Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[Trailblazer]

legitimate: If you say that something such as a feeling or claim is legitimate, you think that it is reasonable and justified.
Legitimate definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

In my opinion, two legitimate reasons not to believe in God are as follows:

1. There is no proof that God exists
2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist

I believe there are also legitimate reasons to believe in God as either position can be argued and justified with reason.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe there are also legitimate reasons to believe in God as either position can be argued and justified with reason.

And I believe the arguments are neither justified or reasoned.

 

[Heyo]

legitimate: If you say that something such as a feeling or claim is legitimate, you think that it is reasonable and justified.
Legitimate definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

In my opinion, two legitimate reasons not to believe in God are as follows:

1. There is no proof that God exists
2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist

3. Nobody seems to know what a god is.

 

[Nakosis]

legitimate: If you say that something such as a feeling or claim is legitimate, you think that it is reasonable and justified.
Legitimate definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

In my opinion, two legitimate reasons not to believe in God are as follows:

1. There is no proof that God exists
2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist

I believe there are also legitimate reasons to believe in God as either position can be argued and justified with reason.

I'd say lack of falsifiable knowledge about God.

To believe in God you have to have a concept of God to believe in.
Except how can you test what you think you know about God?
So if you believe is a concept of God, how would you know what you believe about God isn't wrong.

So if you don't believe in any concept of God your options remain open until perhaps you come across information that can be verified.

 

[Trailblazer]

3. Nobody seems to know what a god is.

That is not a problem for me because IF God exists there is no reason to think we could or would know what God is.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd say lack of falsifiable knowledge about God.

No, there is no falsifiable knowledge about God, since God cannot be proven either true or false.

Does falsifiable mean true?

If a theory is falsified [in the usual sense], it is proven false; if it is 'falsified' [in the technical sense], it may still be true.
Falsifiability - Wikipedia

To believe in God you have to have a concept of God to believe in.
Except how can you test what you think you know about God?
So if you believe is a concept of God, how would you know what you believe about God isn't wrong.

You can't know, you can only believe that what you think you know from a religion is true.
No, nobody can test what they think they know since God is not available for testing.

So if you don't believe in any concept of God your options remain open until perhaps you come across information that can be verified.

I don't think that God can ever be verified to exist, so it will always remain an open question for some.
Agnosticism is a reasonable position since there is no proof that God exists, but since there is no proof that God does not exist, I think that atheism is a dogmatic position to take, and it is a position that is often based upon what an atheist thinks God would or should do if God existed, as if anyone could ever know what God would or should do.

 

[F1fan]

Thre is a common misunderstanding that what people believe is derived from thinking and evidence. Some, more demonstrable beliefs are, like jury decisions. But I suggest most ideas humans believe are true not thought out, and not only lack evidence, but many are contrary to evidence. Those who believe that Trump won the 2020 election, and there was fraud, is an example. Belief in any of the many gods is another.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1. There is no proof that God exists

It depends upon what you count as proof. Besides formalism presumes the reliability of logic; however no logical system can (if Godel's Theorem is correct) prove itself to be consistent. So even if God is true, you cannot prove it due to the all encompassing nature of God and of ordered systems. To prove God was true you'd need to prove that truth was true, but you can't even do that. So there is no obtainable big picture for us. Every time you reach a bigger picture there remains one larger. Change one word of a story and the whole plot may change, or read it to a different person, or write it in a different century, or change the color of the ink. The entire thing can change. The meaning of the universe has a similar but much more complex problem.

If you prove God is true but something in the universe changes, then your proof becomes invalid; but you cannot track everything in the universe. You have no idea what all of the facts are. However suppose you could know all relevant facts about the universe. You still could not know its ultimate nature, because that is outside of the universe. This outside information is to us meaningless, yet it defines the universe. We cannot know about anything outside of the universe. The phrase 'Outside the universe' doesn't even mean something knowable. We don't even know if there is an outside.

2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist

Are we lucky to be alive or unlucky? Is life worthwhile or not? This is a choice, and there is no proof. Perhaps all meaning for humans has this as its home. Either there is no point to living or there is. Therefore I disagree with this complaint. There is not too much suffering for there to be God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thre is a common misunderstanding that what people believe is derived from thinking and evidence. Some, more demonstrable beliefs are, like jury decisions. But I suggest most ideas humans believe are true not thought out, and not only lack evidence, but many are contrary to evidence. Those who believe that Trump won the 2020 election, and there was fraud, is an example. Belief in any of the many gods is another.

Belief in God is not contrary to the evidence since there is no evidence that suggests that God does not exist.
This is very much unlike Trump losing the election, since there was plenty of evidence that demonstrated that Trump lost the election.

 

[Trailblazer]

It depends upon what you count as proof. Besides formalism presumes the reliability of logic; however no logical system can (if Godel's Theorem is correct) prove itself to be consistent. So even if God is true, you cannot prove it due to the all encompassing nature of God and of ordered systems. To prove God was true you'd need to prove that truth was true, but you can't even do that. So there is no obtainable big picture for us. Every time you reach a bigger picture there remains one larger. Change one word of a story and the whole plot may change, or read it to a different person, or write it in a different century, or change the color of the ink. The entire thing can change. The meaning of the universe has a similar but much more complex problem.

If you prove God is true but something in the universe changes, then your proof becomes invalid; but you cannot track everything in the universe. You have no idea what all of the facts are. However suppose you could know all relevant facts about the universe. You still could not know its ultimate nature, because that is outside of the universe. This outside information is to us meaningless, yet it defines the universe. We cannot know about anything outside of the universe. The phrase 'Outside the universe' doesn't even mean something knowable. We don't even know if there is an outside.

No, there is no way to prove that God exists. The only way we could ever know that God exists is if God proved it to us. I have no idea how God would do that but I think God could to that if God wanted to.

Are we lucky to be alive or unlucky? Is life worthwhile or not? This is a choice, and there is no proof. Perhaps all meaning for humans has this as its home. Either there is no point to living or there is. Therefore I disagree with this complaint. There is not too much suffering for there to be God.

Whether we are lucky to be alive or unlucky and whether life is worthwhile or not is a subjective call.
Similarly, whether there is too much suffering in the world for there to be God is a subjective all....
Even if were to say that a loving God could not exist given all the suffering we see, that still would not be a reason to say that God does not exist, since there is no reason to assume a God that exists has to be loving. Christianity is only one religion and not all religions teach that God is loving.

 

[Nimos]

legitimate: If you say that something such as a feeling or claim is legitimate, you think that it is reasonable and justified.
Legitimate definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

In my opinion, two legitimate reasons not to believe in God are as follows:

1. There is no proof that God exists
2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist

I believe there are also legitimate reasons to believe in God as either position can be argued and justified with reason.

Only really the first reason

Regarding the second point it is subjective, if we are just talking about a God, such existence doesn't really depend on whether it allows/causes suffering or not. If we are talking about a specific God such as the one in the bible, then good is defined based on what he finds good and not really what we think it ought to be.
God as we know does kill quite a lot of people, yet tells us that we are not allowed to do so. So again, it becomes our subjective opinion whether God should be allowed to kill or allow suffering or not, and in case God is allowed, then it must per definition also be good. And therefore suffering wouldn't be a valid reason to assume that God isn't real

 

[F1fan]

Belief in God is not contrary to the evidence since there is no evidence that suggests that God does not exist.
This is very much unlike Trump losing the election, since there was plenty of evidence that demonstrated that Trump lost the election.

There are gods that are defined and/or described in a way that we know they don't. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and the creator are mistaken since evidence is contrary to their beliefs.

And there is no evidence of election fraud that Trump asserts happened, but his believers are not swayed by the lack of evidence, and the testimony of election officials that can show valid results. These believers believe on emotion, much like most all theists do for their belief in their gods. The lack of evidence is irrelevant to them. Contrary evidence is irrelevant to them.

 

[Truthseeker]

And I believe the arguments are neither justified or reasoned.

Not surprising when I think of it, since you don't believe in God. Not interested in arguing the case here. I've never seen an argument work on an atheist.

 

[Trailblazer]

Only really the first reason

Yes, I have to agree with you on that. I believe that there is evidence that God exists but no proof.

Regarding the second point it is subjective, if we are just talking about a God, such existence doesn't really depend on whether it allows/causes suffering or not. If we are talking about a specific God such as the one in the bible, then good is defined based on what he finds good and not really what we think it ought to be.

I also agree with you on that. Whether God exists does not depend upon whether there is suffering in the world since there is no reason to think there would not be suffering if God exists. Whether there would be suffering or not is all based upon people's personal opinions on what God should be like if God exists.

God as we know does kill quite a lot of people, yet tells us that we are not allowed to do so. So again, it becomes our subjective opinion whether God should be allowed to kill or allow suffering or not, and in case God is allowed, then it must per definition also be good. And therefore suffering wouldn't be a valid reason to assume that God isn't real

As far as I am concerned the jury is out on whether God actually killed anyone as per the Bible stories, but even if God did that it would be our subjective opinion whether God should be allowed to kill or allow suffering or not.

But if God is just and God killed people it would have been deserved, so it would have been justice, which is good, and therefore any suffering that ensued wouldn't be a valid reason to assume that a good God does not exist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No, there is no way to prove that God exists. The only way we could ever know that God exists is if God proved it to us. I have no idea how God would do that but I think God could to that if God wanted to.

I do not hold anyone responsible for knowing God exists. That is merely a thought in their heads and can be wiped out by simple damage to their brains. I do not ask "Why do you not believe in God?" I do require them to swear by God when they testify in court, and if they don't like it they may affirm instead. I require them to respect authority, and that is good enough. We all have to get along, somehow.

Whether we are lucky to be alive or unlucky and whether life is worthwhile or not is a subjective call.
Similarly, whether there is too much suffering in the world for there to be God is a subjective all....
Even if were to say that a loving God could not exist given all the suffering we see, that still would not be a reason to say that God does not exist, since there is no reason to assume a God that exists has to be loving. Christianity is only one religion and not all religions teach that God is loving.

That is a misunderstanding of Christian scripture and teaching in my opinion and one which will fade over time. One NT book and only one contains the phrase 'God is love' and has various interpretations, but it pretty much is a restatement of the command to love one another. It doesn't mean literally that 'Love is God'. Its meaning is getting lost, and Christianity does not necessarily over the long haul believe God is made of love only. After all, Christianity also teaches God is not human. Hebrews 4:15 and James 1:13 together show that early Christians do not view God as capable of being tempted or even empathizing with our own temptations (sufferings). This is enshrined in the texts which all Christians accept as canon and will (I am guessing) become the predominant understanding again, someday.

 

[Truthseeker]

No, nobody can test what they think they know since God is not available for testing.

I think that atheism is a dogmatic position to take, and it is a position that is often based upon what an atheist thinks God would or should do if God existed, as if anyone could ever know what God would or should do.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are gods that are defined and/or described in a way that we know they don't. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and the creator are mistaken since evidence is contrary to their beliefs.

It is true that if the description of God runs contrary to factual evidence then we know that kind of God cannot exist, but that doesn't mean that there is no God that exists.

And there is no evidence of election fraud that Trump asserts happened, but his believers are not swayed by the lack of evidence, and the testimony of election officials that can show valid results. These believers believe on emotion, much like most all theists do for their belief in their gods. The lack of evidence is irrelevant to them. Contrary evidence is irrelevant to them.

True.

 

[F1fan]

Not surprising when I think of it, since you don't believe in God. Not interested in arguing the case here. I've never seen an argument work on an atheist.

What does that tell you? Atheists ask hard questions from skepicism, and theists lack adequate answers. As it is no believer ever comes to a factual and reasoned conclusion that a God exists. They usually tell stories about some sort of cultural and/or social experiences that resulted in them believing in one sort of religion or another. There's a consistent story about how they ended up believing, but what they believe tends to follow a pattern of their cultual experience. Muslims tend to be Muslims. Catholics tend to be Catholic, etc. Different types of believers tell different details, and they are not derived from facts. No objective thinker is convinced by what theists argue, and it is the lack of evidence and coherent descripion of what is being claimed.

 

[Truthseeker]

It depends upon what you count as proof. Besides formalism presumes the reliability of logic; however no logical system can (if Godel's Theorem is correct) prove itself to be consistent. So even if God is true, you cannot prove it due to the all encompassing nature of God and of ordered systems. To prove God was true you'd need to prove that truth was true, but you can't even do that. So there is no obtainable big picture for us. Every time you reach a bigger picture there remains one larger. Change one word of a story and the whole plot may change, or read it to a different person, or write it in a different century, or change the color of the ink. The entire thing can change. The meaning of the universe has a similar but much more complex problem.

If you prove God is true but something in the universe changes, then your proof becomes invalid; but you cannot track everything in the universe. You have no idea what all of the facts are. However suppose you could know all relevant facts about the universe. You still could not know its ultimate nature, because that is outside of the universe. This outside information is to us meaningless, yet it defines the universe. We cannot know about anything outside of the universe. The phrase 'Outside the universe' doesn't even mean something knowable. We don't even know if there is an outside.

I'm impressed that you know about Godel's theorem, but it appears to me that logical proof and scientfiic proof are conflated here. Or is the first paragraph the logical problem and the second paragraph the scientific problem?

 

[Truthseeker]

Christianity is only one religion and not all religions teach that God is loving.

All religions revealed by God do.