Why don’t you believe in God?

[Twilight Hue]

You’ve spoken of God that you’ve talked to back then but what about his “son”? Did you ever try talking to him? I’m not talking about Jesus I’m talking about a real live human Being on earth whom I believe makes all of existence possible.

I don't think of God in that way anymore. Either through Christianity or any real person.

Its far more abstract for me as I feel and guess that our existence involves a continuum.

 

[Copernicus]

No, because science cannot explain a lot of natural phenomena, yet I still trust the methodology it uses to explain what it does explain. I don't believe in God for the same reason that you don't believe in other mythological beings such as leprechauns. You don't believe in leprechauns do you? If not, why not? What would convince you of their existence?

Replace the word explain with detect like @Revoltingest did if that’ll help ya.
I’m just a simpleton who uses simple language.

I never took you for anything other than that, but you dodged the important question. What makes you reject belief in leprechauns? I'm not trying to belittle your faith in God. We both reject belief in leprechauns. I'm trying to understand what would convince you that leprechauns existed. Would you just require evidence for their existence? If so, then why not require it for God?

No, because science cannot explain a lot of natural phenomena, yet I still trust the methodology it uses to explain what it does explain. I don't believe in God for the same reason that you don't believe in other mythological beings such as leprechauns. You don't believe in leprechauns do you? If not, why not? What would convince you of their existence?

So What you’re saying is you need evidence?

Do you have evidence that leprechauns do not exist? Is that why you reject belief in them? I'm really trying to understand where your natural skepticism ends--a skepticism that we both possess regarding mythical beings--and what overcomes a skepticism of the existence of God.

You came here with a challenge--that those of us who don't believe explain why we don't believe. I think we have common ground on skepticism of mythical beings. If I understood where we don't have common ground on skepticism of God, then I would have a better understanding of how to explain my skepticism.

 

[Jimmy]

I never took you for anything other than that, but you dodged the important question. What makes you reject belief in leprechauns? I'm not trying to belittle your faith in God. We both reject belief in leprechauns. I'm trying to understand what would convince you that leprechauns existed. Would you just require evidence for their existence? If so, then why not require it for God?



Do you have evidence that leprechauns do not exist? Is that why you reject belief in them? I'm really trying to understand where your natural skepticism ends--a skepticism that we both possess regarding mythical beings--and what overcomes a skepticism of the existence of God.

You came here with a challenge--that those of us who don't believe explain why we don't believe. I think we have common ground on skepticism of mythical beings. If I understood where we don't have common ground on skepticism of God, then I would have a better understanding of how to explain my skepticism.

I don’t know what you’re talking about to be honest with you

 

[Copernicus]

I don’t know what you’re talking about to be honest with you

It's really quite simple:

1) Do you believe in the existence of leprechauns?
2) If no, then what would you need to make you overcome your skepticism in leprechauns?

I am assuming that you would answer "no" to the first question, but you can correct me, if I'm wrong. The second question is the interesting one, because it would help me to tell you why I don't believe in God.

 

[Vinayaka]

Hopefully it will get simpler for you.

Oh, it's simple for me. I meant complicated question for humanity, due to the fact that many can't accept a diversity of the concept, and maintain their version is correct. That makes discussions challenging because it can be about 2 very differing concepts.

 

[Jimmy]

It's really quite simple:

1) Do you believe in the existence of leprechauns?
2) If no, then what would you need to make you overcome your skepticism in leprechauns?

I am assuming that you would answer "no" to the first question, but you can correct me, if I'm wrong. The second question is the interesting one, because it would help me to tell you why I don't believe in God.

I got faith in ya. I think you’ll be able to answer it without my leprechaun input.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is it because of your inability to believe in anything that can’t be explained by science?

No...I believe in justice, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense scientifically, really.
Gods are more confusing. So many people believe in them, yet differ on what they even think they are, or what role they play in our lives. I've never seen anything that required a god, and if I was to guess what god wanted me to live like, it would be a complete guess, given that he's never told me. So I live as if there are no gods, and I don't think there are gods. At the end of the day, of course, I can't know that to be true.

 

[Jimmy]

No...I believe in justice, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense scientifically, really.
Gods are more confusing. So many people believe in them, yet differ on what they even think they are, or what role they play in our lives. I've never seen anything that required a god, and if I was to guess what god wanted me to live like, it would be a complete guess, given that he's never told me. So I live as if there are no gods, and I don't think there are gods. At the end of the day, of course, I can't know that to be true.

Who cares what other people think.

 

[F1fan]

Who cares what other people think.

Then why start this thread?

 

[Jimmy]

Then why start this thread?

I don’t understand

 

[blü 2]

Is it because of your inability to believe in anything that can’t be explained by science?

The first problem ─ though I admit it took me a while to recognize it ─ is that God has no definition appropriate to a real being. That's to say, if we found a real suspect, there's no objective test that would determine whether this was God or not. Instead, God is defined in imaginary terms such as omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, eternal, perfect &c &c. There's even the apophatic school of thought, which seeks to define God solely by what God is not.

Part of that problem is that there's likewise no meaningful definition of "godness", the quality a real God would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c would lack.

Another major problem is that the only way God ─ and gods ─ are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains, very usually due to acculturation rather than demonstration.

Part of this latter problem is that God never appears, never says, never does; is said to be all-wise and yet the creator of this world and all its problems; is said to be benevolent but does nothing when the child drowns in the swimming pool or Hitler sets out to exterminate the Jewish population, or Putin invades Ukraine. If this is God's plan for the world, then [he] can, as they say, stick it.

A third problem is that we haven't found a single case of a culture anywhere in the world or its forests, tundras and jungles, that lacks some or other supernatural beliefs ─ and yet there's no similarity between those beliefs. If a supernatural world existed independently of human imaginings, surely they should agree on the basics, as to what, who, why &c ... but they don't. They inherit them instead from their culture and from cultures that influence their culture.

This makes it reasonable to wonder why this happens. One proposed answer is that the human brain ─ probably with parallels in other mammalian brains ─ defends itself by constantly and instantly proposing scenarios to account for sensory input, and modifying them as further information is perceived, but always and automatically requiring an explanation. Gods (&c) may therefore be a natural byproduct of this, not least back when things like thunder and lightning, eclipses, meteors, plague, drought, good and bad luck in hunting, war, love, were otherwise unexplained ─ with the additional benefit of being able to do something about these missing explanations. Religions are of course frequently part of tribal identity, along with language, customs, stories, territory, &c, since humans are gregarious and benefit greatly from their ability to act cooperatively.

 

[F1fan]

I respect other peoples viewpoints.

Who cares what other people think.

No wonder you don't understand.

 

[Jimmy]

No wonder you don't understand.

I’m perplexed

 

[Jimmy]

The first problem ─ though I admit it took me a while to recognize it ─ is that God has no definition appropriate to a real being. That's to say, if we found a real suspect, there's no objective test that would determine whether this was God or not. Instead, God is defined in imaginary terms such as omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, eternal, perfect &c &c. There's even the apophatic school of thought, which seeks to define God solely by what God is not.

Part of that problem is that there's likewise no meaningful definition of "godness", the quality a real God would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c would lack.

Another major problem is that the only way God ─ and gods ─ are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains, very usually due to acculturation rather than demonstration.

Part of this latter problem is that God never appears, never says, never does; is said to be all-wise and yet the creator of this world and all its problems; is said to be benevolent but does nothing when the child drowns in the swimming pool or Hitler sets out to exterminate the Jewish population, or Putin invades Ukraine. If this is God's plan for the world, then [he] can, as they say, stick it.

A third problem is that we haven't found a single case of a culture anywhere in the world or its forests, tundras and jungles, that lacks some or other supernatural beliefs ─ and yet there's no similarity between those beliefs. If a supernatural world existed independently of human imaginings, surely they should agree on the basics, as to what, who, why &c ... but they don't. They inherit them instead from their culture and from cultures that influence their culture.

This makes it reasonable to wonder why this happens. One proposed answer is that the human brain ─ probably with parallels in other mammalian brains ─ defends itself by constantly and instantly proposing scenarios to account for sensory input, and modifying them as further information is perceived, but always and automatically requiring an explanation. Gods (&c) may therefore be a natural byproduct of this, not least back when things like thunder and lightning, eclipses, meteors, plague, drought, good and bad luck in hunting, war, love, were otherwise unexplained ─ with the additional benefit of being able to do something about these missing explanations. Religions are of course frequently part of tribal identity, along with language, customs, stories, territory, &c, since humans are gregarious and benefit greatly from their ability to act cooperatively.

I’m sorry you have such a negative outlook towards the big dog.

 

[blü 2]

I’m sorry you have such a negative outlook towards the big dog.

Ahm, why?

 

[Jimmy]

Ahm, why?

Ok I’m not sorry

 

[blü 2]

Ok I’m not sorry

I thought about what you asked and said.

Perhaps you'll think about what I said. Of course when one's defending a position, one tends to think in terms only of winning the debate. On this occasion, perhaps you might like to wonder if what I said is accurate, and if not, why not.

That's how I learnt quite a lot, so I put it on the table for your consideration.

 

[Nakosis]

So why do you lack a leaf in God?. is it because you need evidence?

I don't see a belief in God as practical. I'd need to get some benefit or advantage from such a belief. There is just no practical reason to believe anything about a God. IOW, life works out for me fine without any beliefs about a God.

If there was some practical reason for such a belief, i.e. benefit to the belief then I wouldn't be worry about the evidence.

Otherwise, yeah I'd need to be dragged into belief by some evidence I couldn't refute.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Who cares what other people think.

Well...you, I guess. Or I'm confused by this thread.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, just that it falls into the category linguistically and evidentially with pixies and monsters under the bed that are not worth spending time on to contemplate disbelief.

How much time do you spend on pixie forums?