Are you closed minded?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As an atheist, I cannot state with 100% certainty that there are no gods, but I certainly do not believe for a moment that there are. When I look at the world, and how it works, I see absolutely no evidence for the active involvement of anything other than nature herself. (I assume here that we are part of nature, and part of our nature is to be careless in our treatment of our world, and others in it.)

So the only reason that I can think of to suppose the existence of a god or gods, is the existence of this world itself, which is admittedly difficult to grasp, and which nobody is yet truly certain of. But to suppose that before this universe existed there were a god or gods with the power, imagination and will to go ahead and create it out of nothing. That supposes something much, much harder to grasp than that something, in some form or other, has always existed, and local physical laws can do the rest, given enough time.

Thus, it is cleaner to suppose a big bang, possibly in a never-beginning, never-ending, always changing multiverse, than to believe in special intelligences bringing everything into existence. Occam's Razor tells me a natural universe is the right answer.

 

[Quintessence]

I think it might be because we look at it differently. I don't care what people believe if their beliefs are not harmful for others, but when they are, they ought to questioned and therefore the question of whether their God exists or not, must be relevant.

Yes, we probably do have differing perspectives. I find it worth remembering that beliefs are meaningless without words and deeds to back them. What goes on inside someone's head is only ever relevant to that person's mental health until their words or behaviors are externalized in some way. To make matters more complicated, the ways in which ideas translate to words and deeds doesn't have a one-to-one correspondence. Two people can both believe in justice, while one pays lip service to it and another becomes a career lawmaker. But it gets even more messy from there when we consider how nebulous the concept of "harm" really is, especially who is a relevant subject for consideration when it comes to caring about who or what is "harmed."

 

[David1967]

I believe God exists. I'm not open to the contrary. However, I am open to the idea that man's concept of God is often (or always) lacking and incomplete due to our limited understanding and knowledge.

 

[Jollybear]

I agree that if ones certainty is absolute, then the mind is closed. I am uncertain how it could be otherwise, given that possessing absolute certainty automatically rules out all other possibilities.

I am fairly certain that I am uncertain and see my belief in God is based on faith a not on objective evidence. Any personal experiences I have had, are isolated to me, and, while I can relate these, I cannot establish them objectively so that another can weigh them and determine the validity of my belief. I cannot be absolutely certain that my interpretation of those experiences is correct. Hence the belief based on faith.

Does God exist? I believe so. I do not know with absolute certainty though. I could be wrong.

Let me ask you this, is it LIKELY that you are wrong about belief in Gods existence? Or is it likely tbat you are right?

 

[Jollybear]

I'm a believer who is fairly certain (but not entirely certain) God does not exist outside of the human psyche.

I'm a believer who is fairly certain (but not entirely certain) God does exist outside of the human psyche.

Does your certainty overide mine or mine yours?

 

[Jollybear]

As long as "god" shares all the same
characteristics of non existence as other
non existent things, like unicorns, mermaids
and batgoy, I guess I will go on not believing.

Actually, god is worse off in this regard, for lo.
there'd be nowhere near as many versions of
unicorns as of "god".

Unicorns and mermaids ALSO exist.

 

[Jollybear]

But whether you ask "do gods exist" or "can you provide some insight on why these things are gods for your culture?" are basically the same question just phrased differently? To answer the first one "do gods exist?" you would most likely draw on insights of what things in ones culture are considered gods to explain it.

But if you skip such question, your assumption would always be from a starting point that Gods do exist. Which as I understand by the OP, is what is meant by being close minded. How your Gods might cause your culture to behave, whether that is positive or not, is how you make sure that it stays ignorant in regards to reality.

For instant, sacrificing to the Gods in hope for better seasons is done based on the assumption that Gods do exist, therefore it makes sense to sacrifice to them. But as this fails there are basically two ways it can go:

1. A culture might not think that their sacrifice was good enough, so they throw in some more people or whatever they think pleases the Gods, and if it helps they might become even more ignorant.

2. They become less ignorant and realise that maybe the person that decided to try to added extra water to the dry fields had a point as his plants seem to grow well. And over time less likely to sacrifice stuff to the Gods rather than just adding more water.

So at some point, as more and more things seems less connected to sacrificing to the Gods, the question of whether they actually want sacrifices in the first place become relevante, which eventually leads to the question of whether they even exist or not, so it seems like a reasonable question to ask. I think.

Both are wrong, the sacrificers to the gods for crops to grow and the other folks who say water makes crops grow. Both are wrong.

You see when we sacrifice to gods to get crops to grow, the god tells us to water the crops and they will grow. The god also says i dont need your sacrifices because i own that stuff your sacrificing anyway.



What ya think of that explanation huh?

Am i a genious or what!?

 

[joe1776]

...Thus, it is cleaner to suppose a big bang, possibly in a never-beginning, never-ending, always changing multiverse, than to believe in special intelligences bringing everything into existence. Occam's Razor tells me a natural universe is the right answer.

I'm not challenging your conclusion but I'm curious about how you got there. Which version of OR did you use and how did you apply it?

 

[Nimos]

Both are wrong, the sacrificers to the gods for crops to grow and the other folks who say water makes crops grow. Both are wrong.

You see when we sacrifice to gods to get crops to grow, the god tells us to water the crops and they will grow. The god also says i dont need your sacrifices because i own that stuff your sacrificing anyway.



What ya think of that explanation huh?

Am i a genious or what!?

Absolutely!!

God do indeed work in mysteries ways, I never thought that would even be a possible explanation, well done!!

 

[osgart]

The word God implies absolute power over everything in existence. I am 100 percent certain that nothing like that exists. We would have encountered such a presence by now. And i see no possible habitation for an omnipresent Lord.

If i were God i would absolutely forfeit such a miserable existence and open up the floor of existence to non evil people. I might throw a few bolts of lightning and create a few hells to endure for all the murderers and rapists of the world.

 

[joe1776]

The word God implies absolute power over everything in existence. I am 100 percent certain that nothing like that exists. We would have encountered such a presence by now. And i see no possible habitation for an omnipresent Lord.

If i were God i would absolutely forfeit such a miserable existence and open up the floor of existence to non evil people. I might throw a few bolts of lightning and create a few hells to endure for all the murderers and rapists of the world.

If I had the power to create a universe with intelligent life, I'd make it a challenging learning process so that life didn't get boring.. I'd give my creations both good and bad instincts and the will to overcome the bad. The goal would be moral progress. I'd set up the game, give it a spin, and then step away and let it run.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ha! You can never be absolutely certain which reality is true or false. What you can do is corroborate with other individuals what reflects our shared reality. If it does not reflect our reality, there are more interpretations of this phenomena than just saying it's reality or it's true/false. A person may be hallucinating after taking some psychoactive drugs, and it's more likely this reality they're experiencing are a direct results of inhibiting/releasing an excess/decrease of chemicals in the brain. They may, for instance, believe they're time travelling while in this state. However, it's fairly unlikely since they're drooling while his/her friends are watching them.

One can corroborate with other individuals in a dream in the same way. Would that corroboration make the dream reality true?

Now, would it be possible for you to answer the OP ?

Sure it would be. But without being clear on what you understand to be “god,” my answer would be rather useless to anyone but me. I’m confident that my understanding of “god” is quite different than yours.

 

[Jollybear]

As an atheist, I cannot state with 100% certainty that there are no gods, but I certainly do not believe for a moment that there are. When I look at the world, and how it works, I see absolutely no evidence for the active involvement of anything other than nature herself. (I assume here that we are part of nature, and part of our nature is to be careless in our treatment of our world, and others in it.)

So the only reason that I can think of to suppose the existence of a god or gods, is the existence of this world itself, which is admittedly difficult to grasp, and which nobody is yet truly certain of. But to suppose that before this universe existed there were a god or gods with the power, imagination and will to go ahead and create it out of nothing. That supposes something much, much harder to grasp than that something, in some form or other, has always existed, and local physical laws can do the rest, given enough time.

Thus, it is cleaner to suppose a big bang, possibly in a never-beginning, never-ending, always changing multiverse, than to believe in special intelligences bringing everything into existence. Occam's Razor tells me a natural universe is the right answer.

Occams razor tells me theres a God.

Plus, why is a God with no begining or end hard to grasp, but a muliverse with no begining or end is easy to grasp?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not challenging your conclusion but I'm curious about how you got there. Which version of OR did you use and how did you apply it?

I think of OR as basically saying, "if you've got a couple of ways to explain something, then the one that involves the fewest assumptions is more likely to be the correct one."

So, we live in a universe which we can plausibly play backward to the Big Bang, and see that (once we assume the BB) we can mostly work out. It's all there in the science, so we only need that one assumption...the Big Bang.

Now, in a god-created universe, we must make several assumptions: there is nothing whatever, but in that nothing whatever there is/are god or gods (and so therefore the statement that "there is nothing" is already false) and that this god or gods is also sophisticated and motivated enough to create a universe with the rules that we are able to discern (shortly after the BB) have brought us to where we are.

Which is the simpler? Which requires the fewest assumptions?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Occams razor tells me theres a God.

Plus, why is a God with no begining or end hard to grasp, but a muliverse with no begining or end is easy to grasp?

It's called "science." If you are not willing to go there, then nothing I've got to say will ever convince you.

 

[Jollybear]

It's called "science." If you are not willing to go there, then nothing I've got to say will ever convince you.

You mean its called pseudoscience?

 

[Polymath257]

Occams razor tells me theres a God.

And it tells me there isn't. I see no reason to add that hypothesis. As far as I can see, it has no explanatory power at all.

Plus, why is a God with no begining or end hard to grasp, but a muliverse with no begining or end is easy to grasp?

It isn't the difficulty of grasping the idea. Both are pretty easy to grasp, frankly. The question is where the evidence leads. I see no evidence of an intelligent creator. Perhaps a bumbling, non-intelligent one, or a creation by committee. But even that is an unnecessary extra with no real explanatory power.

 

[Jollybear]

And it tells me there isn't. I see no reason to add that hypothesis. As far as I can see, it has no explanatory power at all.



It isn't the difficulty of grasping the idea. Both are pretty easy to grasp, frankly. The question is where the evidence leads. I see no evidence of an intelligent creator. Perhaps a bumbling, non-intelligent one, or a creation by committee. But even that is an unnecessary extra with no real explanatory power.

It does have explanatory power because its an explanation, thus it has power.

But, its interesting you concede theres evidence for a creator (just not a intelligent one).

Ok, well, if you wer the creator, how would you create the universe and why would you do it that way?

 

[Polymath257]

It does have explanatory power because its an explanation, thus it has power.

To really have expanatory power, though, there must be a way to distinguish between the statement and its negation. In this case, that isn't possible.

But, its interesting you concede theres evidence for a creator (just not a intelligent one).

It's a joke.

Ok, well, if you wer the creator, how would you create the universe and why would you do it that way?

What laws do I operate under? Can I simply speak things into existence? Why is that possible? Or do I have to use some technology to put my ideas into action?

And why would I be interested in creating a universe anyway?

If I was really interested in creating universes, I would write computer simulations of a wide variety of 'possible worlds' just to see how different variations lead to different results.

/E: Hmmm....I guess that would be a sort of multiverse, huh?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Given the 100% lack of evidence
Given the fact suffering exists
Given the number of different religions
Given that the amount of "stuff" attributed to god magic has reduced dramatically as the "not understood" has become understood and the gaps keep getting fewer and smaller.

I am certain no gods exist.

That is not to say more advanced beings that exist on earth do not exist somewhere in this universe.

Hahahahahaha. No.

Human suffering is not a disproof of God. At best, it is proof that God is evil or at best neutral. The Hebrew Tanakh/Bible agrees with this assessment showing numerous times where God outright punishes people, and
Isaiah 45:7 declares in no uncertain terms that God is the source not only of good but also misfortune. However, even the existence of evil is far more than that could exist on its own. As for the existence of God, if not for God, you would not exist. In fact, nothing in this universe can exist without a massive dispersion of energy or matter, AKA the Big Bang. Before such, matter as Stephen Hawking himself agrees, is compressed into a nonmatter state. Sound familiar? It should. Genesis 1:2-3 speaks of a void which becomes light.

https://strangenotions.com/hawking-proof-for-god/

There are different religions. Yes. So what? I personally accept all of them aside from Islam, which I do not consider a true religion. I am not a Christian, but I am not not a Christian either. Rather I believe that the original religion was worship of God, nature, and the universe. Then people began to split from essential awe of all that is as God into worshiping things (idolatry) which in turn became manmade statue "gods" and silly dogmatic differences. God is a Creative Force of Life, God is present as part of all that exists, and God is our soul. This is the Trinity, but more than that it overlaps with Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism, Shintoism, and any real religion to greater or less. What makes you think God would disallow other religions? All real ones are true. Having talked to you before, you have some misguided notion that Christianity is some sort of tribal religion rather than the end result of centuries of Jewish and Christian theologians and philosophers studying reality as they lived within it.

Classic God of the gaps fallacy. Sorry, but if it doesn't work for Christians, pretty sure it can't work in reverse for atheists. Sorry, there, but you might actually have to explain how this "stuff" works. I grew up going to public and private schools, not backwater church schools. I learned about science. I believe gravity works. I believe in basic (not survival of the fittest, which I condemn for its role in Nazi theory and eugenics) evolution. I am not convinced that understanding how things work rules out the role of a Creator in making it work. In fact, I am a novice computer programmer. I could fully believe in a God who basically created the universe as a program. Something like this.

Certain, are we? Recall that I've talked with you personally. I happen to know that's crap. You have a personal beef with theism because of some punk kids who knocked over one of your relatives and beat him up. This is not a person who "knows" a god doesn't exist, this is someone who hates the idea of a deity. This is the equivalent of "God doesn't exist and I hate him." Yeaaaaah, one or the other.

Lastly "any significantly advanced being is indistinguishable from a god." (Shermer’s Last Law)