Theists: Are there good reasons not to believe?

[Valjean]

Not really. Even if he doesn't, it's still better to believe he does.

Why?

 

[Quintessence]

Sure, you think God exists. But do you see anything of merit in the arguments that he doesn't exist?

Nope. Existence isn't a high bar to clear. Those familiar with a bit more philosophy and ontology in particular will probably understand what I'm talking about here.

Once we start to get more specific the picture changes dramatically. But on the whole, I find the question of "does the the Abrahamic one-god (often called God) exist?" to be at best.... a rhetorical one. And I don't even "believe in" that god in any meaningful sense of the phrase... haha.

 

[leroy]

Sure, you think God exists. But do you see anything of merit in the arguments that he doesn't exist?

Yes, arguments arround the lines of

1 If there is a God why is there so much suffering, evil, and **** in the world

2 if there is a God why isent the universe “perfect” (literally perfect) why don’t we live in the best possible universe

3 why doesn’t God makes his existence more obvious

In my opinion these are good arguments. (just not as good as the theist arguments like the Kalam cosmological arguments, fine tuning arguments, moral arguments etc, )

 

[Vinayaka]

Sure, you think God exists. But do you see anything of merit in the arguments that he doesn't exist?

I see lots of merit. My version of theism is based totally on personal experience, not on some false logic of 'it makes sense' the book says so' or many of the other reasons other theists use to 'prove' theism. In my case it's simple: If you haven't had an experience that would somehow convince you there is a God, then why in the world would you believe in God? It makes far more sense to be an atheist. As a neutral observer in the continuing atheist-theist debate, I find myself siding with the atheists. Another factor is that I don't feel I have to prove anything to anyone.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I don't really believe that God is a being but rather the continuation of our species survival. If I didn't believe that humans could outlast the entropy of the Universe, Earth or its own sheer stupidity, I'd consider all of this to be for nothing and completely freak out.

The survival of our species and its evolution, which will soon be directed by us, is the reason why God exists... God didn't create humans, humans are creating God. Once we reach a certain point, in the near future, we will never look back, and continue as a species that will begin to control nature rather than the other way around.

If I didn't believe that humans were capable of that, then I definitely wouldn't have derived my Exaltist theology, made friends with Baha'is that I suspect believe or will believe something similar someday, and I probably would just be a shy nihilist, rather than the outspoken voice for my beliefs.

Yes, I consider myself through and through a pantheist. I believe God is The Omniverse, which is a form of panendeism. But The Omniverse created us so we could continue that effort, that work of creating divinity within ourselves and other people. Eventually the panendeism of The Omniverse will spread enough that each identity becomes its own God, and with it, The Omniverse will behave much like a monotheistic God someday.

God neither is nor is not, it's becoming. That's how I prefer to frame this discussion.

 

[leroy]

I'll a This would have to be a deceptive intelligent designer capable of pulling off such an intricate deception, therefore, either a race of superhuman extraterrestrials or a deity.

I have presented this argument numerous times on RF and not received any feedback positive or negative from skeptic or believer. You're a philosopher. Do you find that argument valid? Do any other skeptics reading these words?


or.

Would you elaborate the argument? Why would the truth of the theory of evolution indicate a deceptive designer.? (I have seen many arguments around those lines, )

But yes, objectively speacking I would say that atheism (and non theism, naturalism and all related views) scored some points through the theory of evolution

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

But yes, objectively speacking I would say that atheism (and non theism, naturalism and all related views) scored some points through the theory of evolution

Evolution is how I know God exists.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Only Adam and His lineage can talk directly to God, because Adam is in charge of this world, thus the image of the beast must die. Adam can wield heavenly spirits and angels, with powers, and things His own.

 

[blü 2]

Sure, you think God exists. But do you see anything of merit in the arguments that he doesn't exist?

It seems clear to me that the only manner in which gods are known to exist is as concepts in individual brains, not as entities with objective existence.

To those who disagree, I ask yet again: what is a real God, such that if we find a real suspect we can determine whether it's God or not?

And while we're there, what is real "godness", the real quality a real god would have that a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time &c would lack?

Without clear answers to those questions, it (still) seems to me that to talk about a purportedly real God is to not know what you're talking about.

 

[Audie]

I think that if a person is particularly given to superstitious thinking, and there are lots of such people, they'd probably be better off as an atheist. I have met people that have mixed their excessively superstitious imagination with their faith in God and it almost never ends well. Frankly, they get pretty nutty.

I also think that there are theists who get really caught up in the idea of divine authority and righteousness, to the point of what looks to me like a full blown addiction. They literally have become addicted to the idea of divine righteousness and to the idea that they can and do somehow embody it, to the point of being seriously deranged and dangerous people. These folks NEED to let go of that whole authoritarian, good/evil absolutist theology and whatever God they get it from, for their own sanity and security, and for everyone else's.

So I guess I see God as being a little bit like alcohol. Most people can use it to good effect, and in reasoned moderation. Some people simply don't need or want it. And that's fine. But some people really need to put it down, and stay away from it. Because they simply cannot handle the powerful effects that it has on them.

Superstitious atheist would be one mixed up
dude.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure, you think God exists. But do you see anything of merit in the arguments that he doesn't exist?

Yes, the fact that there is no proof that God exists is a legitimate reason for atheists to disbelieve that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Theists don't think God exists. Thinking implies logic and critical analysis of verifiable evidence. Theists feel God exists, and often resist evidence and factual analysis.
It's called 'faith', as opposed to knowledge.

Some theists think that God exists after applying logic and critical analysis to the evidence.
Some theists feel that God exists without looking at any evidence or doing any analysis.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am not 100% sure, but I like thinking that God does exist, and since no one can know for sure, it's all up to belief. Belief is not necessarily fact.

I am 100% sure, but since there is no proof (verifiable evidence) that God exists my belief is not a fact.

 

[rational experiences]

We are all baby adults.

Father mother our origin authority didn't preach.

Brothers did...self idolator.

Based on his mind brain first changed by stars fall collision earth gained.

He's an adult authority. He taught he is all authority.

Yet he lied.

So humans who taught about God used terms unknown never realised no man is God for human reasons.

As men said believe in God by my authority so it's either false preached or owns versions in teaching.

Depends on the motivated human mans purpose.

So if explaining said cooling being what supports bio living was G O D in cell O motion. I wouldn't dispute it's importance.

However after being told no human ever knew the base substance creation once had been as it's now converted is what is non contestable.

It's false preachers a theist who tries to claim it was known and named GOD. When teaching said it was never known then taught what GOD meant in humans life.

Is what I learnt by not just accepting any other mutual baby human adults thinking...a life equal.

 

[rational experiences]

To reason.

Life human is now present.

So is all coldest highest positions.

Just a man thinks about space conditions owning the highest coldest and the evilest hottest.

Pretends a thesis equals now. His...yet only highest coldest protects biology.

If he however tried to copy we'd all be burnt to death was the human reasoned why no man is God ....and don't forget we're human in nature first.

Humans legal position enforced as past crime brothers the cult over took nature on earth and murdered everything. Abused everything.

And humans made their families first mutual equal life stand to reclaim nature of life on earth.

As all Rich men are hypocrites the consensus said and you have no say in our families legal proceedings...no man is God and life is present owned.

Not owner ship....I own my life.

As it's human scientists who said God built an ark and all nature emerged out of it. Wood he said a wooden body.

Past life attacked said men of science built the ark and life left 2 X 2....and most of it perished in the flood. Man prewarned he was causing the flood.

Law says the reason the heavens mass lifts water sheets off the ground is because burning gases fall and water mass evaporates to cool it.

How most biological nature was killed murdered under the scientists temple pyramid caused earth flood.

The truth life bio only lives inside of holy oxygenated stated water.....we have nothing to do with coloured gases or coloured minerals on the grounds body face.

Said life sacrificed by CH conditions of human man theisms. CH that arose thought of by man Theist scientist.

Teaching said coat of many colours theisms was never owned by the human father man our life.

G O D conditions highest Cooling maintained the existence of the human babies cell. In a stable atmospheric balance non nuclear. The reason of cold coloured gases or cold coloured minerals.

Places dust at its highest coldest separate status dusts with God minerals only.

Now if the lying theist men said all life is equal. He never would have been a human science theist.

Self idolator as a science theist rich men however did the science applications himself. The very reason why they were by science legally proclaimed life's murderers.

History recorded said so.

It's why men trying to control life burnt books.

 

[Brian2]

I'm going by the Genesis creation story and the biblical description of the Creator. We know that nothing like that happened unless we decide what is true by faith..

We decide what is true by faith whether we believe the Bible or not. It happened a long time ago and we weren't there.

I disagree. The Bible is clear that the six days of creation contained one sunrise and one sunset each, which fixes them as 245-hour time periods, and the seventh day is a day of rest as man is commanded to take by observing the sabbath, which is done once a literal week for an astronomical day. But that is just one error..

So that is one error that you make. The words "evening and morning" do not necessarily mean a sunrise and sunset and more than "day" means a 24 hour day.
Interestingly the 7th day is not said to have ended yet.
The use of the 7 day week and the 7th day sabbaths does not mean that the length of the creation days is 24 hours. These were not meant to be human days. Time for God is different and the 7 days just broke up 7 creation periods. In Genesis 2 the whole of the creation week is called a day.

The scientific idea is that biogenesis may have occurred to kick-start life in the cosmos. Unless one can show that that is false or impossible, the claim that it is possible necessarily true that it might be the answer. That might have happened..

It might have, but not necessarily.
If you want to make a claim that the Abrahamic God is ruled out then you should be able to prove it and not just say something might be the answer.

The god of the Christian Bible is said to have created the kinds ex nihilo.

Did you want to try to rebut my argument, that is, explain why my conclusion that the biblical god is ruled out is incorrect? If evolution is falsified, will the new paradigm not need to be a deceptive intelligent designer? If not, what other possibility exists consistent with what would be the facts - somebody went to a lot of bother to fool man that evolution had occurred, including arranging fossils in strata from deepest being radiometrically the oldest and least resembling modern forms into an evolving geological column, not to mention all of those nested hierarchies in taxonomy, embryology, biochemistry, and genetics.

And if that is the case, can that be the work of the biblical deity, who wants to be known, believed, loved, trusted, obeyed, and worshiped? Did that deity dissemble about what it really did when it dictated the Genesis creation myth? These are all rhetorical questions. The answers are self-evidently yes. Yes, the existing evidence for evolution established that either naturalistic evolution occurred, or a deceptive intelligent designer exists, and that that designer cannot be the biblical deity as described in scripture.

Remember, the claim stands unless it is successfully rebutted, and nothing that doesn't rule out the disputed claim can be called a rebuttal. I don't think it can be done, because I think the conclusion is correct, and by definition, correct claims cannot be successfully rebutted, that is, shown to be incorrect.

The God of the Bible is said to have created the universe ex nihilo. Then with the material that was created ex nihilo and which made it possible for things to be built, the other things were made and the different forms of life were made and created. (but not ex nihilo).
As I have said the long time periods is no problem in the Bible and evolution does not need to be discarded for God to have been responsible. Maybe it is the case that naturalistic evolution, as you call it, is not necessarily completely true and the deception is in science and for a start in the idea that everything happened or could have happened naturally without a creator and designer (something that has not been shown) and that science, humans, are even able to look into the past and say with certainty what and how things did happen.
So you and science have not shown that naturalistic evolution has to have been the way and as I said, the Bible can be read and be seen to be close to what science has found anyway and so the Bible cannot be ruled out that way. (an evolutionary frame work can be how God did it).
But as I said you are basing what you say on one possible interpretation of Genesis. If you do that then you can prove in your head that the Biblical God is not true, but basing on that one possible interpretation is just basing it on a straw man.
The thing about the Bible is that interpretations evolve over time as science discovers more about the creation and so about what God meant in the Bible. If the Bible is true then science cannot actually disprove the Bible and if people think science has done that then they probably have not done their homework about other interpretations and/or have been deceived into thinking that the naturalistic explanations of science are correct and that humans have the power to look into the past and know how things happened etc.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Even during the darkest years of my life, when I had almost no faith in anything at all, I wasn’t an atheist. I always felt there was something that lay beyond reason.

All the convincing, carefully constructed atheist arguments that I have heard, and which are often repeated with great articulacy, fail to reach me because they are entirely cerebral; and our experience of reality, of the world and of each other, is not entirely cerebral.

We are formed of mind, body and spirit; the ego, which dwells in the mind, often drowns out with it’s incessant clamour, the voice of the spirit. But if we pay no attention to the spirit, if we attend only to the demands of the body and the chatter of the mind, we are like a two legged stool, unbalanced. Put another way, if we perceive the world only through mind and body, we see only in two dimensions, and our vision necessarily lacks depth.

 

[DNB]

Sure, you think God exists. But do you see anything of merit in the arguments that he doesn't exist?

Of course, ...but that's by design - God deliberately left ambiguity and antithesis in His creation in order to expose the cynics and defiant, and weed out the insightful and good hearted.
Natural disasters and gratuitous suffering will cause anyone to question, if not the existence, but the nature, of the Creator. But, life is short as is our memories, and an eternity of wisdom and peace, and honour to the sufferers, puts life on this earth into a more understandable perspective - we are all guilty of not loving one another as we should, and paying reverence to our Creator. All of us are living on borrowed time - the fact that there's any providence from God at all is amazing..

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Would you elaborate the argument? Why would the truth of the theory of evolution indicate a deceptive designer.? (I have seen many arguments around those lines, )

The apparent truth of the theory does not indicate that there is a deceptive designer. It suggests that the theory is probably correct.

It's the evidence presently supporting the theory were it ever overturned by a falsifying find that points the finger to a deceptive designer. Picture that the theory were disproved today. What happened in the past if not evolution? There must have been an intelligent designer. What other possibility would remain? Then why was world set up to look like naturalistic evolution had occurred? It must have been an intelligent designer that wanted us to believe that evolution occurred rather than that it set up the world to look like it had. That can't be the god of the Christian Bible, but it can be a deceptive god, one that lies, like Loki or Satan. Or a race of deceptive extraterrestrials.

Evolution is how I know God exists.

Except that evolution doesn't require a god. Evolution is how we know evolution occurred, not why.

So you're post-Baha'i now? I think I read Baha'i a day or two ago. What happened?

We decide what is true by faith whether we believe the Bible or not.

That's different definition of truth than the one I use. Faith is not a path to truth. You could just as easily choose the opposite and believe that that is the truth using faith.

The use of the 7 day week and the 7th day sabbaths does not mean that the length of the creation days is 24 hours. These were not meant to be human days.

I think they were, and there is no evidence that they weren't. Occam says the simplest explanation that unifies all relevant observations is the preferred working model until new evidence arises not accounted for necessitating a modification in the narrative to generate a new simplest narrative, now necessarily a little more complex.

Are you familiar with Sagan's dragon in his garage? There is no dragon, but he believes there is. When you ask why you can't see it, he explains that it is invisible. When you suggest putting flour on the floor to record its footprints, he explains that it floats. It you suggest using infrared to detect its heat, he explains that this dragon is the heatless variety. Do you believe him? If not, why not? Occam's razor. The simplest explanation that ties all of these findings together - invisible, doesn't touch the floor, generates no heat - is that it doesn't exist, and is the preferred conclusion pending new evidence suggesting otherwise.

Every time science adds new evidence, the creationist apologists add another layer of complexity to their explanation as to why the account might still be correct if one just assumes these dozen facts not in evidence. So you get this equivalent of the dragon apologetics: Creation didn't occur in six days. That's because a day wasn't a day. But these days had an evening and a morning. Those weren't actual evenings and mornings. But the day of rest is a literal day. That's because ... How about because the story is an error like every other non-scientific creation story?

"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense・- Edward Abbey

If you want to make a claim that the Abrahamic God is ruled out then you should be able to prove it and not just say something might be the answer.

My claim that naturalistic abiogenesis may have occurred was not part of my argument that the god of the Christian Bible is ruled out by the evidence supporting evolution.

But as I said you are basing what you say on one possible interpretation of Genesis

I'm going by what the words say, and my understanding of human nature. I see no reason to change the meanings of the words. I don't need them to comport with the latest science. Only the believer needs to do that.

The thing about the Bible is that interpretations evolve over time as science discovers more about the creation

Yes, I agree. The scientific explanations are the gold standard for belief. Do you understand that that is what your comment implies? Scripture has no fixed meaning unless one takes the words at face value. It says nothing at all if the meaning of those words can be changed ad hoc.

Of course, ...but that's by design - God deliberately left ambiguity and antithesis in His creation in order to expose the cynics and defiant, and weed out the insightful and good hearted.

This came along just in time. Some more just-so apologetics. You are asking others to believe that an entity that can create universes containing reasoning creatures that it wants to know and love it did that. Occam has a more parsimonious suggestion: this deity doesn't exist. That's the preferred working hypothesis outside the world of belief by faith, where apparently mental gymnastics is preferred to simplicity. God wants us to know and love him. Then why is there ambiguity and antithesis in his creation? To expose the cynics and defiant. Why would he do that? Doesn't he know who they are? He does it by design. Why? To weed out the insightful and good-hearted. [Walks away]

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Except that evolution doesn't require a god. Evolution is how we know evolution occurred, not why.

Why are we evolving? To become God.

So you're post-Baha'i now? I think I read Baha'i a day or two ago. What happened?

You read wrong. It's been post-Baha'i for awhile. Read my journal Brain Droppings for more information. A link is inside my signature. I'm still Exaltist, Syntheist, Pantheist, Cultural Omnist, etc, but I realized those aren't religions but rather religious positions, and I want to associate myself not just with positions about religion but religion itself, so I decided to call myself post-Baha'i as they as a religion are probably closest to my beliefs.