Why do you have belief in a god?

Great Debates
81

please prepare yourselves for the wrath of my schizophrenia, for this post is going to be all over.

be very very careful, Mithrilhawk, that you know precisely what you mean by intent, and that you are sure that it indeed exists.

on:

this is one of the more strikingly fallacious arguments as proof that god exists. at least to me. consider the state of the world’s oceans at time t. the likelihood that the oceans will ever be in that state again is nil. yet it occurred. through causes that are relatively observable. when you’re dealing with a set as large as everything, the likelihood that anything happens is nil. indeed, there is 0 probability for the existence of god. if we consider time and space continuous, there is exactly 0 probability that i am in the place where i am right now. i could be in infinitely many other locations. but i’m here. i don’t consider that divine. as far as life goes, the probability that life began spontaneously at a given time t is nil. but over the course of 8 to 20 billion years, across the span of the universe, the sample space is so great that at one point, the chances aren’t quite so low.

on logical proofs of god’s existence: usually these can be used to prove some ridiculous conclusions, like that yellow polka-dotted purple rhinocerous that is sniffing me right now, who i’m quite sure i couldn’t have thought up if he didn’t exist as he does. but since i haven’t dealt with the ontological argument in a while (also because this has been on my mind), i’ll give the example of pascal’s wager:

the bet: to believe or not to believe in an infinitely benevolent god.
the expected value of believing: infinitely high.
the expected value of not believing: at most finitely high.
the choice: to believe.

it goes like this, if you believe in god, you get to go to heaven if he’s real, and you’re no worse off than SOL if he’s not. if you don’t believe in god, you might get to brag about it if he’s not real, but you’re in a world of hurt if he is real, or at least worse off than you would be if he wasn’t. so by calculating the expected value of this game of chance, we reach the values mentioned above. the problem is, suppose your choice is whether to believe or not believe in a god that rewards you infinitely for leading a murderous and impious life, or more to the point, for not believing. there are a few hidden assumptions here that lead to the conclusion, that aren’t necessarily granted.

lastly, i’d like to illustrate many arguments stated so far in the following conversation. please note the fallacy, and ask yourself if it applies to you:

a: “why does anything exist? why isn’t there nothing?”
b: “because god exists, and created it all.”
a: “how do you know god exists?”
b: “because everything i see exists, and it couldn’t without god.”

82

Fair enough; there certainly can be tension between the ideas of science and the ideas that people might hold about God, but there needn’t be; for me it tends to be horses for courses; Science is about what and how, religion (in the common definition of the word) tends to be about why.

83

I’m not going to argue for a literal interpretation of Genesis, but that isn’t a paradox, it’s just a piece of drivel; presumably you’re suggesting that apples can’t grow in a warm climate; that may be true (although I’ve been to some quite warm places and seen apples growing), but where does it say in the Bible that the fruit was an apple?

84

Sorry if it seems I’m picking on you, Beatlez, it’s just that your posts intrigue me.

You said: “I know that schools aren’t supposed to teach the secular version of creation.”

Does this mean your school does not teach big bang / evolution type stuff? I attended Catholic school, and I assure you, I learned science in science class (including a full dose of “secular creation”) and religion in religion class (Genesis–but not necessarily literally–and how God can integrate quite nicely with the otherwise “secular creation” such as providing souls to man at some point during the evolutionary timeline, etc.). Maybe all that is coming in upper grades???

85

I don’t think anyone has asked for logical proof for the existence of God.

I think one of your most glaring assumptions here is the assumption of a Judeo-Christian God that rewards people for belief and punishes people for non-belief. Clearly, this is not the case for everyone.

86

No. If you’ll use any definitions, and apply them rigorously, you’ll be on the right track.

It’s bad form to reiterate a premise of an argument in its conclusion. Presuming existence makes it easy to show that non-existence is impossible… because you’ve negated non-existence in making the assumption.

87

I’ve believed in God for the best part of 64 years. If that isn’t thoughtful enough for you, I’m sorry.

88

If you dont know why you believe , then why bother?

89

Why do I believe in (something that I call) God?

  1. Whatever is possible has an intrinsic probability (of being/becoming actual) >0.

  2. The only extrinsic factor reducing probability (as defined) is lack of opportunity [given the following].

  3. The Real is without limit in space or time (given that, even if this universe is physically “closed,” any number of other nonincluded universes remain possible: thus the sum total of Reality, which includes the possible as well as the actual, is without limit).

  4. An unlimited Reality provides unlimited opportunity for any nonzero probability to actualize.

  5. Which is to say, it will actualize.

  6. But if the entity I reference by the term “God” exists in any part of Reality, it exists in every part of Reality.

  7. “God” has no mutually-negating descriptors (the mutual negation must be cross-referential and explicit) and is therefore possible.

  8. Therefore God exists.

90

some people presented such proofs (the ontological argument, for example).

that isn’t my assumption. it’s not even what i said. pascal’s assumption is that there is no infinite reward for believing in the judeo-christian god. also, the catholic god does reward believers and punish non-believers. granted, believers are held to guidelines a bit more strict than belief (though repentance and belief seemed good enough, for all i’ve learned), but non-believers don’t have a shot. clearly it isn’t all that clear.

91

After several go-rounds with Lib, I think even his most extensive argument never even purports to demonstrate that a personal god exists. If god simply is the universe, and has no “powers” other than existence, then I say “who cares?”

As for myself, I feel pretty solid about my own explanation of the universe. I believe everything is explainable without god, so why interject such a being?

1.) The universe expands, then it contracts, everything smacks together then blasts back out again, repeat ad infinitum into the future, and back into the past. No need for a “beginning” that way.

2.) There’s just particles, subparticles, down to the smallest fundamental thing. Every one of those things’ movement is governed by the Unified Field Theorem, whether the little pieces make up what we call a rock or what we call a human.

3.) No event occurs without sufficient cause, and if sufficient cause exists then the event must occur.

That theory completely explains both “what” exists, and the process by which it changes. Without god. Thus, I do not believe in god, as any such entity has been rendered unnecessary.

When I realized this (while reading Brief History of Time at age 12), I knew I no longer believed in any god. 11 years later, still chuggin’ along…

92

Forgive me, but I don’t understand. What is your contention regarding deity?

93

Nice dodge :wink: Describe a god with no “mutually-negating descriptors” and you aren’t left with anything people commonly call a “god.” Even lib knew, when he was trumpeting basically this argument last year, that at best this purports to show an impersonal pantheistic god existing. If that god is to do anything, it has to have more attributes than simply existence. If it doesn’t do anything, it is an irrelvant entity.

I understand that may be “why you believe in god”, and your answer to the OP, so I don’t want to hassle you for responding to the thread appropriately. But your “why” leaves it in doubt whether anybody could actually call the product of your reasoning a “god.”

94

Apparently alot of people do. Why does deity need to have “special powers” anyways? Further, why would the existence of a personal god need to be proven to you?

That’s just fine. If this is what works for you, then go with it. I could tell you why I would interject such a concept as deity in my life, but it wouldn’t matter one whit because I know that the deity concept works for me in my own way, and it would probably not work for you.

That’s an assumption on your part. It doesn’t apply to everyone.

95

I mean intent in the sense of the way 99.99% of the population of America means intent when they say intent. What do you think I mean?

And what do you mean, be sure that it indeed exists? Is the concept of intent at question. As in, do you mean to imply that there is no such thing as intent?

Were you in a really strange mood, or what?

I’m all for logical arguments and rhetoric, but if indeed you are debating the existence of intent, well, I reserve the right to mock you as if we were schoolchildren.
But as to the meat of your post, you argue that infinite possibility creates life eventually.

I counter with a monkey at the keyboard. Given infinite time (and supply of typing monkeys) you may come up with a few sentences in a row that might make some logical sense. But the monkey will never randomly create literature.

96

OK, let’s spin a hypothetical story.

I see you live in Woodland Hills, California. Tomorrow morning, you’re walking along the street and a man engages you in conversation. After some pleasantries, you start waxing philosophic and the following proposition is made to you:

“There is a god. By “god”, I mean an impersonal entity with no powers other than merely existing. Existence is its only attribute. Basically, at best it’s the same thing as the universe, eternal and everywhere. But it doesn’t have a mind, feelings, opinions, hopes, dreams, desires, likes or dislikes. It doesn’t love anything, it doesn’t hate anything, it doesn’t seek anything, it doesn’t avoid anything, it doesn’t think anything, it doesn’t say anything. It has no ability to interact with you whatsoever. It exists, and that’s all that it does. It may not really do anything, but it exists and that’s pretty good, don’t you think?”

Now suppose for argument’s sake that there was a way you could know, with absolute certainty, whether what this man says is true or false. The answer is in an envelope in Hartford, Connecticut, the length of the United States away from where you are.

Do you fly across the country and go find the envelope? Or do you simply decide that the answer isn’t that important?

I think most people wouldn’t bother. If “god” (having no properties other than existence) doesn’t do anything, and (being impersonal) doesn’t think anything either, does it affect you at all whether such an entity exists? No. Why would you go to any trouble to find out? You wouldn’t. That “god” has an existence that is totally irrelevant to your life, and you couldn’t possibly care whether such a thing existed or not, certainly not enough to put any sort of serious effort into finding out.

The only sort of “god” anyone would ever be sufficiently interested in to actually make a serious effort determining whether such a being existed, that would have to be a god that had attributes other than mere existence. A god that was personal (like the Christian god) and/or did things (like any of the old Greek gods) and/or was perceptable (like the new agers "life force.) In whatever form they take, arguments like Scott Dickerson’s (and lib’s modal logic extravaganza from last year) can never say anything at all about any attribute in excess of existence, so the “god” of their arguments is irrelevant, and so “who cares?”

97

You do the intelligent atheists who frequent this board an injustice. They agree with us in seeing an organized universe operating under natural law – and do not see the necessity for a Lawgiver to cause it to happen. Once you get past the Big Bang, they have a point – things appear to consistently happen according to the regularities that we have identified and defined as “laws of physics” ("…geology," “…biology,” etc.).

I found my belief not on the necessity for an Unmoved Mover, a Prime Uncaused Cause, or any of the other philosophical abstractions equated with God by [James Earl Jones Voice] Deep Thinkers [/James Earl Jones Voice] – but on the basis that I know a very real Person who has given me evidence of apparently unlimited power and wisdom, and of fathomless and unconditional love for me and for all His creatures.

98

what causes this pattern? where is the infinite motion machine powering this?

And the sky is blue and cool water is refreshing. I see no point here.

[QUOTE]
**
3.) No event occurs without sufficient cause, and if sufficient cause exists then the event must occur.
**

[QUOTE]

Fair enough.

Ah, forgive my tone. It’s late and I just responded to the notion that intent doesn’t exist. Of course, it goes without saying that I intended no offense by this post. :wink:

99

you may reserve every right you wish. you didn’t answer my question at all. i bet 99% of the country uses the term but can’t define it properly. anyway, what i really call into question is the existence of “free will”, that there is some entity that causes my thoughts, that somehow i am that entity, independent of my environment. i suppose you could claim that that’s not the same as intent, but whence comes this intent if not from free will? do you really think it is ridiculous to claim that free will does not exist?

i made no mention of the monkeys. i never said that an infinite anything necessarily causes anything. i’ve actually argued against that idea in previous posts. the point is, that probability increases with repeated trials. the point was also that things with probability 0 happen all the time, and from my point of view, if life didn’t begin, we wouldn’t be here to talk about how unlikely it was.

100

There is a fallacy in your hypothetical arguement, Rexdart.

Your hypothetical arguement assumes the existence of objective proof of deity/lack of deity. Since deity is a subjective concept proven through subjective proofs, then your hypothetical arguement holds no relevence at all.

Some people choose to have it affect them, some people don’t. You can’t make that choice for others.

Again with the assumptions that everyone thinks exactly like you.

Or one could say that deity is being percieved simply as consciousness of the self. YMMV of course.

Come to think of it, the deity in my worldview does have one special power. It can affect how I perceive myself.

Many people do. You don’t, and that’s just fine. Once again, please don’t assume everyone thinks exactly like you.