Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

just as lying, cheating, raping, killing, selfishness, arrogance, and laziness were NEVER all thought to be RIGHT.

sorry, missed a word!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

People who don't believe in God do not ask for prayers. That is something that religious people find comforting, like "there are no atheists in foxholes". Of course there are atheists in foxholes. Would you even want a God, or a believer, who are brought together through fear?

[Anonymous]

Love this thread and I'm glad (and surprised) that it's remained rather civil.

Here's where I am. And I am the previous poster encouraging people simply to seek. I was raised in an ultra conservative Southern Baptist family. Not dysfunctional, just religious. I learned very early that the Baptist God is a very smitey God. And a very judgmental and punishing God. Nothing about that made sense to me when compared to the words of Jesus.

Whether you believe Jesus to be the Son of God, or simply a very spiritually enlightened person, he seemed to truly know God. So how do you reconcile a loving God with the smitey God of the Old Testament? I've read the Bible. I've studied the religion. And I've decided that the stories of the Old Testament have much to offer. Lessons of faith, perseverance, honor, and strength are all over the Bible. Do I believe the world was flooded and God saved Noah and his family by telling him to build a boat? It doesn't really matter. What matters is that Noah was a man of faith. Do I believe the world was created in 7 days, 6,000 years ago? Of course not. But the Genesis poetry is a beautiful story of creation. And the message is simple: God created the world. How He did it doesn't mater. Do I believe that God sent boils and locusts to torture Job? No. People used God as a way to explain bad things all the time in those days. But I do believe that God created the world and allows suffering. We have free will. And we have to take the good and the bad. Job's suffering isn't the point. It's a story of faith, hope, and perseverance under seemingly impossible circumstances. No one would argue that those lessons are very important even today in our every day lives.

Jesus was pretty clear in his message as was the Siddh?rtha Gautama (Buddha) and countless other spiritual leaders: Love others. Don't cause each other pain. Suffering is part of life. Attachment causes suffering. We grow spiritually through trials. Live your life morally and ethically, work hard, be careful with your words and thought, seek spiritual enlightenment through prayer and/or meditation, we are more than our physical bodies....

Those are timeless lessons. Guidelines for human life on earth. And if everyone followed those simple guidelines, the world would be a very different place. Some might say, heaven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, objective truth.

"Objective" is defined as "independent of the knower and his consciousness." Truth, according to Aristotle's definition, is defined as "saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not.". Truth means "telling it like it is."

Objective truth regarding math and the laws of physics does not seem to need God (putting aside the questions of who set the first object in motion, why something and not nothing, energy, etc.). We can observe gravity. We can figure out that sand will not work in our car's engine. We can accept that humans cannot fly like birds.

Objective truth regarding right and wrong actions is different. Why was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip the hearts out of living babies?

PPs have indicated religious skepticism (objective truth is ONLY found in the sciences) or religious subjectivism (religious "objective truth" is merely feeling). Religious skeptics say we cannot know objective truth about God. But the skeptic is saying he knows God well enough to know we can know nothing about Him. How can the skeptic know with certainty that God cannot be known? Skeptics usually don't think it is important to know, or are prejudiced against knowing. The skeptic says we cannot know the truth. The subjectivist says we all know it. The skeptic denies truth; the subjectivist denies error. Objective truth is "for you, but not for me.".

So for the skeptics and the subjectivists regarding objective truth of right and wrong, why is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies?

You are really contorting skepticism to fit what you want it to be.

Religious skepticism does not say that we cannot know anything about God. Religious skeptics say that we have no proof of God. A skeptic would never claim to prove a negative.

But do you see that your definition of a skeptic is the same as mine, just phrased in a way that stacks the deck in an attempt to make skepticism look humble, rather than arrogant?

PP after PP stated "I see no evidence of God" or "There is no way to prove God exists" or "We have no proof of God." That is begging the question. That is assuming what you want to conclude.

Religious skeptics are willing to see objective truth in nonreligious fields. Just not religious ones. That is actually a positive statement that objective truth about God is unknowable.

This is a good time to point out the interplay of intellect, will, and emotions. The intellect is Mr. Spock, the will is Captain Kirk, and the emotions are Dr. McCoy. (The Enterprise is the soul, but I know mentioning the soul will bother people, so forget that.) The will can command the intellect to think, but the intellect cannot command the will to will--it can only inform the will. And the will cannot just make you believe (many PPs said they wanted to believe, but couldn't, because they just did not see enough to believe in).

Belief happens when you decide to be honest, and place your mind in service of objective truth. Justin Martyr gave this description of the process:

#1 A man seeks the truth by the unaided effort of reason, and is disappointed.
#2 It is offered him by faith, and he accepts.
#3 And, having accepted, he finds it satisfies his reason.

Do you see where skeptics run into trouble?

Those who believe there is objective truth about God do not pretend to know everything about Him. But they do claim He is not unknowable. We are finite, in time, we change, we decay, we cannot create something out of nothing. So we cannot know an infinite, always was and always will be Creator. But there are some thing we can know.

If we are willing to.

Sorry, but this last post is nonsense. The statement that skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof is neither arrogant nor humble. It just logically is.

This is what you said:

God is un-knowable by reason. (#1) (skeptics stop here)
God must be known through faith (#2)
According to you, we can have faith if we have the will. (That is not a universal belief among Christians, many of whom define faith as a gift and not within the control of a person, but I'll go with your statement)

Yet, many people have the will and fail to know God. How do you explain this? Well of course you are going to say they didn't really have the will. But that is nonsense, you can't see into their heads. You just imagine this is true. Why? Because you think you know how God works through your faith. Do you not see the problem ?!! You can't prove validity of the statement (If A, then B) by assuming the statement (If Not B, then Not A). You need to find valid cases of A and see if they all lead to B.

To that point, plenty of people once had faith and therefore the will. And they still became non-believers. How did this happen? If they have the will they have the knowledge. And knowledge, once possessed, should not be lost unless it is forgotten. But forgetting key facts about the Creator is pretty farfetched in anyone except the elderly. Feelings and beliefs can change, but actual knowledge would not. So now what, do we say that faith was never real, too?

You are equating belief and feelings to knowledge.

[Anonymous]

I fluctuate. There are times where I cannot believe there could be a god, for several reasons. People over the centuries have believed in all kinds of things that we now kind of laugh at and don't believe. There are a lot of people today who believe in things that I think are just ludicrous, and it occurs to me that believing in any god is just as ridiculous. I think religion is something people made up and refined over time to explain things they cannot understand. And, when I read an especially heinous news item I can't believe that a god would let that happen.

On the other hand, there are times when I'm just blown away by the world and I think doesn't there have to be something else at work here? How could all these amazing things exist without some type of higher being? At those times I believe in something, but not in the same way that organized religions preach it.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but this last post is nonsense. The statement that skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof is neither arrogant nor humble. It just logically is.


I'm sorry, but your last sentence is begging the question: "skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof. It just logically is.". You assume your conclusion.

"Objective" does not mean "impersonal.". It is not an attitude--you are right.


You are equating belief and feelings to knowledge.

Not at all. But first, can you define a skeptic (of objective truth regarding God and right and wrong) in a way that satisfies you without begging the question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but this last post is nonsense. The statement that skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof is neither arrogant nor humble. It just logically is.


I'm sorry, but your last sentence is begging the question: "skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof. It just logically is.". You assume your conclusion.

"Objective" does not mean "impersonal.". It is not an attitude--you are right.


You are equating belief and feelings to knowledge.

Not at all. But first, can you define a skeptic (of objective truth regarding God and right and wrong) in a way that satisfies you without begging the question?

I am not assuming my own conclusion. You are free to provide proof of God's existence. If you do, the conclusion cannot be begged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Love this thread and I'm glad (and surprised) that it's remained rather civil.

Here's where I am. And I am the previous poster encouraging people simply to seek. I was raised in an ultra conservative Southern Baptist family. Not dysfunctional, just religious. I learned very early that the Baptist God is a very smitey God. And a very judgmental and punishing God. Nothing about that made sense to me when compared to the words of Jesus.

Whether you believe Jesus to be the Son of God, or simply a very spiritually enlightened person, he seemed to truly know God. So how do you reconcile a loving God with the smitey God of the Old Testament? I've read the Bible. I've studied the religion. And I've decided that the stories of the Old Testament have much to offer. Lessons of faith, perseverance, honor, and strength are all over the Bible. Do I believe the world was flooded and God saved Noah and his family by telling him to build a boat? It doesn't really matter. What matters is that Noah was a man of faith. Do I believe the world was created in 7 days, 6,000 years ago? Of course not. But the Genesis poetry is a beautiful story of creation. And the message is simple: God created the world. How He did it doesn't mater. Do I believe that God sent boils and locusts to torture Job? No. People used God as a way to explain bad things all the time in those days. But I do believe that God created the world and allows suffering. We have free will. And we have to take the good and the bad. Job's suffering isn't the point. It's a story of faith, hope, and perseverance under seemingly impossible circumstances. No one would argue that those lessons are very important even today in our every day lives.

Jesus was pretty clear in his message as was the Siddh?rtha Gautama (Buddha) and countless other spiritual leaders: Love others. Don't cause each other pain. Suffering is part of life. Attachment causes suffering. We grow spiritually through trials. Live your life morally and ethically, work hard, be careful with your words and thought, seek spiritual enlightenment through prayer and/or meditation, we are more than our physical bodies....

Those are timeless lessons. Guidelines for human life on earth. And if everyone followed those simple guidelines, the world would be a very different place. Some might say, heaven.

Did you recently post in the "private schools thread" on Catholic schools? Just curious if you are the same poster (The person there gave me some good advice)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both science and religion have to believe in something that was there attge beginning. Energy is not more implausible than God.

Quite the contrary. Energy is considerably less complex than God. Energy doesn't listen to your prayers, or have the ability to do anything it wants. The idea that theists would point to an incomplete knowledge of how "energy" behaves, or of the origin of the universe as a lack of knowledge, then try to offer omnipotent, omniscient beings as an alternative is quite comical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's assume for the moment that because we do not have an explanation for the existence of matter, we have to posit a creator. Okay. That doesn't get you to God as any major world religion defines him. It just gets you a creator.

That is fine! If we call God the Creator, the First Mover, does that change some of the professed atheists' position? Because very few of the PPs who professed atheism specifically stated they do not believe in a Creator. They just had problems with various religions.

Sure, but that doesn't get the theists any closer to the goal. Fine, there's a Creator. It's possible that the "creator" is a black hole in a parallel universe. Unlikely to the point of impossibility that it's an omnipotent, omniscient being that cares about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but this last post is nonsense. The statement that skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof is neither arrogant nor humble. It just logically is.


I'm sorry, but your last sentence is begging the question: "skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof. It just logically is.". You assume your conclusion.

"Objective" does not mean "impersonal.". It is not an attitude--you are right.


You are equating belief and feelings to knowledge.

Not at all. But first, can you define a skeptic (of objective truth regarding God and right and wrong) in a way that satisfies you without begging the question?

I am not assuming my own conclusion. You are free to provide proof of God's existence. If you do, the conclusion cannot be begged.

PP, I am sorry about the brevity of my last post. I tried texting while elliptical-ing, and my experiment failed

Presenting all of the arguments for the existence of God in this forum is pretty much impossible, and my little mind is not the best one to present them. A book on my nightstand offers 20 arguments, beginning with Aquinas' five ways, and including some that claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. I will defer to greater minds.

But I have a confession to make. I started this thread because I have been struggling with doubt. And so I wanted to go back to the beginning. And for me, that starts with one question: is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies? Is anything actually wrong?

God has filled the earth with evidence of His existence, but not His direct presence. (Hence, the PPs' request that God just open up the skies and give His morning report). His existence is reasonable, but not obvious. That ambiguity is the space for our freedom. There is a difference between proving a preposition and accepting a preposition. I might be able to prove God exists, and that there is objective right and wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt. But you could still choose to reject those prepositions.

To fall back on C.S. Lewis (sorry if that annoys anyone):

"The Irresistable and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of [God's] scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo."

[Anonymous]

This thread reminded me of the lyrics to this song by Neil Diamond. This is how I feel about God.

I love the line that, "some people got to make it though by never wondering why". It's so true.


I've Been This Way Before


I've seen the light
And I've seen the flame

And I've been this way before
And I'm sure to be this way again;
For I've been refused
And I've been regained

And I've seen your eyes before
And I'm sure to see your eyes again

Once again.

Some people got to laugh
Some people got to cry
Some people got to make it through
By never won'dring why.
Some people got to sing
Some people got to sigh
Some people never see the light
Until the day they die;
But I've been released
And I've been regained
And I've been this way before
And I'm sure to be this way again

Once again.
One more time again
Just one more time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, objective truth.

"Objective" is defined as "independent of the knower and his consciousness." Truth, according to Aristotle's definition, is defined as "saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not.". Truth means "telling it like it is."

Objective truth regarding math and the laws of physics does not seem to need God (putting aside the questions of who set the first object in motion, why something and not nothing, energy, etc.). We can observe gravity. We can figure out that sand will not work in our car's engine. We can accept that humans cannot fly like birds.

Objective truth regarding right and wrong actions is different. Why was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip the hearts out of living babies?

PPs have indicated religious skepticism (objective truth is ONLY found in the sciences) or religious subjectivism (religious "objective truth" is merely feeling). Religious skeptics say we cannot know objective truth about God. But the skeptic is saying he knows God well enough to know we can know nothing about Him. How can the skeptic know with certainty that God cannot be known? Skeptics usually don't think it is important to know, or are prejudiced against knowing. The skeptic says we cannot know the truth. The subjectivist says we all know it. The skeptic denies truth; the subjectivist denies error. Objective truth is "for you, but not for me.".

So for the skeptics and the subjectivists regarding objective truth of right and wrong, why is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies?

You're conflating two vastly different things: "What is the structure of physical reality?" on the one hand, and "What is the tastiest ice cream flavor?" on the other.

In my opinion, one has components of objective truth. The other does not. God is like the second. To argue that "Vanilla is the most delicious flavor of ice cream! I know this because every time I eat it, I can feel it in my heart. If you try it with an open heart, and in the spirit of honest seeking, there's no way you can think otherwise! Vanilla ice cream *wants* you to know that it's the most delicious!"

We don't eat babies for the same reason we don't eat poop-flavored ice cream: it's a combination of cultural factors, and biological self-preservation.

[Anonymous]

It is not wrong to rip the hearts out of babies. In fact, it is a form of population control. If everybody in the community accepts it, and each is secretly happy that they won't have the expensive of raising that child if theirs is chosen, then, nope... it is not wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

More condescension.

When your kid gets run over by a car, don't ask Poseidon for help.