Why do you not believe in God?

[CliveStaples]

Is the belief "The universe did not come into existence 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age" verifiable? Is there evidence for it?

NOTE: This is not a snarky post. I just want to see how you guys distinguish this kind of belief from a belief in God.

[jerNYC]

We don't need a reason not to believe in God unless we think we've seen some pretty tempting indication of god activity. I tend to save my effort for finding reasons not to believe stuff for when it starts to seem as though that stuff might really be out there. We're not even in the yellow zone on my indicator.

I don't really need a reason to justify my disbelief either, but I've heard agnostics say that gods could potentially exist. I just explained why they can't.

[CliveStaples]

I don't really need a reason to justify my disbelief either, but I've heard agnostics say that gods could potentially exist. I just explained why they can't.

Maybe I missed something in your post, but I don't quite see how establishing that a claim is unverifiable/unfalsifiable establishes that the claim can't possibly be true.

[Simon Moon]

What about the Kalaam cosmological argument?

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist (the big bang theory)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

From the basic logical point that something cannot cause itself, (for then it would have to exist before it existed in order to cause itself to exist…. which is contradictory) it follows that everything which began to exist at the big bang cannot be what caused the big bang. Therefore, whatever caused everything to be must be spaceless, immaterial, timeless, and a being of immense power (to cause everything that is). And the latter characteristics are traditional properties of God.

Kalam's C.A. contains an equivocation fallacy that destroys the validity of the argument.

The conclusion is not proved by the argument.

It is a pretty obvious flaw.

[Annik]

Well, when you start from a neutral position (agnostic atheist), trying to rationalize a crazy, all-powerful wizard is responsible for your life and you're bound to worship him.... It doesn't make sense.

Which is a great reason not to believe in Gandalf, to be sure.

In Tolkien Lore, Gandalf was a demi-god. :3

[Mystic]

2. The universe began to exist (the big bang theory)

There are other theories then big bang but scientists are now saying all evidence is pointing to a beginning to the universe.

However a Powerful Creator =/= God. It's not a proof of God, just proof of an intelligent Creator whom can be evil. To prove God, you have to act on some intuition, even if it's for simple premises like "what defines reality must be simple/one as opposed to divisible/complex, as it's independent"....

All arguments make some use of intuition. Even the first premise "what begins to exist, must have a cause" is based on intuition, otherwise, people can believe that universe could've just came out of nothing. Although I agree this is illogical but it's a matter of intuition.

If people are willing to disregard all intuition, then there is no reason to believe in free-will, because there is no evidence or rational argument that we have free-will.

So knowledge that we have a soul or knowledge that a ultimate perfect being exists, is ultimately not in the realms of evidence without intuition.

There is arguments you can make, and I've made some, but they all make use of some intuition that is related to God.

Some people think intuition is totally unreliable because it's unreliable in some instance. But the same can be said about arguments. We rely on arguments that are sound and others that we think are sound, but are not. So should arguments be totally dismissed?

[ktulu]

What about the Kalaam cosmological argument?

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist (the big bang theory)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

From the basic logical point that something cannot cause itself, (for then it would have to exist before it existed in order to cause itself to exist…. which is contradictory) it follows that everything which began to exist at the big bang cannot be what caused the big bang. Therefore, whatever caused everything to be must be spaceless, immaterial, timeless, and a being of immense power (to cause everything that is). And the latter characteristics are traditional properties of God.

Kalam's C.A. contains an equivocation fallacy that destroys the validity of the argument.

The conclusion is not proved by the argument.

It is a pretty obvious flaw.

KCA is question begging "the cause", the conclusion is not sound. It's a bout as flawed an argument as they come.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, your arguments based upon intuition should be dismissed, sorry Mystic.

[ktulu]

We don't need a reason not to believe in God unless we think we've seen some pretty tempting indication of god activity. I tend to save my effort for finding reasons not to believe stuff for when it starts to seem as though that stuff might really be out there. We're not even in the yellow zone on my indicator.

I don't really need a reason to justify my disbelief either, but I've heard agnostics say that gods could potentially exist. I just explained why they can't.

I find the strong atheist position to be as logically flawed as any theistic position.

[CliveStaples]

KCA is question begging "the cause", the conclusion is not sound. It's a bout as flawed an argument as they come.

How is it question-begging? It seems to be in a logically valid form:

1. For all x in X, P(x) --> Q(x).
2. P(y), where y is in X;
3. Therefore, Q(y).