Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.

I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."

I am an atheist. My child had a life-threatening condition. At no point was I tempted to pray to an imaginary deity to make everything OK, and I don't believe any other atheists would be either. That is like expecting Catholics to turn Mormon when the shit hits the fan. Not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.

I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."

I am an atheist. My child had a life-threatening condition. At no point was I tempted to pray to an imaginary deity to make everything OK, and I don't believe any other atheists would be either. That is like expecting Catholics to turn Mormon when the shit hits the fan. Not going to happen.

To paraphrase PP (and Pascal), [in a breathless voice, full of awe] "But what if the Catholic is *wrong*?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We demand the truth from our spouses, our doctors, our employers, and the labels on our food. But many PPs insist there is no objective truth for morality, right and wrong. This seems to be more on volitional, rather than intellectual, grounds. No reasonable alternative for objective truth about right and wrong has been offered yet. But everyone here wants to say that at least one thing is wrong...killing an innocent child in cold blood, violent rape, cheating on a spouse...why is anything objectively, truly wrong?

Again, you haven't got an argument here. Just that you would really, really like for "truth" (which you haven't defined) to be "objective". Therefore it is. No idea what you're talking about when you say "this seems to be more volitional rather than intellectual".

Augustine said we love the truth when it enlightens us, but hate the truth when it convicts us. That was my problem. I chose not to accept the evidence presented to me because I did not want to have to submit to an ultimate, objective authority. That recalcitrance does not do away with the objective truth that an ultimate Authority exists.

You've presented no evidence whatsoever. Except your continued assertions that there's evidence.

More circularity: a Christian god exists because truth is objective. Truth is objective because Augustine said so. Did I mention Augustine was really smart?

You say "truth" is objective. I don't think you're clear on what "truth" is.

You argue that because truth is objective, there must be an "ultimate Authority". That doesn't follow: morality could very well be a biological imperative. It could be instinctual. Why isn't that more plausible?

You wave away evidence that morality differs from place to place and culture to culture. You say that since there's an objective reality, any deviation from that objective reality must be an "error". But you don't say why that has to be the case. Should gays be stoned? Should women be consigned to the home, and prevented from working? Which is the obejctively moral position? Who says so? The "ultimate Authority".

Okay, so I don't believe your "ultimate Authority" exists, you've given no evidence that truth is objective, all you've done is point out that "everyone here wants to say at least one thing is wrong". That is, individual humans have opinions on what is proper, and improper behavior. That hardly seems a relevatory point to make.

Hmmm..this post points to an inescapable problem with dialogue in this thread. I have responded to so many different posters, on so many discrete points, that several of my arguments have been chopped up and lost along the way. I have defined "objective," and "truth," and addressed the argument of morality as a biological imperative (which is logically flawed). But that was a few pages ago, and I cannot piece everything together again. That is why I want to point people to greater minds than mine, with their greater works of philosophy and logic.

But I never meant to solve the greatest question of humankind here. I wanted to understand the reasons for a lack of faith. I wanted to explore the many reasons I doubt my faith. And I wanted to make one point: these are essential conversations to have. So many atheists here said they just did not see a need to think about whether or not there is a God. And they said I had psychological problems because I do see a need. That's OK--that's what I used to think. And maybe I am a freak of nature, that I go around thinking deep thoughts all the time. But I still say these questions are, in fact, essential.

No one has been able to say there is objective truth of right and wrong without God. And yes, I really want objective truth about right and wrong to be real. Did I, along with most of my fellow humanity, dream up an Absolute Authority to fulfill that need? Possibly.

But using our reason, we can find plenty of evidence that there is a Creator, a First Mover, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And with that start, we can reasonably progress to an understanding about His expectations for our conduct, which we have freedom to choose.

But PPs are jumping into different stages of the discussion, and from one religion's claim to the next, and that makes our conversation problematic. But I hope it keeps going anyway!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And for me, that starts with one question: is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies? Is anything actually wrong?

An observation and a question.

1. Morality is an adaptive trait.

2. I agree that god has filled the world with evidence of his existence but not his presence, assuming there's a god. But then why did he bother with all the prophets and sending Jesus and performing miracles? If you don't need evidence for faith, why did God give evidence to some and not others? In your view, the apostles were the least faithful christians that have ever existed. By definition they had no true faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We demand the truth from our spouses, our doctors, our employers, and the labels on our food. But many PPs insist there is no objective truth for morality, right and wrong. This seems to be more on volitional, rather than intellectual, grounds. No reasonable alternative for objective truth about right and wrong has been offered yet. But everyone here wants to say that at least one thing is wrong...killing an innocent child in cold blood, violent rape, cheating on a spouse...why is anything objectively, truly wrong?

Again, you haven't got an argument here. Just that you would really, really like for "truth" (which you haven't defined) to be "objective". Therefore it is. No idea what you're talking about when you say "this seems to be more volitional rather than intellectual".

Augustine said we love the truth when it enlightens us, but hate the truth when it convicts us. That was my problem. I chose not to accept the evidence presented to me because I did not want to have to submit to an ultimate, objective authority. That recalcitrance does not do away with the objective truth that an ultimate Authority exists.

You've presented no evidence whatsoever. Except your continued assertions that there's evidence.

More circularity: a Christian god exists because truth is objective. Truth is objective because Augustine said so. Did I mention Augustine was really smart?

You say "truth" is objective. I don't think you're clear on what "truth" is.

You argue that because truth is objective, there must be an "ultimate Authority". That doesn't follow: morality could very well be a biological imperative. It could be instinctual. Why isn't that more plausible?

You wave away evidence that morality differs from place to place and culture to culture. You say that since there's an objective reality, any deviation from that objective reality must be an "error". But you don't say why that has to be the case. Should gays be stoned? Should women be consigned to the home, and prevented from working? Which is the obejctively moral position? Who says so? The "ultimate Authority".

Okay, so I don't believe your "ultimate Authority" exists, you've given no evidence that truth is objective, all you've done is point out that "everyone here wants to say at least one thing is wrong". That is, individual humans have opinions on what is proper, and improper behavior. That hardly seems a relevatory point to make.

Hmmm..this post points to an inescapable problem with dialogue in this thread. I have responded to so many different posters, on so many discrete points, that several of my arguments have been chopped up and lost along the way. I have defined "objective," and "truth," and addressed the argument of morality as a biological imperative (which is logically flawed). But that was a few pages ago, and I cannot piece everything together again. That is why I want to point people to greater minds than mine, with their greater works of philosophy and logic.

But I never meant to solve the greatest question of humankind here. I wanted to understand the reasons for a lack of faith. I wanted to explore the many reasons I doubt my faith. And I wanted to make one point: these are essential conversations to have. So many atheists here said they just did not see a need to think about whether or not there is a God. And they said I had psychological problems because I do see a need. That's OK--that's what I used to think. And maybe I am a freak of nature, that I go around thinking deep thoughts all the time. But I still say these questions are, in fact, essential.

No one has been able to say there is objective truth of right and wrong without God. And yes, I really want objective truth about right and wrong to be real. Did I, along with most of my fellow humanity, dream up an Absolute Authority to fulfill that need? Possibly.

Hold your horses there: no one has been able to say there is an objective truth of right or wrong *with* God. You've claimed that you really, really want it to be so. That's not the same thing. The topic of the thread is "Why don't you believe in God?" The response has been, overwhelmingly, "Because he doesn't exist." Rephrased, you have dreamt up an absolute authority to fulfill that need.

But using our reason, we can find plenty of evidence that there is a Creator, a First Mover, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

You keep saying this, but one would think that were there "plenty of evidence that there is a Creator" that you'd state it. Sorry, that evidence is just not there. Or maybe I missed that too. If so, any chance you could just enumerate the 2-3 pieces of evidence which establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" the existence of this Creator?

[Anonymous]

But using our reason, we can find plenty of evidence that there is a Creator, a First Mover, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And with that start, we can reasonably progress to an understanding about His expectations for our conduct, which we have freedom to choose.

And to think you were accusing one of the PPs of "begging the question"!

[Anonymous]

"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."

Okay. But as I said before, you're engaging in the fallacy of conflating physical "truths" with moral "truths". As many have pointed out, they're not the same thing. Moral truths are fluid. That's why the question "How can you have morality without God" is a nonsensical one. Morality is a byproduct of consciousness. It is by definition subjective.

Your only response to this seems to be that, no it's objective. And God is its arbiter. Therefore he exists.

Obviously, this is a completely unpersuasive argument unless you've got an existing attachment to the God Hypothesis. Perhaps why CS Lewis (assume he agrees with you) is so compelling to true believers, and so uncompelling to non-believers.

[Anonymous]

Here's some moral relativity fory you:

1. Euthanasia, right or wrong? End suffering or prolong life? Which is objectively more moral? What if the person is consumed by debilitating pain every second and cannot eat, speak, or move except to scream at the awful pain? What if the person is depressed, overweight, and and has a mildly debilitating condition like diabetes? Ok to kill the first? Not ok for the second? If you agree there are objective answers to these questions, please explain exactly at what point euthanasia is ok.

2. What about leaving an old person to freeze to death or be eaten by predators? Assume that the old person cannot keep up with the rest of the tribe, which lives on icebergs and must keep moving. If the tribe takes the extra time and resources to care for the elderly, it will not be able to feed the young and healthy, who will themselves become sick and perhaps endanger the tribe's survival. Assume the old person is perfectly aware of and agrees this is the right thing to do. Is it objectively moral?

3. Assume there is a god. The god tells a believer to do an objectively immoral act, like sacrifice a baby. Is the act still immoral? Compare and contrast your answer if the believer is an Aztek priest on the one hand or Abraham on the other.

[Anonymous]

As a corollary the the last question, if God can make that which is immoral moral, doesn't your idea that God is necessary for objective morality disappear in a poof of logic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's some moral relativity fory you:

1. Euthanasia, right or wrong? End suffering or prolong life? Which is objectively more moral? What if the person is consumed by debilitating pain every second and cannot eat, speak, or move except to scream at the awful pain? What if the person is depressed, overweight, and and has a mildly debilitating condition like diabetes? Ok to kill the first? Not ok for the second? If you agree there are objective answers to these questions, please explain exactly at what point euthanasia is ok.

2. What about leaving an old person to freeze to death or be eaten by predators? Assume that the old person cannot keep up with the rest of the tribe, which lives on icebergs and must keep moving. If the tribe takes the extra time and resources to care for the elderly, it will not be able to feed the young and healthy, who will themselves become sick and perhaps endanger the tribe's survival. Assume the old person is perfectly aware of and agrees this is the right thing to do. Is it objectively moral?

3. Assume there is a god. The god tells a believer to do an objectively immoral act, like sacrifice a baby. Is the act still immoral? Compare and contrast your answer if the believer is an Aztek priest on the one hand or Abraham on the other.

Only God knows the answers to these questions. We can only guess, and obviously being flawed we'll occasionally get it wrong. God exists because these questions must all have objective answers. That's because there are objective truths. And if there is no God, how can we say there objective answers to these truths? Plus a quote from CS Lewis and St Augustus.

( How'd I do? )

[Anonymous]

Another addition to the last question:
Suppose Jesus touches you. Nice, huh? Feels good?

Now suppose Jesus' hands go a little lower...you begin to feel uncomfortable....then he touches you there. You ask him to stop but he continues. Is this "right" or "wrong"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

I can see how if a believer already takes for granted the existence of gods, that CS Lewis--who seems to do a good job string together a lot of reasonable-sounding assertions into the appearance of a rational underpinning--would be quite compelling.

Each of these quotes take the same form: "First, assume God exists. Further, clearly he's a Christian. Therefore, ignoring his existence would be like ignoring the symptoms of cancer. You wouldn't ignore cancer, right? You'd go to a doctor! Therefore, belief in God is rational."

It's a fig-leaf of rationality.

I do not accept that God must obscure his presence in order to allow us to have freedom. Adam and Eve knew God and disobeyed him. So did Judas. Satan is a fallen angel. Peter denied God three times, having seen Jesus both in real life and in the Transfiguration. Moses disobeyed God once, having been to the burning bush. I see adequate proof that the freedom to obey or disobey does not require ambiguity as to God's existence. But think about it, where is the virtue in expecting people to go on a scavenger hunt for right and wrong, if there is a God who defines objective morality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

I can see how if a believer already takes for granted the existence of gods, that CS Lewis--who seems to do a good job string together a lot of reasonable-sounding assertions into the appearance of a rational underpinning--would be quite compelling.

Each of these quotes take the same form: "First, assume God exists. Further, clearly he's a Christian. Therefore, ignoring his existence would be like ignoring the symptoms of cancer. You wouldn't ignore cancer, right? You'd go to a doctor! Therefore, belief in God is rational."

It's a fig-leaf of rationality.
I do not accept that God must obscure his presence in order to allow us to have freedom. Adam and Eve knew God and disobeyed him. So did Judas. Satan is a fallen angel. Peter denied God three times, having seen Jesus both in real life and in the Transfiguration. Moses disobeyed God once, having been to the burning bush. I see adequate proof that the freedom to obey or disobey does not require ambiguity as to God's existence. But think about it, where is the virtue in expecting people to go on a scavenger hunt for right and wrong, if there is a God who defines objective morality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But using our reason, we can find plenty of evidence that there is a Creator, a First Mover, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And with that start, we can reasonably progress to an understanding about His expectations for our conduct, which we have freedom to choose.

And to think you were accusing one of the PPs of "begging the question"!

Phew! Ok, we will back up to the beginning again. Because yes, if we are going to talk about God's authority, we need to have God in the first place. Natural law is meaningless apart from the lawgiver, Who is God. Is there any evidence there is God? The classic evidence:

#1 Argument from motion (physics)

What is in motion must be put into motion by another. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, at the beginning of the series of movers must be a being that is itself unmoved and the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.

#2 Argument from causation

Every effect must have a cause. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.

#3 Argument from necessity

If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. There must have always existed, from all eternity without any beginning, a necessary being, from whom beings that began received their existence. The necessary being is God.

#4 Argument from perfection

We judge things to be more or less beautiful, just, kind, etc. This judgement presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. The absolute standard of perfection is God.

#5 Argument from design

The order of the universe and the workings of creation give evidence of an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer is God.

#6 Argument from contingency

If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. The universe exists. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist (space and time). What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time. What it takes for the universe to exist is God.

#7 The argument from consciousness (derivation of design)

We experience the universe as intelligible. So the universe is graspable by intelligence. Either the intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance. It cannot be blind chance. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

#8 The argument from truth (Platonic forms)

Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. Truth resides in a mind. The human mind is not eternal. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

Then there is Descartes' argument from the origin of the idea of God, Anselm's ontological argument, argument from universal belief, argument from miracles, argument from religious experience...

#9 The argument from conscience

Even the subjectivist thinks he should follow his conscience. Where does the conscience get such absolute authority? From something less than me (natural instinct), from myself (who is not an absolute being), from others equal to me (society is not an absolute being), or from something above me (God)? The only source of absolute moral obligation must be a superior being. This is God.

OK, I have probably taken up an entire page. But this is a start. Yikes, there are other questions I need to go back to now!

[Anonymous]

NP here. I want to respond to these two points:

... And I wanted to make one point: these are essential conversations to have. So many atheists here said they just did not see a need to think about whether or not there is a God. And they said I had psychological problems because I do see a need. That's OK--that's what I used to think. And maybe I am a freak of nature, that I go around thinking deep thoughts all the time. But I still say these questions are, in fact, essential.

Who says atheists don't think deep thoughts? Some do, and some don't (just like some religious people think deep thoughts, and others don't). It's just that atheists generally don't ponder the existence of some god as part of their deep thoughts.

No one has been able to say there is objective truth of right and wrong without God. And yes, I really want objective truth about right and wrong to be real.

I don't know for sure what you mean by "objective truth of right and wrong" in this context, but however you define it, I don't think any religious god will supply it. History is full of examples of some god or other commanding people to commit acts that we all probably would agree are "wrong." The "objective truth" that you seem to see in religion actually appears to vary quite subjectively depending on who interprets it and how they want to interpret it.

And finally, one last comment. I don't understand your focus in this discussion on one single conception of "God." Many different people throughout history believe fervently in a variety of different conceptions of "God," and indeed in several polytheistic groups of gods, or even religious systems without a god figure (like Scientology). It seems to me the evidence for those other approaches is at least as strong as the evidence for one Judeo-Christian "God."

Personally, when I "think deep thoughts" and compare the various belief systems I learn about, the various religious approaches do not resonate with me. That's why I don't believe in any gods. I certainly have a system of beliefs and morals, and of right and wrong. But they are ones I develop for myself based on my life experience and personal reflection, and not on what some external authority I'm told to obey. I suppose I'm a bit like a Secular Humanist, although I don't feel the need to adopt a particular stance or join a team.