What if there was no God?

[sandorski]

Why should anyone believe your horse manure claims of the supernatural with no facts to back them up?

You've given no evidence whatsoever to solidify your claim.

Here's the evidence.

 

[silicon]

I think this is a good exercise to examine one's own biases and preconceived ideas.

I'm inviting anyone that believes a god exists to describe the ways that they think the world would be different if instead there was no god.

I realize that this is a bit of a lopsided burden on theists, so atheists can feel free to respond with their ideas of what the world would be like if a god really existed.

Happy Friday!

There is no god...it is an invented concept that was necessary to explain stuff people could and still cannot understand. An all powerful entity made earth and the heavens supposedly.

 

[Retro Rob]

There is no god...it is an invented concept that was necessary to explain stuff people could and still cannot understand. An all powerful entity made earth and the heavens supposedly.

Ok, then why in a age where we have scientific explanations for things like the Sun rising and setting, or the age of the world, or where species come from, do we have half the world's population still professing belief in both the Christian God and Muslim God? (This isn't counting the Polytheistic religions)

Logically, then...belief in God should be eliminated from humanity by now, according to your logic, because the "need for explanations" from a supernatural source no longer exists.

If you're gonna give me a long list of excuses (I.e., emotional needs, parenting, preaching) then you are still left with explaining why God remains in an highly secular age IN SPITE OF the plethora of explanations for our physical world.

Maybe God isn't tied to a need for explanations, obviously, but I'd await another line of unsubstantiated guesses from you.

 

[alzan]

Ok, then why in a age where we have scientific explanations for things like the Sun rising and setting, or the age of the world, or where species come from, do we have half the world's population still professing belief in both the Christian God and Muslim God? (This isn't counting the Polytheistic religions)

Logically, then...belief in God should be eliminated from humanity by now, according to your logic, because the "need for explanations" from a supernatural source no longer exists.

If you're gonna give me a long list of excuses (I.e., emotional needs, parenting, preaching) then you are still left with explaining why God remains in an highly secular age IN SPITE OF the plethora of explanations for our physical world.

Maybe God isn't tied to a need for explanations, obviously, but I'd await another line of unsubstantiated guesses from you.

We have a plethora of explanations for events in the physical world however there is still much to be learned. As well there are still many unanswered questions concerning how the human mind works.

Perhaps the idea of G-d still exists because of the uncertainty and doubt of daily life, or because of a ruling classes need to keep it's citizenry in check for example.

Parenting, emotional needs, preaching, etc. are not excuses; they are very real factors that affect a lot of people.

 

[silicon]

Ok, then why in a age where we have scientific explanations for things like the Sun rising and setting, or the age of the world, or where species come from, do we have half the world's population still professing belief in both the Christian God and Muslim God? (This isn't counting the Polytheistic religions)

Logically, then...belief in God should be eliminated from humanity by now, according to your logic, because the "need for explanations" from a supernatural source no longer exists.

If you're gonna give me a long list of excuses (I.e., emotional needs, parenting, preaching) then you are still left with explaining why God remains in an highly secular age IN SPITE OF the plethora of explanations for our physical world.

Maybe God isn't tied to a need for explanations, obviously, but I'd await another line of unsubstantiated guesses from you.

no one said that religions are not powerful. It is how control is exerted on the masses and when you consider that chaos that would ensue if people stopped believing. The world would be ruined as we know it. I still maintain that no god entity made earth or any other planet.

 

[Retro Rob]

We have a plethora of explanations for events in the physical world however there is still much to be learned. As well there are still many unanswered questions concerning how the human mind works.

Perhaps the idea of G-d still exists because of the uncertainty and doubt of daily life, or because of a ruling classes need to keep it's citizenry in check for example.

I think you missed my point. God should be declining in the world as we get more explanations. If we accept that only science can provide us with answers, then God should be gone by now anyway since, according to some, he was never a factor in the human world.

That isn't happening. If anything, people have become disillusioned with religion, while believing in God (or, Higher Power) still remains.

In fact, atheists would have no issue accepting God, granted, sufficient evidence comes to light, so even they are open to it.

Parenting, emotional needs, preaching, etc. are not excuses; they are very real factors that affect a lot of people.

No, they are excuses used when they can't explain why even intelligent people believe in God.

 

[jhbball]

Ok, then why in a age where we have scientific explanations for things like the Sun rising and setting, or the age of the world, or where species come from, do we have half the world's population still professing belief in both the Christian God and Muslim God? (This isn't counting the Polytheistic religions)

Logically, then...belief in God should be eliminated from humanity by now, according to your logic, because the "need for explanations" from a supernatural source no longer exists.

If you're gonna give me a long list of excuses (I.e., emotional needs, parenting, preaching) then you are still left with explaining why God remains in an highly secular age IN SPITE OF the plethora of explanations for our physical world.

Maybe God isn't tied to a need for explanations, obviously, but I'd await another line of unsubstantiated guesses from you.

Belief in God exists because people believe what their parents told them to believe (like you)

 

[alzan]

I think you missed my point. God should be declining in the world as we get more explanations. If we accept that only science can provide us with answers, then God should be gone by now anyway since, according to some, he was never a factor in the human world.

That isn't happening. If anything, people have become disillusioned with religion, while believing in God (or, Higher Power) still remains.

In fact, atheists would have no issue accepting God, granted, sufficient evidence comes to light, so even they are open to it.

No, they are excuses used when they can't explain why even intelligent people believe in God.

Science has provided us a lot of answers and even solutions for problems. To take your example, why do we still have hunger in the world? We've known for years how to grow enough food to feed all people, how to engineer irrigation systems, desalination plants, etc. For a long time it's been a matter of engineering and the will to wipe out hunger but we still have it.

Why would an intelligent person not need G-d? Not everyone has their emotional, spiritual and psychological needs met with having an understanding of how our universe works.

Your current signature even alludes to that in a way; the scientists who believe in G-d, why do they desire to work as scientists when their faith provides them with the knowledge they need to survive and thrive.

 

[Retro Rob]

no one said that religions are not powerful. It is how control is exerted on the masses and when you consider that chaos that would ensue if people stopped believing.

Ok, so God exists because religion is powerful, NOT because of the lack of explanations?

Which one is it?

 

[ThinClient]

Ok, so God exists because religion is powerful, NOT because of the lack of explanations?

Which one is it?

Both. :thumbsup:

 

[Retro Rob]

Science has provided us a lot of answers and even solutions for problems. To take your example, why do we still have hunger in the world? We've known for years how to grow enough food to feed all people, how to engineer irrigation systems, desalination plants, etc. For a long time it's been a matter of engineering and the will to wipe out hunger but we still have it.

Well, I'd say humanity just doesn't have the means to correct it, becasue the Governments that starve their people (example: N Korea) simply don't want to work with others.

Why would an intelligent person not need G-d? Not everyone has their emotional, spiritual and psychological needs met with having an understanding of how our universe works.

In fairness, you aren't the one who alledged that God grew from a lack of explanations anyway. Even in the face of explanations, people still worship God/a god(s).

Your current signature even alludes to that in a way; the scientists who believe in G-d, why do they desire to work as scientists when their faith provides them with the knowledge they need to survive and thrive.

I don't know. But like I said, that contradicts the idea that God grew from a gap in explanations.

Perhaps, like you said above, God supplies certain needs, and so does sceince for other needs. They seem to work hand in hand.

 

[dphantom]

Belief in God exists because people believe what their parents told them to believe (like you)

your assertion falls apart under examination.

 

[alzan]

Well, I'd say humanity just doesn't have the means to correct it, becasue the Governments that starve their people (example: N Korea) simply don't want to work with others.

In fairness, you aren't the one who alledged that God grew from a lack of explanations anyway. Even in the face of explanations, people still worship God/a god(s).

I don't know. But like I said, that contradicts the idea that God grew from a gap in explanations.

Perhaps, like you said above, God supplies certain needs, and so does sceince for other needs. They seem to work hand in hand.

Oh we have the means to correct it but inherently a people problem; not necessarily a theistic or atheistic problem.

I don't think it contradicts the idea that G-d grew from a gap in explanations. People readily use g-d of the gaps argument today; whether from belief or convenience. Take a look at one of your insurance policies; you'll find the phrase "acts of G-d", probably in abundance. Even though we know why flooding, lightning, tornadoes, etc. happen companies and the people in those companies use that phrase a lot.

Exactly. For some the scientific processes and working theories that are the result do all the explaining that needs to be done; their spiritual needs, if any are met through other means. For others, the scientific processes and what we've done with them as far as technology will meet their needs as far as living; their theistic faith sustains the rest.

 

[denis280]

Belief in God exists because people believe what their parents told them to believe (like you)

HO my God!see if there was no god😱

 

[JD50]

your assertion falls apart under examination.

Nah, he's pretty much right. The vast majority of people believe in the same god as their parents.

 

[Retro Rob]

Nah, he's pretty much right. The vast majority of people believe in the same god as their parents.

Black jeans exists because people wore what they parents told them to wear (like me).

Nah, I'm pretty much right. The vast majority of people wear the same color jeans as their parents.

So black jeans don't really exist.

 

[soulcougher73]

Black jeans exists because people wore what they parents told them to wear (like me).

Nah, I'm pretty much right. The vast majority of people wear the same color jeans as their parents.

So black jeans don't really exist.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ah, so I see you can't understand the point I was making. Here's the point:

In no way, shape, or form does the origin of a belief address the truthfulness (merit) of it. This is a fallacy of Origins. You should read up on it.

JD50 can agree that my personal beliefs in a God came from a rock I found in the bottom of an ocean -- that does nothing to address whether or not God exists.

My obviously hyperbolic retort clearly showed that.

 

[Malak]

This is, to me, an interesting question. We, as atheists, talk a lot about how a universe with a God would look exactly the same, but I don't think that is true. I think our world has ample proof that no god exists. I see it in everything around me. Let me give some examples of how a world with a God would be different.

Anyone can immediately see the fallacy of your line of reasoning from the start and you provide a prime example of the faulty reasoning behind atheism.

Atheists ignore any predefined God that a theist believes in, constructs a new God based on their own ideas of what qualities that God might have, then says because that God doesn't exist no God can.

Furthermore the reason you state you can't believe God exists is because of terrible things you can see around you, but do you think the theist can't see those things? Using the same reality you came to a different conclusion, but the question isn't who is right. Even the Bible says the point isn't whether God exists or not, the point is choosing a path of righteousness based in love. Having faith that the worst outcome in your belief is that you were a positive influence in life instead of negative.

I can see everything bad in the world, which gives me all the more reason to pray. And I know I am heard, because I see results.

 

[sandorski]

Anyone can immediately see the fallacy of your line of reasoning from the start and you provide a prime example of the faulty reasoning behind atheism.

Atheists ignore any predefined God that a theist believes in, constructs a new God based on their own ideas of what qualities that God might have, then says because that God doesn't exist no God can.

Furthermore the reason you state you can't believe God exists is because of terrible things you can see around you, but do you think the theist can't see those things? Using the same reality you came to a different conclusion, but the question isn't who is right. Even the Bible says the point isn't whether God exists or not, the point is choosing a path of righteousness based in love. Having faith that the worst outcome in your belief is that you were a positive influence in life instead of negative.

I can see everything bad in the world, which gives me all the more reason to pray. And I know I am heard, because I see results.

No. We reject the claim of a God based upon what the attributes are claimed to be, what actions that God are alleged to have taken, and upon what Evidence exists showing this God.

 

[Retro Rob]

No. We reject the claim of a God based upon what the attributes are claimed to be, what actions that God are alleged to have taken, and upon what Evidence exists showing this God.

Actually, he's right on this one and for a couple of main reasons:

No religious person has ever claimed that God was a "magic sky man zapping things into existence".

This is the exact strawman and caricature that atheists create, and thusly, refute because they really don't have the intellectual honesty to debate a religious person based on what he believes. Find me a religious person who says anything close to that.

Secondly, atheists make up stuff and equate their claim, without a shred of evidence, to that of Bible writers as if they did exactly the same thing. You can believe that all you want, but what evidence do you have to show that they just made it up?

How does the scientific method you claim to follow, prove that they were lying?

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Atheists almost never actually address the claims made by the people they're debating with....they pull so many strawmen and false attributions from their asses that you can fill the Empire State building with them.

I will admit though, you're not the worst offender, but you have had your share.

 

[sandorski]

Actually, he's right on this one and for a couple of main reasons:

No religious person has ever claimed that God was a "magic sky man zapping things into existence".

This is the exact strawman and caricature that atheists create, and thusly, refute because they really don't have the intellectual honesty to debate a religious person based on what he believes. Find me a religious person who says anything close to that.

Secondly, atheists make up stuff and equate their claim, without a shred of evidence, to that of Bible writers as if they did exactly the same thing. You can believe that all you want, but what evidence do you have to show that they just made it up?

How does the scientific method you claim to follow, prove that they were lying?

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Atheists almost never actually address the claims made by the people they're debating with....they pull so many strawmen and false attributions from their asses that you can fill the Empire State building with them.

I will admit though, you're not the worst offender, but you have had your share.

We caricature the claims to show the ridiculousness of them. That is not Strawmanning.

 

[Retro Rob]

We caricature the claims to show the ridiculousness of them. That is not Strawmanning.

So what if they're "ridiculous"? That doesn't make them false, which is the most important issue.

You are aware that religious people also see it "ridiculous" to think God didn't create humans.

So what?

Adjectives aren't evidence. If that's all you guys have, then you guys are complete fools.

 

[sandorski]

So what if they're "ridiculous"? That doesn't make them false, which is the most important issue.

You are aware that religious people also see it "ridiculous" to think God didn't create humans.

So what?

Adjectives aren't evidence. If that's all you guys have, then you guys are complete fools.

Never said they were. It's not all we have either.

 

[Retro Rob]

Never said they were. It's not all we have either.

So why use them? If they aren't evidence, then they serve no scientific purpose, thus, no purpose as regards objective reality.