Why are some people so adamant that God does exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshrp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josh

All any denier of God’s existance can seem to do is to demolish poor arguments for God and shallow ideas of what God is, but they cannot seem to give any good proof that there is no personal Creator of the universe. So why are some of these people so emotionally attached to this faith that they can’t prove?

There is no single answer to this question. Each living person is composed of permutations and combinations that are different from every other person.

In most cases there is a reluctance to admit to a higher EGO than one’s own. 😉

“Be still, and know that I am God." Psalm 46:10
 
ASimon said:
But that “logical conclusion” doesn’t help you, other than get you to a Prime Mover (“God”). The question, again, is which theistic God currently on offer is the correct one? Or rather, why does any theistic God currently on offer have to be correct?

Believers like to imagine that “Something can’t come from nothing” is some sort of knockdown argument against atheism. They don’t even realize the trap they set for themselves, even when they get a hypothetical concession on that point.
Click to expand...
Science can’t prove which God is correct. But science has proven that science is incorrect. So why believe in science-only when it has already proven to be incorrect? Whereas the answer to the God-question is at least still unknown. I’ll take unknown over incorrect any day.
 
ManOnFire said:
Science can’t prove which God is correct. But science has proven that science is incorrect. So why believe in science-only when it has already proven to be incorrect? Whereas the answer to the God-question is at least still unknown. I’ll take unknown over incorrect any day.
Click to expand...
Science is off the table, friend. Science says there’s no compelling evidence to go on assuming there exists any Gods. But if we want to stipulate there must be A God (on grounds that ‘something must come from something’), then science can check out on the debate going forward. If we stipulate at least a Prime Mover, science has no opinion on which flavor of Prime Mover is correct.

So you can’t go on deflecting this question by making it about what science supposedly says. You insist that God must exist? Fine. Now, which God? And why? And how do you account for the fact that had you been born on the other side of the world, you’d be believing in a different God (while making all the same assumptions about that God to justify your belief)?
 
ASimon said:
Science is off the table, friend. Science says there’s no compelling evidence to go on assuming there exists any Gods. But if we want to stipulate there must be A God (on grounds that ‘something must come from something’), then science can check out on the debate going forward. If we stipulate at least a Prime Mover, science has no opinion on which flavor of Prime Mover is correct.

So you can’t go on deflecting this question by making it about what science supposedly says. You insist that God must exist? Fine. Now, which God? And why? And how do you account for the fact that had you been born on the other side of the world, you’d be believing in a different God (while making all the same assumptions about that God to justify your belief)?
Click to expand...
This being a forum on Catholic Answers, the answer to “Which God?” to believe in is obvious. As to why? Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part One, Section Two, Chapter One, Article One, Paragraphs Four and Five. Finally, religious beliefs differ in different parts of the world.
 
greylorn said:
Clearly, the universe has a cause. Any idiot could watch a paramecium through a microscope, or a galaxy through a telescope, and figure out that the cause, or causes, involve considerable intelligence.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Many idiots have indeed reached the conclusion that there must be intelligence behind it all. Fortunately, many smart people are also working on the same sort of questions. Strange how they tend to reach different conclusions.
 
cerad2

Agreed. Many idiots have indeed reached the conclusion that there must be intelligence behind it all.

Was Isaac Newton one of those idiots?

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc. :confused:
 
ASimon

You insist that God must exist? Fine. Now, which God? And why?

The one who came to live with us and teach us His ways. Has any other God done this? And if there is no other such God, why would we bother looking elsewhere? :confused:
 
ASimon said:
Science is off the table, friend. Science says there’s no compelling evidence to go on assuming there exists any Gods. But if we want to stipulate there must be A God (on grounds that ‘something must come from something’), then science can check out on the debate going forward. If we stipulate at least a Prime Mover, science has no opinion on which flavor of Prime Mover is correct.

So you can’t go on deflecting this question by making it about what science supposedly says. You insist that God must exist? Fine. Now, which God? And why? And how do you account for the fact that had you been born on the other side of the world, you’d be believing in a different God (while making all the same assumptions about that God to justify your belief)?
Click to expand...
Try to see outside your own logic for a minute. If no god has ever existed, then how can you quote scientific laws when science permanently fails to explain our existence (“We can’t have the first something evolve from absolute nothing,” or “it’s obviously foolish science to believe that the cosmos has always existed in some form or another because that means there is permanently no reason for our existence. Science is not ‘gaining ground on revealing the mystery, because there is no beginning to find by definition’.”)

I agree that science has little (name removed by moderator)ut on which flavor of Prime Mover, but the first order of business is to deduce that it’s more logical and scientific to believe that there “should have been” one since we wouldn’t exist otherwise.

Many people’s beliefs are determined by their desires. Their desires determine their biases. They then seek out evidence to confirm their desires (confirmation bias), which only strengthens their beliefs. Many of those who claim to be academically superior to religious people suffer from the same confirmation bias. They close their minds to my logic because if they opened their minds to my logic, it would threaten their feelings, beliefs, biases, etc. even though my thoughts are both logical and scientific, all this occurs as they claim to be logical and scientific in light of the 2 scenarios I explained in my first paragraph, as neither of those beliefs is logical nor scientific. Kind of ironic.

The question of “Which religion?” is somewhat dangerous in a comparative religion sense because many people will just choose whatever belief system makes them feel good, including child-like hedonism.
 
ManOnFire said:
Try to see outside your own logic for a minute. If no god has ever existed, then how can you quote scientific laws when science permanently fails to explain our existence (“We can’t have the first something evolve from absolute nothing,” or “it’s obviously foolish science to believe that the cosmos has always existed in some form or another because that means there is permanently no reason for our existence. Science is not ‘gaining ground on revealing the mystery, because there is no beginning to find by definition’.”)

I agree that science has little (name removed by moderator)ut on which flavor of Prime Mover, but the first order of business is to deduce that it’s more logical and scientific to believe that there “should have been” one since we wouldn’t exist otherwise.

Many people’s beliefs are determined by their desires. Their desires determine their biases. They then seek out evidence to confirm their desires (confirmation bias), which only strengthens their beliefs. Many of those who claim to be academically superior to religious people suffer from the same confirmation bias. They close their minds to my logic because if they opened their minds to my logic, it would threaten their feelings, beliefs, biases, etc. even though my thoughts are both logical and scientific, all this occurs as they claim to be logical and scientific in light of the 2 scenarios I explained in my first paragraph, as neither of those beliefs is logical nor scientific. Kind of ironic.

The question of “Which religion?” is somewhat dangerous in a comparative religion sense because many people will just choose whatever belief system makes them feel good, including child-like hedonism.
Click to expand...
(Sighs)…You spend 9/10ths of your post rehashing a point I’ve already conceded (for the sake of the discussion), and the last 1/10 ducking the question I put on the table as being “somewhat dangerous.” Clearly, this subject makes you uncomfortable. As it should.
Charlemagne II:
ASimon

You insist that God must exist? Fine. Now, which God? And why?

The one who came to live with us and teach us His ways. Has any other God done this? And if there is no other such God, why would we bother looking elsewhere?
Click to expand...
There have been no shortage of people throughout human history that have gone through life claiming to be God, or be a human representation of God, or otherwise claiming to speak divine revelation directly from the Almighty.
 
joshrp said:
Hi, Why are some people, like Richard Dawkins and others, so adamant that God does not exist? Well, actually even Dawkins said that he doesn’t know, but some people just seem to be on a mission to destroy faith in God.
Joshua
Click to expand...
Pride.

As our ever-more-liberal society gets older they watch their youth disappear, to be replaced with feeble bodies and minds.

They are realizing that they aren’t gods and never were.

Death’s finality naggs at them with the ever growing possibility that Someone more powerful does exist.
 
ASimon said:
(Sighs)…You spend 9/10ths of your post rehashing a point I’ve already conceded (for the sake of the discussion), and the last 1/10 ducking the question I put on the table as being “somewhat dangerous.” Clearly, this subject makes you uncomfortable. As it should.

There have been no shortage of people throughout human history that have gone through life claiming to be God, or be a human representation of God, or otherwise claiming to speak divine revelation directly from the Almighty.
Click to expand...
And exactly how many of these people, “claiming to be God,” have a following of more than 2.1 billion people 2000 years after being put to death. (Not a very good way to start a religion one would think, btw)
 
ASimon said:
(Sighs)…You spend 9/10ths of your post rehashing a point I’ve already conceded (for the sake of the discussion), and the last 1/10 ducking the question I put on the table as being “somewhat dangerous.” Clearly, this subject makes you uncomfortable. As it should.
Click to expand...
Are you asking about me specifically? Why am I Catholic?

The point I was trying to make about the danger of comparing beliefs is that some people will choose what feels good or what is expedient compared to what our modern media’s influence over the public deems to be tolerable, despite the fact that the modern media has no official position of authority.
 
Lui said:
Why should a scientist believe in the Christian God and not in Zeus, or the Hindu Gods, Islam, the Pachamama of the Incas or something completely different?
There are endless options who or what designed the universe. Maybe an atheist just can’t answer why the universe was created but doesn’t speculate with a random religion either.
Click to expand...
Zeus: Because Zeus has not always existed. He was born. And he was able to kill his eternal father…
Hindu Gods: I don’t know enough about them.
Islams: Because of the contradictions from within the religion and the fact that its founder contradicts the idea of a Messiah who fulfilled the prophets.
Pachamama: I don’t know enough about them.
 
karebear92 said:
Zeus: Because Zeus has not always existed. He was born. And he was able to kill his eternal father…
Hindu Gods: I don’t know enough about them.
Islams: Because of the contradictions from within the religion and the fact that its founder contradicts the idea of a Messiah who fulfilled the prophets.
Pachamama: I don’t know enough about them.
Click to expand...
My point was that there are a million options to choose from. Christianity is just one theory of many.
 
ASimon said:
There have been no shortage of people throughout human history that have gone through life claiming to be God, or be a human representation of God, or otherwise claiming to speak divine revelation directly from the Almighty.
Click to expand...
They typically contradict themselves, and none (as far as I know) carried the belief with them as they were being brutally crucified, and none continued preaching just before their death on a cross (as far as I know), and, speaking of the cross, nobody accurately predicted their death (as far as I know), and none rose from the dead and appeared to many Apostles (as far as I know), and none have been inspirational enough to have followers confess their beliefs until their brutal deaths (as far as I know).

There are about four possible scenarios:
  1. Jesus was not and is not real and for some reason a group of people in a about 30 A.D. started preaching and believing in a story and claiming (in mass) to have seen Jesus.
    2)Jesus is the son of God (I believe this one)
  2. Jesus was a real man and somehow a very good magician and liar (and very dedicated, I might add)
  3. Jesus was suffering from a mental disorder, such as schizophrenia, yet managed to convince people that He was who He was despite His illness, and somehow had a following of many other delusional people.
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
No evidence.
Click to expand...
I think I might have gotten you and ASimon mixed up, but it stays that you are an Atheist, too. I am living an alternate reality today or something (just kidding). I assume you mean physical evidence, right?
 
It was said many centuries ago (and I forget right now who said it),
that MOST of those who deny the existence of God,
do so
because to ADMIT the existence of God
would be to admit their OBLIGATION to OBEY God as best they can,
and THAT would
interfere, primarily, with their SEXUAL MORES (or lack thereof).

And when you boil it right down to it, that is the case.
Mary herself said it at Fatima, more people are going to Hell
for sins of the flesh (sexual sins) than for ANY OTHER REASON.
 
karebear92 said:
My point was that there are a million options to choose from. Christianity is just one theory of many.
Click to expand...
It’s hard to tell on this board. When people say they actually believe that Jonas living in a fish really happened, I assume they’re being sarcastic too until I realized they are serious 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top