Why I believe in God?

[JBI]

One cannot say there is no direct proof against God without acknowledging that the same can be applied towards God. I'm sorry Virgil, but you can't simply reject that argument. There is no way a logical assumption can be created in the sense that "because there isn't proof against, there is". That's pure fallacy.

The point is, since a total proof cannot be found, the use of a God in any argument becomes fallacious. One cannot say God created the world, without saying "I believe God created the world". One cannot say "it is wrong to do this" when the grounds for the "wrong" are all scripture based. One cannot use religion as a justification of anything, without acknowledging that those opinions are a faith-based belief, without any actual conclusive evidence, or concrete justification.

With that notion, Religion becomes personal only, and isn't logically allowed to pass beyond the person, without entering the grounds of fallacy. All arguments that rely on god simply become fallacious, and crumble, since there is no proof or disproof of God, and naturally one must be skeptical, or conservative enough to not grant them any say.

In that sense, if someone is engaged in a holy war, they are using God, fallaciously, as a justification of a human war. If one is engaged in God's duty, one is engaged in a fallacy, and is really engaged in one man's duty.

[Virgil]

One cannot say there is no direct proof against God without acknowledging that the same can be applied towards God. I'm sorry Virgil, but you can't simply reject that argument. There is no way a logical assumption can be created in the sense that "because there isn't proof against, there is". That's pure fallacy.

No, no I'm not say because there is no proof there has to be. All I'm saying is that one can't use the word proof for God's non-existence. If one goes through all the possiblities and comes to a conclusion that there is no God, fine. I accept that and that can be perfectly logical. But it's still not a proof.

The point is, since a total proof cannot be found, the use of a God in any argument becomes fallacious. One cannot say God created the world, without saying "I believe God created the world".

I agree if one is having a philosophic discussion. If one is having a theological discussion then it's a matter of what the two parties agree on.

One cannot say "it is wrong to do this" when the grounds for the "wrong" are all scripture based. One cannot use religion as a justification of anything, without acknowledging that those opinions are a faith-based belief, without any actual conclusive evidence, or concrete justification.

I guess that would also recieve the same answer as above with the only qualification that morality is not only interlinked with religion but with cultural norms and traditions. Of course they can be in flux and traditions get challenged and evolve. we've never had such a mixture of cultures come together as in the present day, so there is a readjustment going on.

With that notion, Religion becomes personal only, and isn't logically allowed to pass beyond the person, without entering the grounds of fallacy. All arguments that rely on god simply become fallacious, and crumble, since there is no proof or disproof of God, and naturally one must be skeptical, or conservative enough to not grant them any say.

I don't advocate a theocracy, if that's what you're thinking. But in a democracy the number of people with a particular set of values matters. Given of course certain civil rights.

In that sense, if someone is engaged in a holy war, they are using God, fallaciously, as a justification of a human war. If one is engaged in God's duty, one is engaged in a fallacy, and is really engaged in one man's duty.

The individual has a right to pursue his beliefs as long as they follow the social laws. Would you agree?

[JBI]

What are social laws though? The Law isn't democratic is it? It is based on the legal tradition - otherwise the Christian lobby would overpower the Muslim Lobby, who would overpower the Jewish Lobby, who in turn would burn the Atheist Lobby to the ground.

The Law itself reflects naturally a moral code, as prescribed by a constitution, and in the American case, especially the Bill of Rights.

That is the problem - to what extent can the law be applied to minorities, if the majority are theocratic? Where can justice be found?

That is the problem which all advocates of democracy end up fighting - on what grounds do minority rights exist in democracy - most advocates argue for a respect of minority rights, but is that possible?



The problem rests in the separation of religion and morality, which to date hasn't been done.

To what extent can your so called "social laws" exist outside of religion. To what extent are they formed based on the fallacies of religion? Should, for instance, something like Sodomy be illegal in certain states, and if so on what grounds?

When right and wrong get thrown in, religion complicates things, because to the believer, in enough cases, the view of God is the only view, despite the obvious fallacy, and that is used as a tyrannical view over the non-believer.

[Redzeppelin]

I thought I had explained that I genuinely believe the overzealous to be brainwashed cultists, and was not poking fun at anything.

If I told you that I "genuinely believed" that you were a styrofoam cup, a child molester, or a sub-human life form, would that make my views valid? Would that make them less offensive to you? Would you accept my views as reasonable or acceptable simply because I "genuinely believed" them to be true?

And since when is "genuine belief" a basis for empirical truth?

[Dr. Hill]

Yes, I would not be offended. I don't need proof that he is a brainwashed cultist for my concern to be valid, as concern is a part of my interior thoughts, thus opinion. I would not be offended at anything you could formulate about me, because I have confidence that I am not that, or, if I am that, then I admit it.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, I would not be offended. I don't need proof that he is a brainwashed cultist for my concern to be valid, as concern is a part of my interior thoughts, thus opinion. I would not be offended at anything you could formulate about me, because I have confidence that I am not that, or, if I am that, then I admit it.

I guess I'm bothered because what you've done is the equivalent of "racial profiling" or, worse, sheer stereotyping. In other words, if you drew such conculsions about someone based upon their ethnicity or gender, you would be severly attacked for your judgmental and bigoted attitude - primarily because you decided who someone based upon a limited (and unfair) idea as to who certain kinds of people are. In this case, you decide upon very limited information (a post or two in a discussion forum) that someone's religious beliefs equal "brainwashing" - as opposed to other legitimate options. You could never get away with such generalizations about someone based upon their gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation - so why is it OK for you to do so based upon religious belief? How are you any different from the racist, sexist, homophobe in that you have - without bothering to even consider other options (i.e. deep religious belief could be due to study, profound experience or other means than "brainswahing") - decided the character of someone and his/her beliefs?

You can defend that if you wish, but what you've done is not different than that done by the racist, the sexist, the homophobe. Nice.

[Dr. Hill]

I explained what I meant by brainwashed, he seemed, from my judgment, to be repeating something he had heard without formulating the idea himself, hence, brainwashing. What you're doing is making a mountain of a molehill.

"You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain of a molehill-- he knows that himself, he he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness."

-The Brothers Karamazov (a great book I've had the pleasure of beginning not two days ago).

Learn from that. My mistake in words, my unfair judgment of Nikolai, was nothing but an opinion and perhaps a bias of mine. But I have explained that I meant not to insult, and yet, no one will get over it. It was tactless of me, not malicious.

[Hisnibs]

How can a benevolent God find humour in the suffering of his creations? To me if there is an all powerful God the he is sadistic. Any sensible being with the power to ease the suffering of others would chose to do so especially if it within their means.

The posit that just because everything is logical and complex in the universe does not imply that intelligence guided every step of the way. Its possible that god existed before the creation of the universe and employed in his equations the possibility of forming self replicationg molecules through chemical reactions. Therefore even if this god exists "He" does not have to present anymore and nor does "He" have to care.

Good point. Does that mean then that if this god thing exists that he doesn’t need to be revered or worshipped?

People throw the word proof around. If God doesn't exist, you cannot prove a negative. One can say there is no evidence of God, and then one can agree or disagree. But one cannot say that there is proof that God doesn't exist.

That all depends on what you mean by proof though. By definition, atheists don’t postulate the existence of god. If atheists “believe” anything it is the logical disproofs of the logical proofs of god, i.e. omnipotence, for one. If one can make a disproof of it (and oh boy lol there are plentiful!) then there’s your proof right there. If you mean by proof in the material sense then no one has to bother trying to provide material proof of god’s non-existence seeing as there is none for his existence.

Evolution may just be a "theory", but so is gravity, and I don't see anyone denying that.

Uh-oh! Now you’ve done it! Not only do we have to contend with “intelligent ‘design’” constantly in our midst, but now you may very well have created a new one: “intelligent ‘falling’”! lol

Science is based solely on trying to prove things, and succeeding or failing. Evolution is proven through fossils and observing the evolution of bacteria and viruses, which evolve very quickly in comparison to multi-cellular organisms. Science IS proof, what do you mean what proof? They use actual, tangible experiments to prove things. Evolution may just be a "theory", but so is gravity, and I don't see anyone denying that.

Science can prove certain things; some things are evident by themselves and can be retested (gravity, for example); other things are not so - they require that the "evidence" be interpreted (especially if the actual event - the beginning of life - cannot be observed);

The event itself cannot be observed, you are correct. But you can deduct from existing evidence and work backwards (kinda like a detective at a crime scene). Cosmic radiation as well as many features of the current universe as it behaves now is consistent with the big bang theory. It’s actually quite simple.

in order to interpret something, we must apply an interpretive scheme of some sort. The intelligent design theorist applies a different interpretive device to the same "evidence" a secular scientist does (who is applying a different interpretive device - namely, naturalism) and they wind up with two different interpretations of the "evidence." Lots of evidence doesn't necessarily speak for itself.

What an intelligent design theorist has in his arsenal as “evidence” is not actually what could characteristically be described as evidence by the way. What evidence are you postulating? Stories from the bible?

Yes, I would not be offended. I don't need proof that he is a brainwashed cultist for my concern to be valid, as concern is a part of my interior thoughts, thus opinion. I would not be offended at anything you could formulate about me, because I have confidence that I am not that, or, if I am that, then I admit it.

I guess I'm bothered because what you've done is the equivalent of "racial profiling" or, worse, sheer stereotyping. In other words, if you drew such conculsions about someone based upon their ethnicity or gender, you would be severly attacked for your judgmental and bigoted attitude - primarily because you decided who someone based upon a limited (and unfair) idea as to who certain kinds of people are. In this case, you decide upon very limited information (a post or two in a discussion forum) that someone's religious beliefs equal "brainwashing" - as opposed to other legitimate options. You could never get away with such generalizations about someone based upon their gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation - so why is it OK for you to do so based upon religious belief? How are you any different from the racist, sexist, homophobe in that you have - without bothering to even consider other options (i.e. deep religious belief could be due to study, profound experience or other means than "brainswahing") - decided the character of someone and his/her beliefs?

You can defend that if you wish, but what you've done is not different than that done by the racist, the sexist, the homophobe. Nice.

That is one great, big, smelly, giant sh!t sandwich of an association fallacy that you’re forcing Dr. Hill to take a bite of if I’ve ever seen one!

[Virgil]

What are social laws though? The Law isn't democratic is it? It is based on the legal tradition - otherwise the Christian lobby would overpower the Muslim Lobby, who would overpower the Jewish Lobby, who in turn would burn the Atheist Lobby to the ground.

I can't speak for your conuntry but in the US, Judicial process based on legal tradition, law is generated by legislature, people elected to represent their regions.

The Law itself reflects naturally a moral code, as prescribed by a constitution, and in the American case, especially the Bill of Rights.

That is the problem - to what extent can the law be applied to minorities, if the majority are theocratic? Where can justice be found?

I think most people in the US think the Bill of Rights and the admentments added over the years are adequate. I haven't heard either side complaining. We had one problem dealing with race. I can see issues in history over that. It took a good deal and a lot of blood shed to deal with it. Actually it was the religious institutions that pushed for the end of slavery and equal rights. Martin Luther King was a reverend. It was the northeast churches that pushed for the end of slavery.

That is the problem which all advocates of democracy end up fighting - on what grounds do minority rights exist in democracy - most advocates argue for a respect of minority rights, but is that possible?

Are you advocating dictaorship? Or arstocracy? I will be glad to be your king or dictator. I bet you wouldn't want to live under my rules. Seriously, what choice does one have but a democracy? Actually it's a republic, but we know what we mean.

The problem rests in the separation of religion and morality, which to date hasn't been done.

To what extent can your so called "social laws" exist outside of religion. To what extent are they formed based on the fallacies of religion? Should, for instance, something like Sodomy be illegal in certain states, and if so on what grounds?

When right and wrong get thrown in, religion complicates things, because to the believer, in enough cases, the view of God is the only view, despite the obvious fallacy, and that is used as a tyrannical view over the non-believer.

It doesn't even have to do with religion. Religion is a basis of people's morality. Even if religion were gone tomorrow there would still be morality and contrasting views of morality. There are atheists who are anti abortion. It doesn't have to based on religion. If religion were gone tomorrow, you and I would still disagree on most things. I don't know what tyrannical laws you feel. I'm certainly not up on the laws of Canada. But I would think they would be more in tune with yours than mine. Even here there are no religious laws. Even if a state may still have sodomy laws on the books, I've never heard them being inforced.

And what do you mean my social laws? Don't you have social laws in Canada? I assume those are your social laws. Are you really that nihilistic?

[JBI]

Your judges aren't chosen the same way ours are - and because of that, to an extent, you get political judges, and people chosen for their views on certain issues.

Here it is a little different, but to what extent does religious morality, and collective values effect the verdict? Are we to assume the law is fair, and in favor, of, lets say, Homosexual Rights? To what extent? What about the rights of other minority groups? What about, for instance, Handicap people, or, for instance, poor people?

The fact that rich people can afford to go to court, can buy better lawyers, and sue more people attests to the imbalances, and disadvantages automatically put on the lower class. A rich person can sue on whim, a poor person generally cannot.

A rich person, therefore, can lobby the government harder, and get their wants put forward, whereas a poor person generally cannot. That is why the Jewish Lobby, and the Gun Lobby, and the lobbyists from major corporations get more say. That is why religion, and the collected consciousness of people affiliated with religious groups get more of a vote than those who aren't.

And as to social laws, I was merely using your term, which you used one post above mine. And yes, I would say I am a border-line nihilist.

[Dr. Hill]

Here comes the crucifixion.

[ShoutGrace]

With regard to the opening post, I believe in God primarily for the following intellectual and (as far as I can tell) emotional reasons:

1 – The absolute beginning of the Universe out of nothing a finite time ago. (This is evidenced not only by the overwhelming majority of scientific data on the subject, but also through philosophical reasoning.)
2 – The fine tuning of the physical constants in our Universe, which is necessary for any kind of life permitting Universe at all. (This fact really isn’t disputable anymore – the cause of the fine tuning of physical constants is disputable, but the fact that it exists is not. I recognize also that the term “fine tuning” may be seen to be imprecise.)
3 - The existence of objective moral values.
4 – The historical evidence regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Science is based solely on trying to prove things, and succeeding or failing.

As far as I can see, a good scientist is not trying to prove anything, but rather trying to understand the way the natural world is constituted, the way it behaves, and for what reasons. A good scientist vigorously tests his hypothesis, trying to disprove it.

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” - Einstein

“The future is under no obligation to mimic the past.” – David Hume

Any single exception or discrepancy obliterates the viability of calling repeatedly observed phenomena a “law of nature.” It is for this reason, I think, that science is more about testing than confirming.

I didn't say I didn't believe in God. I was referring to people who claim that there is "proof" that God doesn't exists. You can't prove a negative. One has to keep ruling out an endless list of possibilities and reach a conclusion or God then does exist. And what the circumstances of our knowledge is today may completely change tomorrow. So one can never be sure with a negative.

I would say that there is an exact way to prove that something does not exist – show that the thing could not possibly exist because the very concept of the thing is logically incoherent. An example of this would be a married bachelor. There is not such a thing in existence anywhere. Another example is a circular triangle (where “circular” and “triangle” are taken in their precise geometric understandings).

This method has been employed in theological ponderings before. Can God, who is omnipotent, create something that is so heavy even He cannot lift it? What about the nature of omnipresence? How can God possibly be “everywhere present” and yet “transcend” time and space? I pose these questions merely as examples, and do not expect any answers.

The point is, since a total proof cannot be found, the use of a God in any argument becomes fallacious. One cannot say God created the world, without saying "I believe God created the world".

Can one use a body of evidence that, when taken as a whole, clearly indicates a given conclusion, though doesn’t prove it?
I think that in order for this discussion to be fruitful, we need to come to terms and distinguish the myriad concepts being implicitly bandied about here – i.e. “rational” v.s. “irrational,” “episteme” v.s. “doxa.”
According to some, we have no knowledge that the physical world even exists. We simply take it on faith and behave as though it does. I am, however, prepared to take any statement having to do with the physical world as meaningful, and regard it as something that can be reasonably discussed among intelligent beings (though perhaps epistemologically I lack any “concrete justification” for doing so).

One cannot say "it is wrong to do this" when the grounds for the "wrong" are all scripture based.

But aren’t there different ways of acquiring moral knowledge? I think that here you fail to distinguish between the epistemology of moral values (how we come to apprehend and perceive them) with the ontology of moral values (their status in reality). One can argue on philosophical grounds alone that something is wrong without needing to quote any Scripture. My understanding that it is wrong to torture toddlers for the fun of it does not derive from any scrutiny of religious texts.

I am more comforted that when I die nothing exists than with the notion that I'm going to burn in hell for all of eternity.

I don’t see any reason to think that a place of eternal torment exists, and I think even a “fundamentalist” Christian could say that (the Catholic Church recognizes Universalism as possibly true, for example).

I can respect religion to an extent, but this "I believe because it makes me who I am, and makes me comfortable," is pure rhetoric. That isn't a reason to believe in something, it just shows the inner cowardice of the believer.

I also don’t think that mere intellectual comfort is sufficient reason to believe something (though I disagree with the spirit of the last part of your statement).

That day forward, I stopped believing in the power of prayer, and began bel[i]eving in the power of action.

I too believe in the power of action . I don’t think that these two concepts are in opposition, however. I think a longer view of prayer could be employed beneficially here. There is a time and place for both, and action must never be forsaken. Prayer can be seen as an action as well.

How can a benevolent God find humour in the suffering of his creations? To me if there is an all powerful God the he is sadistic.

It is the consensus of philosophy that as long as it is even possible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering, then it shows that there is no logical contradiction between God’s being omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and there being great suffering. So conceptually I think this formulation of the “problem of pain” is impotent. The emotional and personal understanding of a God who would permit suffering, however, is serious and meaningful. I think one can approach that angle successfully from a Christian perspective.

Honestly, if you believe in a supreme being controlling everything, then you believe that supreme being wanted everyone who is suffering to suffer, everyone who is hurting to hurt, everyone who is killed pointlessly to be killed.

Is “permitting” the same as “wanting”? Can a person permit something while lamenting its happening?

The only consultation given is that in Job, which tells us that god can do whatever he wants, make us suffer whatever he wants, and despite that, we are not aloud to question them.

Incidentally, I think this goes directly to the heart of the profundity of the book of Job. I think you are incorrect in saying that Job teaches that we are not allowed to question God. Job spends 30 chapters questioning God energetically and critically, even unto the point of blasphemy. I think the method, form, and structure of Job provides one possible way of understanding the existence of evil, pain and suffering in our lives.

Just to loose faith in God because of 9/11, I don’t know how far it is correct.

I don’t think we can speak in terms of “correct” and “incorrect” in a situation like this. Wiesel's “Night” provides the most vivid and terrifying example of this that I know of in literature.

[Dr. Hill]

With regard to the opening post, I believe in God primarily for the following intellectual and (as far as I can tell) emotional reasons:

1 – The absolute beginning of the Universe out of nothing a finite time ago. (This is evidenced not only by the overwhelming majority of scientific data on the subject, but also through philosophical reasoning.)
2 – The fine tuning of the physical constants in our Universe, which is necessary for any kind of life permitting Universe at all. (This fact really isn’t disputable anymore – the cause of the fine tuning of physical constants is disputable, but the fact that it exists is not. I recognize also that the term “fine tuning” may be seen to be imprecise.)
3 - The existence of objective moral values.
4 – The historical evidence regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

What historical evidence would that be? The Romans, known for precise keeping of records, make no mention of the crucifixion of Christ. He probably existed, that's about as confirmed as any other historical figure, but he was just one of many Jewish teachers, in my opinion. Not a bad guy by any means, but not the messiah of anything.

[weltanschauung]

"we believe in nossssing, lebowski! NOSSSING!"

[Redzeppelin]

"You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain of a molehill-- he knows that himself, he he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness."

-The Brothers Karamazov (a great book I've had the pleasure of beginning not two days ago).

Learn from that. My mistake in words, my unfair judgment of Nikolai, was nothing but an opinion and perhaps a bias of mine. But I have explained that I meant not to insult, and yet, no one will get over it. It was tactless of me, not malicious.

Please don't use Dostoyevsky to lecture me with - I've read The Brothers twice, and there is far more in it to lecture you with. Your attempt to make your insulting langugage my issue merely attempts to deflect the reality that your "mere" opinion unfairly treated someone; however, all I really wanted was for you to do what your last sentence in your post finally did. Thank you. Nikolai is a friend of mine, and if you were a friend of mine, I'd have stepped up for you as well, had someone else dismissed you as you did him.

What an intelligent design theorist has in his arsenal as “evidence” is not actually what could characteristically be described as evidence by the way. What evidence are you postulating? Stories from the bible?

You're not really familiar with intelligent design theory, are you? ID does not use the Bible for any "evidence" - the Bible was not written to provide any evidence. ID scientists look at that same fossils, the same whatever that evolutionary scientists look at - and when they examine the evidence, they arrive at different conclusions. That's all I meant to say. Evidence does not always speak for itself.

That is one great, big, smelly, giant sh!t sandwich of an association fallacy that you’re forcing Dr. Hill to take a bite of if I’ve ever seen one!

Thanks for your eloquent assessment - I do not believe I'm "forcing" anybody to do anything. I drew a comparison that I though valid - just like Hill expressed an opinion he thought valid. I questioned the fairness of that opinion. You disagree - so?