Why believe in God when there are more logic solutions?

[MVP23]

Lets just use an example...Lets say I'm walking down the street, and a piano falls on my head...either there is a logical solution to said piano falling on my head (someone dropping it) or maybe an invisible man in the sky did it...now..

Here we are in the planet Earth. The only planet known to harbor life. The Logic in me would conclude that...we might have been created somehow, somewhere, sometime,....but how can one conclude that is was because of an invisible man in the sky? What if smart aliens created us, and even smarter aliens created them?...Where do you get an invisible man in the sky from?..There are literally a billion other explanations some reasonable, some not as to how we got here, but how you can come to the conclusion that GOD, and almighty being that nobody can see or hear or talk to did it is beyond me....

 

[ivdavid]

Your question may have been valid if God hadn't revealed Himself. But since He revealed Himself through the prophets, His written Word - Bible, His Son - Jesus Christ among many other ways, we do know who He is because He says who He is.
If you're looking for a scientific explanation as to how God exists, that's never going to happen. So by 'logic', you must be very clear what you're referring to. 'Logic' could mean to some people that which can be empirically observed. But to most, it's simply using your mind to evaluate propositions - here, Christians do use their minds to logically evaluate what is being told while putting their faith in Christ.

 

[seekandlisten]

Your question may have been valid if God hadn't revealed Himself. But since He revealed Himself through the prophets, His written Word - Bible, His Son - Jesus Christ among many other ways, we do know who He is because He says who He is.
If you're looking for a scientific explanation as to how God exists, that's never going to happen. So by 'logic', you must be very clear what you're referring to. 'Logic' could mean to some people that which can be empirically observed. But to most, it's simply using your mind to evaluate propositions - here, Christians do use their minds to logically evaluate what is being told while putting their faith in Christ.

A couple of questions for you, if you don't mind? You say that God revealed Himself through his prophets, the bible, and Jesus Christ. Now all this can only be taken as being revealed if one believes everything in the bible right? My question in this area is where should our faith come in, faith in the bible or faith in God. I think God must be 'revealed' to the individual rather than taking someone else's word on it.

To someone who has no incline towards 'God', the bible is no more of relevance than the Qur'an, Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, Guru Granth Sahib, or any other 'sacred scripture' held by it's believers. There is a big difference between beliefs and faith wouldn't you agree?

'Logic' holds a different 'description' amongst many people. I have heard someone present an argument to me supposedly based on 'logic', according to them, that seemed utterly ridiculous and on the far end of what I would consider logical. 'God' tells us, according to scripture, to recognize that which is in front of us and the rest will be revealed yet I see so many 'believers' discard observable evidence in favor of their beliefs based on what they call 'faith'. Instances as these 'muddy the waters' for someone observing wouldn't you say?

I agree that 'God' can not be proven nor disproved, but does that make the many different 'images of God' correct. Which one is right? What I would consider 'logic' brings me to the understanding that 'God' cannot be described in our 'physical terms'. We cannot try and 'limit God' by setting in stone Who and What He is. Now these are just my personal beliefs but I would wonder what perception you would have on this?

Alan Watts once said, 'To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float.'

cheers

 

[happyjoy]

Lets just use an example...Lets say I'm walking down the street, and a piano falls on my head...either there is a logical solution to said piano falling on my head (someone dropping it) or maybe an invisible man in the sky did it...now..

Here we are in the planet Earth. The only planet known to harbor life. The Logic in me would conclude that...we might have been created somehow, somewhere, sometime,....but how can one conclude that is was because of an invisible man in the sky? What if smart aliens created us, and even smarter aliens created them?...Where do you get an invisible man in the sky from?..There are literally a billion other explanations some reasonable, some not as to how we got here, but how you can come to the conclusion that GOD, and almighty being that nobody can see or hear or talk to did it is beyond me....

Your analogy of the falling piano is not valid in the discussion of the existence of God. Also I reject your assertion that God is an invisible man in the sky.

It is simple. God is the origin or order. The first thing. The first piece of DNA that came to be. God wrote that set of instructions.

You say God is impossible.

I say prove it, and counter God is evident.

 

[ivdavid]

I think God must be 'revealed' to the individual rather than taking someone else's word on it.

Very true. I cannot make anyone believe in God through my reasoning or arguments. I cannot convince anybody through my exhortation or pleading. But the Word of God has the power to change hearts - and this is what is asked to be preached under the Great Commission. I do not want to spread God's word for any other reason than to see a person come under God's saving grace. Having experienced it without deserving it, I want to share the Good News with all. Of course, this does not yield any excuse to stuff it down their throats or to manipulate them into it. When they refuse to hear, it is better to let them be, pray for them and continue living a life that witnesses Christ.

'God' tells us, according to scripture, to recognize that which is in front of us and the rest will be revealed yet I see so many 'believers' discard observable evidence in favor of their beliefs based on what they call 'faith'.

I'd like it if you could give me an example to help my understanding. But yes, there is faith and then there is 'blind faith'. Faith is being fully persuaded in your mind that God would approve of your actions. Blind faith is fully persuading yourself that God should approve of your actions. To discern between the two, fair amount of logic, Scriptural meditation, introspection etc. are needed.

I agree that 'God' can not be proven nor disproved, but does that make the many different 'images of God' correct. Which one is right?

I've tried approaching this here - viewtopic.php?f=20&t=45262&start=90 .
I'd like to state here that when I wrote those posts in the aforementioned link, I did it out of a lot of zeal and a good dose of immaturity. For instance, I'll have to recant most if not all parts of Post 3. Nonetheless, some parts should make for a good discussion. Read it when you've got the time and let's see how far it takes us.

 

[seekandlisten]

'God' tells us, according to scripture, to recognize that which is in front of us and the rest will be revealed yet I see so many 'believers' discard observable evidence in favor of their beliefs based on what they call 'faith'.

I'd like it if you could give me an example to help my understanding.

I'm assuming here that you want an example of what 'observable evidence' is discarded in favor of 'religious beliefs', correct me if I'm wrong at what you are looking for here. What I meant is things like evolution vs literal 6-day creation, old age earth vs young age earth, noah's flood, the bible is infallible as the literal word of God, and so on. For instance when one chooses to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and ignore all physical evidence against it they aren't believing in 'truth' they are believing in their own opinion, I would assume you would classify this with 'blind faith' correct?

But yes, there is faith and then there is 'blind faith'. Faith is being fully persuaded in your mind that God would approve of your actions.

This can be a dangerous and most often times a harmful belief. Faith is believing in that which you cannot know. Alan Watts made a good analogy by saying, 'To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float.' One could also say that faith requires openness and trust in that we can't be narrowminded if we know that 'through God all things are possible' and that 'the mysteries of God will be revealed' right?

Blind faith is fully persuading yourself that God should approve of your actions. To discern between the two, fair amount of logic, Scriptural meditation, introspection etc. are needed.

I could agree with this statement.

I agree that 'God' can not be proven nor disproved, but does that make the many different 'images of God' correct. Which one is right?

I've tried approaching this here - viewtopic.php?f=20&t=45262&start=90 .
I'd like to state here that when I wrote those posts in the aforementioned link, I did it out of a lot of zeal and a good dose of immaturity. For instance, I'll have to recant most if not all parts of Post 3. Nonetheless, some parts should make for a good discussion. Read it when you've got the time and let's see how far it takes us.

I had browsed through it a little as I was involved in that thread but when I get some time here I'll take a closer look and see what discussion could arise from what you put forward.

cheers

 

[Cheyenne K]

I can understand where you are coming from, but I highly disagree.

First off, there is something that always nags at my mind in reference to Atheism vs. Christianity. I have seen countless testimonies from Christians about God and His Word and His Spirit. But what about Atheists? I have heard no testimonies that puts solidity (for me, anyway) that there really is no God, or anything else for that matter. Now, I’m not giving you the “oh, you can’t prove there is no God, so there must be one†answer in this - though it may seem like it, so I apologize - but such is impossible. How can you make people believe that there is nothing to believe? Or have an means of proving it to yourself - and by this, I’m not referring to science or anything. Can you experience such an event that leaves you with no other answer except for Atheism? One can’t really say, “I have not seen another planet myself, so it must not exist.â€
Sure, you could deny Christian testimonies and their accuracy. You could say these people are fully well under an illusion and must have some brain disorder. But what about those who were firm in Atheism beforehand, for many years? There are many people who hate Christianity, why suddenly convert to it, even with a mental disorder? In all likeliness, I believe the mental disorder would only encourage the hate or disbelief. And forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe C.S. Lewis was, at one point in his life, an Atheist. Look what happened there.

As for not believing in logic; logic is not always logical, or the answer. Logic can wind up quite skewed depending on who it is coming from. While I’m not comparing Atheism to Nazism, many people believed in Hitler’s “logic.†As we now know, this was not a good idea and his notions were quite illogical. Not to mention how many illogical things happen. My cousin had advanced cancer along her spine. They gave her a few months to live without chemo, and about a year with. The chemo didn’t seem to be working too well, according to the doctors. Yet, when she went to get another round, the cancer had completely disappeared; not a single tumor left. If someone had told her this would happen, it would not have been a logical statement. Yet it happened.
And Atheism, to a degree, is relying upon Faith, much like Christianity does. The difference being an Atheist has faith there is no God, while a Christian’s Faith is God.

Sorry if certain parts were difficult to understand, as it seems I was rambling a bit at times. And if it was offensive at any point, I apologize as well. I did not intend it to sound that way if it does.

 

[logical bob]

Cheyenne, hi. You make the mistake, like many Christians, of thinking that atheism is another religion with faith in no god rather than faith in God. An atheist is simply someone who is of the opinion that there are no gods. To use a popular quote, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

The idea of an atheist testimony is a strange one. We're not much impressed by testimonies. One reason for this is that people of every faith have testimonies. Muslims, Hindus, animists, pagans, Sikhs, Zoroastrians etc etc have profound spiritual experiences, see visions, get healed, have good things happen to them, are tranformed by the word of their god and so on in exactly the same way as Christians. The vast majority of these people experience the god dominant in their own culture. It seems to be part of human nature that this happens.

Secondly, testimonies don't actually offer us any reason to believe. OK, you felt transformed or at peace or a strong sense that this was meant to be. You were absolutely certain that you felt the presence of God. Things went well for you in a way that you had no reason to expect. I don't mean to be rude and I don't doubt your sincerity but it all gets a resounding "Meh" from us atheists.

Most importantly, how could there be an atheist road to Damascus? A moment when we have a sudden experience of ... nothing. For us, there's nothing to encounter in that experience.

 

[CrimsonPride]

well logically, if you follow science, at one time there was nothing, supposedly billions of years ago, yet this going against the scientific "laws" of thermodynamics. So before the "big bang", there had to be objects to create the "big bang," supposedly before this happened there was the multiverse theory, and before the multiverse supposedly there would be something else that created it, and so you get into an infinite chain going backwards which science cannot explain, yet it is what the majority believe


say you are walking on a beach, and you find a watch that has washed up in the sand, you assume there had to be a watchmaker. why do you assume this, because you know that it is pretty much impossible for a watch to be created from what is contained in the ocean. so why would you even think something infinitely more complex then a watch just happened to come into being from an explosion? This logically makes absolutely no sense. Something that is placed just the exact distance from the sun that life is possible, and with the exact mixture of gasses that allow us to live, and plants to live, and plants that consume what we breath out and create what we need to survive. so if we are talking about logic, science loses the battle all the time, i have several more examples i could tell but i do not find it necessary.

and the thing about other forms of life creating us does not make sense either. something that existed before there was even a universe had to exist to create humanity, so this something would have had to create anything else in the universe also, aliens could not exist before there was anything in existence could they? no because that again is logically impossible.

 

[logical bob]

I don't know what level of scientific knowledge or education you have, but doesn't it occur to you that if life and the universe arising through natural processes were a simple logical impossibility or could be shown to be incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics then scientists would have realised this? If it were as simple as you make it sound then you'd find that people who have studied science would be more likely than others to believe in a god, while in fact they are less likely to do so.

If you're going to reject an idea that's absolutely fine, but it would be better to reject it based on understanding something about it. I'm sure you'd agree that someone shouldn't reject Christianity without learning about it first. In the same way, you'd surely strengthen your faith by engaging with what science actually says about evolution and the origins of the universe instead of a caricature of science that says things "came into being from an explosion."

The example of the watch is commonly cited. There's an excellent book devoted to that question and how living things can appear to be deliberately designed when in fact they aren't. It's called The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins and I thoroughly recommend it. I don't expect it to persuade you about evolution, but it would help you to understand what it is that you don't believe.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Bob

What do you mean by 'natural process" ?

If everything is based upon a natural process, then when someone murders another person, we then would conclude that this persons death is nothing more than a natural process.?

 

[logical bob]

I mean a process that, at least in principle, can be observed and measured. The opposite would be supernatural.

If somebody murders another person then in this sense it is natural processes at work. You could see the murder happen, understand how the gun works and examine the body. A doctor or psychologist could perhaps establish some facts about the muderer's state of mind. We don't need to appeal to anything supernatural to understand what's happened here.

I take it that you'd like to say that murder is unnatural. What you're doing there is making a moral judgement and saying that you find murder to be morally bad. I would totally agree with you in that judgement.

Natural means different things in different contexts. In this case it's important to distinguish between scientific and moral contexts.

 

[Mysteryman]

I mean a process that, at least in principle, can be observed and measured. The opposite would be supernatural.

If somebody murders another person then in this sense it is natural processes at work. You could see the murder happen, understand how the gun works and examine the body. A doctor or psychologist could perhaps establish some facts about the muderer's state of mind. We don't need to appeal to anything supernatural to understand what's happened here.

I take it that you'd like to say that murder is unnatural. What you're doing there is making a moral judgement and saying that you find murder to be morally bad. I would totally agree with you in that judgement.

Natural means different things in different contexts. In this case it's important to distinguish between scientific and moral contexts.

Hi Bob

Well then, that would beg the question as to where and from what do we define morality ? Is it moral for a male lion to kill its cubs so that the female will come into estrus ? So this could easily be considered a natural process. Thus wouldn't murder then be a natural process ? Elimination of the weaker so that the stronger may survive ?

Morality and natural process would then need to be seen in the same light. If not, then there is no such thing as natural process. Reasoning is an ability that the animal kingdom does not have an ability, so morality within the animal kingdom does not deal with morality. But man does ?

So the bottom line question would still stand -- by what standard is morality based ? For what is moral to one person, is not necesarrily moral in the eyes of another person. So by what standard can morality come into balance with all of mankind ? Natural process ?

 

[logical bob]

As I said in my previous post, by natural processes I mean those which can in principle be observed and measured. Moral properties can't be observed or measured. You can't see good or measure evil. Ethics and science are different things - they're unconnected.

 

[Mysteryman]

As I said in my previous post, by natural processes I mean those which can in principle be observed and measured. Moral properties can't be observed or measured. You can't see good or measure evil. Ethics and science are different things - they're unconnected.

Hi Bob

If moral properties (using your words here) can't be observed or measured. Then how can one even consider/judge anything as being moral or immoral ?

 

[logical bob]

If you think that moral properties can be observed or measured then please tell us how!

 

[Mysteryman]

If you think that moral properties can be observed or measured then please tell us how!

Hi Bob

I believe that you already know by what standards my morals come from.

The laws of the land have their own standards of morals.

So the question comes down too, what set of moral do you observe ? And by what basis do you believe that these standards are correct ?

 

[logical bob]

Hi MM. I'm already having a discussion on moral philosophy here so rather then have it in two threads why not join in?

 

[TanNinety]

Lets just use an example...Lets say I'm walking down the street, and a piano falls on my head...either there is a logical solution to said piano falling on my head (someone dropping it) or maybe an invisible man in the sky did it...now..

But, that does not represent the case at hand. Let’s say you are wandering in a desert and a piano fell on your head, with no hint of helicopters or airplanes (other flying objects) being in the vicinity.

Here we are in the planet Earth. The only planet known to harbor life. The Logic in me would conclude that...we might have been created somehow, somewhere, sometime,....but how can one conclude that is was because of an invisible man in the sky? What if smart aliens created us, and even smarter aliens created them?...

Your hypothesis: ‘smart aliens created us’
Your observation: ‘[Earth]The only planet known to harbor life’
How does your argument logically get stronger when your observation directly contradicts your hypothesis?

Where do you get an invisible man in the sky from?..There are literally a billion other explanations some reasonable, some not as to how we got here, but how you can come to the conclusion that GOD, and

A billion other explanations? Care to elucidate on a few that you do know?

almighty being that nobody can see or hear or talk to did it is beyond me....

A lot of people attest to personal experience with God. Just because YOU don’t/can’t acknowledge subjective evidence does not mean evidence doesn’t exist.

For someone who wants to be logical in their thinking, you are dismissing God under a ‘lack of evidence’ as ‘evidence of lack there of’ reasoning which is a logical fallacy.

 

[TanNinety]

Cheyenne, hi. You make the mistake, like many Christians, of thinking that atheism is another religion with faith in no god rather than faith in God. An atheist is simply someone who is of the opinion that there are no gods.

Obviously we all don’t come out of the wombs with an opinion of ‘there are no gods’. The opinion ‘there are’ or ‘there aren’t’ is learned through personal experience. Theists have personal experience of ‘there are gods’. What is the personal experience of atheists for ‘there are no gods’? None. Other than I reject the theists evidence of gods since I have no personal experience of my own. This in fact is a weaker opinion based on rejection of evidence..

To use a popular quote, atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Again, the hobby of an atheist is to actively reject the stamp collection of the theist. A truly hobby less person is the agnostic who says, “I don’t know and I don’t care either wayâ€. Not necessary getting into strong and weak atheism at this point. My point of view is based on strong atheists and not agnostic atheists.

The idea of an atheist testimony is a strange one. We're not much impressed by testimonies.

I know of numerous people who quote Dawkins when they want to muster up their argument against theism. His books are his testimony to his atheism. Again, I don’t find atheists much different to theists.

One reason for this is that people of every faith have testimonies. Muslims, Hindus, animists, pagans, Sikhs, Zoroastrians etc etc have profound spiritual experiences, see visions, get healed, have good things happen to them, are tranformed by the word of their god and so on in exactly the same way as Christians. The vast majority of these people experience the god dominant in their own culture. It seems to be part of human nature that this happens.

Great! Now we have some varied intersubjective experience of different gods from different theists of different disciplines. Where’s the atheists evidence?

Secondly, testimonies don't actually offer us any reason to believe.

Personal opinion. Should we throw out the court system?

OK, you felt transformed or at peace or a strong sense that this was meant to be. You were absolutely certain that you felt the presence of God. Things went well for you in a way that you had no reason to expect. I don't mean to be rude and I don't doubt your sincerity but it all gets a resounding "Meh" from us atheists.

Where’s the atheists evidence so Cheyenne can go ‘meh’ at? That’s right, she has to go ‘meh’ at atheist’s opinion instead since she doesn’t have their evidence.

Most importantly, how could there be an atheist road to Damascus? A moment when we have a sudden experience of ... nothing. For us, there's nothing to encounter in that experience.

True, so you agree your opinion is based on ‘nothing’. So to a mostly agnostic person like me, a theist seems to have the upperhand over you.

As I see it, Cheyenne never said, atheism was a religion. She merely pointed out atheists lack evidence of their own. You indirectly admitted to Cheyenne’s proposition and added that what atheists have is only an opinion based on nothing.