"Believe in . . ? or "Believe that . . ."

[realthinker]

What is the difference between these two statements:


"I believe in God."


"I believe that God exists

[Estel2931]

Well based on what I believe, I would say that when someone says they "Believe in God", that is saying that they believe that he is in control of everything and that Jesus Christ has rescued them from eternal damnation.

When someone says "I believe God exists", they are stating that they know that he is there, but they are not willing to let him guide their life. They acknowledge his presence, but don't accept him as their Lord.

Thats what I personally think.

[cnorman18]

What is the difference between these two statements:


"I believe in God."


"I believe that God exists

Funny you should ask.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ht=#325517

To say, "I believe in God" is not necessarily quite the same as to say "I believe that God objectively exists." There are those who question that assertion, but it is true; and I am not the first or only person to take that approach. Here is an essay on that subject and others related to it from MyJewishLearning.com.

"I believe in God" may mean no more than "I believe in God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence; and I HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which I cannot know - that validates that belief."

I believe in God, in precisely that way; but I do not, and cannot, know with certainty if that belief is true or false, valid or in vain. Even so, I choose to believe in that ideal, because even if the good and the noble and the holy are mere inventions of man - and even if man is therefore a higher and better and nobler being than his nonexistent God - they are still worth believing in. That is precisely why I call it "faith." Faith in those ideas - not necessarily in a God that I am not wholly certain exists, never mind whether He is benevolent or omnipotent or any of that.

Perhaps that belief, in those ideals, is, in the end, all there really is. And perhaps that is enough to justify them.

Before we go to "But why bother with..."

Of COURSE one could pursue the good and the noble without reference to any God, to any pseudohistorical narratives, without referring to anything at all but the abstract ideals themselves; but that seems to be the province of philosophers. The rest of us - common humanity - have always found such ideas more comprehensible and accessible, not to say inspiring, when expressed in a STORY. If that story is linked with an ancient and honorable tradition and one's personal heritage, being about about one's own ancestors, so much the more.

Whether or not the story is literally or historically true has rather rarely been the point.

One more note: I am not here alluding or referring to any beliefs about a life after death. Belief in God, of the nature described above, and belief in an Afterlife of whatever kind are not necessarily either related to nor relevant to each other.

I've posted this many times. Still sounds right to me.

[Grumpy]

realthinker

"I believe in God."

I think this would mean "I accept God as being a real entity with the following attributes(insert definition of God here)."

"I believe that God exists."

And this would mean "I accept that God exists, though I am not sure we understand what that means and he may or may not have the attributes we assign to him."

The first has the flavor of certainty, knowing exactly what we mean by "God". The second is more a statement about the generic concept of "God". Grammatically the second sentence should read "I believe that a God exists."

Grumpy

[cnorman18]

realthinker

"I believe in God."

I think this would mean "I accept God as being a real entity with the following attributes(insert definition of God here)."

"I believe that God exists."

And this would mean "I accept that God exists, though I am not sure we understand what that means and he may or may not have the attributes we assign to him."

The first has the flavor of certainty, knowing exactly what we mean by "God". The second is more a statement about the generic concept of "God". Grammatically the second sentence should read "I believe that a God exists."

Grumpy

Hmmm. I think we're dealing with connotation and nuance here, and not strict definition. Seems to me that it would be the term "exists" that connotes certainty about God being a "real entity" with specific attributes, whereas "belief in" doesn't necessarily imply strict definitions. YMMV.

Compare "I believe in peace." That's affirming that a principle has a certain value; it's doesn't necessarily define it precisely or claim its objective existence in the physical world. For all I know, God may be a principle and not a discrete, existent "entity," as I explained above.

Language itself being what it is - a human construct - different people may understand the same phrase to mean different things. That's why it's useful in debate to clarify what we mean. I could certainly say "I believe in the Bible," but in my own case that doesn't mean that I affirm that everything (or anything) in it is literally and objectively correct about history or physical reality. I believe in the Bible as a part of the heritage of my people, to wit, a collection of its earliest literature and a record of the thoughts and perceptions of my ancestors. Does it hold authority? Only insofar as those thoughts and perceptions are affirmed in the present day by rational human thought and debate. Not in itself.

[Grumpy]

cnorman18

I could certainly say "I believe in the Bible," but in my own case that doesn't mean that I affirm that everything (or anything) in it is literally and objectively correct about history or physical reality.

I disagree, they are called "Bible believers" precisely because they believe(those that call themselves that)what it says(specific)to be true. If one says "I believe in God." one is speaking about a specific god(as one must have a good idea of what it is that is being believed). If one says "I believe that(a)God exists." that is not necessarily true(though I guess it could be), it indicates belief in the CONCEPT of a god, not necessarily belief in every attribute claimed about it.

But these are subtle differences and, as you said, subject to several interpretations(much like the Bible itself).

Grumpy

[cnorman18]

cnorman18

I could certainly say "I believe in the Bible," but in my own case that doesn't mean that I affirm that everything (or anything) in it is literally and objectively correct about history or physical reality.

I disagree, they are called "Bible believers" precisely because they believe(those that call themselves that)what it says(specific)to be true. If one says "I believe in God." one is speaking about a specific god(as one must have a good idea of what it is that is being believed). If one says "I believe that(a)God exists." that is not necessarily true(though I guess it could be), it indicates belief in the CONCEPT of a god, not necessarily belief in every attribute claimed about it.

But these are subtle differences and, as you said, subject to several interpretations(much like the Bible itself).

Grumpy

LOL! I would agree that people who identify themselves as "Bible believers" are rather likely to take a literalistic approach. That's not a formulation I'd apply to myself for that very reason. I say what I said above.

Otherwise, I'd have to agree that words can mean different things to different people. That's why one of the most important questions we can ask in debate is "Precisely what do you mean by that?" When we assume that another person means something he doesn't - and God knows (you'll excuse the expression) that's happened to me often enough - miscommunication happens, and disagreements may be assumed that don't actually exist.

[bjs]

What is the difference between these two statements:


"I believe in God."


"I believe that God exists

I would go to James 2:19 on this one: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-- and shudder.�

Believing that God exists is giving intellectual accent to the idea that reality is more reasonably explained by the existence of a God of some kind than by any explanation that denies the existence of any God.

Believing in God includes the idea of trusting God (believing that He is honest, capable of doing what He says He will, and that He gives good and wise instructions for life.)

I know a guy that I will call Joe. Joe is not the most trustworthy of people. I believe Joe exists. That is not the same as believing in Joe – believing that what Joe says is true or that I can rely on Joe to follow through on what he says he will do. In a similar way, believing in God includes more than just acknowledging the existence of God.

[Grumpy]

bjs

I would go to James 2:19 on this one: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-- and shudder.�

So you think demons exist?

Believing that God exists is giving intellectual accent to the idea that reality is more reasonably explained by the existence of a God of some kind than by any explanation that denies the existence of any God.

Yes, magic explains things so much more simply and easily compared to going out and actually looking at and trying to understand the reality. Sorry, that is in no way intellectual or reasonable. Science does not deny any god(s), it just finds no evidence of their existence.

Grumpy

[bjs]

bjs

I would go to James 2:19 on this one: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-- and shudder.�

So you think demons exist?

While I do have my belief on this issue, for the purposes of James’ statement and this debate it does not matter if demons literally exist or if they are just a metaphor for complete corruption.

Believing that God exists is giving intellectual accent to the idea that reality is more reasonably explained by the existence of a God of some kind than by any explanation that denies the existence of any God.

Yes, magic explains things so much more simply and easily compared to going out and actually looking at and trying to understand the reality. Sorry, that is in no way intellectual or reasonable.

Assuming a priori that there is no God and that by “looking at and trying to understand the reality� I will find something other than God is not intellectual or reasonable. You will probably find what you are looking for (people usually do), but that doesn’t mean you will find the truth. That is an example of deciding what the truth is and then looking for evidence to support what you already believe.

Science does not deny any god(s), it just finds no evidence of their existence.

It depends on what you mean by science. If you mean science in the strictest sense of developing and testing a hypothesis about the physical world then you are right, there will not be any evidence of God. That search is specifically for something other than God. Saying that this kind of science finds no evidence of God’s existence is like looking at the ground and saying that I see no evidence of the sky.

If you mean science in the broader sense of the search for truth, then there is considerable debate about whether or not the evidence will lead us to God.