Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It has been my experience that these arguments never go anywhere in the sense that no one is every persuaded to change their stance.

It seems the only time people go from religion/belief to atheism or from atheism to religion/belief is when some event happens in their lives. It rarely ever happens as a result of a debate or conversation.

So why do we continue on with these fruitless debates? Why can't we set the god question aside and figure out if there is an ethical standard or set of standards on which we can all reasonably agree? And then let's just be happy with that.

I actually became an atheist after an intro religion class in college, taught by a minister. Go figure? He was a fantastic teacher, however - extremely logical and rational, and able to differentiate between faith and fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Greeks believed in many gods which we now think is absurd. In 1000 years people will look at our beliefs and similarly mock things like a virgin birth

Sad really. I like their approach to explain natural phenomena and the fact that their gods/goddesses were so flawed like us. My DD is a huge fan of Greek mythology and for a while she'd pray to both God and them. I once caught her apologizing to God for praying to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Greeks believed in many gods which we now think is absurd. In 1000 years people will look at our beliefs and similarly mock things like a virgin birth

Sad really. I like their approach to explain natural phenomena and the fact that their gods/goddesses were so flawed like us. My DD is a huge fan of Greek mythology and for a while she'd pray to both God and them. I once caught her apologizing to God for praying to them.

This is so cute

I find monotheism boring.

[takoma]

God is undefined.

If I say I believe in God the Creator, the rational force that makes the universe work, but I do not believe this incomprehensibly great entity is concerned with my prayers or worship, so I do not believe in any religion, I'm a deist and a believer.

But I could just as well say that I believe in science as the way to understand the force that makes the universe work, then I'm an atheist.

The belief is the same, the terminology is different.

[Anonymous]

This thread started 2011 and goes til 2013.

It's reposted now for anyone who is interested in following a cilvil discussion about atheism.

[Anonymous]

Because there is insufficient evidence that a god exists, and I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

Certainly can offer more reasons than that but the above is foundational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because there is insufficient evidence that a god exists, and I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

Certainly can offer more reasons than that but the above is foundational.

Science doesn’t have the power to prove or disprove God. Scientists admit that. It’s a fact.

It’s ok to not believe in God. It’s ok if people say, I don’t believe in God. What’s not ok is telling other people their belief in God is wrong, irrational, or dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've found, totally anecdotally of course, that those who rail most against people with faith are those who struggle with it themselves at a certain level. As someone who does not believe in God and doesn't struggle at all with the question, I don't have any snarkiness or disdain for those who do. As PP mentioned, I think it could be comforting to have such beliefs. But, I'm not hardwired to have them. I wonder if there is a God gene or a series of God genes. What makes some people capable of believing and others not capable? It's not entirely upbringing and I'm sure it's not entirely genetic. Maybe it's some combo?

+1

Raised Hindu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there is insufficient evidence that a god exists, and I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

Certainly can offer more reasons than that but the above is foundational.

Science doesn’t have the power to prove or disprove God. Scientists admit that. It’s a fact.

It’s ok to not believe in God. It’s ok if people say, I don’t believe in God. What’s not ok is telling other people their belief in God is wrong, irrational, or dumb.

PP here. I did not use the word "science". I used "evidence". There is a big difference.

As for scientists not being able to disprove an unfalsifiable claim, of course. Just like you can't prove anything you're pretty sure doesn't exist actually doesn't. It's a logical fallacy.

You can have an opinion on what's ok to say to people and what isn't, of course. Others may disagree (ex: I agree with you in most cases, but not all). In an opinion forum, whose sole purpose is for people to share their opinions, be prepared for a wide range of approaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there is insufficient evidence that a god exists, and I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

Certainly can offer more reasons than that but the above is foundational.

Science doesn’t have the power to prove or disprove God. Scientists admit that. It’s a fact.

It’s ok to not believe in God. It’s ok if people say, I don’t believe in God. What’s not ok is telling other people their belief in God is wrong, irrational, or dumb.

PP here. I did not use the word "science". I used "evidence". There is a big difference.

As for scientists not being able to disprove an unfalsifiable claim, of course. Just like you can't prove anything you're pretty sure doesn't exist actually doesn't. It's a logical fallacy.

You can have an opinion on what's ok to say to people and what isn't, of course. Others may disagree (ex: I agree with you in most cases, but not all). In an opinion forum, whose sole purpose is for people to share their opinions, be prepared for a wide range of approaches.

God is not an unfalsifiable claim; God is not something that science does not have tools to find or measure. Science proves or disproves things in the natural world only.

Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth.

Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there is insufficient evidence that a god exists, and I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

Certainly can offer more reasons than that but the above is foundational.

Science doesn’t have the power to prove or disprove God. Scientists admit that. It’s a fact.

It’s ok to not believe in God. It’s ok if people say, I don’t believe in God. What’s not ok is telling other people their belief in God is wrong, irrational, or dumb.

PP here. I did not use the word "science". I used "evidence". There is a big difference.

As for scientists not being able to disprove an unfalsifiable claim, of course. Just like you can't prove anything you're pretty sure doesn't exist actually doesn't. It's a logical fallacy.

You can have an opinion on what's ok to say to people and what isn't, of course. Others may disagree (ex: I agree with you in most cases, but not all). In an opinion forum, whose sole purpose is for people to share their opinions, be prepared for a wide range of approaches.

God is not an unfalsifiable claim; God is not something that science does not have tools to find or measure. Science proves or disproves things in the natural world only.

Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth.

Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

Okay, you've convinced me. Dionysus and Hephaestus are real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
God is not an unfalsifiable claim;

Yes, it is. Here's the proof: think of something you are pretty sure does not exist, and then prove it does not exist.

God is not something that science does not have tools to find or measure.

Yes, it is. See the example above.

Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth.

It also has not revealed if there is a "why", or if the universe "came into existence" or if anything "preceded its birth". Those are pre-suppositions you are claiming, also without evidence.

Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms.

This is completely false.

https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/?p=582#:~:text=The%20Miller%2DUrey%20experiment%20was,the%20theoretical%20ideas%20of%20A.I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

I could post hundreds of these...

Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

So since you can't figure those things out, you just say "god musta done it"! That might be good enough for you, and certainly fits religions' need for confirmation bias, but it is not an explanation with more evidence (scientific or otherwise) than any creation myth.

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

Coupl'a things to point out here.

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
God is not an unfalsifiable claim;

Yes, it is. Here's the proof: think of something you are pretty sure does not exist, and then prove it does not exist.

God is not something that science does not have tools to find or measure.

Yes, it is. See the example above.

Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth.

It also has not revealed if there is a "why", or if the universe "came into existence" or if anything "preceded its birth". Those are pre-suppositions you are claiming, also without evidence.

Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms.

This is completely false.

https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/?p=582#:~:text=The%20Miller%2DUrey%20experiment%20was,the%20theoretical%20ideas%20of%20A.I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

I could post hundreds of these...

Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

So since you can't figure those things out, you just say "god musta done it"! That might be good enough for you, and certainly fits religions' need for confirmation bias, but it is not an explanation with more evidence (scientific or otherwise) than any creation myth.

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

Coupl'a things to point out here.

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

Who is the mathematical genius that refuted Penrose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
God is not an unfalsifiable claim;

Yes, it is. Here's the proof: think of something you are pretty sure does not exist, and then prove it does not exist.

God is not something that science does not have tools to find or measure.

Yes, it is. See the example above.

Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth.

It also has not revealed if there is a "why", or if the universe "came into existence" or if anything "preceded its birth". Those are pre-suppositions you are claiming, also without evidence.

Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms.

This is completely false.

https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/?p=582#:~:text=The%20Miller%2DUrey%20experiment%20was,the%20theoretical%20ideas%20of%20A.I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

I could post hundreds of these...

Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

So since you can't figure those things out, you just say "god musta done it"! That might be good enough for you, and certainly fits religions' need for confirmation bias, but it is not an explanation with more evidence (scientific or otherwise) than any creation myth.

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

Coupl'a things to point out here.

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

Penrose who has described himself as an atheist, says he doesn't believe in any religious doctrines but says the nature of reality is more complex than many of his secular colleagues admit. He describes 'three great mysteries' in the realms of mathematics, consciousness and the physical world, that science has not yet explained. "Mystery number one is the fact that this world of physics is so extraordinarily precisely guided by mathematical equations. The precision is extraordinary... Mystery number two is how conscious experience can arise when these circumstances seem to be right. It's not just a matter of complicated computations; there's something much more subtle going on... Mystery number three is our ability to use our conscious understanding to comprehend mathematics and these very extraordinary selfconsistent but deep ideas, which are very far from my experiences."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
God is not an unfalsifiable claim;

Yes, it is. Here's the proof: think of something you are pretty sure does not exist, and then prove it does not exist.

God is not something that science does not have tools to find or measure.

Yes, it is. See the example above.

Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth.

It also has not revealed if there is a "why", or if the universe "came into existence" or if anything "preceded its birth". Those are pre-suppositions you are claiming, also without evidence.

Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms.

This is completely false.

https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/?p=582#:~:text=The%20Miller%2DUrey%20experiment%20was,the%20theoretical%20ideas%20of%20A.I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

I could post hundreds of these...

Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

So since you can't figure those things out, you just say "god musta done it"! That might be good enough for you, and certainly fits religions' need for confirmation bias, but it is not an explanation with more evidence (scientific or otherwise) than any creation myth.

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

Coupl'a things to point out here.

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

Penrose who has described himself as an atheist, says he doesn't believe in any religious doctrines but says the nature of reality is more complex than many of his secular colleagues admit. He describes 'three great mysteries' in the realms of mathematics, consciousness and the physical world, that science has not yet explained. "Mystery number one is the fact that this world of physics is so extraordinarily precisely guided by mathematical equations. The precision is extraordinary... Mystery number two is how conscious experience can arise when these circumstances seem to be right. It's not just a matter of complicated computations; there's something much more subtle going on... Mystery number three is our ability to use our conscious understanding to comprehend mathematics and these very extraordinary selfconsistent but deep ideas, which are very far from my experiences."

For the sake of discussion, let’s say I agree with what you typed above. What would any of those “mysteries” indicate?


As a specific response, those are just variations on the fine tuning argument, and I refer you to Douglas Adam’s’ sentient puddle.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”