Is it reasonable to believe in God just because God exists?

[CG Didymus]

It sounds like an abusive relationship. Make believe person should get out of it

In some of the Bible stories, the character known as God is abusive. This God starts out with a test that he knows that Adam and Eve will fail. He's constantly "smiting" people for disobeying him. Lot's wife looks back at Sodom and Gomorrah and gets turned into a pillar of salt. He makes a bunch of laws that carrying with them the capital punishment of being stoned to death. Then he has the leaders and the people carrying out the punishment.

So, for me, what's more likely? That a real all-knowing and all-loving God did these things and made up those rules? Or the religious leaders of the community made them up? Including making up this vengeful, wrathful God? An invisible God watching the people that is able to punish them and even kill them if they do something wrong is a pretty good way to get some of the people to obey. And those that don't obey can then be punished or killed for their disbelief or for breaking one of the laws.

What I see that is difficult for the Baha'is is to make this same God the God of the other religions.... the Hindus, the Buddhists, Christians, the Zoroastrians, the Muslims and the Baha'is. Yet, the Baha'is are okay with rejecting the bloodthirsty Gods, of other cultures. Why not reject this version of God too as something made-up and believed in by an ancient people but not necessarily real.

 

[CG Didymus]

What is this "evidence for God (the Abrahamic, tri-omni one)"

There is none. But that's why these various threads started by Baha'is have been going on for years. They believe the "messengers" are the evidence? But what do they believe about those other messengers? Baha'u'llah didn't mention Krishna and maybe not even Buddha. But what did they have in common with Judaism and Christianity? Not much.

But the Baha'i claim is that these messages from God were "progressive". That they brought new information needed to cause an "ever-advancing" civilization. I don't know how much religion helped. In a lot of ways, I think, more technologically advanced civilizations were able to invent better weapons to conquer others and force their beliefs and culture on others.

And their Gods weren't necessarily the supposed "real" God of the Baha'is... Like the Egyptians and the Greeks and Romans. Oh, and even the tri-omni God of the English and other Europeans that conquered most of the world. They then outlawed the Gods of those people and forced them to follow and believe in this tri-omni God. Which the Baha'is say is not real. But that Western culture with its technology and religion, for better or worse, sure "advanced" civilization.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do we really? Do we have doxastic voluntarism?
We can get some influence if we decide on an epistemology beforehand and follow it, regardless of momentary feelings but is the decision for the epistemology a "free choice"?

I think that the belief may not necessarily be free -- that it is framed by what one is taught and experiences. But there is probably some flexibility in how one then goes about fitting one's belief to the message, which is a sort of indirect doxastic voluntarism.

 

[Trailblazer]

Since I am unaware of the existence of someone who believes something without evidence of said something...
No problem.

That hypothetical someone does not necessarily believe in God without evidence but that is not relevant to the point of this thread.

Here is where I am confused.
Are you asking if it is reasonable to believe in god if your evidence for god is disliking god?
Are you asking if it is reasonable to believe in god if your evidence for god is fear of god?

No, I am not asking that. The underlying assumption is that one believes in God.

Is it reasonable to believe in God if one does not like the God they believe in?
Is it reasonable to believe in God because one fears God they believe in?
Is it reasonable to serve the God they believe in out of duty if one does not like God?

 

[Trailblazer]

I agree with those that it's unreasonable to think there is evidence for God.

That was not an answer to the questions I presented. This thread had nothing to do with whether or not there is any evidence for God.
The thread assumes that a hypothetical person believes in God because that person believes there is evidence for God.
So, if you are an atheist you have to imagine you are that person who believes in God in order to answer the questions.

Is it reasonable to believe in God if one does not like God?
Is it reasonable to believe in God because one fears God?
Is it reasonable to serve God out of duty if one does not like God?

 

[Trailblazer]

then what causes belief in god?

Blind faith or evidence-based faith. I prefer the latter.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do I interpret that right that you believe god exists, you fear it and you serve it (out of duty or out of fear) and you want to stop (at least stop serving it)?

You got part of that right. I believe God exists and I fear it and serve it out of duty.
I do not want to stop believing or fearing God and I do not want to stop serving God, but I would like to do something else for myself once in a while.

That is one reason I said "Sometimes I wish it didn't." If God did not exist I could live for the world and all it has to offer, but as long as I believe that God exists I cannot live that way, not without feeling guilty.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is reasonable to believe in God even if one doesn't like or fear him. It would be a kind of terrible place to be in I think,

I think it is reasonable for a person to believe in God if one believes that God exists because they see evidence for God.
It makes sense to fear a God who is All-Powerful, given what He could do to you.

Yes, it is a terrible place to be, to believe God exists but not like God.
That could be loosely compared to believing that I have a job but I do not like that job, but it is even worse, because if I don't like a job I can get another job, but if I don't like God I cannot get another God since there is only one God.

The only real solution is to try to learn to like the God.

as one could just as well ask what the difference really is between him and Satan is then? if we go with the biblical version.

Not really, since then reason I don't like God is not because God is evil. I just don't like Him.

I do however not think it is reasonable to serve God out of duty if one does not like him, that is simply to bow to tyranny, something which such God doesn't deserve or one could make the argument that one serves God simply due to fear, which it ultimately would be.

It would only be bowing to tyranny if God was a tyrant, forcing me to serve Him.
It would only be serving God out of fear if God threatened me with consequences for not serving Him, but such is not the case. It's all voluntary.

I could be off sunning myself on a beach right now and there would be no consequences from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

How strongly you dislike or fear something should not affect whether you believe in it right? Unless I'm missing a piece here..

No, it should not affect whether you believe in it or not, and I don't think it should affect whether you serve it.]

A loose analogy is that a man goes to a job to support his family even if he doesn't like that job. Why does he go? Out of love for his family or out of principle. In my case I do not serve God out of love, but out of principle.

 

[Nimos]

I think it is reasonable for a person to believe in God if one believes that God exists because they see evidence for God.
It makes sense to fear a God who is All-Powerful, given what He could do to you.

Yes, it is a terrible place to be, to believe God exists but not like God.
That could be loosely compared to believing that I have a job but I do not like that job, but it is even worse, because if I don't like a job I can get another job, but if I don't like God I cannot get another God since there is only one God.

The only real solution is to try to learn to like the God.

I don't think that comparison is correct. If any you could compare it to your parents, but not a job.

But if God is all-loving, then there ought to be nothing to fear from him. I don't think learning to love God seems right. If you found Hitler to be doing awful things and feared him, the solution should not be to try to learn to like him, but either to fight him or pretend to like him. This is what a lot of people do in North Korea, except we are talking about a God who knows everything so hiding anything from him wouldn't work.
So in all honesty given that this is a God with given attributes, you obviously can't fight him, but you could choose to not worship him until he gives you an explanation for the things you don't like about him, that only seems fair and would have nothing to do with whether he is real or not, simply whether he deserves to be liked or not.

It is not a lot different from what Atheists do, except we don't see evidence for his existence, obviously. But even if it turns out he did, we would still demand answers for some of the things he is said to have done or allowed before we would even consider "liking" him, that is your free will after all.

Not really, since then reason I don't like God is not because God is evil. I just don't like Him.

I assume you don't like him because he allows bad things, whether they are personal or in general. If he did none of that, why would you then not like him?

It would only be serving God out of fear if God threatened me with consequences for not serving Him, but such is not the case. It's all voluntary.

If that is the case, then you can also choose not to serve him if you don't like him. I don't really see the issue then?

 

[Truthseeker]

Is it reasonable to believe in God if one does not like God?
Is it reasonable to believe in God because one fears God?
Is it reasonable to serve God out of duty if one does not like God?

As to the first question, it makes no difference if you don't like God to believe in God if the evidence is there that God exists. Of course, you've got to not let your dislike of God prejudice how you see the evidence.

I'm not sure about the second. Fear of god should not be the only reason a person believes in God, in the usual Christian sense of being afraid you will burn in hell if you don't. That is not the Baha'i way of looking at things however. Fear of God as defined by Shoghi Effendi may help my thinking on this:

"You have asked the exact meaning of the term 'Fear of God' mentioned in Bahá'í Sacred Writings; it often means awe, but has also other connotations such as reverence, terror and fear."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 236)

So reverence and awe are part of the fear of God concept. I know you revere Baha'u'llah at least, and that reverence strengthens your belief in God.

Why not serve God out of duty? People do things out of duty all the time when they don't like what they are doing.

 

[Trailblazer]

If there were evidence for the existence of God, as in the Abrahamic god, and I did not like him, I would not be one of his faithful.
If I were afraid of God, assuming that there were evidence for his existence, I would not be one of his faithful just because I feared him.
I would not serve God out of duty if I did not like him even though there were evidence for his existence.

Okay, thanks for answering my questions.

From my perspective, it would be unreasonable to believe in—as in be one of the faithful of—God if I did not like him. This is because being one of the faithful entails loving him.

From my perspective, a person cannot disbelieve in a God if they see evidence for that God, but that doesn't mean that they have to 'like' that God. I do not believe that being one of the faithful necessarily entails loving God. A person can be faithful to God and not love Him.

Case in point: A person can remain faithful to one's spouse even if one does not love that spouse anymore.

Further, it would be unreasonable to be one of his faithful merely because I were afraid of him. If he were benevolent and nothing like an unenlightened human being, I imagine he would eventually remove that fear.

A benevolent God is also a God to fear. I do not think it is unreasonable to fear God, as I think a healthy fear of God is essential. As such, I don't believe that God would ever remove that fear.

If you want to understand what Fear of God means to a Baha'i, you can read this blog:
The Fear of God. What Does It Mean? - Baha'i Blog

From that blog:

Perhaps the friends do not realize that the majority of human beings need the element of fear in order to discipline their conduct? Only a relatively very highly evolved soul would always be disciplined by love alone. Fear of punishment, fear of the anger of God if we do evil, are needed to keep people’s feet on the right path. Of course we should love God – but we must fear Him in the sense of a child fearing the righteous anger and chastisement of a parent; not cringe before Him as before a tyrant, but know His Mercy exceeds His Justice!​

​

Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 238​

Lastly, it would be unreasonable to serve him out of duty though I did not like him because he would not be benefited by my service.

I think that there is some truth to that but it is not necessarily true. If one does something out is a sense of duty they might do a better job than a person who does not feel it is their duty, but rather only cares about getting something in return like bringing home a paycheck.

Moreover, a person can do the same job as well as the next person and benefit their employer even if they don't like what they are doing. That person might do a better job if they love their job, but that is not necessarily true.

 

[Trailblazer]

God in your mind is your own creation and it dies when you die.

but the God in heaven will be waiting for you when you die, if you are a believer....
All bets are off for nonbelievers since that is wholly at God's discretion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Following @Heyo 's point, how about this take on your thought experiment:

"Title: Is it reasonable to believe in 'Alien Overlords' just because 'Alien Overlords' exists?​

​

The underlying assumption is that one believes in 'Alien Overlords' because there is evidence for 'Alien Overlords'.​

​

Is it reasonable to believe in 'Alien Overlords' if one does not like 'Alien Overlords'?​

Is it reasonable to believe in 'Alien Overlords' because one fears 'Alien Overlords'?​

Is it reasonable to serve 'Alien Overlords' out of duty if one does not like 'Alien Overlords'?​

​

What do you think? Are any of these reasonable?​

​

If you think they are reasonable, why do you think so?​

​

If you think they are unreasonable, why do you think so?"​

​

How would you answer the questions of your thought experiment with this change in entity? Does this change materially affect your intent of the thought experiment? Is the thought experiment evaluating anything other than human psychology?

I will grant you that the thread title Is it reasonable to believe in God just because God exists? was misleading but just like most atheists, you totally missed the point of my thread.

This thread is not about whether you agree with the hypothetical person who believes in God because that person believes there is evidence for God.

The underlying assumption is not that there is evidence for God.
The assumption was only for the purpose of answering the questions I asked in the OP.

Assuming that a person believes in God because that person believes there is evidence for God:

Is it reasonable for that person to believe in God if that person does not like God?
Is it reasonable for that person to believe in God because that person fears God?
Is it reasonable for that person to serve God out of duty if that person does not like God?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The same questions would apply if a person believes in 'Alien Overlords' because they believe there is evidence for 'Alien Overlords'.

Is it reasonable to believe in 'Alien Overlords' if one does not like 'Alien Overlords'?
Is it reasonable to believe in 'Alien Overlords' because one fears 'Alien Overlords'?
Is it reasonable to serve 'Alien Overlords' out of duty if one does not like 'Alien Overlords'?

The same questions would apply no matter what a person believes:

Is it reasonable to believe in x if one does not like x'?
Is it reasonable to believe in x because one fears x'?
Is it reasonable to serve x out of duty if one does not like x?

 

[Trailblazer]

If God exists, it would be irrational to disbelieve in Him. Now, you don't have to like Him or serve Him if you don't want to. But you would have to consider any consequences for that and perhaps do some self-reflection.

That is the Best Answer on this thread so far, but it is only up to Post #56.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ay, there's the rub!

And how you "differentiate the claimants," how you "determine who is a Messenger" is entirely up to you. You decide whether you believe him or not, based on whether his "message" fits with your particular notion of what God's message would be. And other hearers of other such "messengers" do the same, comparing those messages with their preconceived notions.

It is my very considered opinion that the hearer decides who is a "Messenger" and who isn't -- not God. And 'twas ever thus.

What you are saying is true, since only the hearer of the message can decide what to believe about a man who claims to be a Messenger.
Please let me know if you think there is any way around that.

However, my logical point still stands. A Messenger of God is a Messenger of God only if God sent him with a message. That is what makes a man a Messenger.

 

[Trailblazer]

The same reason that a person will stay with an abusive partner. There are many psychological issues

That analogy does not work since God is not abusive.

Just because a make-believe person does not like God that does not mean God is abusive.
There are many reasons why a make-believe person might not like God.

If the make-believe person doesn't like, or even hates, God, it could well mean that make-believe person is the one with the problem.

 

[Trailblazer]

And there are such people existing. They were told that there is evidence, and they accepted (subconsciously) that there is. This is the dogma that gets implanted in the minds of most theists, and once there it is not easy to dismiss through reason. We see in threads over and over that believers think they have adequate evidence for their decision that a God exists, but skeptics, along with those from competing religions, don't agree that the evidence is sufficient. You have been on the side of claiming there is adequate evidence for both Bala'u'llah (as messenger of God) and for God, yet the evidence is exceptionally weak at best.

But both believers and skeptics have answered this historically in debate.

It's beating a dead horse. Why go over this topic again?

No, nobody has ever answered these questions since I never posted them before. They have never even been discussed.

This thread has nothing to do with whether or not there is any evidence for God. A few people understood the point of my thread, but atheists did not. I think that the reason that atheists did not understand what I was asking is because they cannot think of anything else but how believers have no evidence for God, which is not true, but that is not the point of this thread. As you said, we have had plenty of threads about evidence for God, so we don't need any more. Why beat a dead horse?

This thread is not about whether you agree with the hypothetical person who believes in God because that person believes there is evidence for God.

The underlying assumption is not that there is evidence for God.
The assumption was only for the purpose of answering the questions I asked in the OP.

Assuming that a person believes in God because that person believes there is evidence for God:

Is it reasonable for that person to believe in God if that person does not like God?
Is it reasonable for that person to believe in God because that person fears God?
Is it reasonable for that person to serve God out of duty if that person does not like God?

 

[Trailblazer]

There is none. But that's why these various threads started by Baha'is have been going on for years.

No, the reason that these various threads started by Baha'is have been going on for years is not because there is no evidence for God.
The reason is because the people reading these threads do not 'believe' there is any evidence for God.
So what? A belief does not make anything true.

 

[F1fan]

That analogy does not work since God is not abusive.

The question wasn't about God, but religions a person does not like being a part of, but stays. Let's not forget that there isn't any God known to exist, so irrelevant to refer to any.

Just because a make-believe person does not like God that does not mean God is abusive.

Actual people find some religious experiences uncomfortable. Let's note that the only make-believe is the many Gods we hear people talk about.

There are many reasons why a make-believe person might not like God.

Just as imaginary as Gods that do terrible or good things.

If the make-believe person doesn't like, or even hates, God, it could well mean that make-believe person is the one with the problem.

I would question why they think any God exists, and suggest they reject any of the versions they have heard about, expecially if God was used by believers to hurt them. For example we see many in politics use God as a reason to eliminate abortion access, which has put many womens' health, and life, in peril.