Why should I believe in a god?

[josh987654321]

I basically never post here, mostly reading. But I too am curious as to what the best logical answer there is to “why God”. I’m a young Catholic who’s entire faith is dangling by the argument of God being the first causer. I’d like to have more substantial proof than that, the standard “Jesus loves me this I know” line , and the threat of going to Hell :blackeye:. Sure it’s crazy we’re here but it also took a lot of tries for evolution to get it right. I think Christianity is great but it also could be there were a lot of delusional people scared by lightning and burning bushes playing the telephone game (remember psychology didn’t exist till the 1850s and much of what was said was poorly documented ). So I too am looking for a logical reason why.

May I ask, have you read the Gospels before, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Reuben_J]

So would that make me a believer or a non believer? I don’t want to believe. I want to know. I’m an electrical engineer. I don’t believe my math is correct, I have a way of verifying my solution. Scientologists believe that they are Thetans that have innumerable past lives and we came from extraterrestrial creatures. I don’t want to be down on their level of just "believing ", I’m smarter than that.

I also know that from the third law of thermodynamics that something has to cause something else to happen, entropy. My current hypothesis is that God (the uncaused) lit the match (caused) the Big Bang so to speak. The universe cannot have gone on forever because a single point in spacetime couldn’t exist. This is why I know God exists.

I take the stance too as in your second para. If you trace it far enough it will come to a point where it just couldn’t exist by itself without a creator which is God.

Unfortunately or fortunately we are in an atheist thread. As fas as I know, they won’t buy that argument. So where does it leave us?

We can’t provide emperical evidence and it would only be hypothesis. That’s why I said it’s a matter of believing. If you don’t want to believe , no amount of explanation will make you believe. It’s scriptural. Even if someone comes back from the dead.

For you and I it may be enough to know God exists just from a hypothesis but it may not be so for others who want to see emperical proof.

 

[GodHimself]

little g in this case, any god will do. Is there a reasonable answer this question?

Know that I exist.

 

[josh987654321]

Know that I exist.

Satire?

 

[GodHimself]

Satire?

For it was written do not test God but test the spirit to see if it is from God.

 

[a_priori]

little g in this case, any god will do. Is there a reasonable answer this question?

Because a preexisting progenitor particle or the infinite regress of multiverses does not constitute a “beginning”. Science, as wonderfully intoxicating as it is, describes many things, but explains nothing,

 

[Cheiron]

The error in this is that God is not a Nazi. God is good, in it’s entirety, He is the source of all that is good, so when Satan tempts them to gain the knowledge of good and evil, really he is tempting them to turn away from God and learn evil and embrace falsehood, since we are fallible creatures, knowledge of good and evil will result in evil due to our fallibility and the ability for the Devil to corrupt what is good.

It’s kind of like Star Wars Episode III, where the Sith Lord explains to Anakin (Darth Vader), that if one wishes to become truly wise and powerful, one must study all aspects of the force, not just the dogmatic narrow view of the Jedi.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

I can’t see how that solves the problem that God didn’t want Adam and Eve to know good and evil. Also, if God is entirely good, then it’s meaningless to say that God is good. If, by definition, everything God does is good, then He can commit a mass murder and you wouldn’t call it evil. This blind obedience without applying moral standards of your own is exactly my problem with the Genesis story.

On a side note: I think this relates to the Euthyphro dilemma. You might want to check that out, it’s very interesting.

It means there is something outside yourself to which you are accountable to, morally, spiritually and purposefully.

I am accountable to the people around me and I care what they think about me. How much I care does vary from person to person.

You want to be the captain of your own ship yet where are you sailing to? You have to create an imaginary island to sail to and that is the goal, not one that actually exists. Then when you accomplish that goal then what? Create another imaginary Island for yourself? I don’t much like metaphor though it is helpful in this case.

Contrary to what you think, my goals are not imaginary islands. Spending time with family, reading, sport, travelling, those are all things that give meaning to my life. My family is not a figment of my imagination. My visit to Austria last year did really happen. And I’m still undecided about where I’m sailing next this summer.

To say you don’t care about living a meaningful life according to the standards of others, what makes your determination of a meaningful life meaningful in itself? Nothing as far as I can see. It’s an illusion.

There is no inherent meaning to life. People give meaning to their lives. I think sport, travelling and reading are meaningful, but someone else might disagree with that. I don’t think the meaning I give to my life is an illusion, because the joy I feel from these things is real.

 

[RebeccaJ]

What you believe empowers people who believe the same thing so I would make the argument that it matters very much.

My concern with dogma and religious belief in general is that it takes critically important concepts like love and morality and assigns them divine stature and then fights tooth and nail inquiry into these fields. It has reached epic proportions where many people can not comprehend morality divorced from divine dictates.

I think it is self evident, that an objective morality sourced from humans, is impossible. Subjective morality, sure, entirely possible but I don’t see subjective morality as all that desirable

 

[Widlast]

little g in this case, any god will do. Is there a reasonable answer this question?

Why should I believe in you?

 

[Entwhistler]

There is no inherent meaning to life. People give meaning to their lives. I think sport, travelling and reading are meaningful, but someone else might disagree with that. I don’t think the meaning I give to my life is an illusion, because the joy I feel from these things is real.

But wouldn’t everyone agree that a life full of helping the poor is more meaningful than a life spent watching sports? Are you saying that Tom Brady’s life is just as meaningful as Mother Teresa’s life just because he gives football meaning?

 

[Cheiron]

But wouldn’t everyone agree that a life full of helping the poor is more meaningful than a life spent watching sports? Are you saying that Tom Brady’s life is just as meaningful as Mother Teresa’s life just because he gives football meaning?

I don’t think Mother Teresa really helped the poor. Christopher Hitchens made an excellent case against her.

Regardless, I’m sure not everyone agrees that a life of helping the poor is more meaningful than watching sports. You and I might agree on that, but I’m sure there is someone out there who disagrees. My mother is a Christian and she collected money for the poor when she was young. Most people gave money, but others said that the poor were part of God’s plan and part of the natural order He created. I think those people went to some kind of protestant church.

I’m not sure Tom Brady gives football meaning. Only a New England Patriot could possibly think that. Seriously though, the way you phrased the Tom Brady analogy sounds a bit strange to me. It sounds like someone could give meaning to something that is in some way measurable - and I just wrote that nothing (not even football) is inherently meaningful. I’m not sure if I understood you correctly though.

 

[rcwitness]

I basically never post here, mostly reading. But I too am curious as to what the best logical answer there is to “why God”. I’m a young Catholic who’s entire faith is dangling by the argument of God being the first causer. I’d like to have more substantial proof than that, the standard “Jesus loves me this I know” line , and the threat of going to Hell :blackeye:. Sure it’s crazy we’re here but it also took a lot of tries for evolution to get it right. I think Christianity is great but it also could be there were a lot of delusional people scared by lightning and burning bushes playing the telephone game (remember psychology didn’t exist till the 1850s and much of what was said was poorly documented ). So I too am looking for a logical reason why.

What does “a lot of tries of evolution” mean?

Being Catholic, you rely on faith for understanding. Pray for your unbelief. Creation is not opposed to reason.

 

[DCNBILL]

Do you not consider it a good thing that people have to think about morality themselves? This is one of the reasons I could never accept Christianity: the Genesis story clearly states that God wanted Adam and Eve to obey him, without thinking for themselves wether they did the moral thing. Having been brought up in post World War II, I know that befehl ist befehl or ‘the Nuremburg defense’ is a reprehensible thing. It was rightly thrown out by the judges. Yet this is what God demanded of Adam and Eve.

Secondly, a lot of atheists and agnostics have considered that there are beings that are greater than themselves. But they saw no evidence for that claim. God shows Himself very randomly. Why does He not give everyone a Damascus road experience? Why does God play favorites? Matt Dillahunty, one of the hosts of The Atheist Experience, became an atheist while studying to become a minister!

The minds of atheists and agnostics are not as closed as you might think.

There can not be such a thing as morality without an ultimate author. It would just boil down to what people prefer.

As for Adam and Eve they did think for themselves and made the decision to go against the will of God, hence their fall.

How is it that a person (a rational being) can look at their own existence and find absolutely no meaning in it?

 

[LittleFlower378]

Believe in God because everything you have, from every second of your breath, to every person in your life, to all the things you see… God is present, God is the giver of all things, Praise God in all things!

 

[Entwhistler]

I don’t think Mother Teresa really helped the poor. Christopher Hitchens made an excellent case against her.

Regardless, I’m sure not everyone agrees that a life of helping the poor is more meaningful than watching sports. You and I might agree on that, but I’m sure there is someone out there who disagrees. My mother is a Christian and she collected money for the poor when she was young. Most people gave money, but others said that the poor were part of God’s plan and part of the natural order He created. I think those people went to some kind of protestant church.

I’m not sure Tom Brady gives football meaning. Only a New England Patriot could possibly think that. Seriously though, the way you phrased the Tom Brady analogy sounds a bit strange to me. It sounds like someone could give meaning to something that is in some way measurable - and I just wrote that nothing (not even football) is inherently meaningful. I’m not sure if I understood you correctly though.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said. And break it down a bit. All life is meaningful but certain actions are more meaningful than others (and some actions are not meaningful at all). I’m saying that there is an objective difference between action X and action Y while you’re saying the only difference between X and Y is what we make of it. Individually.

Please correct me if I’m putting words in your mouth.

 

[DCNBILL]

I basically never post here, mostly reading. But I too am curious as to what the best logical answer there is to “why God”. I’m a young Catholic who’s entire faith is dangling by the argument of God being the first causer. I’d like to have more substantial proof than that, the standard “Jesus loves me this I know” line , and the threat of going to Hell :blackeye:. Sure it’s crazy we’re here but it also took a lot of tries for evolution to get it right. I think Christianity is great but it also could be there were a lot of delusional people scared by lightning and burning bushes playing the telephone game (remember psychology didn’t exist till the 1850s and much of what was said was poorly documented ). So I too am looking for a logical reason why.

:tiphat: Squidyman, welcome to the forums. I was very much like you as a young man some years ago. I was very lucky to have an older friend show me how to study the Bible, seriously, not superficially, using the early Church Fathers and the great modern theologians, Rahner, Von Balthazar, Dulles, Ratzinger, etc. I became hooked when I realized it all made coherent sense especially when reading the Old Testament in Light of the New Testament. I have not ceased studying my faith ever since some 45+ years now.

 

[RebeccaJ]

little g in this case, any god will do. Is there a reasonable answer this question?

Ultimately, that is for you to answer. There isn’t a magic pill, belief isn’t a virus that you contract from another. Most I know, are seeking what transcends themselves, namely what it means to actually, love. For myself, I had no intention of believing in God, when I set out to discover what God’s love means, or is. Then I changed the intention to an experiment, to see if it were possible for an atheist to experience faith. Then that became a challenge, as faith is very weird, even mysterious, to an atheist. I’d sit at mass, wondering why all the people around me had faith, but I did not. BTW, as a Catholic now, faith is still weird and mysterious, but in a different way.

Usually, as an atheist, this question is asked as a sort of exercise in convince-me-to-believe-what-I-don’t-believe. There is no one here who is going to convince anyone to believe, what they don’t.

 

[ricmat]

I don’t think Mother Teresa really helped the poor. Christopher Hitchens made an excellent case against her.

If you measure “help” by the materialistic yardstick - no, she didn’t get everybody a cell phone or air conditioning or even(?) enough food for them to eat each day.

What she did was show them that somebody cared enough to actually touch the untouchable, love the unlovable. This is a gift that cannot be bought or provided by a government entity.

Regardless, I’m sure not everyone agrees that a life of helping the poor is more meaningful than watching sports. You and I might agree on that, but I’m sure there is someone out there who disagrees. My mother is a Christian and she collected money for the poor when she was young. Most people gave money, but others said that the poor were part of God’s plan and part of the natural order He created. I think those people went to some kind of protestant church.
.

Jesus did say that the poor would be with us always. There are many types of poverty - material and spiritual. Even if we focus on the material poverty only - look at the US “war on poverty” - trillions of dollars spent, and more poor people than when we started. Of course, “poor” in the US is really “rich” in most parts of the world.

Mother Teresa also helped the rich by providing a structured opportunity for the rich (in material or spiritual terms) to help the poor. Perhaps it is part of God’s plan that there always be poor, if for no other reason than to give opportunity for the rest of us to love those who are difficult to love.

I remember from about 30-40 years ago, Mother Teresa was arriving in NYC to address the UN (my memory might be faulty there…). A reporter asked her about abortion. “What about all those unwanted children that there would be if abortion wasn’t available?” Her answer - “Give them to me, I want them.” Here you have a woman tending for the poorest of the poor, in the poorest city on the face of the earth willing to care for the unwanted of the richest country on earth. Christopher Hitchens wasn’t impressed. So what?

 

[Cheiron]

There can not be such a thing as morality without an ultimate author. It would just boil down to what people prefer.

You could evaluate behaviour on its impact to society. Sam Harris wrote ‘The Moral Landscape’ about how moral rules can be derived from reality. For every moral problem, there are solutions that are beneficial and joyful, and solutions that are hurtful and painful. The former are what we call moral and the latter are called immoral. These are objective moral rules, because reality applies to everyone, regardless of our personal beliefs.

As for Adam and Eve they did think for themselves and made the decision to go against the will of God, hence their fall.

I know their crime was disobedience to God, not gaining knowledge of good and evil. But that still leaves the problem that God didn’t want Adam and Eve to have that kind of knowledge to begin with.

How is it that a person (a rational being) can look at their own existence and find absolutely no meaning in it?

I don’t know how someone could find no meaning. Depression can be caused by a lot of things.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said. And break it down a bit. All life is meaningful but certain actions are more meaningful than others (and some actions are not meaningful at all). I’m saying that there is an objective difference between action X and action Y while you’re saying the only difference between X and Y is what we make of it. Individually.

Please correct me if I’m putting words in your mouth.

I think you’re pretty much correct. For example, I have seen that praying really has a positive effect on my friends. It is meaningful to them and helps them in difficult times. However, as a non-believer, praying doesn’t have that same effect on me.

So yes, how meaningful action X or Y is depends on what we make of it, individually.

 

[RebeccaJ]

"A proof of God’s existence should really be something by which one could convince oneself of God’s existence. But I think that believers who have provided such proofs have wanted to give their “belief” an intellectual analysis and foundation, although they themselves would never have come to believe through such proofs. Perhaps one could “convince someone of God’s existence” through a certain kind of upbringing, by shaping his life in such and such a way.

Life can educate one to a belief in God. And also experiences can do this; but not visions and other forms of sense experience which show us the “existence of this being”—but, e.g. sufferings of various kinds. These neither show us God in the way a sense impression shows us an object, nor do they give rise to conjectures about him. Experiences, thoughts—life can force this concept on us." --Ludwig Wittgenstein

“Those who believe in God but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God idea, not God himself.” --Miguel de Unamuno