The Silence of Theists in Isomorphic Discussions on God’s Existence
Why don't you see more theists commenting, questioning, or even objecting to nearly daily questions like 'If God does not exist'? This observation is not without its basis, especially considering the recurring nature of these inquiries. These seemingly repetitive and often nonsensical questions can be disconcerting for those who engage in religious or philosophical discussions.
Understanding the Theist Experience
A common experience among theists and atheists is the difficulty in distinguishing genuine inquiries from troll questions. If you were to engage with theists online, it would be nearly impossible to discern the cranks from the sincere without a thorough vetting of their arguments and motivations. Such is the nature of the internet, where the boundaries between genuine belief and cynical questioning can blur.
Con-Men and Sincere Theists: This dichotomy can have significant implications, especially in the hands of unscrupulous individuals. A con-man can make the same claims and arguments held by sincere theists, and these claims can be just as believable if presented with a different tone or intention. Consequently, when faced with a question that seems irrational or irrelevant, such as 'If God does not exist then how do atheists explain the fact that I woke up this morning', it's crucial to recognize that it could be coming from a trolling source rather than a well-meaning individual.
Common Examples and Their Impact
Consider the repetitive questions on platforms like Quora, often framed as 'If God doesn’t exist then why [is there potato salad]' or similar. Many of these questions are poorly constructed and miss the mark entirely. For instance, the assertion that waking up in the morning requires an explanation involving a deity is a classic example of a non-sequitur, a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Another common tactic involves presenting a premise and seeking an explanation that is fundamentally unrelated to the stated premise. In this scenario, the theist might ask, 'If God does not exist, how do you explain the complexity of the universe?' This question, while often framed with sincerity, might be a misdirection that veils a hidden agenda. The underlying intent can be to paint believers in a poor light and provoke reactions, not to genuinely seek understanding.
It's also important to note that some of these questions are designed not to find an answer but to provoke anger and a negative response. In fact, such provocations can be seen as attempts to gain attention or amplify one's stance by highlighting perceived irrationality in religious beliefs. This can make the task of engaging in meaningful dialogue on such platforms more challenging and less productive.
Engagement and Discernment
Given the time and energy constraints, many individuals, especially those involved in discussions like these, might find it more practical to focus their efforts on meaningful and informed interactions rather than constantly engaging with questions that have little to no value to the broader conversation.
Some have commented on these questions, asking whether they are from foolish believers or cynical atheists trying to make believers look foolish. Over time, it becomes clear that such engagement often yields little to no benefit. The persistence of such questions, regardless of their content, suggests that these discussions are not aimed at sincere inquiry but rather at stirring emotions and responses for the purpose of creating a narrative.
In conclusion, the recurrent questioning about the non-existence of God and its implications often stems from a mixture of genuine inquiries and manipulative tactics. While the goal of providing a response to every question might be noble, in practice, it can be more effective to focus on engaging with the most substantive and informed questions, thereby fostering a more productive and meaningful discussion.