The Problem with Belief in God

[Cacotopia]

The debate between the belief and lack of and rejection of creator will not cease until evidence is found for the existence of such a being.

Those that reject the possibility of a creator cannot disprove that such a creator exists as one cannot find evidence for something that does not exist (proving a false positive) And the only way to determine that there is no such god in existence would be that no evidence that supports the belief in god be found.

Those that reserve their belief until evidence is found, will continue to wait. And either they lean towards the possibility of a deity or the unlikelihood of a deity or creator.

And believers simply do not need evidence, and use the lack of evidence of a god as evidence for the possibility of a god. Or make the blind assumption that there is one, because we haven't found evidence yet, the old "I don't know therefore god." What I would coin gnostic ignorance.

Some state they personally know their god, that they know it exists, why don't they share this knowledge and end the debate, the death and wholesale slaughter done in the name of different gods? Are they so selfish that they must to keep their god to themselves? And when asked to explain many say it is a feeling.

Feelings from my limited understanding are just releases of chemicals in the brain, so is god a chemical?

I don't deny the possibility that such a being exists, but I am confident that all the iterations of such a being that humans have talked about, those that we have documentation and stories about and those lost in our relatively short history are wrong. There are too many loop holes and obvious gaps in knowledge and understanding of our own existence and what exists around us for such inspiration to be "divine" That such a being would impart some of it's infinite knowledge upon us, only for us to document it, only to find later through our own devices that that given knowledge is incorrect.

In my opinion divine knowledge that has been proven demonstrably false, is not divine, it is the wild conjuring of the imagination when presented with a reality those that experienced it at the time did not understand and created an answer to appease the masses.

Creating an answer not founded in reality is a dangerous path that I think leads to the retardation of progress. These fabricated answers to the questions about the unknown served their purpose for a time until we had the capability to seek the answers for ourselves, But these crutches have been used for far too long and and we have been crippled by leaning on them for far too long.

Humanity has only very recently began to take its first steps on its own. And hopefully we will continue to rehabilitate our species. And discard these temporary solutions to the unknown. Imagine a world where everyone is invested in seeking the concrete truth and not squabbling as we have been doing for thousands of years over the name of a creator that has yet to have been discovered.

 

[Sunstone]

With so few exceptions, if any at all, metaphysical speculations are both fruitless and endless. I warn you -- all of you! -- down that path lies no less terrifying an end than epistemic madness!

 

[Twilight Hue]

The debate between the belief and lack of and rejection of creator will not cease until evidence is found for the existence of such a being.

Those that reject the possibility of a creator cannot disprove that such a creator exists as one cannot find evidence for something that does not exist (proving a false positive) And the only way to determine that there is no such god in existence would be that no evidence that supports the belief in god be found.

Those that reserve their belief until evidence is found, will continue to wait. And either they lean towards the possibility of a deity or the unlikelihood of a deity or creator.

And believers simply do not need evidence, and use the lack of evidence of a god as evidence for the possibility of a god. Or make the blind assumption that there is one, because we haven't found evidence yet, the old "I don't know therefore god." What I would coin gnostic ignorance.

Some state they personally know their god, that they know it exists, why don't they share this knowledge and end the debate, the death and wholesale slaughter done in the name of different gods? Are they so selfish that they must to keep their god to themselves? And when asked to explain many say it is a feeling.

Feelings from my limited understanding are just releases of chemicals in the brain, so is god a chemical?

I don't deny the possibility that such a being exists, but I am confident that all the iterations of such a being that humans have talked about, those that we have documentation and stories about and those lost in our relatively short history are wrong. There are too many loop holes and obvious gaps in knowledge and understanding of our own existence and what exists around us for such inspiration to be "divine" That such a being would impart some of it's infinite knowledge upon us, only for us to document it, only to find later through our own devices that that given knowledge is incorrect.

In my opinion divine knowledge that has been proven demonstrably false, is not divine, it is the wild conjuring of the imagination when presented with a reality those that experienced it at the time did not understand and created an answer to appease the masses.

Creating an answer not founded in reality is a dangerous path that I think leads to the retardation of progress. These fabricated answers to the questions about the unknown served their purpose for a time until we had the capability to seek the answers for ourselves, But these crutches have been used for far too long and and we have been crippled by leaning on them for far too long.

Humanity has only very recently began to take its first steps on its own. And hopefully we will continue to rehabilitate our species. And discard these temporary solutions to the unknown. Imagine a world where everyone is invested in seeking the concrete truth and not squabbling as we have been doing for thousands of years over the name of a creator that has yet to have been discovered.

My question to ask would be what's actually going on that would even make it a possibility?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The debate between the belief and lack of and rejection of creator will not cease until evidence is found for the existence of such a being.

Those that reject the possibility of a creator cannot disprove that such a creator exists as one cannot find evidence for something that does not exist (proving a false positive) And the only way to determine that there is no such god in existence would be that no evidence that supports the belief in god be found.

Those that reserve their belief until evidence is found, will continue to wait. And either they lean towards the possibility of a deity or the unlikelihood of a deity or creator.

And believers simply do not need evidence, and use the lack of evidence of a god as evidence for the possibility of a god. Or make the blind assumption that there is one, because we haven't found evidence yet, the old "I don't know therefore god." What I would coin gnostic ignorance.

Some state they personally know their god, that they know it exists, why don't they share this knowledge and end the debate, the death and wholesale slaughter done in the name of different gods? Are they so selfish that they must to keep their god to themselves? And when asked to explain many say it is a feeling.

Feelings from my limited understanding are just releases of chemicals in the brain, so is god a chemical?

I don't deny the possibility that such a being exists, but I am confident that all the iterations of such a being that humans have talked about, those that we have documentation and stories about and those lost in our relatively short history are wrong. There are too many loop holes and obvious gaps in knowledge and understanding of our own existence and what exists around us for such inspiration to be "divine" That such a being would impart some of it's infinite knowledge upon us, only for us to document it, only to find later through our own devices that that given knowledge is incorrect.

In my opinion divine knowledge that has been proven demonstrably false, is not divine, it is the wild conjuring of the imagination when presented with a reality those that experienced it at the time did not understand and created an answer to appease the masses.

Creating an answer not founded in reality is a dangerous path that I think leads to the retardation of progress. These fabricated answers to the questions about the unknown served their purpose for a time until we had the capability to seek the answers for ourselves, But these crutches have been used for far too long and and we have been crippled by leaning on them for far too long.

Humanity has only very recently began to take its first steps on its own. And hopefully we will continue to rehabilitate our species. And discard these temporary solutions to the unknown. Imagine a world where everyone is invested in seeking the concrete truth and not squabbling as we have been doing for thousands of years over the name of a creator that has yet to have been discovered.

Why would anyone want to find evidence for something non-existent?

 

[allfoak]

What is the evidence for Love, Beauty and Justice?
Do they exist?
Is there any evidence that beliefs exist?

 

[Cacotopia]

Why would anyone want to find evidence for something non-existent?

ask believers not me. You can't find evidence of something that doesn't exist. It's insanity.

 

[Augustus]

Creating an answer not founded in reality is a dangerous path that I think leads to the retardation of progress. These fabricated answers to the questions about the unknown served their purpose for a time until we had the capability to seek the answers for ourselves, But these crutches have been used for far too long and and we have been crippled by leaning on them for far too long.

Ironically, the Idea of Progress is one that largely developed out of Christian eschatology and was later absorbed into Enlightenment secular Rationalist ideologies that underpin your Whiggish view of history as melioristic progress.

The degree to which this is 'founded in reality' is certainly open to debate. Even more contentious is the degree to which we can live without 'crutches' whether they be purportedly Divine or secular.

Imagine a world where everyone is invested in seeking the concrete truth and not squabbling as we have been doing for thousands of years over the name of a creator that has yet to have been discovered.

Abandoning god myths just leads to the creation of replacement mythos be they Humanist, Marxist or whatever else one puts in the place of the myths grounded in god.

Moreover, the 'concrete truth' is likely incompatible with a civilised existence. Most of human morality, culture, values and ideals is not derived from objective scientific analysis, but a subjective preference for the way the world ought to be.

Civilisation is built on myths which create a framework in which we aim to transcend our animal nature and build complex societies and sources of meaning in a senseless world.

 

[WalterTrull]

epistemic madness

Love it! I'll stash it away for use later.

 

[Truthseeker]

I had an experience that can't be explained just as chemicals in the brain. It came out of nowhere and it was very strong. It was the love of God.

Besides that, there is a lot of evidence if you dig through it that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. This proves the existence of God. More evidence than for other religions. But you have to stick with your investigation.

 

[WalterTrull]

evidence is found

We are. = Evidence.

 

[WalterTrull]

rehabilitate our species.

Don't need no new hability. We're habilitatin' jes fine.

 

[Superbatman]

I'm kinda the same, I'm a mormon so I believe in God and Jesus, and you know, this life is like a test. We aren't meant to prove God is real, cause if we did prove he was real then we would know for a surety. Then we would be under so much more condemnation for our sins. And just like tests, we are meant to learn here on earth by exercising our faith.
If we were to one day just prove God was there, then thats like a cheat sheet on a test. We wouldn't learn by faith or our own experiences, and then this life would be meaningless, since we are meant to learn while here on earth and prepare ourselves to meet God.
(That was longer than intended sorry)

 

[stvdv]

The debate between the belief and lack of and rejection of creator will not cease until evidence is found for the existence of such a being

The wise in India give very clear instructions how to work this out. Not easy to accomplish but simple it is.

Does God, being the Creator exists?

Step 1:
You do understand that this question is 100 times more complicated than Einstein asking a baby how the Relativity Theory of Einstein works.

So first we need to get to level "Einstein" and beyond to say anything useful IMHO

 

[David T]

With so few exceptions, if any at all, metaphysical speculations are both fruitless and endless. I warn you -- all of you! -- down that path lies no less terrifying an end than epistemic madness!

Fredrick nietzche the non believer and his father Karl a priest believer both ended up in disaster much like you describe!!!!!

I also saw it explained scientifically on the documentary star trek. It's the doppelganger effect where opposites are convinced they are way different!!!

Son Freddy,

Father Karl Nietzche

The doppelganger effect

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Those that reject the possibility of a creator cannot disprove that such a creator exists as one cannot find evidence for something that does not exist

I think you mean "one cannot find evidence that something does not exist." That's self-evident and draws the line between the sceptical agnostic and the illogical atheist.

Some state they personally know their god, that they know it exists, why don't they share this knowledge and end the debate?

Well, we keep telling you of our experiences, but you refuse to believe us.

Feelings from my limited understanding are just releases of chemicals in the brain, so is god a chemical?

Yes, your understanding is limited. The fact that a feeling, or anything else, is accompanied by a brain state. does not mean that mean that it's produced by a brain state. My seeing a tree is accompanied by a brain state, but it's produced by seeing a tree.

 

[Apologes]

Those that reject the possibility of a creator cannot disprove that such a creator exists as one cannot find evidence for something that does not exist (proving a false positive) And the only way to determine that there is no such god in existence would be that no evidence that supports the belief in god be found.

First of all, it's called "proving a negative", not "proving a false positive" and it is possible in at least two ways:

1) establishing that the expected state of affairs if something were to exist doesn't coincide with the state of affairs that is actual
2) establishing that the mere concept of something is incoherent

Of the two, however, only the second deals with "rejecting the possibility" as the first one deals with the realm of probabilities.

Second, lack of evidence for God's existence doesn't in any way get you to the conclusion that God does not exist, let alone the conclusion that God's existence is impossible.

And believers simply do not need evidence, and use the lack of evidence of a god as evidence for the possibility of a god. Or make the blind assumption that there is one, because we haven't found evidence yet, the old "I don't know therefore god." What I would coin gnostic ignorance.

It's called "God of the gaps", not "gnostic ignorance", and it doesn't in any way accurately describe theists as a whole. In any case if one is making a God of the gaps argument then one is attempting to provide an argument for God, even if a fallacious one, and is therefore not guilty of "not needing evidence", contrary to your naive generalization.

Some state they personally know their god, that they know it exists, why don't they share this knowledge and end the debate, the death and wholesale slaughter done in the name of different gods? Are they so selfish that they must to keep their god to themselves? And when asked to explain many say it is a feeling.

People who have religious experiences share their testimonies all the time. Doing so isn't sure to persuade the opposition as personal experiences cannot be verified by others as genuine and are, more often than not, doubted. Other religious people (those crazy enough to commit slaughter in name of their religion at least) may just say that what the person was experiencing were actually demons rather than God or that the person was simply lying.

Feelings from my limited understanding are just releases of chemicals in the brain, so is god a chemical?

That doesn't even follow in any way. If you're going to present an argument against religious experience, at least put some effort into it.

I don't deny the possibility that such a being exists, but I am confident that all the iterations of such a being that humans have talked about, those that we have documentation and stories about and those lost in our relatively short history are wrong. There are too many loop holes and obvious gaps in knowledge and understanding of our own existence and what exists around us for such inspiration to be "divine" That such a being would impart some of it's infinite knowledge upon us, only for us to document it, only to find later through our own devices that that given knowledge is incorrect.

In my opinion divine knowledge that has been proven demonstrably false, is not divine, it is the wild conjuring of the imagination when presented with a reality those that experienced it at the time did not understand and created an answer to appease the masses.

So you just went and contradicted your original statement that you can't prove a negative, even though you boldly (as well as very vaguely) claim all theistic beliefs are wrong without really specifying any particular "loop hole" or "obvious gap" that you seem to flaunt.

Creating an answer not founded in reality is a dangerous path that I think leads to the retardation of progress. These fabricated answers to the questions about the unknown served their purpose for a time until we had the capability to seek the answers for ourselves, But these crutches have been used for far too long and and we have been crippled by leaning on them for far too long.

Humanity has only very recently began to take its first steps on its own. And hopefully we will continue to rehabilitate our species. And discard these temporary solutions to the unknown. Imagine a world where everyone is invested in seeking the concrete truth and not squabbling as we have been doing for thousands of years over the name of a creator that has yet to have been discovered.

You're acting like religion is this force independent of humanity that has been oppressing it and preventing it's progress when in reality much of the progress you have has historically been achieved by religion as religions have always been fundamental aspects of any culture and civilization, shaping their cultural identities. Humans are, inherently, a religious species.

Be that as it may, the issue of how useful or crippling religious beliefs are is irrelevant. You cannot judge the truth of a belief based on it's social implications. A religious belief may well be crippling, but that does precisely nothing to show it is false. Perhaps it would be uncomfortable to accept, but it would be true nonetheless.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What is the evidence for Love, Beauty and Justice?
Do they exist?
Is there any evidence that beliefs exist?

They don't exist. They're just fraternal terms to describe demonstrated behaviors by people respectively.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why would anyone want to find evidence for something non-existent?

It's pretty clear if you want something that bad enough, you might as well make it exist in your mind. ;0)

 

[allfoak]

They don't exist. They're just fraternal terms to describe demonstrated behaviors by people respectively.

Is not the behavior evidence that they do exist?
Changing one's "preexisting" beliefs changes one's behavior does it not?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is not the behavior evidence that they do exist?
Changing one's "preexisting" beliefs changes one's behavior does it not?

If you could have the ability to trace love to its source, you might have an argument that would be fleeting at best. If a person was to compare the evidence of God in a comparative way, it would follow God would be no more or less fleeting as the source used in substantially defining such things.