Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

[nPeace]

Oh the irony. If you aren't able to support your claims why did you make them? How are atheists not reasonable in not believing in a God? Is there a problem for you not showing us you were correct?

You're doing it again.

 

[nPeace]

Like believers in different gods. It’s interesting how occasionally there is a dispute between believers but these are not considered as big a threat as with critical thinkers. I find that both odd and revealing in that there seems a sort of alliance among believers in some form of god.

Guess scientists have no evidence when they squabble and fight, and contradict each other.
You can't see it, can you. Bias blinds.

 

[F1fan]

That's an interesting (and often incorrect) interpretation of what's going on, but fair enough.

It's not an interpretation I'm making, it is an observation. It is not difficult to know what valid and objective evidence is versus dubious claims of evidence. Science gets along quite easily knowing the difference. Juries and courts do quite well understanding what is valid evidence versus invalid forms like hearsay or gossip. I'm curious what you think is often incorrect about discerning poor evidence from excellent evidence.

After all, the complexities of ontology and epistemology are simply far too much for the "high standards of critical thinkers" to handle. It's way easier to avoid that stuff and practice "critical thinking" instead of critical thinking.

This is a lofty claim, and suggests theists somehow excel at "handling" the complexities while critical thinkers fumble. Notice you make this claim, yet don't explain how it is true. This seems consistent with the wishful thinking of believers that appears to be more of a bluff. We critical thinkers call bluffs. So can you finish your thought with evidence and a coherent explanation? Like with other believers who make fantastic claims I won't just take your word for it.

 

[Heyo]

Just as a reminder:

Evidence of gods has been presented ad nauseam on these forums.

Evidence of gods has never been presented to the scientific community, i.e. published in a respected journal. So it's easy to say that there is no accessible, scientific evidence.
What has been presented on RF are arguments like "look at the trees".

 

[F1fan]

You're doing it again.

Are you not embarrassed to stoop this low?

Guess scientists have no evidence when they squabble and fight, and contradict each other.

Maybe over whether to have Mexican or Chinese for lunch, but over the data? No. Scientists always have evidence. There are times when there isn't enough data or evidence to fully develop a conclusion and there can be debate about what the next prediction or interpretation should be.

And let's not ignore that some fringe scientists have ideological motives and will do bad science. Michael behe is an example of a scientist who was a rigic Christians and wanted to find evidence for intelligent design. He ended up be embarrassed in court having to admit his views were not evidence based. But ethical science have no such problems.

You can't see it, can you. Bias blinds.

It is you who refuses to explain how your claims are true. Want to talk about blindness and bias? I don't think you wnt to go there. You have embarrassed yourself quite a bit already.

 

[F1fan]

Evidence of gods has never been presented to the scientific community, i.e. published in a respected journal. So it's easy to say that there is no accessible, scientific evidence.
What has been presented on RF are arguments like "look at the trees".

Exactly, and this "looking at trees" requires heaps of assumptions and meaning assignment to conclude "therefore, God". In logic and debate these assumptions are illogical and irrelevant, but in religion they are crucial due to the lack of evidence.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Sure, lots of evidence of God. In fact too much evidence for any number of Gods.
Just not any evidence that can be shared beyond telling a story.

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't sufficient evidence to thoroughly convince me that gods exist, let alone the Abrahamic God. Therefore, I'm not entirely sure whether any exist or not because I've never seen conclusive evidence that has convinced me or felt the presence of one in my life, even when I was a devout Christian. And while I practice Wicca, I acknowledge that I don't have sufficient empirical evidence or alleged evidence that any gods exist. But I choose to believe in the prospect of deities existing while recognizing that I can't prove or disprove their existence. Ever since I was a young child, I have been fascinated with spirituality and beliefs in the supernatural, but I'm not willing to state that I'm completely confident that the God of the Bible or any other deities actually exist. In my opinion, I can't honestly determine whether there is only one God, if there are other deities, or if there aren't any deities at all because I'm not all-knowing and all-powerful, and I can't be in all places at once or explore all of space and time. I'm willing to acknowledge that I could be wrong or I could be right, but as of right now, at this point in my life, I'm not entirely sure. And that's why I consider myself to be agnostic, not an atheist. Since I renounced my Christian faith, I've decided that I don't need to believe in the biblical God or in any deities in order to be a good person, to make moral decisions, or to feel peace and contentment in my life. I no longer feel like I need to depend on some god to take care of me or my family. I no longer feel like I need to seek guidance from any gods, let alone the biblical God. I've learned that I can stand on my own and take care of myself.

Now I think that my former belief in God was an emotional crutch, and I no longer need or want it in my life. To be honest, I feel like I'm much better off without it. I say that because my emotional well-being has vastly improved since I renounced my belief in God and left Christianity. Honestly, I think that people have to decide for themselves whether they believe gods exist based on the information that they believe is sufficient evidence or whether they don't believe gods exist based on what they consider a lack of evidence. As I said, I've yet to find any evidence that convinces me. When I was a Christian, I had doubts because I never felt God's presence as other Christians claimed to. I spent the majority of my life seeking God, only to end up empty-handed.

 

[Alien826]

Belief, how justified can it be?

At a certain level, it can be reasonable. For example, the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is very difficult to answer. And "something" created it is a valid position to take. The problem is that believers don't stop there, and the path from "something" to "there is an intelligent being that simultaneously dislikes both abortion and contraception" is a long and winding one. The problem is that when you build a belief step wise, that is each step is dependent on the previous one, if there is a degree of uncertainty in each step then the overall probability becomes less and less. But what happens is that each step is taken to be pretty much correct, based on the number of steps that proceed it.

As an aside, there is one area of the "supernatural" that I'm prepared to give some credence to. (I put "supernatural" in quotes because I would call anything that exists to be "natural". Just alittle quirk of mine.) That area is a form of survival after death as believed by Spiritualists. Here is a list of things that could be considered evidence.

- Mediums that say they communicate with the spirits of the dead. (They aren't all imposters, I've known some personally.)
- Near death experiences.
- People that see ghosts.

Each of these things can be explained away by suggesting natural explanations, but in the end something remains. I'm not saying I actually believe it, but it does have a certain amount of sense to it, and quite a lot of evidence.

 

[F1fan]

Belief, how justified can it be?

At a certain level, it can be reasonable. For example, the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is very difficult to answer.

It's only difficult if a person thinks they can answer it. Critical thinkers would recognize the question as unanswerable, and not wise to even ask because it isn't answerable. There seems a certain problem humans have that they should and can ask and answer any question. This suggests a certain insecurity and hubris. To my mind there is a wisdom in being able to be aware of such a question and not feel motivated to think it can be answered, or even should be pondered.

​

And "something" created it is a valid position to take.

How is it valid? Why not assume stuff has always existed? It's simpler, Occam's Razor.

The problem is that believers don't stop there, and the path from "something" to "there is an intelligent being that simultaneously dislikes both abortion and contraception" is a long and winding one. The problem is that when you build a belief step wise, that is each step is dependent on the previous one, if there is a degree of uncertainty in each step then the overall probability becomes less and less. But what happens is that each step is taken to be pretty much correct, based on the number of steps that proceed it.

This kind of evangelical "thinking" is non-thinkers adopting a social/cultural norm and finding satisfaction in aligning to this tribe. In the 70's conservative Christians were supportive of abortion rights, and it was the Reagan/Falwell combination of anti-abortion attitudes that changed all that. I suspect this was one way evangelicals could be relevant in a society that was acknowledging evolution was valid science and true as an idea, and not Biblical literalism.

As an aside, there is one area of the "supernatural" that I'm prepared to give some credence to. (I put "supernatural" in quotes because I would call anything that exists to be "natural". Just alittle quirk of mine.) That area is a form of survival after death as believed by Spiritualists. Here is a list of things that could be considered evidence.

- Mediums that say they communicate with the spirits of the dead. (They aren't all imposters, I've known some personally.)
- Near death experiences.
- People that see ghosts.

Each of these things can be explained away by suggesting natural explanations, but in the end something remains. I'm not saying I actually believe it, but it does have a certain amount of sense to it, and quite a lot of evidence.

I think all these could be explained as natural phenomenon, and in no way related to religious ideas. @Sgt. Pepper can clarify this if she agrees with me.

 

[Heyo]

Belief, how justified can it be?

At a certain level, it can be reasonable. For example, the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is very difficult to answer. And "something" created it is a valid position to take. The problem is that believers don't stop there, and the path from "something" to "there is an intelligent being that simultaneously dislikes both abortion and contraception" is a long and winding one. The problem is that when you build a belief step wise, that is each step is dependent on the previous one

The problem is, they are not. Each and every believer has a set of independent beliefs. If there were some logic to it, one belief would lead to other beliefs, which it doesn't. That's why there are so many religions and denominations.
And I think the believers know it. They may try to convince an atheist of the existence of a god but they rarely try to convince an other believer of the nature of that god.

 

[Nakosis]

This is the case for ALL types of evidence. So why is this different? Right, because the "there's no evidence" crowd tell themselves the story that the evidence presented to them isn't evidence. Which they have every right to do, mind.

IMO, because of the reliance on personal experience.
Personal experience is limited by its nature.

This is where science comes in and the attempt to falsify what we believe. It is easy to believe something is true based on one's own experience. However to question what one believes and to put it up for questioning before one's peers strengthens the reliability of what we believe.

The ability to answer all possible objections and come through with your belief unscathed means you can really trust it.

Through that process many of the beliefs I held I've found fault which I would not have otherwise been able to do.

So it is a matter of trust. Can you trust what you believe in the face of all possible objections?
You can't know that if you are only going to rely on what you personally experience.

 

[Quintessence]

IMO, because of the reliance on personal experience.
Personal experience is limited by its nature.

This is where science comes in and the attempt to falsify what we believe. It is easy to believe something is true based on one's own experience. However to question what one believes and to put it up for questioning before one's peers strengthens the reliability of what we believe.

The ability to answer all possible objections and come through with your belief unscathed means you can really trust it.

Through that process many of the beliefs I held I've found fault which I would not have otherwise been able to do.

So it is a matter of trust. Can you trust what you believe in the face of all possible objections?
You can't know that if you are only going to rely on what you personally experience.

But.... everything is a personal experience. Everything. Even with engaging in cross verification with peers, whether that's through scientific circles or other types of collective validation. So what I'm reading here is, the "I" can't trust itself. At all. Ever. Under any circumstances. Which, if true, is utterly impractical. Then again, some would say the concept of "I" is defunct and an illusion and there is no such thing as personal experience. Others still would say the "I" is the last word on everything and all it experiences is true and trustworthy. What's the story to be told? It's all about the stories in the end.

 

[F1fan]

But.... everything is a personal experience. Everything. Even with engaging in cross verification with peers, whether that's through scientific circles or other types of collective validation.

Being individuals isn't a problem. The human mind can make poor judgments and believe irrational things, and we know this by observing human behavior. So the social sciences have worked to understand how and why humans make cognitive errors, both in feeling and in thinking, and there are tools to minimize mostakes.

And the scientific method is an example of how humans can be objective and avoid personal bias.

So what I'm reading here is, the "I" can't trust itself. At all. Ever. Under any circumstances. Which, if true, is utterly impractical.

I did not get this impression. Your reaction seems to be a kneejerk experience.

The trust in the self's ability to avoid mistakes corresponds to the level of thinking skill and emotional intelligence. Humans are naturally sloppy and we do better in life if we learn these skills.

Then again, some would say the concept of "I" is defunct and an illusion and there is no such thing as personal experience. Others still would say the "I" is the last word on everything and all it experiences is true and trustworthy. What's the story to be told? It's all about the stories in the end.

These sound extreme, and I'm not aware of anyone suggesting either. But I wouldn't be surprized. But it's apparent that every adult has agency to manage their own lives and experiences. and it is the self alone that enjoys and suffers. Of course friends and loved ones can share in these experiences but won't be in the mind of the individual.

 

[Quintessence]

Being individuals isn't a problem. The human mind can make poor judgments and believe irrational things, and we know this by observing human behavior. So the social sciences have worked to understand how and why humans make cognitive errors, both in feeling and in thinking, and there are tools to minimize mostakes.

And the scientific method is an example of how humans can be objective and avoid personal bias.

I did not get this impression. Your reaction seems to be a kneejerk experience.

The trust in the self's ability to avoid mistakes corresponds to the level of thinking skill and emotional intelligence. Humans are naturally sloppy and we do better in life if we learn these skills.

These sound extreme, and I'm not aware of anyone suggesting either. But I wouldn't be surprized. But it's apparent that every adult has agency to manage their own lives and experiences. and it is the self alone that enjoys and suffers. Of course friends and loved ones can share in these experiences but won't be in the mind of the individual.

Are you talking to me, to others, and/or are you talking to yourself here?

 

[seekandfind]

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?

Its reasonable as we cant see them and they dont talk directly to us. However creation leaves them without an excuse. Anyone that finds a cabin in the woods would know it had a designer/builder. The same goes with studying all we see and know about- theres far too much order and design for it to have just happened on its own.

You asked if there is anything wrong with their beliefs. My answer is: Only if God has said they must get to know him. If he usrd messangers to convey this then you would have to trust the messangers. Youd have to test if what they say is true or not.

 

[Alien826]

It's only difficult if a person thinks they can answer it. Critical thinkers would recognize the question as unanswerable, and not wise to even ask because it isn't answerable. There seems a certain problem humans have that they should and can ask and answer any question. This suggests a certain insecurity and hubris. To my mind there is a wisdom in being able to be aware of such a question and not feel motivated to think it can be answered, or even should be pondered.

​

Fair enough, but you're answering my example rather than my basic idea, which is that religious belief can start with something very basic, that can be seen as a reasonable viewpoint.

How is it valid? Why not assume stuff has always existed? It's simpler, Occam's Razor.

I don't see that as reasonable (I'll change the word if you don't like "valid") either. It doesn't make sense that something has no beginning. I agree that there's not much point discussing it, but just saying it always existed doesn't answer anything unless you can establish the possibility of an existing infinity outside mathematics.

This kind of evangelical "thinking" is non-thinkers adopting a social/cultural norm and finding satisfaction in aligning to this tribe. In the 70's conservative Christians were supportive of abortion rights, and it was the Reagan/Falwell combination of anti-abortion attitudes that changed all that. I suspect this was one way evangelicals could be relevant in a society that was acknowledging evolution was valid science and true as an idea, and not Biblical literalism.

That was not my point either. It was just an example of how an original idea can be built on to arrive at totally unreasonable beliefs.

I think all these could be explained as natural phenomenon, and in no way related to religious ideas. @Sgt. Pepper can clarify this if she agrees with me.

That's what I said, please reread it. Note I said "supernatural" not religious (in the sense of god-related), and stated that I consider everything that exists to be "natural". In fact I'd go on to say that if the existence and nature of a god could be demonstrated, I would call that "natural" too. In other words it would be part of the set of things that exist. But that's another discussion.

 

[Alien826]

The problem is, they are not. Each and every believer has a set of independent beliefs. If there were some logic to it, one belief would lead to other beliefs, which it doesn't. That's why there are so many religions and denominations.
And I think the believers know it. They may try to convince an atheist of the existence of a god but they rarely try to convince an other believer of the nature of that god.

I'm not sure I agree. Each step is logical to the believer because it flows from a previous position. For example, once the authority of the Bible is established, various interpretations follow naturally, based on that assumption. What I'm saying is that at each step any doubt is removed and thus the belief that follows becomes equally free from doubt.

 

[F1fan]

Fair enough, but you're answering my example rather than my basic idea, which is that religious belief can start with something very basic, that can be seen as a reasonable viewpoint.

I don't see that as reasonable (I'll change the word if you don't like "valid") either. It doesn't make sense that something has no beginning. I agree that there's not much point discussing it, but just saying it always existed doesn't answer anything unless you can establish the possibility of an existing infinity outside mathematics.

We humans experience things beginning so it is a natural impulse to think energy was caused. The dilemma is what caused the cause? And what caused that cause? Infinite regression. It’s more likely that something has always existed.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not sure I agree. Each step is logical to the believer

because they use faulty reasoning, not

because it flows from a previous position. For example, once the authority of the Bible is established, various interpretations follow naturally, based on that assumption.

Ex falso quodlibet.

What I'm saying is that at each step any doubt is removed and thus the belief that follows becomes equally free from doubt.

Through faulty reasoning. Even if we stick to only Bible believing Christians, we get tens of thousands of denominations who presumably all went through the same reasoning process and they all came up with different beliefs - that they don't doubt.
(Actually, belief is not created by reasoning but by rationalising what is already believed. Correct reasoning leads to the same results every time.)

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

As an aside, there is one area of the "supernatural" that I'm prepared to give some credence to. (I put "supernatural" in quotes because I would call anything that exists to be "natural". Just alittle quirk of mine.) That area is a form of survival after death as believed by Spiritualists. Here is a list of things that could be considered evidence.

- Mediums that say they communicate with the spirits of the dead. (They aren't all imposters, I've known some personally.)
- Near death experiences.
- People that see ghosts.

Each of these things can be explained away by suggesting natural explanations, but in the end something remains. I'm not saying I actually believe it, but it does have a certain amount of sense to it, and quite a lot of evidence.

I think all these could be explained as natural phenomenon, and in no way related to religious ideas. @Sgt. Pepper can clarify this if she agrees with me.

Speaking from experience, I know that some unusual phenomena can be explained with natural reasons, but I don't believe all of them can. In fact, I believe that some supernatural phenomena occur in the physical world that neither modern science nor sacred religious texts (such as the Bible) or any religious dogma can rationally explain or logically refute. And, while the vast majority of my personal interactions with skeptics are with religious people, there have been a few occasions over the years when professing atheists (who insist that they don't believe in God or any gods or in anything paranormal) have expressed doubt about their skepticism because whatever they experienced that they couldn't explain or rationalize away caused them to wonder and have questions about the paranormal. It hasn't happened to me very often, but it has happened. I'm aware that not every atheist I've met became a believer in the paranormal, but at least their failed attempts to rationally explain their experience prompted them to consider the possibility that the paranormal could be real. I've told almost every skeptic (whether religious or not) I've met during one of my paranormal investigations who has vocally expressed their doubts that they've seen the exact same evidence that I and others present saw, and it is entirely up to them whether they believe it to be paranormal or not. I've also told them that I don't consider it my responsibility to persuade them to believe in the paranormal and that they're capable of making up their minds for themselves. And I've essentially said the same thing time and time again here on RF when responding to hardened skeptics.

As far as I'm concerned, if a skeptic wants to change their mind and believe me, then that's fine with me, and if they don't, then that's okay with me too. To be honest, it doesn't matter to me either way because their skepticism doesn't change what I've personally experienced for the past 44 years of my life. I was six years old when I had my first experience with something paranormal, and I'm fifty years old now. Based on my experience with skeptics over the years, I'm aware that most of them won't believe in the supernatural or believe anyone else who talks about their experiences with the supernatural until they've had an up-close and personal experience with something supernatural that they can't rationally explain and logically debunk (as I explained in another thread here). Having had many years of firsthand experiences with the paranormal myself, I've come to believe in the old adage that "seeing is believing" when it concerns skeptics believing in supernatural phenomena. But as I've said, I also believe that some supernatural phenomena occur in the physical world that neither modern science nor sacred religious texts (such as the Bible) or any religious dogma can rationally explain or logically refute.