Why no God?

[Mikail Hakeem]

Relevance does not indicate a correlation. I can think up an infinite amount of imaginary beings.

Use what you want spiritually. That's your right to as an individual but to suggest the same beliefs on others I would say is unreasonable if the claims cannot be proven. I do not need to disprove them. You need to prove them.

I made the post to see if anyone had a fresh, legitimate answer.. not to try and convince people of my religion lol. but ok

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

For the rational skeptic, it's the other way around, Gods have not been adequately demonstrated, so, like vampires and leprechauns, there is no reason to believe that they exist.

By your reckoning, you should also believe in vampires and leprechauns until they are disproven.

If there were centuries old religions based on them I might.

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

Hardly any of that downside is not created - and, as a matter of fact, severely indoctrinated - by believers, so I don't think that is much of an argument.



I have little notion of why you would.


God does not have to be unproved, though. The duty of evidencing its existence falls squarely on the shoulders of those who would expect to convince others of that existence. Shades of Russell's Teapot.

As for science in the Qur'an, I don't think there is any. It has certainly not made itself evident, despite a lot of creative wishful thinking from many Muslims.

And from all appearances, it has ever been fictional or, at its best, symbolic / allegorical.



How do you know?

cool opinions..

 

[suncowiam]

I made the post to see if anyone had a fresh, legitimate answer.. not to try and convince people of my religion lol. but ok

Legitimate answer to the postulation of god not existing?

And if you find none? What does that suggest?

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

Legitimate answer to the postulation of god not existing?

And if you find none? What does that suggest?

 

[columbus]

If there were centuries old religions based on them I might.

There are religions way older than Islam.
In fact, monotheism is a pretty new development in religious beliefs. Is the age of an ideology what you base your opinion about the credibility of the ideology upon?
I base mine on the credibility of the evidence.
Tom

 

[Jumi]

If there were centuries old religions based on them I might.

There are many centuries old religions that have conflicting ideas. If it goes like that, everyone will pick what the religion from where they are born in and some will change because they like something from another, or when they are forced to pick.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I don't love his track record so far.....do you?

You're human, too. "Their" track record is also "your" track record.

But what and where is the paradise they lost?

Probably under some shopping mall parking lot in Iraq.

What and where is the paradise that they are promised as a reward for faithfulness?

I saw a picture on my Facebook page of a dog sniffing a bush. The owner says that the dog once found a pie under the bush. Now, on every walk, the dog looks for magic pie. The dog is very faithful that pie will be in the bush. Chances of that happening are ...?

If there was just one truth, how did it get lost? How did the human race get so religiously confused?

Maybe there were multiple truths at the beginning, and jealous people kept shortening the list until only the truth they liked best survived.

that is the opinion you are entitled to.
me.. if a book is beyond it's time I give credit where it is due.

Ancient Greeks thought Hephaestus was a god with robot assistants. That is "beyond its time". So that makes it divinely true, right?

 

[David T]

Which part of it?


But God isn't a name. It's a job description.


Every fictional character in all of human literary history has been made up and not real at the same time.

"Every fictional character in all of human literary history has been made up and not real at the same time"

And yet.....

That is a nice point to begin a dialog don't you think?!. Every song ever created is "made UP." Why the entire humanities department is dedicated to made UP. Or at least the functional aspects of it are. Even my degree the entire process literally is a fictional account, creating fictional narrative about ancient text, it called theology and its perceived in totality as reasoned! Ha pure its pure fiction, simply expression of the intellect development over the last 2,000 years in this culture. Mostly boring dull crap at that.

Apparently made UP for some is nonsense, why, only that which exists literally, that which is physical scientific emperical is real. Story is fiction nonsense. JR Tolkien is a bozo, jk Rollings and her Harry Potter is nonsense. Bob Dylan is a joker and a loser, and Ursela k leguin is a hack. I could go on and on here but omg it's painful for me to even write what I wrote on its arrrgh.

Kelly, normal people drive me crazy at all the above stupidity to say the least.. I will say this, we have a MADE UP, that exists and is very real. But we don't realize it, because we do not see it. We always live 2 minutes from it becoming very real, with 100% probability of that being true with 100% absolute unpredictability. Its a made UP we just made it up!! That apparent work of fiction that made UP, we call the atomic bomb. Apparently unless it's an atomic bomb which is MADE Up everything else is nonsense. I would say the existence of the atomic bomb is nonsense and very real and delivered from made UP land. So the idea that Made UP LAND IS NOT REAL is DUMB DUMB DUMB DEAD, if we are not careful.

It's a bit like God said" fine here ya go let ya mull that one for a while." God isn't doing a darn thing God created the intellect. And yes God is a job description a not contained by that description ever. !!! Lol. Btw very nicely well put, keeps the kiddies on their toes. So I will now leave this post with a MADE UP. it's a single quote from a river runs through it by Norman Mclean. I would say as a theology grad that the entire 2,000 years of theology the entire huge library has less content than this one singular QUOTE. Thomas Aquinas said as much about his own work in the 13th century, all straw.

Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs.
I am haunted by waters.

I say made up sometimes can be pretty amazingly beautiful true and very real.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have heard so many times from atheists, agnostics, etc.. that religion is a natural part of human evolution and we will evolve out of thinking there is a God or dogma.
Why?
There is no way to prove that statement.

With ancient tribes why would the name God, or any name for a Creator be mentioned?
I've heard people say it'd be natural to say someone made it, but why would they just think that?
Is it on a whim?
"Oh, I am here.. someone made here."
not a natural thought.

Native Americans that I have spoken with have some of the most beautiful spiritual knowledge and they even have mentioned what they simply call, "The Creator."

How could God just have been thought up if He wasn't real?
If we are beings that recycle the knowledge that is presented to us how can such an original idea just come out of no where??

Three big factors seem to be hard-wired into humans:
- a tendency toward attribution of agency
- a bias toward type 1 errors (false positives) over type 2 errors (false negatives)
- a tendency to seek patterns

Attribution of agency is about inferring intelligence and purpose into the things we see around us. I like the illustrative example I heard one psychologist give: he was out for a hike with his 4-year-old daughter when they passed a large pointy rock. He asked his daughter "why do you think that rock is pointy?" She thought for a bit before answering "so bears don't sit on it." Her default assumption was that the things around her had been designed for a purpose. She hadn't gotten this idea from any religion (they were non-religious, and it's not like any religion teaches that its gods don't want bears to sit on rocks) - she just got it from an innate predisposition to assume deliberate purpose behind the things we see.

Or have you noticed how small children (or even adults) will assign emotions to inanimate objects? For instance, apologizing to furniture when they bump into it, or saying that an object will be "sad" when it's thrown away.

Human beings have a tendency to think of the things around them as intelligent agents or as the results of purpose-driven acts of intelligent agents.

And a bias toward type 1 errors is very understandable: a rustling bush could be nothing you have to worry about, or it could be a dangerous threat. If it's nothing and you assume it's a threat, you lose very little. If it's a threat and you assume it's nothing, you could be dead.

We see pattern-seeking in other areas: "I was wearing this shirt the day my team won, so now it's my lucky shirt." "Steve visited me the day before my house was damaged by a storm; Steve must be bad luck." "I prayed for rain and then it rained; God must have answered my prayer." "I prayed for rain and it didn't rain; God must be punishing us."

Combine all this together and you get something that's basically a rudimentary form of animism. The distance from there to the religions we have now isn't very far at all.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

good post, @9-10ths_Penguin .

Attribution of agency is about inferring intelligence and purpose into the things we see around us. I like the illustrative example I heard one psychologist give: he was out for a hike with his 4-year-old daughter when they passed a large pointy rock. He asked his daughter "why do you think that rock is pointy?" She thought for a bit before answering "so bears don't sit on it." Her default assumption was that the things around her had been designed for a purpose. She hadn't gotten this idea from any religion (they were non-religious, and it's not like any religion teaches that its gods don't want bears to sit on rocks) - she just got it from an innate predisposition to assume deliberate purpose behind the things we see.

...well, that, and a question that sort of points toward wanting her to provide a purpose she could think of, even if she didn't really believe there was a purpose to a pointy rock...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it easier to grasp?
For me it was much harder to believe in a God until my personal experience gave my perception undeniable evidence.

You have undeniable evidence of God? Please share.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Given the diversity of human society and the near ubiquity of such concepts (in various forms) it's pretty clear it is the product of something hardwired into us.

Finally, something I agree with.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Which part of it?
But God isn't a name. It's a job description.
Every fictional character in all of human literary history has been made up and not real at the same time.

Good one Kelly! clever, I never heard that the word "God" is a job description.
I suppose the word "Creator" is also a job description.
As I think you already know, the word "God" is a title word, and Not a personal name.
God's personal name as found in the Hebrew Scriptures is represented by the Tetragrammaton letters YHWH.
KJV Bibles use all Upper-Case letters where the Tetragrammaton stands by using the word LORD - Psalms 110
Whereas the Lord Jesus is always in some lower-case letters as 'Lord' and Not 'LORD'.
Lord Jesus assures us at John 17:6 and John 17:26 that God's name will be declared or made known.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Its easy to think up a god.
Heck, i can do that now. My god is 10 feet tall and you must say a prayer each time you burp. "God redeems your soul."
I'm still working on the holy scriptures so let me get back to you on that.

Seems as if some people look in the mirror and see their ' god ' looking back at them.
I found at Philippians 3:19 that some people have their belly as their god.
So, as 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 says there are many gods, but for Christians there is one Lord (Jesus) and one 'God ' the Father.
The Father of Jesus is also the God of Jesus even today according to Revelation 3:21.

In Scripture, before the Flood there is No mention about religion, but after the Flood a man named Nimrod put himself up as their ' god ' keeping people together in Babel. Babel became Babylon, however as the people left ancient Babylon they carried off with them those man-made-up religious lies and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great.
So, it is mankind that has meddled with Bible teachings, even meddled with the teachings of Jesus to the point that people think they can easily think up a god for themselves, and ignore even the teachings of Jesus.

 

[columbus]

Seems as if some people look in the mirror and see their ' god ' looking back at them.

I see this happening almost all the time. People create a God in their own image, then pick an interpretation of some Scripture or another that supports their opinion.
That's why there are so many religions and sects of the religions.
Tom

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Neither is your opinion... it may give comfort to some but it could also allow discomfort.
Fear of hell, disappointing God.. etc.
So to just say as a whole God was invented due to comfort I think is irrational.

I find we need to keep in mind there is a BIG difference between: the Bible's hell and non-biblical hell teachings.
There are many teachings being taught as being Scripture but are Not really what the Bible teaches.
Can anyone think of anyone who was righteous that went to hell _______
According to Acts of the Apostles 2:27 the day righteous Jesus' died he went to biblical hell.
As un-faithful Jews mixed with non-Jews they started to teach a forever fiery hell of burning forever.
Whereas the Bible's hell is simply mankind's stone-cold temporary grave for the sleeping dead.
So, at Jesus' death he went to mankind's temporary grave until his God resurrected Jesus out of biblical hell.
Since Jesus and the old Hebrew Scriptures teach sleep in death - John 11:11-14; Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5 - then Jesus believed that while in biblical hell he would be in a sleep-like state.
Knowing a loved one is Not burning, but sleeping, does take away that fear or fright of that false hell-fire teaching.
When KJV Bibles translated the word Gehenna into English as hell fire that put the flames into biblical hell.
Gehenna was a just a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem where things were destroyed forever and Not kept burning forever. So, Gehenna is a valid word for destruction such as Psalms 92:7 says the wicked will be destroyed forever. Not burning forever but annihilated. Whereas the 'resurrection hope gives comfort' for the rest of mankind because as Acts of the Apostles 24:15 says there ' will be ' a resurrection..........

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I see this happening almost all the time. People create a God in their own image, then pick an interpretation of some Scripture or another that supports their opinion.
That's why there are so many religions and sects of the religions.
Tom

I can agree with the ^ above ^ because there are people who want to make over one's religion to suit one's self.
Suit self instead of making their religious beliefs to suit the God of the Bible as Jesus did.
Because of the rise and fall in popularity by the whims of people, and Not by the standard of Jesus' teachings, they match what is current in their culture and echo the beliefs of man's ideas outside of Scripture as being Scripture.
Sure, they might use Scripture, Satan did, the Pharisees did, but they did so to produce followers for themselves.

So, the Bible must be considered as a whole and Not pigeon hole verses to suit self.
In other words, the Bible has corresponding cross-reference verses and passages that show the internal harmony among the Bible writers. Even in Jesus' day there were a number of religious ideas and Jesus condemned them.
They were competing or arguing with one another, and Jesus' pronounced many 'woes' against them in the 23rd chapter of Matthew. Jesus also said by their ' fruits '(behavior) they would be known. What is the fruitage of one's religion as a whole is a BIG indicator as to which one is right.
Jesus gave us a New commandment as found at John 13:34-35 to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as he has.
In other words, instead of the Golden rule we are Now to love neighbor ' more ' than self.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I have heard so many times from atheists, agnostics, etc.. that religion is a natural part of human evolution and we will evolve out of thinking there is a God or dogma.
Why?
There is no way to prove that statement.
With ancient tribes why would the name God, or any name for a Creator be mentioned?

As a father's name is passed down to his children to me that is why the name of God/ Creator would be mentioned.
Jesus said at John 17:6 and John 17:26 that his Father's name would be made manifest, made known.
In Scripture, God's personal name is recorded and referred to in the Tetragrammaton letters YHWH.
The King James Bible translated the Tetragrammaton at Psalms 83:18 into English for God's personal name.

 

[Trailblazer]

You personal experience isn't evidence for all. Many people have such experiences, and put their own culturally-appropriate/suitable labels on it.

I agree that personal experiences are not evidence to anyone except those who have them. All religions have evidence to support them, it is just a matter of how much evidence they have and the quality and verifiability of the evidence. But no matter how good the evidence is there will always be people who do not think it is good enough since all people view evidence differently. Nonbelievers who do not like religion usually discount any evidence and that is often because of confirmation bias.