong, "Ignorance is Bliss", and most people would rather be happy than not ignorant. Atheists claim that they are denying God in order to pursue knowledge through science, but they are ignoring the knowledge that can be gained by spiritual means.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Though I would first want evidence of his actual existence which to date has been precisely zero

I always find this claim completely inexplicable, except for an adamant refusal to see what's in front of one's eyes. Romans 1 covers this nicely too.

It's amazing how blind, belief can make a person.

[surreptitious57]

Though I would first want evidence of his actual existence which to date has been precisely zero

I always find this claim completely inexplicable except for an adamant refusal to see what is in front of ones eyes

There is nothing at all inexplicable about refusing to accept the existence of something that cannot be confirmed

And furthermore such scepticism is the only rational position that can be taken with regard to imaginary beings

[Immanuel Can]

[...cannot be confirmed...

Are you saying that you think YOU can never confirm the existence of God, or that you have reason to know that NOBODY can?

Because the first statement is unthreatening to anyone who has more information that you happen to possess at the moment -- and the second is implausible on the grounds that you couldn't possibly know what everyone else does or does not know.

So your statement is either a personal confession of defeat in seeking God, or an absurdly pretentious claim to exhaustive knowledge.

Which did you intend?

And furthermore such scepticism is the only rational position that can be taken with regard to imaginary beings

You're assuming your conclusion, not showing it to be true. You don't know -- or have reason to know -- that God belongs in the class "imaginary beings." You may hope it, but you don't know it.

By your metric, America could not have been discovered, because ancient European mariners had no evidence for it. However, I am reliably informed American turned out to exist in spite of the skepticism of the ancient seafarers.

[surreptitious57]

Are you saying that you think YOU can never confirm the existence of God or that you have reason to know that NOBODY can

I am saying that I do not at this point in time accept the existence of God because there is precisely zero evidence for him
But if at some point in the future his existence can be confirmed through evidence then I shall accept that unconditionally
Though I am atheist my position is better defined as apatheism meaning it does not matter to me whether or not he exists
However I just refuse to accept that he does so without rational justification for that position which is entirely reasonable

[Immanuel Can]

I am saying that I do not at this point in time accept the existence of God because there is precisely zero evidence for him

Do you mean "I know there IS no evidence," or "I HAVE no evidence"? (Speaking for yourself, of course; how could you be speaking for someone else?)

Though I am atheist my position is better defined as apatheism meaning it does not matter to me whether or not he exists

That's interesting.

If I told you there was a tiger in the room, would being an "apatheist" about it make any sense? How would "apathy" protect anyone against any fact?

However I just refuse to accept that he does so without rational justification for that position which is entirely reasonable

Rational justification? If you mean that, there's a ton of it. In fact, there's nothing irrational at all about God as an idea. The only arguments against His existence are empirical, and usually based on the strategy of argumentum ad ignoratiam rather than any positive disproof.

[Arising_uk]

... The only arguments against His existence are empirical, and usually based on the strategy of argumentum ad ignoratiam

rather than any positive disproof.

Give us an empirical argument that proves the existence of your 'God'?

[ken]

Did you or did not you read My reply? I said God has failed to convey Its message, TO MOST PEOPLE.

So, NO God did NOT fail to convey Its message, to ALL people. What you are asking is like asking, Seriously, you accept that government failed to convey its message? that smoking tobacco and drinking to much alcohol is bad for you. Some people get the message, some just do not listen, others do not want to listen, these people just keep continuing on doing what they want to do instead.

The question is that God cannot fail to convey Its message to most of people considering the fact that It is the most powerful being.

That is not a question. That is a statement, which you believe is true. But, contradictory, you also believe there is no God at all, so really it is just a nonsensical statement on your part.

You come here believing wholeheartedly that there is no God whatsoever right? If that is right, then asking any question relating to God is just trolling. So, you OP question could be seen as nothing else but trolling as you will not listen to one word said in reply trying to respond to and answer your question. Is that right?

Do you believe that you are the one who received Its message correctly?

Again you will not answer My questions but you ask further questions to Me expecting Me to answer your (nonsensical) questions. If you believe there is no God, then why would you ask any question relating to God. Another ridiculous thing about this is you come with an already gained preconceived idea of what God is, which is strikingly even more amusing. Your completely misguided interpretation of what God is is extremely amusing.

However, to answer your question; Have I told you already that I do NOT believe anything, except in the ability of Self? I ask this because you have again used the word believe here. I ask this to point out your inability to read what I write, or your refusal to acknowledge and accept what I say, or your forgetfulness. But if I have not told you previously now your know I do NOT believe anything, except what I said I do.

How I define 'God' is, as far as I know, completely different than any one else. Therefore, My definition would need to be fully understood prior to you ever being able to understand God's message. You also need to understand My definition before you could even consider if any person has received God's message correctly or not. Just saying yes or no in reply to your question is not going to actually mean anything to you.

If you believe there is no God, of if you have a preconceived idea of what God is, then what type of ridiculous question is this?

Let us just cut to the chase. Do you believe there is no God?

If not, then this post is just trolling.

No matter what any one says about God, you will NOT accept anything other than what you already believe is true.

Am I right or not?

If you can provide some sort of truthful response that shows you are open to there being a God, then I will answer the rest of your questions. 'Open' also means that you have no preconceived idea of what God is.

Well, people believe in science and math because they are based on facts.

If the truth be known people believe in anything because they are (allegedly) based on facts BECAUSE no person would believe in anything that is not based on "facts". Would you believe in anything if it were not true and factual? If you will not, then, I think you will find, neither will any other person.

What is found with inquisitive clarifying questioning is that every thing that is believed by any person or people is also said to be believed because they are based on facts. "Facts" of which after further inquisitive, clarifying questioning i found are usually actually not that factual after all. But if they are factual at that point, then those "facts" are not necessarily based on previously alleged factual things anyway. In other words every belief you will find that people have, allegedly based on "facts", is really only based on what that person's interpretation of facts are. And, every person's interpretations are based solely upon Assumptions based on Previous Experiences, so, unless a person has experienced a completely true, right, and correct life, then they actually do NOT know what the facts of Life are.

It is alleged that all people once believed the earth was the center of the universe BECAUSE it was based on facts. Then they discovered that the earth revolves the sun BECAUSE science is based on fact. Nowadays, according to scientists, science is proving that the center of the Universe is right "under our noses", now if people start believing this BECAUSE it is based on (I must say an ever slowly evolving) science, and therefore some believe must be based on "facts", then this newly held belief will prevent and stop people from finding, learning, seeing and understanding a further truer and realer truth, which is already known by some of us.

Anyway, to Me, believing in anything, even if it is based on actual, absolute and objective true facts is a totally stupid and ridiculous thing to do. This view is based on if and when a person is believing some thing, then they are not open to any other-wise thing.

Have people believed in "scientifically proven" things, which WERE at the time based on "facts", but were later discovered to actually NOT be factually true? Are you NOT surprised about how many times throughout human's history how many "facts" are found out later to NOT be actual facts?

God can also make itself evident so everybody believe it based on fact (talking with each individual).

Yes this is very TRUE. So, what are you trying to do here? Express a statement that is true, which refutes the intended purpose of your OP question, or are you making this statement as though that could NEVER happen?

What is unknown in your statement however is God ONLY makes Itself Self-evident to each individual person AFTER they stop believing. This is when they can see (understand) and hear God's "talking". Also the ONLY belief God want people to have is the belief IN thee Self's ability to be able to do and achieve anything that It really wants to do and achieve.

Only after proper retro and intro-spection you will find that it is 'your' strongly held preconceptions and beliefs that has actually prevented you and stopped yourself from being able to learn and understand this already.

[ken]

God can make me believe what It is. I can even explain to you what I am so I cannot understand how God could fail.

I hope you stand up to what you just said here and explain that to Me accurately and succinctly.

Let us see if you actually can explain what you said you can here, or if you actually could and will fail.

I am a human being (a being like you),

What is a human being? What is it made up of? What is the 'human' part? What is the 'being' part?

Your logic is you CAN explain all of this, so you can not understand why God could fail. So, if your explanation is "I am a human being" is suffice, then God's explanation of "I am God" should also suffice, according to your logic, right?

trying to find the truth (you understand that),

But the truth is extremely easily, and also instantly, found and known. That is with the 'know-how' of how to find it.

I am a physicist (you know that),,...

How would I know that if you did not tell Me that previously?

By the way any person who says, "I am... (anything that ends in an 'ist')" is a person who is separating themselves from others AND who is also unable to see from other's perspectives, and thus is unable to learn and know more things, including the Truth.

Further to this you said, "I can even explain to you what I am" but now I am confused. Previously you said, "I am a human being," but now you are saying, "I am a physicist". So, which one is it? How could bahman fail to convey its message?

Who/what is bahman?

[bahman]

Did you miss the part where I said that I believe that God will respect our wishes, or are you ignoring it.

I don't think that any human being wish to stay in state of ignorance.

I think there you are wrong, "Ignorance is Bliss", and most people would rather be happy than not ignorant. Atheists claim that they are denying God in order to pursue knowledge through science, but they are ignoring the knowledge that can be gained by spiritual means.

I think that people would practice spirituality if there was a way to gain knowledge from it.

[bahman]

That is not a question. That is a statement, which you believe is true. But, contradictory, you also believe there is no God at all, so really it is just a nonsensical statement on your part.

You come here believing wholeheartedly that there is no God whatsoever right? If that is right, then asking any question relating to God is just trolling. So, you OP question could be seen as nothing else but trolling as you will not listen to one word said in reply trying to respond to and answer your question. Is that right?

I think you are not really adding much. You simply cannot answer my question about the existence 4000 religions and how that could be possible when it comes to a powerful God.

Again you will not answer My questions but you ask further questions to Me expecting Me to answer your (nonsensical) questions. If you believe there is no God, then why would you ask any question relating to God. Another ridiculous thing about this is you come with an already gained preconceived idea of what God is, which is strikingly even more amusing. Your completely misguided interpretation of what God is is extremely amusing.

However, to answer your question; Have I told you already that I do NOT believe anything, except in the ability of Self? I ask this because you have again used the word believe here. I ask this to point out your inability to read what I write, or your refusal to acknowledge and accept what I say, or your forgetfulness. But if I have not told you previously now your know I do NOT believe anything, except what I said I do.

How I define 'God' is, as far as I know, completely different than any one else. Therefore, My definition would need to be fully understood prior to you ever being able to understand God's message. You also need to understand My definition before you could even consider if any person has received God's message correctly or not. Just saying yes or no in reply to your question is not going to actually mean anything to you.

So what is your definition of God? I hope this question does not annoy you since I defined God but you didn't.

If the truth be known people believe in anything because they are (allegedly) based on facts BECAUSE no person would believe in anything that is not based on "facts". Would you believe in anything if it were not true and factual? If you will not, then, I think you will find, neither will any other person.

What is found with inquisitive clarifying questioning is that every thing that is believed by any person or people is also said to be believed because they are based on facts. "Facts" of which after further inquisitive, clarifying questioning i found are usually actually not that factual after all. But if they are factual at that point, then those "facts" are not necessarily based on previously alleged factual things anyway. In other words every belief you will find that people have, allegedly based on "facts", is really only based on what that person's interpretation of facts are. And, every person's interpretations are based solely upon Assumptions based on Previous Experiences, so, unless a person has experienced a completely true, right, and correct life, then they actually do NOT know what the facts of Life are.

It is alleged that all people once believed the earth was the center of the universe BECAUSE it was based on facts. Then they discovered that the earth revolves the sun BECAUSE science is based on fact. Nowadays, according to scientists, science is proving that the center of the Universe is right "under our noses", now if people start believing this BECAUSE it is based on (I must say an ever slowly evolving) science, and therefore some believe must be based on "facts", then this newly held belief will prevent and stop people from finding, learning, seeing and understanding a further truer and realer truth, which is already known by some of us.

Anyway, to Me, believing in anything, even if it is based on actual, absolute and objective true facts is a totally stupid and ridiculous thing to do. This view is based on if and when a person is believing some thing, then they are not open to any other-wise thing.

Have people believed in "scientifically proven" things, which WERE at the time based on "facts", but were later discovered to actually NOT be factually true? Are you NOT surprised about how many times throughout human's history how many "facts" are found out later to NOT be actual facts?

Science of course under revision and that is a good and honest way of understanding reality.

Yes this is very TRUE. So, what are you trying to do here? Express a statement that is true, which refutes the intended purpose of your OP question, or are you making this statement as though that could NEVER happen?

What is unknown in your statement however is God ONLY makes Itself Self-evident to each individual person AFTER they stop believing. This is when they can see (understand) and hear God's "talking". Also the ONLY belief God want people to have is the belief IN thee Self's ability to be able to do and achieve anything that It really wants to do and achieve.

Only after proper retro and intro-spection you will find that it is 'your' strongly held preconceptions and beliefs that has actually prevented you and stopped yourself from being able to learn and understand this already.

You are just evading my question. Why God doesn't make Itself evident?

[bahman]

What is a human being? What is it made up of? What is the 'human' part? What is the 'being' part?

Your logic is you CAN explain all of this, so you can not understand why God could fail. So, if your explanation is "I am a human being" is suffice, then God's explanation of "I am God" should also suffice, according to your logic, right?

That would be suffice if God talk to me after it was ensured that who that is talking with me is God.

But the truth is extremely easily, and also instantly, found and known. That is with the 'know-how' of how to find it.

It is not that easy otherwise people were not to scattered when it comes to religion.

[thedoc]

I don't think that any human being wish to stay in state of ignorance.

I think there you are wrong, "Ignorance is Bliss", and most people would rather be happy than not ignorant. Atheists claim that they are denying God in order to pursue knowledge through science, but they are ignoring the knowledge that can be gained by spiritual means.

I think that people would practice spirituality if there was a way to gain knowledge from it.

I read a story once that illustrates this.

A man went to his barber for a hair cut, and while getting the trim the conversation went through several subjects and finally the barber stated that "There is no God."
The man was a bit puzzled and asked why the barber believed this, and the barber replied, "There can't be a God because there is so much suffering and evil in the world."
The man didn't have an answer, so was quiet for the rest of the hair cut. When he had paid and was leaving, he say a man walking on the other side of the street with long shaggy hair, unshaven and disheveled. The man stepped back into the door of the shop and announced, "There are no such things as barbers."
The surprised barber said, "What do you mean? I'm right here."
to which the man replied, "If there are barbers, how can there be people like that, who obviously need a hair cut?"
To which the barber replied, "But they don't come to me!"
"Exactly."

[Dontaskme]

I read a story once that illustrates this.

A man went to his barber for a hair cut, and while getting the trim the conversation went through several subjects and finally the barber stated that "There is no God."
The man was a bit puzzled and asked why the barber believed this, and the barber replied, "There can't be a God because there is so much suffering and evil in the world."
The man didn't have an answer, so was quiet for the rest of the hair cut. When he had paid and was leaving, he say a man walking on the other side of the street with long shaggy hair, unshaven and disheveled. The man stepped back into the door of the shop and announced, "There are no such things as barbers."
The surprised barber said, "What do you mean? I'm right here."
to which the man replied, "If there are barbers, how can there be people like that, who obviously need a hair cut?"
To which the barber replied, "But they don't come to me!"
"Exactly."

Reminds me of this quote..

He doesn’t come to you. He cannot come to you. He never went away. You are the one who went away, so you go to Him.

~ Shri Prashant

[ken]

That is not a question. That is a statement, which you believe is true. But, contradictory, you also believe there is no God at all, so really it is just a nonsensical statement on your part.

You come here believing wholeheartedly that there is no God whatsoever right? If that is right, then asking any question relating to God is just trolling. So, you OP question could be seen as nothing else but trolling as you will not listen to one word said in reply trying to respond to and answer your question. Is that right?

I think you are not really adding much.

I could also say the same, but I will not.

You simply cannot answer my question about the existence 4000 religions and how that could be possible when it comes to a powerful God.

I have answered it. The answer to that is very simple and easy to understand. Just some people do not know how to find the solution.

The only thing you said in reply to the answer was, "I don't understand what you are trying to say here." You did not ask any clarifying questions nor shown any interest in it. So, now saying, "you simply cannot answer my question...", is totally incorrect. If you were really interested, then you would have shown some sort of inquisitiveness by questioning Me further. You have not done so, so I have not bothered to explain further.

I also asked you to provide some sort of sign that you are open, which you are not doing.

Again you will not answer My questions but you ask further questions to Me expecting Me to answer your (nonsensical) questions. If you believe there is no God, then why would you ask any question relating to God. Another ridiculous thing about this is you come with an already gained preconceived idea of what God is, which is strikingly even more amusing. Your completely misguided interpretation of what God is is extremely amusing.

However, to answer your question; Have I told you already that I do NOT believe anything, except in the ability of Self? I ask this because you have again used the word believe here. I ask this to point out your inability to read what I write, or your refusal to acknowledge and accept what I say, or your forgetfulness. But if I have not told you previously now your know I do NOT believe anything, except what I said I do.

How I define 'God' is, as far as I know, completely different than any one else. Therefore, My definition would need to be fully understood prior to you ever being able to understand God's message. You also need to understand My definition before you could even consider if any person has received God's message correctly or not. Just saying yes or no in reply to your question is not going to actually mean anything to you.

So what is your definition of God? I hope this question does not annoy you since I defined God but you didn't.

When did you define God, and what was that definition?

Why would think that question would supposedly "annoy" Me?

If the truth be known people believe in anything because they are (allegedly) based on facts BECAUSE no person would believe in anything that is not based on "facts". Would you believe in anything if it were not true and factual? If you will not, then, I think you will find, neither will any other person.

What is found with inquisitive clarifying questioning is that every thing that is believed by any person or people is also said to be believed because they are based on facts. "Facts" of which after further inquisitive, clarifying questioning i found are usually actually not that factual after all. But if they are factual at that point, then those "facts" are not necessarily based on previously alleged factual things anyway. In other words every belief you will find that people have, allegedly based on "facts", is really only based on what that person's interpretation of facts are. And, every person's interpretations are based solely upon Assumptions based on Previous Experiences, so, unless a person has experienced a completely true, right, and correct life, then they actually do NOT know what the facts of Life are.

It is alleged that all people once believed the earth was the center of the universe BECAUSE it was based on facts. Then they discovered that the earth revolves the sun BECAUSE science is based on fact. Nowadays, according to scientists, science is proving that the center of the Universe is right "under our noses", now if people start believing this BECAUSE it is based on (I must say an ever slowly evolving) science, and therefore some believe must be based on "facts", then this newly held belief will prevent and stop people from finding, learning, seeing and understanding a further truer and realer truth, which is already known by some of us.

Anyway, to Me, believing in anything, even if it is based on actual, absolute and objective true facts is a totally stupid and ridiculous thing to do. This view is based on if and when a person is believing some thing, then they are not open to any other-wise thing.

Have people believed in "scientifically proven" things, which WERE at the time based on "facts", but were later discovered to actually NOT be factually true? Are you NOT surprised about how many times throughout human's history how many "facts" are found out later to NOT be actual facts?

Science of course under revision and that is a good and honest way of understanding reality.

Another person using the word 'reality' like they KNOW what it is.

Yes this is very TRUE. So, what are you trying to do here? Express a statement that is true, which refutes the intended purpose of your OP question, or are you making this statement as though that could NEVER happen?

What is unknown in your statement however is God ONLY makes Itself Self-evident to each individual person AFTER they stop believing. This is when they can see (understand) and hear God's "talking". Also the ONLY belief God want people to have is the belief IN thee Self's ability to be able to do and achieve anything that It really wants to do and achieve.

Only after proper retro and intro-spection you will find that it is 'your' strongly held preconceptions and beliefs that has actually prevented you and stopped yourself from being able to learn and understand this already.

You are just evading my question. Why God doesn't make Itself evident?

You have completely forgotten to add that "God doesn't make itself evident," 'to you'.

Have you not heard what others are saying to you. Obviously, God has made Itself evident to them. Thus, it is 'you' that supposedly God does not make Itself evident to. Maybe you should be explaining to us why God does not make Itself evident to you.

What could the possible reasons be? Ah that is right, you believe there is no God. If there is no God, why the continual absolutely stupid questions about a non such thing?

By the way I have NEVER evaded your question. AGAIN I already answered it. You are unable to understand My answer, as you already admitted. But do not feel too bad. No other person is yet to understand what I am saying regards this little and simple issue. If you are really interested in understanding My answer, THEN ask some questions. Or, do you expect Me to totally know and understand what it is that you do NOT, yet, understand?