Why I believe in God?

[Armel P]

Just wanted to state something general, but which I think should be stated.

Many on this thread have said things along the line of, probability wise there is barley a 0.01% chance og God existing, hence I define my self an atheist. And I agree, if your conception of god is a man in the clouds with a big beard, but lets face it, few people have that conception of god; and assuming that that is what people mean when they say god is rather ignorant and arrogant. On this forums almost all the members seem rather intelgint and cultured, so I doubt anyone here see's god as the big man in the clouds with the white beard.

The first problem in giving a probability which states the chance of god's existence is, what is god? unless you can answer that, you cant find a probability. Now if I said tell me what is the probability of gagblagoo, you would say what is gablagooo? It could be something as simple as a leaf or it could be something which does not exist. Only I know what Gagblagoo is. The same is the problem with god, except no one knows what god is, or can be or anything at all, so sating a probability for its existence is rather ridiculous and narrow-minded.

For example if we take a deist approach to god, as was common among the cultured men of the 18th and 19th century, how can you find a probability for it's existence....

As one who uses a probablility-like argument, I can respond with the following. The chance that any specific manifestation of a god exists is actually infinitesimal because logically there are an infinite number of possible gods with equal chance of existing. So limiting the argument to whether or not a deistic god exists or no god at all exists would be presenting a false dichotomy. It's important to note that all these infinite numbers of possible gods would necessarily have conflicting dogma somewhere along the line making them mutually exclusive. So it is meaningless to choose a particular god because it is equally possible that the correct god -- for the sake of argument - would punish those who make that very choice.

[Alexander III]

As one who uses a probablility-like argument, I can respond with the following. The chance that any specific manifestation of a god exists is actually infinitesimal because logically there are an infinite number of possible gods with equal chance of existing. So limiting the argument to whether or not a deistic god exists or no god at all exists would be presenting a false dichotomy. It's important to note that all these infinite numbers of possible gods would necessarily have conflicting dogma somewhere along the line making them mutually exclusive. So it is meaningless to choose a particular god because it is equally possible that the correct god -- for the sake of argument - would punish those who make that very choice.

But you are to narrow in your approach to god - there are not an infinite amount of types of god, there cannot be - we still cannot define or know what god is, and yet religions seek to spew out dogma and radical atheists fight against the dogma with their arguments not the actually question of god.

[Armel P]

But you are to narrow in your approach to god - there are not an infinite amount of types of god, there cannot be - we still cannot define or know what god is, and yet religions seek to spew out dogma and radical atheists fight against the dogma with their arguments not the actually question of god.

I meant that there are an infinite number of possible gods. I didn't mean that they all exist simultaneously. I was making a point against a given act of defining a god. If anyone attempts to define a god in which to place belief they would be placing belief in an infinitely improbable entity.

If on the other hand someone says that there is a god but it's role in the universe is completely unknowable, then there ceases to be a point in having that sort of faith depriving the act of believing of any reason. This would be like seeing a closed container and deciding for certain that something is definitely in the container but not knowing what that something is. And this is without being given any clue as to whether it is or is not empty. It's the simple act of deciding, and not even deciding that the contents have any positive effect on the decision-maker. At that point, you may as well be like me and live placing your confidence in logic, reason and the scientific method (essentially agnosticism). You accept that there is no purpose in drawing conclusions regarding things that are not tested or are untestable.

[YesNo]

If on the other hand someone says that there is a god but it's role in the universe is completely unknowable, then there ceases to be a point in having that sort of faith depriving the act of believing of any reason. This would be like seeing a closed container and deciding for certain that something is definitely in the container but not knowing what that something is. And this is without being given any clue as to whether it is or is not empty. It's the simple act of deciding, and not even deciding that the contents have any positive effect on the decision-maker. At that point, you may as well be like me and live placing your confidence in logic, reason and the scientific method (essentially agnosticism). You accept that there is no purpose in drawing conclusions regarding things that are not tested or are untestable.

To stay on the higher ground of "logic, reason and the scientific method" (I made these bold in the quote), you need to restrict yourself to falsifiable statements. Statements that are outside this are part of your religion, your faith.

When you argue positions of your faith you are no longer on that higher ground, but you are right there on the same level with the theists making arguments for the existence or non-existence of this or that god.

Most theists are also atheists, by the way. There are gods they refuse to believe in.

[Armel P]

To stay on the higher ground of "logic, reason and the scientific method" (I made these bold in the quote), you need to restrict yourself to falsifiable statements. Statements that are outside this are part of your religion, your faith.

When you argue positions of your faith you are no longer on that higher ground, but you are right there on the same level with the theists making arguments for the existence or non-existence of this or that god.

Most theists are also atheists, by the way. There are gods they refuse to believe in.

I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure I understand what you are trying to tell me because I'm not sure if when you say "you" it is meant to address me specifically or if it is the proverbial "you." At the risk of having misunderstood, you seem to be saying that I am denying the existence of a god and that such a denial is a position of faith. If that was your intention, my response would be that I never do that. I actually agree that such a denial is an act of faith. My position is that drawing conclusions on that which is not testable is an unreasonable act. I never say "there is/are no god/s"; I only say there is no reason to believe in one.

Re: most theists being atheists, yes, that is very much like something Richard Dawkins often quips. He says that religious people are all atheists about other peoples gods but that atheists just go one god further. It's a cute statement though I don't feel it illustrate my personal position.

[Ecurb]

I meant that there are an infinite number of possible gods. I didn't mean that they all exist simultaneously. I was making a point against a given act of defining a god. If anyone attempts to define a god in which to place belief they would be placing belief in an infinitely improbable entity.

.

As Hamlet told Horatio, “There are more strange things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your philosophy.” Many things are “infinitely improbable” (from one perspective), until they happen.

Armel’s argument against God sounds exactly like some creationist’s argument that life developing out of the primordial soup is “infinitely improbable”. So is almost everything else – if we go back far enough in time. From the standpoint of a billion years ago, it’s infinitely improbable that I am typing this – but I am typing it.

This vein of argument represents a misunderstanding of probability.

[Armel P]

As Hamlet told Horatio, “There are more strange things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your philosophy.” Many things are “infinitely improbable” (from one perspective), until they happen.

Armel’s argument against God sounds exactly like some creationist’s argument that life developing out of the primordial soup is “infinitely improbable”. So is almost everything else – if we go back far enough in time. From the standpoint of a billion years ago, it’s infinitely improbable that I am typing this – but I am typing it.

This vein of argument represents a misunderstanding of probability.

There is absolutely no misunderstanding on my part.

Rather the misunderstanding is very much on your part here. First of all, my argument is not "against God" but rather the belief in god. There is a difference. I'm not trying to disprove existence. Secondly, you are misrepresenting probability here. How much time has nothing to do with probability. Given a certain set of facts the probably of an occurence is always the same. The longer time you allow for something to occur, the more likely you are to see it given that fixed probability. Unless, the probability is 1/infinity. Which brings me to my third point: by making comments about your typing, you are obviously confusing the ideas of highly inmprobable and infinitely improbable.

[Jassy Melson]

All I can say is, there is something beyond me that is not human but that is intelligent and can and will communicate with me. I can't explain what that something is or describe it, but for me it exists.

[YesNo]

My position is that drawing conclusions on that which is not testable is an unreasonable act. I never say "there is/are no god/s"; I only say there is no reason to believe in one.

The point I am trying to make, Armel P, is that the statements you make are not falsifiable. This means that you are no longer on the higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method when you make them.

[BienvenuJDC]

It is amazing that a thread that is about "Why I believe in God?" has turned into a thread of...Why you shouldn't believe in God.

Why are some so diligent to ridicule another's belief in God?
And how is this NOT religious intolerance?

[Armel P]

The point I am trying to make, Armel P, is that the statements you make are not falsifiable. This means that you are no longer on the higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method when you make them.

What statements are you talking about exactly? I'm not proposing hypotheses that should be subject to falsifiability. I'm just relying on formal logic. That's not how you would apply the necessity for falsifiability. Otherwise you would use falsifiability to disprove axioms, logic to disprove logic...

[YesNo]

What statements are you talking about exactly? I'm not proposing hypotheses that should be subject to falsifiability. I'm using formal logic. That's not how you would apply the necessity for falsifiability. Otherwise you would use falsifiability to disprove axioms... logic to disprove logic.

Thanks for responding, Armel P. Although we might disagree, I'm exploring some ideas I've had recently. I don't mean to put you on the spot.

When you disagree with a theist, it sounds to me that you think you are speaking from a privileged position, from a higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method that the believers in this thread do not share with you. You use this to claim that they should agree with you and stop believing in whatever it is they believe in.

However, I don't think you are speaking from any higher ground and that is why I mention that you are presenting your religion, your faith, your belief.

Here is a statement you made about gods in general.

I only say there is no reason to believe in one.

Now this is either an axiom or some conclusion. If it is an axiom, then you are assuming everything, so why argue with someone who believes in some God. By assumption, you don't. They do. So what?

If this is a conclusion and you want to remain on the higher ground of the scientific method, this should be a falsifiable statement. But is it falsifiable?

[Armel P]

It is amazing that a thread that is about "Why I believe in God?" has turned into a thread of...Why you shouldn't believe in God.

Why are some so diligent to ridicule another's belief in God?
And how is this NOT religious intolerance?

This is taken from the OP:

Well, to start with, I have given few main reasons why I believe in God. I hope other readers may give their views- on why they believe or do not believe in God.

[emphasis added]

I don't think there was an intention to only discuss with the choir, if I may extend a popular metaphor. And I didn't read the entire thread but it seems that things are relatively civil.

Regarding how this is not religious intolerance, it seems the answer lies in the difference between feeling that freedom of religion is a right and not having a religion. It's comparing apples and oranges. I still feel people have a right to religion regardless of what I feel about the reasonability of that act.

[Armel P]

Thanks for responding, Armel P. Although we might disagree, I'm exploring some ideas I've had recently. I don't mean to put you on the spot.

No problem.

When you disagree with a theist, it sounds to me that you think you are speaking from a privileged position, from a higher ground of logic, reason and scientific method that the believers in this thread do not share with you. You use this to claim that they should agree with you and stop believing in whatever it is they believe in.

This interpretation make me uncomfortable. First of all, I never intended to condescend. The "higher-ground" comment detracts from the conversation because it has less to do with content and more to do with perceived tone. Everybody who has confidence in something, even religious confidence, feels there is good reason for that confidence.

However, I don't think you are speaking from any higher ground and that is why I mention that you are presenting your religion, your faith, your belief.

I appologize but I'm not really interested in revisting the science is a type of religion or logic is a type of religion and everything is a matter of faith therefore all forms of faith are created equal argument.

Here is a statement you made about gods in general.

Now this is either an axiom or some conclusion. If it is an axiom, then you are assuming everything, so why argue with someone who believes in some God. By assumption, you don't. They do. So what?

If this is a conclusion and you want to remain on the higher ground of the scientific method, this should be a falsifiable statement. But is it falsifiable?

When you say, "this should be a falsifiable statement," I already disagree. From what I know, the necessity of falsifiability is related to the process of scientific discovery and proposing hypotheses or presenting theories. It does not apply to the use of formal logic to reach a conclusion. My statement is a conclusion after a logical process. You can revisit the process -- as a "test" -- to see if it produces a different result but it only would if it was never logical to begin with.

The problem with my statement is that it's open to misinterpretation. When I say "reason" I don't mean personal reason. What I mean is that one cannot find greater weight in a particular form of a god without making an assumption that is not logical. Basically, nothing about the act of pointing out a false dichotomy can be dismissed as being unfalsifiable.

[gUfo]

The Alpha and Omega is perhaps the only question without an answer. It's beauty lies in the simple fact that it can be asked. Since reading David Deutsche's Fabric of Reality, I have looked at this question from a slightly different angle. Deutsche (who may be an atheist) attempts to tackle the Omega Point (Fate/Time/God) from a quantum physics perspective. Though deep, the book doesn't get bogged down with mathematics. While on the fringe of pseudoscience, the implications born from the advent of computation are absolutely mind blowing!

The greatest physicists believe that we may one day be able to describe the How at Alpha Point, but they also resign to the fact that we may never be able to know the most important question.

Why?

~ il gufo