Why believe in God?

[water]

Why believe in God?


I heard that


The Bible never tells us why we should believe God exists, only what kind of faith we must have.


How come the Bible never tells us *why* we should believe God exists?

The probably most common answer to this is

"Because if you don't.. you'll go to hell and face God's wrath! Oh wait, this is the exact reason the Bible gives to make us believe in God."

But I find this an answer not worth of much further theological or philosophical attention. It certainly is a commonly practiced threat, and very effective. But it is also just a reflection of a certain interpretation of the Christian religion.



I assume the above may even be a wrong question -- in which case I would like you to explain why do you think it is a wrong question. That is, what line of thinking can produce this kind of question, and what about this thinking is inconsistent, or a cognitive/emotive dissonance.

 

[top mosker]

Because the bible isn't a book about logic and the higher functions of the human brain. It's about subservience to a paternal authority.

 

[marv]

"For too long we have put off unto the gods those things that we should be doing for ourselves."

A. E. Haydon, "The Biography of the Gods"​

 

[zanket]

Why believe in God?

Good question! To know God it helps to believe in it. To know God is beneficial. For example, you will realize that everyone is immortal, which puts things into a perspective that can add a lot of peace to your life. You will know more about your life, that you chose your life for a purpose, and that will affect your decisions in a way you can benefit. You can use God as it is meant to be used, as a kind of servant or genie to command or seek wisdom from.

 

[Jan Ardena]

water,

How come the Bible never tells us *why* we should believe God exists?

Because God's existence is not the issue.

"Because if you don't.. you'll go to hell and face God's wrath! Oh wait, this is the exact reason the Bible gives to make us believe in God."

I'm not sure that i've seen any scripture (including the bible) that says hell beckons if one does not believe God exists, or if one does not believe in God. Maybe you can shed light. As far as I can tell, one goes to hell through perfomance of selfish actions which harms other living beings.

I assume the above may even be a wrong question -- in which case I would like you to explain why do you think it is a wrong question.

If it is a true enquiry then the question could never be wrong, what will be interesting is how you will react to the answer. This is how the intention of you enquiry will manifest.

Jan Ardena.

 

[water]

How come the Bible never tells us *why* we should believe God exists?

Because God's existence is not the issue.

Why not?

I think this is the crucial point in the whole discussion about why believe in God and about the function of the Bible, and also of other scriptures.

"Because if you don't.. you'll go to hell and face God's wrath! Oh wait, this is the exact reason the Bible gives to make us believe in God."

I'm not sure that i've seen any scripture (including the bible) that says hell beckons if one does not believe God exists, or if one does not believe in God. Maybe you can shed light. As far as I can tell, one goes to hell through perfomance of selfish actions which harms other living beings.

Well, as a nonbeliever, reading the Bible, one very easily picks up this hostile and threatening message.

Then help us out here, how come we pick up this hostile and threatening message so easily?

If it is a true enquiry then the question could never be wrong, what will be interesting is how you will react to the answer. This is how the intention of you enquiry will manifest

Maybe the term "wrong question" isn't the best. But whenever we ask questions, this reflects our certain line of thinking (combined with our values and preferences, experiences, emotions).

Compare this question: "What did the people in the WTC towers do wrong that they were punished with death?"
It suppses at least the premise "One is killed if one does something wrong." -- but we cannot accept it as valid. Yet the person wants an answer, and in order to give a meaningful answer, we'd have to explain the whole thinking that lead to askign that question, and explain what in that thinking are unsupportable premises.

Same with my question.

 

[camphlps]

when job asked why to God, he anwsered with a series of questions. So ur question is no "problem". Even God questions us about his own existence.

i find that the bible is historical documentation of others who believe. Up to the new testament at least. From there is series of letters to the churches in asia and antiarch., whatver its called.

A couple of reasons to believe in God:
1. The obvious, is something had to create something. Even empirical science will show this. That matter is never destroyed nor created, but only changes.
2. The next obvious, people believe in what they see first. the works of God shown to people is a strong influence.
3. Other reasons is people like to have a sense of hope... God shows himself as a care'n diety. People want some one bigger looking out for them.

Im sure there are many...however u are correct, as far as ive seen. The bible doesnt directly say why anyone should believe in God, rather than to go to Hell.

But, during Christ's life, people asked him about salvation or just life, either everlasting in heven or in this world. I believe that was what the focus of Jesus' teachings were on. But today's world is different then back when...

So its up to YOU to decide what is YOUR reason to believe/not believe in God or anything.

 

[Jenyar]

Well, as a nonbeliever, reading the Bible, one very easily picks up this hostile and threatening message.

Then help us out here, how come we pick up this hostile and threatening message so easily?

That's because there is a hostile and threatening message in the Bible. But it is not aimed at getting people to believe God exists, but to get them to have the right kind of faith. It says "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death" (Proverbs 14:12 & 16:25).

The Bible has no reason to be politically correct, especially not if God is who he said He is. It does not teach love as an alternative to belief, but as neccessary for belief.

 

[Dreamwalker]

well, historically, the bible was compiled to be handed out to wandering priests, so they had some texts on which they could preach to spread the word of god. But it was only an aid, the real work was for the priests, not for the book. Only when more people could read, they could take the book and had no need to listen to the priests. But this was not the way it was intended to be used... this is still true today.

 

[duendy]

If i asked you, "do you believe in air?" what would you answer? surely the question would seem daft, because you are breatingh air all the time, you don't HAVe to believ in it.......'do you believe in trees...animals, water, yur body..? etcetera. the evidence is already very much tangible...right

so it was for direct experience of god before the patriarchs put a stop to it. DIRECT spiritual experience MEANS what is says. you ACTUALLY experience ecstasy. there is no doubt
But wehn you prohibit THAt, and then create a dogma which defies this experience as AWAY from the experiencer--so that you make the god into a 'G'od up in the heavens--a 'ghost' that is transcendntal, distant, and who commincates not through direct inspirational ecstasy and insight, is when they expect you to 'believe' in 'God'
then all you have is blind faith. if you are gullible enough to fall for this propaganda,........
of course there was a long period when the very memory of actual direct spiritual experience as inspired by hallucinogenic sacraments was suppressed. so one cannot blam people if memory is oppressively suppressed. But now is different. this ifno can be got. if not, then it is more evasiveness to know the truth on the part of the believer or non-believer

 

[Neildo]

How come the Bible never tells us *why* we should believe God exists?

Why? Well, why should the Bible tell us why to? If a God exists, so what? Exactly what are you going to be able to do? Worship it? What if God pays no attention to worshippers? If there is a God, he/she/it is on so high of a scale compared to us that it doesn't really matter. Just continue to live life as you do, no biggie.

Another reason why I don't think the Bible tells us why to believe that a God exists is because from what the Bible is based off of (Sumerian texts and mythology, etc), God(s) DID exist back then so there is no reason to say why someone should believe in God(s) when you can interact with and see him/her/it/them with your own two eyes. Hey look, there's a tree. You GOTTA believe that trees exist! See?

The only reason we need for a God(s) existing is in the Dark Ages of today with the lack of God(s) presence. Only when you're unable to see and interact with him/her/it do you need any proof or reason to believe. Once the Gods of mythological texts show themselves again, we'll all believe. However, that will have nothing to do with the almighty creator of all God as we'll never have proof of him/her/it other than his/her/its creations we see all around us.

- N

 

[Leo Volont]

The Bible never tells us why we should believe God exists, only what kind of faith we must have.

Some people are so logical it keeps them from thinking.

The Bible is all about Divine Revelation. Think about that for a moment and see if you can anticipate what I am about to say.......

Once God Appears to you, then the issue is no longer whether or not God Exists -- His Appearing Demonstrates Existence. That is what all the Divine Revelation in the Bible was about -- material demonstations of God's Existence. lAfter His appearing, then it all becomes a matter of determining God's Will and following it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

water,

Why not?

Because there was no reason for that question to arise. Nowadays with increased knowledge of how the universe works, and technology, people are more inclined to question His existence. Which is a good thing.

I think this is the crucial point in the whole discussion about why believe in God and about the function of the Bible, and also of other scriptures.

Today, the term atheist means no belief in the existence of God, gods, or supernatural beings. Back in the day an atheist was someone who didn't acknowledge God's superiority, and as such worked to gratify his own senses. In short they had lost faith in God.
So the function of the Bible (partly) is to reestablish ones faith.

Well, as a nonbeliever, reading the Bible, one very easily picks up this hostile and threatening message.

Is that the only message you pick up?

Then help us out here, how come we pick up this hostile and threatening message so easily?

Because there is hostility in humans which is due to misunderstanding of reality. A white man may be hostile to a black man (or vice-versa) because he thinks he is better, due to the fact that he has a white body. He indoctrinates his wife and children, they do the same, next you have communiities, societies, nations, all based on a misunderstanding. Eventually there are wars and such like. Ultimately nobody benefits, materially everything becomes destroyed, spiritually, we are bankrupt, because we have spent our lives working for other people who only want power, women, fame and so on. So we go to hell because hellishness would have become our natural condition due to ignorance. God plays the role of being hostile to this condition because one should be hostile to it, but not at the point where we destroy each other, but the point where it begins. God intervenes when everything is hopeless and destroys the whole lineage so that mankind has a chance of redemption.
The Bhagavad Gita, which is to scripture to study to understand the nature of God, states;

"Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend Myself. In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium."

Compare this question: "What did the people in the WTC towers do wrong that they were punished with death?"
It suppses at least the premise "One is killed if one does something wrong." -- but we cannot accept it as valid. Yet the person wants an answer, and in order to give a meaningful answer, we'd have to explain the whole thinking that lead to askign that question, and explain what in that thinking are unsupportable premises.

Sometimes people are also killed because they did something right, so that premise has no basis.
The fact is people get killed, always have and always will, this is the reality, and thus there is no point in questioning why. The better question to ask is probably, how can we learn to cope with these situations, as they can and do happen at anytime and place.
Maybe "God exists" is the reality and there is really no point in questioning why.

Jan Ardena.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Some people are so logical it keeps them from thinking.

and some people are so delusional, it keeps them from reality.

 

[water]

Because there was no reason for that question to arise.

EXACTLY.

But this is unthinkable to us now!
As you said,

Nowadays with increased knowledge of how the universe works, and technology, people are more inclined to question His existence. Which is a good thing.

We can't think the way those of old thought. I think this is part of the desperation that non-believers feel when facing questions about the existence of God.

But tell me: Why do you think it is a good thing that people are more inclined to question God's existence?
As this is a way to compensate for the increased knowledge; a way to get through the veil that this increased knowledge created?

I think this is the crucial point in the whole discussion about why believe in God and about the function of the Bible, and also of other scriptures.

Today, the term atheist means no belief in the existence of God, gods, or supernatural beings. Back in the day an atheist was someone who didn't acknowledge God's superiority, and as such worked to gratify his own senses. In short they had lost faith in God.

But ideally, atheists (both those of old and those of today) believe in God's existence, but have no faith in God? That is, not believing in the existence of God equals not having faith in God?
It seems to me that nowadays, in an environment with increased knowledge (compared to the days of old), one actually technically does believe in God even if one is an atheist -- believes in the sense that God is just one of those many informations and data that we have stored in our heads and libraries, but as long as they are merely informations and data to one, they don't live up to being worthy of having faith in.

Well, as a nonbeliever, reading the Bible, one very easily picks up this hostile and threatening message.

Is that the only message you pick up?

We first see what jumps at us, or barks at us. And if it jumps and barks, then we don't seek closer contact.

The hostile and threatening message isn't the only one I pick up, but it certainly is the dominating, and all others (including the one of love) are stained by it.

Then help us out here, how come we pick up this hostile and threatening message so easily?

Because there is hostility in humans which is due to misunderstanding of reality.

Hm. I don't really know how to comment to what you've said, but there is certainly at least another explanation:
Threats and the appeal to fear are the arguments that are the most hard to deal with. While we can overcome strawmen, false dichotomies, non sequiturs and most others with some cognitive effort, threats and the appeal to fear are something that we cannot simply handle with the mind. Those arguments demand a different approach, as what they attack is not the structure of the argument, but the integrity of the reader.

I suppose they reach their goal though: Religious belief should not be just a cognitive pastime, it should be something that envolves the whole person, in all aspects. And hence such an integrity-challenging approach (from the side of the Bible) *is* much in place.

A white man may be hostile to a black man (or vice-versa) because he thinks he is better, due to the fact that he has a white body.

This just reflects a certain ascribing of causality -- but to say it is a "misunderstading of reality"?

Maybe "God exists" is the reality and there is really no point in questioning why.

I sometimes think so too.

 

[wesmorris]

Given this observation: You and Jan seem to presume a correlation between the bible and god.

Perhaps it's time for the question: Why do you think that a book about god has anything to do with the question of god? Certainly it attempts to probe the question, but that says nothing as to correlation with reality.

Maybe "god exists" and maybe it doesn't is the reality. It is when you choose to accept an answer to the question that you indulge in fantasy.

 

[water]

Given this observation: You and Jan seem to presume a correlation between the bible and god.

Yes. But not in the sense of the Bible being definitory about God -- my position here is in opposition to the traditional view of those who claim that God is defined by what the Bible says.
Also see my thread "Bible versions" -- where we are delving into the issue of faith in regards to the fact that there are so many editions/versions of the Bible.

Perhaps it's time for the question: Why do you think that a book about god has anything to do with the question of god? Certainly it attempts to probe the question, but that says nothing as to correlation with reality.

Maybe "god exists" and maybe it doesn't is the reality. It is when you choose to accept an answer to the question that you indulge in fantasy.

"Maybe "god exists" and maybe it doesn't is the reality" -- you do realize that you can make such a claim ONLY IF YOU KNOW OBJECTIVE REALITY, don't you?

DO YOU KNOW OBJECTIVE REALITY?


The way you have your thinking system conceptualized, it is such that it does not allow for God, or any absolutes for that matter. It is thoroughly relativistic. And whatever statements theists and other may make about God, or other absolutes, those statements will necessarily be false in your thinking system.
But, at the same time, your system being relativistic, it must allow even for the option that some other system may be absolutistic -- but this is then inconsistent with your other demand, that demand of ultimate relativism!

 

[wesmorris]

"Maybe "god exists" and maybe it doesn't is the reality" -- you do realize that you can make such a claim ONLY IF YOU KNOW OBJECTIVE REALITY, don't you?

Untrue, that statement says in equivalence: You can't know about objective reality. That the reality is that you can't know about about what the reality is, isn't my fault. *smirk*

The way you have your thinking system conceptualized, it is such that it does not allow for God, or any absolutes for that matter. It is thoroughly relativistic. And whatever statements theists and other may make about God, or other absolutes, those statements will necessarily be false in your thinking system.

Not false, indeterminate.

But, at the same time, your system being relativistic, it must allow even for the option that some other system may be absolutistic -- but this is then inconsistent with your other demand, that demand of ultimate relativism!

That some other system is absolute doesn't matter. It's an instance. It finds itself absolute, but isn't from my perspective, meaning really it isn't at all or my perspective would be irrelevant - which to me, it can't be if I'm to survive.

One's assumptions are absolute to that individual. If there is skepticism regarding an account of absolution, a stalemate is inevitable. One cannot know this absolution unless they know it... unless they assume (or experienced - which I categorize as assumption) it. Once assumed, it's circular and pointless to debate.

Thus a dichotomy exists for each instance of disagreement. In one reality it is, one it isn't. Actually in it exists in each - an instance of perception modulated from objective stimulous onto a necessarily subjective template. That is relativism. That one instance may be more aligned with "objective reality" in expressing their perception of it, is entirely irrelevant to the matter of absoluteness. Perspective instances reality... observational distance = reality of relativism.

That's not to say one shouldn't assume whatever is convenient to their perception of survival, or that one can't rationally strongly suspect, hope, want or predict that objective reality is what they think it is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

water,

But tell me: Why do you think it is a good thing that people are more inclined to question God's existence?

So we don't become complacent.
This is only a temporary arrangement.

As this is a way to compensate for the increased knowledge; a way to get through the veil that this increased knowledge created?

We have increased knowledge, but what use is that knowledge on a day to day, social, personal, basis. Does the Einsteins law of relitivity affect your personal life? Is it constantly in your mind when you socialise, in your love affairs? Is it required in order to love or be loved? Can you eat and drink it?
I'm not saying it is unecessary or not brilliant and praise-worthy, but it sure doesn't occupy any part of my real day to day life.

That is, not believing in the existence of God equals not having faith in God?

To me this is the true face of atheism.

It seems to me that nowadays, in an environment with increased knowledge (compared to the days of old), one actually technically does believe in God even if one is an atheist -- believes in the sense that God is just one of those many informations and data that we have stored in our heads and libraries, but as long as they are merely informations and data to one, they don't live up to being worthy of having faith in.

That's pretty much how i see it, although i wouldn't have expressed it like that.

We first see what jumps at us, or barks at us. And if it jumps and barks, then we don't seek closer contact.

The first thing would be In the begining God created the heavens and the earth. By the time hostility comes, one should understand why there is hostility.

The hostile and threatening message isn't the only one I pick up, but it certainly is the dominating, and all others (including the one of love) are stained by it.

What about God breathed life into a body? Surely this forms part of the basis of your initial interest in reading the bible?

Hm. I don't really know how to comment to what you've said, but there is certainly at least another explanation:

If i suddenly said; Well f... you then, if you don't agree with me...a..hole!
What would your analysis be?

A white man may be hostile to a black man (or vice-versa) because he thinks he is better, due to the fact that he has a white body.

This just reflects a certain ascribing of causality -- but to say it is a "misunderstading of reality"?

Is it possible that a person could be better than another because of the colour of his skin? Bear in mind 'better' meaning completeley, not just at a particular thing.

Jan Ardena.

 

[water]

Untrue, that statement says in equivalence: You can't know about objective reality. That the reality is that you can't know about about what the reality is, isn't my fault. *smirk*

No, you are once more assuming that you know objective reality.
"That the reality is that you can't know about about what the reality is" is the statement of someone who implies to know objective reality -- inspite claiming it is objective reality that objective reality cannot be know.
Spinnnnnnnnnning in circccccccccccclessssssssss.

That some other system is absolute doesn't matter.

It matters inasmuch that you can never accept it as absolutistic due to you being a relativist.

One's assumptions are absolute to that individual. If there is skepticism regarding an account of absolution, a stalemate is inevitable. One cannot know this absolution unless they know it... unless they assume (or experienced - which I categorize as assumption) it. Once assumed, it's circular and pointless to debate.

Thus a dichotomy exists for each instance of disagreement. In one reality it is, one it isn't. Actually in it exists in each - an instance of perception modulated from objective stimulous onto a necessarily subjective template. That is relativism. That one instance may be more aligned with "objective reality" in expressing their perception of it, is entirely irrelevant to the matter of absoluteness. Perspective instances reality... observational distance = reality of relativism.

And this is how we speak different languages, and will never truly understand eachother.

That's not to say one shouldn't assume whatever is convenient to their perception of survival, or that one can't rationally strongly suspect, hope, want or predict that objective reality is what they think it is.

You make it all sound so arbitrary -- that it gives me the creeps!
It's grotesque: it's like saying to a fat, ugly woman, "Suspect that you are thin and beautiful and go to a beauty pagent!"


* * *

But tell me: Why do you think it is a good thing that people are more inclined to question God's existence?

So we don't become complacent.

But then the other trap is becoming complacent in believing in the omniscience, omnipotence of science.
I see what you mean though.

We have increased knowledge, but what use is that knowledge on a day to day, social, personal, basis. Does the Einsteins law of relitivity affect your personal life? Is it constantly in your mind when you socialise, in your love affairs? Is it required in order to love or be loved? Can you eat and drink it?
I'm not saying it is unecessary or not brilliant and praise-worthy, but it sure doesn't occupy any part of my real day to day life.

Exactly! I've been hunting for some concise and succint arguments, and this is one of them. Thanks.

All that fancy science -- and what does it, in *my* everyday life, in things that really matter to *me*, mean to *me*? Do I fall asleep, thinking of them, with a smile on my face? No.

The antibiotics against parodonthosis for my cat -- what is more to me, my cat's health, or the chemical ingeniousity that was necessary to develop those meds? No doubt that it is my cat, no matter how fancy the meds.

Oh, and relativity does affect my personal life: I fight relativity wherever I can, now that I know how to spot it.

That is, not believing in the existence of God equals not having faith in God?

To me this is the true face of atheism.

And because "I don't have faith in God" would sound too much like something coming from a believer, the atheist says "I don't believe in the existence of God". But he means the same -- he doesn't have faith in God.

It seems to me that nowadays, in an environment with increased knowledge (compared to the days of old), one actually technically does believe in God even if one is an atheist -- believes in the sense that God is just one of those many informations and data that we have stored in our heads and libraries, but as long as they are merely informations and data to one, they don't live up to being worthy of having faith in.

That's pretty much how i see it, although i wouldn't have expressed it like that.

How would you express it?

The first thing would be In the begining God created the heavens and the earth. By the time hostility comes, one should understand why there is hostility.

True. But religious tradition and practice made sure we first see what jumps and barks at us.
Not to use religious tradition and practice as arguments for first picking up the hostile message in the Bible -- just as an explanation how come I first pick up the negative message.

What about God breathed life into a body? Surely this forms part of the basis of your initial interest in reading the bible?

Personally, I started reading the Bible at the Revelation. (Long story.)

If i suddenly said; Well f... you then, if you don't agree with me...a..hole!
What would your analysis be?

In this particular case, knowing that you are Jan Ardena, knowing some of your posts, and that I've had conversations with you before (my previous user name was RosaMagika), I would say that you saying to me "Well f... you then, if you don't agree with me...a..hole!" would be a meta-statement of you testing my understanding and consistency, and as such I would not take it seriously, as a personal attack.
I would make it clear to you though that this is the way I took it.

Is it possible that a person could be better than another because of the colour of his skin? Bear in mind 'better' meaning completeley, not just at a particular thing.

Whether it is possible or not is a matter of someone's values and preferences. Certain values and preferences can be very hostile towards other people; and those who hold such values and preferences certainly believe there is a causal relationship between a person's worth and their skin colour.

But to say this is a "misunderstanding of reality" is to say one knows what reality is -- or what it should be.

Personally, I don't think a person's worth is determined by their skin colour. I find it extremely challenging though to produce arguments for my stance, to defend it.