Why There Is No God

I would like to hear some serious, mature, reasoned responses from those who believe there is no God as to why you think there is no God.

Let's take it slow and easy.

Originally posted by josephw
I would like to hear some serious, mature, reasoned responses from those who believe there is no God as to why you think there is no God.

Let's take it slow and easy.

First of all i think it would help if you defined what 'God' is.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
First of all i think it would help if you defined what 'God' is.

Creator of all that exists.

Originally posted by josephw
I would like to hear some serious, mature, reasoned responses from those who believe there is no God as to why you think there is no God.

Let's take it slow and easy.

Well firstly I don't believe any sources authored by non-supernatural beings about the supernatural and so until it can be demonstrated to *my* satisfaction (not yours) that at least one is inspired by the supernatural I have no basis for believing that any holy books are true.
Arguments that won't work here are:
1) Appeals to my stupidity for not believing you
2) Interspersing capital letters liKE I'M dOinG noW into some long heart rending tale about overcoming adversity through the teachings of Christ. Reveal Hidden Content
3) Scripture barrage - remember, I don't believe your holy book ;]
3) Personal testimony
4) Vague prophecies
5) Appeal to number of adherents
6) Appealing to my supposed hatred of God (even though I don't believe such an entity exists to be hated)
7) Threats of eternal hell-fire and torture if I don't convert NOW!
8) Claiming that I haven't disproved god exists somehow proves *your* god, as represented by *your* holy book exists
9) Hazy reference to historical verification of your holy book that is, on closer inspection, profoundly dubious, like asserting the ark has been discovered etc...
10) Pointing out my failure to witness the big bang proves your god, as represented by your holy book, exists
10.5)...I'll post some more as they spring to mind

Originally posted by josephw
Creator of all that exists.

In that case we should be forced to accept in full that the so called creator was desirous to create the so called "all that exists" (he was desirous to create the observer universe).
Would you agree that this is a forced variation?
😵

Originally posted by Agerg
Well [b]firstly I don't believe any sources authored by non-supernatural beings about the supernatural and so until it can be demonstrated to *my* satisfaction (not yours) that at least one is inspired by the supernatural I have no basis for believing that any holy books are true.
Arguments that won't work here are:
1) Appeals to my stupidity for not bel ...[text shortened]... epresented by your holy book, exists
10.5)...I'll post some more as they spring to mind[/b]

I'm looking for reasons why you don't believe that a creator doesn't exist, not reasons why you don't believe why I believe a creator exists.

What evidence or proof do you have that there is no creator of all that exists?

Originally posted by black beetle
In that case we should be forced to accept in full that the so called creator was desirous to create the so called "all that exists" (he was desirous to create the observer universe).
Would you agree that this is a forced variation?
😵

To tell you the truth I'm not sure what you mean.

What do you mean "in that case"? How is it "forced"?

Originally posted by josephw
I'm looking for reasons why you don't believe that a creator doesn't exist, not reasons why you don't believe why I believe a creator exists.

What evidence or proof do you have that there is no creator of all that exists?

You said you'd take it slow and easy Josephw so I'm going to point out one reason at a time. Reveal Hidden Content My first is that the major sources for asserting the existence of gods are holy books. I do not believe these to be true and so I see no reason to even consider the possibility there exists a god.

Originally posted by Agerg
You said you'd take it slow and easy Josephw so I'm going to point out one reason at a time. [hidden](because a popular theist tactic is to cherry pick, divide, obfuscate, and then claim to have conquered)[/hidden] My first is that the major sources for asserting the existence of gods are holy books. I do not believe these to be true.

Then what about the universe? If you don't believe that a God communicated with man that's fine.

But what of the universe? Does it not make you wonder? Do you really think you have an answer about how, what, when, and why it exists?

Agerg, I'm not into tactics. I'm into reason and logic. I understand your reservations. I don't like what I see in what passes for Christianity in this world any more than you do.

I have basically said all this before many times but I try just one more time:

To show that an assumption that ANY particular existential claim is true is unreasonable  ( not JUST the existential claim that there is a “God”  ) when there is no credible evidence to support it, one only has to merely point out that is no credible evidence to support it –that is all!
If this was not the case then ANY existential claim should be seen as perfectly credible no matter how wild or absurd such as the existence of tooth fairies or the existence of an invisible flying cat floating above your head right now DESPITE the fact that there is no credible evidence for this existential assumption because there is no credible evidence for this existential assumption being false!

To believe an existential claim such as there exists a yeti is faith. And to disbelieve existential claim such as there exists a yeti is a particular absence of faith and it is NOT faith that there exists NO yeti (because there is no credible evidence for the existence of a yeti). The same logic is valid when it comes to the existential claim that there exists a god.

So, therefore, because there is no credible evidence that there is a God, it is reasonable to assume that there is NO God. There is also no evidence that there is NO God -but, for the reasons I have just pointed out, that is irrelevant because the claim that there is a God is an existential claim.

Now, I have heard the counter claim to this that there IS credible evidence that there is a God! -specifically, the stated claims of people mentioned in the Bible that claimed to have actually observed God.
So I will pre-empt that possible counter-claim now by pointing out like I did several times before:

In Jesus 's time and hundreds of years afterwards, people generally had rather superstitious minds with no understanding of science.
If such a superstitious person, say, heard load thunder then he may erroneously interpret that as meaning “God is angry” and then pass that down as a story as if it was an OBSERVATION that “God was angered” –but that “observation” would not be a real one; it would be just an erroneous interpretation of an observation and not a direct "observation". Much of the claims of people mentioned in the Bible would fall into that category.
Also, unlike in the modern era of scientific understanding, someone could spread rumours in Jesus 's time of what we would rationally think in this modern era of scientific understanding as absurd and yet they would still be believed! (such as claims of sightings of supernatural angels etc). In time, everyone would have come to believe such a rumour because superstition ruled in those days.
So the Bible cannot show credible evidence that there is a God simply because the claims of people mentioned in the Bible that they have actually observed God because such claims are unreliable to say the least (for the reasons just given).

Originally posted by josephw
Then what about the universe? If you don't believe that a God communicated with man that's fine.

But what of the universe? Does it not make you wonder? Do you really think you have an answer about how, what, when, and why it exists?

Agerg, I'm not into tactics. I'm into reason and logic. I understand your reservations. I don't like what I see in what passes for Christianity in this world any more than you do.

May I assume your lack of inclination to resolve my problem with holy books can be taken to mean that my first contention stands and you shall not make the mistake of referencing your own holy book to me as this thread evolves?


...and what of the universe? Clearly it exists otherwise I would not be around to recognise it's non-existence. Why then need there be a reason for it's existence? How about there is no reason, it just exists! How about that we exist is nothing more than a transient by-product of the non caring mechanisms of a large, wholly natural universe?

Originally posted by josephw
Then what about the universe? If you don't believe that a God communicated with man that's fine.

But what of the universe? Does it not make you wonder? Do you really think you have an answer about how, what, when, and why it exists?

Agerg, I'm not into tactics. I'm into reason and logic. I understand your reservations. I don't like what I see in what passes for Christianity in this world any more than you do.

“...But what of the universe? Does it not make you wonder? Do you really think you have an answer about how, what, when, and why it exists? ….”

Suppose you did not know about how, what, when, and why clouds exist -so you should conclude that a supernatural “God” must have created it? Answer; no.
this is because it does not logically follow from:

1, we don't know “how, what, when, and why” something X is so.

That:

2, X is so because of a supernatural God.

So you are not using logic here.
If you dispute this then explain to us how 2 logically follows from 1 -I mean, humour me and show us the intermediate steps in this logical deduction that goes from 1 above to 2 above.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I have basically said all this before many times but I try just one more time:

To show that an assumption that ANY particular existential claim is true is unreasonable  ( not JUST the existential claim that there is a “God”  ) when there is no credible evidence to support it, one only has to merely point out that is no credible evidence to support ...[text shortened]... served God because such claims are unreliable to say the least (for the reasons just given).

"So, therefore, because there is no credible evidence that there is a God,.."

Is not the existence of the universe credible evidence? Why do you think it's not?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...But what of the universe? Does it not make you wonder? Do you really think you have an answer about how, what, when, and why it exists? ….”

Suppose you did not know about how, what, when, and why clouds exist -so you should conclude that a supernatural “God” must have created it? Answer; no.
this is because it does not logically follow from ...[text shortened]... and show us the intermediate steps in this logical deduction that goes from 1 above to 2 above.

Get back to the thread.

Do you have a reasoned response as to why you think there is no God?

Originally posted by Agerg
May I assume your lack of inclination to resolve my problem with holy books can be taken to mean that [b]my first contention stands and you shall not make the mistake of referencing your own holy book to me as this thread evolves?


...and what of the universe? Clearly it exists otherwise I would not be around to recognise it's non-existence. Why then n ...[text shortened]... than a transient by-product of the non caring mechanisms of a large, wholly natural universe?[/b]

"How about that we exist is nothing more than a transient by-product of the non caring mechanisms of a large, wholly natural universe?"

Prove it. Give me a reasoned response as to why you think the universe is solely matter.