Questioning the question of God's existence

by DT 30 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Gopher

  To "Must Obey":

  I appreciate your references on agnosticism. Technically everyone is an agnostic, in the sense that nobody on earth can prove with 100% certainty the existence or lack thereof of a supreme being. The question then becomes one of belief, or lack thereof.

  However, I do not agree with your definition of atheist that you posted:

  If you allow for the possibility of God's existence but feel belief in God is not warranted because you don't consider there is enough evidence, then strictly speaking you are an agnostic, not a 'weak atheist'. An atheist is, by definition, some who feels the evidence clearly shows there is no God.

  I'm a 'weak atheist' in that I simply don't believe there is a god. A 'strong atheist' fits your second definition, one who states (with a strong degree of certainty) that there is no God. While I believe the weight of the evidence is against the existence of a god (such as has been defined by various religions and dictionaries), I also know there's no air-tight 100% evidence either way. (As I mentioned before, the same could be said about Santa Claus. Perhaps he really does exist in a remote northern-hemisphere location.)

  I wouldn't try to impose my definition on your belief system, so I hope you'll return the favor and not impose a definition on my unbelief system.
• 

  Awakened07

  -I spent an hour or so writing out a very long, well thought out, point by point post to the original post, and took care to copy the text as I went along as to avoid the forum software to crap out on me as usual. As I was about to finish, walking on egg shells in an effort to avoid some internet hickup, what happens?

  Blue screen.

  Had to restart the computer and all was lost. Not that anything I write is so profound, but still annoying as ... something very annoying. I'll see if I can muster the energy to redo it sometime, but I doubt it.
• 

  SickofLies

  I guess I would consider myself a ‘weak atheist’ or an agnostic of sorts. I don’t believe in any god, if you have read any of my previous posts that would be obvious, but I don’t claim to know the status of the unknowable. (I am however, anti-religious, but that’s another matter).

  I use to call myself an atheist without any problems, but I avoid doing that anymore because the true meaning of the word has been lost.

  Theist - Belief in a god or gods

  ‘A‘-Theist - Lack of belief in a god or gods

  All of us are atheists at birth, it requires someone to tell you that there is a god in order for you to understand the concept. This is not an argument against god, after all many things require knowledge before we are able to comprehend their existence. We might think that the radio was magical if we didn’t learn in school that there are invisible radio waves transmitting songs throughout the air.

  There is a big difference between things like radio waves and god though, mainly that there is proof that things like radio waves, air and gravity exist. It would be stupid to say ‘I don’t believe in radio waves’, because it is obvious they exist. However, it is completely rational to say you don’t believe in something that cannot be proven to exist.

  For example, there is a theory in physics that says there may still be free quarks floating around the galaxy as remnants of the big bang, there is no evidence of this and many physicists don’t believe this to be true. I would not take any faith on my part to say ‘I don’t believe there are any free quarks floating around’ because there is no evidence for them. If evidence were to show up, I would be excited and say ‘Wow, that’s great, I thought there was no way they could exist’ and that would be it. I could not say ‘I don’t believe in free quarks’ anymore because there would be clear proof of their existence.

  So until I see some kind of proof for any kind of god I will continue to say ‘I don’t believe in god(s)’ without any faith in the above statement. It is simply a matter of opinion, I see no reason to believe in god, so I don’t.

  However, the religious will always try to claim that belief / non-belief are equivalent, a statement which does not take much intelligence to refute.
• 

  Must obey!

  No problem Gopher. U're free to choose any definition you want. The analogy with Santa Claus is silly though. We know for a fact that Santa Claus is an entirely fictional character and does not exist. But of course some would debate otherwise, just as some assert the earth is still flat and that the holocaust did not happen. Whatever man...Peace.
• 

  Gopher

  MO, peace back to you. Just a clarification or two:

  I didn't choose a definition out of thin air. Actually the American Heritage dictionary defines an atheist as "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of gods". So the universe of atheists includes two categories: disbelievers (weak atheists) and deniers (strong atheists).

  I used the Santa Claus illustration to further illustrate atheism. Santa may have originated with an actual Saint Nicholas, however the Santa legend as is known today (and widely believed by pre-school children) was a creation of some imaginative minds. Similarly, to an atheist the God figure was (likely or certainly, depending on strength of atheism) a creation of imaginative minds.
• 

  VoidEater

  We know for a fact that Santa Claus is an entirely fictional character and does not exist.

  I think there is enough evidence out there that there may have indeed been an "historic Santa Claws". It is likely a stronger case than that for the "historic Dracula" (e.g., Vlad the Impaler) - not that Vlad didn't exist, but rather questioning whether Vlad was an inspiration for Dracula or just an historic figure that mirrors aspects of Dracula. See St Nicholas of Myra, if nothing else.

  SickofLies and Gopher - as always, calm, collected and helpful!
• 

  5go

  Gopher pretty much summed it up.

  I see no reason to believe in gods the way they are currently defined. They are mythical do not exist at all.

  I do believe there can be higher beings we might think of, and describe as gods. They may have helped us in the past even created us in some way. Also, I hope they can help us in the future.

  Though until I see proof, they do not exist either. It is only my idea.

  So, I do not fit into the agnostic definition, but I do fit into a week atheist definition quite well.
• 

  Must obey!

  Mmm...yeah but the analogy is still very weak because the Santa Claus myth today (the one who flies around in the sky on reindeer and puts pressies down ya chimney) has origins rooted in an actual historical figure. Perhaps an analogy with Zeus or some other ancient mythological god is better.

  Whether its the Adonai, Allah, or Aliens doesn't matter to my way of thinking. What seems undeniable to me is that there is self-evidently some great intelligence, personality, mind, creative influence behind it all...an original cause. This requires a lot less faith to me than accepting it is all down to blind chance, random selection, basically nothing. Both require leaps of faith, it's just that deists see a lesser leap of faith than materialists. The fact that this mind or creative entity or whatever it is has not shown itself/themselves for aeons of time is entirely irrelevant really; I think this is where many atheists go wrong...they confuse the absence of a higher power for nonexistence.

  Keep your mind open but not so open that everything falls out. Peace.
• 

  Gopher

  Hi again MO!

  What seems undeniable to me is that there is self-evidently some great intelligence, personality, mind, creative influence behind it all...an original cause.

  Well that's your belief, and I respect it while not sharing it.

  The fact that this mind or creative entity or whatever it is has not shown itself/themselves for aeons of time is entirely irrelevant really; I think this is where many atheists go wrong...they confuse the absence of a higher power for nonexistence.

  In reference to a god, absence and nonexistence are almost the same thing. If the deity hasn't interacted with his creation for aeons of time, and probably won't for more aeons, then he might as well be non-existent.

  The thing is, in many major belief systems, the deity expects you to do something on his/its behalf, in order to gain a reward. But if the deity isn't interacting with you, than what does he care what good or bad that you do? Why serve a being who doesn't seem to care about his creation?

  Keep your mind open but not so open that everything falls out.

  LOL! Good advice.
• 

  Must obey!

  Gopher, yes, I totally agree it is irrational and rather unreasonable to expect people to ingratiate and kowtow to a higher being who hasn't interacted with his creation for so long. That makes absolute sense to me too, hence why I am no longer interested in organised religion. But having said that, just because that being has not interacted for so long simply doesn't itself mean that this being doesn't exist. For all we know, this being does indeed have some good reason for not interacting and will do so again in the future, who knows when. Actually, a reasonable conclusion from seeing so many millennia of human suffering without any intervention from 'God' is that while he exists, he must be an uncaring, uncompassionate, being, for we cannot comprehend a justifiable reason for why an all-powerful being would tolerate so much suffering and wickedness for so very long.

  For the simple reason alone that the alternative explanation, ie, blind chance and evolution is so incredibly mathematically improbable and unproveable and hence requires a leap of faith in the same way belief in 'God' does, logically we must therefore remain open to the possibility that such a being still exists, despite it's long-time aloofness. Thats if we are capable of being totally unbiased on the matter. An analogy might be: a child came upon an ancient castle that had existed for millennia but no one could ever remember who the maker or owner of the castle was & in the meantime the occupants for many centuries had engaged in all sorts of cruel and vile activities and no one was taking any responsibility to turf them out of the castle or intervene to control the occupants...all traces of ownership and responsibility for the castle were long lost in the mists of time...it would be absurd for the child to insist that the lack of visitation by anyone to take responsibility for it and sort the occupants out for their abuses for so many centuries must mean that the castle was never made or built by anyone in the first place. Similarly the universe and all life..we intuitively sense some great mystery behind it all and rather than arrogantly deny that there is any creator just because of all the abuse by earths occupants for so long, it seems more reasonable and objective to say that a better position seems to be that while there are good reasons for believing in a creative power behind it all, we throw our hands up in frustration, ignorance, and even anger as to why this creative force seems so distant and unknowable, and leave it at that.

  Ciao.