Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[Ella S.]

I agree that there are ways one can arrive at the conclusion that God exists logically.

The limitation of logic is that it relies on fundamental claims, such as axioms (in the case of mathematics) or empirical evidence (in the case of whether something like God exists). As such, you can arrive at almost any conclusion logically depending on what information you're drawing conclusions from.

I do not think that the existence of suffering is a good argument against the existence of God because God could always decide that suffering is good since God is often described as the ultimate authority on morality. It also assumes that, if God exists, God must be good, which might not be the case. The Deist and Pantheist models of God, for instance, sometimes view God as amoral.

I do think there are arguments against the existence of God. Every hypothesis we have formed based on the expectation that God exists has failed to demonstrate his existence, such as in prayer studies or when we discovered evolution. This does provide compelling evidence against God, in my opinion, even if this evidence is the lack of expected evidence.

I also think the atheist "Argument from Parsimony" is a strong argument. It points out that the existence of a God or gods is unnecessary to explain the world as we observe it, including the prevalence of the belief in God.

I also think there are strong arguments in favor of metaphysical naturalism which, if they hold, would be incompatible with the existence of God.

Personally, I also think God is nomologically and temporally impossible. According to our current models of the universe, energy cannot be created nor destroyed and causality functions on a macroscopic level within time. In other words, God couldn't have created the universe from nothing and he couldn't have caused time to exist since a prerequisite for causing anything is that time already exists. This is why I feel comfortable saying that I am certain there is no God, in the sense of modal logic where these kinds of impossibilities make a God's existence necessarily false.

We could be wrong about these laws of the universe but, according to my understanding of our current data, it is more likely that we are not.

 

[Truthseeker]

I do require them to swear by God when they testify in court, and if they don't like it they may affirm instead.

Are you a judge?

 

[Trailblazer]

All religions revealed by God do.

They do?

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

It appears to atheists that theists lack adequate answers, and I find that for theists likewise atheists lack adequate answers. It does no good to argue either way. Arguing hardens the other's position, because of ego.

 

[rational experiences]

We are consciousness human. Humans taught the what is a term God.

Won't accept your answer why there is no God.

If you asked man science memory why there is no God by his use of the word God. It's because he destroyed a huge highest cold mass he termed God in science.

The very reason.

You can't use a word give it meaning yourself then say it's not real.

Unless the word says why God isn't reality for an explanation of human to human.

By definition a human only teaching.

If you teach you're with God as protection. Due to highest coldest terms. You know you are correct as a thinker.

 

[Truthseeker]

They do?

I'm not quite sure about Judaism, whether that was revealed yet. I also must remembeer Buddhism that says nothing about the characteristics of God. You got me there.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

Don't be impressed. I cannot work through his theorem, however I have had a copy of Godel, Escher, Bach. Godel's work is mathematical. He supposedly proves that no logical system can prove itself to be consistent, so this affects both Mathematics and the Physical Sciences which rely upon formalism when they use induction. It also affects formal proofs of any kind. It may also affect simulations. One axiom may be inconsistent with another, and this may be undetectable.

'Scientific proof' is technically an oxymoron. Science tests philosophy against physical results, and the physical results are used to judge philosophical suggestions. For example you might have an explanation for why the sky is blue. In philosophy you never test your idea except with mental tests. In Science you do. Both rely upon formal logic, axioms, consistent systems. Theology of God is a philosophical, not a Scientific field but is also subject to axioms and systematic reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not quite sure about Judaism, whether that was revealed yet. I also must remembeer Buddhism that says nothing about the characteristics of God. You got me there.

I don't know that the Muslim God is that loving either.
Let's face it.... Baha'is are biased towards the loving God of Christianity.
People generally believe what they want to believe.
I don't really care one way or another because I don't need love. I care a lot more about justice, and that is what I always liked about the Baha'i Faith, because of what Baha'u'llah wrote about justice.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Doesn't this depend on and exclusive to certain views of what a god is?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All religions revealed by God do.

There is no proof of these divine revelations external from the books that claim it, so why should we take their word on it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Doesn't this depend on and exclusive to certain views of what a god is?

Yes, I think it certain does depend upon that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know that the Muslim God is that loving either.
Let's face it.... Baha'is are biased towards the loving God of Christianity.

Interesting..
Wasn't Christianity in its present form enforced by the Roman Empire?
Wasn't it "Nicene" Roman Emperors who insisted that Arian belief was heresy, and ordered their books to be burnt and waged war against them?

I don't see why God is less loving, by making strict laws, rather than having Romans make them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Interesting..
Wasn't Christianity in its present form enforced by the Roman Empire?
Wasn't it "Nicene" Roman Emperors who insisted that Arian belief was heresy, and ordered their books to be burnt and waged war against them?

I don't see why God is less loving, by making strict laws, rather than having Romans make them.

That was not my point. My point was that the God as represented in the Qur'an is not a loving God like the God of the New Testament.

In the Quran there is no demonstration of God's love, by God, for God's people. Instead, man must show his love for God by his own deeds. The notion of having a personal relationship with God is foreign to the Quran.

The Quran & the Bible on God's Love

 

[Truthseeker]

Don't be impressed. I cannot work through his theorem, however I have had a copy of Godel, Escher, Bach. Godel's work is mathematical. He supposedly proves that no logical system can prove itself to be consistent, so this affects both Mathematics and the Physical Sciences which rely upon formalism when they use induction. It also affects formal proofs of any kind. It may also affect simulations. One axiom may be inconsistent with another, and this may be undetectable.

'Scientific proof' is technically an oxymoron. Science tests philosophy against physical results, and the physical results are used to judge philosophical suggestions. For example you might have an explanation for why the sky is blue. In philosophy you never test your idea except with mental tests. In Science you do. Both rely upon formal logic, axioms, consistent systems. Theology of God is a philosophical, not a Scientific field but is also subject to axioms and systematic reasoning.

I have read Godel, Escher, Bach. In essense, the author argues that artificial intelligence can match human intelligence some day, despite what some people might conclude from Godel's theorem. It's been a long time since I've read that book. I understood pretty much how Godel proved the theorem at the time, but I'm vague about how it does that now.

 

[Truthseeker]

I don't know that the Muslim God is that loving either.

You haven't read the Qur'an, either. Just about every Surah or chapter begins with

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2)

Another translation says:

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 1 - The Opening)


Isn't a merciful God loving? Compassion is love, isn't it? I think so, anyway. Just a short exposition on this on my part. I prefer to not call this an argument.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just off the top of my head...

If God exists and wants people to believe He exists, He has a literally infinite number of ways to make his presence and wishes known in absolutely no uncertain or ambiguous terms.
This has not happened, and a God not interested in revealing His existence is as much a presence as no God at all.

 

[Truthseeker]

There is no proof of these divine revelations external from the books that claim it, so why should we take their word on it?

No reason for you to, really, at this time.

 

[Truthseeker]

That was not my point. My point was that the God as represented in the Qur'an is not a loving God like the God of the New Testament.

In the Quran there is no demonstration of God's love, by God, for God's people. Instead, man must show his love for God by his own deeds. The notion of having a personal relationship with God is foreign to the Quran.

The Quran & the Bible on God's Love

That site is evidence? it's obviously an anti-Islamic site.Try Wikipedia next time or something objective.

 

[Trailblazer]

You haven't read the Qur'an, either. Just about every Surah or chapter begins with

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2)

Another translation says:

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 1 - The Opening)


Isn't a merciful God loving? Compassion is love, isn't it? I think so, anyway. Just a short exposition on this on my part. I prefer to not call this an argument.

No, a merciful God is not necessarily a loving God.
No, compassion is not the same as love.

God is merciful since God has the power to punish but God is compassionate so doesn't always give people the punishment they deserve.

What does it mean being merciful?

Mercy is the compassionate treatment of those in distress, especially when it is within one's power to punish or harm them.
Define Mercy – Definition of Mercy - Compassion International
https://www.compassion.com › poverty › mercy-definitio

compassion: sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
compassion meaning - Google Search

love: an intense feeling of deep affection.
love meaning - Google Search

 

[Trailblazer]

That site is evidence? it's obviously an anti-Islamic site.Try Wikipedia next time or something objective.

Yes, I see that now, it is the Christians thinking they are superior again.
Forget it Christians....
God is Love - Various Scholars - Islamway