Reasons for the belief in no God

[spanjo]

I disagree with a few things.

First of all, "any" reason is not necessarily a good reason. There are many poor/irrational reasons to disbelieve in the existence of gods; just as there are many irrational reasons to believe or disbelieve anything.

The whole point of rational inquiry and reason is to have a solid epistemology -- a good justification/foundation -- for a given belief. "It works for my aesthetic tastes" is not a good reason to believe or disbelieve anything.

Lastly, the foundation of many peoples' atheism lies in the lack of justification for theism. It isn't true that if their "logic is dismantled" that they still wouldn't believe. I don't disbelieve in the existence of gods because I like it or because it's convenient (in fact, it would be nice if a god existed, if it's a good god).

I simply disbelieve because there is no justification for theism's truth. I would gladly accept its truth if theism were a justified position. However, so far it isn't; and until such a time that it's justified I will continue to be skeptical. Just please don't assume that everyone's mind is set and can't be changed. I in fact was originally a theist (I attended a joint Baptist/Presbytarian church in my youth). Atheism wasn't a position I wanted; it was a position I was forced into by lacking the necessary justification for believing that theism of any kind is true. I don't believe in things unless I have justification, even if that means I disbelieve a concept that I wish were true.

As Sagan said, I'd rather understand the universe as it really is than believe what feels good to me, no matter how satisfying and reassuring. I seek the truth, not just what I want to be true. So far nothing convinces me that any gods exist.

First of all, "any" reason is not necessarily a good reason. There are many poor/irrational reasons to disbelieve in the existence of gods; just as there are many irrational reasons to believe or disbelieve anything.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I didn't mean 'good' as in 'right'. Good, in this case, is subjective. If the reason (wether rational or irrational) led this person to not believe in God, then it was a good reason for that person to not believe, else, he would believe. I was simply making a point that Subby was not being sensitive to peoples beliefs, but was rather belittling.

The whole point of rational inquiry and reason is to have a solid epistemology

Perhaps there is another way besides rational inquiry to discover truth?

Lastly, the foundation of many peoples' atheism lies in the lack of justification for theism.

You may not have justification for theism; I personally do. It happens on a personal basis.

It isn't true that if their "logic is dismantled" that they still wouldn't believe.

It might result in the acceptance of the 'idea' of God/s, but it will not lead you to believe in God, (there are so many to choose from) let alone know Him.

 

[Subby]

Reasons have been given as you requested. I think the problem is you're not satisfied with the reasoning.....We don't posit a god, you do. Theist have not presented any evidence. If you posit a god then the onus is on the one making the claim to present the evidence for one but we're not the ones making that claim.

I have already addressed the arguments, because I am not satisfied for various reasons. Read my posts again, choose a reason, and then come back and address it specifically.

 

[fallingblood]

I have already addressed the arguments, because I am not satisfied for various reasons. Read my posts again, choose a reason, and then come back and address it specifically.

Actually, you really haven't. You never actually addressed my argument. You stated that you had already did, and all I needed to do was read your posts. But you never provided a single shred of evidence for God. That is how you address the argument I put forth. More so, as others have pointed out, you didn't address their arguments either, but instead deflected.

 

[Subby]

Actually, you really haven't. You never actually addressed my argument. You stated that you had already did, and all I needed to do was read your posts. But you never provided a single shred of evidence for God. That is how you address the argument I put forth. More so, as others have pointed out, you didn't address their arguments either, but instead deflected.

Wrong again. Just because you don't realize the arguments put forth does not mean they are not there.

 

[fallingblood]

Wrong again. Just because you don't realize the arguments put forth does not mean they are not there.

Well then, please go ahead and provide the evidence for God. Again, that is how you address the argument that I made. Just stating that you addressed the argument doesn't make it so.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have already addressed the arguments, because I am not satisfied for various reasons. Read my posts again, choose a reason, and then come back and address it specifically.

No evidence for gods have been presented thus there is no reason to believe any exist......

 

[Subby]

No evidence for gods have been presented thus there is no reason to believe any exist......

Than you are blind, and clearly never encountered any type of scholarly arguments for the existence of God. They have been written out in many forms...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Than you are blind, and clearly never encountered any type of scholarly arguments for the existence of God. They have been written out in many forms...

But this wasn't your position in the OP.....You wanted our reasons...You didn't ask what we thought of the opinions of scholars/believers.

 

[Father Heathen]

Than you are blind, and clearly never encountered any type of scholarly arguments for the existence of God. They have been written out in many forms...

Perhaps you could cite some credible, substantiated arguments?

 

[Meow Mix]

Ya I did. The fact that peer-reviewed science over the past 40 years has shown a beginning to the universe, thus it is not eternal according to modern science.

You simply don't understand modern physics, then.

Please produce a peer-reviewed paper that asserts the universe began rather than the current state of the universe began.

I know a bit about the cosmological literature, being a cosmology student myself, and can assure you that the only thing you'll find are bits by Stephen Hawking et al which assert that time began. If I thought you would be bothered with the details, then I would explain that the reason Hawking asserts time began is because we're currently using finite, discrete geodesics to describe a continuous dimension (in this case time).

From the looks of things, though, and I don't mean to offend, but it appears that you are simply not interested in the facts. You seem as a layperson to think that you know well enough about the nuances of advanced physics, probably based on popular media reports (which are themselves dumbed down for laypersons).

 

[Meow Mix]

So how did natural laws come into existence, if not by a cause? If you posit the cause is natural you are self-refuting yourself because there is non-existence, and thus you cannot have anything spontaneously come forth. Thus there is a cause, there is a beginning.

They didn't "come into existence," at least not the ones I've mentioned. I think you probably aren't familiar with what ontological necessity entails, but ontologically necessary things don't begin to exist -- they always exist, and necessarily so. Laws like identity and noncontradiction are examples of such which never began but always existed; no creator required.

 

[Meow Mix]

Than you are blind, and clearly never encountered any type of scholarly arguments for the existence of God. They have been written out in many forms...

I'm not blind and have conversed with several scholarly theists directly such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. Please stop relying on arguments from authority and "put up or shut up."

 

[fallingblood]

Than you are blind, and clearly never encountered any type of scholarly arguments for the existence of God. They have been written out in many forms...

Yes they have. And they all fail. But please, go ahead. If the evidence is so clear, provide it. Basically follow the attitude you've presented, put up or shut up.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't think he's actually looking for a rational argument, as he has already rejected them before they've even been presented. Clearly his emotions and insecurities prevent him from examining things objectively. He asked a rhetorical question, it got blown out of the water, and then he went into denial about it.

 

[waitasec]

Dude just read my posts. I am done with you on this topic until you actually directly confront arguments put forth.

the act of gainsaying, refusing, or disowning; negation;

 

[waitasec]

You again state these opinions without directly confronting any of the arguments put forth already in response to the numerous posts attempting to defend the non-existence of God.

a refusal to acknowledge; disclaimer of connection with; disavowal

 

[waitasec]

I was referring to eternal universe with that statement.

a person who knowingly utters falsehood

 

[waitasec]

I have presented many arguments that fail to be addressed. Do the work and read them then address them directly.

that which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

 

[waitasec]

subby
and they will know you by the fruits of your labor...



contrived honesty

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Than you are blind, and clearly never encountered any type of scholarly arguments for the existence of God. They have been written out in many forms...

I actually have encountered numerous "scholarly" arguments for the existence of god(s) and I've yet to see one of them that wasn't logically flawed. That said, my reason for not believing in god(s) is the same as many of the other people who have posted here, no evidence.