Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[osgart]

I haven't and presumably you haven't, but how do you know no one has? It can't be known either way.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a supernatural event when the natural world has always run according to natural laws.

Besides believing in god sounds like a bet, or a game moreso than something provable.

Life isn't a very brilliant design. Life is something that struggles to exist in the physical world. Technology has enabled the conveniences we all enjoy, and has provided life with reliable living conditions. I can't possibly attribute all that to a God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I've been there. Tunneling out of faith was a major effort for me. I remember that year well, praying to a god I no longer believed in to show me a sign if I was mistaken..

It's not like that for me.
I still believe in God .. have done for a very long time.
My problem is acting on my faith, as I am unwell.

Faith rises and falls .. the best position is to have a strong faith, and acting on it. That is my experience in life.

 

[Colt]

No, that is not my concept of God... That is rather silly idea.
Besides, why would God save us from the very same unpleasant situations that are part of His design?

Agreed.

Why do you think that matters? Every empiricist knows that, and yet still believes that could have happened and probably did.



That's an incredulity fallacy and a Texas sharpshooter fallacy. The latter is placing excessive emphasis on a few select data, the former thinking that what one finds believable defines what is true. As has already been pointed out, it can be argued that there is too much unnecessary and useless suffering in the world to believe a good god oversees our lives. Consider all of the data, and your claim weakens.



That's not a good thing for people of faith. If you've got one crackpot calling an idea incoherent, you can safely dismiss him. When you have a community of intelligent, educated critical thinkers in agreement that an idea is incoherent, and you accept it anyway, that's not so good.



I just finished reviewing the idea of restricted choice to Trailblazer (bottom of Legitimate reasons not to believe in God). It discusses all of the ways that this deity imitates its own nonexistence. This is another. In a universe with a god, there might be clear evidence of the suspension of the laws of nature, but in a godless universe, that doesn't happen.



And here's another. Of course this is hyperbole. As best we can tell, this god intervenes in NO unpleasant situations. In a universe with a god, that might not be the case, but in a godless universe, of course no god is intervening. Did you read the part of the argument referring to the coin flip? We've got about eighty tails in a row now. Isn't it time to start to wonder if the coin is loaded (the universe is godless)?

[This theme is continued in the next post with Trailblazer]

If you ever find God in spirit, then you will understand the explanations of those who have. Until then it won't make sense to you. "A one-eyed person can never hope to visualize depth of perspective."

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I saw a ghost when I was 16 or 17. I woke up in my room and a woman with her hair in a bun was crouching near my bed, and I as I looked she slowly faded away.

Thank you for sharing your experience with me. I appreciate it. I was six years old when I saw my first spirit. It was an elderly man dressed like an old train engineer (similar to the man in this picture here), and he was standing by the door in my bedroom. I didn't think much of it and thought I was dreaming until a few months later, when my aunt took me and my cousins to the newly opened county museum for the first time. I saw a picture of this elderly man hanging on the wall in a display about the history of the railroad in our county. In the picture, he was standing in the middle of two other men who were executives for the railroad. We were told that many of the pictures and artifacts had been donated by locals. The picture that my aunt and I were looking at with the old man was donated and mailed to the museum by a local family that had moved out of state. I remember thinking that was really weird because I thought I had dreamed about the old man, but I had never seen the picture before. I eventually realized that it was not a dream, but not until I started seeing strange people dressed in attire that was definitely not from my historical period (which was the early 80s).

Not only was I seeing these strange people who were not dressed in the attire of the time, but I could see through them and I could hear them talking too. For the record, I went back to my hometown in the summer of 2009, and I researched the house where I had lived and had seen the spirit of the elderly man. I found out in my research that he and his wife were the second owners of the house, and they had lived there in the early 1940s. He suffered a heart attack and died in the house in March of 1944. I only saw his spirit one time in the house. He smiled and waved before he turned around and walked right through the door. I never saw him again after that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Optimistic for you, not for everyone, @Trailblazer.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, that is the beauty of free will...
Proving it is true is another matter.

The atheists are right: You believe hat you believe because Baha'u'llah said so and because it is emotionally appealing.
Not that there is anything wrong with that but it is good to know why we believe what we believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, but consider this:

2. O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

If you endevour to see things with the eyes of justice, you have a better chance of finding the truth of the matter.

But everyone has their own personal opinion as to what is the truth of the matter.

That Hidden Word says that by the aid of Justice (that is, if we are just) we will see through our own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and we will know through our own knowledge and not through the knowledge of others.

In other words, we all have to look through our own eyes at the knowledge we have, "our own knowledge."

 

[Trailblazer]

Fine for you, but not for me. My religion doesn't impose on me a concept of God, I investigated and confirmed it.

By concept I suppose you are referring to the attributes of God? These attributes cannot be investigated and confirmed, they can only be believed. You believe that God has certain attributes because Baha'ullah said so but you cannot confirm that God has these attributes. Nobody can.

 

[Trailblazer]

In a way suffering is a good thing, it means we are not dead.

But some of us wish we were dead so we could escape the endless suffering.

I believe the reason for suffering is that people wanted to know evil. That is why we were expelled to this first death, where we can experience also suffering. But luckily this is only a short lesson, and those who become righteous, can have eternal life with God, without any suffering.

I believe that the reason for suffering is because God created a material world in which we have to live, and the material world is what causes most suffering. Therefore God is the cause of most suffering. Other suffering comes upon us because of bad choices we make for which we are responsible since we have free will, but even those choices can be traced back to God, since they are caused by nature and nurture, and we have no control over those.

“O thou seeker of the Kingdom! Thy letter was received. Thou hast written of the severe calamity that hath befallen thee—the death of thy respected husband. That honourable man hath been so subjected to the stress and strain of this world that his greatest wish was for deliverance from it. Such is this mortal abode: a storehouse of afflictions and suffering. It is ignorance that binds man to it, for no comfort can be secured by any soul in this world, from monarch down to the most humble commoner. If once this life should offer a man a sweet cup, a hundred bitter ones will follow; such is the condition of this world. The wise man, therefore, doth not attach himself to this mortal life and doth not depend upon it; at some moments, even, he eagerly wisheth for death that he may thereby be freed from these sorrows and afflictions. Thus it is seen that some, under extreme pressure of anguish, have committed suicide.”
Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 200

Let’s look at some of these statements:

Such is this mortal abode: a storehouse of afflictions and suffering. It is ignorance that binds man to it, for no comfort can be secured by any soul in this world, from monarch down to the most humble commoner. If once this life should offer a man a sweet cup, a hundred bitter ones will follow; such is the condition of this world.

Well, that is just not entirely true, because first, we are bound to it because we have to live in it; and second, comfort is indeed secured for many people, just not for others. I agree that for every sweet cup a bitter one will follow, but not a hundred bitter ones. Clearly, suffering is very unevenly distributed, so many people have mostly sweet cups and very few bitter cups, whereas other people have mostly bitter cups and very few sweet cups. I guess he was just trying to drive home his point that this world is a storehouse of suffering, but I do not think it is right to say things that are not actually true.

The wise man, therefore, doth not attach himself to this mortal life and doth not depend upon it; at some moments, even, he eagerly wisheth for death that he may thereby be freed from these sorrows and afflictions. Thus it is seen that some, under extreme pressure of anguish, have committed suicide.

But even if we do not attach ourselves to this world or depend upon it, we have to live in it, and for some of us it is torturous much of the time, through no fault of our own. Free will is very limited to change many things so they have to be endured. I agree that we only have to endure this material existence for a relatively short time, compared to an eternity in heaven which lasts forever, but suffering is still suffering, and a lifetime of suffering can feel very long.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not just no "proof". There's also no evidence.

I was waiting for that, but of course we have been around this merry-go-round many times before.
What I consider to be evidence you do not see as evidence. It really is all a matter of personal opinion.

I don't consider that a valid reason. Maybe god likes suffering.

You have a valid point there. God likes suffering. Logically speaking, if God did not like suffering He would not have created a world in which he knew people would suffer, a world in which suffering is unavoidable. An omnipotent/omniscient God could have created this world any way He wanted to, without the need for suffering, but suffering was built into His design, and that means God wants people to suffer.

There is only one parameter that serves as justification to believe in X, and that is evidence of X.
But for evidence to even be able to exist, one requires a model that makes testable predictions.

Data fitting those predictions would be evidence for the proposition.
Data contradicting those predictions would be evidence against the proposition.

Without testable predictions, data is just data and not evidence for OR against.

There is evidence but it is not testable. Although some theists will argue that it is testable by their personal standards of testing, that is not universal proof of God, it is only proof to those people..

Since there is no testable model for any gods, evidence by definition can't exist.
For me, it really is that simple.

I'll also add that the proposition is backwards.
I don't require "reasons" to NOT believe something.
Instead, I require "reasons" to believe something.

That is correct. We all need a reason to believe, even theists have a reason why they believe. YOU would not believe for their reasons but their reasons are valid for them.

My default position about anything is a state of disbelief.
I require reasons to move from disbelief to belief.

As you should. Otherwise agnosticism - "I don't know if God exists" - is the default position.

My default stance is not to believe whatever "until proven otherwise".
That's not how it works in rational land.

Indeed. It has to be proven to us in our minds in order to believe it.

 

[Trailblazer]

In that case, it is meaningless to say you believe in a god. Since at that point you don't even know what it is that you are believing in.

You might as well say you believe in "gooblydockoboeloe".

I think we can know some of the attributes of God based upon scriptures but we can never know the essence of God. What God is comprised of, where God resides, how God thinks and feels, how God accomplishes His will.... stuff like this we can never know. But I don't think we need to know these things in order to believe that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

They are actually both bad reasons.
1. There is no proof that God exists: You don't know that. I don't know that. There might me 'proof' that God exists and one is ignorant about it. It's a claim that can not be demonstrated. One can not proof a negative.
2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist: There could be a god that is evil, or indifferent regarding the suffering of humans and animals.

I don't believe in a god, because I don't have sufficient reason to believe. That's it!

To turn that around, what would constitute a sufficient reason for you to believe?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then believing in gooblydockoboeloe isn't contrary to the evidence either.
neither is believing in extra-dimensional undetectable dragons living in my garage.

The problem is that there is no REASON to suspect that those things might exist whereas there are reasons to suspect that a God exists. That reason is all the great religions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was waiting for that, but of course we have been around this merry-go-round many times before.

Indeed we have. So I can only wonder why you keep making the same mistake.

What I consider to be evidence you do not see as evidence

What is and isn't evidence really isn't a matter of opinion.
It's rather a matter of what does and doesn't support testable propositions.

I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

You have a valid point there. God likes suffering. Logically speaking, if God did not like suffering He would not have created a world in which he knew people would suffer, a world in which suffering is unavoidable.

I don't accept that either. Suffering could also be an unintentional side effect.
Or a necessary evil.

None of this matters at all to the objective fact if a god exists or not.
Instead these are matters that relate to the mechanism and intention of creation used, if there is a god that did so. Those are seperate questions / issues.

An omnipotent/omniscient God could have created this world any way He wanted to,

Exactly, so why is this point even brought up.
It matters not to the question if a god exists or not. Instead, these are questions of the mechanism and intention of creation, in case a creation god exists.

Let's first settle the question of a god existing before moving on to that one.

There is evidence but it is not testable.

Then it's not evidence.

Although some theists will argue that it is testable by their personal standards of testing, that is not universal proof of God, it is only proof to those people..

Then it's not evidence. Then it's just belief.

I just told you what evidence is. Without a model that makes testable predictions, data is just data.
Evidence is data that either supports or contradicts testable propositions.
You NEED testable propositions for evidence to even be a thing.

That is correct. We all need a reason to believe, even theists have a reason why they believe. YOU would not believe for their reasons but their reasons are valid for them.

The validity of reasons, again is not a matter of opinion.
It's a matter of rationality. Theists believe based on reasons, sure. But those reasons aren't sound or valid.

I could have as reason to believe in god "my dad believes it and I trust my dad".
And that might be good enough for me. But it's not a valid reason. It's irrational.
It's not rationally justified. It's not the type of reason that will lead you to accurate beliefs or truth.

Such reasoning simply is not a pathway to truth.
IF it leads you to truth, it's not due to the soundness of the reason. Instead, you're just lucky.

As you should. Otherwise agnosticism - "I don't know if God exists" - is the default position.

Which expresses disbelief.
It's still answering "no" to the question "do you believe a god exists?".

Agnosticism is not an "alternative" to atheism.

I don't know if gods exist and I have no reason to believe that they do.
So I don't believe the claim.

Indeed. It has to be proven to us in our minds in order to believe it.

And again with that faulty word "proven".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think we can know some of the attributes of God based upon scriptures but we can never know the essence of God. What God is comprised of, where God resides, how God thinks and feels, how God accomplishes His will.... stuff like this we can never know. But I don't think we need to know these things in order to believe that God exists.

Fact remains.
You believe in a god and you can't answer the question "what is god?".

I find that absurd.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To turn that around, what would constitute a sufficient reason for you to believe?

The existence of verifiable evidence in support of a god model that makes testable predictions.

The same that would constitute sufficient reason for me to believe any proposition.

I feel no need to hold gods to a "special" standard then all other things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that there is no REASON to suspect that those things might exist

Same for gods.

whereas there are reasons to suspect that a God exists. That reason is all the great religions.

Then Star Wars is a reason to believe in Darth Vader.

Just because claims exist with people who believe said claims, is NOT a reason to believe said claims.
Otherwise, the existence of big foot believers is a reason to believe in bigfoot.
Or alien abductees are a reason to believe in alien abductions.
Or the existence of scientologists are a reason to believe in Lord Xenu and our inner thetans.

You make a terrible argument.

 

[syo]

But why follow a deist deity even if you believe one exists or existed (that the kind of deity that might have died giving birth to our universe, and nobody would know)? That deity is the one apatheism is all about - the idea that it doesn't matter whether it exists (or existed) or not. Literally nothing changes with the answer to that question.

The deist deity is the deity of the end of the Enlightenment, when scientists like Newton, Bernoulli, and Volta had shown that the universe is like a clockwork that operates without oversight. At this point, deism, which was well-established by the time of the American founders, became respectable. The next wave of scientists like Darwin and the 20th century cosmologists showed how the universe could assemble itself without oversight, at which time atheism became a tenable and intellectually defensible position.

You mean, you dislike deist deities?

 

[Trailblazer]

What is and isn't evidence really isn't a matter of opinion.
It's rather a matter of what does and doesn't support testable propositions.

I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

All evidence is not testable evidence, as any court of law will tell you.

You want a certain kind of evidence, testable evidence, but there is no testable evidence for God.
The fact that there is no testable evidence for God does not mean God does not exist, it only means God is not 'subject' to testing by humans.

I don't accept that either. Suffering could also be an unintentional side effect.
Or a necessary evil.

That's true.

None of this matters at all to the objective fact if a god exists or not.
Instead these are matters that relate to the mechanism and intention of creation used, if there is a god that did so. Those are seperate questions / issues.

That's also true.

Exactly, so why is this point even brought up.
It matters not to the question if a god exists or not. Instead, these are questions of the mechanism and intention of creation, in case a creation god exists.

That's also true.

Let's first settle the question of a god existing before moving on to that one.

Let me know when you have got that 'settled' and you will get the Nobel prize.

Then it's not evidence.

Then it's not evidence. Then it's just belief.

I just told you what evidence is. Without a model that makes testable predictions, data is just data.
Evidence is data that either supports or contradicts testable propositions.
You NEED testable propositions for evidence to even be a thing.

Testable evidence is only one kind of evidence that is used in science and sometimes in law. It is not the kind of evidence you will ever have for God. The evidence for God is the Messenger of God and the religion that He revealed.

The validity of reasons, again is not a matter of opinion.
It's a matter of rationality. Theists believe based on reasons, sure. But those reasons aren't sound or valid.

Those reasons aren't sound or valid but logical argumentation cannot be used to prove that God exists since it can never be proven that God exists with a logical argument.

I could have as reason to believe in god "my dad believes it and I trust my dad".
And that might be good enough for me. But it's not a valid reason. It's irrational.
It's not rationally justified. It's not the type of reason that will lead you to accurate beliefs or truth.

Such reasoning simply is not a pathway to truth.
IF it leads you to truth, it's not due to the soundness of the reason. Instead, you're just lucky.

No, "because someone else believes it" is never a good reason to believe something. We all have to do our own research and investigation and come to our own conclusions.

Which expresses disbelief.
It's still answering "no" to the question "do you believe a god exists?".

Agnosticism is not an "alternative" to atheism.

I don't know if gods exist and I have no reason to believe that they do.
So I don't believe the claim.

I don't know if God(s) exist is agnosticism. Atheism is I know no God(s) exist.
On this forum, the line between agnosticism and atheism gets blurred so we have a lot of agnostic atheists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Fact remains.
You believe in a god and you can't answer the question "what is god?".

I find that absurd.

I can answer that, since there are certain things I know about God.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

 

[Trailblazer]

The existence of verifiable evidence in support of a god model that makes testable predictions.

The same that would constitute sufficient reason for me to believe any proposition.

I feel no need to hold gods to a "special" standard then all other things.

There is a need to hold God to a different standard then all other things because God is different from all other things. This is in accordance with logic.

There is no verifiable evidence in support of a God that makes testable predictions, not unless you consider prophecies that have come true to be evidence that the Messenger who fulfilled those prophecies came from God. I consider it to be part of the evidence that the Messenger was who He claimed to be.