Reasons 1-7 people give for being an Atheist: The Imaginary God

Let’s begin with the most common reason people have for being an atheist along with a few related reasons (commonality as determined by a poll I made to the Atheists Facebook page. Participants voted for the reasons they had to become an atheist upon becoming an atheist. Any reasons they acquired after were to remain unchecked. Bear in mind that I try not to come off as a Christian in my posts to this page so as not to create needless barriers to conversation. 

This group is private for the safety of its members and any mention of individuals in this group or others like it will be kept confidential. (https://www.facebook.com/groups/185348921846461/permalink/892642764450403/).

Reason 1: “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of a God.” (Polled 56 votes)

Reason 2: “The religion was inconsistent with reality.” (Polled 46 votes)

Reason 3: “Real Miracles Don’t Happen.” (Polled 12 votes)

Reason 4: “I couldn’t find a good reason to believe.” (Polled 11 votes)

Reason 5: “Animals Don’t talk.” (Polled 6 votes)

Reason 6: "Reality is not dependent on any god." (Polled 4 votes)

Reason 7: “Science has disproved God.” (Polled 2 votes)

So far as I am aware, there is indeed no scientific evidence that proves God exists. 

I am aware of many Christian apologists who point to certain scientific laws, or examples of logic, which, in their minds, point to God, and they very well might. However, we don’t know that for certain. Just because the thing these facts point to remains undiscovered, does not mean we should assume they point to God.

Other apologists point to historical claims as though they were evidence. However, there are a number of problems with this, but what it all boils down to is that you cannot prove the Bible is not historical fiction, like Forrest Gump. 

Considering the fact that historical fiction injects a fictional story into a highly historically accurate setting, you cannot assert that the presence of some historical facts prove the other claims are true as well.

Even if you were to find archaeological evidence that one of the miraculous events in scripture actually happened, you cannot assume that God is the true explanation for how it happened.

Then there are those who assert their personal experiences of God, Miracles, or other supernatural phenomenon as proof. 

On one hand, it is not my place to invalidate other people’s experiences. If someone claims to have experienced those things it is possible they have. I cannot blame them for believing what they experienced is as it appeared.

However, when the expectation is that I am too agree with them about the truth of their experiences, I need to consider the other possibilities. When it comes to other possibilities, by definition, even the most improbable natural explanation is more probable than a super natural one. So these things could be caused by anything ranging from a strange natural phenomenon to a brain tumor.

So, even though I cannot accept the supernatural explanation as the absolute truth, it is not intellectually compromising to subjectively hope that the supernatural explanation is true, so long as it remains a possibility and no other possibilities become confirmed (a hoped for explanation should never take precedence over a proved explanation).

Furthermore, a hoped for explanation should never keep you from seeking out the truth of the matter; giving equal consideration to each possibility and maintaining an open mind to more possibilities should they arise.

Additionally, to ignore the condition of the world and turn a blind eye to scientific discovery is to rob one’s self of the ability to live a life that can better humanity. So why hope for the supernatural?

“Hope”, regardless of its source, provides real and measurable benefits to those who have it. As detailed in this article from Psychology Today:  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pressure-proof/201303/5-ways-hope-impacts-health-happiness

It is common for atheists to find their hope in both themselves and the goodness of humanity. This is a very valuable hope to have, and I would encourage anyone to have this hope if they can bring themselves to do it. However, not only are there many who have lost the ability to find hope in themselves or the goodness of humanity, but hope in oneself will pass with one’s dying body (or dying energy source given the possibility of transhumanism), and hope for the the goodness of humanity will pass with the life of the last human or other living thing. 

In the face of these inevitable realities, it would appear to me that both hope in one’s self and hope in the goodness of humanity are temporary and conditional. So given the possibility of a non-conditional hope, one that overcomes death, and one that does not require you to ignore the condition of the world and turn a blind eye to scientific discovery, why shouldn’t I have that hope, at least until something better comes along? 

One possible non-conditional hope I have come across is hope in a God. However, in order to be a source of hope in this case, this God would have to have the following attributes: 

1. A God that is not subject to entropy and thus must transcend a material form. Similar to the way a game developer transcends the binary that makes up the fabric of the virtual world they create.

2. A God with power over life, death, and the entropy of the universe.

3. A God with goodwill for humanity, whatever that would look like.

I have run these points by many atheists, and surprisingly a vast majority take no issue with the idea of hoping our reality is one wherein a benevolent God exists. Granted, and as could only be expected, there are a number of caveats tied to this exception.

1. That hope should never be presented as proof or evidence.

2. No one should ever be expected to share in that same hope.

3. So long as that hope is not keeping you from doing what you can here and now.

4. Only result to hope over evidence when the evidence itself provides no hope; when you are in a desperate situation that is out of your control; when you are facing impending death/doom.

5. The thing you hope for should be possible.

However, hope for God can meet all of these caveats.

First, that hope should never be presented as proof or evidence. I do not present my hope for God as proof or evidence. So check.

Second, no one should ever be expected to share in that same hope. I do not expect others to share in my hope. I may offer my hope, present my case, as I am here, to those who are interested or to those searching for hope, but they can choose to reject it without judgment from me.

Third, so long as that hope is not keeping you from doing what you can here and now. There is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the notion of “letting God be the driver of your life”.

Letting God drive does not mean you do nothing. It means that you do anything you can without resolving to a means that brings about more suffering. 

For example, letting God drive the way you get money does not mean you sit around until you get money. It means that you do anything you can to get the money except anything that would require hurting someone else, even fractionally (I understand that there are some Old Testament laws in the Bible that demand penalties of suffering and death, I will address those in a later post). 

The only time I imagine God would ever make something happen by supernatural means is if it cannot be done by natural means or without hurting someone. An exception to this would be if God explicitly, and without a shadow of a doubt, told me to wait and do nothing, though I may still try to get a brain scan as soon as possible.

Furthermore, all of these same things apply to helping other people. Never just pray for someone. In addition to prayer, make sure you have done anything within your power to help them or to point them to someone more qualified to help them.

Fourth, only result to hope over evidence when the evidence itself provides no hope; when you are in a desperate situation that is out of your control; when you are facing impending doom/death. I have already addressed the possibility that hope for a benevolent God can stand in the face of life's inevitable end.

Fifth, the thing you hope for should be possible. This is where we must address the notion that science has disproved the existence of God. First, science cannot prove non-existence, very few people disagree with this. However, some people claim that, since humans have, or soon will have, holistic knowledge of how the universe works, and that understanding does not require God, God therefore does not exist.

The universe may not necessitate a God, but that does not mean one does not exist, though one could make the argument that it does render hope for a God to be pointless.  

Others claim that humanity has eyes on every means of communication, so if God did anything, we would detect it. Now I have addressed these notions on a previous blog post, and rather than go over the whole thing again, here is a link (https://truthvoyager.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-value-of-meaning.html). This post essentially explains how human beings are biologically unable to be certain that our senses, the only means by which we have to know anything about reality, are giving us a holistic knowledge of reality let alone correct knowledge. Essentially the post posits the idea of Solipsism. Thus, as long as God cannot be disproved, He remains a possibility.

In conclusion, it is valid to hope for God so long as the hope meets certain caveats. However, it is also valid to be atheistic should the existence of God provide no hope. In following posts we will be exploring ways God’s existence may or may not be something that provides hope.

Furthermore, since hope provides both physical and mental benefits, it is valuable in a real and measurable way to hope for God, again within certain caveats.

Finally, non-existence can not be proven nor are humans biologically capable of holistic knowledge of the universe. Thus God’s non-existence cannot be proven and His existence remains a possibility. 

With the possibility of God’s existence there also comes the possibility of the existence of miraculous events. Such a God could have admin privileges to our reality enabling it to bend and break the natural laws of the reality it made as it sees fit. However, considering the consistency of the natural laws, it would seem that this God, should there be one, does not take to bending and breaking them very often, thereby not undercutting the value of such laws. 

In addition, although there are certain scientific laws that suggest our reality should not exist the way it does unless some great intelligence was involved, we cannot assume that a great intelligence is the answer. Furthermore, compounding historically accurate details does not act as proof for historical claims.

It should also be noted that the argument from hope is different from Pascal’s wager in where Pascal considers the possibility of benefits from a belief in God, this considers the very real benefits of hoping for God’s existence.

Next Post: https://truthvoyager.blogspot.com/2020/08/exploring-50-reasons-to-be-atheist.html

Previous Post: https://truthvoyager.blogspot.com/2020/08/exploring-50-reasons-to-be-atheist_31.html  

The value of meaning

Recently I came into dialogue with a man who is under the impression that, by means of science, humans now have a holistic working theory for everything. I do not believe this claim is a threat to the existence of God. The reason is this, even if humanity does have holistic knowledge of the universe, it would only mean that, if there is a God who created everything, God created a self sustaining universe. Regardless I kept listening.

This man then went on to claim that because humanity is tapped into 100% of all frequencies of communication, if there is a God, He would be detectable, or at least any attempts this God could make to act or communicate in our reality would be detected by scientists and we would know about it. 

Now there are a number issues with his claims here. First, if there exists a God who can rewrite the logic of our reality at will, He could do whatever He wants and we would only be able to detect it if He wanted us to.

I tried to explain this to him but he still would not buy into the fact that such a being would be able to avoid being detected by the masses.

So I took a different approach and targeted his assumption that humanity is capable of having a holistic understanding of the universe. I presented him with that following argument.

“Premise one: The basis of Science is observation; we draw conclusions about reality by observing replicable results to experiments run in a controlled environment. Further verification of results can be achieved through the observations of a third party attempt to replicate the findings. 

Premise two: The basis of observation is human senses; observation stems from the stimulation of different human senses (such as sight, hearing, and touch) creating patterns in the human brain. 

Premise three: Human beings do not have the luxury of possessing any sensory inputs that cannot be faulty or manipulated. 

Conclusion: Therefore, you cannot observe scientific results without relying on potentially faulty or manipulatable tools of observation; without relying on human senses. 

You can better assure the accuracy of these observations by increasing the number of observers. However, to an individual human being, other observers only exist as patterns in their brains created from potentially faulty or manipulated sensory inputs. Thus, individual humans have no way to confirm that the other people they observe are actual people or the result of a hallucination or manipulative technology.”

The point was to illustrate a flaw in is claim. Namely the potentially faulty or manipulated basis for everything we think we know about reality. Therefore, human beings do not have the luxury of wholistic, concrete, knowledge.

He rejected my conclusion. He believes that third party verification and the ability to replicate results nullify my conclusion. When I tried to point out that those too are subject to the same premises I presented, and thus provide no grounds for rejecting my conclusion, he wouldn’t have it and resulted to mocking me.

In the end he did not invalidate any of my premises and only damaged his rapport with me. 

I refuse to believe that all atheists are like this man, I sincerely hope they are not. Dear reader, if you are an atheist, would you provide a rebuttal for my argument if it is indeed illogical. Perhaps my logic is flawed and this man did not have the vocabulary to explain how it is. 

Furthermore, should you find my logic sound, I have a question for you. 

Why do you value your observations enough to assume they are real despite lacking any means of definitively proving they are real? 

For me, it is because find value in the idea of a meaningful existence. I hope my observations are meaningful even though I cannot prove that they are. So, I choose to exude confidence in the hope that I have by living my life, taking assurance in my observations even though I cannot truly know if what causes them is an actual reality or something else. For Christians that would be the definition of faith (Hebrews 11: 1). 

I am curious if you have a different reason, because I cannot think of one. One response I have received from an atheist in the past is the following.

Trusting your senses is a given; it is not something you have to make a choice about. In other words, you assign value to your senses by default, it is not something you choose to assign. Therefore, asking why we value our senses is a pointless question; a waste of time. 

I did not have an immediate response to this rebuttal; I had to think about it for a while. Eventually I realized that this argument paints a picture of humanity’s relationship to our senses that I find very similar to modern humanity’s relationship with technology. 

The premise that there is default value assigned to anything we depend upon is true. We do not consciously assign value to our phones, we merely recognize that they enhance our personal experience of life and thus they are valuable to us by default. 

However this premise is not always true. In the event that the trustworthiness of our phones is compromised, we are forced to acknowledge the default value we assigned our phone, and come up with a reason why our phone may be worth trusting, or why not. 

The trustworthiness of our senses has been brought to question. Now we must acknowledge the reason we value them and make a decision of if they are still worth believing.