Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

Joe claims leprechauns exist, and Charlie claims they don't. They make a bet of $1,000.00 on it. Eventually, Charlie says, "you've never shown me a leprechaun, you've never given any evidence of the existence of a leprechaun. Therefore, I think I won the bet, and you owe me $1,000.00.

But Joe says, "wait a second, you've never shown me that leprechauns don't exist. Leprechauns are tricky, they hide, they don't want to be found out, because then you'll steal their pot of gold from them! Until you can prove that leprechauns don't exist, I don't owe you anything."

So, they decide to sue one another, in a court of law. Finally, the case comes to court, before a judge only (it's small claims, you know). The judge asks Joe, "can you produce a leprechaun? Can you demonstrate any verifiable evidence of a leprechaun in any way?" Does Joe have a strategy to prove his case in court? Then, the judge turns to Charlie and asks, "can you show that a leprechaun doesn't exist?" "Why should I?" asks Charlie. "Have you ever seen one?" He turns to the court and asks, "has anybody here ever seen one? Anybody got a photograph? Anything?"

How should the judge decide? On what basis does he choose who pays who the $1,000.00?

Now, replace "leprechauns" in that story with "an IOU signed by Charlie for $1,000,000.00 owed to Joe."

Now tell us how the judge should decide. Does Charlie owe Joe $1,000,000.00 based on the claim of a document never seen, never demonstrated, never attested to? Or does Joe owe Charlie $1,000.00 for the sin of being a stupid twit?

 

[Audie]

That is all that matters to you. And sorry, but you have no knowledge as to whether it can be true.

It can be true there's pirate treasure buried in the sands of Singapore and I will find a map to it.

 

[ppp]

It can be true there's pirate treasure buried in the sands of Singapore and I will find a map to it.

Send me a first class ticket and an eye patch, and I will help you dig.

 

[nPeace]

So it can be reasonable to be an atheist.

I believe it can be reasonably for anyone to be reasonable. They just have to be responsible.

If a God exists, do you think they would agree?

Would God agree that atheists can be reasonable?
Read his answer here. Jonah 4:11

 

[nPeace]

So you've never heard or provide a reasonable justification for the existence or non-existence of God?

I've heard reasonable explanation for believing in God. I'm open to reasonable explanation for non-belief in God.
I don't recall hearing any, but if anyone offers any, I'll let you know... unless you want to be the first to offer one.

Neither have I, so I choose not to hold either position.

Agnostics are okay. At least for the time being. I don't think they have all the time in the world, but I think they certainly have some time.

 

[F1fan]

Send me a first class ticket and an eye patch, and I will help you dig.

You'll need a parrot.

 

[F1fan]

I've heard reasonable explanation for believing in God.

Why don't you share that with us, as no critical thinker has heard it yet.

Remember, to be a reasonable explanation will require conclusive and valid evidence.

I'm open to reasonable explanation for non-belief in God.

Non-belief in ideas is the logic default, and it is evidence that shows them true or likely true. Thus far in human history the evidence is weak. The extraordinary nature of claims of gods existing are not supported by an equal level of extraordinary evidence. To a rational mind god concepts are not reasonable because they lack adequate evidence to judge true. Theists have non-rational reasons to believe, and not rational thought.

But you have the opportunity to show me wrong. You claimed above to have heard a reasonable explanation. Show us your claim is true, and atheists are wrong.

 

[F1fan]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.

Usually social influence and the impulse to adopt norms and conform.

Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

This is awkward wording. Who would claim to believe in the non-existence of things? Does anyone say the believe in the non-existence of Santa? What is normal language is to say I don't believe Santa exists. Atheists tend to say that they DON'T believe that gods exist, not that they believe that no gods exist.

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Atheists tend to be weak atheists since most of the claims we deal with are very general and lack much detail to assess. But if a god concept in well defined sometimes it can be concluded to not be true, and that god can be dismissed as existing.

Theists are the claimants, that their many gods exist, so they have the burden of proof to show these claims are true, or at least likely true.

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

Yes, with these vague details neither can make these claims. Charlie is closer to the logical default, but still made a claim that he would have to demonstrate.

 

[PureX]

No, I am not say what I do not believe since that would be dishonest. I do not believe that God is a possibility. I am certain that God exists.

You are free to think that God is only a possibility but when you expect everyone else to think the same way you do that is conceited.

And George Bush "believed" that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. He was still wrong. And his belief dd not justify all the lies he told the American people, or all the lives destroyed when he attacked Iraq.

Your belief simply does not make it so. Nor does it justify your claiming it to be so. And that is why the rejection of doubt that "belief" is, is dishonest.

 

[nPeace]

Why don't you share that with us, as no critical thinker has heard it yet.

Remember, to be a reasonable explanation will require conclusive and valid evidence.

When you start unreasonably, you obviously don't know what is reasonable. So, you already disqualified yourself from being able to give judgment without bias.

You haven't answered my questions in the other thread either. So, reasonableness does not lie with you.

 

[PureX]

When you start unreasonably, you obviously don't know what is reasonable. So, you already disqualified yourself from being able to give judgment without bias.

Of course. It's why he demands that you must meet his criteria for reasonable evidence. So he can be sure it won't happen, and he slways "wins".

 

[Audie]

When you start unreasonably, you obviously don't know what is reasonable. So, you already disqualified yourself from being able to give judgment without bias.

You haven't answered my questions in the other thread either. So, reasonableness does not lie with you.

Well, tell us then, how to determine
if something is reasonable.

 

[nPeace]

Of course. It's why he demands that you must meet his criteria for reasonable evidence. So he can be sure it won't happen, and he slways "wins".

Correct. He probably would not even see how unreasonable it is to decide that he gets to decide how weak or strong the evidence must be, and weak evidence does not qualify as evidence. "the evidence is weak" he says
Clearly, not a willingness to be reasonable.

 

[nPeace]

Well, tell us then, how to determine
if something is reasonable.

Oh. I feel like two years old. I don't know Audie. You tell me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's why he demands that you must meet his criteria for reasonable evidence. So he can be sure it won't happen, and he slways "wins".

As long as one keep making unfalsifiable truth claims, he always loses with the empiricist. Those are the rules. You know them, and they're not negotiable. Repeated objections to critical scrutiny are pointless. Of course the faith-based thinker objects to having his fallacious arguments rejected, and many, yourself included, vehemently object scoffingly using words like scientism, materialist, and myopic.

If anybody wants to play the critical thinking game, he needs to learn the rules. These threads are full of people who have never learned them insisting that their fallacious treatment of evidence is valid and their conclusions sound, and they're frustrated at their claims being rejected.

I'm an avid bridge player, and I see the same thing there frequently. To play the game effectively, one needs a data base of standard conventions and a rational approach to bidding to find optimal contracts. People who haven't learned them include people who aren't interested in more than a social event, those just learning, and in my demographic (retired expats), those too old to learn. These people simply can't be good partners without that knowledge. What's interesting is how badly they misjudge their ability - the bridge version of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. I recall mentoring a group and I asked a woman what her skill level was, and she said intermediate, but knew almost no bridge. When did she think she graduated to intermediate? This is what I see continually on RF.

But in bridge, we have ratings. We have sectional masters, regionals masters, life masters, etc., having accumulated so many master points in competition. Here on RF, our credentials are our arguments, and many can't follow them or evaluate them for soundness, nor construct a fallacy-free argument, so their objections are impotent, but unaware of what they are unaware of, argue as if they possess the same skills as the experienced critical thinker.

He probably would not even see how unreasonable it is to decide that he gets to decide how weak or strong the evidence must be

Yes, the skilled critical thinker will decide for himself if another's evidence supports his conclusions according to rules that the other may never have learned and is unaware of. The creationists bristle when their papers aren't considered good enough to be published in a reputable biological journal for this reason. The just don't know the standards expected and resent that there are any since they seem arbitrary to them - good science is whatever these creationists say it is, and their "science" is just as good - and so frame it as turf protecting.

 

[Nakosis]

I've heard reasonable explanation for believing in God. I'm open to reasonable explanation for non-belief in God.
I don't recall hearing any, but if anyone offers any, I'll let you know... unless you want to be the first to offer one.

Then that falls under the "whatever reason". I can't possible know what everyone's reasoning to believe or disbelieve so so can enter "whatever" reason they feel necessary.

My reason for not having a belief is a lack of knowledge about God. So since I don't know anything about God I have nothing to base a belief on.

Agnostics are okay. At least for the time being. I don't think they have all the time in the world, but I think they certainly have some time.

Agnostics, meaning they lack knowledge about God. So they are just being honest about not having any knowledge about what they should believe in.

 

[Audie]

Oh. I feel like two years old. I don't know Audie. You tell me.

It was an unfair question.
I already knew you didn't have any idea

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

I happen to think it's quite reasonable to believe that no gods exist.
For the same reason I consider it reasonable to believe that there is no undetectable dragon following me everywhere I go.

There is this saying "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".
And to an extent, that is true. But in certain specific ways it isn't.

For example.... there is no evidence of the biblical flood.
According to that saying, that means that that doesn't count as evidence that no such flood happened.
I disagree. If such a flood happened, there should be evidence..

The fact that this evidence is absent, actually is evidence that it didn't happen.

I think the same holds for gods (or anything other branded as "supernatural").

If supernatural things exist, there should be evidence of such.
The fact that there isn't any such evidence, is evidence that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

So that's what I go with.
Does it prove there is no such thing? Off course not. There's no absolute certainty here (which is why we use the word "evidence" instead of "proof").

But until there actually is evidence to show otherwise, the most likely answer seems to me to be that there is no such thing.

So yes, I consider it reasonable to believe that are no gods, for that reason.
I'm very open to change my mind in light of new evidence. But until that time, I have no reason to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For whatever reason, does not sound reasonable.


For whatever personal reasons, does not sound reasonable, either.


It doesn't appear much different, if both make claims as fact, without any substantial basis.
If both have substantial basic, I would say, both can be a reasonable position.


Yes. They are both claims, and nothing reasonable has been presented in either case.

Do you believe that there are no undetectable dragons following you around everywhere you go? I assume you do.
What is your substantial basis for that belief?
Do you consider it a reasonable belief?
Do you consider it more reasonable to believe that there are such dragons?

 

[nPeace]

It was an unfair question.

Not to mention, childish.

I already knew you didn't have any idea

This one reflects a character full of egotism, and it's what I would expect from one who was full of themselves.
You knew? I don't think so.