K

Stephanie:

Welcome. I realize this is your first post, so you may not be aware that we've heard many arguments like these in the past. I'll just point out a few things you might not have thought about when you posted.

Does God know everything before it happens?

Did God design us?

Did God choose to create us the way He did, or did He have no choice?

If God knew everything that we would do when He designed us and went ahead and created us anyway, then He is the one who created evil - we have no choice in the matter.


I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I assume you are saying that you haven't yet found a scientist that has religion in his or her life. This doesn't really address the issue. In fact, it seems to only add further evidence to the incompatibility of science and religion.


This isn't an argument. This is your first post, so I'll give you a friendly word of warning. Most people here will treat you with respect if you off well-thought-out arguments. They'll be merciless if you try to preach to them.


Since God is supposed to be an absolute - perfectly good, etc., one single bad thing is enough to call His existence into question.


See 4.

Again, welcome. I hope you find the conversations here interesting and informative.

JubalsCall

But I would have to say that not believing in God is a negative claim, not a neutral claim. Do you have a reason for believing that there is no God is a neutral claim?

Thanks
Tibbs

JubalsCall

This is what I mean by the problem of evil. Thanks K for the clear up.

Tibbs

JubalsCall

I have some objections to a few of your arguments. Tell me what you think.

1. That does not mean anything at all. Just because some claims contradict each other does not mean that you throw out everything. An atheist's claims and theist's claims contradict each other, but that in no way means that both of them are wrong. That just means one is wrong and one is right (I don't mean Christianity and atheist. I just mean believing in any god compared to not believing in one.)


That is the same as #1. If you say that about God's existence, you have to say that about the philosophical system, too.

Some could argue this is one for God. C. S. Lewis and some others said that we have an inner yearning to know know God because he made us so that we would need Him and our life would be incomplete without Him.

Thanks. And if you don't agree please tell me why.
Tibbs

James Hamlin

It (non-theism, atheism) is often referred to as a LACK of a belief in a god/gods - this may help clarify.

Here's a question/analogy for you: Is claiming that there is no invisible pink unicorn a negative claim or a neutral claim?

(Edited for formatting-James)

Vorkosigan

6) the discovery that god-belief -- teleological thinking and so forth, is built-into the human brain.

Jobar

JubalsCall, allow me to introduce you to the concepts of Strong and Weak atheism.

A Strong atheist has a belief that no God or Gods exist.

A Weak atheist lacks a belief in God.

Now, a lot of people don't see the difference at first. Let me illustrate.

Do you believe in greppels? (Well, likely not, because I just made that word up.) But, not knowing what greppels *are*, you can't really say you are certain you *dis*belive in greppels either, can you?

If someone tells you they are a Strong a-greppelist, they mean they have a positive belief in the nonexistence of greppels.

But a Weak a-greppelist (like you) will say that, barring some evidence being presented to you demonstrating the existence of greppels, you lack any belief in them.

Now, some here are strong atheists, and some are weak atheists. Those are descriptions of belief. We also find many agnostics here- 'gnosis' means 'knowledge'. One can be both- an agnostic (don't know for certain) atheist (denies, or lacks belief in, God(s)).

I hope this helps.

Jamie_L

Let's consider an analogy:

I know someone who believes in Fragenkroks. Fragenkroks are invisible little mouse-like gremlins that live inside computers. They use their magic to cause things like system failures and hard-disk crashes.

Do you believe Fragenkroks are real? I don't. Do you think I am making a positive claim that Fragenkroks aren't real? Is the burden on me to prove Fragenkroks aren't real? If I can't prove Fragenkroks don't exist, does that mean that the default position has to be that Fragenkroks are real, and that logical people are thereby bound to believe in them until their existence is conclusively proven false?

Okay. Enough analogy. And, no, I don't really have a friend who believes in Fragenkroks.

Lots of people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Should we believe them just because we can't prove that they weren't? Or, are they under an obligation to convince us that their story is true? Are we making a positive claim with a burden of proof if we say their story is full of holes and we don't believe them?

Now, another example. My 3-year-old daughter does not believe in God. She also does not believe in Banshees. The reason for her lack of belief in both things is that no one has ever told her about God or Banshees. Is her lack of belief a positive claim?

She cannot even formulate an opinion on the existence of God until the idea is presented to her. Thus, the idea of God is a positive claim that must be presented to her. When she grows older, and the idea is presented to her, if she doesn't believe it, is she under some obligation to prove that God doesn't exist in order to justify her continued non-belief? Would she be under an obligation to prove Banshees don't exist to justify her unbelief?

My claim is not positive because God is a concept being presented to me by other people. Absent that presentation, I have no belief in that concept. Once presented to me, I am making a judgement about the soundness of the concept as reality. I'm not really saying "God doesn't exist." I'm saying "your arguement that this concept/story is real is unconvincing."

Jamie

philechat

To tell the truth, some of my arguments are not what I believed in. I am just giving more examples of why "some" atheists don't believe.

MrDarwin

Tibbs, you are confusing not believing in the Christian god with not believing in any gods. My primary reason for not believing in any gods at all is that there is no reason for me to believe in any. There are many different belief systems involving many different deities, and I find none of them compelling.

My reasons for not believing in the Christian god are more specific, but are primarily because the stories the books of the Bible tell about him/her/it and the qualities they attribute to this deity contradict each other. The "problem of evil" is a problem, but is actually quite minor compared to the rest. Among these are a benevolent and just God that allows souls to suffer eternally (the Catholic Church apparently found this so disturbing that it invented Purgatory); the contradiction between the concepts of free will and an omniscient creator; and an omnipotent and omniscient who is not responsible for the results of of his/her/its creation--e.g., a deity that would create humans to be fallible, then punish them for failing.

Or to look at it another way: if a benevolent God exists, and wants me to believe in it, then why don't I? If the stakes are so high--the eternal damnation of my soul--and if this God is also omniscient, then he/she/it knows exactly what it would take to save me, and also knows whether or not that will ever happen. Yet sits back and does nothing. This simply doesn't make sense. I have to conclude either that this God doesn't exist, doesn't want me to be saved, or doesn't care whether I am saved.

Or this way: if your child were sitting in the middle of the road and you saw a truck speeding towards her, wouldn't you do everything in your power to get her out of its way? Even if she didn't believe you when you said a truck was about to hit her? Even if she wanted to be hit by that truck? Would you jump into the road to save her, or would you stand and watch her die?