Why is God so difficult to believe in?

[Ryduce]

To me the atheist have an equal amount of absurd faith placed in the belief of nothingness.God,unprovable,requires both faith in his existence and non-existence.The only truly non-partial denomination is the agnostics,who defer both belief and disbelief,but are open to both.

The thing is we must concede the fact that all that came to be in this universe spontaneously existed in a single moment in an infinite history,when before this moment there was nothing.I think the processess of protein synthesis and evolution are rather insignificant when speaking about the existence of God.In the beginning there was nothing,then there was everything,and one day there will be nothing again,whether it be the big rip or some other cosmic destruction.

We must also concede the fact that we will all die.So atheism for some enriches the short amount of time we have here,while the exact same thing can be said for the ardent believer.So atheism and faith both serve a purpose for human nature.The need for meaning.They are just polar opposites in the quest.

Perhaps I am biased because I am a believer,and this seems absurd for the rational scientific minded community.And I doubt very seriously there will ever be any empirical evidence that either proves or disapproves God.And this is simply enough for me.I will die someday,and at worst if there is no God I've lived a deluded existence that I'm no longer even capable of conscious recognition of,so no problem there.At best,however,there is a God,in which case all is well.The essential point is that faith is not an enemy of reason,it is a supplement.It can never hurt.Especially in the face of the unprovable.

[Morten]

Actually, Captain was not trying to insult anyone-he was simply stating something that in the majority of cases is true.

Would you kindly support this ridiculous claim? I'm from Denmark, one of the most irreligious nations in the world (along with England, Sweden, Germany, etc) and does the widespread disbelief in these countries stem from some sort of egocentrism? Why do you think that you are so saved and holy because you believe in god?

I know my repentance was highly inspired by the shooting of those 10 girls at the Nickel Mines Amish schoolhouse (or more importantly, the forgiveness and compassion the Amish granted to the murderer and his family just days later).

Despicable. A man like that cannot be forgiven.

That is why it is vital for Christians to truly live life practicing worship, charity, forgiveness, unconditional love, compassion and generosity.

No. That is why Christianity is so hypocritical. All those terms sound nice and wouldn't it be grand if we all embodied them. Only, we're human beings and therefore (also) selfish, cruel and unforgiving.

After looking into Christianity and not looking at Christians and the denominations, I found there to be an astounding amount of perfection; and most of it consists of living for others before ourselves. Answer me honestly-what IS so bad about a religion that requires and encourages in EVERY CASE love, forgiveness, generoisity, selflessness, charity, endurance, support, encouragement, understanding and wisdom????

You really think that is what Christianity preaches? I think you should re-read your history and your bible.

[Morten]

To me the atheist have an equal amount of absurd faith placed in the belief of nothingness.

Only the atheist bases his disbelief on scientific and rational evidence. It is not unfair to ask for some sort of evidence of god's existence when religion makes so many enormous assumptions about the world. Firing off some emtpy remark about how "god is the universe", simply doesn't cut it. In other areas of life, one would not settle for such a reply.

[Ryduce]

I never said it was unfair to ask for evidence.In fact I encourage questioning of the unknown.The thing is there is no evidence that disproves God's existence either,and there enlies the great paradox of atheism.It is simply another form of faith.

[matt2442]

"The essential point is that faith is not an enemy of reason,it is a supplement.It can never hurt.Especially in the face of the unprovable."

Ryduce,

If faith is a supplement to reason, should we disregard all faith that is unreasonable? I will spare the long list of beliefs and religions that would need to be disposed of. Atheism is based on reason alone, so of course it is difficult for non-believers to believe in the absurdly held beliefs of religious people. Religious belief is not a supplement to reason, it is the abandonment of reason.

Agnostics do not defer to both belief and disbelief, they say that we cannot know. They are not open to both, they decidedly state that we are without knowledge of the subject. Ryduce, if you read your post again you can see that it is a rationalization for the existence of God and the validity of religious belief.

Atheists cannot place an equal amount of 'absurd faith' in their beliefs because their beliefs are not based on faith.

As for your final statement: 'It can never hurt.' It seems rather ridiculous that you casually placed that very significant, unsupported, and in my opinion inaccurate claim at the very end of your post as if it was fact. Religion absolutely can hurt us. It has in the past, it is doing so now, and it will continue to do so unless it is stopped.

[Ryduce]

If faith is a supplement to reason, should we disregard all faith that is unreasonable? I will spare the long list of beliefs and religions that would need to be disposed of. Atheism is based on reason alone, so of course it is difficult for non-believers to believe in the absurdly held beliefs of religious people. Religious belief is not a supplement to reason, it is the abandonment of reason.

Well Blaise Pascal would disagree,but that is another matter.

I understand what you are saying,and the more I think about it the more astute an assessment it seems.Perhaps I was too vague.You are equating faith in God with faith in general.I was speaking about faith in the face of the unknown.Where would Quantum mechanics be had early scientist not had faith that there were unseeable atoms.Where would Columbus be had he not believed that he could reach the Indies.Thier faith led to enlightenment and discovery.So faith in this case was not abandonment of reason.

If atheism is based on reason alone how can they dismiss the possibilty of God's existence?That is rather unreasonable wouldn't you say?

Agnostics do not defer to both belief and disbelief, they say that we cannot know. They are not open to both, they decidedly state that we are without knowledge of the subject. Ryduce, if you read your post again you can see that it is a rationalization for the existence of God and the validity of religious belief.

I did say that perhaps I was biased because I am a believer.However,to me saying that you do not know is defering both belief and disbelief.The possibilty is ambiguous.Which to me is open to both sides of the argument.Maybe I am a simpleton.I don't see how I am rationalizing God's existence by saying agnostics are impartial.

Atheists cannot place an equal amount of 'absurd faith' in their beliefs because their beliefs are not based on faith.

As for your final statement: 'It can never hurt.' It seems rather ridiculous that you casually placed that very significant, unsupported, and in my opinion inaccurate claim at the very end of your post as if it was fact. Religion absolutely can hurt us. It has in the past, it is doing so now, and it will continue to do so unless it is stopped.

The belief in nothingness is a belief is it not?It is not based on scientific or rational evidence.They cannot disproves God's existence.So as I see it atheist do base thier beliefs on faith.Agnostics are the exception.

Your concluding paragraph comes from the belief that all religion is inherently evil.On a grand scale religion has led to many problems,however,there is a multitude of other terrible things that have happened that are not religion based.So we could go back and forth on that issue all day.But we are speaking on an individual basis.If someone practices a belief privately how is it harmful?I believe religion is a personal thing anyway,and there are millions of practicing religious people who have done no harm to anybody.So to lump everybody in on the same boat isn't particularly fair.

Thanks for the argument though.It's been quite thought provoking.

[islandclimber]

Only the atheist bases his disbelief on scientific and rational evidence. It is not unfair to ask for some sort of evidence of god's existence when religion makes so many enormous assumptions about the world. Firing off some emtpy remark about how "god is the universe", simply doesn't cut it. In other areas of life, one would not settle for such a reply.

science is as much a faith as any religion... for science is a bunch of theories masquerading as facts.... notice how there are no facts in science, for everytime you observe something you effect it just in so doing, you change it... secondly everything is temporal and spatial, so there is no permanence, or infinite in science... human definitions can't go into ideas of timeless and infinite, for the very idea of these things defies all definition, to give them definition is to turn them into something else... science, even math is also based in human terms and definitions and therefore any truth it does have already assumes that human terms and definitions are correct and lasting...

so no matter whether you believe in science, or in god, or in both, you need an incredible amount of faith... with science though the curtain has been pulled over our eyes and we all now believe it to be fact when it is far from it... faith is wherever you choose to put it, and that is why it is so hard to believe completely in anything, because it requires opening yourself up completely... allowing everything to shine forth... but everyone has that ability, they just need to use it...

[SirRaustusBear]

Islandclimber science has taught us to use reason and collect evidence that draws us towards a conclusion. Science is not "theories masquerading as facts." Science is the process of coming up with an idea and testing its validity. If scientists merely accepted their hypotheses as facts, then yes, your statement would be true; but the scientific method is in place to make sure an idea has basis and can make accurate predictions (like how calculus is able to determine information about planetary orbits that is then proven true through observation).

It is frustrating when people equivocate on the word "theory." The scientific definition of theory is different from its definition in everyday life. Our everyday word theory is much closer to a scientific hypotheses, whereas a scientific theory has been tested through experiment.

Saying that when we observe things we change them is simply false. I observe gravity every time I fall down and it has yet to change.

Science does not necessarily attempt to define the timeless and infinite. Scientists do not say gravity will work the same way in places in which it cannot be observed (for instance the proposed parallel universes that are a part of String Theory (which is really a scientific hypothesis at this point, not a theory)).

Science is far from a curtain, it is a light in a dark room. We have discovered truths through science that effect us all every day. That is undeniable.

[islandclimber]

theories tested... they are still theories, as scientists cannot, without huge conditions and "ifs" state anything is absolutely right or fact... which is why science is constantly changing... evolving one could say... there is no truth in science, unless one has faith.. the only reason so many believe in science is because that is the way we are educated and brought up now...


and you speak of truths with regard to calculus and science, but that is all dependent on the very notion of human terms and definitions about the universe being true and fact, which if one actually stopped and took the time to think about rather than just going by what everyone else believes, it requires a great deal of faith...

there is a reason science can only get so accurate, there is a reason quantum physics has an error principle, however small they claim it to be (10 to the negative 34th or something)... when one observes something they place an external force on it, unless it is in a vaccuum, which is not possible, for then we would no longer be able to observe it...à

and yes hypothesis is more equivalent to the everyday word theory, but that does not change that scientific theory is still not fact, nor truth for certain... it still requires just as much faith as god... for along with creating the idea of god, we also created the idea of science... and therefore, science if thought about deeply, requires just as much faith as the absurd idea of some superhuman creator god,.... I myself don't believe in either...

I believe everything is nothing, and nothing is everything... and that is the one universal truth... that is what I have faith in...

[matt2442]

theories tested... they are still theories, as scientists cannot, without huge conditions and "ifs" state anything is absolutely right or fact... which is why science is constantly changing... evolving one could say... there is no truth in science, unless one has faith.. the only reason so many believe in science is because that is the way we are educated and brought up now...


and you speak of truths with regard to calculus and science, but that is all dependent on the very notion of human terms and definitions about the universe being true and fact, which if one actually stopped and took the time to think about rather than just going by what everyone else believes, it requires a great deal of faith...

there is a reason science can only get so accurate, there is a reason quantum physics has an error principle, however small they claim it to be (10 to the negative 34th or something)... when one observes something they place an external force on it, unless it is in a vaccuum, which is not possible, for then we would no longer be able to observe it...à

and yes hypothesis is more equivalent to the everyday word theory, but that does not change that scientific theory is still not fact, nor truth for certain... it still requires just as much faith as god... for along with creating the idea of god, we also created the idea of science... and therefore, science if thought about deeply, requires just as much faith as the absurd idea of some superhuman creator god,.... I myself don't believe in either...

I believe everything is nothing, and nothing is everything... and that is the one universal truth... that is what I have faith in...

When you say that scientific ideas remain theories even after they repeatedly provide accurate predictions of observable behavior in the universe, you are quite right. However, every time a theory withstands a scientific test, we can be more confident in the validity of the theory. This is the basis for the body of scientific knowledge that humans have accumulated. It is also accurate when you say that our knowledge is constantly changing. It is however, changing directionally, toward an accurate understanding of our universe and how it works.

It is incredibly inaccurate when you say that there is no truth in science without faith. Science does not claim to know everything and is certainly not based, in any way, on faith. Faith in our own ideas and critical thinking abilities may lead us to formulate testable hypotheses, but faith is never used as a justification for results that contradict predictions.

Science is not a different form of faith. It is, in fact, far from it. Human terms and definitions allow us to understand the observable universe in ways in which we can perceive, interpret and manipulate. Human names, definitions, words, mathematics, and procedures do not discredit the results those human-defined aspects of the universe derive for us.

You can be cynical about science and obfuscate the scientific method and what it really involves, by saying that 'nothing in science is certain,' or 'everything is nothing and nothing is everything.' But when it comes down to it, you most likely put your faith in science every day when it comes to the medicines you take, the way you power your home, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, and even the technology you are using to read this message. That's right, it might seem interesting to make philosophical arguments against the validity of science or to selectively reject the evidence of science that contradicts one's religious beliefs, but if we judge by the history of human actions, people almost always trust scientific knowledge over faith-based delusions.

I hope that may help you begin to change your mind regarding your 'everything is nothing and nothing is everything belief,' because that is an absolutely intellectually shallow conclusion that most likely only allows you to avoid the task of attempting to accurately understand your existence.

[islandclimber]

When you say that scientific ideas remain theories even after they repeatedly provide accurate predictions of observable behavior in the universe, you are quite right. However, every time a theory withstands a scientific test, we can be more confident in the validity of the theory. This is the basis for the body of scientific knowledge that humans have accumulated. It is also accurate when you say that our knowledge is constantly changing. It is however, changing directionally, toward an accurate understanding of our universe and how it works.

It is incredibly inaccurate when you say that there is no truth in science without faith. Science does not claim to know everything and is certainly not based, in any way, on faith. Faith in our own ideas and critical thinking abilities may lead us to formulate testable hypotheses, but faith is never used as a justification for results that contradict predictions.

Science is not a different form of faith. It is, in fact, far from it. Human terms and definitions allow us to understand the observable universe in ways in which we can perceive, interpret and manipulate. Human names, definitions, words, mathematics, and procedures do not discredit the results those human-defined aspects of the universe derive for us.

You can be cynical about science and obfuscate the scientific method and what it really involves, by saying that 'nothing in science is certain,' or 'everything is nothing and nothing is everything.' But when it comes down to it, you most likely put your faith in science every day when it comes to the medicines you take, the way you power your home, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, and even the technology you are using to read this message. That's right, it might seem interesting to make philosophical arguments against the validity of science or to selectively reject the evidence of science that contradicts one's religious beliefs, but if we judge by the history of human actions, people almost always trust scientific knowledge over faith-based delusions.

I hope that may help you begin to change your mind regarding your 'everything is nothing and nothing is everything belief,' because that is an absolutely intellectually shallow conclusion that most likely only allows you to avoid the task of attempting to accurately understand your existence.

well I kind of guessed something like this would come out of posting my opinions here... Intellectually shallow... hmm... interesting... how exciting! and changing my beliefs due to a short little blurb about how i attempt to avoid accurately understanding my existence... well, that is so fascinating, so dreadfully fascinating!

faith based delusions like science.. you can tell me all you want about how science is real but all those theories that pass tests and then again pass new tests eventually they run into a new test that they cannot pass and a new theory is formulated... that is science, and that process will be infinite, just like the universe... the ideas of timeless and infinite as well are beyond definition, for even defining it or giving a name to it, places it inside human time and space, if these human creations are true as you so readily assure me... but to tell you the truth, time is another human invention that is scientific, that we all depend upon, even I do, I most readily admit, but it has no validity in understanding existence... same with math, same with science, for science goes further and further into it, only to run into dead ends.. why was all this matter just randomly existing in space... why is there space, why is there anything at all, and how has it existed ad infinitum? show me a scientific answer for any of these questions that are fundamentals of existence? you can't! not one that has any even slight validity.. so you go ahead and stick to science to explain existence... I am sure it will get you incredibly far along the path of hopeless and complete delusion yourself...

and I will stick to being intellectually shallow, which is entirely why I have thought through everything you mentioned in your post, all these questions here and come to the, in my opinion, quite reasonable conclusion that science is entirely irrelevant and just as much faith based in explaining human existence... for maybe it can say what we are made of, though it has to give human created terms to it,... maybe it can say what these things do... but science hasn't the foggiest why these things exist, how they came to be, what was before them, etc... science has no answers, just a bunch of theoretical nonsense that is allowing us, humans, to destroy this planet at as fast a pace as possible... at least there was balance when we were primitive hunter gatherers.. now we just destory... and mostly due to, and through your wonderful science... that well believe in so much..

and sure I use scientific inventions.. I don't deny it... that's entirely irrelevant to questions of god and existence, etc... again I ask you to show me where science tells us how everything came to be as it is, how string theory is important to questions of existence, or quantum physics, or math, or relativity,... for in reality they aren't... as well where does it say how something can be infinite or timeless, for the very idea of science places it soley within things that can be defined, observed, measured... you can't do that with timeless, infinite, boundless, eternal... or if you can please explain how you define and measure things that are necessarily without definition? even the fact we named them is entirely absurd...

by the way I trust my faith based delusions much more than I trust anything in science when it comes to anything that matters... but maybe now that you've made such a compelling argument about how stupid I am, I think I better turn about face and listen to you yes that sounds like such a great plan...

and if you understood what I meant by "everything is nothing, and nothing is everything" with regards to existence, maybe than you might not be so quick to judge that this is incredibly intellectually shallow (and by the way impressive how you candy-coat calling me stupid...) and that I am just trying to avoid accurately understanding my existence... for philosophy is where we actually try to understand existence, not science... science may attempt to explain everyday phenomena but when it comes to questions of existence and non existence, science can't even scratch the surface, and it never will... so again I repeat, I believe everything is nothing, and nothing is everything with regards to timeless and infinite existence, which is necessarily what is behind the universe... being and non being, existence and non existence,... everything and nothing,... they are all the same.. maybe come down off your high and mighty scientific pedestal and take a look at intellectual philosophies about existence and non existence... maybe take a look at some eastern philosophy... so many of your revered scientists have... I have faith in what I believe.. do you?

[PierreGringoire]

A partisan of science. One who claims science is the "be all end all." One who believes man's binding gizmo in a deeply multifacited and expansive universe is science-- must have 'faith' (a catch phrase to all you perceptive etymologists out there) in its theories. Matt242 - Some people who believe in God do not 'claim' to know everything. They have 'faith' --although it is limited-- it is still comparable to the type that scientists exhibit when they apply their theories to the real world.
I have an opinion about the mighty connundrum of my existence. In my heartest of hearts I believe there is a god. I believe that even though the dreariest of plights and bleakest of hopes come and go, a shadow of an Objective Truth of a Creator remains hidden but dormant nonetheless, at least to my understanding.
I am aware of my shallowness and my complete fallibility about all subjects of nature. But my 'lot' cannot be limited to the subject matter of 'science' (I mean the study of science, and our lack of ability to analyze things precisly as they are). All organized religion is highly suspect. Concepts and words themselves are so elusive as to leave everyone in any given sect with COMPLETELY different attitudes and opinions from EACHOTHER. SO, I believe self actualization most be dealt with independently. And people must follow their hearts from there, Good Hunting! (In a lot of ways I feel like I have said everything, and at the same time--to people who are reading and interpreting this from left field-- a whole lot of nothing! (: W-O-R-D-S bah!

[Morten]

I never said it was unfair to ask for evidence.In fact I encourage questioning of the unknown.The thing is there is no evidence that disproves God's existence either,and there enlies the great paradox of atheism.It is simply another form of faith.

There is a great deal more evidence undermining the possibility of God's existence that there is proving it. So no, that is not the paradox of atheism. Atheism is based on evidence.

[Morten]

science is as much a faith as any religion... for science is a bunch of theories masquerading as facts.... notice how there are no facts in science, for everytime you observe something you effect it just in so doing, you change it... secondly everything is temporal and spatial, so there is no permanence, or infinite in science... human definitions can't go into ideas of timeless and infinite, for the very idea of these things defies all definition, to give them definition is to turn them into something else... science, even math is also based in human terms and definitions and therefore any truth it does have already assumes that human terms and definitions are correct and lasting...

so no matter whether you believe in science, or in god, or in both, you need an incredible amount of faith... with science though the curtain has been pulled over our eyes and we all now believe it to be fact when it is far from it... faith is wherever you choose to put it, and that is why it is so hard to believe completely in anything, because it requires opening yourself up completely... allowing everything to shine forth... but everyone has that ability, they just need to use it...

You can't equate science with belief. I don't choose to believe in gravity; I can see it happening. I choose not to believe in religion because, well, I have never ever seen it "happen". Talking of religious belief as being something that "defies" everything else doesn't really mean anything. I mean, can you prove it? Scientific theories can be proven. Religion cannot.

[El Viejo]

...you can tell me all you want about how science is real but all those theories that pass tests and then again pass new tests eventually they run into a new test that they cannot pass and a new theory is formulated... that is science, and that process will be infinite, just like the universe... the ideas of timeless and infinite as well are beyond definition, for even defining it or giving a name to it, places it inside human time and space, if these human creations are true as you so readily assure me... but to tell you the truth, time is another human invention that is scientific, that we all depend upon, even I do, I most readily admit, but it has no validity in understanding existence... same with math, same with science, for science goes further and further into it, only to run into dead ends.. why was all this matter just randomly existing in space... why is there space, why is there anything at all, and how has it existed ad infinitum? show me a scientific answer for any of these questions that are fundamentals of existence? you can't! not one that has any even slight validity.. so you go ahead and stick to science to explain existence... I am sure it will get you incredibly far along the path of hopeless and complete delusion yourself...

Having done it myself, I can understand how a person can simply latch onto 'faith,' also known as the proof of things unseen. It's comforting. When there's darkness all around it's nice to imagine that you've got a lantern and can see everything as it is. The flat earth. The garden of Eden. The great white throne. It's nice to have that conviction that all the other religions, and even the other sects of your own religion, are simply wrong and you'll be ok in the great by and by.

The real world is full of scary unknowns, but we're piecing it together slowly, usually to the chagrin of the religious. They like to 'challenge' science and pooh pooh findings as merely theories, although they're perfectly happy when, thanks to a theory, they can get a vaccination, fly to a destination, use a cell phone, or keep their food cold and unspoiled. They don't mind that the theories are imperfect and will be updated. They forget that their equally zealous and informed forbears considered the knowledge and technology they use so casually, that they'd be at least sorely inconvenienced without, to be the work of Satan himself.

People are naturally curious. We are incorrigible pickers-apart and restless toolmakers. Knowledge will continue to increase, and religion will continue to back away from the light, to take refuge in areas of the unknown, or at least unknown to the majority. It will continue to govern by fear. Fear of making the wrong decision. Fear of irritating God. Fear of paying for it in Hell. Eventually the swath of knowledge will leave no room except for the functional portions of their belief--whatever those might prove to be.