You say you believe in a possibility of your favored god-claim?

Okay, let’s think through what you claim to believe, if you think there is a possibility of your god-claim existing as something in reality, then there would also have be, to YOU, I am guessing, a possibility of every other god claim in recorded history being possible? I assume by your single-possibility-god-claim that you don’t think all god-claims are possible with the same level of equality in the amount of possibility, do you? That’s even ridiculous to you as a single-possibility-god believer, right? But hold on, wouldn’t that require YOU, I am guessing, as a single-possibility-god believer, to reject believing in any equal possibility of any possible gods, as that would be ridiculous, because they need evidence, right?  But hold on, wouldn’t that require YOU, I am guessing, as a single-possibility-god believer, who also like the gods you reject out of hand, also lack any evidence but empty assertions, a single-possibility-god, right? But that is no different than the god-claim you favor belief in, which is a claimed-god-something seen as if it is possible, yet it too is a claim without any evidence. But hold on, wouldn’t not believing in things without evidence, be better?

Well, not believing in things without evidence, is exactly why I don’t believe any gods, including one you may favor. Believing in things without evidence, like all god-claims, are like magical thinking child’s play, believing any of them is empty intellectual confusion, as to believe without evidence, is uncritical thinking, foolishness like hiding from imaginary shadows thinking they can hurt you.

You have to agree, there is a possibility of god?

No, possibility, my friend, is not a thing in isolation; as in one needs a frame of reference or there is no possibility to discern anything to attach a possibility to. Without a frame of reference, all you have is just an uncalculated and unknown communicated claim with no relevance or attributed properties to assert. We need to think deep and broad to see many things missed. This reality itself requires a belief, in many presuppositions like there is reality, I the thinker, am actually in control of my thinking, that this thinking is rational and that what I observe is real and corresponds to that real reality, I am an active agent awake and not dreaming this is mostly an internal awareness in confrontation in how I interact with it. We can bypass this and say we don’t believe it but we all actively relate in the world so it is valid to believe.

Justifying Judgments: Possibility and Epistemic Utility theory

The Rationalist Desire for Epistemically Credible Thinking
As a rationalist when I debate or challenge a position or thinking I want the epistemically provable truth, as I am not only closed to my own ideas, rather, I am just as will to adapt my position if given strong warrant or justification supported by valid and reliable reason and evidence with epistemic credibility.

“Incorporating a prediction into future planning and decision making is advisable only if we have judged the prediction’s credibility. This is notoriously difficult and controversial in the case of predictions of future climate. By reviewing epistemic arguments about climate model performance, we discuss how to make and justify judgments about the credibility of climate predictions. Possibly proposing arguments that justify basing some judgments on the past performance of possibly dissimilar prediction problems. This encourages a more explicit use of data in making quantitative judgments about the credibility of future climate predictions, and in training users of climate predictions to become better judges of value, goodness, credibility, accuracy, worth or usefulness.” Ref

Stop believing in supernatural and be honest in the wonderment of natural reality as it truly is.

Supernatural is our minds animating reality because it is beyond our understanding. That lack of grasping and accepting reality as it is does not change it in to anything more that it should be. It only shows how profoundly human emotionalism can lead us to conceptual error when aloud to invade our method of knowledge acquisition. For us to finally grasp the amazing facts of reality (naturalism which is proven) we must stop the false beliefs (supernatural which is disproven) holding us back from doing so.

Stop the insecurity of wanting or needling to believe in the possibility of magic.

I see all magical thinking “religious belief” and doubting or rejecting the magical thinking “atheistic disbelief” and stating a possibility of magical thinking being real “agnostic belief”.

Allowing that magical thinking or the possibility of magical thinking being real is clearly not supported by any facts in reality. Thus it is just more a social engineering “indoctrinated belief” connected to learned magical thinking supernaturalism and/or superstitionism.

When asked whether they believe in the existence of one or more Gods and/or Goddesses, Theists will answer in the affirmative; strong Atheists will say no.

Agnostics often cannot give a straight “Yes” or “No” answer. Agnostics might respond with one of the following (Weak Theism or Weak Atheism):

Weak Atheism: I don’t know. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Atheism: The Gods that various believers worship are like unicorns: they are obviously fictional creations of humanity. But, who knows. They might actually exist.

Weak Atheism: There is no way to know, but perhaps someone will find a proof or disproof in the future. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Atheism: There will never be any way to know. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Atheism: The question is meaningless. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Theism: I doubt it, but cannot be sure God doesn’t exist.

Weak Theism: I think so, but cannot be positive that God exists.

Weak Atheism: I don’t know but will lead my life in the assumption that no God exists. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Theism: I don’t know but will lead my life assuming that God does exist — perhaps because of the rewards I would receive if God does exist.

Weak Atheism: I will have to withhold my opinion until God, if he exists, decides to make his presence known. Rearranging, say, 10,000 stars in the sky to read “I AM” would be a great start. Even recreating an amputated leg would be a strong indicator. But, of course, neither has ever happened. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Theism: I think that God exists, but have no proof.

Weak Theism: I worship a god (or a god and goddess, or a goddess, or some combination of god(s) and goddess(es) but cannot prove that they exist.

Weak Atheism: I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Atheism: I cannot give an opinion because there is no way to know, with certainty, anything about God, either now or in the future. (So they dont believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Theism: Yes, God exists. But we do not know anything about God at this time.

Weak Theism: Yes, God exists. But we have no possibility of knowing anything about God, now or in the future.

The god “magic” is a Non-Sequitur

A hypothetical god(s) “magic” offered as a reason for a known aspect of naturalism such as saying “there is so much beauty in nature, there must be a god” is a Non-Sequitur. Which is belter understood as “there is so much beauty in nature, there must be supernatural ‘magic’.” Hearing the god “magic” claim for what it is truly saying helps expose that it is a logical fallacy of Non-Sequitur. This term Non-Sequitur translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

So the saying there must be a non-natural god hypnosis because nature is beautiful, is demonstrating a logical conflict why would anyone have to think because nature is beautiful god “magic” must exist? If nature wasn’t beautiful would they say this was evidence a devil existed? Since they say both a god and devil exist should nature be less beautiful? Is nature as a whole truly beautiful?

Think of all death and harm from earthquakes, tidal waves, floods, rip currents, coastal erosion, avalanches, mud slides, lightning, wildfires, erupting volcanoes, drought, hurricanes, tornados, disease, decay, and extreme weather freezing cold or sweltering heat. The world is cruel, pitiless and has a harmful ugly side so maybe nature is not so beautiful after all and you just only want to see the good side just like you only want to see a possibility for your magical god.

Supersessionism is the Mother of Supernaturalism, thus Religion is its child.
How does superstitious and magical thinking conform or limit how faith introduces religious and sacralizing thinking particularly on the concept of gods?
Faith hurts itself as it desires to build on its self which only serve to topple the stack of cards it invents to shore it up trying to create more faith. Thus faith will always involve a willingness to not understand and offer this as a kind of evidence. True believers are utilizing faith as a product to conceive the true concept of gods are then left saying “faith is beyond reason thus with such reasonless faith in god nothing is impossible”, “you must trust in faith and believe even if it contradicts reason in order that you may understand”, Or the believer will say something like “I believe in faith in order that I might understand and make sense of god.”
Let’s look how that plays out in the bible: 1 Corinthians 2:5 your faith might not rest on human wisdom; Proverbs 3:5 don’t lean not on your own understanding; Hebrews 11:1 faith is the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen; Proverbs 1:7 fear of god is the beginning of knowledge.
Gods need to be well defined to be understood however the more they are defined the more problematic abilities come into thoughtful challenge because there unattainable complexities comes into play defying reason. Yet on the other end if gods are simply left undefined they are meaningless or cease as being able to hold reason as be usable as god concepts.
I surmise that gods are supernatural agents which are early humans created that started as spirits forces whom where wholly lacking developed formal structure and the substance in beingness. It is this unconfirmed or limiting spirits forces concept of gods that comprise this emerging container unit which the mysterious elements of nature could be put in. But as increasingly higher thinking beings evolve who likewise kept gaining more awareness of the discernable patterns of the mysterious elements of nature attributed as involving spirits forces then to be used managed and understood to keep faith needed to be defined more. So early humans made their spirits forces which had before been undefined lacking beingness or contained no full unit of beingness into which the needed knowable source or like us anthropomorphic spirits forces details could involve reason. But the more this container unit comprising spirits forces which lack understanding morphed into more complex concepts of goddesses then gods it the less the reason it entails.
Thus superstitious and magical thinking commonly evolves from unorganized conceptions and then overtime grouped together turning into organized forms often denoting some amount of anthropomorphism.
This, anthropomorphism though unrealized are what faith needs to create concepts found in what we refer to as religious thinking and the existence of supernatural agents like gods which require anthropomorphic to be thought as even being real.
Some may try to challenge whether in “their” conceptions of religion and their creator deity is anthropomorphic (i.e. exhibits human characteristics; such as seen in in the phrase god is a jealous god Exodus 20:5). Moreover, this fact of an undeniable anthropomorphic connection found in all creator deities even in their most ethereal forms can be easily addressed, for instance if you say the “unknown/unknowable” origins of the universe involves an “it” something with a beingness or “I-ness” (like an actual being) in some form which then reasonably can be seen as denoting some amount of anthropomorphism.
A problematic reason involved issue this beingness god with anthropomorphic attributes entails is how it evokes a limited realm of personality in which is fixed in time, space, and place. But to do so then makes the anthropomorphic god becomes in some way corporeal (that is, material and natural not supernatural) within its association with beingness.
However, if we try to sidestep this problem and think in terms of a non-beingness god or non-anthropomorphic concept of god such a creator deity becomes a blind power present in uncountable ways. Thus undefinable and an “unknown/unknowable” thing which possibly could be labelled a force which lacks all beingness but where would that leave us? Even if we then buy this creator deity concept of a force which can somehow lacking all beingness thus is a non-being of anti-anthropomorphic blind power we would seem to be left accepting a creator deity who entailed an expression of nothingness or “unknown/unknowable” presence. How then could this still be attributed as being a thing with somethingness?
Does such a nothing or non-defined entity such as this simply through logic ceases to exist as a reasonable conception that is allowed to be referred to as god? Can thoughts about the direction of a creator force with purpose be any more demonstrable or ascertainably different than our notions of purposeless direction (i.e. I say the wind is a purposeless natural force whereas gods are often attributed as being the force of purpose in wind; such as the phrases god made a wind blow and the waters subsided Genesis 8:1; god brought an east wind and with it came the locusts Exodus 10:13; god drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night, and made the sea dry land Exodus 14:21-22)? Let us assume that a deity is ultimately an indirect reference to anthropomorphism which is found in the proposal of god which involves the absolute infinite beingness; thus the quality of omnipotence (i.e. it can do everything it wants to).
Omnipotence would logically be needed for a being or force of creation in that to be an all-powerful designer of the said universe a power beyond any another would reasonably be required. But if this designer of the universe is an all-powerful and infinite thing is thus is being attributed to an unbound possibility of actions which creates an omnipotence paradox. Such as could a said infinite creator being or force be able to destroy itself or deny its own existence? If the deity or force is omnipotent it can destroy itself, or deny its own existence but an infinite being cannot be eliminated by definition which creates a contradiction.
gOD Believer, Pease Think Critically
If you are a believer think critically, it is not the one deity you see as possible without evidence but to notice how many gods or goddesses you reject as impossible without evidence. What kind of thinker can believe that rationally? There are literally thousands of religions being practiced today and many others once were once thought true in history just to be reworked or rejected.
Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers: Christianity: 2.1 billion, Islam: 1.3 billion, Hinduism: 900 million, Chinese traditional religion: 394 million, Buddhism: 376 million, African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million, Sikhism: 23 million, Juche (a.k.a. Chuch’e and Kimilsungism): 19 million, Spiritism: 15 million, Judaism: 14 million, Baha’i: 7 million, Jainism: 4.2 million, Shinto: 4 million, Cao Dai: 4 million, Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million, Tenrikyo: 2 million, Neo-Paganism: 1 million, Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand, Rastafarianism: 600 thousand, Scientology: 500 thousand, [Source: Encyclopedia Britannica]
If you can believe only in a possible God of Christianity, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Lord Buddha, Waheguru, Ngame, Isis, Kali, Brigid, Kuan Yin, Europa, Aphrodite, Amaterasu, Aurora, Chicomecoatl, Ishtar, Antares, and all of the thousands of other gods or goddess that other people worship today or once held faith in. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods or goddesses without ever looking into their history, religions, reading or even learning about them. You may not even know some of the names listed or have heard much about them or the thousands of other deities and mythical beings people now or through time have put faith in. Most people believer or agnostic are singly indoctrinated all their life and simply have absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in, thus you now see only it as the only possible truth.
In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject god or goddesses without reading or even learning about them as well and as many believers put faith over science facts. If you are a believer or agnostic only your possibility is true and you think their gods are imaginary, similarly they think your god or goddess is imaginary. In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods or goddesses as imaginary.
A rational person armed with history, science, psychology, sociology, biology, and archeology rejects all human gods or goddess myths equally, because all of them are equally human inventions. How do we know that they are human inventions?
Show me a claimed god that is not limited to having to be promoted by people, only transferred by people who were told about this brand of god or it stays unknown or stops being known when it stops being talked about.
Sounds like these claimed all powerful gods are not any power at all, instead they are universally limited and as fragile as any lie, you know just stop telling a God lie it stops existing.
These god myths like all myths not only must be told and retold by humans to other humans they suffer another weakness all myths share in that they tend to be changed or altered as they are retold. Some say not my god (let’s say Christians) but this is pure delusion and undeserved self-confidence as the over 40,000 sects and denominations as well as the many difference translations of one book the bible which easily has over 100 versions in english alone. And even using the same translation people differ how they view or believe the myth of the bible god, you can see why now right because it is only a myth that is limited to being believed and being told.
Still not convinced all gods are lies even the one god myth you may like or believe you choose or chose “more likely where raised in and forced to believe” then stop telling people about it and see if it keeps going as always gods have no more power than the believer gives them. God myths are week and fragile simply stop believing in them and stop talking about them and they stop existing.
Just think what claimed god if real requires you to talk about it or it stops being known. What real features of the world stop existing just because we stop talking about them or stop believing in them? Simply imagine that one of these god myths was actually real it would automatically be real not limited to being expressed to stay seen as real.
We know that all gods are myths as if one of these thousands of mythic gods were actually real, then its believers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These undeniable benefits would not only be obvious to everyone they could be testable and demonstrable limited only to some the believers in the one claimed real god. But spoiler alert no such evidence exists, not that its a real shocker as all gods are myths.
That right there is no special anything followers of a claimed one true god have others don’t have but an odd belief in a God myth as true when there is no proof of such claims not even in the lives of the ones doing the claiming.
Because if some myth god was real couldn’t we at least see actual proof in the lives of the ones believing that only occurred in the lives of the believers and was testable and demonstrable like have fewer diseases, or more so called blessings like more money, etc. In fact is belief in a god meant anything at all there would be and I say must be, testable and demonstrable proofs directly connected to or special attributions only surrounding the lives followers of some claimed true god or its just not anything true.
I know if you are a believer in some claimed god you may defensibly say well even if there is not any testable or demonstrable proofs you still should believe as you don’t want to go to hell if you are wrong, to which we all should say and that works for you? As in what a bunch of nonsense and simple reasoning supported only by fear. Stop this unjustified fear and live life free.

Stop believing in supernatural or the possibility of magic!

By Damien Marie AtHope

Reference 1