Is there anything inconsistent with the premise of no gods?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God in proper case typically designates the one-god of the Abrahamic religions, as it is a proper name. That is a very different theology than those of polytheistic religions where there are gods rather than God (as in the one-god). It doesn't make sense to lump those together, and the way things in the OP are worded, I get the sense that this is being done. For example:



I just don't see polytheists talking about this, because polytheists don't buy the premise. You talk about inaction of the gods. What inaction of the gods? I don't see this talked about in pantheistic or animistic approaches to the gods (or spirits, as animists often prefer) either. While you may feel you are talking about any theology, the way things are presented in the OP really only applies to certain theologies. I suppose I'm wanting to clarify which theologies you really want to talk about here, because the OP doesn't apply to the theologies typical of non-monotheistic religions.

Of course they apply. Polytheists can justify the apparent inaction of their gods, too:

- "I guess Thor has been busy in Asgard. That would explain why nobody's seen him here on Earth."
- "Nun's realm is the cosmos. It wouldn't make sense for him to come to Earth."
- "God X was killed/banished/whatever by god Y. Of course we wouldn't expect to see God X wreaking miracles."

... unless you're talking about the "our gods don't literally exist; they're just useful metaphors" subset of Pagans. Are you? If so, you should know that I don't consider these people to be theists.

Edit: in any case, we're going off into the weeds. My point is that I've never seen anything that is irreconcilable with the idea that no gods exist. I'd like to know if you know of any fact that can't be reconciled with this premise.

 

[Thief]

God gave Man dominion.
He is sitting back for the most part....watching

when it really gets bad......

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It was a joke hahaa Couldn't help it..



The point I am making is (and my position) that the existence/non-existence of God is not relevant to the problem of suffering at all. Like I said, the eastern schools (Buddhism and Hinduism) attribute suffering as a consequence of the acting agents (i.e conscious beings) and not necessarily related to God. I am reading your argument like this:

P1: There is suffering in the world
P2: If there existed a God, He/She would not permit such suffering
P3: A better explanation of suffering (the inaction of god/s towards it) is that there exists no God
C: Therefore suffering supports that god does not exist.

Now, I as a theist would reject premise two, because I do not think suffering is evil (in-fact all suffering is justified, and arises from our will only). I would also like to hear your rationale for Premise 3 (instead of me rejecting it for theological reasons).

Now, in direct contrast to P2, I would put forward a claim that God is trying to do something about the problem of suffering but in a progressive way (through the Law of Karma). If God willed all suffering to end on this earth, then we humans would also vanish (because the majority of our suffering is caused by other human beings towards us, and also due to our attachment to that which is impermanent). In-fact I challenge you do find a way that God can end suffering in which He (1) does not destroy human freedom or our ability to choose, or (2) cause God to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way. Apart from that, I don't see any other reason to reject P2 (because both God and no God can explain the problem suffering) other than it contradicts with my worldview.

This thread isn't about the problem of suffering. It's about distinguishing an inactive god from a non-existent god.

...or justifying the claim that an active god exists.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

perhaps a different approach?....
a creation is reflection of it's Creator.

if Man is not a creation.....we have nothing after the last breath
and no purpose as we do so.

life is not a purpose unto itself

I find the thought that we, as human beings, must have a "purpose" as dictated by a "god" or due to the inference and desires of some "god" to be an utterly disgusting thought. If I am created for no other purpose than to have a p"personal relationship with some deity", then I become less than human; I am a mere pet.

We determine our own purpose. If a person's life has no purpose, then that's because that person decided to not make a purpose for him or herself.

Sorry- this fallacy trumps all your fallacies.

Noticing that a logical fallacy exists is not drawing a conclusion. Perhaps you should read the examples given in the logical fallacy you linked. The fallacy is not pointing out fallacies; the fallacy of "Argument from Fallacy" is drawing a conclusion that the opponent's argument is incorrect based on the existence of the fallacy.

"if Man is not a creation.....we have .... no purpose ....." attempts to draw on the conclusion that since we have purpose, then we must be a creation; and we want to have purpose in our life, thus "we are a creation" must be true.

If we are a "creation", then the evidence would reflect that we are a creation. However, evidence does not reflect that hypothesis.

 

[Thief]

I find the thought that we, as human beings, must have a "purpose" as dictated by a "god" or due to the inference and desires of some "god" to be an utterly disgusting thought. If I am created for no other purpose than to have a p"personal relationship with some deity", then I become less than human; I am a mere pet.

We determine our own purpose. If a person's life has no purpose, then that's because that person decided to not make a purpose for him or herself.




"if Man is not a creation.....we have .... no purpose ....." attempts to draw on the conclusion that since we have purpose, then we must be a creation; and we want to have purpose in our life, thus "we are a creation" must be true.

If we are a "creation", then the evidence would reflect that we are a creation. However, evidence does not reflect that hypothesis.

if you are not creation ....you are an accident of extreme un-likelihood....
and without hope
all you can do is breathe until you don't

 

[निताइ dasa]

This thread isn't about the problem of suffering. It's about distinguishing an inactive god from a non-existent god.

Then why relate it to suffering in the first place? Why not label it as "does God exist or not?". I'm sorry, I don't understand the purpose of your thread then. I've given my view, so I have nothing more to say. Nitai das out then!

Noticing that a logical fallacy exists is not drawing a conclusion. Perhaps you should read the examples given in the logical fallacy you linked. The fallacy is not pointing out fallacies; the fallacy of "Argument from Fallacy" is drawing a conclusion that the opponent's argument is incorrect based on the existence of the fallacy.

It was a joke lol . In my humble opinion simply mentioning that one's argument is a so and so fallacy does not refute it or weaken it, until you can show that fallacy in terms of the argument first (which OP did not do). Not there was an argument to begin with...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then why relate it to suffering in the first place?

Responses to the problem of suffering are just one example of a way in which people try to reconcile the lack of evidence for gods with the premise that god(s) exist.

Why not label it as "does God exist or not?".

Because then we'll get bogged down with people going on about how I can't prove that their god doesn't exist. For this thread, I'm not interested in the claim "my god(s) might exist"; I'm interested in the claim "my god(s) must exist."

At the moment, I'm not saying that belief in gods is necessarily untenable; I'm asking for someone to explain why non-belief in gods is untenable.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

if you are not creation ....you are an accident of extreme un-likelihood....
and without hope
all you can do is breathe until you don't

The only hope I do not have is the hope for immortality.

The idea that one must be a creation of a deity to have "hope" is an idea i find as equally ludicrous as I find the idea that one must be a creation of a deity to have "purpose".

If we are to argue from consequence, then I would stipulate that the idea of a creator deity creating us for a "purpose" removes my dignity and humanity; as under such a system, I am nothing more than a house cat.

Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, 'this might be all part of God’s plan,' or 'there are no accidents in life,' or 'everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves' - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.”
― Sam Harris

“While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in our society. Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about. It is telling that this aura of nobility extends only to those faiths that still have many subscribers. Anyone caught worshipping Poseidon, even at sea, will be thought insane.”
― Sam Harris,

 

[निताइ dasa]

Responses to the problem of suffering are just one example of a way in which people try to reconcile the lack of evidence for gods with the premise that god(s) exist.

When you narrow evidence to empirical only then maybe so. Can't say I agree with you here.

At the moment, I'm not saying that belief in gods is necessarily untenable; I'm asking for someone to explain why non-belief in gods is untenable.

Well putting it that way, I don't think non-belief in God is untenable (hint hint Buddhism). It is a perfectly rational position in my opinion. Our experience determine our standards of evidence, which determine the worldviews we hold. Since everyone's experience differs, it holds that our worldviews can also differ and we are justified in holding them.

 

[Thief]

The only hope I do not have is the hope for immortality.

The idea that one must be a creation of a deity to have "hope" is an idea i find as equally ludicrous as I find the idea that one must be a creation of a deity to have "purpose".

If we are to argue from consequence, then I would stipulate that the idea of a creator deity creating us for a "purpose" removes my dignity and humanity; as under such a system, I am nothing more than a house cat.

Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, 'this might be all part of God’s plan,' or 'there are no accidents in life,' or 'everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves' - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.”
― Sam Harris

“While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in our society. Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about. It is telling that this aura of nobility extends only to those faiths that still have many subscribers. Anyone caught worshipping Poseidon, even at sea, will be thought insane.”
― Sam Harris,

decision from consequence.....hmmmm

from the Creator's position....it would be....
talk to Myself for the rest of eternity....or....
find a way to form unique spirit

and here we are....

 

[lovesong]

This reminds me a lot of those "prove your religion" and "prove my religion is wrong" threads.

 

[Acim]

Thinking to a recent thread about God's inaction in the face of human suffering, I got to thinking: it isn't just that God doesn't seem to act in response to suffering; it's that God doesn't seem to act at all.

I've seen theists try to reconcile this with different justifications for why God might exist but be "hands-off", but all this ignores the fact that the inaction of God (or gods) can also be reconciled with a different premise: that no gods exist.

With this in mind, a challenge for theists: can you think of any reason why to reject this premise? Is there any compelling evidence or valid logical argument that is demonstrably true and is incompatible with the premise that no gods exist?

Doesn't this depend on what God(s) are equal to? If gods are nature, or people, or existence itself, then I see that as either easily addressing the challenge or presenting a counter point that is turning the challenge back on the implication. I feel others have already spoken to this in this thread.

I actually can relate to the premise of the thread, but not with the conclusion that inaction by Creator God necessarily means that no gods exists. It's plausible to me that actions don't exist, or are a delusion of consciousness, akin to what a night dream is in context of suffering. But that is a bit more convoluted way to get at what I see as the simple point being made. Though lack of definitions in what is being requested is, as usual in a theological debate, the challenge that must first be addressed.

 

[Ouroboros]

Doesn't this depend on what God(s) are equal to? If gods are nature, or people, or existence itself, then I see that as either easily addressing the challenge or presenting a counter point that is turning the challenge back on the implication. I feel others have already spoken to this in this thread.

I actually can relate to the premise of the thread, but not with the conclusion that inaction by Creator God necessarily means that no gods exists. It's plausible to me that actions don't exist, or are a delusion of consciousness, akin to what a night dream is in context of suffering. But that is a bit more convoluted way to get at what I see as the simple point being made. Though lack of definitions in what is being requested is, as usual in a theological debate, the challenge that must first be addressed.

Agree. Just consider the idea of Deism. It's the belief in a God that created the world, but then let it more or less alone. That God's inactions doesn't prove his non-existence.

 

[Agondonter]

"I would have to know what you mean by "spirit" before thinking about whether a body can produce one."

This is one of those comments that frustrate me because it's so asinine (no insult intended). Look up the word in any dictionary, and you will see something like: "The vital principle or animating force within living things." What's so difficult or mysterious about that?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

decision from consequence.....hmmmm

from the Creator's position....it would be....
talk to Myself for the rest of eternity....or....
find a way to form unique spirit

and here we are....

Your reasoning is consistent with what I described in another thread and labelled "Faith Type 1".

Faith Type 1: "Belief Above All Else". In Faith Type 1, we see the beliefs in god, the supernatural and a myriad of fringe beliefs. Faith Type 1 holds a given thing to be true in spite of lack of good evidence. For people holding this kind of faith, the conviction that their faith is correct is self-evident and obvious. Persons of this kind of faith would say: "There is a God"; "Bigfoot exists"; "The government was behind 9/11"; etc. This kind of faith, even if the core belief itself is later found to be true, is frought with formal logic errors, such as "circular reasoning", "confirmation bias", etc. When confronted about these beliefs, the believer will always claim their stand to be true and words are truly ineffective in changing their mind. Any evidence that "seems" to conform to their belief is held "sacred"; and any evidence that contradicts this belief is conveniently explained away. "God is capable of raising the dead". "Well, we tried a resurrection ceremony and nothing happened." "Well, you didn't have enough faith". "You have no way of judging that; only God can judge that; and I hold that I had enough faith". "Then it's because God said 'no'; and even though we can't present to you verifiable "scientific" evidence of resurrection, we believe that God can raise people from the dead". This kind of faith is also rich with "the Law of Infinite Permeations"; meaning, no matter how much scrutiny the belief is subjected to, there is always an answer. "I beleive in God" says the believer. "Where is God?" says the skeptic. "In the cave" says the believer. "We've been to the cave and found no god". "Well, he's on the mountain." "We've climbed the mountain, and we see no god." "Well, he must be in the sky." "We've flown in the sky, circumnavigated the globe; and did not see your god". "Well, he's in Outer Space". "We've been to outer space, and we still see no god". "Well, he exists in another dimension". And when we find a way to explore or even go to that other dimension, it will became a myraid of other dimensions until we explore those; then becomes outside of spacetime; then in an alternate reality; and so on and so forth. It is not limited to religion; as any tantalizing evidence that suggests Flight 800 was shot down by the military; or a population control conspiracy using chemtrails is in action; or shapeshifting reptilians are among us; or Bigfoot is running around in the Cascade mountains; all of this is held to be true with, in the mind of the believer, is obviously self-evident and anyone who disagrees is "blind to the truth". When an atheist says, "I have no faith", this is the kind of "faith" of which they are speaking.".

You present an "argument" as to why a "creator" would "create" us; taking the existence of a "creator" to be self-evident.

It is not self-evident that there is a creator; and if we are to make that determination based on empiricism alone, then the absence of a creator becomes much more self-evident than the existence of one.

So to encapsulate, you have determined that only the "believer" has hope and purpose for life because, after all, an unsubstantiated creator exists who, though it contradicts current evidence, created us for the purpose of giving us purpose and hope. And those who do NOT believe obviously can't have hope or purpose, because, after all, the entirety of your hope and purpose are wound up in this belief in the existence of a creator; and the idea that another human being can find hope and purpose outside of the criteria which you have arbitrarily set is a ridiculous notion to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"I would have to know what you mean by "spirit" before thinking about whether a body can produce one."

This is one of those comments that frustrate me because it's so asinine (no insult intended). Look up the word in any dictionary, and you will see something like: "The vital principle or animating force within living things." What's so difficult or mysterious about that?

Metabolism would fit that definition, but I doubt that's what you or Thief mean. That's where the difficulty lies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Doesn't this depend on what God(s) are equal to? If gods are nature, or people, or existence itself, then I see that as either easily addressing the challenge or presenting a counter point that is turning the challenge back on the implication. I feel others have already spoken to this in this thread.

Another way in addressing the OP would be to make the case that I should be calling something I believe exists "god" (or "God"). If you want to make the case that I'm somehow making a mistake by not thinking of "nature, or people, or existence itself" as gods, then please go ahead.

I actually can relate to the premise of the thread, but not with the conclusion that inaction by Creator God necessarily means that no gods exists.

That isn't the conclusion. The conclusion isn't that gods necessarily don't exist; the conclusion is that everything we can experience or infer is consistent with there being no gods. If it's consistent with other premises, then this is a separate matter.

 

[Twilight Hue]

perhaps a different approach?....
a creation is reflection of it's Creator.

if Man is not a creation.....we have nothing after the last breath
and no purpose as we do so.

life is not a purpose unto itself

I think a large sticking point is the insistance that there must be an underlying purpose in order for something to function or exist.

I have no idea where this particular notion comes from other than through a type of indoctrination that there must somehow be rhyme or reason, even though the universe itself demonstrates no such requirement even in light it has been clearly "working fine" without this added connotation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agree. Just consider the idea of Deism. It's the belief in a God that created the world, but then let it more or less alone. That God's inactions doesn't prove his non-existence.

I didn't say they do prove God's non-existence. I'm saying that a world with no evidence of God (or gods) is just as consistent with the non-existence of that God (or gods) as it is with their existing but being non-interventionist.

... or maybe it isn't. Do you have something to suggest that one of these worldviews has something going for it that the other doesn't?

 

[Ouroboros]

I didn't say they do prove God's non-existence. I'm saying that a world with no evidence of God (or gods) is just as consistent with the non-existence of that God (or gods) as it is with their existing but being non-interventionist.

I see. Yes. That's very true.

... or maybe it isn't. Do you have something to suggest that one of these worldviews has something going for it that the other doesn't?

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I do know that the world is far more older than me, far more advanced than I can ever understand, and will exist for much longer than me, and I also do know that whatever this world really is, it gave birth to my existence. I might call it God, or I might not, but I still believe that this thing--whatever I call it--does exist. The word "God" is more of personal preference than belief. Belief is the idea of something existing. The word "God" is just the choice or preference to name that thing a person believes in.

But on another note, why would "belief" of any kind have to have evidence? Isn't belief in the realm of the things that we can't show evidence for? While facts, science, knowledge are the things in the realm of evidence and proof?

So why should one world view have anything going for it more than another? Isn't the world view something that ultimately is personal?