Is it irrational to believe that no God or god(s) exist?

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 128
Why or why not?

--> @Fallaneze
The real question is whether or not it is rational to believe that they do. One needs a reason to believe something not the other way around.


--> @Fallaneze
Why or why not?
When you can actually give clear definition for you God with elaboration on  specifics, then you can begin to have a rational, logical common sense conversation.

I dont believe you have any desire to be rational, logical or use common sense. Why? Ego?

Your topic is waste of band-width even if it were in the religion forum, where it belongs.

As God(with a capital G) is another way saying "The supreme and ultimate reality", to deny God is to embrace nihilism which is self defeating and irrational.



--> @mustardness

Your topic is waste of band-width even if it were in the religion forum, where it belongs.


I disagree whole heartedly, as the subject of God and even the existence of God is even moreso a philosophical question than a religious one. Historically speaking, God has been the subject of much philosophy. 

That said, in many cultures and languages the distinction between religion and philosophy is practically if not outright nonexistent.





--> @secularmerlin
We would need a reason for believing that God does not exist.

On the other hand, we would not need a reason for neither believing nor disbelieving in the existence of God or gods.

--> @mustardness
Ignoring the snide remarks, this is also actually the first post I've seen you make that has good, useful content.

Perhaps the first place we begin is by defining what the word "God" means. 

Perhaps the better place to start is to determine what's minimally necessary to falsify the view that no God or gods exist.

What do you think?



--> @Fallaneze
Do you need a reason to believe that universe creating pixies do not exist? Do you neither believe nor disbelieve in leprechauns? I have a hunch that your default position in most undetermined cases is skepticism and that the only thing you "need a reason to believe doesn't exist" is in the case of god(s).
--> @secularmerlin
Yes, you do need a reason for believing that universe creating pixies do not exist. 

No, I disbelieve in the existence of leprechauns.

My default position is neither belief nor disbelief, especially prior to consideration of the claim. Once the claim has been considered, my "default" position is determined by the relative amount of evidence I have at my disposal for and against the claim.

Do you listen to "the atheist experience"?
--> @Fallaneze
Yes, you do need a reason for believing that universe creating pixies do not exist. 
Do you have such a reason?
No, I disbelieve in the existence of leprechauns.
And what reason do you have to disbelieve in leprechauns?
Do you listen to "the atheist experience"?
I do.
--> @secularmerlin
Yes. The term "pixie" typically refers to a being that is "small and humanlike in form, with pointed ears and a pointed hat." Since pixies are comprised of physical characteristics, and since our best evidence indicates that the physical universe expanded from an infinitely dense point 13.7 billion years ago, it is unlikely that a pixie or any physical being existed prior to the big bang in order to cause the big bang.

Leprechauns are described as "solitary creatures who spend their time making and mending shoes and have a hidden pot of gold at the end of the rainbow." 

A leprechaun, along with any other physical being, exists at a particular coordinate. There is no particular coordinate at which a rainbow ends.Therefore, a leprechaun cannot place anything at the end of a rainbow and the claim is false.

"You'll never swim out to the horizon , and you'll never reach a rainbow's end. The visibility of both requires distance between object and observer."










--> @Fallaneze
Universe creating pixies wpuld exist outside of the physical universe of course and leprechauns are invisible. Clearly we would not expect any evidence of them (beyond the existence of the universe itself of course in the case of the pixies) so if no evidence is what we would expect and no evidence is what we see hiw is thus functionally different from believing in any god(s) for whom we would expect to find no evidence of?
--> @Fallaneze
Perhaps a more fitting question

Can the belief be rationalized?

--> @secularmerlin
Since a "pixie" is defined according to its physical characteristics, a "pixie" cannot be non-physical. This would be a violation of the law of identity. 

Leprechauns are described in terms of their physical appearance and therefore cannot be invisible, nor is invisibility a part of their defintion.

Evidence against something is encompassed by lack of positive evidence. So while 'no (positive) evidence' of pixies and leprechauns is true, the evidence against pixies and leprechauns is the important piece missing in that statement. 

Evidence is just information indicating whether something is true or untrue. I haven't seen any objections to the existence of God in the case of pixies or leprechauns.










--> @Snoopy
Perhaps. Something being rationalized doesn't make it rational to believe though, does it?
--> @Fallaneze
Precisely, it does not.
--> @Fallaneze
Then the problem is with my examples not my premise. How about the invisible undetectable dragon whose breath is holding up my garage? Do you believe in that? The evidence of course being that my garage has not fallen in.
--> @secularmerlin
Analogously, I would think you would ask if they believe that such a dragon does not exist.  
--> @secularmerlin
Sagan's dragon is also a violation of the law of identity and therefore doesn't exist. 

"Dragon": "a mythical animal usually represented as a monstrous winged and scaly serpent or saurian with a crested head and enormous claws."

When you refer to the concept of a dragon and then say that it does NOT have the characteristics that make it a dragon in the first place, it's a violation of the law of identity.

So not only do I not believe that an invisible dragon lives in my garage, I strongly disbelieve it. 


--> @Fallaneze
Not a dragon then just a garage spirit. 

--> @secularmerlin
What do you mean by "spirit"? Like just an observing consciousness?

--> @secularmerlin, @Fallaneze, @Snoopy
The wizard's examples are fallacious because there is a big difference between *fill in the blank* and THE ULTIMATE REALITY.


God is not a fill in the blank.

--> @Fallaneze
I'm not sure what it is, just as you are not sure what the god(s) you are proposing are.  It is an invisible formless spirit that keeps my garage from collapsing. It has attributes such as preserving garages and being undetectable.
--> @Snoopy
Do you feel that is more or less rational than the idea of a garage spirit? And is it more or less rational to believe in one or both of these spirits than to believe in some god(s)?

--> @secularmerlin
Rational is not more or less to my way of thinking. It either is or it isn't.