Why I believe in God?

[Redzeppelin]

Children are born atheists. They have no understanding of monotheism. They are more like primitive or prototype scientists, always questioning. give a child enough freedom to question and they will rarely become religious believers

Some problems with this post:
1. Is there anything beyond your opinion to substantiate your claim that children are "born atheists"? Since the majority of atheists - it would seem - tend to be naturalists and claim empiricism as the basis of reality and understanding, I would think you'd have more than just your opinion (since we Christians get dinged for our opinions about the nature of reality that can't be scientifically proven).
2. According to the Bible, all men are born with an innate knowledge of their Creator (sorry - don't have a specific text handy - apologies for that); unfortunately, sin clouds that knowledge and that is why we teach our children about God and why we read the Bible - so that that innate encoding makes more sense.
3. The idea that children left to simply question will not believe is fallacious for a number of reasons; first, a childish view of the world would seem to indicate that the sun revolves around the earth and that at night it sinks into the ocean (if you live on the west coast). Second, depending upon whom the child questions, the answers will be different (and often equally subjective). If you teach a child that the world possesses only a material existence, then yes - the child will grow up unbelieving. If you teach the child that matter is not the full frame of reality, well, the outcome might be a bit different.
4. Many of the questions asked by children and adults alike are unanswerable by science or naturalism.

Atheism is not a "natural" condition - it is a chosen condition. The greatest strivings of philosophers, artists, musicians and writers have always been to seek after the greater purposes of life, to fathom the mysteries of existence, to identify that restless longing of the heart. All those things point to something larger than ourselves, prompting us to find that thing which lies outside of us. If atheism were "natural" - well, I doubt that history would be littered with the overhwhelming evidence that all people have believed in something larger than themselves through which they and the universe take a greater, more profound meaning.

[blazeofglory]

This question whether God exists or whether children were atheists by birth is really a classical question and of course great treatises have been written on this debate and are still being written persistently. I do not think children are innately atheists. Theisms and atheisms are certain philosophical notions and children are not philosophers. Indeed they are questioners. The idea of God came to us by thinking evolutionarily from time immemorial and I do not surmise that children do not keep on thinking. They wonder at what they observe around them, the beauty and immensity of nature. Maybe they do not think the way we do after reading books of theologies that conditioned us to think about Biblical or Islamic or Hindu Gods and goddesses. If they cannot think up mythological ideas of Gods with certain sizes, faces and capacities but nevertheless they may think there must be some grand intelligence or something that integrates all animate and inanimate beings. For, man has the capacity for thinking and children think and are more imaginative than adults and this presupposes the fact that Children are atheists. We kind rational fools hypothesize ideas of theism and atheism woven out of what we have learned from others or books. People who choose to call themselves atheists, fashioning ideas of atheism out of swanky predisposition think they are rationalists, empiricists, scientists and those who believe in God are dogmatists or irrational. But the fact is both theists or atheists or the whole gangs of scientists, philosophers cannot conclusively say that God exists or does not in point of fact. They simply theorize ideas and those so called atheists by hinging on those theorized ideas make a series of conjectures and confuse the common man. I am not siding with both, theists and atheists biasedly or fixedly with sets of ideas or theorists. People may brand me as unprincipled or something like that. I am open to ideas, to both theists and atheists and love to discuss as an unprejudiced individual with no preconceived notions of things.

[Babbalanja]

Many of the questions asked by children and adults alike are unanswerable by science or naturalism.

And how, pray tell, does supernaturalism answer the profound questions of our existence? Faith merely makes people trade honest doubt for the most hollow certainty. Religion short-circuits the process of inquiry by making people repeat empty affirmations as many times as it takes to convince them that they're answers to the big questions.

Regards,

Istvan

[virginiawang]

It's not that they cannot explain god scientifically. It is that there is no proof of god, and plenty of proof against god.

That's rhetoric for they are too afraid to change their minds, when faced with overwhelming evidence against god.

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.

The fact that you don't feel God does not alter the fact that soembody else does feel Him. You cannot deny everything you don't understand or never perceive as non-existent because it is a bizzar world full of wonders that may shock people into idiots at any moment. Can you possibly have seen all events, felt all the unknown, or understood all the miraculous in the universe? NO. Then try to be modest.
Evidence tells nothing. It only offers a certain amount of proof to anything you wish to know, but it can escape the real truth. Who knows? You may have no evidence to prove that you are not lying when you are actually teling the truth, but you may have a great deal of evidence to prove what you're saying when you are in fact telling sheer lies.
Please respect the wonder of the world, some of which may not have reached you yet.

[Redzeppelin]

And how, pray tell, does supernaturalism answer the profound questions of our existence? Faith merely makes people trade honest doubt for the most hollow certainty. Religion short-circuits the process of inquiry by making people repeat empty affirmations as many times as it takes to convince them that they're answers to the big questions.

Regards,

Istvan

A belief in God supplies us with answers that science cannot - questions concerning our origins, our human nature, the problem of sin, the existence of morality and the purpose of human life. Science dismisses all of these things into mere random forces - which drains all thought, all words, all actions of meaning.

The certainty is only "hollow" if God isn't real. Science can neither confirm or deny God's existence - so it's dismissal of Him is premature.

The affirmations are only empty if God isn't real. If He isn't real - neither you nor I will ever know; if He is real - you and I will BOTH know.

I don't get where being a believer implies a lack of intelligence, critical thinking ability and logic. Science cannot answer all questions; that many people choose to accept its hypotheses and theories as fact simply suggests that many people are afraid of the unknown; I prefer to say the jury is still out on a number of important matters.

[Babbalanja]

A belief in God supplies us with answers that science cannot - questions concerning our origins, our human nature, the problem of sin, the existence of morality and the purpose of human life. Science dismisses all of these things into mere random forces - which drains all thought, all words, all actions of meaning.

You didn't answer my question. What answers does belief provide? At least scientific research has given us provisionally reliable information on our real origins and the evolutionary basis of much of our behavior. It seems that credulity merely allows the believer to think whatever he wants.

I don't get where being a believer implies a lack of intelligence, critical thinking ability and logic. Science cannot answer all questions; that many people choose to accept its hypotheses and theories as fact simply suggests that many people are afraid of the unknown; I prefer to say the jury is still out on a number of important matters.

But the religious approach to the unknown is actually less honest and more fearful of the unknown than the scientific approach. The religious believer has certainty because he already affirms the validity of the Bible, and considers it a virtue to keep believing regardless of new information. The empirical researcher only has statistical confidence in his beliefs, because he realizes that new information could change or refute what he currently believes. Which approach is actually more accepting and curious about the unknown?

You say science can't answer all questions, and I agree. But as I said before, religion only pretends to answer them.

Regards,

Istvan

[Redzeppelin]

You didn't answer my question. What answers does belief provide? At least scientific research has given us provisionally reliable information on our real origins and the evolutionary basis of much of our behavior. It seems that credulity merely allows the believer to think whatever he wants.

Christianity tells us how the universe began, where humanity came from, why we do the things we do to each other, the origin and composition of "evil" and the definition of of "good," as well as the solution to the problem of human pain/evil. It establishes that the universe is ultimately just and that we as human beings have meaning and purpose - that life is intentional and significant.

Science has a limited view; what it can do (assess the material world and its contents) it does exceptionally well (though we often find as time goes on that science's assessments need to be revised); what it fails to have the ability to do is answer those questions that Christianity does answer. Science can only speculate and theorize about our origins; it cannot verify its theories in any concrete way - it may only argue circumstancially, using subjective tools in the process. That science can explain how the universe appears to function doesn't mean that it can do everything; it cannot prove/disprove the existence of God, neither can it fully account for the origins of life or the universe itself.

Believers do not believe "whatever they want." That is an oversimplification of something far more complex and profound.

But the religious approach to the unknown is actually less honest and more fearful of the unknown than the scientific approach.

Don't see how this is true. It's only "less honest" if it's wrong, and science has not proven that conclusively; it has taken circumstancial evidence that is open to interpretation and then prematurely called out "case closed," but that doesn't prove anything. You'll have to clarify the "fearful" part for me.

The religious believer has certainty because he already affirms the validity of the Bible, and considers it a virtue to keep believing regardless of new information. The empirical researcher only has statistical confidence in his beliefs, because he realizes that new information could change or refute what he currently believes. Which approach is actually more accepting and curious about the unknown?

You assume that "new information" somehow contradicts the Bible. Archeological finds over the last 30-40 years continue to affirm the Bible's claims by verifying the existence of people and locations that scholars once (mistakenly) asserted didn't exist. I think the scientific community is guilty of the same thing - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Bible is accurate, yet plenty of people continue to dismiss it as "fairy tales" and "myths."

The empirical researcher also is not completely objective in his/her pursuit of knowledge. Science sometimes involves objective tools of interpretation (like mathematics); other times it must rely upon more subjective methods of interpretation. If I begin from the mindset that there is no such thing as a spirtitual dimension to reality, then all my conclusions will reinforce this belief; if I believe that a spiritual dimension exists, then my scientific conclusions will lean that way (hence intelligent design): both scientists look at the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions because both began from a specific philosophical foundation upon which they assessed their evidence.

You say science can't answer all questions, and I agree. But as I said before, religion only pretends to answer them.

Regards,

Istvan

Again - you beg the question: "pretends" is only accurate if Christianity/religion is wrong; but that has not been irrefutably established.

[Babbalanja]

Christianity tells us how the universe began, where humanity came from, why we do the things we do to each other, the origin and composition of "evil" and the definition of of "good," as well as the solution to the problem of human pain/evil. It establishes that the universe is ultimately just and that we as human beings have meaning and purpose - that life is intentional and significant.

Again - you beg the question: "pretends" is only accurate if Christianity/religion is wrong; but that has not been irrefutably established.

Well, you believe the "answers" Christianity gives you regardless of whether science validates them, so why should you care if science contradicts them?

The Genesis account of creation is as fascinating as any ancient creation story. However, it's also no more consistent with what science has discovered about the formation and development of the universe and Earth than any of the rest. I wouldn't have expected the ancients to be privy to such knowledge. However, since you do, you simply choose to believe what's in the Bible.

Both of the Genesis accounts of where humans came from are similarly poetic and metaphorical. Neither jibes with what the overwhelming evidence from archaeology, molecular biology, and comparative morphology tell us: that we share ancestry with all life through a long process of evolution. If a believer rejects the evolution of species by natural selection, he does so because he wants to believe Genesis.

As far as the morality and justice inherent in the universe, religious belief is simply an excuse for complacency. It sets up a construct that is validated regardless of what we observe in our universe: if things appear just, it's because there's justice in the way things are. If things do not appear just, it's only because we're not equipped to understand the ineffable wisdom of the Almighty. So birth defects, trypanosomes, liver flukes and all the rest of the things that make the innocent suffer are assumed to be part of God's plan by the believer.

That life is significant is exactly the opposite of what religion teaches. By defining this life as a mere warm-up for the afterlife, religious belief denigrates human endeavor and trivializes human suffering. Only by believing that this life is all we have can we be motivated to strive for justice here on Earth.

Believers do not believe "whatever they want."

That's exactly what they believe. And, as you demonstrated above, they also believe whatever they want about what they believe.

Regards,

Istvan

[NikolaiI]

Well, you believe the "answers" Christianity gives you regardless of whether science validates them, so why should you care if science contradicts them?

The Genesis account of creation is as fascinating as any ancient creation story. However, it's also no more consistent with what science has discovered about the formation and development of the universe and Earth than any of the rest. I wouldn't have expected the ancients to be privy to such knowledge. However, since you do, you simply choose to believe what's in the Bible.

Both of the Genesis accounts of where humans came from are similarly poetic and metaphorical. Neither jibes with what the overwhelming evidence from archaeology, molecular biology, and comparative morphology tell us: that we share ancestry with all life through a long process of evolution. If a believer rejects the evolution of species by natural selection, he does so because he wants to believe Genesis.

As far as the morality and justice inherent in the universe, religious belief is simply an excuse for complacency. It sets up a construct that is validated regardless of what we observe in our universe: if things appear just, it's because there's justice in the way things are. If things do not appear just, it's only because we're not equipped to understand the ineffable wisdom of the Almighty. So birth defects, trypanosomes, liver flukes and all the rest of the things that make the innocent suffer are assumed to be part of God's plan by the believer.

That life is significant is exactly the opposite of what religion teaches. By defining this life as a mere warm-up for the afterlife, religious belief denigrates human endeavor and trivializes human suffering. Only by believing that this life is all we have can we be motivated to strive for justice here on Earth.

That's exactly what they believe. And, as you demonstrated above, they also believe whatever they want about what they believe.

Regards,

Istvan

One problem with this is that you begin by critiquing Christianity but then switch to speaking about all religious people. Now what you say would be true if it were corroborated by evidence. If you saw Christians, Hindus, and the rest behaving completely disrepectfully or worse toward all life.

There is good and bad in all people. But let me speak of some of the good people I know, of those religions. For instance the Christians I know and respect have a deep respect for life, considering it sacred. There is a creed within Christianity which says they are supposed to be "Good stewardship." And there are many Christians who realize that our stewardship of this planet has not been up to standard and they are working to change it.

Similarly, there are Christians who do understand that it's also wrong to kill animals as well as humans, and so they have become vegetarian. Or at least they may give up the buying of meat where it comes from factory farms, etc.

But again there is good and bad in all of us. You say that religion is all negative, basically, or in effect, and I am just pointing out that this is not true at all. Nor is it true that Christians (I will just speak of them as it seems that is the religion you are most familiar with) are all good. There is a deep fallacy a lot of Christians hold, generally the more fundamentalist ones, and that is also one of negative viewing. They say, if you have said one lie, then you are a liar. They actually say this. Now why not the reverse? Why not if you have said one kind word, you are a kind person? But they generally run by emotion and cannot see the glaring fallacy there.

But as for whether God exists; that is not dependent on what we see here. The shadow is dependent upon the person, but the person is not dependent on the shadow. So many have eloquently projected their inner visions of God and I do not have really the ability; but I have experienced the divine consciousness and can tell you from experience it is real. It can be hard to come out of the illusion, because there are billions of people on the planet reinforcing it, but once you become free of the illusion, you then realize it was always nothing.

[G4C Chiodos]

A way to answer the " Why does God allow Evil and Wrong to take place" questions. God allows us to be put through trials everyday. And people that attempt these trials either pass them or fail. If you pass then it could lead to something good or another trial. If you fail then it could have the same outcome as if you were to pass it. God simply allows Satan to tempt us all. Its basically a giant test. If everyone would resist the temptation of Satan then I believe the world would be a better place. That doesn't mean that it would be, That's just what I believe.

[Lacra]

All Praise is for God and all Power is His. He is our Lord and with Him is the end of all journeys.
Why I believe in God? Leaving alone the spiritual experiences and reasons I do have strong logical reasons which lead me to belive unconditionally in God. People use to say that there is no logical reasons to believe God exists. But... there are powerful arguments as:
1. There is an Unique Designer for the whole Universe including time, space, energy and matter - everything is so organized that I can't belive in nature doing so.
2. God's existence is clearly evident and easily traceable in unlimitated signs and proofs manifested in the creation of numberless atoms, cells, tissues, muscles, and everyone and everything created. How can I, as educated person, ignore all these evidences?

[lupe]

All Praise is for God and all Power is His. He is our Lord and with Him is the end of all journeys.
Why I believe in God? Leaving alone the spiritual experiences and reasons I do have strong logical reasons which lead me to belive unconditionally in God. People use to say that there is no logical reasons to believe God exists. But... there are powerful arguments as:
1. There is an Unique Designer for the whole Universe including time, space, energy and matter - everything is so organized that I can't belive in nature doing so.
2. God's existence is clearly evident and easily traceable in unlimitated signs and proofs manifested in the creation of numberless atoms, cells, tissues, muscles, and everyone and everything created. How can I, as educated person, ignore all these evidences?

If you are really an educated person, please go back to your science books and find out that all these have nothing to do with gods. The arguments of "intelligent design" and "beauty" have been debated for decades now and most deists don't even used them a lot anymore.

[NikolaiI]

All Praise is for God and all Power is His. He is our Lord and with Him is the end of all journeys.

...

Hello Lacra!

That was a very beautiful post and thank you so much for posting it! I agree completely with what you said, and I think it's important to find out these answers for ourselves, within, rather than being too influenced by the zeitgeist around us or of society.

I would also add two ideas of logical reason for God. The first is that the existence of the infinite exists in the maths, and so it is logical by similarity to understand this as evidence that the infinite exists in philosophy, ontology, or reality, or spirit.


The second is that everything has a source. We can understand that everything which exists in the universe has a source, and it is logical to think the universe also has a source. Now sometimes people will ask what this means, and they remain unconvinced. They aren't stirred by it. But what it means is that there are more levels of reality than at first glance. (But since when did first glance ever reveal real knowledge?!)

So the source of the universe is a more real existence, so to speak. Its relation to us is like our relation to a computer game, or a novel, or a dream. That's why, yes a very logical, a highly advanced, and not superstitious why, that Muslims and Hindus both say that God is the only reality. Muslims have a sacred phrase for it... I don't know what the Sanskrit equivalent is, though it was the main tenant of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

[Babbalanja]

I would also add two ideas of logical reason for God. The first is that the existence of the infinite exists in the maths, and so it is logical by similarity to understand this as evidence that the infinite exists in philosophy, ontology, or reality, or spirit.

But infinity actually doesn't exist in mathematics. There's no number n for which you couldn't say n+1, right? It's true that the concept of infinity is symbolized as ∞ , but that's simply because it can't be defined mathematically.

And the reason for this is relevant to your argument. Graphing a function like y = 1/x, you notice that the lower the positive value of x, the higher the value of y. But you can't divide 1 by zero, so the y value of the function when x=0 is said to be an infinitely large number, or ∞ .

So in the for-us-by-us system of mathematics, the infinite is just a concept we created to deal with the reality of nothingness. By implication, then, what does this say about the concept of the infinite in the for-us-by-us construct of religion?

Regards,

Istvan

[Lacra]

If you are really an educated person, please go back to your science books and find out that all these have nothing to do with gods. The arguments of "intelligent design" and "beauty" have been debated for decades now and most deists don't even used them a lot anymore.

Thank you for your suggestion... I never stopped to study and to develop myself as a normal educated person ( At least, I hope so! ). You said that the deists concluded that accidentally, the mother nature created and developed all those. Well this is their opinion and I do have my personal opinion as well. Or I don't have the right to write my ideas, even badly expressed?
I understand that you display the postmodern attitude. That's great but exactlly the science books you were referring to, made me able to understand that there is an unique Designer in the background.