-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I believe in God because...
- Thread starter wubs23
- Start date
Skwim
Veteran Member
I doubt anyone knows why their god happens to exist. As for why one should be religious, my guess is because it enriches one's life; enrichment being reason enough.
The best argument I've seen to date is the contingency argument. I have laid it out below, but as amazing as it seems, like all arguments, it shows nothing. It simply proves something foundational to the universe, not necessarily God. Personally, I do not believe in God as I see absolutely nothing supporting the existence of one.
Main Argument
1. All beings are either necessary or contingent.
2. Not all beings can be contingent.
Therefore: there is a necessary being.
3. A god is the most likely necessary being.
Therefore: god exists.
Argument for Premise 1
1.' Every being must be necessary (explained in terms of itself), contingent (explained in terms of another thing), or unexplained (without explanation).
2.' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (Principle of Sufficient Reason).
Therefore: every being is either necessary or contingent.
Argument for Premise 2
1.'' If every being is contingent, there is no explanation for the series of contingencies.
2.'' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (PSR)
Therefore: not all beings are contingent.
Main Argument
1. All beings are either necessary or contingent.
2. Not all beings can be contingent.
Therefore: there is a necessary being.
3. A god is the most likely necessary being.
Therefore: god exists.
Argument for Premise 1
1.' Every being must be necessary (explained in terms of itself), contingent (explained in terms of another thing), or unexplained (without explanation).
2.' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (Principle of Sufficient Reason).
Therefore: every being is either necessary or contingent.
Argument for Premise 2
1.'' If every being is contingent, there is no explanation for the series of contingencies.
2.'' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (PSR)
Therefore: not all beings are contingent.
Levite
Higher and Higher
Of course not. That is why it is called "faith," and not "science." Ultimately, all proofs of God's existence are subjective, not objective.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
I had a personal religious experience.
Only if you give me one logical, fact-based argument why people ask this question so often. (Just kidding).
:foot:Religion is based on faith. We don't have scientific proof of God and we all know it. We have spiritual truths, but that is hardly proof for a skeptic.
this ...
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
In all respect, may I ask why you have faith?
I can only say that when I've thought things were at rock bottom, something good came along unexpectedly. The gods and goddesses I believe in do those things (nice surprises). Do they really exist? I have no idea but I believe they do. Now as to proof, if one has to have proof of the existence of their deity(ies) or has to prove to someone their deity(ies) exist, how strong is their faith? Not very strong, I'd say. And it is all about belief and faith, not logic.
HerDotness
Lady Babbleon
And I'm an atheist because I had a massively transformative experience, so no, OP, can't give ya a single one...although I don't reject the possibility that someone might produce evidence of one someday.
Ain't holding my breath.
Lots of things are capable of enriching and enhancing people's lives and have squat-all relation to religion. These thingies that enable me to chat, argue with, berate and josh people all around the world certainly are such.
Ain't holding my breath.
Lots of things are capable of enriching and enhancing people's lives and have squat-all relation to religion. These thingies that enable me to chat, argue with, berate and josh people all around the world certainly are such.
While I probably have some issues with you argument for premises 1 and 2, the most important one here is premise 3, and you haven't explained it at all.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
I am God. Disprove it. If you can not disprove it then you must serve me or just admit defeat.
My proof is that I say I am God, I feel that I am God and I know that I am God.
All of my experience in life leads me to the conclusion that I am God. Therefore, God exists.
Be patient y'all. You might see where I could go with this line.
1) God(s) may be defined as:
a. aspects of reality that are greater/grander than a human and/or humanity
b. aspects of reality upon which humans depend for existing
c. aspects of reality that inspire awe, wonder, and reverence
d. aspects of reality that a person believes is worth revering and honoring in some fashion
2) Reality in this context understood as anything which may be perceived in any fashion by humans. This includes both things which exist in a physical sense and which exist in an abstract/ideological/imaginal sense.
The "why" god(s) exist should be pretty self-evident with this kind of outlook.
a. aspects of reality that are greater/grander than a human and/or humanity
b. aspects of reality upon which humans depend for existing
c. aspects of reality that inspire awe, wonder, and reverence
d. aspects of reality that a person believes is worth revering and honoring in some fashion
2) Reality in this context understood as anything which may be perceived in any fashion by humans. This includes both things which exist in a physical sense and which exist in an abstract/ideological/imaginal sense.
The "why" god(s) exist should be pretty self-evident with this kind of outlook.
Actually there is a Sanskrit phrase: "Aham Brahmasmi" meaning "I am Brahman (God)". It points out the oneness of all beings in God, and that our real nature is that we are God.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
One more bit of evidence. Thank you. haha
That definition seems unreasonably broad.
Well considering it's not "my argument" and I don't think it works, I couldn't really care any less. The 3rd point is where it really falls apart as that is a drastic jump from something necessary to God. Personally that is where my problem lies, as the rest is logically valid at least, if not sound.
Last edited by a moderator:
But this 'I' is not the ego "I' at all. It is referring to your true identity, the part of you, the essence of you, often called the Self, not to be confused with ego-self.