Why Believe In God?

[Curiosity]

Do you people actually believe we have such direct access to God or the Deity or Higher Power????

I think there are many more stages before we "humans" have access to anything - we are nowhere near
purity.

I think we are a far distance away from knowing anything of which is being discussed here.

In fact I believe we are arrogant to assume we are so important in the huge scheme of Creation.

 

[hermanntrude]

maybe we should say that what little control there is over our lives appears to be our own and those of other humans. Any control exerted by external features such as a superhuman being, is subtle and therefore indetectable

 

[selfactivated]

Do you people actually believe we have such direct access to God or the Deity or Higher Power????

I think there are many more stages before we "humans" have access to anything - we are nowhere near
purity.

I think we are a far distance away from knowing anything of which is being discussed here.

In fact I believe we are arrogant to assume we are so important in the huge scheme of Creation.

Yes I believe I have direct access to My deities. Fae constantly carresses my cheek when I cry. Pan will hide my knitting neddles and giggle until I find them in the chair and we BOTH giggle! Unlike the catholic church that says I must go through a "man" to talk to my maker I enjoy a one on one relationtip with the God/Goddess that I adore. I AM good enough!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... philosopher, i forget which one.

If i believe in god and he exists, i get a reward. If i dont believe in god and he exists, i get punished.
If I believe in God and he doesnt exist, nothing happens, If i don't believe in God and he doesn't exist, nothing happens

Therefore the logical conclusion is that if i believe in God, the possible outcomes are better. therefore i shall believe in God.

This is very rational, and yet I still don't go to church. why is that?

Because it isn't actually rational. That's one version of Pascal's Wager, named after Blaise Pascal (1623-62), a French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist. He was also a Jansenist, a religious reform movement in the Roman Catholic church in 17th and 18th century France.

There's a nice little discussion of what's wrong with Pascal's Wager at http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

 

[Dexter Sinister]

What evidence would you accept as valid of the existance of God?

AndyF

An event that cannot conceivably be explained any other way but as an act of god is required; something clearly miraculous, in other words, an obvious and undeniable breaking of the normal rules that govern our reality, observed by multiple credible and sober witnesses who all report the same thing.

 

[Tonington]

Ahh good point Dex, I left out soberness....

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I've got a quote for all the atheists, and I would like to hear what they have to say.

I have three things to say:

1. Satan's initial question about who controls people's lives and everything on earth assumes such control exists and thus needs explanation. There's no evidence of such control.
2. the presence of Satan as a character in a novel indicates all kinds of other assumptions were made about the nature of reality in the context of the story.
3. that's a work of fiction.

 

[hermanntrude]

Because it isn't actually rational. That's one version of Pascal's Wager, named after Blaise Pascal (1623-62), a French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist. He was also a Jansenist, a religious reform movement in the Roman Catholic church in 17th and 18th century France.

There's a nice little discussion of what's wrong with Pascal's Wager at http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

well that's me blasted out of the water.

 

[hermanntrude]

An event that cannot conceivably be explained any other way but as an act of god is required; something clearly miraculous, in other words, an obvious and undeniable breaking of the normal rules that govern our reality, observed by multiple credible and sober witnesses who all report the same thing.

Sorry to be awkward but i can't resist it.

Thought experiment:

If there WERE a God, then it would seem logical to us all that the Universe had laws which could not be broken, even by God himself, because it would follow that those laws were laid down BY God, and therefore be incontrovertable.

so it seems probable that even if there WERE a God, your undeniable proof is unavailable.

this is what seems so catchy about religion to me... the fact we are required to believe WITHOUT proof. Why is this so important to God? what would His motivation be for being so subtle and elusive?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

what would His motivation be for being so subtle and elusive?

Most believers in my experience answer that with some version of "You're not allowed to ask that." It'd be layered in mysticism about god's mysterious ways and all the things that passeth human understanding and yada yada... but it'd amount to a denial of the question.

Try this one: god's usually assumed attributes are logically inconsistent; he cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient. Obviously, if he's one, it would seem that he could make himself the other, but there's a nasty subtlety: If he's omniscient, he already knows how he's going to intervene in future to alter the course of history using his omnipotence. That means he can't change his mind about how he's going to intervene, so he's not omnipotent. And if he *can* change his mind, that means he doesn't know how he's going to intervene, so he's not omniscient.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

well that's me blasted out of the water.

Hey friend, no offense intended, it was a reasonable question and a lot of deeper thinkers than you and me--like Pascal himself--have wondered about it. I sure didn't mean to make you feel you'd been blasted out of the water, I just thought you wanted an answer, so I pointed you to one of the better ones I've found. There are all kinds of arcane philosophical dissections of it around, but that one at least is in plain language.

 

[hermanntrude]

i wasnt taking offense. i had just never seen such a good rebuttal of the statement before. I had assumed it was reasonably logical but always wondered why it didnt work in my head. i was dimly aware of the inconsistancy due to multiple belief systems though...

Interesting paradox regarding omiscience and omnipotency. could it not be overcome by assuming that God was always both omnicient and omnipotent? that way He didnt have to predict that He would do anything.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

i wasnt taking offense [good, I hate to offend people unless I intend to] i had just never seen such a good rebuttal of the statement before. I had assumed it was reasonably logical but always wondered why it didnt work in my head.

Well, it is logical, in a way, until you can drag out all the hidden assumptions it contains. It probably didn't work in your head because your instincts knew better. I'm sure that's happened to all of us: somebody presents what appears to be a perfectly reasoned argument, alarms are going off in your head, but you can't quite put your finger on what's wrong with it.

Interesting paradox regarding omiscience and omnipotency. could it not be overcome by assuming that God was always both omnicient and omnipotent?

No, I don't think so; being both from the beginning doesn't remove the logical inconsistency of how those qualities interoperate.

 

[hermanntrude]

how? i dont think i understand

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Just start with the assumption that he's both omnipotent and omniscient from the beginning and follow through the same argument: if he's omniscient he already knows what he's going to do with his omnipotence in the future. That means he can't change his mind, so he can't be omnipotent, but if he *can* change his mind, then he doesn't yet know what he's going to do in the future, so he can't be omniscient.

I've seen some pretty tortured attempts to explain that away, in terms of god not being bound by time and logic, and the ineffable mysteries of his existence and so forth, but they just end up reducing the whole concept of god to incoherent nonsense. As if it wasn't edging over in that direction already...

Besides, there are some pretty clear examples of god changing his mind recorded in the Bible, so if that's the god we're talking about, we already know he does that. And if they're not examples of him changing his mind, then he sometimes lies to people. He told Adam and Eve, for instance, that the day they ate the fruit of a particular tree, they'd die, they ate but they didn't die that day, so either he changed his mind about that or lied to them.

 

[talloola]

I find religion and the concept of some creator, a giant mess of contradictions. Religions as we know them on this planet, are a farce. The Catholic religion being by far the worst. I think Denis Leary said it best:



What gets me however, is the evidence that exists in these modern times that utterly refute religious claims. For example, "religious historians" have claimed that Adam and Eve were flung on to Earth by "God" around 4,000 B.C. Now, folks, i'm no expert, but in the 50 years, we've made extensive headway in the field of geology, paleontology, and archeology and much has turned up in years past that utterly sink this fairytale. For example, I am an avid reader of Scientific American. In the December 2006 issue, there is a whole feature on Selam, a 3.3 MILLION year old skeleton of a baby girl found in Ethiopia. Couple that with the find of Lucy, a 3.2 MILLION year old skeleton of a woman found 4kms away from Selam, and I say that pretty much sinks Adam and Eve. Science has proven time and time again that we (humans) have evolved from Apes. They have found a clear link leading back to your basic, garden variety ape. Why is it so hard for people to let go of religion. Do they NEED that security blanket of a mythical creator? Think about it folks, we grow up with fairytales our entire lives; Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy. Jesus and God, Adam and Eve, are simply others in a long list of child stories that have been taken literally. The ancient Greeks once believed in Eros, Hera, Ares, and Atlas (to name a few), today that religion is long dead. Over time religions fade, people wake up, or on our case, we learn the truth. Religion (whether or not people want to believe it) is on the decline in Western Society. Consider this:

The following was released by Phil Zuckerman at Pitzer College in Claremont California

• According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 25% of those in Australia do not believe in God.
• According to Gallup and Lindsay (1999:121), 30% of Canadians do not believe in God or a “Higher Power.”
• Inglehart et al (2004) found that 22% of those in New Zealand do not believe in God
• According to a 2004 survey commissioned by the BBC, 9% of Americans do not believe in God.
• Greeley (2003) found that 29% of Latvians, 41% of Norwegians, 48% of the French, and 54% of Czechs claimed to not believe in God
• According to a 2004 survey commissioned by the BBC, 44% of the British do not believe in God
• According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 64% of those in Sweden do not believe in God.
• According to Inglehart et al (2004), 31% of those in Norway do not believe in God.
• According to Inglehart et al (2004), 81% of those in Vietnam do not believe in God
• According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 65% of those in Japan do not believe in God.

Just like with previous religions, the ones we have today are on their way out. It will take many generations, but eventually, society will abandon belief in a fairytale. Especially when faced with overwhelming scientific evidence

I wonder what all the obediently religious people will do when they find out "someday" that there is
no god, and that we are here on this earth together, to be responsible for each other, take care of
our earth. They will totally fall apart, for they can't think for themselves, they will have nothing to
obey, the won't be able to stand on their own two feet, be strong, live well, tolerate everyone who
is different than they are, and "truly" enjoy their time here. We have a tough job ahead of us, cause
we will have to help them out, show them the way, prop them up, convince them that they can "do it",
tell them that they are still good, and we like them, and help them "get over it",the fact, that there is no
god, we are our own bosses.

 

[hermanntrude]

hehe maybe he's omnipotent enough to be able to deal with a nasty paradox like that

Just start with the assumption that he's both omnipotent and omniscient from the beginning and follow through the same argument: if he's omniscient he already knows what he's going to do with his omnipotence in the future. That means he can't change his mind, so he can't be omnipotent, but if he *can* change his mind, then he doesn't yet know what he's going to do in the future, so he can't be omniscient.

I've seen some pretty tortured attempts to explain that away, in terms of god not being bound by time and logic, and the ineffable mysteries of his existence and so forth, but they just end up reducing the whole concept of god to incoherent nonsense. As if it wasn't edging over in that direction already...

Besides, there are some pretty clear examples of god changing his mind recorded in the Bible, so if that's the god we're talking about, we already know he does that. And if they're not examples of him changing his mind, then he sometimes lies to people. He told Adam and Eve, for instance, that the day they ate the fruit of a particular tree, they'd die, they ate but they didn't die that day, so either he changed his mind about that or lied to them.

 

[hermanntrude]

something about paradoxes makes me laugh. i find them very amusing

 

[AndyF]

Ah, the old Argument from Design, the creationists’ favourite. Fred Hoyle’s tornado-in-the-junkyard analogy is an extraordinarily ignorant idea from someone with such intellectual credentials. It could have been made only by someone who knows less than nothing about natural selection. Natural selection is not a theory about chance, it is, in the relevant meaning of the word chance, precisely the opposite. Evidently you don’t understand it any better than Hoyle did.

Hi Dexter:

Although perhaps using Hoyle's beliefs here may not be the best for his example, I have often thought that order and/with probability were good indicators of an existing God. I think Sanctus's contribution on this point alone in this value debate is valid reasoned data to substantiate his proposition and make it a convincing case.

Disorder may seem to be so from the disadvantage of perspective and from man's not having the necessary tool that will allow him to observe the particular phenomenon from the necessary vantage point to see it ordered.

AndyF

 

[L Gilbert]

Why believe in gods? I cannot find a rational answer.