Why do you not believe in God?

[Whateverist]

What your not understanding is that a lot of Theists take their faith in God to be similar to that of faith in free-will or faith in morality.

Both of these don't really have strong arguments for analytically wise, but most humans will believe that it's logical to believe in free-will and morality and in fact illogical to disbelieve in either of these.

I think he is stating, why can't belief in God be rationally justified intuitively in the same way we believe in free-will or morality intuitively. Even if there are arguments for free-will or morality, the thing is, humans believe in before coming across these arguments, and are rational to do so (at least most people believe this).

I would say for something like free-will and morality, the onus is really on the disbelievers to justify not believing in it.

A lot of theists feel the same is true of God. I'm not saying that is the case for me, I don't think in general Atheists are being dishonest to themselves but I do believe they can know God exists, if they listen closely to their heart, in the same way those denying morality, I believe can know morality is not a delusion, by closely listening to their heart.

This is well said. I think you've really been clarifying your thinking and message here.

I get exactly what you are saying and I think it is reasonable for you to defend your position in this way. I'm not persuaded because belief in gods doesn't feel like as necessary a component of human experience as either free will or morality. That isn't anything I feel the need to accommodate in an adequate account of human experience.

I don't think you can take this argument on the road however. I don't think it will persuade anyone who doesn't already believe that God is a real component of his or her experience. So while you aren't likely to win any agnostics or atheists over to your point of view, you can at least hold your head up high and own what you believe. That's pretty important.

[Mystic]

What your not understanding is that a lot of Theists take their faith in God to be similar to that of faith in free-will or faith in morality.

Both of these don't really have strong arguments for analytically wise, but most humans will believe that it's logical to believe in free-will and morality and in fact illogical to disbelieve in either of these.

I think he is stating, why can't belief in God be rationally justified intuitively in the same way we believe in free-will or morality intuitively. Even if there are arguments for free-will or morality, the thing is, humans believe in before coming across these arguments, and are rational to do so (at least most people believe this).

I would say for something like free-will and morality, the onus is really on the disbelievers to justify not believing in it.

A lot of theists feel the same is true of God. I'm not saying that is the case for me, I don't think in general Atheists are being dishonest to themselves but I do believe they can know God exists, if they listen closely to their heart, in the same way those denying morality, I believe can know morality is not a delusion, by closely listening to their heart.

So If I have you right you are saying I should worship my hat because nobody can prove it is a hat and not an absence of hat.

No this is not what I'm saying. You see if morality is TRUE, it only makes sense in the frame we have properly basic knowledge of it. It doesn't make sense to assume otherwise. Now I believe the same is true of God. Why? Because God would be original reality, and whatever original reality is, the necessary existence, and whatever that is, we can have knowledge of it, in the same way we have knowledge of properly basic things like "from nothing, nothing follows". In fact, I believe "from nothing, nothing follows" comes from our knowledge that God must be eternal.

This is further if greatness, morality, honour, to be true, have to have Ultimate Greatness, Morality, honour to be true, then we can know this in a properly basic manner.

If a necessary quality of morality is that it must be eternal/have eternal basis, then we can know this, in the realms of our knowledge of morality.

To prove we are deluded in this perception, you really have to show there isn't a God or that we don't have this knowledge. Because if there is a God, the knowledge is possible, so you can't tell people, this belief is just like belief in faeries.

Faeries are a possible existence, we know they are not necessary existence, something that could not have been otherwise.

The same is not true of God. The word for God in Persian for example, means "The Necessary" linguistically and is used to refer to the Ultimate Creator by polytheists Persians as well as Monotheist Persians.

---

I get exactly what you are saying and I think it is reasonable for you to defend your position in this way. I'm not persuaded because belief in gods doesn't feel like as necessary a component of human experience as either free will or morality. That isn't anything I feel the need to accommodate in an adequate account of human experience.

This is fine. I believe you are honest to yourself. I don't think God is going to be upset at people not believing in him. And I don't think not believing in God makes a person evil or is in a evil thing. It's a honest feeling Atheists have.

I don't think you can take this argument on the road however. I don't think it will persuade anyone who doesn't already believe that God is a real component of his or her experience.

This maybe true. I don't know.

So while you aren't likely to win any agnostics or atheists over to your point of view, you can at least hold your head up high and own what you believe. That's pretty important.

Thanks.

[jonb]

Dear mysticknight, let's think about the nature of nothing.

Nothing is not just the absence of matter, it also lacks space or area, time, any any qualities you can think of. It has no qualities whatsoever even qualities like absence, It has not even any guiding principles it is nothing it even lacks existence, as such cannot exist and thus in its passing forces the existence of something which not having any boundaries is everything. The creator of everything is thus nothing, pointless. So to worship the creator is to worship nothing; Pointlessness welcome to Absurdia.

[Thor]

Is that an underhand attack aimed at my hat? Are you implying it is not a black hat, but rather the absence of hat?

Absolutely not. Yours is a most magnificent hat. I only wish I had one like it. (Oh, damn! There I go coveting again! Guess I'm doomed!)

[Mystic]

Dear mysticknight, let's think about the nature of nothing.

Nothing is not just the absence of matter, it also lacks space or area, time, any any qualities you can think of. It has no qualities whatsoever even qualities like absence, It has not even any guiding principles it is nothing it even lacks existence, as such cannot exist and thus in its passing forces the existence of something which not having any boundaries is everything. The creator of everything is thus nothing, pointless. So to worship the creator is to worship nothing; Pointlessness welcome to Absurdia.

Nothing also is not a spiritual entity, and it's not the necessary existence, and is not merciful, and not compassionate, and not powerful, and not loving, and not good...and not conscious etc...you missed those qualities...it in fact isn't anything.

It's not simple absence of space and time. If your argument was sound, then material existence would be proven in philosophy. So far philosophers agree there is no argument that can prove the material world exists. It's possible only consciousness exists.

[jonb]

Is that an underhand attack aimed at my hat? Are you implying it is not a black hat, but rather the absence of hat?

Absolutely not. Yours is a most magnificent hat. I only wish I had one like it. (Oh, damn! There I go coveting again! Guess I'm doomed!)

Far from it, I have many hats this one is yours

---

Dear mysticknight, let's think about the nature of nothing.

Nothing is not just the absence of matter, it also lacks space or area, time, any any qualities you can think of. It has no qualities whatsoever even qualities like absence, It has not even any guiding principles it is nothing it even lacks existence, as such cannot exist and thus in its passing forces the existence of something which not having any boundaries is everything. The creator of everything is thus nothing, pointless. So to worship the creator is to worship nothing; Pointlessness welcome to Absurdia.

Nothing also is not a spiritual entity, and it's not the necessary existence, and is not merciful, and not compassionate, and not powerful, and not loving, and not good...and not conscious etc...you missed those qualities...it in fact isn't anything.

It's not simple absence of space and time. If your argument was sound, then material existence would be proven in philosophy. So far philosophers agree there is no argument that can prove the material world exists. It's possible only consciousness exists.

If you can't prove the existence of my hat, you are also unable to assign any qualities to it, you might wish it to be an intelligent hat, but that is about what you want not what it is.

[Jeffonthenet]

What I have been told is that there is no evidence for God. However even if I grant for the sake of argument that this is true, it does not show that there is no God.

Based on this reasoning you must then accept all god claims.

How so?

[Epimethean]

Do we have an abstract facepalm smiley?

[Skepsis]

Based on this reasoning you must then accept all god claims.

How so?

If you embrace the idea that lack of evidence isn't a reason for lacking belief in a proposition, then by virtue of that idea you necessarily accept any proposed postulate. Regardless of whether the person offering you their idea is serious or not, you must accept their proposal whole-heartedly and without objection.
This is why it can e said that trying to shit the burden of proof is a double edged sword.

[Jeffonthenet]

How so?

If you embrace the idea that lack of evidence isn't a reason for lacking belief in a proposition, then by virtue of that idea you necessarily accept any proposed postulate.

I have studied logic a little and I would disagree.

1. The absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence
2. Therefore I must accept all God claims (catos "proposed postulate")

How does 2 follow from 1?