Theists: Are there good reasons not to believe?

[vulcanlogician]

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

 

[The Hammer]

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

I don't see why I should care one way or the other, what another believes.

 

[syo]

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

Why? Gods are deist anyway.

 

[Eddi]

But do you see anything of merit in the arguments that he doesn't exist?

Yes

I used some of them myself for many years back in my Atheist days

 

[Windwalker]

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

Most of the arguments that God doesn't exist, are things I don't believe about God anyway. But I do consider those good arguments against that particular idea of God. I don't consider those something to believe in myself. I just don't consider them to be talking to what God is though, just as simply talking to certain ideas about God.

 

[sun rise]

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

As a former atheist son of atheist parents, religion was for other people not us. It's wasn't an argument against but just an unspoken conclusion.

It's not a quote about the value of the arguments but a statement I agree with.

"People of all beliefs were introduced to Meher Baba. Kumar brought an atheist to whom Baba stated:

Everyone is an atheist until he finds God by actual experience. It is better to be an atheist and be honest in words and deeds than to pose as a lover of God and lead a dishonest life. God is completely independent. He needs no worship. He only wants us to be honest."

 

[PureX]

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

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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

I'll answer as a humanist. There is no more merit in arguing that non-interventionalist gods don't exist than that leprechauns don't exist. All one can say in either case is that there is no reason to believe either exist, but no argument, discovery, algorithm, experiment, etc.. can rule either out, so we say that we don't believe but remain agnostic, ready to evaluate new, relevant evidence critically. There is no cost to the humanist to say that about either gods or leprechauns, he will be correct if he does, and will be called an agnostic atheist.

But you wrote God, not gods and not non-interventionalist gods. Some gods can be ruled out, depending on how much description of them is provided. The Abrahamic god is one such god. One can say with certitude that that god does not exist, and that if any god exists, it is not that one. Besides being logically impossible in the sense that married bachelors are (pure reason), that god has who been ruled out empirically by the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. The theory cannot rule out an intelligent designer for earth, but even if falsified, it rules out an honest designer. 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?

I don't see why I should care one way or the other, what another believes.

Agreed. Me neither. But that wasn't what was asked. Do you find merit in the claim that gods do not or cannot exist? Probably not, although you may think that monotheist gods are impossible if you believe your gods are a natural product of nature and not its author.

 

[danieldemol]

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

Sure. For me it seems perfectly rational or logical to disbelieve in the existence of God/(s).

But having come to that conclusion dont expect me to behave logically or rationally. I am human after all, and not all humans are perfectly logical or rational.

So I still believe in a God.

In my opinion.

 

[The Hammer]

Agreed. Me neither. But that wasn't what was asked.

Do you find merit in the claim that gods do not or cannot exist? Probably not, although you may think that monotheist gods are impossible if you believe your gods are a natural product of nature and not its author.

Yeah basically the latter. The monotheist omnimax deity doesn't make much sense to me. But I wouldn't tell another person they were wrong for believing so. (Well, although I think the Gods are naturalistic, they're also Creation Authors in their own right).

 

[Brian2]

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

Some of the arguments which touch on things which a believer may have questions about themselves do bring up those questions again and subsequent doubts.
They also can cause a believer to seek deeper for answers.

 

[dybmh]

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

yes, but it's good. now when I make a leap of faith, I'm more aware of it. it's in those leaps that the magic happens. being aware enhances the experience.

 

[Brian2]

But you wrote God, not gods and not non-interventionalist gods. Some gods can be ruled out, depending on how much description of them is provided. The Abrahamic god is one such god. One can say with certitude that that god does not exist, and that if any god exists, it is not that one. Besides being logically impossible in the sense that married bachelors are (pure reason), that god has who been ruled out empirically by the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. The theory cannot rule out an intelligent designer for earth, but even if falsified, it rules out an honest designer. 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?

To say that about the Abrahamic God and evolution sounds as if you have in mind only one possible interpretation of what the Bible tells us about creation.
Certainly the days of creation can be long periods of time.
Certainly scientific ideas about how life began are not necessarily true.
Certainly the Biblical account can be read meaningfully with evolution in mind to show that it can fit that paradigm.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

Yes. When the arguments are good they help in an apophatic way. Think of it as carving away material from a sculpture. If you presume God is blue and then prove that a blue God can't exist you have apophatically demonstrated that God is not blue.

 

[Valjean]

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

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.

 

[exchemist]

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

I should imagine that anyone who is not 100% sure, which must include most people loosely described as "theists", will see some merit in such arguments. I rather dislike the term "theist" as it suggest somebody who belongs to a tribe, as if one can divide the world neatly into two opposing tribes of "theists" and "atheists". I don't believe real life is like that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To say that about the Abrahamic God and evolution sounds as if you have in mind only one possible interpretation of what the Bible tells us about creation.

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.

Certainly the days of creation can be long periods of time.

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.

Certainly scientific ideas about how life began are not necessarily true.

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.

Certainly the Biblical account can be read meaningfully with evolution in mind to show that it can fit that paradigm.

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.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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

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.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

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

 

[icehorse]

I'll answer as a humanist. There is no more merit in arguing that non-interventionalist gods don't exist than that leprechauns don't exist. All one can say in either case is that there is no reason to believe either exist, but no argument, discovery, algorithm, experiment, etc.. can rule either out, so we say that we don't believe but remain agnostic, ready to evaluate new, relevant evidence critically. There is no cost to the humanist to say that about either gods or leprechauns, he will be correct if he does, and will be called an agnostic atheist.

very well put.

But you wrote God, not gods and not non-interventionalist gods. Some gods can be ruled out, depending on how much description of them is provided. The Abrahamic god is one such god. One can say with certitude that that god does not exist, and that if any god exists, it is not that one. Besides being logically impossible in the sense that married bachelors are (pure reason), that god has who been ruled out empirically by the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. The theory cannot rule out an intelligent designer for earth, but even if falsified, it rules out an honest designer. 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.

We have both experienced how the faithful find endless ways to dodge rigorous, logical, honest debates on this topic. Given that, I would say that the claims in your 2nd paragraph are harder to prove because they require the participation of the faithful.