Why should we believe in god.

@VideCorSpoon,

That would be an elaborate hoax, Vide.

@VideCorSpoon,

This is the most-awesome aspect of Belief: You can believe what you want.

What I'd really like to see, in anyone's assertion made on this issue, is whether or not they profess knowledge or belief. It's very important. For the former, we can flesh it out, examine someone's evidence and the like. For the person who claims the latter, we can say "hey man, grats on your convictions, believe what you like!"

For my part, I think it's all about belief, never knowledge (woops, just showed my theistic orientation); but nit-picking someone else's belief is counterproductive and mean-spirited. If someone signs on tonight and proclaims knowledge, I'm gonna ask 'em how they know? What is this? What is its nature? Show me the money! Where's the beef!

Also, if I may, whether folks should or should not believe isn't relevant, or even make much sense. They'll believe according to their own hearts. Yes, I think a lot of it silly, some very productive, some charitable and still others horribly murderous [1]. But belief, in and of itself, is a personal affair of the heart.

... should everyone like or dislike strawberries? Let's discuss

Good tweekers here, thanks guys

----------------
[1] And the effects of divergent belief systems is a very worthy subject to debate. Which systems help or hurt in all the different important aspects we all, as humans, share in life? yada, yada...

@MITech,

MITech wrote:

Well for example to believe in god is to believe that there is this all powerful being that created us. Also that he will send us to heaven if we follow the ten commandments.

For I will be short and sweet...

For "God" is the concept of how everything came to be, why it came to be, and what has made it come to be as we see.

For you must ask your self, will you allow what another or a book has defined how everthing came to be, why it came to be, and what has made it come to be?

For you would believe in a "God" made known to you by the mind's of other's, and book's made by the hand's of men, that no longer walk upon this earth...

For the "God" that I have made within my mind, is of my own creation, and not of the creation of another's mind.

For I have defined what my "God" is, therefore I have made my "God".

For my "God" is as follow's...

1.All that I can think.
All that I can not think.

2.All that I can see.
All that I can not see.

3.All that I can smell.
All that I can not smell.

4.All that I can taste.
All that I can not taste.

5.All that I can hear.
All that I can not hear.

6.All that I can feel.
All that I can not feel.

7.All that dose exist.
All that dose not exist.

8.All that is everythingness.
All that is nothingness.

For that is what I have defined my "God" as with my own mind, and not the mind of another, for what my "God" is has not been made known to me by another nor the book of another...

For the true-infinitly dualism of duality, is the theme of my "God" that I have created with my mind...

For I have not allowed those that have walked upon this earth before me dictate what my "God" is and what my "God" is not, for it is not needed for another to make such known onto me...

For I alone have made such known to me, and I alone defined and gave creation to my "God".

For you ask, Why should you or another believe in "god"?

You cant, if you dont know what it is...

So define for your self the answer to what your "God" is and is not. And seek forth not the "God" of another if that be your desire...

@No0ne,

Interesting and fair question... First thought... If the question is really "why should we believe in a god?", then then the only point that would need to be debated would be whether or not we're better off believing that there's a god, regardless of "proof" or the lack thereof.

That said, I happen to be one of those people who has a nearly impossible time trying to "believe" something that doesn't correspond to the rest of reality as I perceive it... I guess I'm one that needs a least some sort of proof or tangible reason to believe to help me along. And for me, I've found enough "proof" or "reality application" to keep me believing, however imperfectly. And I don't try to force those reasons on other people. But... I'd be curious as to whether or not other folks on here would be interested in such antiquated "proofs" such as miraculous healings and other non-scientific events, if they were close enough to the situation to find them honest and credible. Or do you assume that such things could never be legitimate?

Along the same line, I just wanted to point out that the idea that a god hasn't done anything positive (causally) in history is an assumption rather than a fact. Just for one example, and as far fetched as it may sound, what if Jesus really was from god and the "love you neighbor" morality had never significantly influenced the West? Things might be quite different, and god would have made that difference. Just a thought...

Anyhow, good question, and good thought provoking discussion. Smile

Edit: Oops, didn't notice this was in the Young Philosopher's Forum. Not sure if I should have posted here or not... If not, sorry for the intrusion. :whistling:

@NeitherExtreme,

Didymos,
Not only is it a very elaborate hoax, they are very committed to the lie. Who are they you ask? Exactly.

Khethil,
I think there may be something to be said on the difference between belief and faith. Belief is usually affirmed or denied. Faith is something more abstract that goes beyond anything that could be prove in belief.

NeitherExtreme,
Proof may be in the fact that we cannot prove everything.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;25906 wrote:

Didymos,
NeitherExtreme,
Proof may be in the fact that we cannot prove everything.

I might not be quite sure what you're saying here... But, I do agree that nothing can be proven. I mean, how exactly could anyone finally and ultimately prove anything? That said, I do take a pragmatic view of things to the point that I realize that I'm going to believe things (to the exclusion of other things), whether I like it or not (and so does everyone else!). In light of that, I try to believe the things that are most credible, even though final proof eludes me, and thats about the best I can do. Call me a "pragmatic post-modern", if such a thing can exist. :sarcastic:

@NeitherExtreme,

A potential proof of God is perhaps the fact that we cannot prove everything that we experience in "reality." This seems to be the basis of a lot of atheist and agnostic thought, the "prove it" question. It's funny that many atheists base their assumption off of the fact that since they cannot prove that God exists, the possibility of God existing is impossible. But like in my analogy earlier, just because I have never seen India does not mean that it does not exist. Also, I'm not saying you're an atheist or any other label of belief, just putting out a possible hypothetical because I thought it interesting.

That you say nothing can be proven, I agree. When you think about it, everything is really up in the air and open to debate since there is always that small minutia of doubt. But still, believing in what is most credible is reasonable and rational. So I totally agree with you.

@Deftil,

Deftil wrote:

Well, if God exists, and he's a god that will punish us if we don't believe in him, then it's in our best interest to believe in him. I guess that would be the most logical argument for why you should believe in god.

Why would a god punish us for not believing in him when he doesn't even show himself. I don't have the faith to believe in a god who is to much of a coward to show himself.

@MITech,

Quote:

Why would a god punish us for not believing in him when he doesn't even show himself. I don't have the faith to believe in a god who is to much of a coward to show himself.

What would it be for God to "show himself"?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos brings up a very good and abstract point. What exactly is it for God to show himself? Our conception of God ranges far and wide. If we think God is everything, like Spinoza attributes to monistic substance, God has already shown himself... in effect, God has always been there.

@MITech,

Let me put all of this in another way. Are we as human beings intelligent enough to distinguish the difference between a delusion and a belief that is true.

"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, intelligent enough."
-Aldous Huxley

Just something to think about.

@MITech,

I don't think that God is necessarily a delusion MIT. A delusion is a misconception with perception, due to the mind's state. An example is believing that people are always making fun of you due to their facial expressions or something like that, right?

Well God is not a delusion because there is no proof to convey we are misconcepted by our cognitive intuition, aka, spiritual side which I'm assuming is what emanates the idea of God in the first place.

@Holiday20310401,

Wow.... good discussion. I had to say that

(posted in this area from my Inner Child)

@MITech,

MITech wrote:

Why would a god punish us for not believing in him

The God of Christianity, which I assume you are referring to, doesn't punish anyone for not believing in him. You go to Hell for not accepting his gift. Even good people, for you cannot buy your way into heaven by the deeds you have done, go to Hell. Only by accepting the gift that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save your sins is the way to heaven.

Quote:

when he doesn't even show himself.

Which way are you looking? N, W, E, S?
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Matthew 5:8

Quote:

I don't have the faith to believe in a god who is to much of a coward to show himself.

If you are looking N, W, E, S, then your looking in the wrong direction. Do you not physically have the capability to have faith? Does faith have mass? If not then why can't you grasp it as me? Have you ever given a full attempt, truthfully to yourself? God doesn't turn his back on anyone, you turn your back on him.

The question I would like you to answer, which was posted earlier, is:
"Why should we not believe in God?".

@MITech,

MITech wrote:

For all of you religious people out there. Give us atheists a good reason as to why we shoud all believe in a god. What I'm trying to get at is do we even need to believe in a god? What difference would it make if we did or didn't believe in god?

As a Christian who has thought a lot about this, I personally believe you can go your entire life without believing in God, and still get into heaven.

My reasoning is this: If God made us so imperfect and ignorant (as is taught in most religions, and accepted as a general philosophy) then how could he possibly expect us to make a decision that we claim leads to an ETERNITY in either heaven or hell? It's almost like asking a baby whether he wants to eat candy or broccoli the rest of his life. How could a loving God possibly expect us to make such a grave decision, without ever fully knowing the consequences of it? Also, the Bible and the Koran (the only texts I feel I can accurately speak on) calls on believers to convert others to their faith. If not believing a certain belief system meant eternal damnation, then that places the responsibility on believers to "save" non-believers from a lifetime of torturous dispair. If we don't (which I believe we can't, and in the spirit of multiculturalism shouldn't), then who is to be held accountable? This thinking just doesn't make sense.

IMO, you're good bro. I do think you should always stay in touch with the world of religion, as there are still great teachings of how to love and prosper, but if you never convert. I don't think God will have a problem with it.

@MITech,

MITech wrote:

For all of you religious people out there. Give us atheists a good reason as to why we shoud all believe in a god. What I'm trying to get at is do we even need to believe in a god? What difference would it make if we did or didn't believe in god?

I for one think that "religious people" being used as a smug-seeming lable for those who believe in a higher power used by atheists is a bit of an oxy-moron. Atheists in a way are some of the most religious people on earth. They firmly believe in the theory of there being no higher authority. and what is religion other that the following of a specific theory or doctrine?

But to answer the origional question, we don't have to believe in God. Those of us who do simply thing there are far too many circumstances and coincidences that just don't convincingly add up together without some other reason.

For example, I will use the evolution of asexual organisms to sexual organisms.
1. How likely is it that in the period of a cell or rudimentary multi-cellular asexual organism's lifespan two cells mutated in a close proximity to eacch other to undergo meosis and combine?
2. Though sexual reproduction has benefits, why would a species want to lower its chance of reproduction but adding in the factor of unbalanced population, finding a mate and so forth compared to a guarenteed repeduction by splitting?

I am not a blind-faith person, I simply don't see how some of the scientific progresses theorized could not have been helped by God.

@MITech,

Sorry to double-dip, but I would also like to add one more thing. There are lots of religions that are underlyingly similar. Take Christianity and Islam. God and Allah seem underlyingly similar to me. And, if that's too localized, look at the story of the Great Flood. That story has been found in religions in every point of the globe, from from Europe to Asia to the Americas. Could this possibly suggest that God has been speaking to humanity everywhere, but we have been misinterperating?

@averroes,

Isn't that interesting, though? I have reached the point where a particular Baha'i teaching seems to be truth - that all religion points toward the same truth and that the differences in language and worship are relative to environment. God is always God, just spoken of in different ways. Even non-theistic traditions point toward the same truth, just with different terminology.

@averroes,

averroes wrote:

Sorry to double-dip, but I would also like to add one more thing. There are lots of religions that are underlyingly similar. Take Christianity and Islam. God and Allah seem underlyingly similar to me. And, if that's too localized, look at the story of the Great Flood. That story has been found in religions in every point of the globe, from from Europe to Asia to the Americas. Could this possibly suggest that God has been speaking to humanity everywhere, but we have been misinterperating?

All major religions are actually related to each other.

@Lithium phil,

Lithium wrote:

The God of Christianity, which I assume you are referring to, doesn't punish anyone for not believing in him. You go to Hell for not accepting his gift.

Not everyone has that interpretation. The "virtuous heathens" go to the "Limbo Minimum Security Unit" of Hell. In medieval europe there was great controversy over the question of whether virtuous heathens / virtuous pagans could find a way into Heaven or not, and whether a baby who died before baptism would be saved. So while some believe as you do, your point is not a universally held conclusion nor has it ever been.

Lithium wrote:

All major religions are actually related to each other.

How was the religion of the Incas related to Christianity? Well, other than the fact that the Inca culture was obliterated by Roman Catholic conquistadores...

There are many major religions that are only minor in 2008 because they were crushed and wiped out during the last few hundred years. And it continues to happen because of missionaries.

Philosophy Forum

Why should we believe in god.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know