Why don’t you believe in God?

[Rival]

Did I say I reject them?
As to faith, yes duh, I don't believe in faith as a useful term in understanding reality.
It certainly exists, but it's utility is questionable.

.... that is literally a phrase.

It's a phrase people use.

 

[Pogo]

Did I say I reject them?
As to faith, yes duh, I don't believe in faith as a useful term in understanding reality.
It certainly exists, but it's utility is questionable.

Maybe the question should be; Do you have anything that you can show me that does not require my faith in it to support your claim as a theist?

 

[Rival]

Maybe the question should be; Do you have anything that you can show me that does not require my faith in it to support your claim as a theist?

Do you realize 'arguing in good faith' has nothing to do with 'faith' as a religious term and is a phrase everyone uses?

Come on brother.

 

[Pogo]

.... that is literally a phrase.

It's a phrase people use.

Yes it is a phrase, it is a conjunction of several English words, do you have an explanation, counterargument, reason to question it?

 

[Rival]

Yes it is a phrase, it is a conjunction of several English words, do you have an explanation, counterargument, reason to question it?

Wtf are you talking about?

 

[Pogo]

See above.

if you reject all those, you don't seem to be arguing in good faith.

OOH, what is good faith?

 

[Pogo]

Wtf are you talking about?

We are up to WTF without you being able to explain what you are talking about which I assume is still "why theism"?

 

[Rival]

We are up to WTF without you being able to explain what you are talking about which I assume is still "why theism"?

Because that's not the OP.

The OP is why don't you believe in God.

I don't need to defend my premise.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know what you're talking about at all?

This is not some competition.

Sometimes trying to understand what someone is saying is a daunting prospect.

 

[Pogo]

Because that's not the OP.

The OP is why don't you believe in God.

I don't need to defend my premise.

What is your premise? This is about why people don't believe in a god, you have only offered some of the many reasons that we don"t.

 

[Rival]

What is your premise? This is about why people don't believe in a god, you have only offered some of the many reasons that we don"t.

What? No, I haven't.

Are you actually following this thread?

You seem very confused.

 

[Pogo]

What? No, I haven't.

Are you actually following this thread?

You seem very confused.

Well if your premise is that god's don't exist and you are presenting reasons that this is obvious, if not, I will admit to confusion. /s

 

[Rival]

Well if your premise is that god's don't exist and you are presenting reasons that this is obvious, if not, I will admit to confusion. /s

No, I'm a theist.

Did you read my posts?

 

[Pogo]

No, I'm a theist.

Did you read my posts?

Last response, google " /s"

 

[Rival]

Last response, google " /s"

So why are you acting like you have no idea what's going on?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I'm a theist.

Did you read my posts?

At a certain point, there IS no point. the expression could be 'fruitless...' Thank you for your posts. I'm kind of finished answering certain types of questions. Just for you to understand. My "position" on the matter.

 

[blü 2]

You were the one who said people are theists because of their culture, not me. That's not my position.

I don't consider theism 'necessary'. I am a theist because I believe it makes the most sense.

By the way, this thread is not about theists, it's about non-theists. I wonder where they come from if culture is so theistic....

I came from a mildly theistic background. I set out an outline >here<.

 

[paarsurrey]

I came from a mildly theistic background. I set out an outline >here<.

" >here< "
Many or most , if not all (Pauline) Christianity people are like that, right?

Regards

 

[blü 2]

" >here< "
Many or most , if not all (Pauline) Christianity people are like that, right?

Regards

I'm not in a position to comment on how things are these days, since I only encounter the odd rare example at a funeral ─ it's been a while since I attended a wedding.

But I had no reason to doubt the sincerity of the people active in the church in my childhood. As I mentioned, except for my burst of confirmation enthusiasm, I mainly remember my disconnection.

 

[Copernicus]

Of course you don't believe in these things. You would have no reason to believe these things unless you believed in a religion that teaches them.
I don't believe that the physical body and the material world are all that exists since my religion teaches otherwise. It is just as ludicrous for me to believe that this is all there is as it is for you to believe there is something more than this.

This has nothing to do with what some arbitrary religious doctrine proclaims to be the truth. There is ample reason to believe that every mental activity we know of corresponds to physical brain activity. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that brain activity causes those activities, because it waxes and wanes according to changes in brain activity. If there were disembodied spirits that interacted with physical reality, then we should be able to detect them from physical activity, but we simply don't. In this case, lack of evidence really does look like evidence of lack.

I understand that you view the nature of reality as physical with nothing beyond the physical, but what does that have to do with what would be evidence for God if God existed. What I am asking is what would constitute evidence that would be sufficient for you to believe God exists. What would convince you? Presumably, the evidence would have to come from God. What evidence would God have to provide for you to believe He exists?

Some concrete verifiable evidence of interaction between a disembodied spirit like a god (or any disembodied spirit) and physical events. Given the attributes and powers attributable to the Abrahamic God, it would be trivial for God to provide evidence. After all, Abrahamic-inspired holy scripture is full of reports of such evidence, but why would we not observe similar miraculous events in modern times?

Do you really think anyone knows how the universe works? I certainly do not claim to know.

I think that physicists and other scientists do a much better job of explaining its workings than laypersons like us. Nobody really expects you to know more, or even as much as, scientists about how the universe works.

I am not making an ad populum argument since I am not saying that God exists is true because many or most people believe that God exists. I am just trying to be logical. It makes no logical sense that most people would believe in God if there had never been any evidence for God's existence. Why would they believe? What would they have to base their beliefs upon? The fact that many or most people believe that God exists is true does not mean that God exists is true, which is the ad populum fallacy, but it also does not mean that God exists is false. The proposition "God exists" could be true or false.

I have put in boldface the point at which you stop denying ad populum arguments and suddenly declare them logically valid. You claim you are not making an ad populum argument. Then you say you are trying to be "logical". Then you say that what most people believe should be trusted because it makes "logical sense". Despite your denial, you are actually making an ad populum argument.

I don't know what you mean by existential claims. If you mean religious claims I don't think it is possible to 'prove' that they are true. All we have is evidence but evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence, but how could God ever be verified?

Any claim that something exists is an existential claim, so the claim that God exists is an existential claim. Unless I misunderstand you, you admit that there can be no verifiable evidence that God exists. If that is the case, then I see no reason to believe that God exists.

Moreover, since all people view the evidence differently, not everyone will be convinced by the evidence.

Right, but so what? Not everyone wants to be convinced by the evidence, and people are prone to wishful thinking.

I understand, so you have tried diligently to find the evidence and came up with nothing? Where have you looked?

When I publish my 25-tome autobiography, I will send you a complimentary copy of the volume that details all of the places I've looked. Meanwhile, you should just take everything I say as gospel truth. Seriously, though, that kind of question can't be answered in any practical way.

I do not take anything for-granted. It is not an assumption it is a belief and I have a basis for my belief. I do believe that spirits exist in a spiritual world that is beyond this world and I do not only believe that because of my religion. I believe that mediums have been able to contact spirits and they have evidential support for their claims. There is evidence for spirits but I don't see how there could be evidence against them. Even if many mediums are fraudulent that does not mean that all mediums are fraudulent. The same applies to religious claims. Just because some religious claims are false that does not mean all religious claims are false.

Fair enough. That's pretty much what I thought you believed. I have no experiences to corroborate such claims, so I remain a skeptic.