The debate "Why do/don't you believe in god" was started by
July 2, 2019, 4:41 pm.
88 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 54 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
sk25 posted 1 argument, Light posted 10 arguments, marky posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 2 arguments, Harmony posted 1 argument, mwest0097 posted 1 argument, mtbtheboss posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
EmiMoro, romeroa251, sk25, Light, fry, JATIN2580, bigbuttgal, Jane, jrardin12, Nemiroff, Manuel, Sleepless, Shrivali_16 and 75 visitors agree.
Deat, sushmitha, JDAWG9693, Harmony, Starlight, mwest0097, suwani, mtbtheboss, TheExistentialist, crep, Hopetown27, Sumit082, itzmeboi, ezekiel and 40 visitors disagree.
cause I just don't see it.
i dont think they are. they often ask questions regarding the natural explanations directly like "do you really think everything came ex nihilo" or "evolution is a theory". when they ask you to disprove god they assume god is the logical default, and want you to literally prove his lack of existence.
i do agree that just declaring the burden is on them could come across as a dodge to those not familiar with why the burden is on them, thus a simply explanation that proving any negative is impossible and asking them to please provide proof that leprechauns dont exist tends to get the message across without sounding like your simply lazy.
I believe in God because it is logical.
You're right that when a claim has no evidence you can reject it without evidence, but when someone believes that claim it's more effective to present evidence for your counter-claim then it is to say they need to prove it.
When they ask you to prove there is "no God" they're really asking for evidence of your counter-belief. If you believe in natural causes they're asking "What proof makes you believe something natural caused the big bang?" Saying "You must be the one that proves a claim" makes it sound like whatever you believe has no evidence.
If the God of Judaism Christianity and Islam Exist- It proves that He is an Idiot
Burden of proof and not being able to proof negatives are simple logical truths. Your opinion here is sort of nonsensical in regards to simple rules of logic.
The theist must have the burden of proof to claim a positive. Otherwise you're claiming that the existence of God, Allah, Thor, Mars, Ra, etc... are all to be equally true and accepted as a default position. That's of course nonsensical since they all have mutually exclusive stories, properties, and claims. So even among theists where the existence of a god is accepted, the burden lies on the person making the claim of a specific God. If the atheist doesn't accept the claim of a God existing in the first place, the burden of proving the existence of a supernatural being is of course still with the theist as the existence of anything cannot be the default position.
There are however two sides to every argument. The atheist has a burden of proof when explaining alternatives. Evolution for example, is a claim about speciation than an atheist will make to explain the origin of humanity. The atheist must provide evidence to support that claim in order to present it as a viable alternative. Evolution cannot be considered the default state of our origin without evidence.
In the end, this type of argument is one of likely hood. Is it more likely that the universe, humanity, etc... came from natural or supernatural causes? Which side proved their position to be more likely/less likely? That is why statement like "what proof is there for no God" are absolutely absurd and the people asking such nonsensical questions should have their statements ridiculed for being logically invalid
I don't like the burdon of proof point when talking to theists. When they ask for evidence for "no God" they're asking for evidence for natural causes or any other explanation that is not a God. Whatever our beliefs are they should be based on evidence and saying our side doesn't need evidence is silly.
This is a statement that is wilfully shifting the burden of proof to the negative when the burden of proof is always on the affirmative.
This is the same as saying "What evidence supports no Tooth fairy" or "what evidence supports no Santa Claus".
These are not logically valid statements. The statement ought to be "What evidence supports the existence of God" or "What evidence supports the existence of a Tooth Fairy".
A negative cannot be proven and therefore you must always assume the negative to be true and the positive as the proveable statement. The burden of proof is therefore always on the believer of a claim while the denier must simply falsify the evidence of the believer in order to win the argument.
God may exist, but science can explain more and more of the universe without the need for a creator. The evidence is that we don't need magical supernatural powers to explain the universe. Evidence is very different to proof though.
Proof agasint a God is impossible because the claim can not be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any experiment. I can claim I am actually God and it's only you and me in this universe, everything else is just an illusion I have made to fool you. You have no way to prove that's not true. The best proof atheism has agasisnt God is a proof by contradiction in the problem of evil:
1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
3. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil from coming into existence.
4. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
5. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (the logical contradiction).
So either premise 1 or 2 is incorrect as they contradict observable fact.
What evidence supports no God.
The evidence trends toward a God being unnecessary as the "God of the gaps" is pushed into fewer and fewer areas. It's not proof, proof is impossible for unfalsifiable claims, but the trend does not support a God.
Would you care to specify on what evidence there is?
you can't prove or disprove god. however, more evidence leads towards no god. and, there is NO evidence whatsoever to support any specific religon.
People are born with abnormalities as part of the curse.
How in the world can you believe that we are the creation of a hypothetical structure which is so called god. This thing which is just a justification given by our people to just realise the positive energy underlying in all of us. I don't think that if u have read the process of evolution and the survival of the fittest by Charles Dickens, u are in no way going to believe that we are creation of god. We have such a well designed and complex body structure due to the evolution that have been developed over million of years and are of use. And I may contradict u by the way that if we are creations of god why some of the people are born with some abnormalities?
I don't believe in a god because I've never seen any evidence to support the existence of God. every argument I've heard is fallacious or the conclusion of God's existence simply doesn't follow from the premises given.
the 2nd law of thermodynamics requires a closed system. we are constantly getting energy input from the sun, thus increasing the available energy to increase complexity.
It leads to deterioration in the system? What does that mean?
The second law of thermodynamics says that even if the total energy remains constant the usable energy decreases which leads to deterioration in the system which is an idea for why vestigial structures exist.
Okay, you could clarify your point about energy and deterioration then.
I assumed you were saying entropy shows systems simplify over time. Deterioration would be another name for the simplifying process and vestigials are evidence of that somehow.
I understood part of what you were trying to say @Allrix. The point I was going to make wasn't that Vestigial structures don't exist but they exist because of the loss of energy in the system and increased deterioration not because their left over from whatever that species evolved from.
I think we were all just waiting for someone else to deal with it XD Thanks for making the sacrifice @Allirix
I chose to ignore it because I've had the debate about "entropy proves complexity is impossible" so many times and I was hoping someone else would deal with it.
The creationist argument is actually more sophisticated than what you presented too. "Evolution has to do with energy and so does the 2nd law of thermodynamics therefore vestigials are impossible". I only know what you're trying to say because I was once questioning things like this so I think I know the arguments you've heard. I eventually decided to read scientific sources instead of creationists after being honest with myself about their clear bias. If you're saying something different to what I present here then explain your reasoning.
To start with let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. Entropy is a function of any dynamic system, it's not just important in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's specifically important in industrial systems because machines perform work by converting potential energy to usable energy. Over time dynamic systems naturally homogenise their pressure, heat, electricity, ions, or whatever structure stores the potential energy. Over time they mix, removing the differential that stored the potential energy.
Eg a soda bottle stores a pressure differential. Outside is 1 atmospheric pressure, inside the bottle is 5 atms or whatever it is. Opening it causes the highly pressured air to escape into the low pressure atmosphere, breaking the pressure differential.
The creationist spin on this is entropy is proof that systems become homogeneous overtime. Homogeneous systems are simpler. Therefore, natural systems naturally converge to simplicity. Evolution is a dynamic system so it cannot develop complexity.
There's a lot wrong with this, but in the spirit of simplicity the best rebuttal is to just look at the weather. It's a natural dynamic system that creates significant complexity
Anyone who don't believe in God must have something seriously wrong with to them. Just look at how amazing you are designed. Look around at Creation. Are you people living under a rock?
And since your continuing to use vestigial I'm assuming you don't know the second law of thermodynamics.
I'd like to point out that natural selection is only one of the five main mechanisms of evolution. Vestigials "not furthering evolution" actually makes no sense given that fact so I assumed you didn't know that?
Thermodynamics has to do with energy and evolution requires change which requires energy. Everything God created was perfect but through the fall sin entered the world and thus the curse. This world is deteriorating and God will eventually destroy it and create a new Heaven and Earth. Also, their could be a purpose for the Vestigial structures but we just haven't found it yet. This has happened with many other Vestigial structures such as the appendix.
Thermodynamics gas nothing to do with evolution. And, if the perfect creator made everything, why did he make vestigial structures??
Vestigial structures do not further evolution. In fact it is evidence of the second law of thermodynamics taking effect.
You're right. Natural selection doesn't create life, it just adds biological complexity to life. There's even "redundant complexity" where unnecessary complexity that offers no benefit now like vestigials is later leveraged for an advantage after later mutations or environmental changes.
Yeah, germ theory might have been helpful 2000 years ago haha
but those adaptations added complexity. evolution does not deal with the initial formation of microbial life. but it does take life from bacteria to human.... that's a ton of added complexity.
speaking of which, if the bible is meant to be a record of science and history, why doesnt it make any mention of microbes that have scourged humanity since the dawn of time? genesis mentions plants, animals, fish, but not the most important and fundamental lifeforms.
Natural selection is not an example of forces creating complexity but rather an adaptation of something already completed based on stimuli.
@Light I may not have been clear. For the Big Bang theory I was saying those 2 arguments that 'prove' God don't reject the theory of the Big Bang. An uncaused causer and unmoved mover do not need to be an entity who decided to create the universe, it can done by natural phenomena we're yet to discover. Quantum physics was crazy but we're getting there. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. They've even been measured. Now there's gravity to figure out. Is it the result of distorted spacetime that's created by gravitrons? Would finding them completely revolutionise the prevalent big bang theory? Who knows. My only point was those two arguments also support the big bang theory.
And I didn't say evolution refutes God, I said it refutes the teleological argument because it explains complexity without the need for intelligent intervention. I know you believe natural selection because you've said so before. It's evident in recorded history. Natural selection an example of natural forces creating complexity. What do you imagine multiplying those time scales by thousands would do (even million for the development of the planets and universe)?
Science can explain the development of the universe from 1 second after the big bang to now. Science can explain life from when it became self-replicating to now. There are theories to exain the origins but the science communities are divided. Many abiogenesis theories explain the origin of self-replicating chemicals exist but none of which have scientific consensus. A theory related to virtual particles (anti-matter and matter popping into existence) is one idea for the Big Bang theory.
I believe that there is a God and he is the creator of the universe. For starters the universe is so complex that it all happening by random chance is far beyond the point where mathematically we say something is impossible. Furthermore we have the bible which has never been disproven and through science many parts of it have been confirmed. The bible timeline points to a young earth around 6,000 years old. This is confirmed by the fact that the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old. This is shown by the buildup of meteorite dust on earth. The moon is another thing that points to a creator. Its revolution around earth is too circular for it have become their by chance. It also is younger than 10,000 years old shown by the fact that it is slowly getting further away and if it was older than 10,000 years old it would have drifted off by now. The buildup of space dust also shows how young it is. When we first stepped onto the moon it was thought there would be a buildup of space dust over a mile deep due to billions of years. What was really there was an inch or two.
@Allirix I'd like to counter something you said a week ago. You said evolution disputes a creator however evolution has been proven false time and time again such as by the fact that there are only a few disputed over transitional fossils. If evolution were true we should see more of these transitional fossils than any other kind. Also you claim that the big bang theory explains several things, however, matter cannot be created nor destroyed so how did that original matter that supposedly started it all come into existence. My argument would be that it was places into existence by something supernatural. God.
I'd argue the purpose of the supernatural is to explain the unexplained. Religion's purpose is to unite communities under a common ethical framework.
I feel that one of the sole purposes religion was created was to define what we do not know, or the unknown. We do not know many things, and along with these things are things we cannot imagine. We cannot imagine a new color, we cannot imagine what the 4th dimension would look like, we cannot imagine infinity. There are many things we do not know and will simply never know so us as humans feel the need to define them. We need to make these concepts comprehensible to the human brain in order to achieve understanding. Relevant to the topic, we do not know or may be incapable of understanding the origin of the universe, so higher powers were created, or imagined, so we could understand the origin. Our weak and feeble minds eventually will turn to this new philosophy of our origin and will eventually deem it as truth. So in a sense, basic human anatomy and psychology turned to religion, and this is the precise reason why I do not follow any sort of religion.
I feel that God is the supreme, divine spirit that ingrains and instills in us the optimism and positivity to overcome the deterrent situations of life. The name 'God' lies much more than the Scriptures or the sculptures. It is a spirit to share our emotions with and never lose our willpower.
Believing in god isn't bad but what is bad is in the name of religion people are giving rise to superstitious beliefs , they are sacrificing animals in order to get blessings that doesn't make sense and even it is an evil job done .
Students are studying less and worshiping more to get good marks and loosing their time to high expectations.
And now a days Gods are taken to politics and are also leading to wars.
Hence for these all reasons I don't believe on god...that is my opinion!
Those are the stories, yeah. There's just no proof of them being true
in India gods were created by the people, and only the ones who had succeeded to limitations of humans, for example lord Shiva who has discovered 110 ways of finding the internal peace, how to respect and pacify an angry woman and many more, Buddha has discovered one way of the same thing and created a whole new religion, wow! lord Rama : he survived 14 years in jungles of India (where Alexander or whatever his name was, has not after concurring so many lands) , after being a king and you know about Indian kings he he he, after that in that time when a king could have 1000 queen he went behind the one and only Sita, literally 7000 km without any knowledge of Lanka, fought a battle, and when people of his kingdom was not accepting Sita he did what a king should do, Jesus accepted every strike from humanity and still wanted a better path for us, in such a condition where any one else would have started to loose hope and curse others, he was asking forgiveness for us, Moses (I really don't know what is the real spelling) has ended long running slavery and was so good to create strategy that he had crossed the ocean or whatever it was before the Egyptian force reached them,
so god's were there are there and will be there it depends on you......... and in time when you lost your courage, hope you can recall what they have done or at least tried, and can become the next one.... ......
Why must there be?
I am not sure but there must be something like god or any positive spirit
the germ theory of disease is a theory. are you going to claim that we dont "know" that antibiotic kill microbes which are the cause of illness? because the germ theory of disease is also a "theory".
gravity is a "theory". do you dispute these as well?
All the 'proofs' I've seen for God are just versions of Aquina's 5 ways, created 500 years ago and not the basis of any science but outdated philosophy. What's your proof?
Is it related to?
1. Teleological argument: Complex universe = creator (disputed by: evolution, anthropic principle and equally credible to multiverse theory)
2. Uncaused Causer: Everything is caused by something. Something must have started the chain of causes (also supports naturalism according to the big bang theory and the effects of speed and gravity on time)
3. Unmoved Mover: Entropy (useless energy) is going up. Someone must have been the first "mover" who created useful energy. (also supports naturalism via big bang)
4. Contingency Argument: We exist for a reason (not even an argument)
5. Ontological argument: A maximumly great being must exist because existence is a part of being maximally great. This one is stupid.
A "theory" in science is the highest achievement one can receive. In layman's terms, "theory" means something akin to "hypothesis". But, in science, the word "theory" is more akin to "fact". And, we're already having a discussion on how complexity does not equal a god on a separate thread, so I won't continue that here.
Actually, the idea that there is not sufficient evidence of the existence of God is false. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence supporting the existence of God, in fact, Science is the best argument. The main problem is that most Non-believers "prefer" not believe God's existence. If you were to google the Big Bang, you'll find that most, if not all of the search results call a the most accepted "theory" in the Scientific community.I guarantee that I'm not making this up or merely giving you my "opinion" (If you don't believe me, go for it, do the research). Basically, the strongest argument for the existence of God is the intricate complexity of the universe & things in the universe such as DNA. Such as the fact that the Universe couldn't have come to existence if the were different by one degree or hair which means it had to be intentional, hence a super intellect must have purposefully designed the universe. By the way, I know for a sheer scientific fact that God exists.
I was once a Christian but the Epicurean Paradox / the problem of evil made me question it as a teenager. When asking fellow Christians about it at the time it revealled how much of the religion is faith based. As I learned more about the world and how dangerous dogmatic thought is I slowly stopped believing.
I do not believe in a divine being because there has not been put forward, to my knowledge, sufficient evidence of one