God does not exist « Unreasonable Faith Forum

Unreasonable Faith Forum » General » General Discussion

God does not exist

(39 posts) (19 voices)

Started 2 years ago by Ty
Latest reply from Jabster

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

Ty
Moderator

This gets lost in the shuffle here sometimes. It's interesting to talk about god/s being evil for their various traits (as defined by the believers). But the trap is that sometimes people think that these discussions are WHY I/we don't believe in god.

For the record: my disbelief has nothing to do with how evil or petty or fallible your particular version of god seems to be. It has nothing to do with how silly your religious text is, or how full of inconsistencies and outright contradictions it is. It has nothing to do with the mistakes made by its clergy, or the hypocrisy of its followers. It isn't because I'm angry, or sad, or hateful, even when I am those things. I'm not punishing my parents, or trying to be a rebel. It's not because I like sleeping in on Sundays.

My disbelief comes from one thing, and one thing only: there is insufficient evidence for me to take the god hypothesis seriously. Until such evidence is uncovered, I am quite satisfied that 'god does not exist' is the most reasonable answer to that hypothesis.

And that's it.

So even if someone came up with a stunning logical answer to the problem of evil, or answered every contradiction in the bible, it wouldn't matter. All that would do is move religion from the category of bad fiction into the category of good fiction.

Posted 2 years ago #
drax
Member

I agree completely. When people question my atheism I try to begin with the very premise that you described, and make it abundantly clear that I don't believe in any gods not just that person's chosen deity. I think that gets lost a lot because in the United States it tends to be christians that will question you. While they may be aware of other religions they certainly don't put them at the same level as christianity. In their minds it tends to be believers and non-believers. In my case I've never had that discussion with anyone of a religion other than christianity. As a footnote, In the early part of our relationship my girlfriend blamed my atheism on the fact that my father passed away when I was very young, and she supposed that I was angry at god because of it. After pointing out that in order to be angry at god I would have to believe in god she saw the logic, at least for that particular item.

Posted 2 years ago #
Jeremiah
Member

I think most can agree with that sentiment, but I will add a couple thoughts. One important thing that some people forget, and this is what you touched on, is that you cannot simply philosophize something into existence. This is what things like William Lane Craig and Kalam and TAG attempt to do. Now some might realize that is not enough and then try to spin it as a 'hypothetical that explains the world around us' but they seem to forget that a hypothesis is only the beginning of knowledge, not its conclusion. You might have an idea for something that can explain phenomenon X but the next step is to consider, "if this is true what effects would we expect to see in the future, what effects in the past"? Then you test it and see if it happens. Then you get someone else to test it and make sure they get the same result and then you keep asking those questions and performing those tests until you have refined the hypothesis and acquired such an abundance of evidence that your hypothesis clearly must be accurate.

All these theological proofs never get past step 1 and hence can't lay claim to the titles of 'knowledge' or 'proofs' or 'truth' at least in any sense that those words would remain useful. Of course that is why there is much hand waving about 'faith' and attempts to make it just as good as knowledge and it just simply isn't. In the few cases where people have tried to apply the subsequent steps to it, like prayer studies, the god hypothesis has failed miserably. That is the one idea that is of critical importance and at the same time almost utterly impossible to convey to some theists, the hypothesis isn't enough.

I suppose in a meta sort of way we are kind of doing steps 2 and onward for theists, when we evaluate things like divine command theory of morality etc. We are saying "okay, here is your hypothesis, and here are some real world observations, and the hypothesis seems contradicted by the observations so we should probably dump it." Belief from personal experience is the only legitimately defensible form of belief in religion in my opinion but of course that is only good enough for the person with the actual experience, it isn't a reason for anyone else to believe.

@Drax - My Catholic girlfriend once commented that in a surprised sort of way that "I thought all atheists were evil, bad people". Not sure if she thinks I am an anomaly or if she has reconsidered her worldview but it was good for a smirk.

Posted 2 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

"you cannot simply philosophize something into existence."

I agree completely.

Posted 2 years ago #
Troutbane
Member

OK, I’ll bite. Although I agree that the basic premise that we cannot prove God/gods/cosmic divinity exist and therefore should act on all other empirical knowledge as if there is no existence, I cannot accept the statement that there is none.
My reason: the lack of evidence does not indicate the proof of nothing.
Now, before I get flamed here, this is not saying that we should act as if there is any particular divinity or a general universalized force. I can only say with absolute certainty that we do not know and the evidence lies on the part of theists to prove (hopefully without my tax dollars).
I stated this in a discussion with someone about the laws of physics. It was basically that, if anyone could prove a scientific law non-absolute, the basis of scientific peer review existed to accept such a new paradigm (and that person would become MONDO famous).
As is, I live my life in the firm belief that no one has proven any particular religion as true (although I do like Zen Buddhism) and accept that there is likely no divinity. But if someone were to prove God using acceptable scientific methods, I would then agree there was. Of course the only real gods maybe the forest spirits worshiped by some Amazonian tribe.
Summation: There is most LIKELY no God.

Posted 2 years ago #
DDM
Member

I think you're doing a disservice to your message by only targeting one god, Ty(at least in the title). It gives special importance to only one of them when the fact of the matter is none of them exist.

Posted 2 years ago #
Nox
Member

I fully agree that whether god exists is more important than god's favorite color. And mostly agree that the best reason to suspect god does not exist is the complete lack of evidence. But one doesn't need to limit themself to "there is no evidence for god" when there is so much evidence against every major interpretation of god. I still suspect that the most potent evidence against usually begins with "If god does exist...".

Posted 2 years ago #
FO
Member

@Troutbane:
"But if someone were to prove Santa Klaus using acceptable scientific methods, I would then agree there was. Of course the only real giftgivers maybe the forest spirits worshiped by some Amazonian tribe.
Summation: There is most LIKELY no Santa Claus."

In short, yes, given extraordinary evidence, I'd have no problem with the existence of God.
Or Russell's Teapot for that matters...
But then again, maybe none really ever worshiped the Real True God(s), not even some lost population somewhere... Or maybe again we got the concept completely wrong, the possibilities are infinite after all.

Fun fact: in Italy, while Santa is omnipresent, in some household is traditionally Baby Jesus that brings the gifts.

Posted 2 years ago #
UrsaMinor
Member

But if someone were to prove God using acceptable scientific methods, I would then agree there was.

I think that most of us here would accept that. I know I would.

Summation: There is most LIKELY no God.

There is most likely no invisible, weightless elephant setting on your shoulder whispering your every thought into your ear for you, either, although this is not completely impossible. But given the utter absence of evidence for it, it would not be rational to posit one as a real possibility. So it goes for God.

Posted 2 years ago #
JonJon
Member

"But if someone were to prove God using acceptable scientific methods, I would then agree there was."

Not to harp on this, but what evidence would serve as good evidence for the existence of a god?

PS: If we wanna put this question not in this thread (which is nicely focused at the moment) then Ty, feel free to move the question to somewhere else.

Posted 2 years ago #
Jeremy
Member

The last time I had a discussion with a group of Christians about why I don't believe, the first three arguments they gave me were:

- There is no point or meaning to life without God
- There is no way to know right from wrong without a higher power telling you
- God / faith / the bible has given comfort to millions and has inspired some amazing charity

I stopped them all there and pointed out that the first three things they presented me with had nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of the actual claim, and I asked them whether or not they actually cared that what they believed was true.

That said, it's worthwhile pointing out to believers the moral failings in their own scriptures / beliefs, especially if they try to hit you with the moral superiority card. You can't honestly claim the moral high ground while defending a standard that endorses slave-beating.

Posted 2 years ago #
flyz4free
Member

I would have to meet this higher power in person. Then, given how easily fooled and manipulated humans tend to be, especially with a higher power pulling the strings, I would still be very skeptical of motive...maybe even more than I am now...especially if the first thing out of his/her/their mouth (or whatever) was "worship ME". I am honestly more concerned with all the bad things done in the name of religion...not whether god exists. At least I can sense and sometimes affect positively a few of those things.

Posted 2 years ago #
Jabster
Member

"Not to harp on this, but what evidence would serve as good evidence for the existence of a god?"

Well not to harp on about this either but it depends a lot on which god you're talking about ...

Posted 2 years ago #
Kodie
Member

I do not and cannot believe in god. (I'm not saying that I would not believe evidence might lead to god, but there is and has been none). I don't care what he might be like, that's just invention. I can understand, in theory, the idea that some people have, the "it's not a religion, it's a relationship," as in, to me, there is a difference in perspective of going along with a group and being personal friends with god.

#1: It's a wishful thinking. Most people's personal criteria for evidence lies with being fooled by statistically improbable coincidences, a general awe of the splendor of the world they see, and their feelings. Hey, that guy exists, I want to be friends with that guy. Then you find out what he's like. If you already believe he exists, you kind of have to accept him for what he is, based on what a lot of people tell you he is. Since he doesn't exist, he has said nothing. Since a lot of people exist, they come up with a composite sketch based on what he seems like he is, complete with good reasons he must have for being such an asshole sometimes.

Or you be like me, I sit and look around, or close my eyes, and make believe there is a god, and I'm just all, this is stupid. Since I'm not especially educated by most people's standards, I wonder how this is difficult for so many people when it's obvious to me. All of it is pretend.

Posted 2 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

"There is most likely no invisible, weightless elephant setting on your shoulder whispering your every thought into your ear for you, either, although this is not completely impossible. But given the utter absence of evidence for it, it would not be rational to posit one as a real possibility. So it goes for God. "

This.

I consider god claims as likely as UFO anal probing claims: I see no credible evidence for them, and the fervor of the believers moves me not at all.

I am prepared to change my mind on both, if presented with compelling evidence.

"but what evidence would serve as good evidence for the existence of a god? "

Shouldn't an omniscient god be able to come up with something? Why place the burden on me? If asked to prove that I exist by a doubter, I could come up with any number of ways of demonstrating I do even just on the spur of the moment.

Posted 2 years ago #
UrsaMinor
Member

Turning the sun into a perfect cube with no electromagnetic fields or other external fundamental forces to hold it in that shape would convince me.

Posted 2 years ago #
Sunny Day
Member

"Not to harp on this, but what evidence would serve as good evidence for the existence of a god?"

For just one day, every amputee's limb growing back overnight.

After that some simple instructions of what god really wants us to do would be nice.

Posted 2 years ago #
Kodie
Member

Does it have to be a perfect cube or can it just assume a cubic shape like wombat poop? 2. Non-scientist question - would we be able to tell with no instruments the sun became cube-shaped or could it go like that a few days before anyone said, huh, that's weird?

Posted 2 years ago #
Kodie
Member

You know what else strikes me as so gross about god? Many times I could wish god would make this or that right for me, or even unselfishly, for the world, and people tell me this is not god's way. He can but he chooses not to, he will not directly interfere with good things except, when conveniently improbable, to nudge. He does not answer impossible wishes for a houseful of candy, or a million dollars, but he will for a football match, or to help find a lost piece of jewelry 58 years later. But what he will do is wreak havoc, punish complete cities for sinful lifestyles, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, epidemic diseases, anything short of a global flood - sort of promised he wouldn't - god will pull out the big guns to let us know he's on his way and to get ready for the rapture, and to punish people. With such awesome power at his disposal - he apparently only cares to account for the low survival rate of nearly-always fatal diseases. He cannot cure everyone, he cannot feed everyone, he cannot make life comfortable for everyone as fiercely as he can destroy life and comfort for thousands of people in one go. Well, he could, if he existed.

Posted 2 years ago #
Custador
Moderator

"My reason: the lack of evidence does not indicate the proof of nothing."

No, but the lack of any reason whatsoever for the hypothesis to have been suggested in the first place does indicate that it's a load of baloney that somebody invented as they went.

Posted 2 years ago #
UrsaMinor
Member

@Kodie:

I would insist on a perfect cube, which is surely not a problem for a perfect, omnipotent being to arrange. Sure, you could tell the sun had changed shape. It would either look like a square or a diamond depending on the angle. Easily visible to everybody on Earth, especially at sunset when it's not so bright that you can't glance at it directly for a second.

Scientist question: Is wombat poop cubic? I don't have any samples lying around the house that I can check.

Posted 2 years ago #
Kodie
Member

http://zactopia.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/why-you-should-give-a-square-shit-about-wombats/

While I understand this could be a manufactured prank, including reshaped turds, it was going around the internet last fall or so. Let's ask the Australians.

Posted 2 years ago #
JonJon
Member

"Why place the burden on me?"

I didn't put the burden there; it is a good idea for the holder of a position to establish that the position is falsifiable, and to indicate the experiment that would do so. Obviously, lots of people have chimed in on this already with potential "experiments" which they claim would falsify the position. (And yes, I know that Popperian falsification is not the be-all, end-all.)

Posted 2 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

But if someone walked up to me and asked me to prove I exist, I could do so within seconds without asking for help.

Yet the omni/omni god/s remain deafeningly silent when presented with the same request.

So here's my answer: god/s is/are free to choose their preferred method. My only request is that he/she/they chose a method that is not ambiguous.

Posted 2 years ago #
Siberia
Member

I do not and cannot believe in god. (I'm not saying that I would not believe evidence might lead to god, but there is and has been none). I don't care what he might be like, that's just invention.

This. A million times this.

It's fun arguing about God(s) the same way it's fun to read Greek history and try to decipher the meaning behind their myths, the same way it's awesome to ponder about the motivations of characters in any work of fiction, but, in the end, it really doesn't matter because I can't believe something this momentous without evidence.

Posted 2 years ago #
Jeremiah
Member

what evidence would serve as good evidence for the existence of a god?

I think that is a fair question but I am kind of with Jabster on this. Before we could even begin to answer this question we would require a crystal clear definition of what 'god' was in the first place. The term god as it stands is actually very vague, just a collection of semi-consistent traits like the 3 omnis. But is that enough to differentiate a god from an incredibly advanced alien? Or a race of beings that live in the 6th dimension to which ours is a small and malleable subset? We have to know what is specific and unique to the 'god' concept.

Another problem is that most of the predictions from religions like Christianity occur after you are dead. You know, if you woke up after being nuked in a heavenly environment before the throne of god and a guy named Jesus walked over to you and started chatting about thoughts only you had and waved to your dead grandmother on the way. But obviously none of the stuff can convince any living person so you would need a preponderance of magic tricks like Ursa's. Like 'Jesus' spelled out in golden flames in the sky that everyone agrees was there and all Christians suddenly are cured from disease while people of other faiths are not and so on. In short, to quote, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and a god would require a hell of a lot.

Posted 2 years ago #
BillZBub
Member

"There is no point or meaning to life without God"

The last time someone said that to me, I replied, "You mean there is no objective point or meaning to life without God. But really, I don't think objective meaning is possible or desirable. Subjective meaning, that is, meaning we choose ourselves for ourselves, is possible and desirable without God. And meaning that God gives to you is the same as the meaning you'd get being a slave. Complete contortion of yourself to become what you think someone wants you to be. That kind of "meaning" is not more desirable. How is it more meaningful than a freely chosen subjective 'meaning to life'?"

Posted 2 years ago #
Troutbane
Member

Very good arguments. I think Jabster and Jeremiah had it the best. You would need to define "God/gods/Elder Dimensional Being" before even the beginning of the concept of what would be evidence could be done. As is, the religious babble coming out of the Judeo-Christian camp is the most prevalent in the US and also, personally, the least likely in my opinion. Absolutely no proof that is perceptible has come to light proving the existence of any divine. But then again, we never know what physicists could discover in ten, a hundred, or a thousand years. Quite likely they will find nothing, or at least nothing we could define from our own limitations.
I guess my original argument could be better described as : "I have no faith in the existence of a god" as opposed to "I have faith in the non-existence of god".

Posted 2 years ago #
Kodie
Member

If it was evident, it would be evident. Then we could figure out what it was.

Posted 2 years ago #
Ty
Moderator

Actually, for me, at this point I am fairly certain that there is/are no god/s. About the same level of certainty as my belief that no one is actually abducted by aliens for the purposes of anal probing.

Posted 2 years ago #