Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

[syo]

Gods exist and they are evil. Everything else is wrong, heh!

 

[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.

Sure. There's a drought and members of a community start doing rituals to make it rain. eventually it rains and the people believe it is due to their actions.

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.

I suggest that the word 'natural' is synonymous with real, and the word 'supernatural' is synonymous with imaginary. If gods do exist in some way they are part of the function of natural phenomenon. Thus far the notions of gods existing is less and less credible as nature is better described. Do theists care? They clearly do, but like Trump supporters they ignore the evidence and keep believing.

 

[lukethethird]

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.

I've had experiences that I can't explain, ones that people claim are paranormal, but I am no longer prompted to believe the paranormal explains anything, in fact the paranormal merely poses more questions than it answers. When natural explanations aren't available, at least not as far as I know, I just have to accept the ambiguity and admit that I don't have an explanation.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've had experiences that I can't explain, ones that people claim are paranormal, but I am no longer prompted to believe the paranormal explains anything, in fact the paranormal merely poses more questions than it answers. When natural explanations aren't available, at least not as far as I know, I just have to accept the ambiguity and admit that I don't have an explanation.

The way I see it, if there is no 'normal' explanation then the paranormal answers the questions that cannot be answered in any other way.
I never had any paranormal experiences until my husband passed on last year, but since then I have experienced things that have no other explanation. Of course I already believed without a doubt that he was in the spiritual world, and he knows that I believe that, so I think there is another reason why he keeps showing up.

 

[soulsurvivor]

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

Neither of them can know for sure if what they claim is true.

So, the correct belief is that God may exist, but we do not know that.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, the correct belief is that God may exist, but we do not know that.

No, we do not know that as a fact.

 

[soulsurvivor]

No, we do not know that as a fact.

We don't know for a fact that God may exist?

Can't you imagine the possibility of there existing someone who is superior to all human beings? I think there is such a possibility.

Once you grant that, then you can imagine the possibility of someone existing superior to that being and so on. Eventually after many, many such iterations you may come to a God.

 

[Trailblazer]

We don't know for a fact that God may exist?

Can't you imagine the possibility of there existing someone who is superior to all human beings? I think there is such a possibility.

Once you grant that, then you can imagine the possibility of someone existing superior to that being and so on. Eventually after many, many such iterations you may come to a God.

When I said: "No, we do not know that as a fact" I meant that we do not know that God exists as a fact (since there is no proof that God exists).
If we knew that God exists it would be a fact that God exists (since there would be proof that God exists).
If we knew that God may exist, it would not be a fact, it would be a belief we are unsure of.

I know that God exists, even though it is not a fact, because I believe that God exists with absolute certitude.
In other words, I do not think it is a 'possibility' that God exists since I am certain that God exists.

 

[soulsurvivor]

OK

 

[nPeace]

Are you not embarrassed to stoop this low?

You mean telling the truth?
Why would I be embarrassed about telling the truth?
If one has a bias, they would not admit they yap yap yap, and don't listen.
In fact, they might be so biased they don't even realize what they are doing. Bias blinds, you see.

...and I'm not embarrassed about the picture. It's quite fitting actually.

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.

Everyone has evidence.
Since when does evidence conflict?
You seem to not understand the difference between evidence, and interpretations of evidence.

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.

This is an argument from ignorance, of course, and reflect the bias I alluded to.

Physicists Can't Agree on What Science Even Means Anymore​

Recently, a trio of mainstream physicists accused hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other mainstream physicists of Not Doing Science in a very public forum. Their article, published in February’s Scientific American 2, targets the inflationary universe theory, which, during the past 35 years, has come to be what most physicists use to explain the origin (and present state) of the cosmos. By publishing in SciAm, these authors aren’t just asking the vicariously scientific public—you and I—to accept their theory as correct. They are asking us to decide what it means to Do Science.

Do Scientists Abuse Science?​

A recent hot topic is the marked increase in scientific problems, as seen in the Oct. 19 issue of The Economist. The problems staring the scientific community in the face are considerable: shoddy scientific practices, results that cannot be replicated, rushing to publish, plagiarism and violations of the rules of scientific conduct. Clearly, many scientists engage in practices that are unethical, wrongful, mistaken and even abusive.
The problems have been exacerbated by money becoming such a huge factor in fields such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and genetics. When big money and awards are involved, the temptation to rush to publish or skimp on due diligence can become overpowering. In many cases, otherwise competent and moral scientists yield to fraudulent practices.

What Is Pseudoscience?​

Climate deniers are accused of practicing pseudoscience, as are intelligent design creationists, astrologers, UFOlogists, parapsychologists, practitioners of alternative medicine, and often anyone who strays far from the scientific mainstream. The boundary problem between science and pseudoscience, in fact, is notoriously fraught with definitional disagreements because the categories are too broad and fuzzy on the edges, and the term “pseudoscience” is subject to adjectival abuse against any claim one happens to dislike for any reason.

The problem is that many sciences are nonfalsifiable, such as string theory, the neuroscience surrounding consciousness, grand economic models and the extraterrestrial hypothesis. On the last, short of searching every planet around every star in every galaxy in the cosmos, can we ever say with certainty that E.T.s do not exist?

It is you who refuses to explain how your claims are true. Want to talk about blindness and bias?

Refusing to explain something to someone, or rather, refusing to

does not show blindness, or bias. It shows wisdom.
You seem not to understand what bias is.

Bias is allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment, causing you to take sides with, or oppose...

I don't think you wnt to go there. You have embarrassed yourself quite a bit already.

We are there already.
Sounds as though you are speaking for yourself - your experience.

 

[Unfettered]

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?

It could be reasonable for someone to believe that no god exists, yes. Both questions depend, in part, on the quality of the reasoning involved.

 

[Audie]

It could be reasonable for someone to believe that no god exists, yes. Both questions depend, in part, on the quality of the reasoning involved.

Doesn't reasoning need some sort of
facts to work with?

 

[PureX]

It's not logically reasonable to believe anything that we can't know to be so. However, if we can't also know it NOT to be so, we can choose to act on the hope that it's so if doing that gives us a positive result.

We can logically choose to act on hope (faith) in the face of our unknowing if we reason that it will yield us a positive result. ... Even though we cannot logically justify belief.

 

[ChristineM]

Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?​

I don't believe unicorns exist
I don't believe leprechauns exist
And for the same reason...
I don't believe gods exist

However my view is you can believe whatever you want so long as you don't try selling your beliefs to me

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's not logically reasonable to believe anything that we can't know to be so. However, if we can't also know it NOT to be so, we can choose to act on the hope that it's so if doing that gives us a positive result.

Hope? Have you used that word absent the word belief to describe your theistic worldview before? If all you feel about gods is that you hope they exist, that's not a faith-based belief or any kind of belief. I wrote this on another thread earlier this week:

Justification doesn't apply to hope, but rather, belief. Hope is an expression of preference. Belief is an expression what is thought true or likely. You and I go to a ballgame and root for opposite teams. It's 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth. My team is behind and yours ahead. We both have the same hope, but you are optimistic while I am pessimistic. If you predict your team will win, your belief is justified by evidence the history of baseball. If I do the same, my belief is faith-based and contradicted by that evidence. We can have the same hope - "I hope my team wins" - but if we have the same belief - "My team will probably win" - only one of us is justified by evidence.

By this reckoning, optimism = hope + belief. If all you have is hope, that's not faith. If you have belief with it, and it the belief isn't empirically justified, NOW it's faith. Even an atheist can hope that a benevolent god exists, but he's not optimistic, because that requires evidence.

 

[PureX]

Hope? Have you used that word absent the word belief to describe your theistic worldview before? If all you feel about gods is that you hope they exist, that's not a faith-based belief or any kind of belief. I wrote this on another thread earlier this week

I have explained many, many times that faith is hope turned to action, as opposed to belief being an unfounded presumption of one's own righteousness.

Justification doesn't apply to hope, but rather, belief. Hope is an expression of preference. Belief is an expression what is thought true or likely. You and I go to a ballgame and root for opposite teams. It's 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth. My team is behind and yours ahead. We both have the same hope, but you are optimistic while I am pessimistic. If you predict your team will win, your belief is justified by evidence the history of baseball. If I do the same, my belief is faith-based and contradicted by that evidence. We can have the same hope - "I hope my team wins" - but if we have the same belief - "My team will probably win" - only one of us is justified by evidence.

Evidence is irrelevant to this discussion because it's not forthcoming to a sufficient enough degree to establish probability and 'play the odds'.

By this reckoning, optimism = hope + belief.

Belief is simply an unnecessary self-deception. Hope = optimism, yes. And that X action often gets positive results.

If all you have is hope, that's not faith.

Correct. Faith requires that we be willing to act on that hope.

If you have belief with it, and it the belief isn't empirically justified, NOW it's faith.

That's wrong, of course, but you just HAVE TO slander faith one way or another, so of course you'll insist on being wrong no matter what.

Even an atheist can hope that a benevolent god exists, but he's not optimistic, because that requires evidence.

Yes. And that's why he's a fool. He demands evidence while he defines it out of existence, and then uses this phony lack of evidence to justify closing off a useful possibility. And for what? Ego is the only reason I can see.

 

[F1fan]

It could be reasonable for someone to believe that no god exists, yes. Both questions depend, in part, on the quality of the reasoning involved.

Since the concept being considered is "no god exists" and there has to be evidence for this conclusion. The dilemma is that this can't be a broad conclusion, is has to be a very svecific god that is well defined and can be judged based on a controlled environment. For example we can't conclude there ate no cats in the neighborhood because we can't look everywhere at once and determine a cat isn't moving around unseen. But we can determine that there is no cat in the room because we can search a room easily and completely, and eliminate the idea that a cat is in it, thus the negative "no cat in the room" is true and verified. Can we search the whole universe for a god? Heck, we can't even find a god on earth, or in a church. There are many believers in a variety of gods, but this only tells us that humans exist who believe some type of god is true, and/or exists.

 

[Unfettered]

Doesn't reasoning need some sort of
facts to work with?

If you're asking if reasoning must involve at least one fact, I'd answer, "No." Reasoning does require at least one idea, however.

 

[Unfettered]

Since the concept being considered is "no god exists" and there has to be evidence for this conclusion. The dilemma is that this can't be a broad conclusion, is has to be a very svecific god that is well defined and can be judged based on a controlled environment. For example we can't conclude there ate no cats in the neighborhood because we can't look everywhere at once and determine a cat isn't moving around unseen. But we can determine that there is no cat in the room because we can search a room easily and completely, and eliminate the idea that a cat is in it, thus the negative "no cat in the room" is true and verified. Can we search the whole universe for a god? Heck, we can't even find a god on earth, or in a church. There are many believers in a variety of gods, but this only tells us that humans exist who believe some type of god is true, and/or exists.

Perhaps there is a cat in the room, but we're using search methods against which its discovery is immune or resistant. Such as with one's eyes closed. I do agree that specificity is helpful when considering the question of the existence of a god. Helpful, but not absolutely required. The general idea is a good enough starting point to begin a search for evidence. At least, I believe it is.

 

[F1fan]

If you're asking if reasoning must involve at least one fact, I'd answer, "No." Reasoning does require at least one idea, however.

I wasn’t asking but you are correct.