• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The five best reasons not to believe in God

It depends what constitutes "evidence". It's unfortunate when material reductionists demand evidence for something that is ontological in nature. The two schools are entirely different. Ontological schools have different evidence requirements that material rationalist schools. The two schools are not in competition and one isn't more right than the other. They different philosophical branches.

I demand evidence that you exist, watsup, and aren't an algorithm.

Taken further... prove that anyone around you is conscious and not just a simulation. At the subatomic level we are all 99.8% empty space. Atoms contain almost nothing. Prove to me that this isn't all just some simulation.

Do you see the problem?

It's hard to demand evidence for ontological processes.

I feel that people like you need to understand that ontology is a huge part of the human experience, even if we're not talking about "God". Human function relies on so many day to day nonprovable assumptions that we take them for granted. The "God" one is low hanging fruit. I'd like to see somebody tackle why I should give a crap about any other human being, since they're not me and I can't prove that any other person has feelings like I do. I just assume that they do. Yet I can't see their thoughts so why do I do that? If I hurt somebody else, it's no skin off my back because I'm not the one in pain, assuming that these other creatures around me even register pain. Why can't I practice solipsism to the nth degree? What evidence do I have that I shouldn't?

Whatever. You’re a philosopher. I’m an atheist. No evidence, no God.
 
It depends what constitutes "evidence". It's unfortunate when material reductionists demand evidence for something that is ontological in nature. The two schools are entirely different. Ontological schools have different evidence requirements that material rationalist schools. The two schools are not in competition and one isn't more right than the other. They different philosophical branches.

I demand evidence that you exist, watsup, and aren't an algorithm.

Taken further... prove that anyone around you is conscious and not just a simulation. At the subatomic level we are all 99.8% empty space. Atoms contain almost nothing. Prove to me that this isn't all just some simulation.

Do you see the problem?

It's hard to demand evidence for ontological processes.

I feel that people like you need to understand that ontology is a huge part of the human experience, even if we're not talking about "God". Human function relies on so many day to day nonprovable assumptions that we take them for granted. The "God" one is low hanging fruit. I'd like to see somebody tackle why I should give a crap about any other human being, since they're not me and I can't prove that any other person has feelings like I do. I just assume that they do. Yet I can't see their thoughts so why do I do that? If I hurt somebody else, it's no skin off my back because I'm not the one in pain, assuming that these other creatures around me even register pain. Why can't I practice solipsism to the nth degree? What evidence do I have that I shouldn't?
Don't report me... just answering the hypohetiscal...


Come over here and I will show you why, son.
 
No. You don’t.


Without at least one other Universe to compare it to, you have no idea how complex or simple ours is.
No...I don't...
 
Don't report me... just answering the hypohetiscal...


Come over here and I will show you why, son.

I'm not offended.

But that does lead to the question -- do you believe that reality is determined by the senses? i.e. if I go over there and see/interact with you, I should conclude you're real and not a stimulation?
 
I'm not offended.

But that does lead to the question -- do you believe that reality is determined by the senses? i.e. if I go over there and see/interact with you, I should conclude you're real and not a stimulation?
Up to you. If it is a simulation, then you have plenty of reference material from the past of the simulation to predict how things might go.

So would it make any difference? Ha, yes I know that's where this is going :)
 
I'm not offended.

But that does lead to the question -- do you believe that reality is determined by the senses? i.e. if I go over there and see/interact with you, I should conclude you're real and not a stimulation?

Wouldn’t be too bright to be debating with a simulation, would it?
 
Wouldn’t be too bright to be debating with a simulation, would it?

You're not really understanding the premise of what I'm saying.

You're trying to challenge ontology with material reductionism. They are fundamentally incompatible because they come from different philosophical schools.

It would be like asking to prove that your subjective feelings/emotions are real, or asking to prove that the thoughts in your head are real, since we can't see them mechanically moving. In other words, prove to me that you are conscious beyond all the axioms and self-affirming diatribes of society that say you are. You can't. You being conscious is ontological. We believe it to be true. It is an axiom of belief. We don't question it, yet it's not provable.

In other words, "reason" and belief in God are not compatible. You don't give reasons for God or no-God, it's ontological. Another facet of this is human rights and secularism, which have ontological bases. The Bill of Rights in the U.S. was written based upon the principle that we have in-born, uninalienable rights. This ontological premise governs the whole legal structure of the U.S. Yet it is not based in anything substantive, material, or mechanical. The founding fathers believed the premise was real and so it became law.

This is philosophy 101. You are comparing apples and oranges. I think it's problematic to try and deconstruct ontology by using the school of rationality because you may unknowingly be undermining something that actually informs secularism, i.e. your very right to question the existence of God in free speech comes from an ontological premise. Reason didn't invent human rights. Reason didn't invent God.
 
There are things that we, as a society, believe in that can't be proven. For example, inalienable rights granted at birth, simply for being human. We believe that to be a good thing so the belief becomes axiomatic. It is self-affirming. At it's core, it is based on nothing but an affirmation, one that could easily be undermined by rationality. Do we care? No. The ontology affirms an essential morality that maintains our society's structure.

Similarly, we accept that human beings are conscious, even though we don't know what consciousness is and don't have a direct test for it. We can indirectly test for consciousness by interviewing someone or measuring their electrical output, but we still don't know what consciousness is. There is no model to mechanistically understand it. Yet we ontologically accept that consciousness is real and that everyone possesses it.

This idea that if it can't be proven it must not be real is a bogus extension of rationalism that has no philosophical basis. It's just one school thinking that it has the clout and entitlement to undermine all other schools, rather than knowing its place in cosmology and staying in its lane.

There are plenty of things that we believe in that will never be proven, and that's a good thing. Not everything should be proven. Proofs are rationality and not all of life is rational. Being human is always going to be being part irrational. The mysteries of existence, "who am I", our place in the universe, the meaning of life... these are questions that are not meant to be solved with one answer. God is also one of those things.

I accept your answer to the question but I don't accept that you have a right to tell others how they should answer the question, or that the question should even be answered by every living person. For myself, personally, the mystery of the question has more meaning to me than the answer. Questions create possibilities while answers end all possibilities. The road to awe is an endless question.
 
Last edited:
You're not really understanding the premise of what I'm saying.

You're trying to challenge ontology with material reductionism. They are fundamentally incompatible because they come from different philosophical schools.

It would be like asking to prove that your subjective feelings/emotions are real, or asking to prove that the thoughts in your head are real, since we can't see them mechanically moving. In other words, prove to me that you are conscious beyond all the axioms and self-affirming diatribes of society that say you are. You can't. You being conscious is ontological. We believe it to be true. It is an axiom of belief. We don't question it, yet it's not provable.

In other words, "reason" and belief in God are not compatible. You don't give reasons for God or no-God, it's ontological. Another facet of this is human rights and secularism, which have ontological bases. The Bill of Rights in the U.S. was written based upon the principle that we have in-born, uninalienable rights. This ontological premise governs the whole legal structure of the U.S. Yet it is not based in anything substantive, material, or mechanical. The founding fathers believed the premise was real and so it became law.

This is philosophy 101. You are comparing apples and oranges. I think it's problematic to try and deconstruct ontology by using the school of rationality because you may unknowingly be undermining something that actually informs secularism, i.e. your very right to question the existence of God in free speech comes from an ontological premise. Reason didn't invent human rights. Reason didn't invent God.

I’m an atheist. No evidence, no God. It’s just that simple.
 
You're not really understanding the premise of what I'm saying.

You're trying to challenge ontology with material reductionism. They are fundamentally incompatible because they come from different philosophical schools.

It would be like asking to prove that your subjective feelings/emotions are real, or asking to prove that the thoughts in your head are real, since we can't see them mechanically moving. In other words, prove to me that you are conscious beyond all the axioms and self-affirming diatribes of society that say you are. You can't. You being conscious is ontological. We believe it to be true. It is an axiom of belief. We don't question it, yet it's not provable.

Not sure what you mean by ontology. It is not a "philosophical school." Ontology is the logic or nature of being. Ontology is one branch of philosophy like ethics or logic.
 
Try making sense.

If I know something I neither believe it or disbelieve it.....BECAUSE I KNOW IT.

Once you know something, belief (or lack of it) plays no role .
You know something due to facts and evidence, you believe it because you know it. When you believe in something you don't know, it's faith. You suspect it's true but don't have the facts and evidence to back it up as something you know for sure.

Everyone has a belief system and much of psychiatry is based on this fact.
 
You know something due to facts and evidence, you believe it because you know it. When you believe in something you don't know, it's faith. You suspect it's true but don't have the facts and evidence to back it up as something you know for sure.

Everyone has a belief system and much of psychiatry is based on this fact.
Example.

I believe Nebraska will win its first football game today.

I know Nebraska lost to Oklahoma last Saturday.

See the difference?
 
I believe Nebraska will win their first game this saturday.

I know that they lost to Oklahoma last weekend.

See the difference.
Yeah, I got that bass-ackwards. You can't believe something before you know it's true unless it's faith.

Your example does nothing to refute my logic. You believe Nebraska will win based on faith, not factual evidence.
 
You know something due to facts and evidence, you believe it because you know it. When you believe in something you don't know, it's faith. You suspect it's true but don't have the facts and evidence to back it up as something you know for sure.

Everyone has a belief system and much of psychiatry is based on this fact.
Not sure if it is a system. Maybe just a bunch of diverse things you think are true.
 
Not sure if it is a system. Maybe just a bunch of diverse things you think are true.
I can't argue with that analysis.

My father once told me, know what you know. It didn't make much sense then until I realized how little I'm sure of because of how much there is to know.
 
Yeah, I got that bass-ackwards. You can't believe something before you know it's true unless it's faith.

Your example does nothing to refute my logic. You believe Nebraska will win based on faith, not factual evidence.
I know Nebraska lost to Oklahoma last week.

Belief plays no role in that.
 
Whatever. You’re a philosopher. I’m an atheist. No evidence, no God.

I'm not a philosopher, I just understand the basis of what you're saying... which is what I'm trying to point out to you, but then you won't engage with it. Yet you call theists intellectually lazy?

You say there is no evidence for God but then you are willing to uphold the value of other things for which there is no evidence. When I point this out, you just say "whatever". Your position is not consistent, even on a rational level.

In order for your position to make sense, you have to explain why some things that have no evidence are worth believing in while others aren't. For examples of the things I'm talking about, see previous posts. Unless you have other criteria apart from "no evidence," in which case I'd love to hear it. Religious people think there is plenty of evidence for God. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that your single claim of no evidence is kind of flimsy since humans uphold a lot of things that can't be tested for.

If you're only here to pontificate then please just say so and I will stop this inquiry.
 
Name some of the other things.

I did that already. See previous posts.

Judging by your responses I think you're only skimming my posts anyway.
 
There are things that we, as a society, believe in that can't be proven. For example, inalienable rights granted at birth, simply for being human. We believe that to be a good thing so the belief becomes axiomatic. It is self-affirming. At it's core, it is based on nothing but an affirmation, one that could easily be undermined by rationality. Do we care? No. The ontology affirms an essential morality that maintains our society's structure.

Let’s get back to the beginning, which is EVIDENCE, not “proof”. I have not asked for “proof” of God, just for any EVIDENCE that such an entity actually exists. In the paragraph above, you are mixing the apples of God, which supposedly is an actual entity, with the oranges of the manner in which humans have come to certain decisions. Two different topics, whether you care to admit it or not. What you are describing is Humanism, namely humans using their own experiences to determine the manner in which they want to from social bonds, such as a government. I don’t think that “inalienable rights” needs proof or evidence, as long as the humans who, in this case, constructed this particular government, felt that it was appropriate as a foundation. If they want to claim that these “rights” were granted by God, that is up to them, but that is the part that could not be proven.
 
Similarly, we accept that human beings are conscious, even though we don't know what consciousness is and don't have a direct test for it. We can indirectly test for consciousness by interviewing someone or measuring their electrical output, but we still don't know what consciousness is. There is no model to mechanistically understand it. Yet we ontologically accept that consciousness is real and that everyone possesses it.

There is plenty of evidence for consciousness, whether you care to admit it or not, namely the brain waves recorded on EEGs. Scientists can also measure the differences in the brain when the human involved experiences different moods, such as happiness and sadness, and scientists know that what is happening the brain involves electro-chemical exchanges. And no, I’m not going down the philosophical rabbit hole with you on this one. What is stated above is the SCIENTIFIC evidence for consciousness, buttressed by the fact that “death” results on the cessation of said brain waves. No such evidence exists for a “God”, none at all, other than pure “belief”, which is the easiest thing in the world. Anyone can “believe” absolutely anything without the slightest bit of evidence as to its reality. Like “God”.
 
Let’s get back to the beginning, which is EVIDENCE, not “proof”. I have not asked for “proof” of God, just for any EVIDENCE that such an entity actually exists. In the paragraph above, you are mixing the apples of God, which supposedly is an actual entity, with the oranges of the manner in which humans have come to certain decisions. Two different topics, whether you care to admit it or not.

This is hairsplitting. Let's parse this out...

Whether you call it proof or evidence (yes, I know the difference), you're asking to be given a reason for why you should even suspect God is real, but the reasons you are asking for pertain to a philosophical school that does not deal in reason. It's like asking a creative person why they are creative. How should they know? They just are. I mention creatives because they deal in irrationality, i.e. many artists create for the sake of creating, it has no reason.

Secondly, I am not talking about the nature of God. In my conversation with you, only you are mentioning the word "entity." I disagree that how humans decide things and the existence of God are apples and oranges. To answer if God is real you also have to consider who is asking the question, and how that person is arriving at their answer. The question doesn't exist in empty space, it is being generated from a mind that is asking. That is the whole basis of philosophy, which, whether you are willing to admit it or not, is central to this.


What you are describing is Humanism, namely humans using their own experiences to determine the manner in which they want to from social bonds, such as a government. I don’t think that “inalienable rights” needs proof or evidence, as long as the humans who, in this case, constructed this particular government, felt that it was appropriate as a foundation. If they want to claim that these “rights” were granted by God, that is up to them, but that is the part that could not be proven.

Giving it another name (humanism) doesn't change the underlying prima facie, which is that humanism is based upon principle tenets which are ontological. The bill of rights refers to God-given rights on purpose because they are ontologically asserting that there is a superior force greater than humans which grants humans their innate, in-born rights and freedoms, and no other human can realistically take those away. This is a huge claim, one that our fundamental rights (in America, anyway) are based upon. You may find this irrelevant but it's not because if the superior force is no longer a factor then the principles are no longer ontologically elevated and therefore any human can deny human rights. That is the reason why the Founding Fathers put God in there.

Which brings me back to the original point. Things don't need material evidence to be a driving force behind the creation of materially valuable institutions. All they need is agreement (internal to the person, or social to the society). If you talk to any person who truly believes in God they will say that there is evidence everywhere.

It's your epistemology vs. theirs at the end of the day.
 
There is plenty of evidence for consciousness, whether you care to admit it or not, namely the brain waves recorded on EEGs. Scientists can also measure the differences in the brain when the human involved experiences different moods, such as happiness and sadness, and scientists know that what is happening the brain involves electro-chemical exchanges. And no, I’m not going down the philosophical rabbit hole with you on this one. What is stated above is the SCIENTIFIC evidence for consciousness, buttressed by the fact that “death” results on the cessation of said brain waves. No such evidence exists for a “God”, none at all, other than pure “belief”, which is the easiest thing in the world. Anyone can “believe” absolutely anything without the slightest bit of evidence as to its reality. Like “God”.

I'm an MSc in Biology. Yes I'm aware of it, lol. I didn't say evidence that consciousness is occurring, I said evidence for the nature of consciousness. What is it? Nobody can answer this question. There is no evidence that brain waves = consciousness. Brain waves mean that the activities of consciousness are occurring but we don't know if they are consciousness or not. Yes, there is a difference, and yes, the difference is important. I work in a faculty neighbouring a neurology research lab. I've had this conversation with people who know way more about this than you or I. They say they'd like to believe consciousness is in the brain but they can't prove it. Even if they could say that consciousness is in the brain they still can't say what consciousness is. We are taking about the nature of being here. Please make the distinction. There's nothing in this that tells you how or why you are you. I can't point to a part of your body and say that you reside there, or what is this "you" that's in there.

All of this is beside the point. You generally agree without evidence that a person is conscious even though you can't see inside of them or know their internal workings, because you were taught that this is true and you believed it. Don't act like you held off on believing it until you read studies about EEGs. You believed people were conscious much earlier than that. If you are so bent on evidence then you have already contradicted yourself.

Similarly, other people "know" that God is real. They might not be able to point to something and say "God is there" but they are having a genuine epistemological experience. It's real. It's a phenomenon. It's not delusional.
 
This is hairsplitting. Let's parse this out...

Whether you call it proof or evidence (yes, I know the difference), you're asking to be given a reason for why you should even suspect God is real, but the reasons you are asking for pertain to a philosophical school that does not deal in reason. It's like asking a creative person why they are creative. How should they know? They just are. I mention creatives because they deal in irrationality, i.e. many artists create for the sake of creating, it has no reason.

Secondly, I am not talking about the nature of God. In my conversation with you, only you are mentioning the word "entity." I disagree that how humans decide things and the existence of God are apples and oranges. To answer if God is real you also have to consider who is asking the question, and how that person is arriving at their answer. The question doesn't exist in empty space, it is being generated from a mind that is asking. That is the whole basis of philosophy, which, whether you are willing to admit it or not, is central to this.




Giving it another name (humanism) doesn't change the underlying prima facie, which is that humanism is based upon principle tenets which are ontological. The bill of rights refers to God-given rights on purpose because they are ontologically asserting that there is a superior force greater than humans which grants humans their innate, in-born rights and freedoms, and no other human can realistically take those away. This is a huge claim, one that our fundamental rights (in America, anyway) are based upon. You may find this irrelevant but it's not because if the superior force is no longer a factor then the principles are no longer ontologically elevated and therefore any human can deny human rights. That is the reason why the Founding Fathers put God in there.

Which brings me back to the original point. Things don't need material evidence to be a driving force behind the creation of materially valuable institutions. All they need is agreement (internal to the person, or social to the society). If you talk to any person who truly believes in God they will say that there is evidence everywhere.

It's your epistemology vs. theirs at the end of the day.

Very good. You get an “A” in Ontology 101. Boring. Get back to me when you done some evidence for “God”.
 
Back
Top Bottom