God, why don't people believe in the idea?

[tomtefar]

I will try to answer the question as to why I do not believe in any supernatural creator entity, i.e. "God".

 

There are some things that forms the basis of science that are often misunderstood. Let me start with one, namely what science actually says.

 

Science does not say "this is true", science says something like "this is the best model (of the world / this sequence of events) we can make of how it works given the evidence that we have found". Let me try to explain what this means:

 

*) "... best model ... ": A model is per definition a simplification, and in that an incomplete, description of something (something being a sequence of events etc). The model is never said to be the whole truth. So what good does it do then? Well the model is used for one purpose alone: to try to predict future events; that is given a set of observations (by anyone), what will the result be? Now, it is vital to understand that future in this sense can also mean "after the observations". If a model can not predict future events it is of no use and therefore disposed of. If it can predict future events we will use that model until we find some observations that it can not predict. When we find sequences of observations that the model can not predict we try to formulate a new hypothesis or to refine the old one so that it can describe/predict the new and the old sequences of observation -> event. If a model is very thouroughly tested by many people it may get raised to the level of theory. Being a theory is just sciencespeak for being quite likely, or perhaps better yet, good at prediciting future events (and that many/mosts scientists agree that it is likely and/or good at predictions).

 

*) "...given the evidence...": Contrary to the criminal law system, science does not allow personal accounts of what happened as evidence. Evidence has to be able to be verified by other scientists, i.e. experiments set up the same way must produce the same results at later times / other places. Evidence does, depending on the context and person, mean sometimes like the input to my model or the validation of the model, i.e. it can be used to describe input A or the sequence "given input A my model predicts A and I also measure A" depending on context.

The point here is that texts or personal accounts can never by themselves hold any value as evidence, they can only hold instructions on how to repeat an experiment to try to validate or disprove.

 

Did you notice the last part?? You can disprove a scientific hypotesis/theory, but you can never prove it, only validate it. Validation means that you say: "OK, under these specific circumstances it (the hypothesis/theory holds) and I've so far found no reason to discard it". Again however, if a theory is validated many many times (by many pieces of evidence) we start thinking of it as "true" in the sense that we are confident that it is a likely and good assumption.

 

Ok, now we have a rough idea of what science says so lets look at the most important scientific principle (also known as Occam's razor), it is/says:

"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

What does this mean? Well it is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." and I would like to exemplify it with this:

 

Lets say we have two competing hypothesis about the world:

 

1) "In vacuum a falling object's speed is v=g*t where g is the gravitational acceleration constant and t is the time since it was dropped (i.e. the speed does not depend on its weight)."

 

2) "In vacuum a falling object's speed is v=g*t where g is the gravitational acceleration constant and t is the time since it was dropped (i.e. the speed does not depend on its weight) and my mother wears red jeans on tuesdays."

 

In this case it is probably obvious to most people that the second hypothesis is partly redundant since the last part about my mother's pants does absolutely nothing for being able to predict the speed of the dropped object. Most people would therefor agree that we might as well choose the first hypothesis since it has the same predictive power as the later but is simpler.

 

 

Given that background here is my explanation as to why I do not believe in God.

So what should I believe? What do people in general believe? Well we as people have a tendency to believe things for two major reasons:

*) We have direct personal experience about something (I might know that snow is cold since I have stuck my hands into it 1 or 100 times).

*) We find it probable since many others seem to think that something "is a fact".

 

One thing that most people probably would agree with is that all human beings from time to time draw wrong conclusions. This tells me that I should not "swallow" all ideas floating around "out there", but that I should remain somewhat sceptic towards everything. This includes my own ideas, since I might be the one that drew the wrong conclusion in the first case.

 

So looking around at the world what is there to believe? Well if I want I can believe:

 

*) NASA never had astronauts walk on the moon.

*) The Islam God exists.

*) Thor the thundergood exists.

*) North Korea has the bomb.

*) My Lotto ticket will be the one that wins next saturday.

*) My buddy's wife is an alien.

*) My house will burn down if I don't turn the key at least three times each time I leave home.

*) There are still unseen creatures in the deep of the oceans of the world.

*) With time, the pyramids of Egypt will erode into sand and disappear.

 

So much to believe in, what to choose? I believe I am quite accurate when I state that most people believe in only a tiny fraction of all things one can believe in. So what is it to be an atheist? As an example most christians are atheists with respect to Thor the thundergood.

 

I am an atheist with respect to "God" since there is not a single piece of scientific evidence of his existence and I also think that the moral and ethics connected to Christian and Islamic (etc.) faith through the holy books are horribly outdated.

[Alessandro17]

tomtefar,

 

Interesting Epistemology lecture. Trouble is, there are billions of things which can't be explained with science.

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

 

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

 

—Albert Einstein

[A Nonny Moose]

Hmm.. im not sure about that one. So you're saying a lack of beleif in the pink elephant is the same as a beleif in NO pink elephant?

 

Could be...

 

Well, let's first define atheism, since this seems to be the crux of the whole topic:

 

atheism

|?????iz?m|

noun

the theory or belief that God does not exist.

DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic |?????istik| adjective atheistical |-?istik?l| adjective

ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god.’

 

So atheism is still a belief system but it is a belief that there is a lack of something.

[killbot1000]

Well, let's first define atheism, since this seems to be the crux of the whole topic:

 

atheism

|?????iz?m|

noun

the theory or belief that God does not exist.

DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic |?????istik| adjective atheistical |-?istik?l| adjective

ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god.’

 

So atheism is still a belief system but it is a belief that there is a lack of something.

 

Yes but that definition is derived from our Judeo Christian Society, so not believing in god is turned into a belief, this brings its credibility down, but if you look at the root of the word, it doesnt really mean a belief in no god.

 

A(not) theist (belief)

 

The very word means not believing, which is different than believing in nothing, there really is a difference.

[tomtefar]

Alessandro17: I did not mean to be rude, I only wanted to explain why I believe what I believe. Yes there are, and probably always will be, things we cannot explain you are right. Those things are interesting and should be researched so that they could be explained and help extend our knowledge on everything. I believe that we do not even understand how little we know. My point was that science only states that things are either false or more or less probable.

 

Please keep in mind that proving that something exists is not necessarily the same thing as proving how it works and why.

 

I have not quoted Einstein, but I do personally believe that he was wrong concerning "God".

 

A Noony Moose: An atheist does not feel that the world "is empty" with-out the concept of "God" and therefore does not go around all days thinking to him or herself "there is no God", he/she probably does not even reflect over it that often. Doing so would be as absurd as defining my friend by all the possible names that I can think of that they are not named.

 

Atheist does, at least from my understanding, mean something like "a person who does not believe in supernatural things" which is in any practical matter the same as "a person who believes only in natural things". It does not mean "a person who does not believe in "God"". An atheist believes in something other than "God" (or similar), *not* in the lack of "God".

[solaar]

In the (still unlikely) event humans will make contact with alien civilisations we might ultimately *know* if or if not a supernatural being truly exists - thus make both, belief and disbelief basically obsolete. It just takes a couple of highly advanced alien cultures who are able to independently give us consistent rational and complete explanations of how the universe and the physical reality around us came to be, give answers to all, so far, unanswered questions and basically deliver the ultimate answer to 'everything' which goes far beyond theories.

 

On the other hand, if we make contact with an advanced species that doesn't know any more than we do as for the origin of 'everything' or that ask themselves the same old questions, we're back at square one. However, such an event would still not be reason enough to extrapolate the existence of a superior being. I reckon though (this is my personal theory) it is most likely that an alien intelligence might not even understand the human concepts of 'god' or 'spiritualism'. Let's not forget that we humans are the only one among many millions of known species here on earth alone to perceptibly maintain 'belief'. Either way, any alien contact would shake up this little planet enormously and I bet there are many people out there who would be rather fundamentally frightened of the conclusions of the communication than fascinated or humbled by such an event.

 

What I mean by this example is that, as long as humans aren't exposed to outsider views and knowledge, the controversy might go on forever, even IF one day mankind itself finds proof for existence or non-existence of a superior being.

[tomtefar]

Contact with extraterrestrial intelligences would be a very interesting but extremely dangerous thing for us humans. There is no way to predict what people of different beliefs would do in light of such an event. I believe strongly in what you write: most of us (myself included) would be very scared (at least at first). Earth would probably see a period of extreme irrational behaviours in an extreme amount of people (this is what really scares me, not the aliens per se).

 

Interesting as all this speculation about aliens might be, it is really a side note and doesn't have much (if anything) to do with why I do not believe in "God".

 

Soolar: Are you saying it has something to do with it for you?

[solaar]

Contact with extraterrestrial intelligences would be a very interesting but extremely dangerous thing for us humans. There is no way to predict what people of different beliefs would do in light of such an event. I believe strongly in what you write: most of us (myself included) would be very scared (at least at first). Earth would probably see a period of extreme irrational behaviours in an extreme amount of people (this is what really scares me, not the aliens per se).

 

Interesting as all this speculation about aliens might be, it is really a side note and doesn't have much (if anything) to do with why I do not believe in "God".

 

Soolar: Are you saying it has something to do with it for you?

The ET issue may be 'only' a side note but it certainly would have the probably most fundamental impact mankind has ever experienced IF just two civilisations independently came up with the same perfectly rational, verifiable and mathematically provable explanation of 'everything'. All of human belief would have to be re-defined as a form of mass delusion, actually as plain superstition (just like many of our own ancestors would be regarded by today's standards). Entire belief systems being boiled down to some totally unspiritual, non-philosophical, anti-mythical and (anti-mystical) mathematical formula.

 

The initial question of this thread could then be easily answered - "that's why".

 

Which takes me back to your question. The idea definitely fascinates me and if it ever came true in our lifetime it would profoundly humble me. Much more than what I already am when I just look outside into the night sky. As an independent and rational thinker, the idea of anything that could be ever so remotely attached to dogma fills me with deep unease. So-called spirituality is one of those things.

Nature is. Everything else is a human construct.

Edited February 26, 2007 by solaar

[Alessandro17]

Alessandro17: I did not mean to be rude...

 

Neither was it my intention. I am sorry if it came across that way.

[wasted brain]

as i have observed and from what history had taught me, religion and god are mere commodities for comfort of the weak.

 

you see, the business called religion,of course god comes around there, is the most succesful business since time in memorial.

 

from the most ancient to the present, we have priests, shaman, and other so called spiritual leaders - who are in fact, hypocrites.

 

hypocrites, or preachers who cant even do what they preach, thats what they are.

 

many of you god beleiving people claim you have god. ok, let's take that. and, let's assume that indeed this god exist so as to make your claim stronger. but what is the point? even if there is, although there never really is, god, the belief on god is useless.

 

you might be asking me why. ok ok ok, reflect at yourselves beleivers, have ever been able to follow your god's teachings? haha,hell no.

 

and what's the point of beleiving in god while in committing a sin you would say, i am only human blah blah blah.

 

as for me, i never really believed in this puny silly pathetic god who claims to be a jealous self centered egoistic maniac god blah blah blah. and oh, i have been able to read the bible quite a number of times from page one to the last of almost every revision they so as to justify the christians' claims against me, but even with that, i cant see their pathetic logic.

 

i have been mocking the "god" since day one of being able to think, yes,i meant that, simply to see if god is real but god never really came to defend herself. i think god is a sissy anyway.

 

so,i concluded since then that god never existed and that the majority's beleif is nonsense.

[tomtefar]

Alessandro17: Ok, thanks. I do however have an issue regarding your quotes of Einstein. According to numerous sources Einstein apparently said this

 

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

as comments to misinterpretations of his words that led to the spread of those quotes you posted.

[Alessandro17]

Alessandro17: Ok, thanks. I do however have an issue regarding your quotes of Einstein. According to numerous sources Einstein apparently said this

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

as comments to misinterpretations of his words that led to the spread of those quotes you posted.

 

I don't believe in a personal God either. I have always talked here about Buddhism (they don't believe in a personal God), Advaita Vedanta ("That", the Ultimate Reality, isn't a personal God), Taoism (the Tao most definitely isn't a personal God).

 

However I would never call myself an atheist or even an agnostic.

[OryHara]

people dont belive in the idea because there is no physical evidence of him being alive

 

What about that giant Ark on top of that Mountain? Its on Google Earth. Look for yourself.

Edited March 19, 2007 by OryHara

[gwprod12]

LOL.

 

Maybe you can convince the Turkish government to let archaeologists and bible researchers go dig it up and find out for sure.

[killbot1000]

What about that giant Ark on top of that Mountain? Its on Google Earth. Look for yourself.

 

 

An ark has nothing to do with physical proof of god's existence. Rather, It has everything to do with the existence of an ark (or boat, or whatever, which may not be part of the Noah's ark story at all, if it doesn't measure the same, then its not from the same story).

 

Also, no archaeological evidence to suggest a WORLDWIDE flood. If the Noah's Ark story was real, it would represent a local flood, also a boat that size wouldn't be able to hold 2 of every animal, and for the sake of argument, let's say it could. All the animals would die shortly thereafter from lack of food (because the whole world was flooded) and would not be able to reproduce given biological reasons (not enough genetic diversity).

 

Seriously, if people dig into bible stories a little deeper, I think you guys will find that its kind of a load of {censored}

[wildcat69410]

Just to be a little bit of a Devil's Advocate here, how do you then account for the virtually consistent reappearances of similar "world flood" stories circulating in a multiplicity of cultures, each with different social and geological backgrounds? No fewer than 200 different cultures each have their own flood story, almost identical in nature with the exception of the name of the builder. That kind of remarkable consistency surely accounts for some kind of credibility.

[gwprod12]

I for one have no way of accounting for the myths of people. I dont subscribe to myths. I subscribe to evidence of a tangible nature. The fact is that there is not enough water on this planet to cover all of the land. Unless you're arguing that it didnt actually flood, but that someone or something caused the ground to swell and thus become dry land. Which isnt in any myth that I'm familiar with. It would require twice the water that exists on the earth today to cover up all the land. Also, less than a year of rain at any conceivable level that would not kill a man would not be sufficient to cover the earth as genesis claims. If there was a world-wide flood in the past ten thousand years, it left no sedimentary evidence, it used twice as much water as currently exists in the world (2.8 billion cubic kilometers of water, vs the ~1.4billion cubic kilometers currently in the earth's oceans), and it is impossible, even if the rest were true, for it to have rained down in less than a year's time. (otherwise, nothing made of any sort of wood would survive the downpour).

 

However, there is some evidence that flooding did occur in the black sea, the mediterranian and the tigris valley in antiquity. But that is not a world-wide flood. (though people then might have thought it was).

 

As to the 200 cultures... which 200 cultures are you talking about? The [turkish] version of the flood myth is that it was caused by Alexander the Great, and a hindu version states that the protagonist fled the rising waters on the back of a turtle.

[Alessandro17]

However, there is some evidence that flooding did occur in the black sea, the mediterranian and the tigris valley in antiquity. But that is not a world-wide flood. (though people then might have thought it was).

 

Exactly. When reading the bible or looking at "myths" coming from the ancient world we shouldn't forget that their perception of reality was very different than our. Probably in 2000 years they'll laugh at us (unless we destroy this planet before)

[killbot1000]

Just to be a little bit of a Devil's Advocate here, how do you then account for the virtually consistent reappearances of similar "world flood" stories circulating in a multiplicity of cultures, each with different social and geological backgrounds? No fewer than 200 different cultures each have their own flood story, almost identical in nature with the exception of the name of the builder. That kind of remarkable consistency surely accounts for some kind of credibility.

 

Well, easy. Before Bikes, cars, and planes 99.9 percent of people never ventured more than 50 miles from their home, if it was ever flooded, that WAS the world. Again, totally different view of the world than we have.

 

And again, lets say for the sake of argument that there WAS a worldwide flood. We still have the difficulty of explaining why elephants and monkeys and Rhinos are still around, I mean seriously, 2 of every animal is stupid people talk (it is not possible to propagate a species with only 2 surviving members). Also if there were a worldwide flood, many sorts of animals would not exist today, that would be a mass worldwide extinction event, ALSO where would the water come from?

 

Seriously, if you dig into the story really deep, it makes absolutely no sense and should be considered rubbish.

[gwprod12]

There is no logic to the world-wide flood myth. If god is all-powerful... why flood the world when he could just undo all the bad people, thus leaving noah and whoever with all the land. Why bother having Noah build an ark? Why bother collecting animals? Just vaporize everyone who's naughty and be done with it.

 

If god is all powerful, and really really wants to flood the earth, why wouldnt he just make all good creatures able to breathe water, and all bad creatures unable to breathe water.

 

Also, if God cant tell who's bad and who's good, then he's not much of a God.

 

In fact, if you're so against bad people that you have to kill them all, then remove their free will so they wont be bad. doi.

 

Though, one of the interpretations of the flood myth (from the bible, actually) is that God sent the flood to wipe out the Giants (or the children of angels and man), and not humans. Maybe god's all-powerfulness doesnt extend to unmaking Giants (or half-angels).

 

I cant comprehend how someone can take these foolish little allegorical fables and turn them into some sort of reasonable fact. It puts me in mind of Moses. Whenever Moses went to Pharaoh to ask Pharaoh to let his people go, each time the only reason Pharaoh refused is because God made him refuse (And then God hardened Pharaoh's heart...). What's the point? just to show off the "wonders"? Unimpressive wonders, even. If God really wanted to free the hebrews, he could have just made all of the egyptians forget the hebrews existed.

 

God throws a tantrum instead of being smart. Joy.

[xtraa]

If god is all powerful, and really really wants to flood the earth, why wouldnt he just make all good creatures able to breathe water, and all bad creatures unable to breathe water.

 

Also, if God cant tell who's bad and who's good, then he's not much of a God.

 

In fact, if you're so against bad people that you have to kill them all, then remove their free will so they wont be bad. doi.

 

...

 

God throws a tantrum instead of being smart. Joy.

 

The thing is, there would be no good without an evil. First, you would have nothing to compare the "good" with. So one can't tell any longer whether it would be still good or evil, or something in between. There would be no "better as".

 

Second, there are useful things about evil. For example, without destruction, there won't be a rebuild. Or imagine if we would not die. The things that are told us to be bad or good are not often as they seem. Take the bad lion and the good bunny. Even if the bunny looks hella sweet, ask a farmer of having 100 of them eating his crop

 

Things that churches tells us are all about much money and control of whole societies. So I decided for me that I don't need a church to believe in a god, i don't need to wear special clothes or do special ceremonies. If there is a god, then he/she/it will understand what I was, am and will be. I don't need humans to explain this to me in a workshop.

[brainbone]

Interesting thing to ask, "why don't you believe in the idea of God?".

 

As other have pointed out, for the atheist or agnostic, the question may just as well be "why don't you believe in <insert mystical non-existent creature here>?"

 

So, what does one get out of belief in God? About the only thing that could justify such a departure from reason in today's scientific age is the promise of never ending life. It just so happens, this is what's promised!

 

I suppose you could argue, even if the chances of God are 10^100 to 1, what do you have to loose?:

 

1 ) If you believe in God, and

a ) God exists, you get ever lasting life!

or

b ) sorry, no God, but so what! Wasn't it a fun ride anyway? And who cares, you're dead!

 

But:

 

2 ) If you don't believe in God, and

a ) he exists, you burn in hell, forever!

or

b ) you were right, no God... how boring.

 

Looking at the options that way, maybe we all should just believe, right?

 

The problem is, we further decrease our odds of having trouble from not believing in God in addition to the already low odds of there being a God in the first place. After all, many faiths don't believe that God would be so cruel as to damn you to hell just for an honest mistake of not believing in something that so obviously has the fingerprints of man's deceit (psst, I have a bridge over here), and would give you another chance. So if I am to believe; which God? Is it just the belief in any God that gets you ever lasting life? Who made up that rule? Do all the "Gods" agree, or just yours? Never mind the further decrease in odds that the God that exists actually grants you life after death.

 

Now, if given another chance anyway, making 2a moot, what now would I have to gain by belief in God? Social acceptance? Sorry, not good enough to throw reason to the wind. Community? Why do I need faith in God for that? Morality? Bzzzzt. Nope, morality doesn't need faith in a God. (let's not even bother to go down the morally questionable history of most faiths at this point). Peace of mind? What makes you think my mind isn't at peace?

 

So, what's left? Why should one believe in God?

[brainbone]

tomtefar,

 

Interesting Epistemology lecture. Trouble is, there are billions of things which can't be explained with science.

 

 

By this, are we to say that what can not be explained by science is explained with God by default? What happens when we are then able to explain said thing with science? Does God then become less probable? At what point on this continued slope of declining probability does God finally not exist? Why use "God" as the default answer for the unexplained to begin with?

[gwprod12]

The reason I dont believe in God is because no God worth believing in would doom someone to hellfire for not believing in him.

 

The logic is very simple. If evil people who believe go to heaven, and good people who disbelieve go to hell, then the one sending each to his place must be evil (and unworthy of belief).

 

It's no skin off my nose if you're a devil-worshipper. Just dont ask me to be.

[brainbone]

The logic is very simple. If evil people who believe go to heaven, and good people who disbelieve go to hell, then the one sending each to his place must be evil (and unworthy of belief).

 

 

While I agree with your sentiment, I think your logic, as it should universally applicable, is flawed. Even if this "God" is evil, that in itself doesn't make the "God" unworthy of belief. Possibly unworthy of your belief, but, unfortunately there are a great many that feel this type of God is quite worthy of theirs.