A question for atheists and agnostics

[MaxP]

What has led you to determine God does not exist, or cannot be known?

 

[cantata]

What has led you to determine God does not exist, or cannot be known?

Nothing.

I didn't believe in God when I was born, and nothing has given me any reason to believe in her since.

 

[Washington]

Not that God does not exist, or cannot be known, but that there is insufficient evidence for asserting he absolutely does. As far as I can determine, he does not.

 

[jayem]

I'm a naturalist. Everything I know, and everything I've ever studied, observed, and experienced about the universe leads me to the conclusion that it is purely a function of matter and energy, and their natural properties. In the entire history of human knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never proven valid for anything. So, a posteriori, I believe that there is nothing supernatural. Thus, by logical extension, I don't believe in any kind of supernatural god.

I admit that I can't prove it with absolute metaphysical certainty. Naturalism (like any other foundational belief) requires faith. I accept that. But it's faith supported by objective observation and inductive reasoning.

 

[MaxP]

Fair enough, but as a follow-up(I don't intend to smack you with the Bible, but have a discussion based on reason) what is your theory as to metaphysics, ie, why there is something and not nothing(for all who have replied and will)?

 

[gwenmead]

A lack of compelling or reliable evidence, combined with my own unwillingness to insert unsupported explanations where I lack knowledge, leads me to suspend belief in a god or gods until said evidence is forthcoming.

 

[smos]

Many factors:

Contradictions in the bible, the appearance of biblical stories being written by ancient people in order to explain natural phenomena that they couldn't yet understand, the growing understanding of the world forcing supernatural explanations to shrink rapidly (god of the gaps), the popular description of the Christian god being internally irreconcilable (Epicurean paradox), and the fact that natural explanations of the universe simply make sense without relying on anything supernatural.

That's the nutshell version for me...

 

[Nihilismus]

I discarded my religion as soon as I realized that there was an alternative. I never had any real use for it.

As for your question on what created the universe, the atheist does not claim to know such things.

 

[gwenmead]

Fair enough, but as a follow-up(I don't intend to smack you with the Bible, but have a discussion based on reason) what is your theory as to metaphysics, ie, why there is something and not nothing(for all who have replied and will)?

Just to clarify - are you asking here about why we think existence exists?

I.e., why we think the universe exists, and/or how it got here?

 

[cantata]

Fair enough, but as a follow-up(I don't intend to smack you with the Bible, but have a discussion based on reason) what is your theory as to metaphysics, ie, why there is something and not nothing(for all who have replied and will)?

Big question. You have (by luck or design, I'm not sure) hit upon what I regard to be the best argument for the existence of God: the cosmological argument in its most interesting, Leibnizian form.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" My answer is that I don't know, but even if I were to postulate a necessary being with remarkable creative power in order to explain it, I would not feel inclined to endow my concept of that being with any personal or intentional qualities, and therefore I would regard "God" as too loaded a name for it.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I was, from my teen years until age 33, a born again Christian. A few years before I left Christianity I began to question some things and really reading the entire Bible. For various reasons I was able to free my mind enough to allow the idea that the Bible wasn't perfect. And I realized that all of my beliefs hinged on the Bible being perfect as I had interpreted it, and I could no longer do that.

I then studied various other beliefs and followed paganism for a while, only to realize that there is no religion that can hold the claim that it knows all or really even begins to have an understanding of what makes this universe tick.

The only thing that keeps me from being an atheist as opposed to agnostic are my paranormal experiences and research, but even that is beginning to sway me toward the idea that paranormal experiences ("ghost" related) have more to do with our subconscious than anything spiritual.

The bottom line is, you just can't know. You can try to convince yourself that you know, but ultimately if you were honest with yourself, you'd admit that you don't really know.

 

[MaxP]

Many factors:

Contradictions in the bible, the appearance of biblical stories being written by ancient people in order to explain natural phenomena that they couldn't yet understand,

I can't address this because I am not qualified. My knowledge of Biblical history is not complete.

the growing understanding of the world forcing supernatural explanations to shrink rapidly (god of the gaps),

How so(has it shrunk)?

the popular description of the Christian god being internally irreconcilable (Epicurean paradox),

It depends on the definition of evil you ascribe to. Personally, I believe it to be an absence of good.

and the fact that natural explanations of the universe simply make sense without relying on anything supernatural.

Well, the universe should make sense if God is a logical being, and if He was not, He could not have created logical beings...

As for your question on what created the universe, the atheist does not claim to know such things.

So you have no desire to know or theory on how the universe came into existence?

Just to clarify - are you asking here about why we think existence exists?

I.e., why we think the universe exists, and/or how it got here?

Yes. Taking into account, some of the ancient philosophers conclusions that if there was nothing at some point, there would still be nothing, what would you believe to be the cause of existence? Or does existence just exist?

 

[MaxP]

I was, from my teen years until age 33, a born again Christian. A few years before I left Christianity I began to question some things and really reading the entire Bible. For various reasons I was able to free my mind enough to allow the idea that the Bible wasn't perfect. And I realized that all of my beliefs hinged on the Bible being perfect as I had interpreted it, and I could no longer do that.

I then studied various other beliefs and followed paganism for a while, only to realize that there is no religion that can hold the claim that it knows all or really even begins to have an understanding of what makes this universe tick.

Hm, like what in the universe is apparently unexplainable?

(I don't mean to grill anyone - I just intend to have discussion as to your conclusions)

The only thing that keeps me from being an atheist as opposed to agnostic are my paranormal experiences and research, but even that is beginning to sway me toward the idea that paranormal experiences ("ghost" related) have more to do with our subconscious than anything spiritual.

The bottom line is, you just can't know. You can try to convince yourself that you know, but ultimately if you were honest with yourself, you'd admit that you don't really know.

If you conclude a rational God exists, you would have to conclude He would make Himself known.
Hence you believe there is no rational God?

Do you have a theory as to existence?
Do you care?

 

[MaxP]

Big question. You have (by luck or design, I'm not sure) hit upon what I regard to be the best argument for the existence of God: the cosmological argument in its most interesting, Leibnizian form.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" My answer is that I don't know, but even if I were to postulate a necessary being with remarkable creative power in order to explain it, I would not feel inclined to endow my concept of that being with any personal or intentional qualities, and therefore I would regard "God" as too loaded a name for it.

So, basically, you say if there is a God, It is not a rational Being?
How could and irrational Being create something rational, assuming all of existence, abstract and concrete, springs form this Being?

 

[geekgirlkelli]

Hm, like what in the universe is apparently unexplainable?

(I don't mean to grill anyone - I just intend to have discussion as to your conclusions)

Origin. Nothing is provable, though I must admit I feel science has the upper hand as far as that goes.

If you conclude a rational God exists, you would have to conclude He would make Himself known.
Hence you believe there is no rational God?

Why would I have to conclude that?

Do you have a theory as to existence?
Do you care?

No and not really. I don't care to try to pretend to understand things that are really not understandable.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I need some clarification: What is a "rational being"? What is a "logical being"? Must examples of those two categories always be rational or logical?

 

[Nihilismus]

So you have no desire to know or theory on how the universe came into existence?

It is not lack of desire so much as lack of relevance.

Big question. You have (by luck or design, I'm not sure) hit upon what I regard to be the best argument for the existence of God: the cosmological argument in its most interesting, Leibnizian form.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" My answer is that I don't know, but even if I were to postulate a necessary being with remarkable creative power in order to explain it, I would not feel inclined to endow my concept of that being with any personal or intentional qualities, and therefore I would regard "God" as too loaded a name for it.

Leibniz also admits to there being a possible alternative to a necessary being: that every chain of contingent being is infinite - in which case every state of being is explained by another state of being, which in turn is explained by yet another state of being, and so on ad infinitum. In this case, according to Leibniz, there is never any real explanation for anything, only infinite deferral of meaning. This means the universe is utterly absurd.

 

[cantata]

So, basically, you say if there is a God, It is not a rational Being?

No, I'm saying that the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" argument only proves, at most, the existence of a creating being whose existence is necessary.

You are welcome to make further arguments for other proposed qualities, but she will not get them solely via that form of the cosmological argument.

How could and irrational Being create something rational, assuming all of existence, abstract and concrete, springs form this Being?

From the Big Bang to now, I see no need to posit the existence of God. After the Big Bang, everything is explained or conceivably explicable.

The reason that the cosmological argument is more effective than most is that it talks about something which is outside the realms of our experience, and, further, outside of the scientific discipline (at least as we understand it today). As soon as you get the creation or beginning event out of the way, science can get going with explanations.

 

[gwenmead]

Yes. Taking into account, some of the ancient philosophers conclusions that if there was nothing at some point, there would still be nothing, what would you believe to be the cause of existence? Or does existence just exist?

Okay. Cool.

I have no idea what the cause of existence is. I don't even know if it was "caused", or if it always existed. If I ventured into speculations about it I'd quickly realize I have no idea what I'm talking about, and I'm reluctant to do so.

So I just figure existence exists, and that's fine with me.

 

[cantata]

Leibniz also admits to there being a possible alternative to a necessary being: that every chain of contingent being is infinite - in which case every state of being is explained by another state of being, which in turn is explained by yet another state of being, and so on ad infinitum. In this case, according to Leibniz, there is never any real explanation for anything, only infinite deferral of meaning. This means the universe is utterly absurd.

That's true, he does. I'm not sure how coherent such an explanation can be, however.

There are many forms of this thought experiment, but here is my favourite:

Suppose you go into a coffee shop, and as you are sitting down with your Fair Trade mocha, you notice an old man in the corner, quietly counting backwards. As you sit down, he says, "73, 72, 71..." and you continue to surreptitiously listen, slurping your coffee, until he says, "3, 2, 1," and sits back with an air of great satisfaction.

Burning with curiosity, you lean over, and ask him, "Why were you counting just now?"

"I am an angel," he replies, "and I have been counting backwards from infinity since the beginning of time."

"And you've just got to zero?" you ask.

"That's right," he says, and getting up, he heads over to the newspaper rack and selects a copy of The Guardian.
​

Now supposing that immortal angels exist, just for the sake of our experiment, do you think that this angel can be telling the truth? The question the thought experiment raises is this: if the universe were infinitely old - or, if you prefer, there is an infinite regress of causes - how is it that we come to arrive at now? Does this thought experiment demonstrate that infinite regresses and infinite age are absurd?