Why do you believe in God?

[McCulloch]

The arguments for believing that there is a God can be categorized as follows:

1. Four Classical Arguments
2. The Argument from First Cause
   1. Everything must have a cause
   2. Causal Chains cannot go on forever
   3. Therefore there must be a first cause, and that is God.
3. The Argument from Design
   1. Something in the universe or the universe itself seems to be designed
   2. Therefore a designer must exist and that is God
4. The Argument from the Anthropic Principle
   1. The universal constants are fine tuned for the existence of humans.
   2. Therefore there must have been a God to fine tune the universe for our existence
5. The Ontological Argument
   1. God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
   2. Assume that God does not exist.
   3. An existent God is a being greater than a non-existent one
   4. If God did not exist, then we could conceive of a being greater than God -- A God that exists.
   5. This is a contradiction, therefore (2) must be false and God exists
   Courtesy of Saint Anselm.

1. Four Subjective Arguments
2. The Argument from Coincidence
   1. There have been some remarkable coincidences.
   2. There must be a reason for those coincidences.
   3. That reason is God.
3. The Argument from Prophecy
   1. A holy book makes prophesies.
   2. A holy book or the adherents of it report that those prophesies have come true.
   3. Therefore whatever else is in the book, such as the claim that God exists must be true.
4. The Argument from Subjectivity and Faith
   1. People feel sure that God exists.
   2. Therefore God exists.
5. The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such
   1. A miracle occurs, perhaps as a response to prayer.
   2. God exists as evidenced by the divine intervention

1. Four Psycho-Mathematical Arguments
2. The Argument from Redefinition
   1. God is Love or Goodness or some other such thing.
   2. Love, goodness or whatever, clearly exists.
   3. Therefore God exists.
3. The Argument from Cognitive Tendency
   1. Some cognitive tendencies suggest the existence of an all-powerful agent.
   2. God must be that all-powerful agent
4. The Universality Argument and Morality
   1. Across cultures, the similarities in moral values are quite apparent.
   2. They must come from God
5. The Gambling Argument
   1. We can choose to believe or not in God.
   2. If we choose wrongly then negative consequences of choosing to disbelieve are greater than the negative consequences of choosing to believe.
   3. Therefore it is prudent to believe.

The classifications and much of the synopses are from John Allen Paulos, Professor of Mathematics at Temple University, in his book Irreligion, A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up As fallacious as these might seem, these seriously are the arguments put forth by philosophers, theologians, saints, apologists and preachers.

These are the arguments for God. There are numerous subtle variations on them, but essentially, as far as I can tell those who claim that God exists do so based on one or more of these arguments and nothing else.

Why should I believe that there is a God? What are your reasons? Are any of these reasons valid? If your reasons do not fall into any of the above groupings, please let us know why you believe. If you believe for a combination of these reasons, select the strongest one and explain why.

[Jerada Davidhefter]

What exactly do you mean by "world view"? Are you referring, perhaps, to a religious view shared by the world's majority? Or are you referring to how the world ACTUALLY came to be? You do realize that Atheism, as a world view, is supported, exclusively, by fact. Atheists are not only a population devoid of belief in god, but also a people who champion knowledge. We base ALL of our theories on the current consensus of the scientific community. I could, if you please, relate to you the difference between religion and science. It is quite simple, actually: Religion states an unprovable claim, and lacks any desire to prove it. Science possesses a desire to prove an unprovable claim.

[Jerada Davidhefter]

What exactly do you mean by "world view"? Are you referring, perhaps, to a religious view shared by the world's majority? Or are you referring to how the world ACTUALLY came to be? You do realize that Atheism, as a world view, is supported, exclusively, by fact. Atheists are not only a population devoid of belief in god, but also a people who champion knowledge. We base ALL of our theories on the current consensus of the scientific community. I could, if you please, relate to you the difference between religion and science. It is quite simple, actually: Religion states an unprovable claim, and lacks any desire to prove it. Science possesses a desire to prove an unprovable claim.

[McCulloch]

The matter is, any world view beliefs have no factual support, and are void of any rationale, one way or another. So we are left lost and groping in the dark. If you disagree, give us a world view that can be supported by the facts.

How about a world view that accepts what cannot be known as not being known and is built on the known fact of our common humanity?

[OnceConvinced]

When you left Jesus to whom did you go? And don't tell me to your self, because the self is the worst master you can have.

I have found that the abilities I believed God gave me, I still have even as an ex-Christian. I see no problem with trusting my own strength and abilities to reason. You may have negative thoughts about yourself and think you are unworthy, that you can't do this and can't do that, but I have self-confidence and self-esteem. I believe I have all the tools I need to live a successful life and to make the right decisions. So far since leaving the faith I have found that I do and that things are getting better all the time.

Did you go to scientific naturalism and its natural selection and survival of the fittest philosophy?

No, I don't see any need for adopting new theologies. There's no need to accept any particular philosophies.

Who do you now serve?

Well apart from maybe my place of employment and my family, nobody. I see no need to report to a higher power of any kind.

I read that you were more disappointed in the church and other Christians than God.

I'm not sure how you got that idea. My experiences with the church and the people in it were very good. There was one church I was at where I felt I was unfairly treated over a particular episode once as a result of some actions of my wife. I think I did share that here on a forum. However it may have been in a PM. But I did not leave the church because of it and they more than made up for it.

I think my issues are more with the claims made in the bible and that I was not seeing the reality of those claims in my life.

I'm appreciate the fact you are able to acknowledge it is possible to be an ex-Christian. That says something in your favour IMO.

You said that God had done nothing for you in the last ten years of your Christian life. Did you have the need for anything in those years? I have found that if there is something that I can do myself, God will not even lift a finger to help me, he only helps me when I have reached the end of my rope and can no longer do anymore by myself.

Well I think for the majority of it I coped. I probably didn't have any real pressing needs. But there were things, like my marriage breaking up that God seemed to just allow to happen, even though my wife and I were involved in ministries (That was 5 years ago and was not the reason for me giving up the faith).

But the thing is now I am an ex-Christian. And I have been for two years now. God has done nothing to try to reach me and draw me back. Even when I was at the end of my rope begging to him for a fresh annointing, more faith, a touch from him, I got nothing.

The bible says "Cast your burdens on the lord and he will sustain you" and it says cry out to him. Christians continually tell unbelievers, cry out to God and he will come. But I'm afraid that's just not true as I have sadly found out.

So yes, God will not necessarily lift a finger even when you reach the end of your rope.

I have found that if I reach the end of my rope I have to take action myself, because God is not going to take action for me. I also believe that often things will only change once you do reach the end of that rope and you are so tired of it that you take the actions necessary to make the change. I think often that's all it takes for someone who believes they are weak to dig deep to find their inner strengths.

So now is the time for young men like yourself to say to God "I don't see your Kingdom in this world, so let it begin with me, even if all these other people have gone astray I will be faithful to you, even if you are silent".
Christianity is a great adventure if you follow Christ and a disaster if you follow other men. However I must warn you that if you follow Jesus, there will be a cross in your future, but you will not be crucified alone, your true brothers and sisters in Christ will be hanging with you.

Hey, you're not talking to some young guy who hasn't given Christianity a good try. You're not talking to some guy who knows nothing about it. I lived this "great adventure" for over 30 years. I remained faithful for over 10 years despite seeing very little of God in my life. I came across the crosses and I remained strong up until a few years ago. Now that I realise there is no God there to cast all my burdens on, no God there to give me strength, no God to lead the way, I must do these things myself.

I can do what needs to be done if I put my mind to it. You can too, it's just that you have the mindset that you need God. You need to realise that all the strength you have is inside you, you just have to reach in and grab it. Sometimes you even have to be in a situation where you are at your wits end to find that strength. Don't put yourself down. Realise that you can do it! You have the abilities. You can trust yourself. Yes, you will make mistakes, but you will find the strength to get back up and have another go. Don't give up and don't put yourself down just because you've failed in the past.

[Zzyzx]

.

The matter is, any world view beliefs have no factual support, and are void of any rationale, one way or another. So we are left lost and groping in the dark. If you disagree, give us a world view that can be supported by the facts.

A factual world view.

We live on the surface of a minor planet which orbits an average star in an undistinguished galaxy – one of millions or billions.

We can learn about our planet by observing what occurs in nature and attempting to understand the materials, processes and times involved. Change occurs. Directions and cause of change are not always apparent or obvious.

Homo sapiens tend to be social animals that survive and prosper largely through cooperative effort. Society is a human construct that (ideally) promotes cooperation. Anti-social actions tend to be counter-productive for societies (though occasionally productive for individuals short-term).

Successful human interaction typically involves some measure of shared values, cooperative attitude, common use of language, mutual respect, and “ethical� behavior toward other humans.


In my opinion:

Many who promote worship of invisible super beings attribute all of the above to their favorite “gods�. Thousands of different “gods� are proposed to create the universe and influence human affairs. Many deny that death is final and propose an “afterlife� of bliss or punishment.

Supernaturalists tend to promote a concept that credits their “gods� with providing humans with a “world view� that they consider superior to the world view of those who worship competing “gods� or who choose to not worship “gods�. The promotion does not involve evidence (since there is none) and is based upon emotion (fear, hope and wishful thinking). Promotion often takes the form of denigrating all world views other than their own.

[olavisjo]

What exactly do you mean by "world view"? Are you referring, perhaps, to a religious view shared by the world's majority? Or are you referring to how the world ACTUALLY came to be? You do realize that Atheism, as a world view, is supported, exclusively, by fact. Atheists are not only a population devoid of belief in god, but also a people who champion knowledge. We base ALL of our theories on the current consensus of the scientific community. I could, if you please, relate to you the difference between religion and science. It is quite simple, actually: Religion states an unprovable claim, and lacks any desire to prove it. Science possesses a desire to prove an unprovable claim.

World view is the conscious and unconscious assumptions we make about reality and comes from all the experiences that we have had in our lives. It is what we base how we live our life on. For example we may abuse a person who will never have any power over us, who we will never see again because we do not believe that what goes around comes around. But if we truly believe in God we know that he will give us back what we gave to others, good or bad.
Science is an important element but is limited to empirical evidence. And gives us no reason to love our neighbor as our selves. Even to the contrary, it gives us incentive to better ourselves at the expense of others, as we are just things that came into being by the random workings of natural selection.
So, as you say, Christians make the unprovable claim that God created the universe and have no desire to prove something so obvious. Natural scientists claims that the universe came from nothing, and desire to prove it no matter how absurd it is to begin with.

[Jerada Davidhefter]

Nothing in this world irritates me more than the usage of the word "random" in the same breath as "natural selection." Statements such as the above only serve to illuminate the lack of understanding Christian Fundamentalists possess. Evolution is not the "twister in a junkyard creating a 747," it is more similar to inexperienced workers attempted to build it from limited parts. Sure, there will be failures (in fact, most will be failures) but the ones that do not crash and burn are improved upon, and the improved survive to fly another day. The only thing random about genetic mutations is the fact that they are, indeed, random ATTEMPTS at bettering an organism. We did not randomly generate eyes, they were just the most successful mutation regarding observation of our environment to date.

Now, on the subject of morality, I heave an audible sigh in response to your ignorance. A supreme dictatorial leader is NOT necessary for human morality. In fact, morality is more of an evolutionary regulation in order to keep a decent amount of humanity up and running. Without this innate human compassion, due to our half-developed prefrontal cortex and oversized adrenal glands, our species would have erased itself from this earth upon the first sighting of a distractingly attractive mate.

And finally, your claim in support of religious dogma appalls me. The fact that you state an intelligent design of the universe is too obvious to be falsified is enough for me to discredit every word adjacent to your avatar and username. I, as an atheist, nay, an anti-theist, still possess the humility to consider the fact that I may be wrong. You should consider it even more. The Universe is perhaps the best example of a flawed design, and if your creator is indeed malevolent enough to hurtle galaxies at each other for kicks, then I do fear him.

[twobitsmedia]

I, as an atheist, nay, an anti-theist,

At last, an atheist who has the guts to admit it....Thanks!

[JoeyKnothead]

Jerada Davidhefter wrote:

Religion states an unprovable claim, and lacks any desire to prove it. Science possesses a desire to prove an unprovable claim.

That is one of, if not the best statements of the difference twixt religion and not I have ever heard. It would do well for many theists to understand this distinction.

olavisjo wrote:

And don't tell me to your self, because the self is the worst master you can have.

Speak for yourself friend. I would much rather rely on myself than some being who has never been known or proven to exist. You seem to have no 'faith' in your own abilities.

olavisjo wrote:

For example we may abuse a person who will never have any power over us, who we will never see again because we do not believe that what goes around comes around. But if we truly believe in God we know that he will give us back what we gave to others, good or bad.
Science is an important element but is limited to empirical evidence. And gives us no reason to love our neighbor as our selves. Even to the contrary, it gives us incentive to better ourselves at the expense of others, as we are just things that came into being by the random workings of natural selection.
So, as you say, Christians make the unprovable claim that God created the universe and have no desire to prove something so obvious. Natural scientists claims that the universe came from nothing, and desire to prove it no matter how absurd it is to begin with.

This seems to imply that without God the atheist is an immoral person, given to his most base instincts and it is patently wrong. This is a common ploy of the theist to imply atheists are devoid of any moral code, and it is insulting to say the least. Speaking for myself, I never did need a magic book to tell me what is wrong or right. I, like many others observe the world around me, and with innate empathy am able to understand what is moral and good. Your reliance on a book to tell you what is right and wrong implies you do not have the innate empathy most humans are born with. This leads me to further believe YOU are the one lacking morals, as you insinuate that without the Bible you would not know how to act in a compassionate manner to your fellow planetary inhabitants. This makes me sad for you. See, empathy.

Really, olavisjo presents the same old arguments that have been shot down so many times before, only the arrangement of the words themselves seem to have changed.

[Cathar1950]

I, as an atheist, nay, an anti-theist,

At last, an atheist who has the guts to admit it....Thanks!

Another one of your useless one-liners.
I am sure you will have trouble understanding anything I write but I will try to be clear so even you can understand.
You above comment suggest that other atheists are dishonest or cowherds.
I know many atheist that are not anti-God and one person who says they are anti-theist should be taken at his word as should the others.
There are theist that are anti-(your view of God).
Your post was nothing more then another dismissive denigration of atheists that refuse to comply to your simple-minded view of them while presenting nothing of substance yourself.
You are not profound and I can see why you need to have depth explained to you.
I am not attacking you as a person but I do attack your tactics and insinuations.