Is there anything inconsistent with the premise of no gods?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

 

[Thief]

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?

well....there are 7billion copies of a learning device....
each one producing a unique spirit....

I think that's why we ARE here

and without Something Greater to have set this in motion...
the Man is a complete mystery with no resolve....or purpose

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

well....there are 7billion copies of a learning device....
each one producing a unique spirit....

I think that's why we ARE here

and without Something Greater to have set this in motion...
the Man is a complete mystery with no resolve....or purpose

Sorry - logical fallacies fail the "demonstrably true" part of what I asked for.

 

[Thief]

Sorry - logical fallacies fail the "demonstrably true" part of what I asked for.

so you believe the body is not a learning device?
or that it will not produce a unique spirit?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so you believe the body is not a learning device?

I see no reason to assume that "learning devices" require gods.

or that it will not produce a unique spirit?

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

 

[Thief]

I see no reason to assume that "learning devices" require gods.

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

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Begging the question is also a logical fallacy.

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

Appeal to consequences is also a logical fallacy.

 

[Quintessence]

Pardon, but what theologies are we talking about here? The "problem of evil" is a non-issue outside of classical monotheism, and I notice in the OP you are lumping together God with gods. That doesn't feel appropriate.

 

[allright]

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?

He sent Jesus

 

[निताइ dasa]

Sorry - logical fallacies fail the "demonstrably true" part of what I asked for.

Begging the question is also a logical fallacy.

Appeal to consequences is also a logical fallacy.

Sorry- this fallacy trumps all your fallacies.

 

[निताइ dasa]

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.

Easy... human suffering does not equal to evil. There the question of God's existence and suffering is non-related. The problem of suffering (which many mistake for evil) for some reason is bought up as an argument against a divine being, but many religion simply deny the premise that the two are even related. For example, look at Buddhism and Hinduism. While both use the concept of Karma to explain suffering, one claims a God (Hinduism) while one is atheistic (Buddhism).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pardon, but what theologies are we talking about here? The "problem of evil" is a non-issue outside of classical monotheism,

I'm talking about any theology.

I agree that the problem of evil is only a problem for certain varieties of theism. I'm not trying to apply the problem of evil more broadly; I'm just giving it as one example of how people justify the inaction of their gods.

Other belief systems justify the inaction of their gods in other ways, but AFAICT, they all either:

1. accept that their gods are apparently inactive (at least, in any way that humans can notice).
2. assert that their gods are active... but do a bad job of actually justifying this position.

Option 1 is also consistent with gods not existing. Option 2 would be a reason to reject the premise that gods don't exist if they made their case.

At least that's how it seems to me. I'm open to being corrected, though, which is why I started this thread.

and I notice in the OP you are lumping together God with gods. That doesn't feel appropriate.

I'm taking "God" as one name for a particular god. Why wouldn't this be appropriate?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry- this fallacy trumps all your fallacies.

You assume too much. I'm not saying that Thief's conclusion is necessarily wrong; just that he hasn't made his case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Easy... human suffering does not equal to evil. There the question of God's existence and suffering is non-related. The problem of suffering (which many mistake for evil) for some reason is bought up as an argument against a divine being, but many religion simply deny the premise that the two are even related. For example, look at Buddhism and Hinduism. While both use the concept of Karma to explain suffering, one claims a God (Hinduism) while one is atheistic (Buddhism).

I think you missed the point of this thread: I'm not asking you to reconcile suffering with the existence of a god that doesn't intervene; I'm asking you to explain why a god that doesn't intervene fits the facts better than no gods existing at all.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm taking "God" as one name for a particular god. Why wouldn't this be appropriate?

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:

Other belief systems justify the inaction of their gods...

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.

 

[निताइ dasa]

You assume too much. I'm not saying that Thief's conclusion is necessarily wrong; just that he hasn't made his case.

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

I'm asking you to explain why a god that doesn't intervene fits the facts better than no gods existing at all.

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.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

What if humans are God's chosen instruments to fix the evils of the world? The inaction of God is then the same as the inaction of humans. And the action of humans is the same as the actions of God. Essentially, God is acting because humans are acting, so there's God inaction doesn't prove or disprove God's existence. It's rather only that God must act according to our expectations to prove his/her/its existence to be true. But if we let go of the expectations, then God is acting through everything.

Besides, who's to say that God must be good or want to stop suffering to begin with.

 

[Thief]

You assume too much. I'm not saying that Thief's conclusion is necessarily wrong; just that he hasn't made his case.

I think you lack sufficient accusation.

that God has not made Himself evident to your satisfaction....
doesn't mean He has refrained altogether.

Moses.....Jesus.....Muhammad....
and a few million believers.....

 

[Agondonter]

I didn't participate in the thread you mention because the subject is just a just a reformulation of the the so-called problem of evil, which I see as presupposing an anthropomorphic God, a God who is, or should be, a respecter of persons. And and anyone the least bit familiar with the Bible knows that just isn't so.

There is nothing objectively inconsistent with the premise 'there is no God,' but it is problematic. Also, anyone who tries to confine their understanding concepts to the objective world is in denial of their human nature, a lack of insight that borders on a mental disoder (anosognosia).

One logical problem has to do not with God per se, but consciousness. The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of, or separation from, that which is evaluated. Consistency requires that any explanation for the micro (consciousness on the human scale) can and must be applied to the macro.

 

[Thief]

is God watching us?....most think so....
are we looking for Him?.....most seem to...