Why do christians believe in god?

[kilese]

I want to know how, in this modern world, people still worship a god. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even try to believe it. I see no logic in it at all, to believe in a magical being that lives in the clouds. You can't possibly truly believe in it all. If you do, then humans are more clueless than i thought. Why worship someone who lets children starve everyday? If he has the power to stop it, and doesn't, then he is malevolent. But if he doesn't have the power, he is not a god. And if god created freewill and is omnipotent, then he would already know about all the horrible things in the world that would happen, and could have stopped it. And if he's omnipotent, whats the point of praying? Your prayers would have already been heard. And no one's prayers have been answered, so he is not worth worshiping, and therefore, is not a god. I'm not try to attack anyone, i just can't understand how anyone can believe all this.

[Sgt Quagmire]

If I or anyone else were to turn back, they would be separated from God.

Where is God? He is omnipresent.

Please tell me how can anyone be separated from God If God is omnipresent ?

i think the occurrence of separating oneself from God would be after death, in Hell.

[Skyangel]

i think the occurrence of separating oneself from God would be after death, in Hell.

Why do Christians believe anyone will be separated from God in hell when the bible says that God is also in hell? Do they not believe the bible?

Psa 139:7 -8 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [art there].

[bernee51]

If I or anyone else were to turn back, they would be separated from God.

Where is God? He is omnipresent.

Please tell me how can anyone be separated from God If God is omnipresent ?

i think the occurrence of separating oneself from God would be after death, in Hell.

So god is not omnipresent then?

[Skyangel]

So god is not omnipresent then?

Logically if God is omnipresent then no one can ever be separated from God.
If any one can be separated from God then God is not omnipresent.

[Crazy Ivan]

Winepusher, what you refer to as "agnostic" is what it really means to be an atheist, in a way that all atheists relate to, and how you should approach the label a priori, or before engaging in debate with an atheist. You clearly misunderstand what it means "not to commit to something". It means one does not stand by any particular assertion. One might believe or not believe (lack belief) in something, but as far as anyone else is concerned, that belief or lack thereof is NOT asserted. One does not COMMIT to it.

When I say "I don't believe in your god", that is essentially your own fault, as it is the lack of substantiation of YOUR belief that results in its absence in me. If you demand substantiation for disbelief, all that is required is to list YOUR reasons and simply assert them insufficient, which is a useless step, completely implied. To assert nonexistence, however, one must present something new, not presented as supportive of existence.

[Flail]

[Crazy Ivan] "To assert nonexistence, however, one must present something new,not presented as supportive of existence."

Agreed. If an atheist asserts a positive claim "God does not exist", it seems to me the atheist would have taken up a burden of proof to provide strong evidence of such a claim. It is my understanding that atheism can include 'weak atheism', wherein the proponent stands for the proposition that he/she has no 'belief' in God. This assertion would arguably not carry a burden of proof since no positive claim about the existence of a god is being made...this is arguable since the non-existence of God is implied...which I think was your point, ie. that this should also carry a burden of proof to substantiate by viable evidence???

Personally, I reject the notions of any and all particular gods as defined by man in religion. To me they are 'beings without evidence'. I do not believe we have or can define what a 'god' would be unless and until we have evidence of a supernatural being or entitiy to observe, describe and define. I recognize the possibilty of such beings or entities and await evidence of 'existence'. If you think I have a burden of proof for these assertions, what is my burden and what type of viable evidence could I produce to carry such a burden?

[Merlin]

I want to know how, in this modern world, people still worship a god. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even try to believe it. I see no logic in it at all, to believe in a magical being that lives in the clouds. You can't possibly truly believe in it all. If you do, then humans are more clueless than i thought. Why worship someone who lets children starve everyday? If he has the power to stop it, and doesn't, then he is malevolent. But if he doesn't have the power, he is not a god. And if god created freewill and is omnipotent, then he would already know about all the horrible things in the world that would happen, and could have stopped it. And if he's omnipotent, whats the point of praying? Your prayers would have already been heard. And no one's prayers have been answered, so he is not worth worshiping, and therefore, is not a god. I'm not try to attack anyone, i just can't understand how anyone can believe all this.

It as exceedingly strange that someone wearing the mantle of reason would find the concept of necessary existence unfathomable. Yet, it is not at all uncommon among atheists. Many argue against it. Have they no sense of reality? Of wonder? Is the experience of the mysteriousness of the self-evident beyond their cognitive ability? To see is to be, and human beings are the only creatures who sees predominately with the mind. Are they less than human? Are they truly naked apes? (This is not meant as an insult, but rather is in reference to a book by the same title.)

One cannot help but notice that virtually all atheists presume God is a being alongside other beings. The shift away from analogical language to univocal language probably began about the time of the "scientific" revolution. (I suspect that both atheists and many, perhaps most, religionists watch too much television and don't take the time or make the effort to dig a little deeper.)

Let's first look at what Anselm had to say before then. Anselm argued that things are called good in a variety of ways and degrees, but doing so requires some absolute standard against which they can be measured. The same applies to adjectives like great and just, whereby things involve a certain greatness and justice. This is not so much an argument for God as a description of the situation we find ourselves in. Most atheists don't see the logic of this, being carried by the tides rather that active participants. When they do participate, they do so reactively and emotionally.

Anselm described his belief in God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. He reasoned that if God existed only in the intellect, it would not be God because it would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived. He goes on to argue that since that than which nothing greater can be conceived can be thought to exist, it follows that it must exist in reality. The conclusion is not a logical proof of God's existence, of course, but it does show that if something exists, something exists necessarily, something exists that cannot not exist, and that something is beyond conception else it would not be necessary Being.

What must be in order for what is to be as it is? Albert Einstein wrote: The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man. Anselm wrote, I believe that I may understand. Both were intimately familiar with the experience of the mysterious, the God beyond God. (I believe because I understand, and getting there was no easy task.)

Anselm was not alone in pointing to the God beyond God, a phrase that goes back hundreds of years. There was also Thomas Aquinas who writes: Now we cannot know what God is, but only what He is not; we must therefore consider the ways in which God does not exist rather than the ways in which he does and Wherefore man reaches the highest point of his knowledge about God when he knows that he knows him not, inasmuch as he knows that that which God is transcends whatsoever he conceives of him. In the face of great mysteries, human terminology breaks down.

God does not belong to the class of existing things: not that He has no existence, but that He is above all existing things, nay even above existence itself. For if all forms of knowledge have to do with what exists, assuredly that which is above knowledge must certainly be also above essence; and, conversely, that which is above essence will also be above knowledge.
--St. John Damascene

As in the case of Einstein's religiosity, a first-hand encounter with the mysterious does not necessarily lead to belief in a personal God. But there's a problem. To deny the personality of God leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism and both of those leave human out of count.

[Skyangel]

.....what you refer to as "agnostic" is what it really means to be an atheist, in a way that all atheists relate to, and how you should approach the label a priori, or before engaging in debate with an atheist. You clearly misunderstand what it means "not to commit to something". It means one does not stand by any particular assertion. One might believe or not believe (lack belief) in something, but as far as anyone else is concerned, that belief or lack thereof is NOT asserted. One does not COMMIT to it.

According to any dictionary an agnostic is the person who makes no commitment one way or the other.
A true Atheist is the person who blatantly denies the existence of God and says "there is no God." and commits to the opinion of there not being a God and refuses to change their ways or be swayed in the opposite direction.

Therefore anyone who claims to be an Atheist is really a fool with no thinking skills who wants to believe they are right and prefers to believe that all who believe in God are the fools.

The agnostic at least is a thinking person who admits he will not commit to anything that makes no sense to him but will usually make a commitment when it makes sense and is logical.

Therefore those who claim to be an Atheist better make sure they are defining themselves correctly and make the adjustments and change to calling yourself an agnostic if you are indeed a thinking person and not a fool who makes claims that there is no God without any proof that there is no God.

Atheists cannot prove there is no God and want to accept no proof of God no matter how convincing that proof might happen to be. They simply live in denial of God. in spite of the fact they can see proof of God /gods all around them. The proof is in the religions and the statues which they worship.
Religious People worship what they call God. That object of their worship exists regardless of whether it is made up of something materialistic or imaginary. Fiction exists. Imagination exists and all things imagined exist in the imagination.

[I AM ALL I AM]

I want to know how, in this modern world, people still worship a god. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even try to believe it. I see no logic in it at all, to believe in a magical being that lives in the clouds. You can't possibly truly believe in it all. If you do, then humans are more clueless than i thought. Why worship someone who lets children starve everyday? If he has the power to stop it, and doesn't, then he is malevolent. But if he doesn't have the power, he is not a god. And if god created freewill and is omnipotent, then he would already know about all the horrible things in the world that would happen, and could have stopped it. And if he's omnipotent, whats the point of praying? Your prayers would have already been heard. And no one's prayers have been answered, so he is not worth worshiping, and therefore, is not a god. I'm not try to attack anyone, i just can't understand how anyone can believe all this.

G'day Kilese.

As far as I am aware, a belief in a deity comes about from a denial of that which is self-evident experiential knowledge. Further to this, it can be contended that a lack of comprehension of life and the individuals part within it has led to the anthropomorphising of life.

This can be seen as a denial of logical processing that shows a "clueless" approach to that which the individual claims as a belief. That is, the individual does not have any 'clues' (evidence) for their belief in a deity.

As an example, that which is self-evident is that life surrounds our physicality (something self-evident through the physical senses). Belief in an omnipresent deity would then show the self-evident realisation of experiential knowledge that the individual could not in any way, shape or form be separated from the deity that they claim belief in as they are surrounded by that which the deity has supposedly created and is apparently present within.

Ultimately, a belief in deity can be stated as a denial that stems from a lack of comprehension of the individuals self-expression and willingness to accept responsibility for the causative effects of what the individual chooses to express. The reason for this denial can be based from varied experiences, as exampled through indoctrination into a religious system of belief, or a lack of self-worth and thus a requirement to belong to a group, etc, etc.

While many may claim that a belief in a deity is not a denial, I will contend that unless the individual believes in all deities (which in and of itself is contradictory), then they are in denial of all other deities than their chosen deity. If atheism is a lack of belief in deities (plural), then those only believing in one deity are only one deity less in lack of belief in deities than an atheist.

The main difference that I see between an atheist and a theist is that a theist extends their denial to that which is self-evident experiential knowledge, while an atheist usually maintains a denial in that which isn't self-evident experiential knowledge. While ever there is a denial of that which is self-evident experiential knowledge, then there is a high probability that the individual will have a belief in imaginary friends, commonly known of as deities.

[Skyangel]

This can be seen as a denial of logical processing that shows a "clueless" approach to that which the individual claims as a belief. That is, the individual does not have any 'clues' (evidence) for their belief in a deity.


While many may claim that a belief in a deity is not a denial, I will contend that unless the individual believes in all deities (which in and of itself is contradictory), then they are in denial of all other deities than their chosen deity. If atheism is a lack of belief in deities (plural), then those only believing in one deity are only one deity less in lack of belief in deities than an atheist.

It might be true that those believing in one deity are only one deity less in lack of belief than an atheist but it is only true if you perceive all deities as separate individuals which are all supernatural gods. It is not true IF you perceive the word God as ALL things combined which would include all deities imaginary or not.

However, your contention appears to be that if anyone makes a statement that they believe in ALL deities they would be contradicting themselves.. Am I correct in interpreting your words that way?
If so, How would it be contradictory to say I believe in ALL deities in the sense that I believe ALL things that have been created exist?
That does not mean I believe they are all real or all truthful but I do believe they are all very real in someones imagination.

The only tangible gods are the ones you can touch and see and those include mankind who are also gods if you believe the bible. Mankind is therefore evidence of tangible gods according to the bible itself. and if you do not believe in the bible but believe and trust in only yourself then you are your own god anyway who dictates to yourself and follows your own rules with or without a bible or any other God or gods. Any Atheist who believes in themselves believes in a god who is themself. They are their own god.

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?


I am that I am.