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.

[olavisjo]

I'm curious as to how God resolves the problem of "First Cause." Can anyone provide any insight regarding this? Even if this wasn't your primary cause for believing, I'd love to hear your logic.

If you would like me to elaborate on what I mean, I'd be happy to.

Just to make you happy, I would like you to elaborate on what you mean.

God is not like us.
Time does not govern God, this is a hard concept for those who are under time to conceive of.
With God there is no cause and effect.

The universe compared to God is like a book compared to an author.
The book has a page one, the author does not.
The universe has a beginning, God does not.

[olavisjo]

I am probably just totally backward, but why on earth is 'I don't know' considered such an inadequate answer to some of the big questions by believers? I just don't get it. What is the rush to fill the 'I don't know' hole with some explanation? There are plenty of questions, the answers to which I will never know. Other questions I may be able to answer in the future. I can live with that.

Why is it that the hardest questions to answer are those posed by women?
After giving this some thought, my short answer is that the Atheist version of 'goddidit' is 'I don't know'.
I am not immune to the 'I don't know' answer but I like to follow it with 'but it is not important' or 'I will study it more' or 'I just don't believe the evidenced is right, there has to be a twist that we are missing'.
What can I say, if I am going to drive myself insane thinking about the miracle of our origin, I want to drag as many souls with me as I can.

[Goat]

I'm curious as to how God resolves the problem of "First Cause." Can anyone provide any insight regarding this? Even if this wasn't your primary cause for believing, I'd love to hear your logic.

If you would like me to elaborate on what I mean, I'd be happy to.

Just to make you happy, I would like you to elaborate on what you mean.

God is not like us.
Time does not govern God, this is a hard concept for those who are under time to conceive of.
With God there is no cause and effect.

The universe compared to God is like a book compared to an author.
The book has a page one, the author does not.
The universe has a beginning, God does not.

This is the logical fallacy known as 'special pleading', since it attributes an attribute to God that nothing else has.

[Chocotacoi8]

I'm curious as to how God resolves the problem of "First Cause." Can anyone provide any insight regarding this? Even if this wasn't your primary cause for believing, I'd love to hear your logic.

Just to make you happy, I would like you to elaborate on what you mean.

Well, I'm assuming that First Cause in this poll refers to the belief people have of a God because given that everything around us has a cause and effect, so too must the Universe and therefore God must have been the "First Cause."

Where I get lost is how God is satisfactory to fulfill the role. Mustn't God have a "First Cause" as well? If we take two things we know nothing about--what triggered the Big Bang and God Himself--how can we decide that one began without a cause (God) while the other must have had a cause to begin (the Universe)? Note that I'm looking for the reason we can distinguish between the two. Personally, I believe the Big Bang had a trigger, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion.

I think this is enough to at least start us off.

...Time does not govern God, this is a hard concept for those who are under time to conceive of....

I actually think that "time" is very much an illusion. So this is actually a very easy concept for me to grasp, though I attribute it to everything, not just God.

The universe compared to God is like a book compared to an author.
The book has a page one, the author does not.
The universe has a beginning, God does not.

This is a very nice example, but you can't use a metaphor to support a conclusion. You have to have some solid ground beneath the metaphor. Metaphors help explain something, they are not the explanation. We haven't started the discussion really, but I'm just making an observation.

Looking forward to the discourse!

[Zzyzx]

.

I am probably just totally backward, but why on earth is 'I don't know' considered such an inadequate answer to some of the big questions by believers? I just don't get it. What is the rush to fill the 'I don't know' hole with some explanation? There are plenty of questions, the answers to which I will never know. Other questions I may be able to answer in the future. I can live with that.

Why is it that the hardest questions to answer are those posed by women?

The same question has been asked by males AND females. Is this the first time you have noticed? Is the same question more difficult when asked by a female? You still provide no rational answer.

After giving this some thought, my short answer is that the Atheist version of 'goddidit' is 'I don't know'.

Perhaps you should give the matter more thought because your “short answer� is foolish.

1. “goddidit� is a claim that one DOES know the answers to questions
2. “I don’t know� is an acknowledgement that one does NOT know the answer.

Can you tell the difference? Notice that those two are diametrically opposed. That means that one claims to know and the other claims to not know. How do you see them as different “versions� of the same statement?

I am not immune to the 'I don't know' answer but I like to follow it with 'but it is not important' or 'I will study it more' or 'I just don't believe the evidenced is right, there has to be a twist that we are missing'.

That is a noble personal preference. Do you attempt to hold others to your personal preferences? Do you think that your preference is inherently superior to others’?

I do not feel any need to modify “I don’t know� to claim that a topic is “unimportant� or that I will “study it more� or that I question the evidence.

I do not make excuses for not knowing – perhaps because I am not insecure or tentative or falsely “humble� OR interested in appearing to possess more knowledge than I actually possess. WYSIWYG works.

For the record: I do not know the origin of the universe or of life – and neither do you and neither does anyone else (in my opinion, of course).

What can I say, if I am going to drive myself insane thinking about the miracle of our origin, I want to drag as many souls with me as I can.

You are welcome to drive yourself “insane thinking about the miracle of our origin�. Your attempts to “drag as many ‘souls’ with you as you can� does not appear to be gathering adherents in this debate format.

Religious recruitment is more likely to be successful if indoctrination occurs when judgment and discernment are not present or developed – such as in childhood or during periods of emotional stress. Neither of those conditions apply to most members of this forum.

It is less likely, in my opinion, to “drive one insane� if they avoid obsessing about “our origin� – and focus on more important issues in life. Any obsession (“a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling�) is regarded as unhealthy (except by the obsessed who often do not recognize the extent of their focus upon the object of obsession).

I see no reason to place emphasis on origin of life or of the universe UNLESS one studies those matters in detail (such as in a scientific career). Basing claims of knowledge of such matters upon reading tales by ancient storytellers or listening to theologians (those who “study religious faith, practice, and experience� – Merriam Webster) is NOT adequate basis for claiming knowledge of the origin of the universe or of life. Different, competing religions claim that their favorite gods are responsible for creation. None can supply evidence to validate their claims.

[COG12]

I'm a Christian and here's my problem with evolution:
Maybe an evolutionist can answer this for me, If you believe we all started as a single celled amoeba and evolved to what we are today, Have we stopped the evolution process? Take the human eye for instance, You need all of your rods and cones to have a functioning eye. If our eye has evolved to what it is today, at what point did it become a working eye? Based on this theory, we haven't always been able to see because our eyes did not always have a full set of rods and cones. Is the eye still evolving? At some point will we develop extra rods and cones? What will the eye be capable of in a billion years? Xray vision perhaps?
This is why I am a creationist. I believe someone had to create me for everything to work out so perfectly.

[COG12]

I'm a Christian and here's my problem with evolution:
Maybe an evolutionist can answer this for me, If you believe we all started as a single celled amoeba and evolved to what we are today, Have we stopped the evolution process? Take the human eye for instance, You need all of your rods and cones to have a functioning eye. If our eye has evolved to what it is today, at what point did it become a working eye? Based on this theory, we haven't always been able to see because our eyes did not always have a full set of rods and cones. Is the eye still evolving? At some point will we develop extra rods and cones? What will the eye be capable of in a billion years? Xray vision perhaps?
This is why I am a creationist. I believe someone had to create me for everything to work out so perfectly.

[bernee51]

I'm a Christian and here's my problem with evolution:
Maybe an evolutionist can answer this for me, ...

What is an 'evolutionist?'

If you believe we all started as a single celled amoeba and evolved to what we are today, Have we stopped the evolution process?

Of course not

Take the human eye for instance, You need all of your rods and cones to have a functioning eye. If our eye has evolved to what it is today, at what point did it become a working eye? Based on this theory, we haven't always been able to see because our eyes did not always have a full set of rods and cones. Is the eye still evolving? At some point will we develop extra rods and cones? What will the eye be capable of in a billion years? Xray vision perhaps?

I suggest you read up on the many many online sources which set out the evolution of thet eye - and also the evolution of creatures who 'lost' eye function. e.g. in cave salamanders

This is why I am a creationist. I believe someone had to create me for everything to work out so perfectly.

the argumentum ad ignorantiam is one of the most popular logical fallacies. I am not surprised you are attracted to it.

Is the eye 'perfect'?

Are you surprised and baffled by the fact that a puddle fits perfectly in the hole that contains it?


Who created the 'someone' doing the creating?

[McCulloch]

What Bernee51 said and

I believe someone had to create me for everything to work out so perfectly.

Check out your blind spot. Did your Creator design your eyes with such a deficiency yet grant the octopus and squid with a better design?

Although all vertebrates have this blind spot, cephalopod eyes, which are only superficially similar, do not. In them, the optic nerve approaches the receptors from behind, so it does not create a break in the retina.

[COG12]

Take the human eye for instance, You need all of your rods and cones to have a functioning eye. If our eye has evolved to what it is today, at what point did it become a working eye? Based on this theory, we haven't always been able to see because our eyes did not always have a full set of rods and cones. Is the eye still evolving? At some point will we develop extra rods and cones? What will the eye be capable of in a billion years? Xray vision perhaps?

I suggest you read up on the many many online sources which set out the evolution of thet eye - and also the evolution of creatures who 'lost' eye function. e.g. in cave salamanders

This is why I am a creationist. I believe someone had to create me for everything to work out so perfectly.

the argumentum ad ignorantiam is one of the most popular logical fallacies. I am not surprised you are attracted to it.

Is the eye 'perfect'?

Are you surprised and baffled by the fact that a puddle fits perfectly in the hole that contains it?


Who created the 'someone' doing the creating?

He always is and always was and will continue to be.
Who created the single celled amoeba in the theory of evolution?
I think the problem people have with Christianity is that they cannot come up with an explanation for everything...so they take it as untrue. And no, I'm not baffled by the fact that water takes the shape of it's container.

I did a little reading on the cave salamanders. From what I understand, they still have eyes its just that they no longer work. The only thing I can come up with is that the prolonged absence of light from living in a cave caused the tissue in their eyes to die. It's no secret that things evolve, but to say that that lizard could one day evolve into an entirely different organism (kinda like that amoeba) is completely ridiculous to me.

But as far as our records show, have humans have always had the ability to see?