Why not believe in God?

[beyondtimeandspace]

I've been thinking about this for a little while, and it just doesn't seem to make any sense. Why is it that some people refuse to believe in God? I'm going to try to list as many reasons as I can, and examine them.

1. Look at the wars religions have caused.

Ok. Let's look at them. Was it God who started the war? Or was it a human? I doubt any war that anyone can point out has ever been started by God. Many may claim that it was God who told them to war, or that it was for God's sake. However, the point it, God has never started any wars, so such wars must be placed upon the heads of humans. Now, does that fact that people believe they are on a mission from God mean that God is therefore evil? Of course not, it simply means that such people are misguided. So, in the consideration that any person who starts a war for the sake of God is misguided, does this mean that God doesn't exist? Of course not. All it means is that there are people with some pretty messed up ideas. There are also a lot of people who believe in God who do a whole heck of a lot of good in this world. One example being Mother Theresa. I suppose that were God to exist, Mother Theresa might be one to look to to find out what kind of God this is. Now, does Mother Theresa's goodness necessarily mean there is a God? Of course not. It simply means that she was a good person who happened to believe in a certain notion. SO, the conclusion here is that peoples' actions (i.e., war or goodness) don't really say anything about whether or not God exists. So, here we don't really have a basis for not believing in God.

2. The common concept of God is inherently flawed, and contradictory.

What is the common concept of God? An all-loving, all-powerful being? Granted that these two ideas might be contradictory given the amount of evil in the world, and given that they were the only two attributes of God. However, the concept of God doesn't stop here. The common concept isn't the fullest concept, or the most understood and thought about concept. Plenty of other thoughts on God consider that such a being is pure act, all-just, all-knowing, all-present, all-good, and so on. All of these qualities may be wrapped up in one nice package called the infinite. That is, actually infinite. And, when taken to its fullest extent, considered with regard to the world and the way it is, is not to be found contradictory. Perhaps the common concept of God is contradictory, but the infinite, taken out of the context of being relegated to the laws of the universe, is not contradictory. The real question would then lie in whether an actual infinite can exist. Again, no grounds for not believing in God here.

3. There are plenty of theories that explain our origins besides that of an infinite creator, such as evolution and the big bang. The universe may even being infinitely old, always contracting and expanding.

Sure, there are plenty of theories that talk about our origins, and I would be arrogant to dismiss without thought. In fact, such theories can be found to be in line with the concept of an infinite being. For, if there is an infinite creator, then whatever is made, will resemble that creator, and will forever grow to become forever more alike to that creator. Therefore, the idea of evolution as a means of creation, that is, growth from the simple to the more complex (one idea of evolution) would really be the same thing as growing to be more like the infinite. As for the universe being infinitely old, that could only make sense were the universe to be actually infinite. It can be seen that it isn't, since there is past, present and future. Therefore, it may or must be potentially infinite. This, again allows for the universe to be tending toward infinity. Just because there are theories that discuss our origins, doesn't mean that there is no God. In fact, I encourage people to want to know their origins. The more knowledge the better. Again, no grounds not to believe in God.

4. There is no need for a God.

Ok, but there also isn't a need for potato chips. That doens't mean they don't exist. However, even if that weren't true, it can be disputed that there is no need for an infinite being. Large portions of philosophy discuss necessary beings against contingent beings. An infinite being may be the only necessary one, while all else is contingent. However, again, the fact that there may not be a need for God doesn't give sufficient grounds for not believing in a God.

5. There is nothing to indicate the existence of a God. God has never revealed Himself to us.

If God is an infinite being, then He cannot reveal Himself to anything in a measurable way. Therefore, whatever revelations we might have of God will always be reducable to "natural phenomena." However, it may be said that the fact that anything exists at all is indication of the existence of an infinite being. YET, even this isn't grounds for not believing in a God. There is also nothing that indicates that the universe is infinitely old, yet people believe it. There is nothing to indicate that silicon-based life forms exist, yet this doesn't mean that they don't. In fact, silicon-based life forms may exist, and in the probability of the expanse of space, most likely do. Most religious philosophers would agree that there is no proof of God's existence, but most would also argue that there probably is. It seems that there is indication of God's existence, but not proof, and if this is the case, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Furthermore, can someone believe in something to which there is no indication? Perhaps I can't answer this with certainty, but I don't think so. Everything we believe in is based in what we have already experienced. This isn't to say we've experienced God, simply that what we have experienced has led to the believe in such a one, and therefore there is indication of it. However, again, not strong grounds not to believe in God.

6. I have no reason to believe in God.

This may actually be the only legitimate reason not to believe in God. Except, that I don't think it's a very agreeable reason. Believing in an infinite being, and understanding what that means, can give direction to your life. Granted, other things may give you direction, but what else can give absolute direction, as the infinite can? Not only can belief in the infinite give you overall direction in life, but it can also give you daily, and even momentary direction, as understanding what God is, and what God is in relation to the person will allow you to make intelligent moral decisions, that are in line with the morals of the vast majority of humans, as well as in line with that which makes humans happy. Belief in God, and understanding what that means, can help to unlock both the spiritual mysteries of life, as well as the physical. Not by explaining them away as miracles, but by understanding the interconnectedness and continuity of everything. Again, while these things may be found elsewhere, none else can give such things to you with absoluteness. Furthermore, belief in a God, and understanding of what that means, allows you to discern untruth whenever it is apparently contradictory. This is because wherever knowledges contradict, there is either missing variables or itis because one is false. This is true because the product of the infinite can never be contradictory. Anyway, to say that belief in God gives you nothing isn't true. You may say, belief in God doesn't give me anything that I can't get elsewhere. Yet, again, weak grounds for not believing in God.

*sigh* I suppose there are other reasons, but I have neither the time, nor the zeal to get to them right now. Anyway, I expect commentary on this, which is good. It's good to hash things like this out. For the moment, though, I don't see any good reasons for not believing in God, except that the concept of God and what God means in daily life is largely misunderstood, both within religious circles and without.

 

[anotheressence]

I've been thinking about this for a little while, and it just doesn't seem to make any sense. Why is it that some people refuse to believe in God? I'm going to try to list as many reasons as I can, and examine them.

1. Look at the wars religions have caused.

Ok. Let's look at them. Was it God who started the war? Or was it a human? I doubt any war that anyone can point out has ever been started by God. Many may claim that it was God who told them to war, or that it was for God's sake. However, the point it, God has never started any wars, so such wars must be placed upon the heads of humans........

Alright, I'll give you that. Still no grounds to believe in god.

2. The common concept of God is inherently flawed, and contradictory.

What is the common concept of God? An all-loving, all-powerful being? Granted that these two ideas might be contradictory given the amount of evil in the world, and given that they were the only two attributes of God. However, the concept of God doesn't stop here. The common concept isn't the fullest concept, or the most understood and thought about concept. Plenty of other thoughts on God consider that such a being is pure act, all-just, all-knowing, all-present, all-good, and so on. All of these qualities may be wrapped up in one nice package called the infinite.
That is, actually infinite. And, when taken to its fullest extent, considered with regard to the world and the way it is, is not to be found contradictory. Perhaps the common concept of God is contradictory, but the infinite, taken out of the context of being relegated to the laws of the universe, is not contradictory. The real question would then lie in whether an actual infinite can exist. Again, no grounds for not believing in God here.

A nice package called BS is more like it. You can't just slap the term "infinite" on something and except it to be considered good. It's a "nice package" of "Oh, it's INFINITE so it's not contradictory at all. There is a huge ground for not believing in god when you try to put him in "nice packages" like that.


3. There are plenty of theories that explain our origins besides that of an infinite creator, such as evolution and the big bang. The universe may even being infinitely old, always contracting and expanding.

Sure, there are plenty of theories that talk about our origins, and I would be arrogant to dismiss without thought. In fact, such theories can be found to be in line with the concept of an infinite being. For, if there is an infinite creator, then whatever is made, will resemble that creator, and will forever grow to become forever more alike to that creator. Therefore, the idea of evolution as a means of creation, that is, growth from the simple to the more complex (one idea of evolution) would really be the same thing as growing to be more like the infinite. As for the universe being infinitely old, that could only make sense were the universe to be actually infinite. It can be seen that it isn't, since there is past, present and future.

Is there really? And how does that mean that the universe is not infinite?

Therefore, it may or must be potentially infinite. This, again allows for the universe to be tending toward infinity. Just because there are theories that discuss our origins, doesn't mean that there is no God. In fact, I encourage people to want to know their origins. The more knowledge the better. Again, no grounds not to believe in God.

No grounds to believe in one either.

4. There is no need for a God.

Ok, but there also isn't a need for potato chips. That doens't mean they don't exist. However, even if that weren't true, it can be disputed that there is no need for an infinite being. Large portions of philosophy discuss necessary beings against contingent beings. An infinite being may be the only necessary one, while all else is contingent. However, again, the fact that there may not be a need for God doesn't give sufficient grounds for not believing in a God.

Potato chips don't try to control someone's way of life. Believing in a god, however, does. No grounds for believing in god here either.

5. There is nothing to indicate the existence of a God. God has never revealed Himself to us.

If God is an infinite being, then He cannot reveal Himself to anything in a measurable way. Therefore, whatever revelations we might have of God will always be reducable to "natural phenomena." However, it may be said that the fact that anything exists at all is indication of the existence of an infinite being. YET, even this isn't grounds for not believing in a God. There is also nothing that indicates that the universe is infinitely old, yet people believe it. There is nothing to indicate that silicon-based life forms exist, yet this doesn't mean that they don't. In fact, silicon-based life forms may exist, and in the probability of the expanse of space, most likely do. Most religious philosophers would agree that there is no proof of God's existence, but most would also argue that there probably is. It seems that there is indication of God's existence, but not proof, and if this is the case, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Doesn't mean it does. Silicon based lifeforms are a little easier to believe than an all-knowing, all powerful, infintely kind infinite being.

6. I have no reason to believe in God.

This may actually be the only legitimate reason not to believe in God. Except, that I don't think it's a very agreeable reason. Believing in an infinite being, and understanding what that means, can give direction to your life.

Direction how? How does closing one's eyes give direction? You cannot see where you are going with eyes closed.

Granted, other things may give you direction, but what else can give absolute direction, as the infinite can?

Do we need absolute direction? You can't expect to be spoonfed something. And absolute direction at the cost of what? Giving up your mind to believe in this?

Not only can belief in the infinite give you overall direction in life, but it can also give you daily, and even momentary direction, as understanding what God is, and what God is in relation to the person will allow you to make intelligent moral decisions,
As if that is the only way..

that are in line with the morals of the vast majority of humans,
Because the majority is always right...

as well as in line with that which makes humans happy.

Everyone has something different that makes them happy.

Belief in God, and understanding what that means, can help to unlock both the spiritual mysteries of life, as well as the physical.

If by unlock, you mean make up something.

Not by explaining them away as miracles, but by understanding the interconnectedness and continuity of everything. Again, while these things may be found elsewhere, none else can give such things to you with absoluteness.

Absoluteness again? Who needs it? Nothing else gives you absoluteness for a reason...you don't need it as it isn't there.

Furthermore, belief in a God, and understanding of what that means, allows you to discern untruth whenever it is apparently contradictory.

You mean like believing in a god?

This is because wherever knowledges contradict, there is either missing variables or itis because one is false. This is true because the product of the infinite can never be contradictory.

Another neat way religion is a self-sustaining system. God can never be contradictory!

Anyway, to say that belief in God gives you nothing isn't true.

It doesn't give you something either, besides lies and a sprinkling of good teachings, which can be found at a much lower cost.

You may say, belief in God doesn't give me anything that I can't get elsewhere. Yet, again, weak grounds for not believing in God.

Weak grounds? Why would I buy an apple for $32,123 dollars when I could get one for free?

*sigh* I suppose there are other reasons, but I have neither the time, nor the zeal to get to them right now. Anyway, I expect commentary on this, which is good. It's good to hash things like this out. For the moment, though, I don't see any good reasons for not believing in God, except that the concept of God and what God means in daily life is largely misunderstood, both within religious circles and without.

Still no reason to believe in a god. All you have said is that you can get what you would normally get from a god from somewhere else. So, I propose to rename the topic, WHY believe in a god?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

It would be an insult to my own intelligence. Its that simple.
Why not believe in the tooth fairy? One day you might get one of your teeth knocked out and if you believe in the tooth fairy you might be able to make some cash out of it.
So why not? Its because you KNOW there is no tooth fairy, you'd feel like a retard if you just started forcing yourself to believe in the tooth fairy. I similarly KNOW there is no god beyond a shadow of doubt in my mind.
And even if pigs flew and god was real, I don't like this "god" character. Apparently the greatest insult this ficticious character can recieve is having people not believe in him so thats great, if he is real I have no regrets, I was giving him the equivalent of punches in the stomach all this time and thats exactly what such a being would deserve, IF they were real.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

A nice package called BS is more like it. You can't just slap the term "infinite" on something and except it to be considered good. It's a "nice package" of "Oh, it's INFINITE so it's not contradictory at all. There is a huge ground for not believing in god when you try to put him in "nice packages" like that.

It's not a "nice package" it's a realistic package. If there is to be a creator, then that creator must be not-created. Such a one would be infinitely old, and therefore actually infinite. If such a one is actually infinite, then all of these descriptions of God fit, and actually MUST be. It isn't that I'm "making up" a nice package. I'm beginning with a premise (if there is a creator) and bringing it to its logical conclusion (then so and so...). I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept of infinity, at least that is how it appears. You simply seem determined to block any attempt to postulate a reasonable solution to the question of the possibility to God. That's just as bad as someone making every effort to discredit evolution as a viable theory. This isn't about "who's right" or "silly imaginative ways of thinking." These are serious questions (who am I? why am I here?) for which people are trying to find reasonable answers to. If an infinite being is the most reasonable solution, then that is the most reasonable idea to believe in. Just as if evolution is the most reasonable theory to describe the origins of life on any given planet, then it is most reasonable to believe in it.

Is there really? And how does that mean that the universe is not infinite?

Yes there is. What is referred to as "past" is an event, or a state of existence that once existed but no longer does. What is referred to as "present" is an event, or state of existence that now exists. What is referred to as "future" is an event, or state of existence that may or will exist, but does not yet exist. The fact that things change means that there is necessarily past, present and future. Why does this mean that the universe cannot be infinite. Were the universe to be infinite, there would be no change, no distinction from one moment to the next, nor from one thing to the other. This is because in an actual infinite, there is no starting point, and no ending point. Without such points, there can be no reference points, unless otherwise delineated (i.e., segment of time falsely impressioned with a beginning and end). Because there can be no reference points, unless falsely impressioned, there can be no distinction between one moment and the next. The number line is said to be actually infinite in quantity. Given that this is true, there really is no distinction between one number and the next, unless considered relatively against a point along it (falsely impressioned zero) from which the line then extends infinitely to the left or right. Otherwise, each number is in itself a singular unit, identical to the next. Yet, it is clear that there is not identicality between moments, as it is clear that change exists. Therefore, the universe cannot be actually infinite. Don't try to say that things are only non-identical because the identity that we see in the universe is mentally imposed. This is nonsense because if that were true, then your thoughts and my thoughts would actually be identical. This would mean that there could be no disagreement because then your thoughts would actually simply be a distinction that I imposed, and really your thoughts would be my own. Yet, clearly this isn't the case. Therefore, the universe cannot be actually infinite, for the simple fact of diverse identity among beings within the universe.

Potato chips don't try to control someone's way of life. Believing in a god, however, does. No grounds for believing in god here either.

Actually, God doesn't try to control someone's way of life either. Everyone has choice to live as they feel is good and true and right. Belief in God determines how someone lives just as much as non-belief in a God. It is people who try to control other people. If there is any determination of how humans should live, it is simply according to the design of their being, which, if God is infinite, is reflective of God. Furthermore, belief in God is as much a choice as any action, and therefore it is the choice to believe in God that is the determination of how one should live, rather than the belief. For in choosing to believe in God (and, in fact, to believe certain things about God) you also choose to believe in all the consequenes of that belief, and therefore determine by that choice how you will live.

Doesn't mean it does. Silicon based lifeforms are a little easier to believe than an all-knowing, all powerful, infintely kind infinite being.

Never said it does. I also never said silicon based life forms do either. I simply meant that it's a matter of probability, given certain input. The vastness of space, and its great number of planets gives living silicon based life forms a high probability of existence. The apparent laws of causality in the universe, along with other factoring laws, also give an infinite being a high probabilty of existence.

Direction how? How does closing one's eyes give direction? You cannot see where you are going with eyes closed.

What am I closing my eyes to?

Do we need absolute direction? You can't expect to be spoonfed something. And absolute direction at the cost of what? Giving up your mind to believe in this?

What am I being spoonfed. Everything I believe, I believe of my own volition, and everything I do, I expect to be accountable for. Where is the spoonfeeding? How am I giving up my mind to believe in this? I accept scientific fact as it comes. I'm also on a constant mental search for truth. Belief is simply the first step. Everything after belief involves understanding, and believe me, understanding is a necessary. Belief isn't the end, it's the beginning. Tell me again how I'm giving up my mind?

As if that is the only way..

Never said it was.

Because the majority is always right...

Your words, not mine. I would say that the majority has a better chance of being right, but that the majority is certainly not infallible, not by a long shot.

Everyone has something different that makes them happy.

Really? I bet I could prove you wrong.

If by unlock, you mean make up something.

What is this assumption by most athiests that theist make stuff up? Any real theist would tell you that we BELIEVE what we believe. Making stuff up is conjuring stuff from your imagination and calling it fact. We believe it to be true, but I guarantee that an honest and understanding theist would always assert that what they believe they BELIEVE.

Another neat way religion is a self-sustaining system. God can never be contradictory!

Understand the infinite, and you'll understand why God can never be contradictory. Furthermore, I ask, can science ever be contradictory? I should hope not. If there is ever an apparent contradiction, it is simply because there are variables unknown, or there is something false in what is thought to be known.

You want a reason to believe in God, because the infinite can give what every human seeks. Happiness. This is not a postulation brought on by the religious either. This was a concept conceived and understood by Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophical minds of all time. A man, who at first did not believe, but came to believe in a single unmoved mover, due to all the logic that he could summon. If every human seeks happiness, to ever greater degrees, then it follows that the highest satisfaction that a human could receive is constant, ever-increasing satisfaction. This can only be found by being attached to the infinite. This is what God offers that no form of atheism can.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

sorry, realistic religion, is an oxymoron.

What is referred to as "past" is an event, or a state of existence that once existed but no longer does. What is referred to as "present" is an event, or state of existence that now exists. What is referred to as "future" is an event, or state of existence that may or will exist, but does not yet exist. The fact that things change means that there is necessarily past, present and future. Why does this mean that the universe cannot be infinite. Were the universe to be infinite, there would be no change, no distinction from one moment to the next, nor from one thing to the other. This is because in an actual infinite, there is no starting point, and no ending point. Without such points, there can be no reference points, unless otherwise delineated (i.e., segment of time falsely impressioned with a beginning and end). Because there can be no reference points, unless falsely impressioned, there can be no distinction between one moment and the next. The number line is said to be actually infinite in quantity. Given that this is true, there really is no distinction between one number and the next, unless considered relatively against a point along it (falsely impressioned zero) from which the line then extends infinitely to the left or right. Otherwise, each number is in itself a singular unit, identical to the next. Yet, it is clear that there is not identicality between moments, as it is clear that change exists. Therefore, the universe cannot be actually infinite. Don't try to say that things are only non-identical because the identity that we see in the universe is mentally imposed. This is nonsense because if that were true, then your thoughts and my thoughts would actually be identical. This would mean that there could be no disagreement because then your thoughts would actually simply be a distinction that I imposed, and really your thoughts would be my own. Yet, clearly this isn't the case. Therefore, the universe cannot be actually infinite, for the simple fact of diverse identity among beings within the universe.

if your explaination is correct, then on the same basis, how can there be an infinite creator, dont talk out of your arse.

Actually, God doesn't try to control someone's way of life either.

you believe in god dont you, then it/he's has control of you, your still talking out of you arse.

I simply meant that it's a matter of probability, given certain input. The vastness of space, and its great number of planets gives living silicon based life forms a high probability of existence. The apparent laws of causality in the universe, along with other factoring laws, also give an infinite being a high probabilty of existence.

how, we can see, hear, touch, smell and taste, so we see planets/stars we've touched the moon so far, the other three senses are but amatter of time, but we cant do any of these with you creator. try to stop talking out of your arse

What am I being spoonfed. Everything I believe, I believe of my own volition, and everything I do, I expect to be accountable for. Where is the spoonfeeding? How am I giving up my mind to believe in this? I accept scientific fact as it comes.

sorry scientific contradicts religion, so you cant accept it, you gave up been you the moment you believed in it/your god,you are but a sheep, you should stand on your head because theres no sense coming from your mouth.

the world needs more critical thinkers • we already have enough sheep

 

[duendy]

language....how we use language tends to separate out abstract terms, such as good and bad, and finite and infinite. from there we try and explain away, or get away from the abstract we least like. when in reality reality is more complex than that.

there IS an experience of infinity--go ask William Blake, and of course the finite--grey monday mornin reality in the industrial fascist rat race

 

[Cris]

Beyond,

I don't see any good reasons for not believing in God, except that the concept of God and what God means in daily life is largely misunderstood, both within religious circles and without.

Doesn’t this depend on what is meant by God?

To the Deist God is simply an entity that started the universe and sits back and watches everything unravel but otherwise takes no part in everyday or human affairs. Praying to such an entity is as useful as praying to a brick wall. Is this what you mean by God?

To the pantheist the vastness and scope of the universe is the same thing as God. And depending on your version of pantheism the universe is either a vast intelligence that has an intricate plan for everything that it encompasses or it is simply wondrous order as revealed through the laws of physics as Einstein remarked. Is this what you mean by God.

To the Hindu everything can be a god and not just a single godhead.

The Christian has multiple godhead whereas Islam and Judaism each have a single God. Which of these definitions do you believe? A perverse version of Christianity also worships an evil god known as Satan.

In ancient Rome and Greece we have Jupiter or Zeus all of which had powerful forces.

In Wicca we have many gods including the more powerful goddess and of course Gaia – definitions that explain the universe and nature very well.

And we can go on and list the many new-age deities, and eastern religions most of which have some definition of a deity.

It would seem that God is defined as anything that people want to put into such a definition that they feel makes sense to them. God is not an object that can be objectively described but an imaginative concept that has thousands of definitions, most of which conflict with each other.

So probably the best and most rational reason not to believe in God is that no one can derive an agreed definition of what is God. In short ”what the heck is God?” I’m sure you can invent a definition or you have one in mind but I suspect that would not be the same as Hindu or Buddhist ideas, etc. Why should anyone believe in your version rather than that of anyone else?

So when you can provide an objective definition of God agreed to by the majority of the world population then perhaps we could have a starting point for investigation to see if such a thing might exist or not. Until then god fantasies warrant little to no attention by any intelligent person, let alone actually believeing that one of the millions of definitions might be true.

Cris

 

[I Am F_AQ2]

Originally posted by: beyondtimeandspace
The apparent laws of causality in the universe, along with other factoring laws, also give an infinite being a high probabilty of existence.

I do not see why. What does causality have to do with the need for a god?

Originally posted by: beyondtimeandspace
1. Look at the wars religions have caused.

Ok. Let's look at them. Was it God who started the war? Or was it a human? I doubt any war that anyone can point out has ever been started by God. Many may claim that it was God who told them to war, or that it was for God's sake. However, the point it, God has never started any wars, so such wars must be placed upon the heads of humans. Now, does that fact that people believe they are on a mission from God mean that God is therefore evil? Of course not, it simply means that such people are misguided. So, in the consideration that any person who starts a war for the sake of God is misguided, does this mean that God doesn't exist?...

Yes lets look at that point. You make the argument that it was human flaws that cause that war and so it is not a valid argument against believing in a god. Then you go on to make an argument that is the exact opposite in this question

Originally posted by: beyondtimeandspace
6. I have no reason to believe in God.

… Not only can belief in the infinite give you overall direction in life, but it can also give you daily, and even momentary direction, as understanding what God is, and what God is in relation to the person will allow you to make intelligent moral decisions, that are in line with the morals of the vast majority of humans, as well as in line with that which makes humans happy. …

So, why is it that the wars, death and pain that are caused by religion are the result of flawed human views while the sense of purpose, direction and happiness that come from it an actual byproduct of said god. They are the same thing. Many immoral decisions are based upon the same exact god that you claim helps people be moral. You cannot simply disregard question 1 by saying that is because people are misguided and then point at any good you see and say “Ahhh, look at all the good that comes from god, you should believe!”

I think all of your questions have one inherent difference between you and me. You take the stance of a god exists first and the examine the evidence and when all these questions fail to topple that belief then you come to the conclusion that god does exist. I, on the other hand, take the stance that god does not exist in the first place so you need to show me that he does. All of your answers have failed to show me that there is a god so I will continue to believe that there is no god. For me it is not why don’t I believe in god but why should I believe in a god. In that respect the only real point you make is your answer to the 6th question. I honestly do not see the moral direction that believing in a god will give you simply because all I have ever seen is the hate it can foster, mainly between those that believe and those that believe differently or not at all.

 

[SnakeLord]

To answer the question in as straightforward manner as possible..

There is no justification for believing in a god.

A while back I took it upon myself to devise the 'god list'. To be honest after spending a lot of time on it, I decided I needed a break from it. I had already amassed over 300 gods by name, culture, attributes and so on - and I was only on A. The worst thing of it was I hadn't even started on the Roman/Greek A's, and I'm sure everyone is aware of the masses upon masses of gods these people worshipped.

Some look upon this and say; "Well then there must be a god because every single culture on the planet has some", but they fail to realise a very important aspect of the whole god issue.

Every single god man can name, has been conjured up at a time when man knew next to nothing about the planet and his surroundings. Every single god man now worships or believes in, is well over a millennia old.

Are we truly that naive where the word of people who have long since gone the way of the dodo has more validity than the word of modern day science and understanding?

I cannot, nor do I blame the people from thousands of years ago for believing what they believed - they were worldly ignorant. Modern day people do not have the luxury of using that excuse. Not to mention it's now used for completely the wrong reasons. In ancient times god was there to explain the world, now he's there merely to make death that much easier to cope with, and to stop the mass depression that would occur if these people accepted that we're not here for any reason, and we used to look similar to apes.

You also worded your post wrong. It's not a "refusal" to believe, it's a lack of reason to. There is not one valid presentable reason to believe in a god. Don't think I'm being bias towards this "area" alone. I see not one valid reason to believe in the loch ness monster either. The same can be said of vampires, werewolves and the minotaur. I'm sorry, take it as rude if you must - but as time passes by these things slip further and further into nothingness.

I like to use this example quite a bit, but in case you haven't heard me state it, I shall do so once more. I have asked this question to many many people, and the answer is always the same.

What caused the bubonic plague?

The answer I always get is "rats", or when people are being precise "bacteria carried by insects on the back of rats".

It is always something along those lines.

I then ask these people why they use the "scientific answer" for something generally quite recent, but for a plague 2000 years ago, they will still say "god did it".

The fact is, god has vanished into nothingness as far as 'reality' is concerned. When there's an earthquake we don't say it was god, when there's a flood we don't say it was god, when there's a lightning storm, we don't say it was god.

2000 years ago they did.

But then why are modern day people who are quite willing to accept that plagues, earthquakes and storms have a "real answer" - (that science provides), so adamant to state it was god based upon the word of people they don't know from over two millenniums ago? I'm sure you can understand why those people thought their plagues were from a god being, but why - when you would openly acknowledge the scientific answers to plagues and the like - would you think a plague several thousand years ago would be any less explainable by science?

While I concur there might very well be a certain level of historical truth in the bible, there is absolutely no precedent to state that that truth does not have a normal answer. The bible writers were merely not able to explain the answer, because they did not understand the why's.

The last refuge of god is in the homes of the internally lonely, those hanging onto the very last thread of mental inferiority - unable to understand life, and unable to live it.

It's like when we have an evolutionary debate around here, and the religious people show above all that they do not understand even the very basic concept of it, and yet will shout and rant against it as if it's the world's greatest evil. Then they finish with the line.. "I don't want to be related to a monkey".

It's fear. They would rather feel important and special and "hand-picked". What they never pick up on, is that we are special, and this is the only chance we get to make something of the existence we have. Why are religious people more fixated on the next life, while happily doing nothing with this one - all because of the words of persons unknown, several thousand years ago?

It's not only that though. When something truly awful happens, people find they need a reason for it. When there isn't a reason, they need someone with an "ultimate plan". Without having that, the tragedy cannot be understood or consoled.

I remember when my son died. Really I think it's hard for people to understand what it's like to pull your son out of a fridge just so you can say goodbye. I remember during my 'after-thoughts', that a religious man, (even though perhaps just as distraught), would try and provide an instant answer for what had happened. They would even go so far as to try to justify the event with the quick and simple "he's in heaven now yada yada". The fact of the matter is that he's dead, and a few feet underground providing nourishment for a bunch of insects. As hard and painful as that is to swallow, it is what an honest person will conclude.

It seems god has become, and possibly has always been, little more than a scapegoat for humanity. Such as: "we have done bad, but it's ok because god killed himself for us".

The same can be said of the "nemesis", satan.. who is the scapegoat for the reverse side of the coin: "That guy's an asshole, he's obviously devil possessed".

When someone survives its gods mercy, when someone dies its all part of the master plan. It is nothing more than scapegoating, nothing more than making light of the shit that happens in this world - because people 'refuse' to understand this world. They would rather point fingers to the clouds than learn.

There is no minotaur, there is no tooth fairy, there is no santa claus, and there is no god. The strange thing is, you all already know this.. you're just clinging on through fear of the blank void that would be left behind in your lives. It really isn't all that bad though, life can be an amazing, astounding and incredible thing if you only take the time to look at it.

Snake.

 

[Fortuna]

"It's not a "nice package" it's a realistic package. If there is to be a creator, then that creator must be not-created"

This makes no sense to me. Why must a creator be "not created" ? What if our creator was created by another, who was created by another, ad infinitum.

I'm beginning with a premise (if there is a creator) and bringing it to its logical conclusion (then so and so...). I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept of infinity, at least that is how it appears

Well, no, not really, You somewhat arbitrarily made the association of the infinite with your creator. Which is not necessary. Instead I could postulate an infinite number of finite creators.

I sincerely doubt that people on SciForums don't understnad infinity. Anyone who has studied mathematics understands it well. for example, rational number are not only infinite (in both positive and negative directions), but also infinitely dense. (between any 2 numbers, another always exists).

I think that you also are implicitly postulating the existence of an absolute. Science seems to have disproven this, at least for both space and time. There is almost certainly no such thing as absolute position, and it appears that there is no such thing as absolute time. Time is merely a measure of the rate of change of something. SR has shown and verified by experiment, that even rates of change of the same sequence of events are not constant, but affected by other factors.

You have also , by necessity, in postulating the god as a creator, separated it from the universe. You have not considered the Pantheist view, in which the god is not separate from the universe, but is infact, some component of it.

ON one hand you seem to be supporting the 18/19th century deistic,but then you talk about "belief as the beginning" ?

I think that the concept of a god has been very much maligned by the old mythologies of past times. The Eqyptian gods, the Greek pantheon, the Jewish myths of the Tanakh, and the Christian myth of Jesus, to name just a few of many many more.

Nor do I believe that dualism is a necessary argument for a god. Good and evil might just be mothing more than societal norms. I was taught these by my parents, by my society, and ny the mythologies of my society. The Romans saw nothing wrong with combat and execution in the amphitheater. It was merely an imitation of real life outside of it.

It looks to me like, as we advanced as a society, we adapted a more humanistic view, and our religion advanced with it. Look ofr example, at the issue of slavery, which is not seen as evil in most ancient societies or religions. (Interestingly, the Christian religion was used to both justify and condemn slavery). But, it is the humanist point of view which condemns it as im-moral.(and religion followed).

So, now that we can separate religions and mythologies from the actual god (but will admit that perhaps they metaphorically describe it), what is left ? I see 2 possibilities for god. The supernatural point of view (god as a supernatural creator ), and the Pantheist (god as some (or all) of the universe). Yet a 3rd possibility is the naturalist point of view, that energy and matter simply change states and relative position with time, set into motion by self-interaction.

As one poster mentions, linguistics itself may be circular. Your concept of "infinite" is based on your perceptions of time and dimensional space, as bounded vs unbounded, which is based on the concept of an opposite.

And yet, I find none of these to be satisfactory explanations.(nor yours, for that matter).

It may be that our use of linguistics to describe these ideas is equivalent to the ancients slinging rocks at the moon.

 

[Fortuna]

Addendum ;

Yet, it is not necessary for science to consider the existence of a god. On one hand, we might consider that the foundation of science of that a naturalistic explanation is sufficient and complete to describe natural events.

An alternative and equivalent point of view is that of the deistic and monotheistic god, who only set the universe in motion and setup its modes of behaviour. Historically, this is exactly what allowed the scientific revolution to occur. The realization that nature is not controlled nor subject to the whims of god(s) or the nymphs of the Fates. It is orderly, and we as humans are able to isolate and discover these modes of behaviour, or laws of nature, if you will allow me to use such a metaphor. I can equivalently refer to these as "laws of god", in the context of the deistic god who only created and set it into motion.

Thus,(to emphasize) in science, our "laws of nature", might equivalently be (and historically, were so) refered to as "laws of god". In this context, "nature" and "god" become pragmatically equivalent entities, for the purposes of science.

Does this suggest an equivalence of the Patheist and Deistic concepts of god ?

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Alright, lots of responses, and lots of questions to address. I'll do my best to answer as many as I can.

The first thing I'd like to address is the needless insults going on here. I'm not speaking out of my arse. Just because I believe that God exists doesn't make me an unintelligent daydreamer. I don't believe in God out of fear. You're right, I do assume God exists first, before anything else. Yet, you also make many assumptions about people who believe in God. I'm not insulting anyone here (at least that isn't my intention) so I would appreciate it if the same courtesy was done to me. At least for the sake of common interest let's try to practice the golden rule (I know, cliche, but it's true).

The next thing I would like to address is the question of "what the heck is God?" This is probably the best question asked so far. Unless we can establish exactly what we're talking about, then we might as well all be talking about something different. Someone already said on here, "If I said that an infinite being was called Zug, then would you believe in Zug?" Or something along those lines. The answer I give is yes. This is because Zug and God would be identical, both being infinite beings.

Yes, there are plenty of different concepts of "God." Let's address the monotheistic concept first. Despite all of the differences in opinion about what this means, probably all would agree that the monotheistic God is a supreme being. Or, to put it in more understandable terms, 'that than which nothing greater can be.' I would assert, along with plenty others, that such a being can only be infinite. For, no matter how great a being may become, unless it were infinite, it could always become (even 0infantessimally) greater. Putting aside all other differences, let's focus on God as being a supreme being.

Now, let's consider the polytheistic gods. Hinduism is actually monotheistic, if you term their ideas differently. What I mean by this is that Hindus believe in many 'gods,' but they also believe that there is only one 'God' (differentiated by the form of G... capitalized, or lower case). I have spoken to Hindus, and their concept of god is exactly the same as the Christian concept of angels or saints. Whereas, the God that they believe in is a, again, supreme being. Also, many people believe that Hindus teach that we are gods, or can become gods. Well, with the understanding of what they mean 'gods' to be, then yes, we may. The reason that they use the same term, but with the difference between god and God is because, like the Christian belief, humans bear the image of God, or what the Hindus call 'divinity.' The image of God, or divinity, simply refers to intellect and free will. Since both desire and knowledge may (theoretically) grow infinitely, then all may become more and more like God, but never be identical with the infinite. Therefore, the difference between gods and God, in the Hindu belief, is that the gods are potentially infinite, whereas God is actually infinite. This is also the case with the Christian concept.

It may be (and this is an idea accepted on an academic basis) that this is also the case with the ancient Greek, Egyptian, or Roman gods. In each mythological system, there was always a supreme god, one above the rest. Egyptians also believed that their rulers were gods. This may have stem even farther back to the even more ancient notion of the "Nephilim." Nephilim were humans who had both the strength of the godly and the weakness of the earthly. To understand this correctly, you must realize what it meant to be godly versus earthly. Godliness is the persuit of knowledge, self-power, self-control, etc.. whereas earthliness was the persuit of technology, or else-reliance. The Nephilim would then have been people of overwhelming ability, with the desire to dominate else rather than self. Anyway, this is merely to show that the Hindu polytheism is probably very much like the Egyptian, Greek and Roman, that is, they do believe in a supreme being, and all intelligent else has likeness and direction toward it.

So, the differences between the polytheistic and the monotheistic aren't really dissimilar. However, what about the pantheistic? The Pantheistic notion also isn't so dissimilar from monotheism. In monotheism, while God may be the creator, this doesn't necessarily make Him to be entirely separate from it. It may be true that when I make something, whatever I make is separate from me. However, such may not be the case with the infinite. While it is true that the infinite is not relegated, that is, confined, by the laws of the universe, it must still act in accordance with such laws, as such laws came out of its very essence. Furthermore, it may also interact with the finite, both in the unfree of will, as well as the free of will (given such ones allow that interaction). Furthermore, to be infinite is to be omnipresent. Therefore, wherever there exists finite things, the infinite must also be. And, wherever there is not finite things, the infinite must also be. As well, just as when I make something, I put part of myself into it. So too, with the creator, if it is infinite, must put its own likeness into things. Therefore, it may be seen that the universe is a conglomeration of the infinite, as each expression found within the universe is contained within the infinite, and therefore the universe may, in its entirety, most fully resemble the infinite. However, the universe itself cannot be actually infinite, as I've already shown.

So, with the question of pantheism in mind. Are all things god? In a sense, each individual thing has a certain likeness to God. And in another sense, all things combined share the greatest likeness toward God. Is God in all things? Being omnipresent demands this. However, even in our likeness it may be said that God is in us, in as far as we are alike to Him. Is God all things? To say yes would be to say that the universe is actually infinite, and this is where pantheism and monotheism part ways. However, it may be said that God is a comglomeration of all the laws of the universe, and more (since God is infinite).

Now, to consider the one called Satan. Satan is not God's opposite, despite popular belief. Satan, as it is understood, was created by God, and would, in essence, be considered what the Hindus would call a god, but what Christians would call an angel (albeit a fallen one). Satan is not God's opposite, sin is. If sin is everything that God isn't then sin is dependant (upon an acting thing), finite (exists as long as any given action) no-good, non-powerful (it has no power of its own, except what it is allowed), non-present (it has no actual existing presence), etc... Don't confuse Satan with being God's opposite, nor is Satan a God, but merely a god (according to Hindu terminology).

So then, in consideration of this, God is, objectively, an infinite creator to which all has a given likeness, and toward which all tends (for all things grow, and growth is a movement toward infinity). I *think* most theists would agree to this (perhaps not pantheists).

Now, let's consider the concept of infinity. Someone said that the people on Sciforums understand the concept of infinity, but then went on to claim this understanding in the mathematical sense. However, the mathematical sense doesn't really cover the whole meaning, or impact, of the term. You say that infinity moves forever in both directions (left and right), I say that is relative to a given point. There is no such thing as negative infinity, unless considered relative to a given point, and even then it isn't really a negative infinity, but rather an infinity moving to the left. The infinity spoken of in mathematics refers only to quantitative infinity. It does not speak of qualitative infinity, or essential infinity. We can also speak of infinity in two categories: potential infinity and actual infinity. Anything that grows is only potentially infinite. This means that it may grow, and grow, and continue to grow forever. The growth of this thing refers to its qualities, as well as the quantity of qualities. Therefore, the quantitative infinity and qualitative infinity of such a growthing would both be only potential, rather than infinite. The essential infinity of the growing thing refers to the combination of both the qualities and quantity of qualities that make up and have made up that thing. Therefore, again the essential infinity of that growing thing can only be potential. It has been postulated that the universe is infinite, and that it is simply constantly in a state of re-configuration. However, if the universe even reconfigured itself once, then it would mean that it wasn't actually infinite, because then it would be in a state (a way of being) that it wasn't once. If it was in a state that it once was not, then it had potential to become that thing, and also has potential to exist in an entirely different way (i.e., reconfigure again). Because it can reconfigure itself to exist in, say, an infinite number of ways, this means that it is only potentially infinite, rather than actually infinite. This is because an actually infinite thing experiences all states simultaneously, as well as already contains every quantity and quality possible within its being. Since the universe can never be shown to be actually infinite (as has already been indicated by many many philosophers), then it MUST be either potentially infinite, or neither. If it were neither, then there would be no change within it, no growth. Therefore, it must be potentially infinite. This means that it may grow forever, or reconfigure itself forever. However, the fact that it is potentially infinite means, necessarily, that it had a starting point, a point from which to begin its movement toward the infinite. Call it the big bang, the moment of creation, whatever you like. How did it occur? Who knows. Where did the original matter-stuff come from? This is where the theist would argue that because everything in the universe may be potentially infinite, and therefore has likeness to the actual infinite to a given degree, the original matter-stuff probably came from an actual infinite, since an actual infinite, both needs no creator, nor could have a creator. An actual infinite is necessarily without beginning, and without cause, therefore it is silly to ask the question "who created the creator" when the creator is said to be infinite.

One may postulate that there is an infinite number of creators, but I question which is more likely? More realistic? I'm not simply making an arbitrary association between the creator and the infinite, that association is most sensible. If there is to be a creator, it is more likely that that creator is infinite, especially considering everything else I know abnout the world (i.e., growth, etc..). Furthermore, if God is said to be a supreme being, which most deists would, then it is more likely that this God is actually infinite, rather than otherwise. It is far from an arbitrary association.

I would like, now, to address another issue that has been nagging at me. This is the issue about the intelligence, and knowledge of the ancients about the world. There seems to be this understanding that our age is the most knowledgeable and sophisticated. I would argue that every age thinks this to be true, and I think it's silly. It is quite true that the technology of today is superior to anything that we know of in the past, yet this is hardly an advancement of mankind. It simply means that man is more reliant upon machines, than himself. Consider that 50 years ago mathematical calculations had to be done on paper or in the mind. Whereas today, all one must do is punch in the equation into a calculator. People in ancient days were not so dumb as you believe them to be. Consider Archimedes. Recently discovered, he had manuscripts containing levels of calculus only achieved in the past century. How about the precision of the Egyptians? The precision with which they aligned the pyramids north to south is greater than what we could achieve today. It is even postulated that the pyramids, both for size and positioning were designed after the constellation orion. Orion, or Osiris in Egyptian mythology was the god of the dead, the pyramids were tombs. Compared with the stars from the constellation, the pyramids (two of which were build several miles away) aligned precisely. Or how about the Sumerians? In their astrological charts was included a tenth planet of irregular orbit, which we only rediscovered recently as having an orbit which brings the planet into our solar system once ever few thousand years (14,000 I believe). How about the language and numerological systems of the Herbrews and Arabs? It has also been recetly discovered that those languages and numerology systems have direct correlation to human DNA. The ancients were no so stupid as you would like to believe them to be. What their understanding of the universe was in comparison to today, I don't think will ever be known. Yet, it stands that they certainly weren't ignorant.