Reasons for disbelief in the Christian God

@kellyjay said
If I asked you to borrow money without anything but my word I will pay you back, you either choose to believe I will or not.

Sure, but based on the evidence of your character. I wouldn't lend money to a stranger.

@dj2becker said
You can evaluate evidence and decide whether you find the evidence compelling or not. You could certainly decide not to believe in a flying giraffe once you have evaluated the evidence and decide that it is not compelling enough.

I don't find the evidence compelling that your God exists. Is it still possible for me to choose to believe in Him anyway?

@kellyjay said
If I asked you to borrow money without anything but my word I will pay you back, you either choose to believe I will or not.

This is not a scenario involving supernatural beings and phenomena.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
1. As has been argued by philosophers before me, God can not be both omnipotent and perfectly loving. - Take for example an infant dying from a terminal disease. God either can't or won't intervene. If he 'cannot' then He is not omnipotent, and if he 'will not' then He is not perfectly loving. With the existence of such suffering of the innocent, it is impossible for ...[text shortened]... hat the cycle could continue. - Why would an all loving God design and create such a thing?!

3...

It is interesting that you chose that the reason for not believing in God was suffering we endure.

I began reading a new book that just came out called, "Genesis, God, Creation, and Destruction" by Dennis Prager.

Here is a taste:

"Given the supreme importance of Genesis 1:1--that is, of God's existence--to life, to meaning, and to morality; and given the Bible rests on this verse and its promise of God's existence, a brief review of the rational arguments for God's existence is necessary.

The most compelling rational argument is, as noted, the question "Why is there anything?" Science and atheism have no answer to this question. Nor will either have an answer. It is outside the purview of science. Science explains what is. But I cannot explain why what is came about--why something, rather than nothing, exists. Only a Creator of that something can explain why there is something rather than nothing.

It is true that the existence of a Creator cannot be scientifically proved. Given that a Creator is outside of nature and that science can prove only that which is within nature, the fact that science cannot prove God's existence is not meaningful.

Moreover, a Creator remains the only rational explanation for existence. And if only one thing can explain something, it is overwhelmingly likely that one this is the explanation. The only alternatives are a) creation created itself from nothing or b) creation always existed. But each of these propositions is considerably less rational than a Creator, and neither can ever be proved.

Nor can science explain the emergence of life on earth. It is mystified by the emergence of life from non-life as it is by the emergence of non-life from nothing. Again, only a Creator can explain that.

And science cannot explain consciousness. Why are human beings (and perhaps, to a much lesser degree, some animals) self-aware? To the best of our knowledge, nothing else in all the universe is self aware. How did creatures emerge in a universe of non-awareness?

To be an atheist is to believe the unverse came about by itself, life came from non-life by itself, and consciousness came about by itself.

On purely rational grounds--the grounds on which I believe in God--the argument for a God who created the world is far more intellectually compelling than atheism.

It is not belief in the existence of a Creator God that most troubles intellectually honest people; it is the existence of unjust suffering--both natural (diseases, earthquakes) and non-made (murder, torture). In other words, the intellectually honest atheist should acknowledge that the existence of the universe, of life, and of consciousness argue for God; and the intellectually honest believer should acknowledge that the amount of unjust suffering challenges faith in a good God.

However, I have never met a believer in God who has not acknowledged this challenge, whereas atheists, by definition, do not acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for a Creator. If they did, they would not longer be atheists; they would be believers or agnostics. To paraphrase the American rabbi and theologian Milton Steinberg, the believer has to account for the existence of unjust suffering; the atheist has to account for the existence of everything else--for the world, life, consciousness, beauty, love, art, music. It would seem that the believer has the upper hand."

@whodey said
It is interesting that you chose that the reason for not believing in God was suffering we endure.

I began reading a new book that just came out called, "Genesis, God, Creation, and Destruction" by Dennis Prager.

Here is a taste:

"Given the supreme importance of Genesis 1:1--that is, of God's existence--to life, to meaning, and to morality; and given the Bible rests o ...[text shortened]... life, consciousness, beauty, love, art, music. It would seem that the believer has the upper hand."

Oh dear. So many crazy assumptions there I don't even know where to begin.

Even your intro is incorrect. - The reason for not believing in God is not the suffering 'we' endure. It is the suffering the 'innocent' endure.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I don't find the evidence compelling that your God exists. Is it still possible for me to choose to believe in Him anyway?

You presumably evaluated the evidence and decided that it was not compelling. It was your decision not to trust what the Bible says for whatever reason you have. No one made that decision for you. If in the future you decide to believe in God that would also be your decision.

@dj2becker said
You presumably evaluated the evidence and decided that it was not compelling. It was your decision not to trust what the Bible says for whatever reason you have. No one made that decision for you. If in the future you decide to believe in God that would also be your decision.

Again, if I am unconvinced about the existence of God, can I choose to believe in him anyway?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Again, if I am unconvinced about the existence of God, can I choose to believe in him anyway?

You obviously cannot decide that the evidence for the existence of God is both compelling and not compelling at the same time, it's either one or the other. So no you can't choose to believe in God and not believe in Him at the same time. It's either the one or the other. Or you can be an agnostic of course and sit on the fence if you're undecided.

@dj2becker said
You obviously cannot decide that the evidence for the existence of God is both compelling and not compelling at the same time, it's either one or the other. So no you can't choose to believe in God and not believe in Him at the same time. It's either the one or the other. Or you can be an agnostic of course and sit on the fence.

So we are in agreement. It is not about choice, it is about whether or not a person finds the evidence for God's existence credible.

We don't choose to be convinced or unconvinced by something.

@dj2becker said
I said we can choose to believe in God or not. To which you said no one chose God. That directly implies that only those who believe are chosen by God.

If that is your stance and you don’t wish to defend it but rather run away then so be it.

What it implies is irrelevant; biblical scripture is adamant that all have fallen away, no one seeks god, not one. No one can choose god, it’s basic Christianity and Judaic spirituality 101.

Psalm 14 and Romans 13.

Look it up. You bore me senseless with Sunday school level crap.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Oh dear. So many crazy assumptions there I don't even know where to begin.

Even your intro is incorrect. - The reason for not believing in God is not the suffering 'we' endure. It is the suffering the 'innocent' endure.

What is the difference? Why would there be a difference between the innocent and anyone else with respect to suffering? You think some deserve to suffer and others don’t?

@kellyjay said
What is the difference? Why would there be a difference between the innocent and anyone else with respect to suffering? You think some deserve to suffer and others don’t?

Apparently he thinks that some should die/suffer

So the question begs, using what morality?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
So we are in agreement. It is not about choice, it is about whether or not a person finds the evidence for God's existence credible.

We don't choose to be convinced or unconvinced by something.

Surely you DECIDE whether or not the evidence is credible by evaluating evidence. How is there no choice in that?

@divegeester said
What it implies is irrelevant; biblical scripture is adamant that all have fallen away, no one seeks god, not one. No one can choose god, it’s basic Christianity and Judaic spirituality 101.

Psalm 14 and Romans 13.

Look it up. You bore me senseless with Sunday school level crap.

Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened. Seek ye first the kingdom of God... Choose ye this day whom ye shall follow. Behold I stand at the door and knock if any man hear my voice and open the door.... Yes God seeks us and gives us all an open invitation. We decide whether to accept or reject the invitation to the great banquet.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Oh dear. So many crazy assumptions there I don't even know where to begin.

Even your intro is incorrect. - The reason for not believing in God is not the suffering 'we' endure. It is the suffering the 'innocent' endure.

That seems like splitting hairs, but whatever.