Why do strong atheists say the chances of a god are one in a trillion when there is no evidence either way?

Question

Of course, a Christian God is ridiculous in that a compassionate omnipotent creator of suffering is impossible.

And similarly, a spaghetti god is ridiculous in that pasta is a food created by Italian primates, found at one specific place in the universe at one specific time in the universe. Why would something invented by primates, be the main material that makes up the Creator of the entire Universe? It's ridiculous.

But there are possible creators that are not so ridiculous. What proof is there against just a creator who is compassionate and not omnipotent? Or a creator who is not compassionate? Or a creator who is compassionate and omnipotent but not omniscient? Why are the chances one in a trillion for these Gods?

Similarly Zeus is completely unlikely for GOOD LOGICAL reasons. The chances of the creator of the universe JUST SO HAPPENING to be called Zeus, and just so happening to be the god of the sky and thunder, and just so happening to be ruler of mythical Mount Olympus, and just so happening to have a father named Chronus, and just so happening to be carrying a thunder bolt in his right hand, and and just so happening to have a mother named Rhea, and just so happening to have a daughter called Aphrodite, who just so happens to be the Goddess of love and lust, etc etc. are so ridiculously small as to be not even worth mentioning.

These reasons don't apply to the possible creators mentioned above.

Well so far 2 people have attempted to actually *answer* the question and 16 have just posted some stuff which seems to have pretty much nothing to do with the question asked. Shameful!

Answer 1

Well a good number of those wouldn't, by some definitions, quailfy as gods at all.

An atheist could, for example, be quite happy with life on earth being as the result of a policy of panspermia by an earlier advanced race.
But that doesn't make them "gods".

We're looking for the invisible elephant in the room.
(this elephant having for inscrutable reasons decided not to declare its presence indisputably)

OK, it's invisible, but if there, there should be clear traces in the crushed furniture etc. which would let us infer the elephant.
(we had to infer the atomic nucleus from scattering patterns: we couldn't see it.)

Let us examine the universe for signs of the equivalent of the invisible elephant.
Some claim to see in "intelligent design" or in the "Goldilocks" numbers that allow life as we know it.
Does that stand up, or are there better explanations?

If there are, it becomes less and less likely that there is any invisible elephant. Or any deity that is a real "hand of God".
A squabbling Greek pantheon hardly qualify.

Answer 2

hmmm... before you want to start an argument, you might want to get your facts straight first.


First off, spaghetti noodles, were actually brought over from asia. It did not start in italy. Anybody that took third grade history knows that. Heck I know that and I pretty much failed every grade.

Secondly, atheists are generally fact based people. They want things that can be proven, not just things that can neither be proven or disproven. 2+2=4 to them. Anything else is just theory, and therefore not true. Well to most atheists, everybody has their own reason for believing, or not believing in what they do.

Third, God did not create suffering. If you have ever actually picked up a bible, you may know this. God gave us free will, with the hope that we would do good and love one another, but with the knowledge that we would not. Free will is a gift God gave us. At least thats what believer belive.

Fourth pretty much every God from every religion acts as the christian God does. Again I urge you to do some research. As far back as the idea of God and religion goes, all the Gods are pretty much basically the same. If you want to create a new religion based on a new God that you want to make up. More power to ya. The spaghetti monster people have taken off. People want something to believe in.

Answer 3

Firstly, atheists, for the most part, want proof of a God.

One in a trillion is not exactly what I'm thinking.

I'm thinking that ever since the dawn of our civilization, relatively a short time period as compared to earth's long history (the scientific belief), mankind looked toward the sky for answers.

All those who have came and went before us had some kind of belief in an omnipotent God, and of course all religions have differing opinions of this God.

To think that of all the billions of other celestial bodies in the universe, and no common thread existing between any of them, seems unreal.

Some controling being might very well be in control, and that unexplained and unseen power is beyond man's comprehension.

Therefore, you have a choice...either believe or forever criticize those who do as being fools or unintelligent.

Within the scientific community, I offer some degree of proof whenever they reach stumbling blocks and the unimaginable confounds the best of them.

Answer 4

Uhh... OPEN YOUR GOD DAMN TEXT BOOK FOR ONCE! Afterlife debunked: to stick mindful, we'd like our mind. Our mind holds all of the awareness people in it. It has been established! Well, a minimum of I am beautiful darn certain it's. So if we do have a spirit, it does no longer have a mind. The mind is a work of frame, a side of our human frame. I do not quite believe a spirit could have it, could you? Otherwise we could have 2 minds proper now. Proof the mind maintain our awareness-- We believe, we dream, we see, we pay attention. Our mind translates our imaginative and prescient, sounds, style, believe, odor, and so forth. It has electric currents in there that make up our strategies of what it's, after which we have an understanding of it. Without it, assume how a lot we could lose, equivalent to our competencies to look, pay attention, style, believe, and odor. So with that ability, we could no longer be mindful. We can't believe with out the mind both so consequently we could no longer be dreaming or pondering in any respect when we die. So what does this imply? Doesn't this imply that our spirit is subconscious too? Without a mind it could no longer be mindful. If you're going to mention the spirit IS our awareness too, then we could have 2 consciousnesses. So whilst persons are knocked subconscious whilst hit by way of a automobile, or in freezing bloodless water, however continue to exist it, then they could no longer be subconscious. It could most often imply we constantly could be mindful. So it's both the soul is our mindful however we do not get it till we die, or we're subconscious both manner once we die... Noah's Ark Debunked: Wood could get damp on water and Noah's Ark used to be made from picket. The bible says Noah's Ark went 25,000 toes prime. All of the animals could freeze, and those that do not freeze will endure from the bloodless oxygen that can't get of their lungs and finally could die. Animal habits could no longer be ready to be managed. Not all might have compatibility at the ark. Fresh water and Salt water could combine, that means the entire fish could die. After the ark, the entire vegetation and soil could be ruined and there could be no manner for the animals to outlive and even mate. If you're going to mention "God's magic" did this, then why did not he simply kill off the entire folks with magic middle assaults? AND THERE IS MORE BUT I RAN OUT OF ROOM.

Answer 5

If you were to find out about another concept that is rarely heard of you may be surprised to find there are people namely pagans that believe there is a God named Yahweh. that is not Omnipotent. He is consider the god that created Adam and Eve after the other people had been created by the Goddess Mother Earth. You can find out more information if you visit The pagan Library site, and look up an article entitled We Are The Other People. It was written by Oberon (Otter) Zell excerted today.

Answer 6

Wow, the main question made me think this would be a valid question. Too bad you elaborated, thus showing your a$&. Thanks for the two points.

IF atheists made such a statement, they would not be atheists at all. 1 in a trillion means there is a chance there is a God, and atheism doesnt allow for that


If you deny God, and there is none..you neither win nor lose.
If you deny God, and there is one....you lose.

If you pray to a God that doesnt exist...you waste a few paultry seconds restating your hopes, and maybe think about things you need to resolve.
If you pray to a God that does exist...you have an ally that may have your answer.

Answer 7

The universe or whatever forces combine to make things happen or grow or whatever, have done stranger than to create or allow for the existence of a god or deity.

By laws of possibility and probability there is indeed a chance there is a creator or god, regardless of whether she, he, or it seems ridiculous to your perceptions and mind.

Answer 8

It's easy to apply the "one in a trillion" moniker to anything you don't believe in. Their non-belief is inherent in their argument. A theist would argue that our being here right now is "one in a trillion," too. But we are. So I say you are basically right. There is no way to prove God's existence through statistics. He either exists or doesn't. The odds don't ultimately matter to someone who has experienced God or to someone who has not. You believe what you believe, first, THEN apply statistics. That destroys the credbility of statistics in an argument like this on both sides.

Answer 9

With God all things are possible. Therefore he made the universe and everything else. It is possible, i used to be agnostic/atheist. I know where you get yours points because i used to question everything but, once you realize that there may be a God and you try to find him. You will find him, and once you find him you will have a relationship that you never knew you could ever have. I know I may sound crazy but, I promise there is a God. Just so you know, I wasn't trying to make you mad or anything i'm just trying to help. Thats all.

Answer 10

You said: "Of course, a Christian God is ridiculous in that a compassionate omnipotent creator of suffering is impossible."

Unfortunately your assertion is beside the point since the Christian god, while omnipotent, is not the "... omnipotent creator of suffering...."

HTH

Charles