Not Beliving in God

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Boredie, Mar 7, 2010.

  1. Boredie

    Boredie In need of Entertainment

    This thread is going to be half a rant, and half my own ideas thrown out there.
    Feel free to comment or add, oh, and don't take it personally.

    I think the biggest reason people tend to toss away the idea of the existence of God is because if they did believe in his existence then it would mean having some obligation towards him. So people will throw in all they've learned about the lack of evidence and proof of God so they won't have to acknowledge him and worship him.
    People tend to merge religion with God - saying it is one and the same, but it's not. Religion is for man who wishes to worship God. So let's put religion aside and focus on the creator. All you need to do, is acknowledge his existence, nothing more, nothing less. You will not be obligated to do anything else apart from knowing that he exists.

    After that, you probably now want to know where the evidence is of God's existence. I will refer to him as the creator and not god to put any religious conotation aside (because this is not about religion).

    When you come across a garden that has straight rows of different types of flowers (row one has type one flowers, row two has another type of flower, and so on) - do you dispute for a second that a gardener was behind the design of the garden? The chances of these straight rows of different types of flowers be a coincidence is so slim, that I have no doubt in my mind that anyone else will come up with a better theory than the gardener having designed the garden. The garden is the evidence to there being a gardener.
    When you look closely at the working of the world - the continuous cycle of seasons, night/day, ecological balance etc, etc. - it is too perfect, too systematic for it to be created via coincidence. The world is the evidence to there being a creator.

  2. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    I disagree wholeheartedly, You make worshiping a God sound like a chore and that those who choose not to are lazy. What you are not considering is that the neutral stance is not to believe in God.

    God does not exist until we give him an existence be that God, Allah, Brahama, Odin, etc.. Its not that people choose not to worshiip him its because people choose not to create the very notion or concept of something to worship.

    So the biggest reason people tend not to believe in God is because of rationality and the concept of God having no entity or substance.

    What difference does it make?

    ...but anyway its not about acknowledging his existence, it is about not believing in his existence. You can not acknowledge something exists if you dont believe in it. The problem is you have approached this subject on the precursor that God exists and that those who dont believe he exists are merely being ignorant. Its not ignorance its non-conceptualisation, a complete absence of suppositions and notions of the very idea that God is anything but make believe.

    1). Is the world perfect?
    2). If it were not systematic, what would it be?

    These are not signs of a creator, they are merely the circumstances of the universe we have evolved in. Cycle of seasons is not a sign of a creator, the sesaons happen because of the earth tilt and therefore all life on that earth has adapted and evolved under those circumstances. tO make a claim it is the sign of a creator is illogical, if it spun perfectly on axis we did not have seasons and life evolved appropriate to that would you still make the claim its the sign of a creator..... are you making these claims based on perfections or imperfections..... or because you have this presupposition that there is a creator (you cant remove religion from it) and either way it would be its doing.

    Lets have a look at some other examples of signs of a creator; HIV, a perfect virus that can be easily spread, mutate around immune systems whilst incubating in its host long enough to spread without killing it. Is this super-virus a sign there is a God?
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2010
  3. Boredie

    Boredie In need of Entertainment

    Does thought have substance? Yet we all know thoughts exist.

    Circumstances occur with no logic, things just happens because things happen. If you take the theory of the big bang as something that happened out of coincidence what are the chances 65 billion years later we are on a plant that works in a never ending cycle? How come during those 65 billion years did nothing else occur to obscure the possibility of reaching what we have today? The margin of error might be small on a small scale of, let's say 1 year.. but 65 billion years makes the margin of error so much more greater, yet still we have reached a point where this world exists with certain rules. Nature.
    You automatically assume that God can only be good. A creator of this world might be a completely neutral being - and therefore what you deem perfect (no illnesses, no viruses etc.) is not what the creator deems perfect, so your argument on this point is not valid.
  4. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    A thought is a cognitive function it exists as it does have a substance we know this as we are self-aware. If you are comparing the concept of God to a thought then you can admit a god is a supernatural being that only exists through our abstract creation.

    So there is no creator or overseer?

    We are not in a never ending cycle, we are in a cycle that is ever changing, no two days are identical. Even in 65bn years.

    Thats not a logical question; How come you are alive today? I had a friend who was killed when he was 14, why did this not happen to you? why did it not hapen to me? Why are we still here and he is not?

    The reason nothing happened is because nothing happened, there is no need to question why nothing happened, if soemthing had happened then there would be no possibility of the question and therefore God would not exist. Consider (were using big bang theory rememeber)that there are millions of galaxies and solar systems, unless they all have complex life we can ask why dont they, what happened in the time from the big bang for them not to have life? why is there no complex life on Mars? what obscurity happened? ... lets fast forward when Earth meets its fate and assuming human life does to, is that the end of God because no-one can ask the question or conceptualise his existence?>

    This offers no value to the existence of God. Liek you said Nature, that does nto mean God, creator or anything else, it just means the physical world we exist within.

    Its not my argument, Im not claiming that the universes systematic perfections/imperfections are evidence of a creators existence. You are though. So is your point not valid?

    My argument is that your reasoning for a creator is completly flawed because either way and anyway you will justify his existence. God only exists because you want him to exist not because there are signs of his existence. If I roll a dice and wish for a 6 and land a 6 is there a god, if I roll a dice and wish for a 6 and land a 3 is there a God? Based on your logic of the systematic universe then whatever I roll is evidence of God.
  5. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    The argument in the OP is a version of the old watchmaker argument. One of the immediate problems I see in it, is that it can be turned around on the proposed creator. Something capable of creating the entire universe, would surely seem to beg creation more than the universe itself; where if you were in an average spot in it, you would find yourself in complete darkness, near-complete emptiness, and with a temperature near absolute zero. When I think of God, the question that springs to my mind is, what created him? The best answer I have is, we did.

    As for the probability of things occurring as they did, we don't know they could have been otherwise, and we have no data concerning the initial state of the universe (if there was one), so how can you even calculate the probability of life existing? It could be 100% for all we know, and likely is by my estimate.
    Nonsense. I was never raised to believe a person had much in the way of obligations to God at all, and such things never entered my mind when I started trying to figure out why people believed in him in the first place. Since then, and to this day, I've never heard a reason I've found convincing. In fact, his apparent absence from everyday affairs, has always spoken volumes to me.


    If you think about it, non-theistic explanations of things are the only ones leaving nothing wanting for creation, insofar as they are anti-Platonist. Where did everything come from? From what came before: every instance of the universe being different than that before it, wholly ungoverned and simply being and becoming, or what stands between those ideas. With what we take as universals--time, space, numbers--being parts of particulars in practice, and not containers or constraints as such. Like an invoked memory, everything invented anew on appearance, and being as such, because there is no otherwise, no existent counterfactual; but for their manifestations in our thoughts as dreams. As we must wonder why not otherwise, as to understand why everything is as it is, you would have to have the whole of it contained in your head from start to finish, and we are not the whole of it. And in all truth, there is no reason why, as there is no director to have conceived a justification, or essence from which things unfold, but simply existence.

    It's a poetic thought, at the very least.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2010
  6. FutureTrackStar

    FutureTrackStar Registered Member

    - It's interesting that you chose a garden to serve as an analogue for the universe because Richard Dawkins made the exact same analogy in his book The God Delusion. He said that we can observe a garden and enjoy its beauty without believing in magical fairies living underneath it. As John Lennox pointed out to him in front of a live audience, though, nobody believes there are magical fairies under the garden, we simply believe there is a gardener. The very fact that we can understand that a garden can serve as an analogue for the universe is evidence that we all know deep down that there was a "Gardener".
  7. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Modest Mouse used the Earth as an analogue for the universe, thereby providing evidence that deep down we know it orbits a star? I'm not sure how your thinking even starts to work on that one....
  8. FutureTrackStar

    FutureTrackStar Registered Member

    - Eh, I don't think the Earth is as good an analogue as a garden. Trust me, that wasn't supposed to be too convincing of an argument.
  9. Boredie

    Boredie In need of Entertainment

    Going back to your first post, I’d like to add a few things.
    But it is like that. You are giving a very good example that all these so called circumstances fall into place so perfectly, there is no error. It was designed with no fault.
    There is no need to refer to that option, since that option doesn’t exist. I can only refer to what is currently this world.
    I removed this thread from religion for a purpose – and you are bringing it right back – as if my claims can only be religion based. You are wrong on that account. Religion has nothing to do with the possibility of a creator of this world.

    I wasn’t comparing the concept of a creator to a thought. I was comparing the lack of substance, physical matter, seeing, touching, feeling of a thought to a creator of this world – which we cannot see or touch, nor does it have physical matter. Yet you automatically dismiss the idea of a creator’s existence because it doesn’t fall into your realm of logic or self awareness.

    I’m saying things do not occur from circumstances – they are all part of the grand design of this world.

    I wasn’t concentrating on what I was trying to say, sorry. I meant to say what are the chances of living on a planet that evolved for 65 billion years, which works in perfect order with no error? There has never been a time where there was never day or never night (not talking about the north/south poles), there was never a time where spring preceded winder, summer or autumn. Everything that exists on this planet coexists with each other, bringing balance to a well-oiled machine. Let’s even assume that the big bang theory is accurate – the creator was the one who set it into motion, making evolution as part of what it created.

    Having no complex life on Mars doesn’t negate the existence of a creator. All it means is that we don’t know why it created what it created, but its creations are designed to the tiniest details possible.
    And when the earth comes to its end, all it means is that the creator destroyed what it created. It doesn’t change the creator’s existence.

    And this physical world we exist in has been designed to the smallest detail possible for it to work endlessly with no errors. Everything that exists in nature is there for a purpose. Bees, plants, pollen, are just but a small sample of coexisting which without one of them the other cannot reproduce, which could cause an ecological disaster.

    It takes the minimum of two to have an argument/discussion. The minute you responded to this thread you became part of it, so it is your argument to.

    You are bringing in examples of day-to-day life – of what humans do. This is not what I’m talking about at all. I’m talking about the world, the nature and it’s automatic functions, not things that man has made.

    I didn’t make it clear in the OP, that those people I was referring to were people who had once believed in God.
  10. FutureTrackStar

    FutureTrackStar Registered Member

    I would say that the best proof of Creation (and thus, God) is laid out in Jason Lisle's book The Ultimate Proof of Creation. Boredie, I suggest you read it. A preview is available on Google Books.

Share This Page