Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would have given that a Funny, but it was also Informative since it made the point quite well. God and the promise of an afterlife from an atheist perspective.

You didn't rebut it. The video makes the case indirectly that one shouldn't believe messengers like Carl - the guy who wrote what he called Hank's words down on his own stationery. Were you aware that it was a criticism of belief in promises of an afterlife from a self-proclaimed spokesman for an unseen deity?

There is plenty of evidence that a theistic God does exists and none that shows one does not exist.

For a faith-based thinker, anything can be called evidence in support of his belief. The sun is evidence in support of his beliefs whatever they are. Does he believe he has the winning lottery numbers? Did the sun just come out from behind the clouds when he purchased the ticket. There you have it. A sign. But according to the rules for interpreting evidence (rules of inference), available evidence does not support a god belief.

Also, no evidence against the existence of gods is needed for unbelief (atheism), but plenty exists. I've given it to you repeatedly, and more appears in the next response, where I explain how one could resolve all of the apparent paradoxes and contradictions in interventionalist theism - religions with gods that allegedly intervene in the affairs of men - by just dropping the god element, after which those problems just evaporate away.

Whenever that is the case, one has great evidence that the simpler answer is the preferred answer. We learned this with Ptolemy's cosmology, which placed the earth motionless in the center of what we now call the solar system. The problem is the apparent motion of a planet like Mars, that seems to orbit the earth in one direction, stop, reverse direction for a while, then stop and reverse direction again to proceed in the original direction - so-called retrograde motion. This led to his epicycles, a torturous attempt to explain this phenomenon which added considerable complexity to the model. The image below puts the sun in the center, which accounts for the phenomenon in terms of both planets moving around the sun, with the inner one lapping the outer one like cars moving together on a highway at different speeds:

Or consider the mother who will not see that her son is a thief, and so invents dozens of just-so stories to explain her property disappearing. She's got a dozen different explanations for a dozen different disappearances (maybe I misplaced this, and perhaps I loaned that out and forgot, and perhaps the plumber took the other), which all evaporate away with a correction to the paradigm. That is a reliable indication of an idea being more correct than the one it replaces.

What is considered reliable evidence varies among individuals. I believe there is reliable evidence, the Messengers of God.

Yes, you do, but you process information differently than the critical thinker. You don't follow those rules. You've called my contention that not all opinions are equal arrogant in the past, but it is still my position. The faith-based thinker goes from belief to evidence, and any evidence will do. The critical thinker goes from evidence to belief, which doesn't support your claim that what you cite as evidence for a god is actually that.

Whether God creates evil, disaster, or causes trouble depends upon which Bible translation you believe. God also forms the light and makes peace, good times and well-being, but I notice you never give God any credit for anything good.

The atheist doesn't give gods credit or blame. There is no need to explain goodness in a universe ruled by a benevolent tri-omni deity (or a godless universe), so there is no reason to mention it. The problem is the so-called evil, which is also consistent with a godless universe, but not the one Abrahamic theists claim we

I think it was Jeffrey Dahmer's mother who, when asked a similar question about Jeff, asked why do they only talk about his killing and eating people and never about what a good son he was to his mother?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The popular theme of Christianity is "God loves you," but if you disobey him and sin against him, then he will send you to hell to be tortured, and you'll suffer for all eternity.

This is why we shouldn't take our understanding of what love, justice, or mercy are from this ideology. Love is defined here the way an abusive husband or boyfriend defines love when he says, "I love you so much, and it hurts me when you make me harm you." Love includes blood sacrifice in this ideology. What do they have to tell people about life and living

To digress briefly, on another thread yesterday, I wrote a response to somebody claiming that "Jesus Christ is an Exemplar of unconditional love, empathy, humility, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, righteousness, repentance, redemption, salvation, and deliverance… among other things." I was asking what was so exemplary about this life once one removes the magic from the story. I addressed all of these. We don't need an exemplar of repentance, redemption, salvation, or deliverance. The Christian concept of love (which is as far from unconditional in Christianity as it is in Hank's town), mercy, forgiveness, and righteousness are rather deformed by humanist standards.

What is left from that list is kindness and empathy, and I already have hundreds of better exemplars of that to choose from than a man who actually accomplished nothing for anybody if the god he's associated with doesn't exist. I contrast that with the hundreds of lives I've known that are far more exemplary than that one, including just about any good mother, who will be not just kind and empathetic, but actually loving, and will be there for through a childhood to do the heavy lifting in shaping a fellow human being. Would her life be more exemplary if she had been an itinerant preacher wandering the land telling people that God loves them and to love one another before moving on to do the same in the next town?

And this life is offered as evidence of divinity. The Baha'i do something similar with their messenger's life, which they say is evidence of divinity as well, and then you see it's another itinerant preacher wandering the land telling others how to live and think in very human words. But who questions these things? Who says that these are actually undistinguished lives except that religions were based around them, which is something many find valueless or worse?

Evil is certainly a problem, to say the least. What makes you say that it is a problem which negates a loving God?

The theodicy problem is a classic in theological philosophy that challenges the idea of the existence of a tri-omni deity.: "Theodicy is a philosophical attempt to explain why God would allow evil to exist in the world. Within Christianity, for example, God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (completely good), a World-Creator that also cares for each human being personally."

Here are a few statements of the problem:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus - Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

"Either God can do nothing to stop the catastrophes, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely." -- Sam Harris

"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also his work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards he would to a certain extent be passing judgment on himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to him?" - Albert Einstein​

The theodicy problem is one of dozens of problems that evaporate away when one removes the god hypothesis from the problem, like why are there apparent contradictions in scripture, why do all words ever written or spoken including those attributed to gods appear to be human, why does God always seem to make the choice that a non-existent god would make such as to not interfere in man's choices, or why does a god provide too little evidence of its own existence to be believed in except by faith. These are all insoluble problems for a believer in a tri-omni god, but not for the humanist. Remove the god hypothesis and every one of those problems is immediately resolved. Of course there is suffering that a tri-omni deity might have prevented if one existed. Of course holy books look like human beings wrote them and not gods, and contain errors and internal contradictions. Of course there would be no amputated limbs healing. Of course there is no evidence that prayer affects anything but one's own psychological state.

mainstream science interprets evidence in a way that supports that conclusion.

You've got the order wrong. In science and all critical thought, conclusions are derived from the evidence, not the other way around. The conclusion explains the evidence, and it is generated according to strict rules of inference (fallacy-free transformations that connect evidence and true premises to sound conclusions). This method works every time if executed properly, which is why science keeps generating useful inductions (laws, theories) about nature that accurately describe and predict its proclivities.

It's the faith-based believer that does what you describe. One begins with a premise believed by faith, and then interprets evidence in that light, and calls its [premises conclusions. We see it here all of the time. Someone has decided that a certain god exists by faith and that various words come from it, and then calls those words evidence supporting what has never been anything but an insufficiently supported premise now being called a conclusion derived from that evidence.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

This is why we shouldn't take our understanding of what love, justice, or mercy are from this ideology. Love is defined here the way an abusive husband or boyfriend defines love when he says, "I love you so much, and it hurts me when you make me harm you." Love includes blood sacrifice in this ideology. What do they have to tell people about life and living.

I think your comparison of the Christian God to an abusive husband or boyfriend is a good and honest analogy and, in my opinion, on point. I also think the rest of your post is very informative. For what it's worth, I like your perspective and I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[CG Didymus]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus - Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

Baha'is seem to try and wiggle out of this by claiming that thing about God not wanting robots... that he gave people freewill to choose to love him. In spite of him not be willing to prevent evil and suffering. And then what's the claim? That those things are good? That they test those that love him, and those tests cause them to grow spiritually and love him even more? Yeah, abusive parent fits well.

 

[F1fan]

Baha'is seem to try and wiggle out of this by claiming that thing about God not wanting robots... that he gave people freewill to choose to love him. In spite of him not be willing to prevent evil and suffering. And then what's the claim? That those things are good? That they test those that love him, and those tests cause them to grow spiritually and love him even more? Yeah, abusive parent fits well.

I find the "God didn't create robots, but people with free will" claim one of the worst, and least thought out. It comes with the exemption of God's accountability for what exists today.

We are all caable of acts that we call evil. Doing evil requires a person suspend integrity and empathy, and employs excuses for doing the acts. An example is those ordinary Germans who were employed in concentration camps. The book Hitler's Willing Executioners explains how ordinary people were able to excuse their acts against Jews, and only showed remorse after the war. I know myself well enough to know i would never find that morally acceptable. I suspect many on this discussion are the same. There are a few in this discussion that I suspect would have had little problem with conforming to the state law that Jews were subhuman and thus morality adjusted in regards to this class of people. This prejudice and condemnation included gays, gypsies, and slavic people.

The question I have is that isn't just a matter of free will. If we put all people in this same situation would they likely do the same? What is the strength of moral character? After the war pyschologists examined this question and the Milgram studies revealed a disturbing trend: that even good people will suspend their own moral ideals when answering to an authority.

Milgram experiment - Wikipedia

The dilemma here is that the believers who insist we humans have free will and make sound moral choices is not accurate. It is only likely IF a person has sound mental health AND has little influence by an authority that is not moral. There are too many variables in any given society that expoits the manipulation of people to conform and comply to insist free will is a stable and reliable phenomenon. The rise of Trump and MAGA is an example of how a corrupt person can manipulate a willing following. It is a co-dependent relationship, and argubaly highly toxic for all.

Getting back to the Creator, if the God can make a high percentage of humans capable of doing the right thing where it comes to moral decisions, why did the Creator make the rest incapable? We aren't talkking about robots, here. If anything the robots are those who follow orders, or the whims of the authority they answer to (whether religious or political), because it is THEY who are not reasonaing, nor listening to their conscience. And of course there is the mentally ill. What purpose do they serve in God's creation? Societies have struggled what to do with these people. In the USA many of them are left to family memebers, and if they can't afford to care for them they tend to end up in prisons. To my mind that is immoral, but we have a society with limited state and federal resources (mostly because there is no will to tax the wealthy more, also immoral, to my mind) and the state ends up paying anyway.

So how effective an answer is free will? Not only terrible, but raises more questions about this Creator that is used as an explation for evil. I find it disturbing how certain theists will defend their beliefs even though their previous claims and explanations are obliterated. We see believers deferring more and more to the authority of their beliefs, and show less and less use of evidence and reason. Is it any wonder we see evil in human history? It is so easy for the will of the individual to be surrendered to the will of an absent God (yet described by prevailing dogma).

It is apparent that reasoning is the best solution to this behavior. The problem is reasoning is a skill, it's skilled thinking. Anyone with language ability can think abstractly, but it is skilled thinking that allows truth to be understood. So the best way to reduce evil in the world is to teach children skilled thinking, and improve mental health care. If children lern the nature of truth many will reject what religions claim as truth, and that too will reduce the "authority" religions claim, and thus fewer whose beliefs and moral attitudes will be influenced by it.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

According to Isaiah 45:7, God also makes peace, brings prosperity, and makes well-being.
It is unfair to look only at part of the verse that supports your position and ignore the rest.

To be honest, I don't believe it to be unfair. Giving credit to God for allegedly doing good in my life despite the living hell he allowed me to experience while I was growing up would, in my opinion, be analogous to giving credit to my abusive mother for allowing me to eat a little bit of food, live in her home (despite her constant threats to send me back to an orphanage), and occasionally give me used clothes to wear despite the fact that she beat the hell out of me for 13 and a half years and even threatened to kill me. Where was God when my mother beat the hell out of me for 13 and a half years while I was growing up? Where was God when my brother was hitting me and inappropriately touching me when I was growing up? Where was God when I was being targeted and bullied in school?

When I was a child and a young teenager, I prayed to God in desperation, pleading with him to save me from the abuse and bullying that I was suffering. But despite my sincere prayers to what I believed to be a loving and merciful God, I suffered abuse and neglect at home and perpetual bullying and harassment while in school. However, no one ever lifted a finger to protect me—not God, not the pastor and the congregation of the church I attended when I was a child, not my extended family, my teachers in school, the rest of the school faculty, the neighbors, or the parents of the other children at school. I came to find out as an adult that it was common knowledge in the small town I grew up in that I was being abused and neglected at home as well as bullied and harassed in school.

The bullying and harassment didn't stop until after I graduated and left school. The abuse continued at home until I confronted my abusive brother shortly after I turned 18. The physical confrontation between he and I and my threat to call the police on him if he ever laid a hand on me again made a lasting impression on our abusive mother. She never laid a hand on me again or threatened to hurt me after I confronted my brother. I shut my parents out of my life due to their denial of my mother's abuse of me and the pain I experienced as a result, as well as my father's refusal to step in and stop her. I also cut my brother out of my life because of how he treated me while we were growing up and his refusal to admit it. I also cut the majority of my extended family out of my life because of their refusal to step in and save me from being abused, despite knowing for years that I was being abused and neglected at home.

 

[Trailblazer]

To be honest, I don't believe it to be unfair. Giving credit to God for allegedly doing good in my life despite the living hell he allowed me to experience while I was growing up would, in my opinion, be analogous to giving credit to my abusive mother for allowing me to eat a little bit of food, live in her home (despite her constant threats to send me back to an orphanage), and occasionally give me used clothes to wear despite the fact that she beat the hell out of me for 13 and a half years and even threatened to kill me. Where was God when my mother beat the hell out of me for 13 and a half years while I was growing up? Where was God when my brother was hitting me and inappropriately touching me when I was growing up? Where was God when I was being targeted and bullied in school?

I was not suggesting that you give God any credit, and I fully understand how you feel.
All I said was that if we are trying to use Bible verses to support our position "It is unfair to look only at part of the verse that supports our position and ignore the rest."

This has nothing to do with your personal experiences or the personal experiences of anyone else, because if we blame God for not rescuing us from bad life situations that would never end. Where was God when my father died when I was 12 years old, leaving me with an alcoholic mother who neglected me and my sister? Where was God when I suffered from an eating disorder for 12 years when I was a younger adult? Where was God when after that I was so depressed I could barely function for years on end? Where was God when I had immobilizing anxiety? Where was God when I lost upwards of 30 cats to heart and kidney disease? Where was God when my husband passed away leaving me all alone to fend for myself? The list goes on.

I guess the difference between me and you is that I don't believe that God is like Superman whose job is to rescue humans from difficult situations. I don't believe that just because God is all-powerful that means He is obligated to use His power to rescue people from suffering. It would make no sense for God to rescue people from the very suffering that is 'inbuilt' in the world that He created.

Think about what would happen if God answered the prayers of everyone and gave them what they prayed for. It would mean that God would have to interfere with the free will choices of other people and it would upset the order in the world, a world that is based upon free will choice to do either good or evil and reap the consequences. There is really no way around suffering and evil unless and until the people who do evil stop choosing to do evil. That is one reason that God sends Messengers, to reveal teachings and laws that, if followed, would eradicate evil from the face of the earth.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is God's will that people suffer?

Yes, I think it is, because God created a world which is a Storehouse of Suffering.
Since God created the conditions in which humans suffer, that means that means it must be God's will that people suffer.

 

[Trailblazer]

Context?

[5] I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
[6] That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
[7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
[8] Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
[9] Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'is seem to try and wiggle out of this by claiming that thing about God not wanting robots... that he gave people freewill to choose to love him. In spite of him not be willing to prevent evil and suffering.

It is not only the Baha'is who do the wiggling, the Christians also do that, since they also believe in free will.
Why always focus on what the Baha'is do?

 

[Trailblazer]

There you go, you just contradicted yourself. In post 729 you wrote "God does not create evil." and now you admit you are wtrong. So why do we take your posts seriously when your beliefs are all over the place and claim whatever you want in the moment?

The reason I offered other translations of Isaiah 45:7 is because I don't think evil is a correct translation.
As I said before, God did not create evil. Humans create evil by failing to do good.

And if God won't intervene, then God is guilty of unleashing something bad that it won't stop. It's like a runaway train.

God is not responsible for intervening: #747 Trailblazer

If the human brain was perfect, consistently wise, and intelligent, you might have a point. But human brains are not perfect. They have a very large emotion center that drives many beliefs, actions, and choices. Some people have brain defects, like the defect that results in sociopaths. They can't feel empathy, and there is no solution. About 1 in every 24 people are born sociaths, and they will hurt others.

That might be true, but evil is a consequence of human free will choices to commit evil acts, and how much responsibility they have for these actions is determined in courts of law.

 

[Trailblazer]

You didn't rebut it. The video makes the case indirectly that one shouldn't believe messengers like Carl - the guy who wrote what he called Hank's words down on his own stationery. Were you aware that it was a criticism of belief in promises of an afterlife from a self-proclaimed spokesman for an unseen deity?

I was not trying to rebut it because I have no desire to argue.

Debating in an effort to prove I am right is not something I like to do, that is what you like to do.
Of course I was aware of the message in the video.
I fully understood the point the video was making, I just don't happen to agree with it.

 

[Trailblazer]

The atheist doesn't give gods credit or blame.

That is not entirely true.

And if God won't intervene, then God is guilty of unleashing something bad that it won't stop. It's like a runaway train.
#739 F1fan, Today at 8:57 AM

 

[CG Didymus]

I find the "God didn't create robots, but people with free will" claim one of the worst, and least thought out. It comes with the exemption of God's accountability for what exists today.

Yes, if God is all-knowing then this mess is exactly what he wanted to happen.

If anything the robots are those who follow orders

And yes again, people follow what their religious leaders tell them. Ironically, Baha'is don't believe people should blindly follow their religions or their religious leaders.

 

[osgart]

To get from the unknown to knowing actual reality and what it's all about a person has to make inferences based on assumptions according to what they consider reasonable intuitions.

There's no way you can get from A; the unknown to B; knowing actual reality without doing philosophy. If reality is about something and has reasons and purposes there is no way to scientifically approach that. Every worldview comes with inferences based on assumptions according to intuitions. Whether you believe in God, naturalism, or physicalism you are doing philosophy to arrive at those conclusions.

Physicalism makes the assumption that existence is a brute physical fact with no reasons or purposes. It's an intuition. Evidence of the physical can only tell you how physical phenomenon behaves. Evidence under physicalism can never tell you definitively that there is no reasons or purposes to phenomenon that people encounter in existence. It's always easier and simpler to assume the universe is a purposeless brute fact. Evidence under physicalism can never tell you what phenomenon are all about if there are reasons and purposes in existence.

From A to B is always a philosophical jump no matter what side you are on. Philosophical arguments are not a dead end though. One's intuitions about this subject always boil down to where they put their faith. Physicalism will always produce physical results. Physicalism cannot definitively rule out reasons and purposes existing in the universe.

People have strong intuitions on all sides of the subject. However that's all they will ever be is intuitions. To negate the existence of reasons and purposes in nature you must do philosophy. Science is not the tool to eliminate reasons and purposes in nature.

If there is a God then there are reasons and purposes in nature. Either way it boils down to philosophical intuition.

 

[F1fan]

The reason I offered other translations of Isaiah 45:7 is because I don't think evil is a correct translation.

It doesn't matter what you think, the Bible says God created evil. You citing the Bible means you assign it significance and authority.

As I said before, God did not create evil. Humans create evil by failing to do good.

You want it both ways. You want a God but want it to be useless and impotent, and then refer how humans live as just as we are just natural beings living in an amoral universe.

God is not responsible for intervening: #747 Trailblazer

Why do you believe in a God at all? What's the point?

That might be true, but evil is a consequence of human free will choices to commit evil acts, and how much responsibility they have for these actions is determined in courts of law.

So God is irrelevant, why even bring up a God when it is useless and irrelevant?

Yes, I think it is, because God created a world which is a Storehouse of Suffering.
Since God created the conditions in which humans suffer, that means that means it must be God's will that people suffer.

This sounds like an abused wife syndrome.

This is a sociopath God. And then it stands by and does nothing. This is a world where children are born with genetic defects and cancers, and your God stands by and does nothing, even though it can.

Would you create this world as it is?

That is not entirely true.

And if God won't intervene, then God is guilty of unleashing something bad that it won't stop. It's like a runaway train.
#739 F1fan, Today at 8:57 AM

He was referring to atheists NOT having their own conceptions of God they use to explain how things are in the world. My comment was in response to YOUR conception of God, and how it is guilty within your view. Notice you didn't refute or disagree with what I said.

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't matter what you think, the Bible says God created evil. You citing the Bible means you assign it significance and authority.

It doesn't matter what you think, the Bible says God makes peace, causes peace, brings peace, causes well-being, makes well-being, causes well-being, brings good times, sends good times, and brings prosperity. You citing the Bible means you assign it significance and authority. You can't cite what God does that and leave out half the verse. That is unfair and unjust.

KJ21 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.
NKJV I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.’
ASV I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.
EHV I am the one who forms light and creates darkness, the one who makes peace and creates disaster. I am the Lord, the one who does all these things.
AMP The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing peace and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.
ERV I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause trouble. I, the Lord, do all these things.
NCV I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause troubles. I, the Lord, do all these things.
ESV I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things.
NASB The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.
NIRV I cause light to shine. I also create darkness. I bring good times. I also create hard times. I do all these things. I am the Lord.
TLB I form the light and make the dark. I send good times and bad. I, Jehovah, am he who does these things.
NIV I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

You want it both ways. You want a God but want it to be useless and impotent, and then refer how humans live as just as we are just natural beings living in an amoral universe.

We are natural beings living in a natural world. God is all-powerful and uses His power to rule and maintain all of existence. This does not include stepping in and changing the natural order of creation or what humans choose to do with their free will.

Why do you believe in a God at all? What's the point?

I believe because my purpose in this life is to know and worship God and obey His teachings and laws.
I do not believe so that God can rescue me from all my troubles and I have no such requirement of expectation.

So God is irrelevant, why even bring up a God when it is useless and irrelevant?

God is not irrelevant, since God is responsible for ruling and maintaining the universe. Humans have free will to choose and they are responsible for what they choose. God is not responsible for what humans choose and God is not responsible to bail people out for the bad choices they make.

This sounds like an abused wife syndrome.

This is a sociopath God. And then it stands by and does nothing. This is a world where children are born with genetic defects and cancers, and your God stands by and does nothing, even though it can.

God does not stand by, humans stand by. You have turned God into a human and that is the fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human.

In the natural world, children are born with genetic defects and cancers, and that's not all that happens, but it is completely illogical to expect God to change the natural order of the world that He created!

"Even though He can." God's omnipotence is not a legitimate reason to expect God to eliminate all suffering just because you and others don't like it. If you don't like how God operates you don't have to believe in God.

Would you create this world as it is?

No, but I am not God, and I do not have the power to create a world. Moreover, I don't believe I know more than an all-knowing God about how to create a world because that is logically impossible since no human can be more than all-knowing.

He was referring to atheists NOT having their own conceptions of God they use to explain how things are in the world. My comment was in response to YOUR conception of God, and how it is guilty within your view. Notice you didn't refute or disagree with what I said.

You are projecting what you believe about God onto me. God is not guilty in my view, God is guilty in your view.
I did disagree, when I cited my post that explained why God is not responsible for intervening. #747

 

[joelr]

What is truth but words that are thought to describe consistent systems? As human beings we can only work with the appearance of truth and can not have it directly.

By-the-way: After I posted someone else commented and pointed out that what Godel shows is that any system complex enough to represent itself cannot prove itself to be complete. I incorrectly used the word 'Consistent', but it was close enough for my post.
Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

It needs to be a formal system that can demonstrate facts about the natural numbers. It doesn't apply to just anything. It has to be a formal system which generate theorems and the set of theorems is a recursively numerable set. Godel had a simple system of arithmetic that wasn't incomplete.

 

[joelr]

Ironically, I think most Baha'is would agree with you... that these stories are fictional. However, Baha'is then come up with a symbolic interpretation, which they say was the true purpose of the fictional story. Unfortunately, they say, people took those stories literally.

For me, I think they were religious myth and taught to the people as if they were true. But that still makes the stories not true, and passing them off as true, a lie. But I also don't accept the Baha'i interpretation that the stories were meant to be taken symbolically. So, for me, the Baha'i interpretation is also not true. And just like "Kissing Hank's ***", there is too many things that have to be assumed to be true and too many things "proven" true through circular reasoning. But does that bother believers? No, because they "know" it's true.

Yes but the Bahai also make an equally unlikely claim, that a theistic God exists and gives clear revelations to people. Enough so they can write a book yet the information that is supposedly messages from God is nothing humans haven't already thought of many times over. And some very wrong science ideas.

 

[joelr]

God is not altering the laws of physics.

Right. No deity is altering any laws of physics because there isn't a theistic God.

There is plenty of evidence that a theistic God does exists and none that shows one does not exist.

Now instead of vague statements you are just repeating old claims? You haven't answered to any of the points I raised when you first said this?
There is zero evidence that demonstrates a theistic God exists. Zero. Yet many lines of evidence show there is no theism.
Events, illness, wars, all play out probabilistically. Exactly what is expected in the natural world.

A woman survived a tornado in a bathtub, her house lifted up, blew apart and away and she ended up in the woods in a tub. But she survived. Considered it a miracle from God.
Yet in the Moore tornado it hit it's peak F5 winds in 2 small areas represented on the map of the path of the tornado as 2 small red squares separated by a few miles. Except each red square just happened to have an elementary school fit just inside them.
A lot of kids and teachers died. Random.
In the OT Yahweh appears many times as himself. He wrestles Jacob. He shows up larger than a mountain with thorns coming out of his hands and smashes mountains to avenge Habakkuk. We don't see anything like this, ever.
We see apologetics making excuses.

Do you have evidence behind any of these claims? A man claiming revelations who gets an entire page of science completely wrong isn't evidence.
Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. I prefer to believe things that are true. We need evidence to know what is true.