Why God exists in my belief

Hi everyone! Let me tell a little bit about myself, I am an ex-Muslim, currently studying at University. I chose to analyze this community for my research project because I can relate so much with the people here, especially those who left Islam (the strictest and the most degrading monotheistic religion out there in my opinion) and also I find this topic to be very interesting. I do not adhere to any religion and unlike some of the theists, I didn’t come here to tell people that my beliefs are right and that the beliefs of others are a load of bs.

So why do I believe that God exists? I think that it is impossible for beings of lower “rank” or intelligence to comprehend the existence and actions of higher beings. For a human to comprehend God is as hard as for an ant to learn at least the basic concepts of quantum physics in my opinion - it’s impossible (it’s a not a good example that I gave here, I couldn’t come up with anything else at that moment, but I hope you got my point :slightly_smiling_face:).

I do not deny that it is also very likely that God does not exist at all, but how can we be really sure if it is potentially outside of our comprehension? Surely, outright denying the existence of god is sort of jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence. Merely because religions turned out to be vain and exposed numerous times as products of human imagination & fantasies, cannot mean that in the “objective reality” there is no God or any other higher deity. Our subjective mental image of the universe has no effect at all on the objective universe, so whether we chose to believe or not to believe in God does not really matter, as beings of “potentially” lower intelligence and existence we may only speculate on this.

Sorry if I couldn’t really type out my thoughts clearly here, English is not my native language, but I tried my best to relay what’s inside of my mind to you guys.

Welcome to Atheist Republic Arandomdeist, I hope you enjoy being here and having your brain challenged. Please understand that I am attacking the argument, not the person. As an Admin I consider personal attacks and insults degrading and inappropriate for a healthy exchange of differing opinions.

OK, let us assume I accept this proposition. We are incapable of understanding the existence and qualities of a god.

But if I was to accept this proposition, that is in direct conflict with the previous statement. You are describing a quality of this assumed god, that it is complicated or incomprehensible.

You are presupposing that a god is complex, with no proof but the assumption that it is complex and beyond the comprehension of humans.

1 Like

Welcome to the forum. That said, I don’t follow your argument. If it’s impossible for us to comprehend the existence of higher beings, how did you discover that they existed in the first place?


I am an atheist, I do not deny the existence of a god. I am not convinced one exists, based on the current evidence.

One does not believe in something without sufficient evidence.

Theists have stated a god exists, and they have not provided sufficent evidence one does. They are the ones making the claim, I am the one waiting for enough evidence they should supply, to convince me.

I am not stating one exists, nor am I claiming one does not exist.

The burden of proof is the responsibility of the claimant, no matter what the subject.


I have a dog, which can be classified as belonging to a group of “lower rank”. At approximately 4:00 PM I take my dog for a walk. From 3:00 PM on, if I make just the slightest twitch, my dog reacts, spins around and runs to the door in eager anticipation for the walk.

My dog is aware of time, is able to anticipate my actions, and knows I exist.

Thus your statement is wrong.


You are comparing the difference in intelligence of an ant compared to humans (who deal with quantum mechanics), and humans compared to a god.

Once again, you are describing the qualities of an assumed god, and that is in contradiction to your statement that we do not know the qualities of a god.

And how do you know that this assumed god is that intelligent or complex?

Hmmm, that set alarm bells off.

You believe something exists because you think it’s impossible for humans to comprehend it? That seems an odd rationale to me. Generally I withhold belief from claims it is impossible to know anything about, and remain an agnostic.

So not content with believing in the existence of something you can’t comprehend, you’re now making sweeping claims about it. I have to say, that even though this isn’t the first time I’ve read this rather obvious use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, I’m always a little surprised when people use it.

Very unlikely? How are you measuring the probability of an extant deity here, given you a) admit you can’t comprehend the concept at all, and b) can demonstrate no objective evidence for your belief one exists?

More puzzling still is why you believe something exists, that you now claim is very likely not to exist? Forgive me but your reasoning is all at sea here. This claim also appears to be another use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, but this time to draw the opposite conclusion. As good an illustration of why that fallacy is irrational, as one could hope for by the way. As you’ve now used it to support two mutually exclusive claims, that are therefore a logical negation of each other.

Indeed, but why do you assume anyone here has made any such denial? You do know atheism is not a claim, or a belief don’t you? Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and nothing else.

Just because a belief or claim is unfalsifiable doesn’t mean it has any validity, and it’s perfectly rational to withhold belief. Unless you want to believe something you claim you can know nothing about, which your opening paragraph suggests you do.

Do you believe all unfalsifiable claims, or is your belief based on bias in favour of this one?

I’m sorry but while I attach no more importance to my lack of belief in any deity or deities than I do to my lack of belief in mermaids, it is demonstrably erroneous to claim theism does not matter. Given the belief is both pervasive and often pernicious. The fact that deism has no discernable effect, should really cause one pause.

So again is belief your default position for all unfalsifiable beliefs? Do you believe invisible mermaids exist, if not what’s your compelling evidence they don’t?

You seem to have fallen into 2 common mistakes we see oft repeated here.

  1. That deism is a more compelling belief than theism because it is ostensibly unfalsifiable.

  2. That agnosticism is mutually exclusive with atheism. Yet I am an atheist, and where claims are unfalsifiable, I am also an agnostic.


And, once gain Shelley you have expressed a realistic critique of the average deist/theist’s loose grasp of the argument for their god or gods of choice.

Have a Tim Tam and a glass of Shiraz


Thank you, I’ll keep the Shiraz for later, and have with my dinner…:sunglasses:

Ahhh yes… should someone insist that a person eat seaweed under water twice yearly to keep the Mermaid :mermaid:‍♀ “pleased”. If NOT the mermaid will deny your “soul” water (upon your death) and you’ll be subject to everlasting thirst.

Unfortunately religions of all sorts based upon the imaginary “friend” (singular or plural) and all the myths surrounding their stories HAVE in fact kept the human species doing all sorts of silly rituals (and for some, killing those that don’t) to “save” the imaginary soul and please the threatening “parenting figure”.

1 Like

Hi Sheldon! Good points you have made in your posts which I admit that they really did help me to find the flaws in my reasoning.
What I was trying to imply is somewhat similar to the ideas of the Zoo Hypothesis, which basically argues for the fact that we are not developed enough to understand that we are always contacting with the extraterrestrial life. So according to this hypothesis (forgot by which exact scientist it was proposed) humanity might really be located next to an intergalactic civilisation without even knowing it. It’s like the beehive that does not realise that their nest is right next to a busy highway. How can we gather evidence to outright deny the existence of god?

First off, we need to define “god”. Is it an old dude with a beard sitting on a cloud? Is it a mechanical process governed by the laws we currently understand? It is a process governed by laws we do not understand?

Additionally, we also needs to ask ourselves why we need to devote any time and attention to denying a god.

For myself, I live and operate in the world that my senses present to me. I do not waste my time investigating fairies, the Loch Ness Monster, or any imaginary creature. If and only when they show up will I become interested and consider it worthy of investigation.

1 Like

I second that. If there is a god and he, she, they, it want us to know, they can reach out to us. I’ll make us a cup of coffee and we can sit down for a long conversation. Until then, I don’t spend much time thinking about or looking into gods anymore. Maybe academically, but not personally.

Thank you guys for responding to my post! I deliberately chose to analyse this digital community especially the arguments that are made by participants of the debate rooms. Now that I have a lot of qualitative data which I can use for my project, I have to say that it was a pleasure to finally have worthy opponents.
To be completely honest I was thinking about not informing you that I am secretly writing down observations about your posts, but I have realised soon that I would receive a large penalty for violating ethical rules from my professor for not gathering your consents to participate. So I guess… “Do you guys allow me to include bits of your posts in my research project?” (YES/NO), I promise to keep you completely anonymous

For me, the jury is still out, and I have not consented to your request … yet. But I do desire you answer two questions.

  1. Why have you not responded to any of my posts? I politely offered rebuttals to some of your propositions, and no return. Until you actually engage in an exchange of dialogue and ideas, you will never receive my consent.

  2. How long do you intend to remain engaged in this forum? You have been in this forum for less that two days, and my impression is you are planning to exit.

Of course not, I don’t believe at all that god has the human qualities that have been frequently assumed by people.

Yes, I think that an omnipotent being outside of human comprehension which governs this universe. We do not have complete knowledge of the universe yet, this is why we can’t truly know yet if god exists or not. And whether god is even self-conscious deity at all.

I was literally typing out my response to you when you have been making your post :smile:
I actually quite like it here, and I like to have my beliefs to be challenged. So I will remain here and participate in debates when I have free time.

Yes, but is your dog aware of the purposes behind your actions? It is a simple Pavlovian Classical conditioning you are talking about here. Your dog has learnt to associate a certain time of the day with going out for a walk where he/she will get a release of endorphines

True, but you are deflecting from your original statement by conflating recognition with motivation. My response was a reply to this specific statement …

My dog comprehends my existence and can even anticipate my actions.

1 Like

It is possible there is a god, and it is also possible flying pigs will come out of my butt.

I prefer to deal with probabilities, and IMO the probability flying pigs will come out of my butt are higher than a god exists.

@Arandomdeist All you are dealing with is possibilities, with absolutely nothing to support your position.