Why do you believe in God?

[CeaselessMedik]

I believe in God because I want to believe

This.
Crimson: this seems a matter neither of us can prove. I think that humans depend on other humans, and if there is some aspect of us that differentiates us from other animals (as I hope and suspect there is), it still doesn’t prove the existence of a god.

 

[Dolezal]

Originally Aquinas’ Second Way convinced me, but now I am very much interested in the arguments of Dutch philosopher G.J.E. Rutten who improved on St. Thomas. Two arguments that I find sufficiently convincing are A Renewed Argument for the Existence of a First Cause and A Modal-Epistemic Argument for the Existence of God (short version here). Alexander Pruss is another recent big influence.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

This.
Crimson: this seems a matter neither of us can prove. I think that humans depend on other humans, and if there is some aspect of us that differentiates us from other animals (as I hope and suspect there is), it still doesn’t prove the existence of a god.

Dogs when full and content, lay there blissfully happy.

Humans are incapable of this. Even with such material wealth and pleasure, we’re truly never content until we find justice and peace, i.e. God.

 

[CeaselessMedik]

Speak for yourself.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Speak for yourself.

Don’t be dishonest with yourself.

Absolutely nobody on this earth is totally fulfilled by earthly material pleasure in the bigger picture. It might at first but keep in mind all of that stuff is finite, its excitement fades with time. Then you’ll have to replace that with another material good, which will follow the same cycle. Don’t believe me? Look at a lot of these celebrities who seemingly have it all: fame, wealth, parties, friends, people who admire them, cars, mansions, sex. Then all of a sudden you hear about how they’re addicted to drugs or whatever else and their lives fall apart before your very eyes. How could someone with all of that let it all go down the drain? It’s apparent that these people are looking deeper for something that is truly fulfilling as opposed to what is simply finite.

The only thing that is infinite is God.

 

[Ignatius]

I’m sure this thread has been made hundreds of times, but I’d like to be able to respond without reading 40 pages of previous posts.

The evidence is crystal clear and all around you just as the evidence that light exists is. In face, virtually everyone who has ever lived with only a miniscule number of exceptions can clearly see the evidence that God exists. The number of people who have been unable to seethis spiritual reality is far smaller than the number who are unable to see the physical reality of light.

 

[khuldar]

I’m sure this thread has been made hundreds of times, but I’d like to be able to respond without reading 40 pages of previous posts.

For me I realised that God was real and loved me during my time in Afghanistan during 2007. All the people my own age with Wife & Kids etc going home in boxes made me realise that there was more to life & led me to get in touch with the Christians I had met and through them our Lord.

 

[CeaselessMedik]

Don’t be dishonest with yourself.

Absolutely nobody on this earth is totally fulfilled by earthly material pleasure in the bigger picture. It might at first but keep in mind all of that stuff is finite, its excitement fades with time. Then you’ll have to replace that with another material good, which will follow the same cycle. Don’t believe me? Look at a lot of these celebrities who seemingly have it all: fame, wealth, parties, friends, people who admire them, cars, mansions, sex. Then all of a sudden you hear about how they’re addicted to drugs or whatever else and their lives fall apart before your very eyes. How could someone with all of that let it all go down the drain? It’s apparent that these people are looking deeper for something that is truly fulfilling as opposed to what is simply finite.

The only thing that is infinite is God.

I wasn’t talking about material or carnal pleasures. Relationships with other humans can be very fulfilling. Please stop implying things about my having a lifestyle and viewpoint I don’t.

Ignatius: I could as easily argue only a few people have realized the truth in this matter.
khuldar:I’m going to make an assumption by which I mean no offense: brushes with death are scary things that would make a lot of people want for their existence to be cut short as abruptly as a soldier’s can be. Thank you for serving.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I wasn’t talking about material or carnal pleasures. Relationships with other humans can be very fulfilling. Please stop implying things about my having a lifestyle and viewpoint I don’t.

Hi Ceaseless,

I wasn’t implying anything about you or your lifestyle considering I don’t know you or anything about you. I was using the celebrities as an extreme example of someone who seems to “have it all.”

While you are correct that having relationships with other humans can be extremely fulfilling, like having a life-long friend or a close relationship with your mother, you’re forgetting that these friendships, these bonds, these people, are all totally finite. They aren’t going to live forever on this earth. When their existence ceases, so does the fulfillment. This just further proves that nothing simply “Is” the way God is, everything comes and goes, everything is dependent on something else.

 

[CeaselessMedik]

Again, I see no reason we can’t be dependent on each other and accept the possibility, as uncomfortable as it may be, that there might be no afterlife. I was a believer once, and I manage as well as (if not better than) I did then.

Also, the issue comes again to proof. Who says the dependency you talked about actually has an object? If there is an afterlife, who says it’s the Christian Heaven?

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Again, I see no reason we can’t be dependent on each other

The whole point I was making is that we are dependent on each other and there is no way around that. Nothing on this earth is independent, everything depends on something else.

Also, the issue comes again to proof. Who says the dependency you talked about actually has an object?

Can you think of anything that doesn’t depend on anything that just is, just because?

If there is an afterlife, who says it’s the Christian Heaven?

I’m not aware of any other gods in history other than Christ coming down to earth and informing us on how to live ones life and how to achieve Heaven.

 

[CeaselessMedik]

Can you think of anything that doesn’t depend on anything that just is, just because?

I don’t understand the question.

I’m not aware of any other gods in history other than Christ coming down to earth and informing us on how to live ones life and how to achieve Heaven.

I’m not aware of any god doing so. But there have been myths of other gods coming down saying different things (like in Hinduism, which has no Heaven), and prophets (Muhammad) have preached about their own Heaven.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I don’t understand the question.

Since you seem to ask how I know if all things depend on something else for their existence, I’m asking if you can provide an example of how something on this earth or in this universe is outside and beyond the circle of life that is totally independent and doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence/fulfillment?

I’m not aware of any god doing so. But there have been myths of other gods coming down saying different things (like in Hinduism, which has no Heaven), and prophets (Muhammad) have preached about their own Heaven.

The Hindu gods are all purely mythical though, they’ve never been in contact with other earthly figures nor are any of their stories rooted in any kind of history, like Catholicism is. Catholicism has history, eye witness accounts, and 2000+ years of tradition. The Hindu stories don’t.

I’m not sure if any of Muhammad’s ideas have ever been fulfilled and revealed at all here on earth. Catholicism’s sure have though.

 

[CeaselessMedik]

Since you seem to ask how I know if all things depend on something else for their existence, I’m asking if you can provide an example of how something on this earth or in this universe is outside and beyond the circle of life that is totally independent and doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence/fulfillment?

The Hindu gods are all purely mythical though, they’ve never been in contact with other earthly figures nor are any of their stories rooted in any kind of history, like Catholicism is. Catholicism has history, eye witness accounts, and 2000+ years of tradition. The Hindu stories don’t.

I’m not sure if any of Muhammad’s ideas have ever been fulfilled and revealed at all here on earth. Catholicism’s sure have though.

1. Ah. No, of course not, except maybe spacetime.
2. As I understand it, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus outside your holy text except a widely-believed forgery in a record by a guy named Josephus. I haven’t checked into that second part. But as far as tradition, Hinduism is older than Christianity, and I’m sure its followers have plenty of phenomena and beliefs they attribute to Brahma, Vishnu, Mithra, etc. Even as far as the Gospels go, it takes a very convoluted explanation to get even the conflicting Resurrection accounts to see true!
3. Muhammad’s life is pretty well-confirmed, if I remember right, but as for his repute, there is as much evidence for his supernatural things as there is for Jesus’s (assuming he existed).

 

[Ignatius]

I’m sure this thread has been made hundreds of times, but I’d like to be able to respond without reading 40 pages of previous posts.

The evidence is crystal clear and all around you just as the evidence that light exists is. In fact, virtually everyone who has ever lived with only a miniscule number of exceptions can clearly see the evidence that God exists. The number of people who have been unable to see this spiritual reality is far smaller than the number who are unable to see the physical reality of light.

 

[raikou]

1. Muhammad’s life is pretty well-confirmed, if I remember right, but as for his repute, there is as much evidence for his supernatural things as there is for Jesus’s (assuming he existed).

Christ’s miracles have more than one witness. And these are martyrs who died for their witness. These historical accounts record events which could easily be debunked by the their contemporaries when they wrote it, but there seem to be no historical records contesting them.

On the other hand, Muhammad is a single witness to his own claims. Were there other witnessess to verify his claims? Were these witnessess willing to die to attest that they really happened?

 

[JLM28]

Pretty interesting.

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
Argument Analysis of the Five Ways © 2004 Theodore Gracyk

The First Way: Argument from Motion

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Most natural things lack knowledge.

But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

 

[CeaselessMedik]

Pretty interesting.

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
Argument Analysis of the Five Ways © 2004 Theodore Gracyk

The First Way: Argument from Motion

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

If there needs to be a first mover, it doesn’t have to be the Christian God, unless you call whatever that mover was “God” without knowing its nature. Also, could there not have been first motion without a mover - that sourceless kinetic (or what have you) energy got the ball rolling?

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

See previous.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Says who? Planets don’t need to go in elliptical orbits because they’re “meant” to.

Raikou: youtube.com/watch?v=xfRoJxv3nbY (Listen at 4:25 and :33 especially)
A simple logic exercise: assuming Jesus existed, if his miracles were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, wouldn’t there be very few non-Christians?
I’m pretty sure there are people today who would die for “Jesus.” They didn’t see him. Again, no contemporary accounts outside the Bible are known.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

A simple logic exercise: assuming Jesus existed, if his miracles were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, wouldn’t there be very few non-Christians?

Not necessarily. People who witnessed Jesus’ miracles first hand still didn’t want to believe he was the Messiah. The Jews were expecting a proud warrior king to come and liberate them, not a humble person like Christ who taught to love their enemies and to be totally selfless.

I’m pretty sure there are people today who would die for “Jesus.” They didn’t see him. Again, no contemporary accounts outside the Bible are known.

There’s less evidence of the existence of Alexander the Great or Tiberius Caesar than there is for Jesus, yet I doubt you or many others would wish to dispute their existence.

You know your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents existed, because obviously you are here now, yet where is the evidence for their existence?

 

[CeaselessMedik]

Not necessarily. People who witnessed Jesus’ miracles first hand still didn’t want to believe he was the Messiah. The Jews were expecting a proud warrior king to come and liberate them, not a humble person like Christ who taught to love their enemies and to be totally selfless.

I could flip thaty and say people exaggerated/created stories about Jesus because there wanted there to be a Messiah.

There’s less evidence of the existence of Alexander the Great or Tiberius Caesar than there is for Jesus, yet I doubt you or many others would wish to dispute their existence.

You know your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents existed, because obviously you are here now, yet where is the evidence for their existence?

I don’t believe there is so little evidence for a guy who conquered half the then-known world and I think the Romans would keep good notes. But for the sake of argument I’ll concede this.