Why?

Out of curiousity, here is my question.
What is your proof/opinion of why you don't believe in God or question his/her/it/none-existant's exitstance?
Myself, is because there is no point. I think most everything just seems completely random, and you can pray, or you can never think twice about God, and it won't make a difference. Not only that, but I believe there is proof and disproof of God everywhere. I stick happily with Agnosticism...

 

I don't believe in a God because anyone who has told me "there is a God" has been unable to come up with even a single logical probability of such a being's existance.

That being said, I don't DISBELIEVE in a God, because although it seems unlikely, it seems far from impossible that such a being might exist.

 

likewise. as always, hikaru says it best.

 

beliefs are rooted in impressions or what is perceived. without a corresponding impression, our ideas are solely products of the imagination. we can imagine the moon made out of cheese but until we experience such it is only a combination of different ideas in our imagination. but with the exhortations of tele evangelists, a gospel choir and all the other gimmicks of a slick production, the products of our imagination, our emotions can cause some with weaker minds to feel a sensation that can be confused with belief

 

What reason would I have to assume there is a God?

oh ya, immortality

 

'Proof' is an important term at issue here. There is not (and likely cannot be) proof of God's existence (or non-existence) in the scientific sense. That is, one cannot go out into the world and demonstrate in a way that is testable, repeatable, and falsifiable that God either exists or doesn't exist (this pisses me off about some of the atheists who post in the Christianity forum---they keep trying to get the Christians to meet a burden of proof that the Christians never set out to meet nor are under any obligation to meet).

The best proof I, personally, can offer is something like pragmatic proof. I go about my existence, and reckon with the world, as though God does not exist and this conception of the world works. My explanations of how things operate succeed without appealing to God.

Moreover, God doesn't seem to add any "worldly cash value" to the world. That is, if God did exist, what sort of definite difference would it make to the way the world operates or the way I view the world? None. One could object that at least I could now explain how the universe began. But other than saying 'God did it', I have nothing else to say and merely pointing to God isn't much of an explanation (for instance, I can't comprehend HOW God did it?).

At best, God just seems like a needless "something extra". So, I go about my being as though God doesn't exist and my conception of the world has worked and continues to work.

 

Gunison, most atheists on this board aren't concerned with those christians that understand their beliefs need to be accepted through faith. The debate happens when christians claim to have proof. If someone claims there is proof can we not ask for it?

 

You are presupposing the nature of God. Who is to say God cannot be proven or disproven scientifically, or even that it is likely or unlikely? Why do you assume the understanding of the nature of God is beyond such human efforts?

You dismiss the possibility of scientific explaination of the God concept, [I THINK], because of a) an already present human-created Mythology (Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Native North/South American, etc...) that DEFINES God with no true certainty of his actual nature and b) you presuppose the conscious thought process of the God prototype, making necessary "His" desire to have connection and effect on "His" creation (humans, the universe, etc), when there is no reason to believe that would be "His" nature. Meaning, an omnipotent God may have no desire to make his presence known, while it still could or could not be possible to prove "His" existence scientifically.

All I am saying is that your thinking is bound arbitrarily by past and present human-created mythology.

 

I don't dismiss the possibility of such a proof. That is, if such a proof were to become manifest it would not cause a logical contradiction. Rather, I argue that such a proof is not at all plausible or even likely. What I shall say below should respond to your objections about having preconceived notions of a God conecpt.



First, my thinking is not "arbitrarily bound by past and present human-created mythology". Aside from the meanings of words and concepts that we currently appeal to when using language I don't have anything else to appeal to such that anyone listening/reading what I'm saying could understand me (as is usually the case in these forums, I believe---and argue accordingly---that these are linguistic issues rather than theological issues). Having said that:



1) It is true that we cannot have proof in the scientific sense (defined above) of the Christian God's existence. That is, if a God existed AND that God existed in the manner the Christians advocate, then THAT God would not exist in a manner that was testable and falsifiable. If a way can be proposed to measure the existence of an eternal being (that is, one existing outside of time---the definition of eternity), then I shall concede the point.



2) Christian notions of God aside, the current prevailing viewpoint is that the universe as it exists today came about as a result of the "big bang". This explanation works rather well. It abosorbs newly discovered facts, and has left evidence that is testable through repeatable experiments. However, before there was an explosion (i.e. the bang) something existed (ultra-super-concentrated matter and energy presumably). While we can explain rather well what happened after and as a result of the big bang, we cannot explain how this ultra-super-concentrated matter got there. Scientific laws, as scientists readily admit, break down prior to the big bang. If anything would seem to be the domain of a god, then the creation of this ultra-super-concentrated matter would be it. But, scientific laws break down. So, once again there is no way to prove God's existence in the scientific sense.



3) One could object to both (1) and (2) that science (or the human intellect more generally) just hasn't advanced to the point where we could test or measure God's existence. This objection, though, does not have much force. All it does is speculate and suggest that we may some day come up with some way to test for God's existence. Here again, I am dealing with (and only can deal with) human knowledge up to the present time. And as a result of THAT knowledge (1) and (2) obtain. Could I be wrong? It is possible, but that's all it is. In order for an objection against my original position to hold (that we cannot prove scientifically that God exists or doesn't exist) you'll have to invalidate the reasons that I've appealled to, rather than merely suggesting that we might somehow, someday be proven otherwise. Here again, it's not arbitrary speculation on my part. If it were I would not have enumerated (1) and (2) above, but rather would have just asked you to "take my word for it".

 

for God: a book made thousands of years ago

against God: shitloads of scientific evidence, findings, reports, bookS, plus LOGIC

 

That's wonderful! If you're in possession of evidence that is testable by repeatable experiment that definitively demonstrates that God does not (rather than does) exist as well as an argument that is both sound and valid, then you should contact the folks handing out the Nobel Prize. You're a shoo-in.

 

I did not say that there was a solid scientific arguement agaisnt God
you are taking my words out of context, you are dumb

 

There doesn't need to be a scientific argument AGAINST god, because the burden of proof relies on the claimant.

I could say that invisible men come into my room every night - prove they don't. Only that argument doesn't work, because if I am the one CLAIMING that these invisible men exist the burden of proof rests on me - the one making the claim.

Prove to me that there are no pink flying elephants in the universe. Can't prove it? Well then they MUST exist!!

 

thank you
my brain is goin slow right now, I was gonna explain that but just couldn't get it to spit out right

 

You said "shitloads of scientific evidence" and "logic" against God's existence. So, enlighten me (and try to spell words like 'argument' correctly while you're at it!).

 

oh yeah, cause spelling has SOOOOO much to do with someone's wit
I'm not gonna argue with one of you dumbfucks that use all those shitty evasive strategies instead of getting to the point, not right now

 

Logic cannot, in my view, be for or against God. It could be used in countless ways to support either side, so from that perspective it is both for and against it. So, to me, it is can be either one of at least two things: for neither or else for both.
I cannot honestly claim that I am sure there is a God, but what I will say is that I am sure that there is far more going on in this reality than science can yet grasp. Just cuz they can't measure, capture, or define something is absolutely no proof whatsoever that it is not there. I know from many personal experiences that a lot of things happen that totally defy scientific explanation. Though I have seen this, I do not expect, hope, or want anyone else to take my word for it. Goodness knows I am the last person to take someone's word about anything that seems important to me. I need far more than that to make up my mind about anything.
If it is world famous scientists' statements that one finds most credible, it is easy to find lots of them who believe in God. Even ones who don't are often quoted stating that some phenomena are beyond their ability to explain. For actual quotes by the likes of Werner Von Braun, etc., check out Uri Geller's site. He has submitted himself to lab testing, with interesting results. None of which prove that God exists though.
I have my own view of what God is like, if there is a God, but that is just for me. Each of us can see God differently, or believe in no God, and we can all still be right. No one shares the exact same reality, so God may have as many faces as there are people on earth. I doubt that it really matters all that much whether one believes or not, not unless God has an inferiority complex, feels insecure, and needs humans approval to feel content.

 

"Don't use a dollar word when a dime word'll do." Mark Twain
Duck, you make an important point, and I agree, many educated academics delight in elucidating their prognostications esoterically, utilizing arcane elitist verbage to obfuscate and equivocate, when straight up plain talk is incontrovertably preferable to avoid incommensurability. Instead of just making their point as clear and as simply as they can, they employ all the tools they can muster trying to 'win'. It is a common, and useless exercise, in my view. I learn far more in discussions in plain language, when big words are mostly unspoken, than I do when polysyllabic sesquipaedalian verbage make the other person's point incomprehensible.
I've found that in some cases people with very little 'booklearnin', are a vast source of wisdom, and in other cases, there are some people with doctorates that I find nearly devoid of intelligence.
Cleverness is not wisdom, and a high educational level does not guarantee intelligence, imho.

 

The issue is (or has become) whether we have better reasons for believing that God's existence can or cannot be proven in the scientific sense. I have argued, based on what scientific proof involves, that we have better reasons for believing God's existence CANNOT be proven scientifically. Thumontico has argued against me.

So, given what science is and what God is taken to be (I've so far dealt with the Christian notion of God and a more general notion of an eternal Creator), can we or can we not prove scientifically that God exists or doesn't exist?

 

There is no way to have a solid proof against God that will work for true believers. The idea of a supreme being is definently too flexible to truly prove against to all people. Someone who believes can simply say that God is a mysterious thing.
But in all actuality(spelling is most likely fucked up, I know) scientific knowledge make the idea of a god less and less fortified. Plus, new findings everyday suggest more and more against gods, and that is why there are so many agnostics and atheists.
But seriously, if you can say that there is no proof against God, how cna you justify just following that god? There are many others out there...