Must one believe in God on the basis of reasons, arguments, proofs etc.

[RDKirk]

No. Reasons, arguments and proofs will not bring you faith in God. It is God's spirit talking to your spirit and you responding that brings faith.

The Israelite's literally saw miracles being performed in front of them, how long did their faith last from those proofs? Not long at all, they couldn't even stay faithful while Moses was up the mountain. So when people say "If only God would show himself I would have faith" No. They would still only have faith for a short time before their head told them something else. That it was a trick, an hallucination, a mental condition, a mistake. That is head faith, not heart and spirit faith. Head faith does not last.

If only a logical argument brought a man to faith, then the next logical argument can carry him back out.

 

[RDKirk]

there’s plenty of proof the universe was designed for life, and not a random occurrence, but that’s irrelevant to salvation.

That is an important point.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.-- James 2

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good predestination with that!

My apologies, but I'm not sure what your meaning is in saying this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I tend at times towards fideism, ie just believing in God without valid reasons, something like what Francis Schaeffer described as an "upper story" leap. If one "just believes" does it not end up in subjectivity - or faith in faith if one has no reasons for believing? However postmodernism and the idea there is no objective truth or reality also dogs my thinking.

Kierkegarrd is probably best known for fideism - and rejecting proofs of God existence. "I reason from existence, not towards existence."

Søren Kierkegaard, "God's Existence Cannot Be Proved"

Pascal also proposed his famous wager - that if one believes in God and lives accordingly and it turns out God does exist one gains eternal life - and if he doesn't one hasn't lost anything - but if one disbelives and lives for oneself - and it turns out God is real - one loses everything, ends up in hell - something like that if I recall it correctly.

Kant as far as I understand ended in agnosticism as regards knowledge of God by pure reason. He seems to however have regarded God as a necessary postulate of practical reason.

What path is there back from postmodernism, or (if that is the wrong term) a rejection of objective truth and reality - back to reality - this has really dogged me for years - I had a breakdown some years ago because of the whole question of reality and how it seemed the world was completely absurd. How does one connect with reality? If the world seems completely absurd how does one live? I can see how if one doesn't believe in God one could come to the conclusion of absurdism - and that belief in God would keep one from reaching that point - but what if through not believing you reach that point of thinking everything is absurd - how does one get back from that place?

The second thing is that I wouldn't place Pascal, Kierkegaard and/or Kant within Postmodernism.

Anyway, I do very well empathize with you in wanting to overcome feelings of existential disattachment from biblical faith.

 

[coffee4u]

If only a logical argument brought a man to faith, then the next logical argument can carry him back out.

Exactly. I assume you are agreeing with me?

 

[Mark Quayle]

My apologies, but I'm not sure what your meaning is in saying this.

lol, as opposed to saying, 'good luck'. It was meant as a joke.

 

[RDKirk]

Exactly. I assume you are agreeing with me?

Yes. I should have said "Yes" up front.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I tend at times towards fideism, ie just believing in God without valid reasons, something like what Francis Schaeffer described as an "upper story" leap. If one "just believes" does it not end up in subjectivity - or faith in faith if one has no reasons for believing? However postmodernism and the idea there is no objective truth or reality also dogs my thinking.

Kierkegarrd is probably best known for fideism - and rejecting proofs of God existence. "I reason from existence, not towards existence."

Søren Kierkegaard, "God's Existence Cannot Be Proved"

Pascal also proposed his famous wager - that if one believes in God and lives accordingly and it turns out God does exist one gains eternal life - and if he doesn't one hasn't lost anything - but if one disbelives and lives for oneself - and it turns out God is real - one loses everything, ends up in hell - something like that if I recall it correctly.

Kant as far as I understand ended in agnosticism as regards knowledge of God by pure reason. He seems to however have regarded God as a necessary postulate of practical reason.

What path is there back from postmodernism, or (if that is the wrong term) a rejection of objective truth and reality - back to reality - this has really dogged me for years - I had a breakdown some years ago because of the whole question of reality and how it seemed the world was completely absurd. How does one connect with reality? If the world seems completely absurd how does one live? I can see how if one doesn't believe in God one could come to the conclusion of absurdism - and that belief in God would keep one from reaching that point - but what if through not believing you reach that point of thinking everything is absurd - how does one get back from that place?

Without faith, it is impossible to please Him (God) (Hebrews 11:6). Anyone who wants to come to Him must believe that God exists and that He rewards those who sincerely seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). You need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior for everlasting life (John 3:16). Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins (Romans 10:13) (Luke 18:9-14). Believe the gospel (Which is that Jesus Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later from the grave for your salvation) (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Ask or invite the Lord Jesus Christ to come into your life (John 1:12) (Revelation 3:20). Ask the Lord to save you. Ask the Lord that you want to follow Him and dedicate your whole entire life in your heart, thoughts, and actions. Tell the Lord you want to surrender your way of thinking to His way and then start reading God's Word (the Holy Bible) and memorize it and live by it.

Note: You may also find this mini comic tract helpful.

Chick.com: This Was Your Life

I would also encourage you to at least rent this new Christian film called: “Play the Flute.”
Perhaps it will help you.
It talks about what it means to “believe in Jesus,” as well.

Watch Play The Flute | Prime Video

It's also available at ChristianMovies.com, and ChristianCinema.com, too.

I hope this helps, and may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you this fine evening.

 

[coffee4u]

Yes. I should have said "Yes" up front.

I figured you were. Makes a nice change.
I think I am so use to someone disagreeing with me that I assume anytime I get a quote notification that is what it will be.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I tend at times towards fideism, ie just believing in God without valid reasons, something like what Francis Schaeffer described as an "upper story" leap. If one "just believes" does it not end up in subjectivity - or faith in faith if one has no reasons for believing? However postmodernism and the idea there is no objective truth or reality also dogs my thinking.

Kierkegarrd is probably best known for fideism - and rejecting proofs of God existence. "I reason from existence, not towards existence."

Søren Kierkegaard, "God's Existence Cannot Be Proved"

Pascal also proposed his famous wager - that if one believes in God and lives accordingly and it turns out God does exist one gains eternal life - and if he doesn't one hasn't lost anything - but if one disbelives and lives for oneself - and it turns out God is real - one loses everything, ends up in hell - something like that if I recall it correctly.

Kant as far as I understand ended in agnosticism as regards knowledge of God by pure reason. He seems to however have regarded God as a necessary postulate of practical reason.

What path is there back from postmodernism, or (if that is the wrong term) a rejection of objective truth and reality - back to reality - this has really dogged me for years - I had a breakdown some years ago because of the whole question of reality and how it seemed the world was completely absurd. How does one connect with reality? If the world seems completely absurd how does one live? I can see how if one doesn't believe in God one could come to the conclusion of absurdism - and that belief in God would keep one from reaching that point - but what if through not believing you reach that point of thinking everything is absurd - how does one get back from that place?

Absurdism is a dead end and rejection of objective truth and reality is self-refuting.

How you come back from that is staring with common sense - we all experience something we call 'reality' and unless you go down the solipsism route, then there must be something objective. Where you go from there is up to you. For some the arguments and reason are important. For others it is the experience and for others it is the trust that others who are trustworthy are right and one doesn't need to bother following it up.

All of our journeys towards God will be different, but I don't doubt that we are heading towards the same God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

lol, as opposed to saying, 'good luck'. It was meant as a joke.

That's fine if you're joking; Kierkegaard probably would have appreciated the humor.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I tend at times towards fideism, ie just believing in God without valid reasons, something like what Francis Schaeffer described as an "upper story" leap. If one "just believes" does it not end up in subjectivity - or faith in faith if one has no reasons for believing? However postmodernism and the idea there is no objective truth or reality also dogs my thinking.

Kierkegarrd is probably best known for fideism - and rejecting proofs of God existence. "I reason from existence, not towards existence."

Søren Kierkegaard, "God's Existence Cannot Be Proved"

Pascal also proposed his famous wager - that if one believes in God and lives accordingly and it turns out God does exist one gains eternal life - and if he doesn't one hasn't lost anything - but if one disbelives and lives for oneself - and it turns out God is real - one loses everything, ends up in hell - something like that if I recall it correctly.

Kant as far as I understand ended in agnosticism as regards knowledge of God by pure reason. He seems to however have regarded God as a necessary postulate of practical reason.

What path is there back from postmodernism, or (if that is the wrong term) a rejection of objective truth and reality - back to reality - this has really dogged me for years - I had a breakdown some years ago because of the whole question of reality and how it seemed the world was completely absurd. How does one connect with reality? If the world seems completely absurd how does one live? I can see how if one doesn't believe in God one could come to the conclusion of absurdism - and that belief in God would keep one from reaching that point - but what if through not believing you reach that point of thinking everything is absurd - how does one get back from that place?

As for 'absurdism,' I don't think we want to lump Kierkegaard's notions of Subjectivity and Absurdism in with those of someone like Camus, or Sartre, etc.

His focus and definition was a bit different than theirs, and I think we need to take this difference into account. As Christians, we're not going to say that everything is absurd, just some aspects of what it is existentially to "chase after God" by the dictates of human reason alone...

... as this brief little sidetrack illustrates ... (NOTE: I'm just placing this as a small addendum to the article you've already posted in your OP, DMS. )

Embrace the Absurd // God and the Good Life // University of Notre Dame

All in all, and even though my own existentialism veers more in Pascal's direction than it does in Kierkegaard's, I will still say that on a practical, philosophical course where we are looking for bits and pieces of truth within our reality, I think Kierkegaard makes a few good points that should mediate our epistemic expectations on 'how' faith our works itself out in our minds as we seek to follow Jesus.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

I tend at times towards fideism, ie just believing in God without valid reasons, something like what Francis Schaeffer described as an "upper story" leap. If one "just believes" does it not end up in subjectivity - or faith in faith if one has no reasons for believing? However postmodernism and the idea there is no objective truth or reality also dogs my thinking.

Kierkegarrd is probably best known for fideism - and rejecting proofs of God existence. "I reason from existence, not towards existence."

Søren Kierkegaard, "God's Existence Cannot Be Proved"

Pascal also proposed his famous wager - that if one believes in God and lives accordingly and it turns out God does exist one gains eternal life - and if he doesn't one hasn't lost anything - but if one disbelives and lives for oneself - and it turns out God is real - one loses everything, ends up in hell - something like that if I recall it correctly.

Kant as far as I understand ended in agnosticism as regards knowledge of God by pure reason. He seems to however have regarded God as a necessary postulate of practical reason.

What path is there back from postmodernism, or (if that is the wrong term) a rejection of objective truth and reality - back to reality - this has really dogged me for years - I had a breakdown some years ago because of the whole question of reality and how it seemed the world was completely absurd. How does one connect with reality? If the world seems completely absurd how does one live? I can see how if one doesn't believe in God one could come to the conclusion of absurdism - and that belief in God would keep one from reaching that point - but what if through not believing you reach that point of thinking everything is absurd - how does one get back from that place?

The path back from postmodernism is to seek God's absolute principles in the Bible, where he has revealed them. Why do you get entangled in the philosophers' ideas when you could be meditating on God's Word.

My reasoning process led me to accept God's existence, Jesus as God and human, and especially the Bible's inspiration. How? Because of the trustworthy eyewitnesses' testimonies to the facts of Jesus' death and resurrection. They were devastated by the first event because of their hopes of Jesus' taking over the government with them as his "Cabinet." Then, they experienced a complete reversal to joyful experiences because of his appearances to them. They stuck to their testimonies against all persecution even to their deaths.

You can't get better witnesses of historical events than Jesus' followers. Therefore, if Jesus really rose from the dead, he confirmed that he was God and that everything else said about him in the Bible is true and that God's will is firm and good for our lives.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's fine if you're joking; Kierkegaard probably would have appreciated the humor.

Probably not. It is a Calvinist joke.

Kierkegaard, in my opinion, is one of the worst influences upon the Christendom of the 20th and 21st century.

 

[dms1972]

A belief without what someone considers to be a valid reason is a belief without cause, which is not humanly possible. Someone might not be able be able to be able to do a good job of articulating a reason why they believe that something is true and they might not be able to convince anyone else that it is a valid reason, but if there wasn't a reason for why they considered it to be true, then they would never have formed the belief that it was true. Someone might reason from existence rather than towards existence, but would still be using what they considered to be a valid reason.

There is an argument that everything that begins to exist has a cause and that the universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause. Someone might challenge whether the form of the argument is valid or whether the premises are true, but if someone considers the form to be valid and the premises to be true, then that proves the existence of the cause of the universe, which is a being with a property commonly attributed to what we call God. If an argument has its conclusion built into the premises, then that is not logically valid, but that doesn't mean that there aren't valid arguments for the existence of God.

I guess that is what I am talking about - belief without a cause or a reason. You say this isn't possible?

 

[Soyeong]

I guess that is what I am talking about - belief without a cause or a reason. You say this isn't possible?

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. If there was no reason for someone to form a belief, then they would never form that belief. There is a huge difference between us judging that someone's reasons for forming their belief are not very good and denying that there is any reason for their belief.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I guess that is what I am talking about - belief without a cause or a reason. You say this isn't possible?

There's a difference between, "belief without a cause or a reason", and "belief without an articulated cause or reason". Everything is caused, except First Cause.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Probably not. It is a Calvinist joke.

Yes, I thought it was some kind of 'insider joke' that, more or less coalesces with the evaluations about Kierkegaard that have flown from the lips of folks like Norman Geisler ...

Kierkegaard, in my opinion, is one of the worst influences upon the Christendom of the 20th and 21st century.

He's often misunderstood. The same with Pascal. And, in a brotherly way, while I appreciate Calvin in some respects just as I do other historical voices in our common Christian heritage. I also appreciate some aspects of Kierkegaard's thinking. We don't have to hassle one another over it since I don't require or push for other Christians to think exactly as I do. But I do ask for some amount of bilateral, brotherly reciprocation in my more existential leanings within my own Subjective approach to our Christian faith.

From my vantage point, no one Christian thinker alone "has all the cards," either epistemologically, logically, hermeneutically or ... theologically.

 

[Mark Quayle]

From my vantage point, no one Christian thinker alone "has all the cards," either epistemologically, logically, hermeneutically or ... theologically.

With this, I am in total agreement.

 

[Chi.C]

What path is there back from postmodernism, or (if that is the wrong term) a rejection of objective truth and reality - back to reality - this has really dogged me for years - I had a breakdown some years ago because of the whole question of reality and how it seemed the world was completely absurd. How does one connect with reality? If the world seems completely absurd how does one live? I can see how if one doesn't believe in God one could come to the conclusion of absurdism - and that belief in God would keep one from reaching that point - but what if through not believing you reach that point of thinking everything is absurd - how does one get back from that place?

I would ask if all the philosophies (including absurdism) to which you adhered, have a worthy first axiom. I suspect it will be no.
God is rationally the Uncaused Cause. The first axiom. (William Lane Craig). I think only then you can reconstruct your worldview so your faith can rest on those pillars.
I believe in a Whom, not a What. A relationship with an Entity who is Love, needs only love. Faith will come hand in hand with the Love of God.
Good luck.