How many of the seemingly unanswerable questions about the actions or non-actions of God would be answered if one examined them with the beginning premise that He doesn’t exist? For instance the fact that very ill relatives most often die despite intense prayers for their healing, the fact that not many prayers of any type are actually answered as requested, the fact that, in history, thousands of believers have been brutally murdered by invading hordes of non-believers, that thousands of innocent children die every year of starvation. Seems to me that if there were no God all these things could easily be explained as natural occurrences due to the world we live in.
I think you’re on to something here.
Prayers brings us closer to God, further, the dead relatives only suffered physical dead, not the soul.
God is not our vending machine.
They shall be judged when the time comes based on the book of revelations.
Result of works by evil humans who greedily swallows up all the money themselves.
Seems like it, but we won’t know whether this is all part of God’s Wisdom or divine plan until he revealed to us.
It would create more problems than it would provide answers. You’re attempting to solve for negative experiences, but when you remove God from the equation, you’ve got to provide an explanation for goodness in the universe. The unsatisfying answer that atheists give is “meh… it’s all coincidence & blind luck.” That dog just don’t hunt…
So you’re asking whether atheism is a reasonable worldview?
The answer to that is yes, to a degree. Many very smart and rational people are atheists, and I don’t think it’s because they are all simply hypocrites. There is no fact of the Universe that makes atheism impossible.
It is very implausible, however, and you will have to make the claim that every miracle or supernatural event that has ever happened is a fraudulent lie. Technically that could be the case, but it is a pretty wild conspiracy theory to be throwing around as fact.
You will also need to turn a blind eye to the astronomically small odds that life should even be able to exist in the Universe, the equally unlikely event that life actually comes to be somehow, and the off-chance that it should be able to survive on a single planet long enough for humans to evolve and experience the present day.
But yes, technically it is possible.
Untrue. I never say “meh”.
Nothing would exist.
Because you speak for all atheists?
I’m guessing you agree, however, with the “it’s all blind luck” perspective, then?
Yet, explaining the fact that there are of billions of believers would still be a tough nut to crack, especially if there were no God. You’d be left with the impossible task of every atheist or agnostic, proving that all religion is just mass delusion. So far, every effort to prove that has been a dismal failure.
If there were no God there would be no us.
And you’re basically pointing to the fact that evil exists.
God didn’t create evil.
I think “meh” is essentially an American expression. I’d probably say “Cobblers” or something equally coarse.
I wouldn’t at all express my perspective as being “it’s all blind luck” but I’ve no doubt that after a long rambling exposition of my perspective you’d say: “So you think it’s all blind luck, then?”
I suspect by “all blind luck” you mean unguided, unplanned, by a divine being. Well, by definition that’s what I believe, yes.
And that isn’t a horribly unsatisfying, fundamentally counter-intuitive perspective on the universe for you?
I would add that those things happen because we have free will. If God intervened at every turn, we would not be truly free. Jesus said ‘my kingdom is not of this world’
You wouldn’t be here to ask this question.
Huh? The argument would generally be more along the lines of there are things in nature, in human behavior, and so on that benefit us as individuals, communities, societies, nations and as a whole. We tend to label those things as ‘good’. Likewise things which hurt us as individuals, communities, societies and nations we often label ‘evil’. It’s not a hard line but it would bear out as a common trend. When something has both positive and negative components, or when it affects one aspect of us positively but another negatively (such as benefiting the individual but hurting society, or helping society but hurting the individual) we identify those as morally complex, or moral quandaries. I suspect you’d find many if not most atheists agreeing with that general premise, and few if any agreeing with ‘meh’.
It seems more like you just want to be dismissive of the viewpoint. It would be like if an atheist said “why is God good instead of anything else?” and then described the theistic answer to that as ‘meh, that’s just what God is’. It may ultimately be true that for most religions, goodness is simply an intrinsic component of God’s being, that there isn’t so much a ‘reason’ for it, which would suggest there is likewise a ‘cause’, but an uncaused eternal component of God’s nature, but that doesn’t mean the answer reduces to ‘meh’.
Interestingly, a “Mehflant” is defined as a person who generally provokes the response of ‘Meh’. Just thought you’d want to know that.
The proposition of human existence without the existence of God is an inherent assumption of the OP’s original thought. You must grant him that assumption if you wish a dialogue to be possible.
Absolutely not. Totally counter-counter-intuitive. And I’m not sure why my perspective on the universe should be satisfying. But as it happens, since you ask, I think the universe is a terrible painfully disgustingly dreadful place. And blooming wonderful. I am very fortunate.
I did want to know that. Thank you.
Millions of people die unjustly every year, but God can raise them to a greater good life after death. If there is no God, then these people will never have justice.