How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[Taymond]

This is how we get around the problems of universal doubt. There are many basic fundamental assumptions that we deem to be "rational" and make on a daily basis.

So if that is your definition of me "having faith in something" then yes. But I would say that such a phrase is misleading at best, and is designed entirely to misrepresent my viewpoints.

Well, I haven't exactly followed this whole thread since.. I just joined the room this week, so I don't really know what previous comments directed at you, AltF4, have been, so I don't know how much of what I'm about to say applies.

But that's sorta the point, I guess. The fundamental assumptions are certainly reasonable, but they're not guaranteed. They could be wrong. So when people claim that faith is irrational, they need a little reminder that everyone has to take an early assumption on faith, and then build their carefully constructed reality of "facts" around it. Everyone one of those facts hinges on an early assumption that cannot be proven, and falls apart should that prove false.

Faith isn't irrational, it's a necessity.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I made a thread a while ago on A Priori knowledge. This discussion might make more sense under that topic. It's deviated quite a bit from religion.

Yes, quite true.

Speaking of which, could we reconstitute/revive the A Priori knowledge thread?

 

[behemoth]

Well, I haven't exactly followed this whole thread since.. I just joined the room this week, so I don't really know what previous comments directed at you, AltF4, have been, so I don't know how much of what I'm about to say applies.

But that's sorta the point, I guess. The fundamental assumptions are certainly reasonable, but they're not guaranteed. They could be wrong. So when people claim that faith is irrational, they need a little reminder that everyone has to take an early assumption on faith, and then build their carefully constructed reality of "facts" around it. Everyone one of those facts hinges on an early assumption that cannot be proven, and falls apart should that prove false.

Faith isn't irrational, it's a necessity.

Faith is a necessity insofar as the way the human mind and system in general works (as far as I see it): the mind needs to define a base, needs to assume certain things in order to process new information. This is why the sphere of our questioning grows as our age does.

But yes, I think that this would fit better in an a priori knowledge thread, because the great skeptic and thinkers along those lines have a lot to say on the matter.

 

[AltF4]

Taymond, yea, I agree with you. All I'm saying is that using the phrase "faith is not irrational, it is required" is a bit misleading. Because you inevitably then turn around and try to apply it to god and say, "hey, look! A belief in god can't be irrational!". But it still can.

Faiths in general aren't categorically all irrational, but there can be dumb ones still. Anyone who seriously believes in the flying spaghetti monster is being irrational.

 

[The Executive]

Humans are irrational beings. We do things sometimes that don't necessarily agree with logic, self-preservation instincts, or other sets of rules that as logical creatures we should follow by default.

Religion/faith in God by definition is not something that can be rationalized in the scientific sense without accepting prior statements known to be unverifiable (i.e. God exists).

 

[snex]

whatever basic premise you are using to construct further arguments, you are NOT USING FAITH! holding an assumption tentatively because it produces predictable results is NOT FAITH.

as altf4 said, you people are only claiming it is to mislead and misdirect. the way you think about your religion is NOT tentatively holding an assumption because it produces predictable results. your belief is god is NOT tentative, and it does NOT produce predictable results.

 

[behemoth]

Okay, I want to bring this back to an earlier section of the thread which was largely overlooked:
Satan.

If you accept, as do most, that Satan was a fallen angel, and you also accept that the Angels were creations of God, then you have to accept that God has evil in him. Here is why:

There can be nothing in the creation that is not in the creator. To put it in discrete math terms, Satan is a subset of God. He may have everything that God has, but he can have nothing that God doesn't have.

With me so far? Well if Satan was fallen because he was greedy enough to attempt to overthrow God, then doesn't that mean that God must have the spark of greed in him.

Therefore, God cannot be only good, all good.

 

[RDK]

Okay, I want to bring this back to an earlier section of the thread which was largely overlooked:
Satan.

If you accept, as do most, that Satan was a fallen angel, and you also accept that the Angels were creations of God, then you have to accept that God has evil in him. Here is why:

There can be nothing in the creation that is not in the creator. To put it in discrete math terms, Satan is a subset of God. He may have everything that God has, but he can have nothing that God doesn't have.

With me so far? Well if Satan was fallen because he was greedy enough to attempt to overthrow God, then doesn't that mean that God must have the spark of greed in him.

Therefore, God cannot be only good, all good.

It's not so much even that as it's that the concept of the Christian God is a ridiculous, contradictory, self-defeating deity, in more ways than one.

Most arguments by Christians against God being the creator (and therefore ultimate source) of evil is that God created everyone with the CAPACITY to sin, so that we're not all "robots" or something. But why even do that? This basically begs the question that God is unable to create a reality where true love can still be expressed without a sinful alternative.

 

[adumbrodeus]

whatever basic premise you are using to construct further arguments, you are NOT USING FAITH! holding an assumption tentatively because it produces predictable results is NOT FAITH.

I could use the assumption that I can affect people's chi by certain kinds of vibrations to produce predictable results...

Tai Chi does exactly that.

Obviously there are other reasons why it's effective, and "chi" was just the given reason for biological effects.

That is the reason why science is not founded upon simple predictability, but clear causation.

Without that clear line of causation it is a leap of faith as to what precisely causes the reaction because there are an infinite number of possible causes.

as altf4 said, you people are only claiming it is to mislead and misdirect. the way you think about your religion is NOT tentatively holding an assumption because it produces predictable results. your belief is god is NOT tentative, and it does NOT produce predictable results.

Actually, religions were formed to give consistent explanations to natural phenomenon.

Regardless, this isn't about religion versus science right now. This is about your belief in reality.

It is you who has acted like faith is a dirty word and all faith was equivalent when AltF4Warrior on the other hand said:

Faiths in general aren't categorically all irrational, but there can be dumb ones still.

It's simple, you can't function without a little faith, namely that the universe exists, or that the sun won't explode tomorrow, both of which are quite possibly false.

Now, the question becomes "what faith is irrational"?

Okay, I want to bring this back to an earlier section of the thread which was largely overlooked:
Satan.

If you accept, as do most, that Satan was a fallen angel, and you also accept that the Angels were creations of God, then you have to accept that God has evil in him. Here is why:

There can be nothing in the creation that is not in the creator. To put it in discrete math terms, Satan is a subset of God. He may have everything that God has, but he can have nothing that God doesn't have.

With me so far? Well if Satan was fallen because he was greedy enough to attempt to overthrow God, then doesn't that mean that God must have the spark of greed in him.

Therefore, God cannot be only good, all good.

That assumes that greed is discrete from all that is good.

It's quite possible that greed is a good thing taken to beyond a certain extreme. In fact, it is entirely possible that every evil is a good taken to an extreme, or improperly combined with another good.

Just something to chew on, intellectually speaking.

 

[The Executive]

It's quite possible that greed is a good thing taken to beyond a certain extreme. In fact, it is entirely possible that every evil is a good taken to an extreme, or improperly combined with another good.

Just something to chew on, intellectually speaking.

Interesting. This merits thought.

 

[RDK]

Interesting. This merits thought.

This is just another way of saying that all actions are relative to one's own moral compass. The idea that there are no absolutes.

 

[adumbrodeus]

This is just another way of saying that all actions are relative to one's own moral compass. The idea that there are no absolutes.

Not really, it's actually nuanced objective standards, where actions taken to different degrees are either good or bad.

For instance, acting on the desire to acquire possessions is inherently good when you need said possessions to survive (basic foodstuffs for example).

On the other hand acting on it to acquire unnecessary that requires cheating another to obtain would not be, and would be inherently bad.


What I did not suggest immediately was that situation also dictated what level of an action was bad or good, however it was implied.


For a concrete example, take potassium consumption, it's needed for your body, but consume over a certain amount and it becomes a poison.

 

[behemoth]

Well, I was raised Roman Catholic, and went to a Baptist academy for 4 years, so I've had my share of dogmatic prattle thrown at me. One of the truths that (most) Christians hold dear is that God occupies the opposite of the spectrum from evil.

An example they give is that in the Old Testament, if a priest came in to view the Ark of the Covenant, and had sinned, they would be struck dead.

Evil and God cannot occupy the same space, oil and water, yada ya.

The point remains that one cannot conceive of something outside one's own frame of reference. Since he did create the angels, including Lucifer, and since Lucifer attempted to overthrow God violently, God must have those drives and emotions within himself.

 

[verditude]

The point remains that one cannot conceive of something outside one's own frame of reference. Since he did create the angels, including Lucifer, and since Lucifer attempted to overthrow God violently, God must have those drives and emotions within himself.

Note: Since I'm defending the Christian concept of God as perfect, my answers will be based on actual Reformed Christian doctrine, not whatever the Catholics/Baptists taught you.

According to the Christian doctrine of omniscience, nothing is beyond God's frame of reference. God has/had knowledge of everything that will happen/has happened, ever. This includes knowledge of sin, too; God could not ban sin if he did not know what it was.

However, this does not mean that God is not perfect. As creator, God defines the word "perfect" and states that he is such in the Bible.

I think that your conclusion that God must have evil drives does not apply to an absolute being who foreknew everything since the beginning of time. God knew that Lucifer and people would rebel. However, he did not force them to rebel; he allowed them to do so, so that He would be glorified through his triumph over Lucifer and salvation of mankind. God's allowance of sin into the world was not, in itself, sinful.

 

[The Executive]

Note: Since I'm defending the Christian concept of God as perfect, my answers will be based on actual Reformed Christian doctrine, not whatever the Catholics/Baptists taught you.

According to the Christian doctrine of omniscience, nothing is beyond God's frame of reference. God has/had knowledge of everything that will happen/has happened, ever. This includes knowledge of sin, too; God could not ban sin if he did not know what it was.

However, this does not mean that God is not perfect. As creator, God defines the word "perfect" and states that he is such in the Bible.

I think that your conclusion that God must have evil drives does not apply to an absolute being who foreknew everything since the beginning of time. God knew that Lucifer and people would rebel. However, he did not force them to rebel; he allowed them to do so, so that He would be glorified through his triumph over Lucifer and salvation of mankind. God's allowance of sin into the world was not, in itself, sinful.

Kudos. I was contemplating the same concept, but couldn't quite verbalize it in the 10min. of time I currently have. Your response is nice and coherent, so I applaud.

However, this is all based on the assumption that you take the Bible's statements about God as fact. I do, obviously you do as well, but many other people on this forum are unwilling to make that jump for the sake of an argument.

 

[behemoth]

God, then, can not be all good and perfect at the same time. Defining God as good (which is dogma, see: "God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good") narrows God. If God is only good, how could he create something evil?

Decide: Is God good, or is God all-encompassing.

If all-encompassing means "contains all that is", then God cannot be only good.

Btw, what is "Reformed Christian?" it sounds generalized to me, and as such should either not contradict a sect's dogma, or should not reference itself as being a sect.

 

[ComradeSAL]

@Behemoth:

Somehow, a chunk of molten plasma erupts from the sun with a force so powerful that it escapes the sun's gravity. As the chunk of molten plasma gets farther from the sun, it cools considerably, and after a long time has passed it has cooled to be almost absolute zero.

But this is impossible! How could the chunk of matter be cold if it came from the sun?

Ergo, I have proven that the sun is not completely hot. There must be some cold spots somewhere inside it.

However, he did not force them to rebel; he allowed them to do so, so that He would be glorified through his triumph over Lucifer and salvation of mankind.

I'm a little confused by your terminology here. Why would God want to be glorified if he is perfect and knows that he is perfect? What does it mean to "be glorified?"

 

[verditude]

However, this is all based on the assumption that you take the Bible's statements about God as fact. I do, obviously you do as well, but many other people on this forum are unwilling to make that jump for the sake of an argument.

I know. I'm just providing an answer that is consistent with Christian doctrine and states that God is perfectly good. The fundamental issue here is whether or not Christian doctrine is self-contradictory; I'm defending that it isn't.

God, then, can not be all good and perfect at the same time. Defining God as good (which is dogma, see: "God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good") narrows God. If God is only good, how could he create something evil?

Decide: Is God good, or is God all-encompassing.

If all-encompassing means "contains all that is", then God cannot be only good.

Btw, what is "Reformed Christian?" it sounds generalized to me, and as such should either not contradict a sect's dogma, or should not reference itself as being a sect.

I think ComradeSAL's illustration answers your point well; God did not create Lucifer or mankind evil, just as the sun doesn't spit out cold objects. They were created with the ability to be "cooled" by sin.

I'm sorry my phrasing confused you, I probably should've just said "Reformed" or "Calvinist", neither of which is Catholic, and both of which have been abandoned to some degree by the Baptists.

Somehow, a chunk of molten plasma erupts from the sun with a force so powerful that it escapes the sun's gravity. As the chunk of molten plasma gets farther from the sun, it cools considerably, and after a long time has passed it has cooled to be almost absolute zero.

But this is impossible! How could the chunk of matter be cold if it came from the sun?

Ergo, I have proven that the sun is not completely hot. There must be some cold spots somewhere inside it.


I'm a little confused by your terminology here. Why would God want to be glorified if he is perfect and knows that he is perfect? What does it mean to "be glorified?"

Thanks for the illustration. As for your question, a synonym for "glorified" could be "acknowledged", just in a more extreme sense. According to the Bible, God wants to be, and deserves to be, worshipped by his creation for all that he has done for them, including offering mankind a way out of their punishment for breaking His law. If sin did not exist, God would be hardly acknowledged, as our lives would be perfect. We wouldn't need God for anything. Thus, God made man corruptible.

 

[snex]

does verditude seriously think what he just said makes any sense at all?

a perfect being deliberately creates imperfect beings that will fall short of his perfect rules and therefore deserve to be punished because the perfect being says so. so the perfect being comes up with a plan to sacrifice himself (but not really) to himself so that anybody who believes in the sacrifice will avoid the punishment that they deserve because the perfect being created them imperfectly. except... not everybody believes in the sacrifice so most of the imperfect people still get punished.

its amazing how mind-numbingly stupid theology gets when people refuse to just re-examine their premises.

 

[AltF4]

If I were god, I wouldn't want praise from my creations. Doesn't that make me more virtuous than god? It sure does seem callous and vain to create a race of beings for the sole purpose of getting praise about how cool you are. It's kind of sad, actually.

 

[RDK]

If I were god, I wouldn't want praise from my creations. Doesn't that make me more virtuous than god? It sure does seem callous and vain to create a race of beings for the sole purpose of getting praise about how cool you are. It's kind of sad, actually.

THIS THIS THIS THIS. It's what I've been saying all along.

 

[Deleted member]

Try looking at God like a mother with children, and I think you'll see the way people view God as a loving creator.

Mother Nature ring a bell?

That being said. If real, I don't think God's intention would be to create races to affirm his ego. In fact, I think God makes a whole lot more sense when seen as a woman.

 

[RDK]

Try looking at God like a mother with children, and I think you'll see the way people view God as a loving creator.

Mother Nature ring a bell?

That being said. If real, I don't think God's intention would be to create races to affirm his ego. In fact, I think God makes a whole lot more sense when seen as a woman.

That is a ridiculous statement. You shouldn't view God as a loving mother with kids because he's NOT. According to the Christian viewpoint, he's an all-powerful, omnipotent being, and should be regarded as such.

I don't correlate God's supposed relationship with humans as a human-to-human relationship any more than I view the Sun as a giant tangerine in the sky.

Point being, the Christian view of God is flawed and self-defeating.

 

[Deleted member]

When have I said that I'm Christian?

Why should their view of God force mine into assimilation?

The Christian view of God may very well be flawed and contradictory, however, I'm not Christian. So try again.

 

[snex]

Try looking at God like a mother with children, and I think you'll see the way people view God as a loving creator.

i wonder what your mother would do if you were starving and dying of a disease that she could cure with a snap of a finger.

ever wonder why god doesnt do it?

 

[Deleted member]

I don't claim to know the innermost secrets of the universe, Mr. Havlicek.

Also, omnipotency is subject to Christian theism. Omnipotence was not mentioned one bit in my previous post.

 

[snex]

your god has enough power to create our universe, but not enough power to feed a mere 6 billion humans?

and you brought up the analogy, so to claim that you dont know the innermost secrets of the universe is somewhat disingenuous. you are claiming to know exactly that - an innermost secret of the universe when you say that god exists and loves us. and then when its pointed out to you how absurd this is, you try to distance yourself from it.

why dont you just admit that the entire idea of god is silly to begin with? why do you insist on asserting things about him/her/it and then acting like you didnt do so?

 

[The Executive]

why dont you just admit that the entire idea of god is silly to begin with? why do you insist on asserting things about him/her/it and then acting like you didnt do so?

I find the idea that there is no God to be equally inane. I see little purpose in believing that this is all there is to life; that we, like other mere animals, are born, mature, reproduce, and die. It seems like a terrible waste of resources on nature's part to imbue us with attributes such as emotion, morality, higher-level brain functioning, etc. if when it all boils down we essentially accomplish no more than a jackrabbit, merely with more bells and whistles. There has to be a higher meaning to life.

 

[snex]

your ignorance is not an argument for anything other than your ignorance.

any time you try to argue for something by saying "i dont see how it could be otherwise" you should just not bother posting, because it really means you have no argument.

 

[ComradeSAL]

I actually find it more comforting to think of things like the Holocaust as random than planned.

 

[Deleted member]

your god has enough power to create our universe, but not enough power to feed a mere 6 billion humans?

and you brought up the analogy, so to claim that you dont know the innermost secrets of the universe is somewhat disingenuous. you are claiming to know exactly that - an innermost secret of the universe when you say that god exists and loves us. and then when its pointed out to you how absurd this is, you try to distance yourself from it.

why dont you just admit that the entire idea of god is silly to begin with? why do you insist on asserting things about him/her/it and then acting like you didnt do so?

There is a very blatant line between claiming to know secrets of the universe and positing a possible explanation.

If you cannot make the distinction, you are either ********, or you simply have a very misinformed view of logic and epistemology.

Unfortunately for you, both scenarios are not fit for debate, and are certainly not worth wasting time on.

You continue to erroneously state that I assert things about God - yet you failed to read my post where it talks about the general public personifying God as a woman. Just so you don't miss my drift the second time around, I don't assert with any certainty that God is really Mother Nature. It is simply a possibility.

Calling this idea absurd when you have not proven its inherent absurdity is ridiculous.

 

[The Executive]

your ignorance is not an argument for anything other than your ignorance.

any time you try to argue for something by saying "i dont see how it could be otherwise" you should just not bother posting, because it really means you have no argument.

Note how my post started with the word "I", denoting an opinion. And you're right; I don't have an argument because it's impossible to logically debate something (God) that doesn't logically exist without first accepting an illogical starting point (there may be a God).

I am merely expressing a belief. God is the sole reason I draw breath; I have devoted my life to Him in return. Any time I hear someone reject the notion that He even exists as "silly", it sets me off.

Note: if this posts twice or in some other random fashion, the site erased this the first time I posted it.

 

[RDK]

Note how my post started with the word "I", denoting an opinion. And you're right; I don't have an argument because it's impossible to logically debate something (God) that doesn't logically exist without first accepting an illogical starting point (there may be a God).

I am merely expressing a belief. God is the sole reason I draw breath; I have devoted my life to Him in return. Any time I hear someone reject the notion that He even exists as "silly", it sets me off.

Note: if this posts twice or in some other random fashion, the site erased this the first time I posted it.

Let me pose a serious question about your faith, if I may.

You stated that "God is the sole reason I draw breath; I have devoted my life to Him in return." Let me ask you, then, what made you do this? Was it personal experience? Or did someone convince to you through logic that God exists?

Not trying to be rude, but it just boggles my mind that people actually devote their entire lives to something that might not even be there.

But then again, people can do whatever makes them happy. Who am I to question.

 

[behemoth]

The sun analogy is completely illogical, lacking, and very typical of the inane responses I get when I try to debate this subject with anyone who believes the way you do.

However, it is so off-the-wall that it will take me some time to intelligently respond. Well, that, and I have a huge fundamentals of computer technology project to finish (designing a two-button mouse from the ground up using combinatorial circuits), so I will use this post as a holder for my response.

But really, you think that comparing dust ejected from the sun, which is subject to concrete energy and matter principles, is an apt analogy for a discussion on the nature of God, and abstract concepts of good and evil?

Really?

 

[The Executive]

Let me pose a serious question about your faith, if I may.

You stated that "God is the sole reason I draw breath; I have devoted my life to Him in return." Let me ask you, then, what made you do this? Was it personal experience? Or did someone convince to you through logic that God exists?

Not trying to be rude, but it just boggles my mind that people actually devote their entire lives to something that might not even be there.

But then again, people can do whatever makes them happy. Who am I to question.

Will do. I'll have to type it up tomorrow, as it's getting late. I understand where you're coming from.

In the meantime, try and keep that Brawl debate thread alive. It's on life support.

 

[ComradeSAL]

The sun analogy is completely illogical, lacking, and very typical of the inane responses I get when I try to debate this subject with anyone who believes the way you do.

However, it is so off-the-wall that it will take me some time to intelligently respond. Well, that, and I have a huge fundamentals of computer technology project to finish (designing a two-button mouse from the ground up using combinatorial circuits), so I will use this post as a holder for my response.

But really, you think that comparing dust ejected from the sun, which is subject to concrete energy and matter principles, is an apt analogy for a discussion on the nature of God, and abstract concepts of good and evil?

Really?

No, not really. I'm an agnostic.

The real reason that the analogy is so difficult to intelligently respond to is that we are talking about abstract terms that we don't really understand. The analogy is meant to point out that you are assuming good and evil work a particular way, when there is no reason to believe that this is the case. Good and evil could very well work in a way that Christianity (and my sun analogy) suggests, or they could not exist at all.

In other words, even though I don't really believe in God myself, I am taking issue with your insistence of a contradiction in Christian dogma where there is none.

 

[snex]

No, not really. I'm an agnostic.

The real reason that the analogy is so difficult to intelligently respond to is that we are talking about abstract terms that we don't really understand. The analogy is meant to point out that you are assuming good and evil work a particular way, when there is no reason to believe that this is the case. Good and evil could very well work in a way that Christianity (and my sun analogy) suggests, or they could not exist at all.

In other words, even though I don't really believe in God myself, I am taking issue with your insistence of a contradiction in Christian dogma where there is none.

if good and evil work in the way your analogy suggests, then god is either not omnipresent, or he is not (omnipotent + omnibenevolent), and therefore christian dogma is false.

for somebody who claims not to be a theist, you sure easily fall into the same basic fallacies that uneducated theists fall into... you think that if you show how some supposed problem with god doesnt contradict premises 2, 4, and 12, that you have somehow solved the problem; completely ignoring the fact that your "solution" still contradicts all the other premises.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Snex: could you explain further? You haven't made it exactly clear where the contradiction lies in my analogy, and if it's at all possible I'd like to avoid the same old "stop LYING about my position" statements that you seem so fond of.

 

[Flaming Dragon Wang]

I am an atheist because I cannot find a reason to spend my life worshipping a figure whom I am not sure even exists. I'm a man of logic, and there is no logical reason for the existence of God.

God is a hoax. There is no superior being that governs our lives, and there is no heaven. We're in this alone.

Prove me wrong.

 

[snex]

the christian god is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent (among other things).

if this is true, then evil cannot exist. if evil exists, then it is either somewhere god is not (he isnt omnipresent), or he is unable or unwilling to remove it (he is not omnipotent and omnibenevolent).