why do you not believe in God?

430 posts / 0 new
Last post
servantofAllah's picture
why do you not believe in God?

Hi there guys, just wondering what your reasons are for not believing God exists.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

LostLocke's picture
I'll go first.

I'll go first.
When you say "God" I'm assuming you mean Allah, (or Yahweh/Jehovah for those of the Jewish and Christian faiths), and not Zeus or Ra or Odin or Quetzalcoatl or Eru Ilúvatar, right?

Well, why don't you believe in those other gods I listed? Probably the same reason we don't believe in "God", lack of evidence of existence.

servantofAllah's picture
Thanks for your response,

Thanks for your response, personally I believe in the God of Abraham, so the same God as the Christians and Jews. Now for me not believing in zeus, ra or odin etc; is because they do not make logical sense. Lets take zeus for example, he was begotten. Since when was God born? God is eternal. Now I don't know your background or where you came from etc, so I am not sure about your scientific background etc. But as far as scientific evidence goes we always return to the same conclusion, when was the absolute beginning?
So here is what scientists say, (it's a theory). Before the big bang matter and antimatter collided which gave rise to the big bang and so on.
Now, antimatter and matter have opposite charges, lepton number, baryon number etc. So say for example a electron and positron(anti electron) have opposite charges so when they collide their charges cancel out. HOWEVER energy and momentum are always conserved. so the resultant photon will have a rest energy of both the positron and electron. Now please think logically from this, there is absolutely no way this photon could've came about itself, or by chance or by any other laws of physics in existence. There must have been an external cause for it.

CyberLN's picture
servant, you asked, “ But as

servant, you asked, “ But as far as scientific evidence goes we always return to the same conclusion, when was the absolute beginning?”

That there is an absolute beginning is one heck of an assumption!

You also wrote, “there is absolutely no way this photon could’ve came (sic) about itself, or by chance or by any other laws of physics in existence.”

How did you determine that?

servantofAllah's picture
"That there is an absolute

"That there is an absolute beginning is one heck of an assumption!"
Hmm, that's where you are wrong.
The big bang was (likely) the beginning of the universe, so there was an absolute beginning. Before the big bang there had to have been something which gave rise to the big bang (I'd already explained a possibility before). But when we get right down to what gave rise to the thing that caused the big bang, we reach a fundamental level (kind of like a 1/x graph, say an asymptote that never reaches zero but is infinitesimally close). According to our scientific knowledge we so far know that quarks and leptons are fundamental, but even if there are more fundamental particles than those (I doubt there are) we will still always reach the same conclusion where did that come from where did that come from and it will never end. Now I have just explained that logically.

I don't know your scientific background, you may have a PhD in physics or you may not but that should be simple enough to understand lol.

*******You also wrote, “there is absolutely no way this photon could’ve came (sic) about itself, or by chance or by any other laws of physics in existence.”

How did you determine that?*****

Good point actually, you see that when matter and antimatter collide they give rise to a photon that has the rest energy+ kinetic energy of both the particle and antiparticle. For example when a positron and electron collide, they form a photon. They are fundamental and if the photon is made up of the particle and antiparticle (in which case it is) then there is obviously no way it could've been formed other than that, because there is nothing with a smaller rest mass than that and that have those properties etc. So according to this theory the universe must have started with either a particle and antiparticle or a photon, we can't determine which was. Given that these particles are fundamental, we have to accept that it is possible that an external cause must have caused it, and yes we call that cause God. And before you atheists bring out your "God of the gaps" nonsense out I have already explained the asymptote example , which perfectly takes into consideration that there quarks and leptons can be made of more subatomic particles, so my argument did not diss any scientific gaps.

Nyarlathotep's picture
servantofAllah - ...you see

servantofAllah - ...you see that when matter and antimatter collide they give rise to a photon that has the energy and mass of both the particle and antiparticle.

That violates the conservation of momentum.

servantofAllah's picture
oh yh my bad, I'll correct it

oh yh my bad, I'll correct it
thanks dude

Nyarlathotep's picture
servantofAllah - Good point

servantofAllah - Good point actually, you see that when matter and antimatter collide they give rise to a photon that has the rest energy+ kinetic energy of both the particle and antiparticle...

You are starting with 0 momentum, and ending with the momentum of a photon. That violates momentum conservation.

servantofAllah's picture
the momentum of the two

the momentum of the two particles when they collide?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Starting with an electron and
  1. Starting with an electron and a positron in a zero-momentum frame: the momentum of the system is 0.
  2. There is an attraction between them, so they move towards each other. But since their masses are identical, and they move in opposite directions, the changes to system's momentum cancel: the momentum of the system is 0.
  3. They annihilate and produce a photon which moves at the speed of light: the momentum of the system is Ec^(-1)n̂.

Something is wrong with this story because in modern (and even classical physics for the last ~350 years), that is forbidden. Now, I know what is wrong and how to fix it; but I'm hoping you will instead.

/e You know: show us you understand what you are saying by fixing the mistake. Otherwise we might think you are just quoting something you don't understand but think sounds intimidating.

bob's picture
I am new to forums but here

I am new to forums but here goes; Servant of ALLAH Why is Islam so sensitive, ie treat the actual book "the Koran" physically in a bad way and one can face death, when in actual fact itis a book and has no spiritual essence.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Bob

@ Bob

when in actual fact itis a book and has no spiritual essence.

Hi Bob and a very welcome post. Nice to see you here! Are you saying that all books have no 'spiritual essence ?" or that specified books have "no spiritual essence?"
Which is only a short hop to: what IS spiritual essence?

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
The big bang was (likely) the

The big bang was (likely) the beginning of the universe, so there was an absolute beginning

'Likely/Absolute beginning'
Do you see the issue here?

But when we get right down to what gave rise to the thing that caused the big bang

Providing you realise that the big bang model is what is accurate and not the postulated big bang event.

Now I have just explained that logically.

That is quite a claim considering the first comment.

On your final entry, I would ask you what was the first effect from the 'first cause'?

servantofAllah's picture
******'Likely/Absolute

******'Likely/Absolute beginning'
Do you see the issue here?******

I meant that there are other theories, but the big bang is likely correct

******On your final entry, I would ask you what was the first effect from the 'first cause'?******
Well, we know that energy can never be created or destroyed within the laws of physics.
We also know that photons couldn't have been there forever, so they would've decayed into their components, still conserving all the energy.

from this we can conclude that the energy must have come from outside the laws of physics. emphasis on the word outside

Nyarlathotep's picture
servantofAllah - We also know

servantofAllah - We also know that photons couldn't have been there forever, so they would've decayed into their components

What are the components of a photon?

arakish's picture
@ servantofAllah

@ servantofAllah

You: "The big bang was (likely) the beginning of the universe, so there was an absolute beginning."

Wrong. The Big Bang (it is capitalized by the way) was NOT the beginning of the universe. It was the beginning of the universal expansion phase. And more accurately, it is the Universal Expansion Theory. It was called "big bang" as a derogative term hoping to disparage the theory. We still do not know when the universe began, or if it began at all. The universe may be infinitely old. We do not know. We have top specialists working on it.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"God is eternal. "

"God is eternal. "

Evidence please, and I'm going to need objective evidence, not anecdotal claims and hearsay with the pretence it represents logical argument, any and all logical fallacies will sink all claims they are used to support.

"s far as scientific evidence goes we always return to the same conclusion, when was the absolute beginning?"

Strike one, this fallacy is called an appeal to ignorance fallacy, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. I have explained it innumerable many times, so I suggest you Google it, and research why any assertions based on it are the very definition of irrational.

"So here is what scientists say, (it's a theory). Before the big bang matter and antimatter collided which gave rise to the big bang and so on."

Strike two, a scientific theory is the pinnacle of any scientific idea, and nothing currently understood by science as objectively valid evidences a deity or anything supernatural.

"Now please think logically from this, there is absolutely no way this photon could've came about itself,"

Strike three, this one is called an argument from incredulity fallacy, again I find it tedious to keep explaining these, so I urge you to research it and why your any claims using it or based on it are the very definition of irrational. What is more science does make assertions based on what it does not know, and the principles of logic call this a common logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam. If current scientific knowledge evidenced a deity or anything supernatural we wouldn't need this discussion would we.

"There must have been an external cause for it."

Strike 4, pure assumption, and again using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. This religious ploy is used so often it's a cliche, and as well as being based on a logical fallacy it is pure assumption the cause is a deity, and not an as yet unknown natural phenomenon. Occam's razor applies here as your assumptions are piling up.

You have demonstrated no objective evidence a cause "external" to nature exists, and your argument it is required is based on what we don't know, or not having a contrary argument, this is the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy, so you urging us to think rationally is pretty ironic given how many irrational common logical fallacies you have included in your claims.

can you demonstrate any ***OBJECTIVE evidence for any deity, or that anything exists outside of the natural material universe?

Now I urge *you to think logically, Occam's razor states any claim or idea becomes less likely to be valid, the more assumptions it requires. So any assertions based on what we don't know represents assumption, and we don't know, nor do we have any objective evidence that our understanding of natural laws and phenomena applied prior to the big bang.

SecularSonOfABiscuitEater's picture
Not to be rude, but there's

Not to be rude, but there's no logical reason to support any God. Unless you want to count coincidences as miracles or take the word of people who claim they saw heaven during a NDE. Either way that is all just testimony. Testimony is commonly inaccurate. Nothing empirical.

By all means, carry on. Just my two cents.

corsair leader's picture
interesting, you talk about

interesting, you talk about being logic, then you try to state your position by denying NDE experiences without even researching it. thats so interesting . weather or not you realize it, isn't that exactly the way religions present their case?no FACTUAL MATERIAL
TO BACK UP THEIR THESES. allow me to put something else on the table. a subject i'm sure most atheist do not want to discuss.
RE-INCARNATION. this topic is not only a fact, proven beyond any doubt, but still not discussed with honesty and openly. i wonder why that is the case. if you are really sincere and wish to travel roads unexplored in your beliefs, then i suggest you read a book named (RETURN TO LIFE) by JIM B. TUCKER, MD.
if you don't wish to buy the book, see if you can find it at barnes & noble and just read chapter 4 starting on page 55. if after reading it, i would be interested in hearing what your explanation will be.
i appreciate the opportunity to present my case. CORSAIR-LEADER.

David Killens's picture
@ corsair leader

@ corsair leader

"RE-INCARNNATION. this topic is not only a fact, proven beyond any doubt"

Please provide proof on your claim.

corsair leader's picture
sorry about the misspelling

sorry about the misspelling above. there are numerous cases of re-incarnation that have been investigated by scientists, theologians,medical doctors and authors, etc.the facts have not been made available for many reasons, however, if you would like to make a quick examination of the most profound and most recent, i would suggest you buy the book called (RETURN TO LIFE) written by
JIM B TUCKER, MD. to really stir your interest, read chapter 4 starting on page 55. if after reading it, you can't believe what you just read, please make known your reasoning. looking forward to your response.

Algebe's picture
@corsair leader: investigated

@corsair leader: investigated by scientists, theologians,medical doctors and authors...

...and charlatans, frauds, fake mediums, exploiters of the bereaved, and other assorted scum.

Sheldon's picture
"there are numerous cases of

"there are numerous cases of re-incarnation that have been investigated by scientists,"

No there aren't. Hitchens's razor applied. However a "scientist" can "investigate" the existence of mermaids if they wanted to, this doesn't remotely validate their existence. Also scientist is a fairly maligned term in the context of woo woo superstition like reincarnation.

"i would suggest you buy the book called (RETURN TO LIFE) written by
JIM B TUCKER, MD"

No thanks, it no more validates this superstition than Harry Potter books validate wizards. It's a book stuffed with unevidenced claims for the supernatural, based on a few anecdotal claims made by children, that at best would present an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Is his book peer reviewed, does a Nobel prize beckon, has he won a massive grant from the Templeton foundation?

David Killens's picture
@corsdair leader

@corsdair leader

"sorry about the misspelling above. there are numerous cases of re-incarnation that have been investigated by scientists, theologians,medical doctors and authors, etc.the facts have not been made available for many reasons"

You made a claim that reincarnation is an established fact. Don't weasel out, provide proof. FYI, if anyone could provide proof, they would win the Nobel Prize, become instant billionaires, and everyone would know their name. They would be more famous than Einstein, Buddha, Jesus, and Hitler combined.

But a book? Do you want my PayPal account info so you can send me money to buy this piece of shit that is destined solely as kindling for my fireplace? If I had an outhouse it wouldn't even be worthy as a doorstop. I'd probably just drop it down the hole so I get some satisfaction on shitting all over it every day.

arakish's picture
And I wholeheartedly agree

And I wholeheartedly agree with David. Are you willing to buy all of atheists what is going to amount to being shit paper?

Hell, I just might build myself an outhouse just so I can have the satisfaction of shitting all over the shit pseudoscientists and theists publish. But as said in another post, if you pay for it and supply it to me free of charge. I'll read it.

rmfr

corsair leader's picture
the book i refer to is

the book i refer to is strictly a reporting device on circumstances concerning a 4 year old boy, while watching a documentary
of the battle of iwo jima with his father, suddenly and forcefully yelled out, (thats where i was killed daddy). to briefly summarize,during the next 5 years, the boy provided information naming his squadron, pilots that flew with him, the name of his carrier, his captain, his best friend, how his plane got hit ,what part of the plane that got hit, names of ship mates and the private things he new about them,
how to fly the f4u4 fighter plane, how to start it, what equipment+was installed on it and how to operate it. the navy supplied the info where his shipmates were.a re-union was set up for him to meet his shipmates. long story short, everything he claimed was verified by the entire crew..one member, who was having a hard time believing this, asked him a question. what follows is the question:
(if you are who you say you are, what was my problem onboard ship that drove me nuts)? the boy answered without hesitation,
( you couldn't eat apples because you lost all your teeth).i could go on, this is a sample of what transpired. like i said before, i believe in nothing without proof. to me, i think i've made my case. corsair leader.

arakish's picture
corsair leader: "i think i've

corsair leader: "i think i've made my case."

Wrong. All you did was spin a yarn. Hearsay. Inadmissible.

rmfr

corsair leader's picture
you say all that i have done

you say all that i have done was spin a yarn. have you even looked into the possibility that this really happened, was authenticated by a number of reliable sources, including myself. why do you refuse to review the evidence presented? are you that occupied with YOUR
tales of complete inaccurate, unsubstantiated, beliefs? don't you think the subject at hand deserves at least checkout? if not, then this forum is nothing more then a chat room of minds that are too rigid and unwilling to seek other possibilities. it is unfortunate. i think some of you are quite intelligent but i cannot associate with minds that blindly refute subject matter without research. there is so much more to be explored. i bid you good fortune in your search, whatever that may be. corsair leader.

arakish's picture
@ corsair leader

@ corsair leader

I have already researched it. It is pure bollocks. It is all HEARSAY. Inadmissible as evidence.

If I were to tell you I saw Jesus in a dream and he told me the Bible was false, would you believe me?

If I were to tell you that an object I was looking for suddenly fell out from somewhere right into my lap, would believe that a spirit threw that object there so I would find it?

Both of those are 100% HEARSAY. Completely inadmissible as evidence.

Ever heard of hysteria?

rmfr

David Killens's picture
Instead of this being a warm

Instead of this being a warm and fuzzy story, how about providing hard evidence? Such as the Squadron, the boy's name, and who he was supposed to replace? Names, dates, facts please.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
there are numerous cases of

there are numerous cases of re-incarnation that have been investigated by scientists

Could you demonstrate one case that has been investigated and confirmed by scientists and has passed peer review?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.