Faith in no God

[Jim]

Where do the natural laws come from? Why do all people seem to agree that it's better to behave a certain way even when it's difficult and inconvenient? Why wouldn't we all naturally desire to look out for number one? Why do people, without religious obligations pressing on them, choose to do good for others? Even when it's not in the best interest of themselves? Why do people sacrifice for their families? Why do people join social movements to help the oppressed even when their own group will lose some of its power and control in the process? Why do we not simply act on instinct, like animals? What exactly "programmed" us to value selflessness, even if we don't always live up to it?
I believe computer programs have programmers, art has artists, music has composers, poetry has poets, watches have watchmakers, children have parents, and therefore the universe, which likewise is a creation, has a Creator. I don't think this Creator is an old man in the sky. I don't think we can know many details about this Source, but that it's there seems undeniable to me. I can only base my beliefs on my experience of the world, which tells me all things have a Cause.

A world without God would be a world without natural law. No one would take any offence at the malicious acts of anyone else because there wouldn't be anything ingrained on our hearts that tells us something beyond ourselves had value. So the very existence of natural laws eliminates the possibility of there being no "lawmaker" that programmed all of us to know the difference between basic right and wrong.

I’m planning to start a thread in the Religious Q&A forum about people’s reasons for saying that they believe in God. This would be a good example of what I’ll be asking for. I might link to it.

 

[gnostic]

I think when people say it takes faith to not believe in God, what they mean is that it takes faith to believe in the spontaneous, seemingly "magical" way the universe just happened to come together in the perfect set of circumstances that just happened to create optimal conditions for life. Belief in such happenstance takes faith.

Sorry, but this is strawman argument. You are making gross generalizations about people who either don’t follow any religion, or don’t follow your particular brand of religion.

Most people are just ordinary people, who don’t give much thought beyond the domains of their experiences, eg most don’t know anything about the cosmology of the universe. They are just living day-by-day, they work, they eat, sleep, and socialize, and since the majority are scientists, they are neutral about the Genesis creation or any creation of other religions, or the Big Bang, or the Multiverse, etc.

So from their experiences, there are no magic involved.

And even then, those people who do look at the science about the universe, only for natural processes, therefore no magic or supernatural involved.

The only people I see accepting magic are those who believed in the literal interpretations of their scriptures with the “God did it” mentality, eg Genesis creation or the the Qur’an version of creation.

God creating light to separate day from night, without the sun existing, simply because God said the magic world, “Let there be light”. That is believing in the “supernatural”, the “magic”...or what you may call “miracle”.

Genesis transforming lifeless dust into a living adult human, or the Qur’an saying god made Adam from clay and water. These are supernatural, with magic involved.

Creating adult Eve from Adam’s rib, involved more unrealistic magic involved.

The talking serpent or the talking donkey, fable and fairytales.

Believing in the above things in your Bible and accepting the supernatural as true, is what real faith all about, not your example of crossing the road. Try crossing the roads at Naples, where people don’t follow traffic rules, even at pedestrian crossing, and you are more likely to get hit by a car.

You are selectively blind if you don’t see that you are the one who really believe in magic

 

[Mock Turtle]

I agree with you about religions. Sad but true. As for faith vs trust, it's a little like splitting hairs, no? We're used to using the word faith in religious contexts, but what about when we tell someone "I have faith in you"? I'm ok with either one. The point is, there is no definitive proof per se, but there's at least a tiny bit of evidence in the direction of the statement that would allow me to say, "I have faith in you." If I thought, "I've seen your work and you're kidding yourself if you think you can do this", then I wouldn't say "I have faith in you."

I still think the use of faith in the religious sense means a deliberate belief whilst used elsewhere it generally means trust or hope.

 

[ecco]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

<snip>

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

As you said, the existence of your god cannot be proven, the non-existence of your god cannot be proven. So, we should look at evidence.

The ancient Egyptians believed Ra, Osiris, and Set were gods. We know these "gods" were nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the ancient Egyptians.

The ancient Greeks believed Zeus and Apollo were gods. We know these "gods" were nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the ancient Greeks.

The ancient Romans believed Janus and Vulcan were gods. We know these "gods" were nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the ancient Romans.

The ancient Norse believed Odin and Loki were gods. We know these "gods" were nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the ancient Norse.

The early Lakota believed Inyan and Hununpa were gods. We know these "gods" were nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the early Lakota.

The Yoruba believe Nana-buluku and Obatala are gods. We know these "gods" are nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the Yoruba.

The Hindus believe Shiva and Baruna are gods. We know these "gods" are nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the ancient Indians.

Yet, somehow, you believe your god is really a real god. The evidence says otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

Where do the natural laws come from?

Ultimately, I don't think that is a meaningful question. To discuss 'where something comes from' requires the use of a physical law. So, if you have the most fundamental physical laws, there *cannot* be a deeper explanation.

Why do all people seem to agree that it's better to behave a certain way even when it's difficult and inconvenient? Why wouldn't we all naturally desire to look out for number one? Why do people, without religious obligations pressing on them, choose to do good for others? Even when it's not in the best interest of themselves? Why do people sacrifice for their families? Why do people join social movements to help the oppressed even when their own group will lose some of its power and control in the process? Why do we not simply act on instinct, like animals?

Well, first of all, there are social animals that show attributes of compassion and self-sacrifice, etc. Those are not unique to humans. And, in fact, it appears they are consequences of being a certain type of social spacies.

What exactly "programmed" us to value selflessness, even if we don't always live up to it?

We survive better as a social species instead of as a solitary one.

I believe computer programs have programmers, art has artists, music has composers, poetry has poets, watches have watchmakers, children have parents, and therefore the universe, which likewise is a creation, has a Creator. I don't think this Creator is an old man in the sky. I don't think we can know many details about this Source, but that it's there seems undeniable to me. I can only base my beliefs on my experience of the world, which tells me all things have a Cause.

But to label the universe as a 'creation' already begs the question. Is it a 'creation' or does it 'simply exist'?

A world without God would be a world without natural law.

And why would you assume that? A universe with structures and natural ways of interaction would be a universe with natural laws and could potentially have no deity, right?

No one would take any offence at the malicious acts of anyone else because there wouldn't be anything ingrained on our hearts that tells us something beyond ourselves had value. So the very existence of natural laws eliminates the possibility of there being no "lawmaker" that programmed all of us to know the difference between basic right and wrong.

Hmm...it seems that you don't understand what a 'natural law' is. It is NOT some rules of conduct. It is simply a description of how things behave. So, gravity is a natural law: it describes how things move when around masses. 'Taking offense at the malicious acts of others' is NOT a natural law. it may be a type of *moral law* or even a *moral tendency*, but it is NOT a natural law, like the law of gravity, or the laws of electromagnetism, etc. In other words, the laws of physics.

 

[Karolina]

You really don't think our apparent natural inclination for morality could not have evolved along with all the rest that accompanied our evolution?

Nah. Why wouldn't we have evolved to look out for number one? Survival of the fittest and all that?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Nah. Why wouldn't we have evolved to look out for number one? Survival of the fittest and all that?

But we could have both.

 

[Jim]

I agree with you about religions. Sad but true. As for faith vs trust, it's a little like splitting hairs, no? We're used to using the word faith in religious contexts, but what about when we tell someone "I have faith in you"? I'm ok with either one. The point is, there is no definitive proof per se, but there's at least a tiny bit of evidence in the direction of the statement that would allow me to say, "I have faith in you." If I thought, "I've seen your work and you're kidding yourself if you think you can do this", then I wouldn't say "I have faith in you."

I see the word “faith” being used in two very different ways. One is just words, people telling themselves and others that they believe something, because they think that it’s part of their religion. The other kind is trust and confidence that something will happen. Religious faith can be either kind, or both at the same time. I think that when people denounce religious faith, it’s mostly the first kind that they’re denouncing.

 

[Karolina]

Ultimately, I don't think that is a meaningful question. To discuss 'where something comes from' requires the use of a physical law. So, if you have the most fundamental physical laws, there *cannot* be a deeper explanation.


Well, first of all, there are social animals that show attributes of compassion and self-sacrifice, etc. Those are not unique to humans. And, in fact, it appears they are consequences of being a certain type of social spacies.


We survive better as a social species instead of as a solitary one.



But to label the universe as a 'creation' already begs the question. Is it a 'creation' or does it 'simply exist'?


And why would you assume that? A universe with structures and natural ways of interaction would be a universe with natural laws and could potentially have no deity, right?


Hmm...it seems that you don't understand what a 'natural law' is. It is NOT some rules of conduct. It is simply a description of how things behave. So, gravity is a natural law: it describes how things move when around masses. 'Taking offense at the malicious acts of others' is NOT a natural law. it may be a type of *moral law* or even a *moral tendency*, but it is NOT a natural law, like the law of gravity, or the laws of electromagnetism, etc. In other words, the laws of physics.

Actually, I'm afraid I'm not the one who doesn't understand natural law. There's the laws of nature, such as gravity, and there's natural law or first principles that dictate what human actions ought to be like. But regardless, as I said previously, people will believe, or not believe, whatever already fits into their world view. This includes atheists and it includes me. So going around in circles is a bit futile.

I'll give you that we don't have to call the universe Creation. Yet, what with the Big Bang theory and all, seems like even secular materialistic science says the universe didn't always just exist.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually, I'm afraid I'm not the one who doesn't understand natural law. There's the laws of nature, such as gravity,

And those are natural laws.

and there's natural law or first principles that dictate what human actions ought to be like. But regardless, as I said previously, people will believe, or not believe, whatever already fits into their world view. This includes atheists and it includes me. So going around in circles is a bit futile.

No, those are NOT natural laws in the sense I was describing above. Moral laws are aspects of us being a social species and are NOT some fundamental aspect of the universe.

I'll give you that we don't have to call the universe Creation. Yet, what with the Big Bang theory and all, seems like even secular materialistic science says the universe didn't always just exist.

That isn't completely clear for a couple of reasons. First, time is part of the universe (or spacetime), so there simply may not be a 'before the universe'. Also, it is quite possible that there is no singularity for the Big Bang, and that might allow for time (and the universe) to be infinite into the past.

Either way, the universe has existed whenever there was time. And, it makes no sense to say it was 'created'.

 

[Jim]

Where do the natural laws come from? Why do all people seem to agree that it's better to behave a certain way even when it's difficult and inconvenient? Why wouldn't we all naturally desire to look out for number one? Why do people, without religious obligations pressing on them, choose to do good for others? Even when it's not in the best interest of themselves? Why do people sacrifice for their families? Why do people join social movements to help the oppressed even when their own group will lose some of its power and control in the process? Why do we not simply act on instinct, like animals? What exactly "programmed" us to value selflessness, even if we don't always live up to it?
I believe computer programs have programmers, art has artists, music has composers, poetry has poets, watches have watchmakers, children have parents, and therefore the universe, which likewise is a creation, has a Creator. I don't think this Creator is an old man in the sky. I don't think we can know many details about this Source, but that it's there seems undeniable to me. I can only base my beliefs on my experience of the world, which tells me all things have a Cause.

A world without God would be a world without natural law. No one would take any offence at the malicious acts of anyone else because there wouldn't be anything ingrained on our hearts that tells us something beyond ourselves had value. So the very existence of natural laws eliminates the possibility of there being no "lawmaker" that programmed all of us to know the difference between basic right and wrong.

The word “God” means very different things to different people. Has that ever created any confusion or misunderstandings in your conversations with people in these forums? Sometimes it does for me. For example I used to think that when Christians said “God,” they were talking about ones in the Bible.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe computer programs have programmers, art has artists, music has composers, poetry has poets, watches have watchmakers, children have parents, and therefore the universe, which likewise is a creation, has a Creator.

All of the examples you gave (other than the universe) are created by humans. But let's get away from the human level and consider other things around us. Do all trees need a conscious being to plant them? No. Do mountains need a conscious being to tell the to erode? No. Do volcanoes need a conscious being to tell them to erupt? No. Do planets need a conscious being for them to form? No. Do stars? No. Do galaxies? No. Do water falls? No. Do rivers? No.

You see, that vast majority of the universe does NOT require a conscious agent to get them to form. They form via the natural laws of physics and nothing else is required. it is only in the limited arena of human endeavors that conscious agents are required to make things (well, other animals can also, but even this is limited to our small planet).

So you are (falsely, I believe) generalizing from a very specific collection of activities done by humans and trying to say that applies to the universe as a whole. But we *know* that human actvity is an incredibly small part of the universe and the vast majority of the universe does NOT require a conscious entity to get it to form. Nobody 'shapes' a star: gravity does this without any intervention. Nobody tells hydrogen and oxygen to form water: they do this naturally and spontaneously without any conscious intervention.

So why do you assume that the universe needs a conscious being to intervene in its formation? And, for that matter, what laws determine how that being *can* form universes? Would those not be a type of natural law as well?

 

[rrobs]

It looks to mr like you’re saying that when people denounce people for believing in God without evidence, they’re doing the same thing that they say the believers are doing. They’re believing without evidence that there is no God. You wanted to point out the hypocrisy in that, and you thought that if people who are denouncing faith in God could see that they have faith themselves, they might stop denouncing it?

Yes. Faith is not a bad thing. I just sat down in my chair with complete faith it would not fall apart.

 

[rrobs]

Knowledge and faith do not go hand in hand, according to my definition of faith. Faith is belief in something without without verifiable evidence. I do my very best not to believe in anything of significance without verifiable evidence... thus I never take any significant claim on faith. As far as your friend paying you back... you don't have to take that on faith. You have verifiable evidence that your friend is reliable, thus your trust that he will pay you back is based on experience, not on faith. However, if you were to trust the stranger who you know nothing about to pay you back, THAT trust would be based on faith, since you have no verifiable evidence that the stranger is reliable.

You are talking about blind faith which, if my idea is correct, is an oxymoron. I only have faith in what I know to be reliable. There is little, if any, difference between faith and trust. At least that's how I see it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Nah. Why wouldn't we have evolved to look out for number one? Survival of the fittest and all that?

Are fairness and a sense of justice aspects of morality, such that any displaying such would have at least some morality?

Do you think God or any such has given morality to any other creatures other than humans?

If you answered yes to both then no problem, but if you answered no to the second then how do you explain a monkey refusing a treat when it saw another monkey getting a better treat. With the monkeys normally accepting either treats when alone but obviously preferring the better treat. Seems to me that the monkey understood injustice.

If this seems to show some moral behaviour do you think it likely that monkeys are more advanced than our ancestors. Hardly likely to me.

Hence we probably have evolved morality as part of our group behaviour - since we also seem to show it as young babies.

 

[rrobs]

Well, it starts with the idea that if you want to believe in something, it helps to know what you're talking about.

And no one knows what a real god is,

A bit presumptuous. Besides, it's not true. There is a book out there that says over and over that God can be known. I, and many others, have found that to be true. Of course there are many others who do believe, as yourself, that God is unknowable.

So it's no more difficult not to believe in God than it is not to believe in zptkkafrogh, even though 'God' is easier to spell. The problem is the same in both cases ─ if the word denotes something real, no one knows what it is.

I was not talking about the difficulty or not of believing in God or not. I was simply pointing out that in both cases, one's conclusion is based on faith. Not knowing anything about God would naturally lead one to have no faith in Him. That's only natural, but faith is faith regardless of where it is placed.

 

[rrobs]

Not sure which statement you're referring to. Clarification:

"Written long before the scientific method became established."
I Cor. 3:19 was written long before the scientific method was developed. The "wisdom of the world," back then, was folklore and speculation, not science. Folklore and speculation is not wise, and can be called foolishness. This does not apply to today's investigative methods.
"Apparently god prefers the emotional, illogical and irrational, and disparages the intelligence he gave us." Presumably, God gave us reason and intelligence, but condemns us if we use it critcally, analytically or logically.

Well, not understanding God would likely lead one to think God prefers emotional, illogical, etc. But all of that would not be true if one understood God. Of course it is easy to simply say that anyone who thinks they understand God is delusional, but only time will tell if that be the case. I'm confident that total faith in science is the grand delusion of our culture. We'll see.

Did you come to the conclusion about folklore, speculation, and foolishness based on your own honest, open minded study of the scriptures, or by what you've heard from others? For example, did you even bother to look at the context of the scripture you so soundly denounced? Have you bothered to actually study the culture of the ancient Middle East, or are you just assuming they were an ignorant, helpless, child like people? Do you know for sure what they did or did not know about science? It would seem like engaging in such a discussion as we are having would necessitate having a knowledge of the matter under discussion.

It's a fact that the vast majority, albeit not all, who make such an attempt at an unbiased study of the scriptures come away with a belief in God. At least that's my experience.

 

[rrobs]

I see your point, but, logically, there's no burden of proof for the non-believer. The non-believer is making no claim, just saying he lacks belief in something with insufficient supporting evidence. Lack of belief, as I said before, is the epistemic default position. It's not belief without evidence. It's a blank slate. No 'belief' is written on it.

If the non-believer is simply claiming he has not sufficient evidence to believe God, that is an honest and logical mindset. However, it falls apart when the same individual states unequivocally that there is in fact no God. It becomes even worse when casting aspersions on those who do believe in God. Just because one person has no evidence doesn't negate someone else having evidence.

 

[rrobs]

I am adding my vote to those of others, regarding this thread, to let you know how it is being seen. That's all.

I understand and appreciate your input. I don't agree with it, but I understand your position.

 

[rrobs]

Can you prove that the universe, and everything in it, including all of everyone's memories, was not created LastThursday?

No?

Please apply your faith equation and admit that your concept of God is just as unlikely as the universe being only a few days old.

It is not at all unreasonable that someone looking at the material universe with all it's wonders should come to the conclusion that there is a God. True, it in itself is no proof of God, but at least it could be a somewhat appropriate conclusion. On the other hand there is absolutely nothing out there that would lead one to the conclusion that the universe was created last Thursday. The same goes with unicorns and faeries. All bad analogies.