Why?

[mcflooble]

Hi mcflooble,

Because ever since I accepted that he exists and that his son Jesus died to save me from my sins, life has been so much sweeter in too many ways to list. But generally, I have had great peace in the midst of life storms, have been healed from various ailments, have had conversations and sweet communion times with him, have been provided all of my needs and even many desires of my heart, have received his guidance that has kept me from harm and danger, and generally have had a positive and hopeful outlook on life both now and into eternity. With each passing day that I continue to see the love, care and grace God grants on a daily basis - I cannot help but believe in him. His track record of love as evidenced in my life and in the lives of many other Christians (and non-Christians) I know has proven him to be 100% real.

And reflecting on all these things has just increased my faith all the more! Therefore, thanks for asking.

No problem! Thanks for replying

 

[Bible2]

mcflooble:
Then I discovered reasons that affirmed my non-belief, rather than made me believe.

I'm wary about answering your last question. I don't want to disobey the forum rules, and I don't want to get into a debate because it's not the point of this thread. But I will answer your question because you asked (some of the following aren't directly related to God, but they help):

No evidence.

There is a lot of evidence that proves that God exists (Romans 1:20), while there is no evidence that proves that he doesn't exist.

"God of the gaps".

God is not a God of the gaps, but the Creator of everything that exists (John 1:3).

Evolution.

Evolution doesn't prove the non-existence of God, for it could simply be a mechanism created by God to naturally bring about a diversity of species within his Creation. And he could also bypass evolution anytime he pleased and miraculously and instantaneously create any species he wanted from scratch, or create individual members of an already-existing species from scratch.

Paradoxical nature of God.

Can you give a specific example, and explain how it proves the non-existence of God?

(Does the paradoxical nature of light, that it is both a particle and a wave at the same time, prove the non-existence of light?)

Contradictions in the Bible.

Anything that appears to be a contradiction in the Bible can be shown to not necessarily be a contradiction.

We're susceptible to religious belief without good reason.

Christian belief can come only by a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8), which he gives for a very good reason: so that the sins of people can be forgiven (Romans 3:25).

Every religion was created as a hypothesis to answer questions we couldn't answer (can't back this up empirically, but I think it's a good guess. If I consider believing in God, this won't factor into it).

The Christian religion wasn't created by people like some mythical fable, but is based on eyewitness testimony (2 Peter 1:16).

We're susceptible to illusions and tricks of the mind.

Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers so that they cannot acknowledge the truth of Christianity (2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:25-26).

Religion holding back science.

While some religious people have tried to hold back science, nothing that science has ever proven to be true contradicts anything in the Bible.

Picking and choosing with no apparent reason which parts of the Bible are literal and which are symbolic.

Keyword "apparent", for believers do have reasons for understanding some parts of the Bible as literal and other parts as symbolic.

The iffy nature of the creation of the Bible and Christianity.

The Bible (and so Biblical Christianity) is not the work of men, but of God (2 Timothy 3:16). That's why nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false.

The many, many, many wildly different religions around the world, some of which sound absurd and are dismissed for the same reasons that should be applied to Christianity.

There is no good reason to dismiss Christianity. Nothing in it has ever been proven to actually be absurd, even though God did purposely make it so that it would appear absurd to worldly people (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16).

There is no need for religion.

There is a need for Christianity, for it is only through faith in Christ that people can be saved from hell (John 3:16,36).

Ultimately, because it's up to a religion to prove itself, not up to anyone else to disprove it. This is a follow-up of "No evidence".

God purposely made Christianity so that it cannot be proven to people via intellectual means: it is only by being granted the miraculous gift of God's own Spirit that people can accept Christianity (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).

 

[Adoniram]

Thanks so much for all the responses!

It's just something I'm really interested in, because I can't believe in Him and I wonder how people exposed to the arguments against Him can.

All those responses that say you believe in Him because you can't not believe in Him, I see nothing wrong with that, because you can't choose what you believe.

Personal experience is a fine answer, because I'm just asking why you believe, and if that's why, then, well, you answered the question It's not satisfactory for helping prove God's existence, but that's not what I was asking, so all good.

Any more responses would also be greatly appreciated (even if they're the same reasons), and again thanks to everyone who has already responded!

I'm struggling with one of your statements: "You can't choose what you believe."

What makes you think that? There is not a day goes by that I do not find myself in situations in which I have to make choices on what I will believe or not believe.

When you're talking about belief in God, four positions are usually taken: He doesn't exist; one can't know if He exists; acknowledgment that He does exist and doing nothing; acknowledgment that He does exist and making an effort to follow Him. The Bible has things to say about each.

First,
the atheist position that He doesn't exist. The Bible says-
Psalms 14
1 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

Atheists might take exception to the last part of that, but one has to take into consideration that we are all measured against God's holiness-

Is. 64
6 But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

Second,
the agnostic position that one can't know God exists. The Bible says it's clear from what we see around us-

Rom. 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Certainly though, there are many things in today's world that tend to blind people to the obvious.

Third,
acknowledgment that He does exist. Many people believe God exists but that's as far as they are willing to go with it. In truth, they are no better off than devils and demons, who also acknowledge that God exists-

James 2
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

Fourth,
belief in God and the desire to follow him. In Biblical times, God was more "involved," at least in the lives of the Hebrews. Not that His existence was not made apparent to other peoples; many felt the brunt of His wrath for their evil deeds. But for some reason, He picked the Hebrew nation as the medium through which He would reveal Himself to the world. Yet even the Hebrews had trouble with belief and following God as is evident throughout the OT.

Is. 64
4 For since the beginning of the world
Men have not heard nor perceived by the ear,
Nor has the eye seen any God besides You,
Who acts for the one who waits for Him.
5 You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness,
Who remembers You in Your ways.
You are indeed angry, for we have sinned—
In these ways we continue;
And we need to be saved.
6 But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.
7 And there is no one who calls on Your name,
Who stirs himself up to take hold of You;
For You have hidden Your face from us,
And have consumed us because of our iniquities.

People heard the word, but they weren't getting the message. So God came in the form of a man, Jesus, to better connect with men and deliver His message of love and salvation, the promise of life for those who follow Him and dire consequences for those who don't. But even though His presence and miracles authenticated His Words, some people still found it hard to believe. Jesus acknowledged this to Thomas, promising a blessing to those, in the ages after His return to heaven, who believe even though they have not seen him personally-

John 20
29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Now, even though God doesn't make His presence known as profoundly as He did in Biblical times, He is still at work in the lives of those who follow Him, as Is. 64:4-5 indicates. For those who are willing to read and listen to the message, the Bible is an excellent revelation of God. Those who are "tuned in," see the hand of God at work in many parts of the world even today.

Tune in or tune out. Just like on the radio. See...you can choose.

 

[BobW188]

Keeping this basic, I'll confine myself to explaining why I believe in "God" without going into why I am a Christian.

First, since the "Big Bang" theory became generally accepted, we take as fact that the Universe began. I know of nothing which began that was not caused.

That the universe expanded from something the size of, or smaller than, a pinprick over some fourteen billion years to its present complexity both on and off Earth indicate to me that it was carefully planned. (I include as "planned" the evolutionary development of life but am not ready to accept that it is exclusively a random process.)

Planning on this order requires a mind which is so far beyond any I know that it can properly be called omniscient and omnipotent.

If you want, in time we can go on to why I believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, but for now it seems to me to be more basic to your question to deal in fundamentals.

 

[mcflooble]

There is a lot of evidence that proves that God exists (Romans 1:20), while there is no evidence that proves that he doesn't exist.



God is not a God of the gaps, but the Creator of everything that exists (John 1:3).



Evolution doesn't prove the non-existence of God, for it could simply be a mechanism created by God to naturally bring about a diversity of species within his Creation. And he could also bypass evolution anytime he pleased and miraculously and instantaneously create any species he wanted from scratch, or create individual members of an already-existing species from scratch.



Can you give a specific example, and explain how it proves the non-existence of God?

(Does the paradoxical nature of light, that it is both a particle and a wave at the same time, prove the non-existence of light?)



Anything that appears to be a contradiction in the Bible can be shown to not necessarily be a contradiction.



Christian belief can come only by a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8), which he gives for a very good reason: so that the sins of people can be forgiven (Romans 3:25).



The Christian religion wasn't created by people like some mythical fable, but is based on eyewitness testimony (2 Peter 1:16).



Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers so that they cannot acknowledge the truth of Christianity (2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:25-26).



While some religious people have tried to hold back science, nothing that science has ever proven to be true contradicts anything in the Bible.



Keyword "apparent", for believers do have reasons for understanding some parts of the Bible as literal and other parts as symbolic.



The Bible (and so Biblical Christianity) is not the work of men, but of God (2 Timothy 3:16). That's why nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false.



There is no good reason to dismiss Christianity. Nothing in it has ever been proven to actually be absurd, even though God did purposely make it so that it would appear absurd to worldly people (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16).



There is a need for Christianity, for it is only through faith in Christ that people can be saved from hell (John 3:16,36).



God purposely made Christianity so that it cannot be proven to people via intellectual means: it is only by being granted the miraculous gift of God's own Spirit that people can accept Christianity (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).

Okay. I'm not going to argue. I'm assuming your telling me this in the hope of bettering my life, so thankyou for your time and effort. But we are moving far from the thread topic, from why you believe to why I don't. It has been valuable for me to look at why I don't believe, and has given me insight into how people can believe, but I'm worried we'll move too far into just another debate.

 

[mcflooble]

I'm struggling with one of your statements: "You can't choose what you believe."

What makes you think that? There is not a day goes by that I do not find myself in situations in which I have to make choices on what I will believe or not believe.

(I did read the rest, just didn't want to make the post too long)

Isn't a part of the Christian faith the concept of grace, where God chooses people who can believe? I'm hairy on that subject, it was brought up in philosophy but no one really understood it or explained it to me, that's all I've heard of it.* If grace could be explained to me properly, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Anyway, that's obviously not why I think you can't choose what you believe. I find it hard to explain, so I'm sorry for answering your question with another question, but could you choose to not believe right now, without any reason to except to demonstrate that you can choose? I doubt you can.

If you were presented with something that 100% changed you to atheist it wouldn't be a choice, you would just find that you wouldn't be able to believe anymore. Same thing goes for me, but the other way around.

The two situations above dealt with the extremes of being presented with an influence that 100% deconverted you and with not being presented with anything that should change your mind at all. There's a spectrum going from one to the other and you can't choose where you are on it, it depends what influences you've had on you.

If you doubt something, does it mean that you don't believe it? (not a rhetorical question, I'm actually asking). I think you could at least say that you don't fully believe it. If so, then:

If you doubt something, you don't (fully) believe it.
Therefore you can't choose to (fully - and why wouldn't you choose fully?) believe something and also doubt it.
But people do doubt their beliefs (on both sides).
Therefore they never chose them.

I can't make the above argument apply to everyone, only those beliefs that a person has doubted at some point. It's just an extra. But I think it helps with understanding what I was saying before.

Finally, I'll let you know I'm making this up as I go along. I'm trying to articulate why I think you can't choose what you believe, which I've never done before. I also don't believe in free will, so even if this post was completely rebutted I'd need an argument for the existence of free will to persuade me that we can choose what we believe. But I've tried to show why I don't think we'd have a choice even if we had free will.**

*Here's all I think I know about grace: We can't believe in God unless God allows us to, and we receive this grace undeservedly.

**As far as I know, all Christians believe we have free will as a matter of faith (I'm aware that there are arguments for free will that aren't faith based). I didn't want to end up having to have to try and persuade you not to believe in God in order to make this point.

 

[mcflooble]

Keeping this basic, I'll confine myself to explaining why I believe in "God" without going into why I am a Christian.

First, since the "Big Bang" theory became generally accepted, we take as fact that the Universe began. I know of nothing which began that was not caused.

That the universe expanded from something the size of, or smaller than, a pinprick over some fourteen billion years to its present complexity both on and off Earth indicate to me that it was carefully planned. (I include as "planned" the evolutionary development of life but am not ready to accept that it is exclusively a random process.)

Planning on this order requires a mind which is so far beyond any I know that it can properly be called omniscient and omnipotent.

If you want, in time we can go on to why I believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, but for now it seems to me to be more basic to your question to deal in fundamentals.

Awesome response.

I'm loving all the different reasons I'm getting for people believing in God.

The beginning of the universe makes me wonder.

I like the stepped approach of starting with "God" the concept then moving onto specifics. It would be great if you could also tell me why you believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God specifically.

As an aside, and not as a rebuttal to God's existence, rather as a matter of clarifying evolutionary theory, evolution without God isn't a random process (not sure if that's what you meant, but hey I might as well explain). Small mutations make the individual either better or worse at passing on their genes. That bit is random (although even the mutations aren't, but I don't know enough about it to talk about it more, so we can consider it random). Evolution is non-random in the sense that if the mutation makes the chance of passing on the genes higher, then it is more likely that that mutation will be passed on. There's a trend toward improvement.

 

[andreha]

For a long time I've had this question on my mind. I'm fascinated by it, and I joined this site just to ask:

Why do you believe in God?

Well, for me, everything changed one night when being paralyzed in my bed. I asked the Lord to help me, and the next moment I left my body and stood before Him in the spirit. I saw the light of His glory shine, and felt the love. After a while, I was yanked back into my body. The spiritual attacks stopped abrupltly since that day. To this day, the Lord speaks to me. Quite a few times already, He warned me of impending death and saved my life. Just earlier this year, I was heading for the seaside with my wife. I was planning to overtake a slow vehicle, and just before I did, the Lord spoke to me, and said "No, my child." So, I didn't overtake. The next second, a car came past at great speed. I wouldn't even have had time to swerve. I would have been dead if He didn't warn me. That's one awesome thing about Christianity for me. It's a wonderful relationship, with plenty of rewards for obedience.

 

[mcflooble]

Well, for me, everything changed one night when being paralyzed in my bed. I asked the Lord to help me, and the next moment I left my body and stood before Him in the spirit. I saw the light of His glory shine, and felt the love. After a while, I was yanked back into my body. The spiritual attacks stopped abrupltly since that day. To this day, the Lord speaks to me. Quite a few times already, He warned me of impending death and saved my life. Just earlier this year, I was heading for the seaside with my wife. I was planning to overtake a slow vehicle, and just before I did, the Lord spoke to me, and said "No, my child." So, I didn't overtake. The next second, a car came past at great speed. I wouldn't even have had time to swerve. I would have been dead if He didn't warn me. That's one awesome thing about Christianity for me. It's a wonderful relationship, with plenty of rewards for obedience.

That's a truly amazing story. Thanks for sharing!

I have a similar story although not life-threatening. I went to bed troubled over believing in God or not (happened earlier this year). When I woke up, I discovered I had a txt message that had been sent just after I'd gone to sleep. It was a forwarded message from a Christian friend giving help and advice about spiritual strength. I don't often hear from this friend, he just happened to have sent it that night.

Just wondering, what does God sound like?

 

[BobW188]

In response to your response, let's hold off on specific religions or gods. Let's keep it basic.
That said, I have no problem accepting the idea of evolution-through-mutation. Another reason I'm a theist is that God creates a universe that essentially grows itself. (We can discuss the Genesis accounts some other time.) However, my faith and many others specifically state that God intervenes in this process now and then, and that suggests three things.
First, it rules out deism. The watch is not just dropped on the beach; but is now and then wound, or otherwise checked to see if it's functioning properly.
Second, the cosmological and biological views of evolution may not be the whole story.
Third, the universe (cosmos, if you prefer) was created for a purpose.

 

[mcflooble]

Okay. I'm still listening.

 

[aiki]

First-off, I'm not very good at explaining it. That doesn't change how reasonable my view is. The conclusion is reasonable even if I applied the most twisted form of logic I could to it, because there is a very good argument in favour of it elsewhere.

How likely is it that a reasonable conclusion will come from "the most twisted form of logic"? Would you want doctors, or lawyers, or scientists, to arrive at their answers to medicine, or law, or science using such logic? And if they managed to arrive at a sound conclusion in spite of using such "twisted logic" to do so, would that justify using such logic as a common practice?

When I think about it, there was a process of reasoning going on in the background, but it didn't feel like it was immediately apparent at the time. For example, God sending people that I love to Hell, God sending people to Hell randomly, God not making Himself obvious... these are some of the problems I had with God but I didn't want to elaborate because I didn't want to get into an argument over them (I still don't... Even if these problems become satisfied I won't believe in God).

Why would you still resist the idea of God if the "problems" you mention above could be satisfied? Is that reasonable or rational? Or do you have some other kind of issue with God?

Anyway, these things and more were going through my head at the time. It didn't feel like a process of reasoning because they kind of all culminated in my final verdict. I always imagine a process to be neat and orderly, so, despite the fact that it was a process of reasoning, it didn't feel like it was. For the sake of clarity I should have said that, but I didn't think to do so. I wanted to give you a picture of what it felt like at the time.

Are you saying that your process of reasoning wasn't "neat and orderly"? If so, how much trust should you put in such a process? I mean, imagine if your bank approached your account in such a way!

This unreasonable decision making process is not normal for me when choosing what I believe because you can't choose what you believe. You're simply exposed to facts, opinions and experiences and you end up believing things.

I'm a little confused, here. How does simple exposure to facts, opinions and experiences bring about a belief? If you didn't at some point choose to believe a thing, how did you come to believe it? And what would you say to a fellow who believes he is an elephant? Or to the woman who believes stabbing the eyes out of cats is a mercy to them? Or to the vile wretch who believes raping women is just giving them what they want? Aren't their beliefs merely the result of exposure to facts, opinions, and experiences that they just ended up believing? Its not their fault they believe the things they do, right?

You can say you do or don't believe in something or you could really want to believe or not believe in something but that doesn't change what you believe. Even if I wanted to believe in God with all my heart (which I did at one point), I couldn't.

Okay. So, what would you think of a guy who kept jumping off of high places and hurting himself who explained his behaviour by saying, "I want to believe with all my heart that gravity exists, but I just can't! I didn't choose how I believe; it just happened!"?

The above also answers your next question. If you read the rest of my post, you'll see that I spent time talking to my Christian friend, went to church, and thought about God a lot in my spare time. So, initially, there was a logical/intellectual objection to God.

Why would you talk to Christian friends, go to church and think about God? If you can't choose what you believe, what purpose is served by doing these things?

Where did your logical/intellectual objection come from?

About thinking and believing being connected. If I think God exists, then it follows that I believe he exists, and vice versa. So yes, they are connected. What I was getting at was it didn't matter about all these arguments for and against God, what mattered was what I believed. And I discovered I was an atheist (I always had a hunch).

Are you saying that what you believe is genetic?

If the truth is that God exists and that you will stand before Him one day to be judged, it seems to me that the arguments for and against Him are quite important! Do you think in the manner you've explained above about all truth? Imagine a judge who thought as you did! What if the truth was that a man had murdered his wife but the judge ignored the arguments for and against this truth because he just didn't believe that the husband could murder. Would it be appropriate or reasonable for the judge simply to dismiss the case entirely by saying, "It doesn't matter what the facts are, I just don't believe them."?

For your next question: You have to start from some viewpoint. Agnosticism didn't cut it for me... If you're agnostic, then you still have to be agnostic acting like a believer or agnostic acting like an atheist. If you're agnostic acting like an atheist then you might as well be atheist. This is because you don't believe in God, but you don't know. Aha! That demonstrated a nice difference between thinking and believing. I didn't decide not to believe in God. I discovered that I didn't. Which I think is a very reasonable point to start from, rather than believing that God exists and then trying to find reasons why he doesn't.

See my questions above.

I'm wary about answering your last question. I don't want to disobey the forum rules, and I don't want to get into a debate because it's not the point of this thread. But I will answer your question because you asked (some of the following aren't directly related to God, but they help):

No evidence.
"God of the gaps".
Evolution.
Paradoxical nature of God.
Contradictions in the Bible.
We're susceptible to religious belief without good reason.
Every religion was created as a hypothesis to answer questions we couldn't answer (can't back this up empirically, but I think it's a good guess. If I consider believing in God, this won't factor into it).
We're susceptible to illusions and tricks of the mind.
Religion holding back science.
Picking and choosing with no apparent reason which parts of the Bible are literal and which are symbolic.
The iffy nature of the creation of the Bible and Christianity.
The many, many, many wildly different religions around the world, some of which sound absurd and are dismissed for the same reasons that should be applied to Christianity.
There is no need for religion.
Ultimately, because it's up to a religion to prove itself, not up to anyone else to disprove it. This is a follow-up of "No evidence".

There might be more but those are just off the top of my head. Gah, I didn't want to do that.

Not that it'll make any difference to you, but every one of things you've listed above have been answered very thoroughly and reasonably by the Christian community. In fact, many of the reasons you've given above have been shown to be completely erroneous or false. But this doesn't matter, right? Because facts are beside the point, correct?

Peace.

 

[mcflooble]

How likely is it that a reasonable conclusion will come from "the most twisted form of logic"? Would you want doctors, or lawyers, or scientists, to arrive at their answers to medicine, or law, or science using such logic? And if they managed to arrive at a sound conclusion in spite of using such "twisted logic" to do so, would that justify using such logic as a common practice?



Why would you still resist the idea of God if the "problems" you mention above could be satisfied? Is that reasonable or rational? Or do you have some other kind of issue with God?



Are you saying that your process of reasoning wasn't "neat and orderly"? If so, how much trust should you put in such a process? I mean, imagine if your bank approached your account in such a way!



I'm a little confused, here. How does simple exposure to facts, opinions and experiences bring about a belief? If you didn't at some point choose to believe a thing, how did you come to believe it? And what would you say to a fellow who believes he is an elephant? Or to the woman who believes stabbing the eyes out of cats is a mercy to them? Or to the vile wretch who believes raping women is just giving them what they want? Aren't their beliefs merely the result of exposure to facts, opinions, and experiences that they just ended up believing? Its not their fault they believe the things they do, right?



Okay. So, what would you think of a guy who kept jumping off of high places and hurting himself who explained his behaviour by saying, "I want to believe with all my heart that gravity exists, but I just can't! I didn't choose how I believe; it just happened!"?



Why would you talk to Christian friends, go to church and think about God? If you can't choose what you believe, what purpose is served by doing these things?

Where did your logical/intellectual objection come from?



Are you saying that what you believe is genetic?

If the truth is that God exists and that you will stand before Him one day to be judged, it seems to me that the arguments for and against Him are quite important! Do you think in the manner you've explained above about all truth? Imagine a judge who thought as you did! What if the truth was that a man had murdered his wife but the judge ignored the arguments for and against this truth because he just didn't believe that the husband could murder. Would it be appropriate or reasonable for the judge simply to dismiss the case entirely by saying, "It doesn't matter what the facts are, I just don't believe them."?



See my questions above.



Not that it'll make any difference to you, but every one of things you've listed above have been answered very thoroughly and reasonably by the Christian community. In fact, many of the reasons you've given above have been shown to be completely erroneous or false. But this doesn't matter, right? Because facts are beside the point, correct?

Peace.

There has been a giant misunderstanding. Here we go:

I don't need to come up with a good argument because it's been done elsewhere. I can just refer you to that. No matter how bad my arguments are, if they just so happen to lead to the correct conclusion (demonstrated in other arguments) then it doesn't change the validity of the conclusion. Granted, it's a terrible way to persuade people that your conclusion is correct (especially if you don't show them the good arguments), but that wasn't what I was trying to do here.

I could resist the idea of God if the problems were satisfied because these problems are only real if God is real. Solving the problems of an imaginary thing doesn't make that thing real. They are hypothetical.

About belief. Yes, I completely agree. They need help. Do you think that guy chose to believe he was an elephant? That he was bored one day, and thought, you know what, I'm going to 100% utterly believe that I am an elephant? And then he could actually do it? Did you choose to believe you are a human? Or can't you help it? You can't help what you believe because of the experiences, facts and opinions you've been presented with, all of which point towards you being human. If you had been presented with experiences, facts and opinions all pointing towards you being an elephant I'm sure that you would believe that you was an elephant. You wouldn't question it. If you then got presented with evidence that you were human, you would have to weigh up that with the evidence you have for your elephantness. If you have a belief-changing thought, you can't help it. It's just another experience that influenced your beliefs. E.g. if you suddenly had a revelation that you are a human, it's not because you chose to have a revelation that you are human. Yes, you can choose to seek experiences, facts and opinions that point towards your humaness, but you can't choose their effect on you.

About the guy jumping off the cliff. I would feel sorry for him and would also be gobsmacked that someone doesn't believe in gravity. They would have to be immensely delusional. I don't think they could help that or that they chose to be so.

I talked to Christian friends, went to church and thought about God for a few reasons. To continue the metaphor, I believe I'm a human but want to see if there's evidence (I'm lumping experiences, facts and opinions under the name evidence just for simplicity. I realise they don't actually mean evidence) for me being an elephant. Why would I want to do this? Because there are a good many people who believe that they and I are elephants, who introduced the idea to me. If enough evidence was there, my belief would change. But not because I'd decide "Hmm... Okay that's enough evidence, right, about... Now!" (although I have a pretty good idea about what would change my belief).

My objection came from starting to think about God. I hadn't thought about Him up until that point.

Every child is born an atheist. I think that's fair to say. I'm not saying atheism is genetic (although I'm not ruling it out), quite the opposite! I'm saying that what you believe is the result of the experiences you've had and the facts and opinions you've come across (which goes under experiences but I want to point out some of the details).

When I was trying to discover what I believed, no, the arguments didn't matter because I'd gone over them a hundred times. What mattered was the effect they'd had on me, aka my belief. I wasn't ignoring the arguments. I was finding out their effect on me. This is a great way for a judge to decide a case.

This judge metaphor leads nicely into your "see my questions above" part. The judge doesn't start "agnostic" towards the accused. The husband is innocent until proven guilty. This is an analogy for God doesn't exist until proven that He does. And it applies to everything, not just God.

If I see these listed things answered convincingly, then I'll probably change my belief. I say probably because
a) I might have missed something on the list
b) New problems might arise
c) I can't choose what I believe

And finally, facts are not beside the point. What you believe is a result of experiences, facts and opinions that you've been exposed to.

 

[andreha]

That's a truly amazing story. Thanks for sharing!

I have a similar story although not life-threatening. I went to bed troubled over believing in God or not (happened earlier this year). When I woke up, I discovered I had a txt message that had been sent just after I'd gone to sleep. It was a forwarded message from a Christian friend giving help and advice about spiritual strength. I don't often hear from this friend, he just happened to have sent it that night.

Just wondering, what does God sound like?

Well, usually He speaks to me in a very gentle, loving tone. It's only when I do silly things, like to think I know better, when He raises His voice. That makes me jump. He knows how to get my full, undivided attention.

 

[Bible2]

mcflooble:
But we are moving far from the thread topic, from why you believe to why I don't.

I believe in God because of everything that exists (Romans 1:20).

I believe in Christ because God miraculously granted me the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8) and his Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10-16).

Isn't a part of the Christian faith the concept of grace, where God chooses people who can believe?

Yes, insofar as God chooses to whom he will give his miraculous gift of faith in Christ (John 6:65). But no miraculous gift of faith is needed to simply believe that God exists (Romans 1:20).

could you choose to not believe right now, without any reason to except to demonstrate that you can choose?

It is possible for people to wrongly employ their will to choose to not believe in God despite seeing the proof of his existence (Romans 1:19-25). And even after receiving the miraculous gift of faith in Christ, it is possible for Christians to wrongly employ their will to commit apostasy, to depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1-2), whether in order to follow their own lusts (2 Timothy 4:3-4), or to keep from getting killed during a persecution (Luke 8:13, Matthew 13:21), or because they become angry with Christ for some reason (e.g. Matthew 26:7-16, John 12:4-6).

If you were presented with something that 100% changed you to atheist it wouldn't be a choice, you would just find that you wouldn't be able to believe anymore.

Not believing in God is always a choice, because there is no evidence to counter the proof of his existence (Romans 1:19-20); and not believing in Christ is always a choice for those to whom God has given the gift of faith in Christ, because God won't take back that gift (Romans 11:29). The only thing that isn't a choice is those who have never believed in Christ not believing in Christ (John 8:42-47), because it is God alone who chooses to whom he will give his gift of faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8).

 

[aiki]

I don't need to come up with a good argument because it's been done elsewhere. I can just refer you to that. No matter how bad my arguments are, if they just so happen to lead to the correct conclusion (demonstrated in other arguments) then it doesn't change the validity of the conclusion. Granted, it's a terrible way to persuade people that your conclusion is correct (especially if you don't show them the good arguments), but that wasn't what I was trying to do here.

But why would you even offer these other arguments from elsewhere as support for your atheistic belief? You wrote:

What I was getting at was it didn't matter about all these arguments for and against God, what mattered was what I believed.

If this is true, then aren't these other arguments in favor of atheism that you mention irrelevant? If arguments for or against something are unnecessary, why do you justify your own atheistic conclusion by the arguments of other atheists? Aren't you tacitly acknowledging in referring to these other arguments that you actually do need them to defend your own atheism? And if you need them to do that, aren't you engaging in a rational process of thought (which is essentially what an argument is) directed toward justifying your atheism? How then can you say that arguments don't matter, only belief matters?

I could resist the idea of God if the problems were satisfied because these problems are only real if God is real. Solving the problems of an imaginary thing doesn't make that thing real. They are hypothetical.

Well, aren't you assuming a priori that God is unreal? Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to begin without this prejudiced assumption and allow the arguments and facts to speak for themselves? For millions of people, many of whom are intelligent, well-schooled, and thoughtful, God is not hypothetical, but very, very real. Are you simply beginning with the question of God by assuming they are all caught up in a fantasy? Isn't that a rather myopic and perhaps even arrogant place from which to start in thinking about God?

About belief. Yes, I completely agree. They need help. Do you think that guy chose to believe he was an elephant? That he was bored one day, and thought, you know what, I'm going to 100% utterly believe that I am an elephant? And then he could actually do it?

Generally, people who adopt such a view of themselves are considered to be mentally ill, not simply bored.

Did you choose to believe you are a human? Or can't you help it?

I did not choose to believe what is evident as a brute fact. Inasmuch as I am a human, I do not have to choose to believe that I am. When I or any other human being begins to question their humanness (and the brute fact of it) it is regarded as a departure from sanity to do so.

You can't help what you believe because of the experiences, facts and opinions you've been presented with, all of which point towards you being human.

The phrase "points towards" is suggestive of an argument, of evidence to be considered in favor of a position. Isn't this rather in contradiction to your point?

If you had been presented with experiences, facts and opinions all pointing towards you being an elephant I'm sure that you would believe that you was an elephant. You wouldn't question it.

Why wouldn't I question it? Because all the evidence points towards my being an elephant and from that I would conclude (a rational process of deduction) that I am an elephant? But this is an explanation that reveals the opposite of what you have said. You have just described above a rational process through which one becomes convinced of a point of view or belief. You began, though, by asserting that such a process did not enter into how one came to believe a thing. I'm confused now about what you're saying...

If you then got presented with evidence that you were human, you would have to weigh up that with the evidence you have for your elephantness. If you have a belief-changing thought, you can't help it.

Because the rational act of "weighing up" the evidence persuaded you to your belief. The force of the evidence acting upon your rational faculties (weighing up) convinces you of what you believe. So, what you're really saying is that the evidence is so convincing that you cannot choose other than to believe?

It's just another experience that influenced your beliefs. E.g. if you suddenly had a revelation that you are a human, it's not because you chose to have a revelation that you are human. Yes, you can choose to seek experiences, facts and opinions that point towards your humaness, but you can't choose their effect on you.

But you've just explained above that this is exactly what one does! It seems to me that you're confusing the power of evidence to convince with an inability to choose to deny such evidence. Essentially, what you're saying is that evidence can seem so powerful that one simply embraces it as an obvious, undeniable reality. Is this right? What about the man who believes he is an elephant, though? He has been so convinced - but to a wrong conclusion. Obviously, there is more to the matter than simple conviction.

About the guy jumping off the cliff. I would feel sorry for him and would also be gobsmacked that someone doesn't believe in gravity. They would have to be immensely delusional. I don't think they could help that or that they chose to be so.

But you are claiming the same thing as this guy: That you just can't help what you believe. Why is he delusional and you aren't? Just as you would be "gobsmacked" by his lack of belief in gravity, I am "gobsmacked by your lack of belief in God. Does this make you delusional?

I talked to Christian friends, went to church and thought about God for a few reasons. To continue the metaphor, I believe I'm a human but want to see if there's evidence (I'm lumping experiences, facts and opinions under the name evidence just for simplicity. I realise they don't actually mean evidence) for me being an elephant. Why would I want to do this? Because there are a good many people who believe that they and I are elephants, who introduced the idea to me. If enough evidence was there, my belief would change. But not because I'd decide "Hmm... Okay that's enough evidence, right, about... Now!" (although I have a pretty good idea about what would change my belief).

How is being told you're an elephant like being told there is a God?

Every child is born an atheist. I think that's fair to say.

How do you know this is true?

I'm not saying atheism is genetic (although I'm not ruling it out), quite the opposite! I'm saying that what you believe is the result of the experiences you've had and the facts and opinions you've come across (which goes under experiences but I want to point out some of the details).

As I've suggested above, there is more to it than what you've stated here. What about when your experiences, facts, and opinions bring you to a wrong conclusion? How is this rectified?

When I was trying to discover what I believed, no, the arguments didn't matter because I'd gone over them a hundred times. What mattered was the effect they'd had on me, aka my belief. I wasn't ignoring the arguments. I was finding out their effect on me. This is a great way for a judge to decide a case.

You hadn't communicated this very clearly before. "Finding out their effect" implies, or at least suggests, a rational process culminating in a choice. Do you agree?

This judge metaphor leads nicely into your "see my questions above" part. The judge doesn't start "agnostic" towards the accused. The husband is innocent until proven guilty.

The fact that the accused stands before the judge indicates that his innocence is in question. The judge exists as a judge precisely because this is so. He does not know if the man is a murderer or not, which is why he must listen to the arguments and then render a judgment on the matter. He cannot simply announce before the trial begins that the man is innocent, that there has been no murder, and the trial over. Doing so would be tantamount to the atheist's claim that there is no God, which they assume without having full knowledge of all the facts.

This is an analogy for God doesn't exist until proven that He does. And it applies to everything, not just God.

An atheist can no more "prove" God doesn't exist than I can "prove" that He does. We each consider the available evidence and arrive at a conclusion.

If I see these listed things answered convincingly, then I'll probably change my belief. I say probably because
a) I might have missed something on the list
b) New problems might arise
c) I can't choose what I believe

Can you see the apparent contradiction in the statements you've made that I put in bold print?

Peace.

 

[mcflooble]

This is a response to aiki's last post.

I think the part later about finding out the effect of the arguments answers the first two parts of your post. Then the arguments presented by other atheists helps defend my position from those with a different view.

About assuming God isn't real: I'm an atheist. That's my position - that God isn't real. I'm not beginning with the assumption that He isn't.

About the phrase "point towards" being a contradiction of my point: I don't see how it's a contradiction.

About the next part: I think this gets cleared up later in the post.

The next part: Yes.

The next part ("But you've just explained above..."): No I didn't. The man who believes he is an elephant didn't choose to believe that. The fact he believes wrongly doesn't mean he had a choice.

About the guy jumping off the cliff part: I believe in gravity so strongly that I believe he's delusional. Sure, my belief could be wrong. There has to be a line drawn somewhere between saying "I believe" at the start of every sentence and not. He's delusional because he doesn't believe in gravity despite the overwhelming evidence for it If he had somehow not been exposed to this evidence, however, then I wouldn't consider him delusional. But it's rather impossible to not be exposed to gravity. You could believe I'm delusional, that's fine.

About being told I'm an elephant/God exists: I was extending the metaphor from earlier. As such I had to choose one side to be the being human and one side to represent being an elephant... Considering my position as an atheist, I chose God not existing to be the elephant part.

About every child being born an atheist: I don't think we'll be able to have a meeting of minds over this. If God exists, then it's reasonable to believe that children can be born already believing in Him.

The next part: When you have a false belief, this can be rectified by having experiences, facts and/or opinions that support the true belief.

The next part (not communicating something clearly): No, I hadn't, and I'm sorry. I said at the very beginning that I wasn't very good at explaining, and here's some evidence of that. This is the bit I believed would clear up the bits from before. I would agree that "finding out their effect" suggests a rational process, but not that it culminates in a choice. Their effect has already been determined, and finding that out wouldn't lead to a choice, just what the effect is.

The judge part: You are an atheist towards a lot of gods. Your claim of the atheist's claim also applies to you.

Proving God does or doesn't exist: I agree.

The bolded contradictions: I have a habit of doing this... leaving out things that are obvious to me but prove not to be obvious to everyone else. It's part of not being able to explain things properly I suppose. Anyway, I can see why they seem to be a contradiction, but they're not, because I can predict what will change my beliefs, and that is what I am doing.

Rather than leave your questions hanging, I made this post to answer them, but this isn't the point of this thread. I got asked why I'm an atheist, and, despite the fact it's not the thread topic, I decided it was only fair that I shared too. I created the thread to find out why people believe in God, and I haven't argued with any of them.

 

[aiki]

I'm not so much arguing with you as trying to comprehend exactly how and what you think. I appreciate your even-tempered willingness to respond.

Some posting help: To quote someone else's post as you see me doing in my posts highlight the portion in a person's post you want to use as a quotation, copy, and then paste into your reply window. Highlight the copied section and click on the yellow, square, speech "bubble" along the top of the reply window. This will frame the quotation as you see them framed in my posts. Voila! You're done.

I won't continue to question you since you think it is causing topic drift.

Peace.

 

[Adoniram]

*Here's all I think I know about grace: We can't believe in God unless God allows us to, and we receive this grace undeservedly.

**As far as I know, all Christians believe we have free will as a matter of faith (I'm aware that there are arguments for free will that aren't faith based). I didn't want to end up having to have to try and persuade you not to believe in God in order to make this point.

You're treading on the top of the iceberg of some pretty deep theological points, my friend.

Let me touch first on "grace." Grace is the method of divine dealing in salvation and the believer's life.

Titus 3
4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Grace is seen as a contrast to the law, under which God demands righteousness (and man can never achieve the perfection of never breaking the law), as opposed to grace, in which God bestows righteousness on men through mercy as a gift to those who believe and follow Jesus. Under the law, one earned blessings through obedience; under grace, blessings are a gift to those who believe.

But in the context of our discussion, I wonder if you are confusing "grace" with "election" or maybe "predestination," which refers more to the point of choice, or lack of it, that you are trying to make.

Election refers to those specifically chosen of God. Jesus mentions it in John 15
16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. 17 These things I command you, that you love one another. 18 “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Paul talks about being predestined.
Ephesians 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

I defer to William MacDonald's explanation of this in "The Believer's Bible Commentary."

EXCURSUS ON DIVINE ELECTION
The doctrine of election raises serious problems in the human mind, so we must consider more fully what the Bible does (and does not) teach on this subject.
First, it teaches that God does choose men to salvation (2Th_2:13). It addresses believers as those who are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God” (1Pe_1:2). It teaches that people can know whether they are elect by their response to the gospel: those who hear and believe it are elect (1Th_1:4-7).
On the other hand, the Bible never teaches that God chooses men to be lost. The fact that He chooses some to be saved does not imply that He arbitrarily condemns all the rest. He never condemns men who deserve to be saved (there are none), but He does save some who ought to be condemned. When Paul describes the elect, he speaks of them as “vessels of mercy which He had prepared beforehand for glory” (Rom_9:23); but when he turns to the lost, he simply says, “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Rom_9:22). God prepares vessels of mercy to glory, but He does not prepare men for destruction: they do this for themselves by their own unbelief.
The doctrine of election lets God be God. He is sovereign, that is, He can do as He pleases, although He never pleases to do anything unjust. If left alone, all men would be lost. Does God have the right to show mercy to some?
But there is another side to the story. The same Bible that teaches sovereign election also teaches human responsibility. No one can use the doctrine of election as an excuse for not being saved. God makes a bona fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere (Joh_3:16; Joh_3:36; Joh_5:24; Rom_10:9, Rom_10:13). Anyone can be saved by repenting of his sins and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, if a person is lost, it is because he chooses to be lost, not because God desires it.
The fact is that the same Bible teaches election and free salvation to all who will receive it. Both doctrines are found in a single verse: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out” (Joh_6:37). The first half of the verse speaks of God's sovereign choice; the last half extends the offer of mercy to all.
This poses a difficulty for the human mind. How can God choose some and yet offer salvation freely to all men? Frankly, this is a mystery. But the mystery is on our side, not on God's. The best policy for us is to believe both doctrines because the Bible teaches both. The truth is not found somewhere between election and man's free will, but in both extremes. W. G. Blaikie summarizes:
Divine sovereignty, human responsibility and the free and universal offer of mercy are all found in Scripture, and though we are unable to harmonize them by our logic, they all ought to have a place in our minds.

As MacDonald points out, God's sovereignty does not absolve men of their own responsibility. And whether a choice is made through action or non-action, it is a choice nontheless. The fact that you believe you have no choice is a choice in itself.

Since this is a long post, I will let you think on that for a bit.

 

[mcflooble]

I'm not so much arguing with you as trying to comprehend exactly how and what you think. I appreciate your even-tempered willingness to respond.

Yeah, thought so. I'd like to explain it properly but I think it'll take some time before I'm willing and able. Thanks for the appreciation too, it's been nice talking with you too.

Some posting help: To quote someone else's post as you see me doing in my posts highlight the portion in a person's post you want to use as a quotation, copy, and then paste into your reply window. Highlight the copied section and click on the yellow, square, speech "bubble" along the top of the reply window. This will frame the quotation as you see them framed in my posts. Voila! You're done.

Thanks!! I don't need to keep quoting you but I thought I'd show off that I can now

I won't continue to question you since you think it is causing topic drift.

Thanks. As I said I think I'd like to discuss it some other time.

Thanks for taking the time to post!