What is your justification for believing in a God?

[mooeypoo]

I am sorry. You have an awful lot to say about nothing, and no I don't see what you mean. Nothing is, and if God is nothing than God is.

Sure. But then aren't we just redefining the word "Nothing" ?

 

You are right, though. It all depends on your definition of "God."

 

We usually go by the definition of a Judeochristian god just for convenience, and because of the fact that it is usually what comes up in the thread. If you read this thread you'll see that I wasn't the one that proposed a definition of God -- it was done by the claim proposers, whom I answered.

 

In fact, I never assumed what God is. I answered the claims that were put forth with critical thoughts, as I do with your claims.

 

I am not quite sure what you're trying to accuse me of. I answer claims that were made. You're not quite making any claims other than telling me that no matter what I say I'm wrong.

 

So... how about we start with your definition of God, and what your justification of believing in such a god are?

 

That's the topic of the thread, and I agree that it depends on definition, so no need to go in circles over the definitions other people use(d) in the thread. We can just start with yours..?

 

 

However, Cicero said, "God and the world of Nature must be one, and all the life of the world must be contained within the being God". Now what is at question is how do we know this God? Cicero would say that by studying nature we can infer something about God. Now perhaps this is addressed else where. I am responding to the question of this thread, by saying this is my justification for believing in a God, and moral laws that are suppose to be the foundation of a democracy. I believe this is essential to our liberty and understanding of democracy. I am sure it is my constitutional right to say so. However, I will also acknowledge these forums are privately owned and the mods do not have to respect our constitutional rights. However, what happens when our constitutional rights are not respected? For how long can we maintain what we value, if do not stand for the what we value? Moral- cause and effect.

 

Actually, I think the first question is "what is God", and then "how do we know it exists". I know it's a small distinction, but my opinion is that it's an important distinction to make.

 

I'm a science-minded person. I hear a claim and I don't dismiss it -- I want to hear the evidence for it. So this entire thread seems to fall on the premise that I have something wrong with me for not believing a God exists, when in all fairness, I am simply not convinced.

 

I heard and read the claims that were made, and each one I have answered why it specifically did not make sense to me, and was insufficient to convince me of the existence of the God that it referred to.

 

Why is that so horrible? I live just fine without the necessity to believe in or "use" any form of definition in any sort of God or supernatural deity or a superior entity in my daily life, and in my scientific endeavor.

 

If you think that this is impossible, you have a right to, of course, but you need to realize that you are the one making the claim that God is necessary, and therefore you are the one who need to substantiate the claim and show why God is necessary, what is this God you are referring to (as you said, it might not be the judeochristian god) and how do we know it exists.

 

And then you have to be open to the fact that we will criticize (for better and worse) your claims.

Because that's what we do in science.

 

You have a right to believe whatever you want, but if you expect others to believe the same (in this forum, at least) you need to be okay with having your claims examined critically.

 

That's how we roll here. Criticizing beliefs is not disrespect.

 

I am afraid quantum physic and the other sciences of matter can not explain the most important things for us to consider. You skipped over the explanation of why we need god, so I judge this is going no where productive, and I best stay out of this thread, before things get worse.

 

I never claimed science can explain everything. However, as I pointed out before (multiple times), the fact we don't know something (or the reason for something) doesn't automatically means God is the only answer. There might be an alternative we aren't aware of.

Do you agree with this point?

 

And if that's the case, then this particular reasoning is not enough on its own to prove God's existence. It might be a good rhethorical case for God, but it's not evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

Guys, look, I am being polite, and I am engaging in a rational argument. I'm sorry I don't believe, I can't help it, that's who I am; I can't force myself to believe something. IF you want me to believe, you'll have to convince me, and you really have to stop treating me like I'm disrespecting you.

 

It's getting very frustrating.

 

You all came to this forum knowing it's a science-minded environment, and our rules clearly state how we conduct discussions, religion and philosophy forums included (even the politics forum is included).

 

Please try not to rush to the conclusion that if I disagree with a claim you make, I am mocking your belief. I really don't, but I will not stop being critical and examining claims rationally and critically just because some of you seem to be taking offense.

 

I feel attacked, and I really shouldn't. I have been nothing but polite in my disagreements, and I think I raised good points. You should answer my points, but really, if this rush-to-conclusion and blame continues, I will have no more reason to participate.

 

If you don't want your beliefs and claims to be challenged, don't post them.

 

With the utmost respect,

 

~mooey

[Iggy]

...That was how I hoped to come across to her, more convincing, promising, trustworthy. Did I succeed? Not a bit of it. The more I banked on solidity, on what was feasible, quantifiable, the more I felt I was coming across as a braggart, a con man.

 

In the end I began to see the light: there was only one thing worthy of admiration as she saw it, only one value, and that was nothingness. It wasn't that she had a low opinion of me, but of the universe. Everything in existence carried some original defect within itself: being, to her mind, was a depressing, vulgar degeneration of non-being...

 

--Italo Calvino -- Nothing and Not Much

 

In the spirit of being variously understood and misunderstood, and perhaps to lighten the mood, I had to share my overwhelming sense of deja vu. The whole story is 5 or 10 minutes and worth the read.

[tar]

IGGY,

 

Nice passage.

 

And here I thought Nugkta and I had a private understanding.

 

Guess not.

 

Regards, TAR2

[seriously disabled]

I have no such justification. I just don't believe in God. I realized that people believe what suits them, that there are too many beliefs to choose from and that everyone can even invent his own personal belief.

 

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Are%20all%20religions%20false.htm

 

Also Richard Dawkins made, what I found to be, a very strong case against the existence of God in his book "The blind watchmaker".

 

http://www.terebess.com/keletkult/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

 

Furthermore, archeologists have recently discovered what they believe to be the missing link between humans and apes, providing further evidence for evolution and almost shutting the door in the face of creationism.

 

http://www.news.com.au/world/australopithecus-sediba-the-two-million-year-old-boy/story-e6frfkyi-1225851674465

Edited April 15, 2012 by seriously disabled

[tar]

seriously disabled,

 

Well the proofs "against" god, are all well and good. I am an "atheist" myself. I have come to the conclusion that "inventing" a god is not required. The existence of reality is quite enough proof of itself.

 

But "scientists" seem to require that there was nothing that preceded or caused reality, that it is self contained. That being the case, there can be no removing oneself from it. Its sort of the only thing there is. And if that is the case, one has to determine what this means to them. Since there does seem to be strong evidence against TAR2 being the only consciousness in the universe, then there must be consciounesses other than TAR2. For purposes of argument, I would propose "seriously disabled" as an "other" consciousness. I don't believe I have to prove that this "seriously disabled" entity exists, and that this "seriously disabled" entity is conscious. It is a given, accepted, understood thing, to everybody reading this, that this condition exists.

 

Thus it is plain and clear that within reality there is consciousness, and consciousness that is not confined to one individual's consciousness. There is consciousness, other than your own. But since we need as "scientists" to confine all consciousness to reality, any and all NOUS must as well be real...God does exist, as the whole of which TAR2 is a part.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Athena]

Thank you for acknowledging atheist are using the Christian definition of God to argue there is no God. I am going to stop reading your post at this point, before I read something that I can not resist arguing, because you have the power to ban me, and I have no defense if you and your friends decide to against me. There is a problem when people know science and not history. Part of that problem is the same intolerance and abuses of power, of our worst history. This is not a fair playing field, and I better stop playing with the mods, before being excommunicated. You have my submission, because you have the power, and I do not. Now lets attack another country and fight for democracy.

[doG]

But "scientists" seem to require that there was nothing that preceded or caused reality, that it is self contained.

Wrong answer. Scientists claim that we don't know. Scientists don't draw conclusions while they're still looking for answers. They proffer hypotheses and try to refute them or refine them in the search for the truth. We don't know if anything proceeded reality or if there is even a cause for reality. We'll likely never know but that's no reason to yield to the invented answer that, "god did it". That's a cope out for those that just want to give up looking for the whole truth, the real truth.

 

Maybe there is a god, maybe not. We don't "know" and that's what science is about, knowledge. It's not about believing there is or isn't a god, it's about knowing there is or isn't a god. As it is now there is no real evidence of any deities so there's no reason to conclude that any exist and that's what theists want scientists to do. It's really sad.

[mooeypoo]

Maybe there is a god, maybe not. We don't "know" and that's what science is about, knowledge. It's not about believing there is or isn't a god, it's about knowing there is or isn't a god. As it is now there is no real evidence of any deities so there's no reason to conclude that any exist and that's what theists want scientists to do. It's really sad.

I'm going to print, frame, and hang it on my wall so I can look at it for eloquent perspective every time these debates come up.

 

Well said, doG.

[tar]

doG,

 

And in what way does the scientifically adhered to theory of the "Big Bang", the explanation of how all of time and space came in to being, allow for a "before" or a "because"?

 

Either we can think that the universe is all there is, or we can think that there is something "outside" the universe. "We don't know" is sort of a cop out. What does the evidence suggest?

 

To a theist, perhaps "supreme being" allows for an "other than" the universe answer.

 

To a scientist, such an answer is equated to the belief in pixies and unicorns and Santa Claus.

 

When backed against the wall and asked to declare your beliefs...is the universe all there is, or is there evidence of something more?

 

Like for instance, if there are rules that the universe goes by, is there any reality in which these particular rules do not apply?

 

And is there any possible "intersection" where two or more realities can overlap in any way?

 

It seems as a scientist, you should be required to explain how you can be so sure that nothing exists outside the universe, and at the same time allow that nobody knows if this is actually the case or not.

 

Did the universe create itself? Or did something else cause it?

 

Regards, TAR2

[mooeypoo]

It seems as a scientist, you should be required to explain how you can be so sure that nothing exists outside the universe, and at the same time allow that nobody knows if this is actually the case or not.

 

Did the universe create itself? Or did something else cause it?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

The point is that we're not sure, we just don't know, and that fact doesn't automatically mean that god is an answer.

 

Further, what if the universe did "create" itself? I don't know, can you be sure it didn't? It doesn't sound logical to me either, but nature never was much for human logic. There are a lot of physical things out there that really don't follow what we would consider logical.

 

So maybe it has, maybe it hasn't, but is it really that more far fetched than saying a deity made it? The same problem of "did X create itself" repeats if you have a god -- Did god create itself? Did someone else cause it?

 

Do you see what I mean here? The explanation of a god doesn't really solve these questions, it just adds another layer that requires the same questions.

 

And since that seems to be the case, then all science-minded people can say, really, is that we don't know. Yet. We might as we keep researching, but we don't know just yet. That's not a cop out, it's an admission of what we have at the moment. We don't know what was before the Big Bang - we might find out soon, or we might adjust the theory, or we might not know for a while, but "not knowing" doesn't mean there's a God.

 

 

 

~mooey

[Moontanman]

This may not be appropriate for this thread but this pretty much says it all as to why i don't believe in a god...

 

 

[tar]

Mooey,

 

I am with you on the "who created God" question. I do not think God is much of an answer. Just raises new questions. And to think of God as a mind that has the whole shooting match planned out, from start to finish, is sort of strange, because it raises the whole group of other questions, as to whether God is moral or not to allow suffering and evil and such. Why indeed would an all powerful God allow Satan to stick around at all, and why, if he knew from the beginning that John B. Smith was going to burn in hell for eternity, why indeed would he bring that poor soul into the situation in the first place... No, the idea of an anthropomorphic God, a human with no beginning and no end, that is all powerful, omnipresent, and extremely judgemental to boot, just doesn't work on too many levels. I knew since I was 13 that such a god would be a lonely, pityable soul. He/She would have no way of experiencing joy or sorrow or surprise or wonder. He/She couldn't look at anything, or feel anything, experience the passage of time or explore anything. It would all be already known, one thing, stagnate and empty for such a God. Such a fellow/gal, would not even be able to GET bored. He/she would already be, whatever it was he/she was.

 

But I am not proposing such a God. Nor any entity outside reality. Seems rather in the definition, that anything outside reality, would have to be "unreal". I was asking doG if he would agree or disagree that all there is, is reality. To me, it is rather plain. If it is real, it exists, did exist, or will exist. Other than real things, there is no things, an absence of things, nothing that would ever come into play. If it did, or has, or will come into play, then it is real.

 

But this demands a bit of flexibility, in determining what is true and real about the universe. If there are "things" that are not explained by the Big Bang, alone, then one would have to accept that indeed there might be a "beforehand" and a "because", and a "surrounding" cosmos that the universe belongs to, or a "nature" to the thing, that is not predetermined, and has yet to play out.

 

I am not saying that if the universe did not create itself, then there must be a God that did it. I am saying that whatever the case, whatever the nature of the universe is, it has to include at least the possibilty of consciousness, and the possibility of TAR2, and Mooey talking to each other, because here we are, doing it.

 

I am all for figuring out how such a thing came about. But I do not look to unreal things to explain it. Its got to be real.

 

And if the universe did start and become with no before and no other, then all the answers to anything and everything that exists will be found within the universe, within reality...and there is nowhere else to look.

 

And if the universe has a before or around or any other aspect that is not noticable to us, and affects us in absolutely no way, that we could even see its required presence for something to be the case, then it really has no bearing on this reality, and does not exist as a real thing. On the other hand, if something is required for things to be as they are, then it is an aspect of reality, and it exists, in this one.

 

If God is required, then God exists. If God is not required, then other explanations will do...as long as they account for everything that is the case.

 

Regards, TAR2

[mooeypoo]

Tar, you make good points. I just want to point out that I think some of the disagreements in this thread are confusing because there are many people with many different definitions of God; some of the points that were made as a criticism against the existence of God were done so after a particular claim, which clearly was done about a certain type of god, and it may not be valid for another.

 

But for me, at least, I am unconvinced that there's any use at all for the mere concept of a God, except as a means of comfort, which is a personal right everyone has.

 

It's not like I am determined to be "anti any god", I just don't see any point to use such a concept; that's why I keep raising points against it.

 

I hope that makes things clearer about my perspective, at least...

But I am not proposing such a God. Nor any entity outside reality. Seems rather in the definition, that anything outside reality, would have to be "unreal". I was asking doG if he would agree or disagree that all there is, is reality. To me, it is rather plain. If it is real, it exists, did exist, or will exist. Other than real things, there is no things, an absence of things, nothing that would ever come into play. If it did, or has, or will come into play, then it is real.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Aren't we defining "reality" as "all there is", in some way? I, too, don't think there's anything outside reality, simply because I don't think anything can be.

 

For me, even if we discover that, for example, ghosts exist (and let's not quibble on details just bear with me) then if we actually had evidence, and we saw it as true, it would BECOME part of reality as well.

 

The same is true for anything, in my mind. If we discovered UFOs were beaming innocent livestock up to their massive ships for anal prodding, then that too would become part of reality. If we discovered that there's life after death, that too would become part of reality.

 

Not only that, but speaking for myself alone I can tell you that if any of those were ever discovered as existing, I, for one, would follow on to try and ask how they work, why, and what we can know about them. That's just me, I won't be able to just be satisfied with knowing they exist -- so my point, I guess, is that I'd also want to use some sort of scientific methodology to learn more about either concept. And if the scientific methodology would stop being effective because any number of discoveries were to change the way we view reality, then I'd be actively trying to change it and find a way to adapt it to our NEW reality.

 

Otherwise, what's the point of saying you're trying to describe, or discover, reality...

 

All those 'discoveries', though, would have to come with some sort of evidence that show us they exist -- which means that they are real -- which means they are part of reality.

 

Does this make sense?

 

 

But this demands a bit of flexibility, in determining what is true and real about the universe. If there are "things" that are not explained by the Big Bang, alone, then one would have to accept that indeed there might be a "beforehand" and a "because", and a "surrounding" cosmos that the universe belongs to, or a "nature" to the thing, that is not predetermined, and has yet to play out.

 

I am not saying that if the universe did not create itself, then there must be a God that did it. I am saying that whatever the case, whatever the nature of the universe is, it has to include at least the possibilty of consciousness, and the possibility of TAR2, and Mooey talking to each other, because here we are, doing it.

I am not saying "God doesn't exist", or "consciousness doesn't exist". I am saying I don't know if it does.

 

However, there IS an extension to this "I don't know", that is the things that we do know.

 

We don't know what happened before the big bang; it is possible there's a consciousness that made us, or an initial "event" that propogated the big bang, or that the big bang is actually a false observation. It's possible.

 

Now, the question is twofold: A) why is that not enough, to say that we don't know, and keep exploring? Why do we require a deity/consciousness/etc and B) What are the possibilities that are (currently, according to our knowledge) logical options?

 

I don't believe God exists. Is his existence a possibility? Yes. I just don't have evidence a God does exist, and according to everything I know, and scientific methodology tells me, the odds are that it either doesn't exist, or doesn't want us to know it exists.

 

In such cases where people try to tell me God does exist, all I ask is for them to bring forth evidence so I am convinced this possibility is PLAUSIBLE. That it's POSSIBLE. That I should consider it part of the realm of options that are valid.

 

Otherwise, it's an option, and, sure, why not, it could be true, but it could also be true that pink invisible tortoises fly above my head right now, and make my hair look frizzy. It's possible. You can't ever know, because they're undetectable.

 

But is it plausible?

 

Are there other options that are *more* plausible?

 

If I can go around explaining my reality without the need to insert a higher consciousness or a form of deity, then I don't consider this solution *relevant*.

I don't go around saying "There's no God!" Just like I don't go around saying there are no pink tortoises. For me, as a science-minded person, and for me personally as just me, I don't see the answer "God" (any god) as relevant as an option at all.

 

If God is required, then God exists. If God is not required, then other explanations will do...as long as they account for everything that is the case.

 

I think this is where we differ, though.

 

I agree with the first part of your sentence; if god is required, then he exists (seems obvious) - but the second is where we differ.

 

If god isn't required, then other explanations will do, that much is true, but when you say "as long as they account for everything" you are setting things up unfairly.

An explanation does not equal reality, it's just our way of describing reality.

 

Assuming reality is objective -- that is, it "is" regardless of how we see or describe it -- then it's independent of whether or not we understand it, and it's independent of how we explain it. That is to say that (a) our explanations might be false, and (b) there might be things out there that occur in a way we might not be able to explain or even logically grasp.

 

Scientific thinking tries to account for those two by providing a mechanism, a methodology, of examining what we know and our way of reaching conclusions:

• It has mechanisms to try and make sure that our examination of reality is as objective as possible, by defining things like double-blind testing, empirical observations, repetitiveness, etc.
• It tries to account for a full-a-picture as possible by making sure theories are consistent and predictable and falsifiable.
• It accounts for questions we are lacking by urging further examination, by defining a valid approach to how to define research.

(It does other things, but this is a rough description)

 

Theories adapt and change in the scientific community. Some more than others, depending on the level of how much they explain reality, and how much we know, and how much elements they have that substantiate them.

 

A theory like gravity, for example, is most likely not going to be discovered to be COMPLETELY wrong, because so many things do work and repeatedly and consistently prove it correct, but since there are things we don't yet account for, and some problematic nuggets, it will, very likely, be adapted. Just like it was adapted between Newton and Einstein; general relativity did not negate newton's gravitation completely, but it did 'enhance' it and changed quite a number of things in it, and the way we look at it.

 

My point is that you will most likely never have "all the explanations". The fact we don't have the explanation doesn't mean the explanation is God, or, for that matter, that a God explanation is required.

 

So the last bit there of your quote "as long as they account for everything that is the case." is where I am in disagreement with you.

 

I see no place where god is required at all. I understand why people want, and find it benefitial, to believe in a deity (of any kind), and I understand that some people believe a god is required, but I disagree that it is a logical rule.

 

I'm hoping I manage to deliver my point...

 

~mooey

[tar]

Mooey,

 

You delivered your point very well. And I don't disagree with any of it. I am on the side of science, in these discussions, but that does not automatically make science the last resort, and the final word. It is obvious to both of us, that at best it is "the best" way we have developed to reach a consensus as to what is true, and what is probably not.

 

But I am sort of after a two edged tool to use in determining truth.

 

Let me raise the question by addressing an interesting nature to something you said above.

 

For me, even if we discover that, for example, ghosts exist (and let's not quibble on details just bear with me) then if we actually had evidence, and we saw it as true, it would BECOME part of reality as well.

 

The same is true for anything, in my mind. If we discovered UFOs were beaming innocent livestock up to their massive ships for anal prodding, then that too would become part of reality. If we discovered that there's life after death, that too would become part of reality.

 

If a thing is true, it most likely is true, before we notice it. It doesn't become true at the moment we notice it, in an objective sense, only in a subjective one.

 

Now science provides an interesting redefinition of objectivity and subjectivity. It allows us as subjective individuals to invest our trust and confidence in a larger consciousness, one that includes all the people around us. We accept as true, not only that which is noticed by us, but that which is noticed by the equipment we have designed to extend our senses, and we invest our trust and confidence in what is noticed by others, especially if they do the noticing in a careful, methodilogical fashion, that we would use ourselves, and they record the process, so we ourselves can "verify" its authenticity, and bring up any ways in which they might have been incorrect in setting up, or describing what they noticed.

 

But with the whole process the thing we find out is subjectively true, and objectively true to the extent that it is a thing that can be accepted by any and all humans. But even still, a thing that "becomes" true to "science", in this fashion...was already true, beforehand. John B. Smith discovered it, but he could not do such a thing, unless the possibility of putting things together in such a fashion existed in reality, already. That is, that "invention" is using components of reality that exist already, in a configuration they before did not have, and "discovery" is the noticing of something about reality that was not before noticed and recorded for all to inspect.

 

In this respect I think we have to put things in perspective by considering our "model" of the universe as being one thing, and the actual universe as being something else. And any argument used to discount the validity of an individual's understanding, in favor of the validity of a consensus, carefully considered "scientific" view, can once again be used to discount the validity of any human claim at all, in light of the "greater" reality that exists around us, chock full of things we are yet to notice, or about to be locally chock full of things we invent, as a species.

 

Before the ipad, such a thing was not true. Now it is real. We brought that possible configuration to reality. We invent it.

 

When the apple fell, Newton discovered gravity. But it was already true.

 

When the UFO lands in Paris, and the inhabitants emerge and do an interview on CNN, the object will no longer be unidentified, and our collective consciousness will include space travelers, or undersea world envoys, or whatever they turn out to be, in our collective understanding. But those entities would have "already" been true, just "becoming" true to us, at the noticing. Our noticing does not bring them from nothing to reality. They were already so.

 

In this sense, an awareness of "more than we know" or "beyond our understanding" is not equivalent to fairies and unicorns. It is eqivalent to the reality that exists before we notice it. And this is a rather large and complex, and real thing. When taken as one thing, it is a "supreme being" and it encompasses all those real things we have not yet internalized into our model.

 

Perhaps we are quite wrong to give something this large and long and intricate a single name at all. But if we call it the universe, or call it God, it remains the real thing that has many many components that are beyond our current understanding.

 

Regards, TAR2

[doG]

doG,

 

And in what way does the scientifically adhered to theory of the "Big Bang", the explanation of how all of time and space came in to being, allow for a "before" or a "because"?

It's a theory, a theory adhered to religiously by some and dismissed by others but at the moment it is the theory we think best fits our observations and predictions. I personally do not subscribe to it being the beginning of everything, i believe time and matter have always existed. Unlike theists, scientists are not all in the same boat with the exception that they are looking for the truth as opposed to making one up out of thin air.

 

To a theist, perhaps "supreme being" allows for an "other than" the universe answer.

So does science.

 

To a scientist, such an answer is equated to the belief in pixies and unicorns and Santa Claus.

With ZERO supporting evidence that's where it belongs.

 

When backed against the wall and asked to declare your beliefs...is the universe all there is, or is there evidence of something more?

 

Like for instance, if there are rules that the universe goes by, is there any reality in which these particular rules do not apply?

 

And is there any possible "intersection" where two or more realities can overlap in any way?

 

It seems as a scientist, you should be required to explain how you can be so sure that nothing exists outside the universe, and at the same time allow that nobody knows if this is actually the case or not.

 

The HONEST answer is we don't know and we're looking for answers. We can't explain everything because we can't even observe everything so we'll never know some of the answers. We'll find the answers and explain as we can.

 

Did the universe create itself? Or did something else cause it?

 

Was it created at all? Has it always existed? We should not constrain our questions like this in a search for the real truth.

[seriously disabled]

I don't believe in God and I have no reason to.

 

God never helped me when I really needed help so why should I believe in him now. When I was living on the streets, God never helped me. When I was sick and begging for food and a hot shower, God never really helped me either.

 

Also my mother's brother died when he was only 13. He was very seriously ill and God did not really help him either.

 

So I really have no reason to believe in God because it appears to me that even if (in some twisted way) God does actually exist, he/she doesn't care about humans at all.

Edited April 16, 2012 by seriously disabled

[zapatos]

I don't believe in God and I have no reason to.

 

God never helped me when I really needed help so why should I believe in him now. When I was living on the streets, God never helped me. When I was sick and begging for food and a hot shower, God never really helped me either.

 

Also my mother's brother died when he was only 13. He was very seriously ill and God did not really help him either.

 

So I really have no reason to believe in God because it appears to me that even if (in some twisted way) God does actually exist, he/she doesn't care about humans at all.

Perhaps God does not go around helping people. I mean, using your argument, you could explain why you don't believe in most people. For example, just plug in 'Bill Clinton' in place of 'God', and you have successfully argued that you don't believe in him either.

[Moontanman]

Perhaps God does not go around helping people. I mean, using your argument, you could explain why you don't believe in most people. For example, just plug in 'Bill Clinton' in place of 'God', and you have successfully argued that you don't believe in him either.

 

 

That's actually really not a bad point, if god is real then he is, if nothing else, completely fair, he ignores everyone equally...

[John Cuthber]

The comparison with Bill is silly- nobody claims that Bill is omnipotent.

[Moontanman]

The comparison with Bill is silly- nobody claims that Bill is omnipotent.

 

 

I don't know dude, he seems to have what Hillary wants and that has to be at least a Herculean task... Demi god possibly?

[zapatos]

The comparison with Bill is silly- nobody claims that Bill is omnipotent.

What has omnipotence got to do with it? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you will do something.

[John Cuthber]

What has omnipotence got to do with it? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you will do something.

It's a traditionally defining trait for Gods that they are omnipotent.

Clinton doesn't end world poverty and suffering because he cant God doesn't because He's a bit of a shit, or He doesn't exist.

But the "bit of a shit" trait there is at odds with the widely asserted characteristic of a "loving" God.

[zapatos]

It's a traditionally defining trait for Gods that they are omnipotent.

Clinton doesn't end world poverty and suffering because he cant God doesn't because He's a bit of a shit, or He doesn't exist.

But the "bit of a shit" trait there is at odds with the widely asserted characteristic of a "loving" God.

Yes, it is traditionally defined that Gods are omnipotent. But an omnipotent God does not imply that a person in need will be helped, and therefore that criterion should not be used to determine whether or not something exists.

 

It's not reasonable to say "God could have helped me but he didn't, therefore he does not exist".

 

It's a bit like saying that I could have won the lottery last week, but I didn't, therefore the lottery does not exist.

 

However, if you are going to change the criteria to 'he is omnipotent and he is not a bit of a shit', then yes, I agree. If he can help, and if he is not a bit of a shit, then him not helping indicates he may not exist.

 

I am, however, unaware of any religion that claims that God will always do what is asked of him.

[John Cuthber]

If, as He is usually portrayed, He were a beneficent God, you wouldn't have to ask.

What I am saying is that:

I was in trouble last week

A beneficent, omnipotent God would have helped me (or He wouldn't be beneficent).

He didn't

So He can't exist.

 

If He exists then he's a bastard, not just for things that happened to me but to so many others too.

Yet all the religions say He's not a total bastard.

So He certainly doesn't exist in the way He's portrayed.

Edited April 16, 2012 by John Cuthber

[zapatos]

If, as He is usually portrayed, He were a beneficent God, you wouldn't have to ask.

What I am saying is that:

I was in trouble last week

A beneficent, omnipotent God would have helped me (or He wouldn't be beneficent).

He didn't

So He can't exist.

 

If He exists then he's a bastard, not just for things that happened to me but to so many others too.

Yet all the religions say He's not a total bastard.

So He certainly doesn't exist in the way He's portrayed.

You seem to be taking a rather shallow view of religion.

 

You have come to the conclusion that He can't exist because He did not help you out of trouble last week (assuming he is omnipotent and beneficent).

No religion claims that is how their God acts.

You seem to feel if He has the ability, and it seems to you that he should be helping, then the lack of help is proof He does not exist.

 

This is the same problem I had with the post from Seriously Disabled.

 

If your logic worked, then you could also prove your mother did not exist.

 

You were in trouble (you played ball instead of doing your homework and tomorrow the teacher will yell at you), your mother has the ability to help you (she could do some of the work to help you get it done on time), she wants to perform acts of kindness to you (she is your mother after all), yet she doesn't help.

 

Is she a bastard? Does she not exist? Or is it possible there is something else going on that you might not be aware of? Perhaps she feels she is doing more good by not helping in that way.