What are the common, modern-day objections to the existence of God?

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you know what historiography is?

Are you an historian? Do you know how to judge the veracity of supposedly historical sources?

i dont know anything in historiography that changes the epistemic nature of the situation. but im no expert. do you know something that changes the epistimic situation of double standards?

but from the sudden and strident tone, i see that you understand the trap a rational man is in when he has a double standard.

And on another note altogether - why is this thread even being tolerated when there’s a ban on discussions of atheism?

i didnt know it was about atheism. TS and i are talking about empiricism, metaphysics, and epistomology. and GnR.

though i see that your first thought isnt to the rational refutation of whats said, rather you want to know why this speech is being allowed.

more importantly, why do you care? is there something wrong with the practice of free speech? we quite happily let people say things that we find unpalatable, but it is our way for you to be free to say them. i assume that there is a similar idea in Australian law.

 

[AJTheMan]

unlike vishnu,

According to Vaishnvite Hindus, Vishnu came to earth as a god-man under the name of Krishna. Many people also witnessed Krishna on earth.

Vaishnavites believe Krishna to be an “avatar” of Vishnu, which means that God came down in the form of Krishna to teach.

[/from a Buddhist who knows a bit about Hinduism]

 

[JValentinus]

I don’t know if my difficulty with God is a common, modern-day objection, but it is a deeply felt personal one. I want to preface this by saying that I’m a twice lapsed Catholic, agnostic bordering on atheist, and I sincerely wish that I could believe. My inability to accept belief in God is a source of great pain and I wish it were otherwise. I can’t understand how most atheists can revel in the fact that they will die and rot in the ground, and that there is no more to life than what we see. How is that appealing at all?

It largely boils down to the problem of pain. God, if he exists, does not act like a father to his suffering children. We are ants, crushed by impersonal forces of nature, as many Haitians recently discovered. A father myself, I would attempt to save my children if they cried out to me in anguish. I would certainly do so if I had the power. Six million of God’s Chosen People cried out to him but the Nazis were allowed to exterminate them with abandon. God is supposed to be all-powerful but does nothing in the face of despair. Either God doesn’t exist, is indifferent to human suffering, or is callous and cruel. How can I love and worship such a being? I can’t. In fact, I feel that there is no moral alternative than to actively oppose serving such a deity in case he actually exists.

I have searched in vain for arguments that show a way out of this problem, and I’ve not found any that are convincing. People usually quote C.S. Lewis and free will when confronting human causes of suffering, but these are completely unconvincing. Earthquakes, after all, have no will at all.

Good luck with your project.

 

[Nan_S]

THE MOST immutable impetus related to dis-belief is THREAT. We could go through the endless spirit and confusion behind that concern, but you can figure most of it out yourself. The other arguments are merely the result of finding any excuse at all to avoid the perception of THREAT.

With this I completely agree. Most younger people whom I have met who don’t want to believe in God, or refuse to follow the dictates of a church, hold that position because they are afraid they will have a damper imposed on their freedom.

Often it starts with something like pre-marital sex. If it feels so good, they rationalize, how can it be wrong? Theirs is a short-sighted viewpoint which wants immediate gratification without strings attached, and too often results in disasterous consequences.

It’s not because the young objectors don’t know, nor because they haven’t been provided with sufficient evidence. When offered a chance to seriously examine historical or logical evidence that could be even slightly compelling, they make weak excuses and polite noises (sometimes not-so-polite noises).

No, with the young people it’s because they don’t want to know. They’ve already seen at least some of the evidence and they don’t know how to rebut it, so they ignore it. They don’t want to deal with the guilt and the necessity to give up their tantilizing vices.

As they grow older, they become so accustomed to defining freedom to suit their own selves that they start responding defensively. They demand “sufficient proof”, while also maintaining that they have the final call on what “sufficient” entails, even when the way they apply “sufficient” to a God-proof is completely illogical or inconsistent with the standards they use to prove or disprove anything else.
James S Saint:

*Jesus *knew how to handle it. Catholics and other “Christians” don’t.

Now that is just nasty, presumptious and rude. And completely false.

 

[Luke_K]

Thanks to all for replying. I feel I have a better understanding now of the reasons people today have for not believing in God, and I hope it will help me be more diplomatic and Christian towards them in the future.

 

[Nan_S]

It largely boils down to the problem of pain. God, if he exists, does not act like a father to his suffering children. We are ants, crushed by impersonal forces of nature, as many Haitians recently discovered. A father myself, I would attempt to save my children if they cried out to me in anguish. I would certainly do so if I had the power. Six million of God’s Chosen People cried out to him but the Nazis were allowed to exterminate them with abandon. God is supposed to be all-powerful but does nothing in the face of despair. Either God doesn’t exist, is indifferent to human suffering, or is callous and cruel. How can I love and worship such a being? I can’t. In fact, I feel that there is no moral alternative than to actively oppose serving such a deity in case he actually exists.

I have searched in vain for arguments that show a way out of this problem, and I’ve not found any that are convincing. People usually quote C.S. Lewis and free will when confronting human causes of suffering, but these are completely unconvincing. Earthquakes, after all, have no will at all.

Good luck with your project.

Yes, pain and despair is the other big objection. Too easy for those on the outside to answer the problem of pain with lofty ideals. Too hard for those on the inside to cope with the pain, and so despair makes us focus on the pain and freeze.

I’ve been there. I’ve been in situations so miserable that, even though I could change them, even though I knew what I had to do and why, I just sat helplessly and despaired.

I don’t have all the answers, but I have one answer. When I can’t cope with the pain and lapse into despair, I try to find a friend to help me get out of the pit. I can’t climb out of the pit by myself, but when someone stands by my side and gives me encouragement, it’s a lot easier to bring myself to do what needs to be done.

Freedom is not free. It requires constant vigilance and active maintenance. God permitted the Israelites of old to be made captive because they had become too proud of themselves and complacent in not doing what they needed to do. God permits the atrocities and the disasters today for much the same reason. Some of the people in disasters lose their lives, and thus are rescued from a miserable existence and healed in the next life. Others in disasters suffer and live, and in doing so draw the attention necessary to get help to make right what should have been prevented.

Yet there is nothing so evil that it is beyond the ability of God to have good emerge from it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

According to Vaishnvite Hindus, Vishnu came to earth as a god-man under the name of Krishna. Many people also witnessed Krishna on earth.

Vaishnavites believe Krishna to be an “avatar” of Vishnu, which means that God came down in the form of Krishna to teach.

[/from a Buddhist who knows a bit about Hinduism]

yes, i know. hence the qualifiers. someone pointed that out to me a while back, another buddhist if i remember right.

thousands of people, thousands of years. witnessing not just G-d, but also the Prophets, Christ, and all their works.

Messianic Prophecy, those made by dozens of people over thousands of years, that were fulfilled in Christ. are entirely unique to Christianity, they are and have always been the source of our Faith in the Divinity of Christ. the mathematics do not lie.

 

[JValentinus]

The thing that bothers me about relying on OT prophecy is that the NT was written at least a couple of decades after Gospel events, and many centuries after the OT prophecies. The people who wrote the NT were clearly very familiar with the OT. It would be sooo easy to write NT accounts that falsely “fulfill” the prophecies. I could write a lengthy, but completely fraudulent account of a messianic personage that fulfills OT prophecies, but that would not mean that these prophecies were fulfilled. In order to rely on prophesy as evidence, one has to believe that the NT authors were not deceiving us, correct?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The thing that bothers me about relying on OT prophecy is that the NT was written at least a couple of decades after Gospel events, and many centuries after the OT prophecies. The people who wrote the NT were clearly very familiar with the OT. It would be sooo easy to write NT accounts that falsely “fulfill” the prophecies. I could write a lengthy, but completely fraudulent account of a messianic personage that fulfills OT prophecies, but that would not mean that these prophecies were fulfilled. In order to rely on prophesy as evidence, one has to believe that the NT authors were not deceiving us, correct?

sure, but thats not much of a problem.

after all, who would spend a life suffering, being jailed, beaten, tortured, spat on, enslaved, never staying in one place long, never owning more than the basics. only to die as a martyr in a strange land, for what they knew to be a lie? even if you knew someone crazy enough, doesnt it seem they may recant before being tortured to death? would you die or even really suffer for what you knew to be a lie? or let your friends die as martyrs for that lie?

of course not.

 

[ManOnFire]

I don’t know if my difficulty with God is a common, modern-day objection, but it is a deeply felt personal one. I want to preface this by saying that I’m a twice lapsed Catholic, agnostic bordering on atheist, and I sincerely wish that I could believe. My inability to accept belief in God is a source of great pain and I wish it were otherwise. I can’t understand how most atheists can revel in the fact that they will die and rot in the ground, and that there is no more to life than what we see. How is that appealing at all?

It largely boils down to the problem of pain. God, if he exists, does not act like a father to his suffering children. We are ants, crushed by impersonal forces of nature, as many Haitians recently discovered. A father myself, I would attempt to save my children if they cried out to me in anguish. I would certainly do so if I had the power. Six million of God’s Chosen People cried out to him but the Nazis were allowed to exterminate them with abandon. God is supposed to be all-powerful but does nothing in the face of despair. Either God doesn’t exist, is indifferent to human suffering, or is callous and cruel. How can I love and worship such a being? I can’t. In fact, I feel that there is no moral alternative than to actively oppose serving such a deity in case he actually exists.

I have searched in vain for arguments that show a way out of this problem, and I’ve not found any that are convincing. People usually quote C.S. Lewis and free will when confronting human causes of suffering, but these are completely unconvincing. Earthquakes, after all, have no will at all.

Good luck with your project.

These are tough questions for sure. I think it’s safe to say that we’ll never have all the answers to these questions while on this earth. Except that Hitler was non-practicing, held a grudge against his Jewish music teacher for giving first chair to a Jewish student out of favoritism (in Hitler’s opinion), developed a god complex, exterminated 6 million people. That’s what happens when a few in power do NOT follow the wills of the people. That’s why we Americans need to be concerned, lest history repeat itself. The tragedy is a strong promotion for worldwide true democracy.

Logic tells me that one of the two following is true:

1. God doesn’t exist and all of this is a nice fantasy (several Preists have said it’s OK to have doubts), in which case God’s Covenant of behavior still beats the constant pursuit of hedonism.
2. God exists, has reasons for why things happen, we shouldn’t put ourselves in the position of judging who does and doesn’t deserve pain, suffering, death.

An aquiantance of mine, lovely person inside, who was raised in a good Catholic home, struggled with the same issues you raise. She thought about raising her kids with no religion. What a tragedy I believe that would be since she cannot subtract the inner beauty she felt (by growing up Catholic) from her persona. Her kids would miss that same inner beauty and who knows how they would grow up.

We lost a loved one at an early age for no apparent reason. I was concerned that it might drive us away from the Church. I was wrong. It made us closer to it.

 

[sablouwho]

The thing that bothers me about relying on OT prophecy is that the NT was written at least a couple of decades after Gospel events, and many centuries after the OT prophecies. The people who wrote the NT were clearly very familiar with the OT. It would be sooo easy to write NT accounts that falsely “fulfill” the prophecies. I could write a lengthy, but completely fraudulent account of a messianic personage that fulfills OT prophecies, but that would not mean that these prophecies were fulfilled. In order to rely on prophesy as evidence, one has to believe that the NT authors were not deceiving us, correct?

Oh, this was an enormously BIG issue for me too, especially since I’m Jewish. I was suspicious that the NT was a conspiracy and was not reliable.

A book that I read called The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel helped me overcome my suspicions and showed me why “the NT authors were no deceiving us.”

Some may object to the book as it’s written by an atheist-cum-Protestant minister, rather than a Catholic POV, but personally, I think it’s an excellent book for someone having the questions that you pose.

 

[sablouwho]

sure, but thats not much of a problem.

Well, die hard skeptics like me, it really was a problem. I didn’t trust that the NT was reliable. I thought it was a Christian conspiracy and I was extremely suspicious and untrusting.

after all, who would spend a life suffering, being jailed, beaten, tortured, spat on, enslaved, never staying in one place long, never owning more than the basics. only to die as a martyr in a strange land, for what they knew to be a lie? even if you knew someone crazy enough, doesnt it seem they may recant before being tortured to death? would you die or even really suffer for what you knew to be a lie? or let your friends die as martyrs for that lie?

of course not.

Now that I’ve come to faith in Christ, yes, this makes total sense to me. But prior to having faith. I would have dismissed this argument. Granted, I may not have done a very good job of countering this argument, for it is a VERY VERY good one. But I would have dismissed the NT nonetheless.

Please note, I am in no way trying to “make you wrong” here, rather I am trying to point out that for died-in-the-wool skeptics such as myself, it can be VERY hard to overcome their objections, even when the Christian arguments make a lot of sense!

 

[JValentinus]

sure, but thats not much of a problem.

after all, who would spend a life suffering, being jailed, beaten, tortured, spat on, enslaved, never staying in one place long, never owning more than the basics. only to die as a martyr in a strange land, for what they knew to be a lie? even if you knew someone crazy enough, doesnt it seem they may recant before being tortured to death? would you die or even really suffer for what you knew to be a lie? or let your friends die as martyrs for that lie?

of course not.

I did not mean to imply that the NT authors were intentionally deceptive or lying. In fact, I’ve never even considered this possibility. What I’m referring to is unintentional deception: that they were fervent believers in their understanding of truth, but completely mistaken. The apostles need not even had to have witnessed or envisioned a risen Christ to be fervent believers and sacrifice their lives for their faith. Want proof? Look at Jonestown, or Heaven’s Gate, or the Branch Davidians. Do you believe that these people believed that their faith was a lie before they killed themselves? Would you expect every Jew in town to convert to Christianity to spare them from a pogram?

Of course not.

Thus yet another argument in favor of Christianity falls.

 

[Luke_K]

I did not mean to imply that the NT authors were intentionally deceptive or lying. In fact, I’ve never even considered this possibility. What I’m referring to is unintentional deception: that they were fervent believers in their understanding of truth, but completely mistaken. The apostles need not even had to have witnessed or envisioned a risen Christ to be fervent believers and sacrifice their lives for their faith. Want proof? Look at Jonestown, or Heaven’s Gate, or the Branch Davidians. Do you believe that these people believed that their faith was a lie before they killed themselves? Would you expect every Jew in town to convert to Christianity to spare them from a pogram?

Of course not.

Thus yet another argument in favor of Christianity falls.

Why would Peter, who denied three times that he knew Jesus because he was afraid of being killed with him, later preach Jesus’ resurrection to the Israelites?

The difference I think you’re missing is that the apostles knew for a fact whether what they were preaching was true or not. No one goes to their death for what they KNOW to be a lie.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, die hard skeptics like me, it really was a problem. I didn’t trust that the NT was reliable. I thought it was a Christian conspiracy and I was extremely suspicious and untrusting.

Now that I’ve come to faith in Christ, yes, this makes total sense to me. But prior to having faith. I would have dismissed this argument. Granted, I may not have done a very good job of countering this argument, for it is a VERY VERY good one. But I would have dismissed the NT nonetheless.

Please note, I am in no way trying to “make you wrong” here, rather I am trying to point out that for died-in-the-wool skeptics such as myself, it can be VERY hard to overcome their objections, even when the Christian arguments make a lot of sense!

and people do reject it all the time. but they never refute it. they never say “yeah, lots of folks would lead lives of suffering and then let them and their friends be martyred for something they know to be false.”

see, people have different motivations for disbelief. usually it has nothing to do with rationalism. it has to do with their motivations. it wouldnt matter what you say or can prove, because what really matters to their position isnt the veracity of the argument, but their own reasons for holding their position. for me it was annoying my folks, not feeling bad about fornication, and wanting to appear more intelligent than others. it was an ego boost.

so why do this?

because the person arguing with you isnt your actual audience, it is lurkers, other Christains, and people who are not involved in the argument. they read it, it helps shapes and forms their opinions. hopefully in a way conducive to their own acceptance of the faith.

its ok, to “make me wrong” ive been doing this for years. it wouldnt be the first time.

 

[ManOnFire]

Luke and petey,

Is it fair to say that there are generally 2 types of people: 1. Those who place God’s Covenant first (sacrificial love for others) and selfish desires second, and 2. Those who place self first, and others second?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I did not mean to imply that the NT authors were intentionally deceptive or lying. In fact, I’ve never even considered this possibility. What I’m referring to is unintentional deception: that they were fervent believers in their understanding of truth, but completely mistaken. The apostles need not even had to have witnessed or envisioned a risen Christ to be fervent believers and sacrifice their lives for their faith.

so when the Apostles were performing miracles in the decades after Christs ressurection, they were fooling themselves? that doesnt seem sensible to me.

Want proof? Look at Jonestown, or Heaven’s Gate, or the Branch Davidians. Do you believe that these people believed that their faith was a lie before they killed themselves?

im sure they believed, they also didnt spend decades suffering, they didnt accept being tortured to death, imprisoned, enslaved. they drank some kool-aid and split.

jonestown was to avoid capture after the russians rejected them and they had killed a congessman, it wasnt about belief.

heavens gates people didnt think they were committing suicide, they thought they were evacuating earth.

the davidians didnt die for their beliefs, they were trapped in a burning building during a long standoff. they would have lived if there had been no fire.

see there are huge differences between these straw men and the Apostles

Thus yet another argument in favor of Christianity falls.

wasnt quite that easy, was it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Luke and petey,

Is it fair to say that there are generally 2 types of people: 1. Those who place God’s Covenant first (sacrificial love for others) and selfish desires second, and 2. Those who place self first, and others second?

i suppose you could categorize people like that. though you wouldnt get a number 2 to agree, it would be against there self interest.

 

[JValentinus]

Why would Peter, who denied three times that he knew Jesus because he was afraid of being killed with him, later preach Jesus’ resurrection to the Israelites?

The difference I think you’re missing is that the apostles knew for a fact whether what they were preaching was true or not. No one goes to their death for what they KNOW to be a lie.

I apologize, but I think you missed my point above that I don’t believe the evangelists (or the apostles for that matter) thought they were lying. I’ve never thought that was the case. I think they truly believed that they had witnessed something amazing.

Do you think that the Branch Davidians thought that their messiah was a fraud yet chose to die? Or the people in Jonestown? They didn’t, so the fact that people are willing to die for something they believe is true is well established. In fact, there have been countless religious martyrs of many different faiths who have died rather than betray their faith. However, that fact cannot logically prove that all of their religions are true.

Also, it doesn’t matter what Peter did or didn’t do unless he actually testified to one of the evangelists about this. Do we know that is the case? Otherwise, it could simply be a pious and convincing story incorporated into the gospels by a believer with good intentions.

 

[JValentinus]

see, people have different motivations for disbelief. usually it has nothing to do with rationalism. it has to do with their motivations. it wouldnt matter what you say or can prove, because what really matters to their position isnt the veracity of the argument, but their own reasons for holding their position. for me it was annoying my folks, not feeling bad about fornication, and wanting to appear more intelligent than others. it was an ego boost.

I see this argument repeated in these forums a number of times. I strongly disagree and think it’s a specious one. There have been times in my life when I’ve been filled with faith. It affected my thoughts and actions, increased my happiness, and spurred me to go to confession and to become very introspective about my behavior. It of course led me to attend church every Sunday and to be in tune with religious matters.

Now that I’ve again lost my faith, I don’t do very much differently in terms of morals. Maybe I’ve relaxed about a few ethical things around the edges, but not a very big change. I’m not resisting belief because I just want to keep on doing something selfish. In fact, I WANT to believe, as I noted in my first post, and I also stated my inability to do so is a cause of great pain. I think about it every day, and the fact that my wife is now very active in the church serves as a constant reminder. Frankly, it’s very depressing.

I’ve been searching for evidence that would prove me wrong, so I could believe again. The problem is that none of the arguments ever seem very convincing.