Why do we believe in God

How could ONE God service trillions of humans who have lived on Earth for the last 6,000 years?

I believe the Word in MUSIC calms the soul and that is where I worship Jesus. However, when we die, we simply CEASE TO EXIST! Modern science has not yet figured out how to give us new bodies to exchange for the old ones when we grow old.
 

VaughanJB said:
But that's how God made us, apparently. He made us to be part of a sinful world. He allowed Adam's original sin to be laid into our souls. That was God's choice. It was his doing. He could have made things differently, but we circle back to "free will", as though there is any virtue in messing up.

If God knows all - and he can see all that will happen both now and into the future - what is free will anyway? Doesn't that suggest, since God knows these things, that they are per-ordained? If God see's me buying an ice cream tomorrow, and I buy an ice cream, how was that free will? Aren't I simply doing what God knew I'd do? Does God himself have free will?
Click to expand...
Excellent questions! Since many consider the Bible as the book that accurately describes human history and its relationship with the creator, I will use it as a basis to evaluate the viability of some of the concepts..

About your first statement, if indeed the creator had planned on making mankind part of a sinful world, then we would have been flawed. Yet, biblically, his creation is described as perfect, and the creator himself is described as being blameless.

Instead, mankind itself is the one blamed for the fall into the degraded state that it finds itself in.

Ecclesiastes 7:29
Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.”

Psalm 18:30
As for God, His way is blameless;

Psalm 145:17
The Lord is righteous in all His ways

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Click to expand...

Is there virtue in sinning or messing up?

Again the Bible tells us that the creator hates sin. So he himself doesn't hold that viewpoint.

Proverbs 6:16-19​

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Psalm 11:5​

The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
Click to expand...

So saying that the creator preordained what he himself detests, doesn't make any sense.

Did the creator know that Adam and Eve were going to sin.

Well, there are two ways in which this problem can be answered.

1. The creator didn't know because he couldn't know.

In this case his knowing would require Adam and Eve displaying some inherent flaw indicating a potential to sin.

2. He chose not to know.

Does the creator himself have free will?

There is something that he is described as unable to do, that is to lie in reference to his promises and his oath.

Hebrews 6:18
so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.
What does Hebrews 6:18 mean? | BibleRef.com

Isaiah 65:16
“Because he who is blessed in the earth
Will be blessed by the God of truth;
And he who swears in the earth
Will swear by the God of truth;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short it is against his nature to lie.

But does that mean that he lacks free will? Genesis tells us that he provided mankind with free will, and he made mankind in his own image. Which indicates that he has free will. Otherwise they would not be reflecting his image just like an ant driven by pure instinct doesn't

​
Genesis 1:27 ►
​
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Now, if the creator is not referring to the biblical God, but to some intelligence or being instead, then many of these questions would be totally irrelevant since no such claims are being made in reference to such a non-biblical creator apart from the fact that he created the universe and all living things.
 
Last edited:
Belief in God was, and to some extent still is, selected for by evolution. Humans are deeply tribal animals; instinctually, we're usually very supportive of our own group, and hostile to outsiders. Shared religion and religious practices can really bind communities together, and inspire greater levels of cooperation and obedience, allowing larger and more powerful groups who may have outcompeted less religious groups.

Our consciousness is inextricably and indelibly linked to our physical brains. It cannot exist independent of our bodies and therefore cannot survive the death of our bodies. And if our consciousnesses cannot exist without our bodies, then there cannot be any such thing as an “afterlife.
 

spectratg said:
Belief in God was, and to some extent still is, selected for by evolution. Humans are deeply tribal animals; instinctually, we're usually very supportive of our own group, and hostile to outsiders. Shared religion and religious practices can really bind communities together, and inspire greater levels of cooperation and obedience, allowing larger and more powerful groups who may have outcompeted less religious groups.

Our consciousness is inextricably and indelibly linked to our physical brains. It cannot exist independent of our bodies and therefore cannot survive the death of our bodies. And if our consciousnesses cannot exist without our bodies, then there cannot be any such thing as an “afterlife.
Click to expand...
Exactly in what way does evolution select for belief in God?
 
Radrook said:
Exactly in what way does evolution select for belief in God?
Click to expand...
The change in characteristics of a species over many generations relies on the process of natural selection. Evolution consists of changes in heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. Those biological functions, physical traits, and mental wiring (particularly in human beings) that confer a greater chance of survival are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations.
 
VaughanJB said:
Pretty sure I've posted this before, but you brought it to mind again. Must dig out the album for a play......


Oh, my name, it ain't nothin', my age, it means less
The country I come from is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there, the laws to abide
And that the land that I live in has God on its side

Oh, the history books tell it, they tell it so well
The cavalries charged, the Indians fell
The cavalries charged, the Indians died
Oh, the country was young with God on its side

The Spanish-American War had its day
And the Civil War too was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes I was made to memorize
With guns in their hands and God on their side

The First World War, boys, it came and it went
The reason for fightin' I never did get
But I learned to accept it, accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead when God's on your side

The Second World War came to an end
We forgave the Germans, and then we were friends
Though they murdered six million, in the ovens they fried
The Germans now too have God on their side

I learned to hate the Russians all through my whole life
If another war comes, it's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them, to run and to hide
And accept it all bravely with God on my side

But now we've got weapons of chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to, then fire them we must
One push of the button and they shot the world wide
And you never ask questions when God's on your side

Through many dark hour I been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you, you'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot had God on his side

So now as I'm leavin', I'm weary as hell
The confusion I'm feelin' ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head, and they fall to the floor
That if God's on our side, he'll stop the next war
Click to expand...
Brilliant. Where are the artists to challenge us like that today?
 
Making claims and assertions in this thread without any proof is simply a pooling of ignorance, unless it is made clear that it is only an opinion or belief, and nothing more.
Furthermore, quoting the Bible as God's word (Or inspired) without any evidence to support it's authenticity as such, is tantamount to a specious and illogical argument. JMO
 
Mitch86 said:
How could ONE God service trillions of humans who have lived on Earth for the last 6,000 years?

I believe the Word in MUSIC calms the soul and that is where I worship Jesus. However, when we die, we simply CEASE TO EXIST! Modern science has not yet figured out how to give us new bodies to exchange for the old ones when we grow old.
Click to expand...
He's God..............................................
 
VaughanJB said:
Finally, you suggest that faith seem reasonable "because there are so many who agree."
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the Christian faith or some other traditional religious faith. I was talking about those whose faith is in the ultimate triumph of science. I won't ask for evidence because I recognize it is simply held on faith and much of the modern world shares it with you. That so many think the same way adds to its feeling inconceivable that it isn't true. Science is useful for some things but will never tell us who we are, what our purpose is or how to live a good life. All of that is simply beyond the remit of science.

But I don't rush in to upset anyone's faith. If you feel that to be your path, good luck.
 
Last edited:
bobcat said:
Making claims and assertions in this thread without any proof is simply a pooling of ignorance, unless it is made clear that it is only an opinion or belief, and nothing more.
Furthermore, quoting the Bible as God's word (Or inspired) without any evidence to support it's authenticity as such, is tantamount to a specious and illogical argument. JMO
Click to expand...
I totally agree. It would be illogical. So I was not quoting the Bible in that manner. I clearly pointed out that the biblical quotes were intended for those who believe the Bible to be God's word at the outset in order to avoid this type of misunderstanding.

Please note that I have also repeatedly explained that the presence of the DNA code and other evidence in nature is the basis for my personal belief in a creator and not merely what the Bible says.
 
VaughanJB said:
Hubristic? A strange choice of words, imo. I pointed out examples where we have extended mans capabilities beyond those we were born with. I pointed out computers can already do things faster than we can. I pointed out that the way AI is developing, we're handing over the keys to the developmental kingdom to machines. I take no pride in it, it's just what I see in our world.

I met a neighbor just a couple days ago, and she was telling me about her son-in-law who needed a kidney transplant. He's just the surgery to give him a new kidney, and she mighty impressed that his surgery had been done by machine. For me, it's not hubris, it's a denial of what is occurring all around us. There's a thread on the board here about an automated "Marshall" at a US shopping mall. The capabilities of that machine go way beyond what an actual cop could do.

Still, that's not to claim science will "unlock all questions". I mean, all questions? No. I've stated, we may never be able to prove the big bang, for example. It might be beyond the realm of science to do that. Do you have a particular aversion to technology and it's relentless progress?

Finally, you suggest that faith seem reasonable "because there are so many who agree." That is completely wrong to me. A single person being mistaken, and a 100 people being mistaken, they'd all be mistaken. Given we, in the US and UK, live in a secular society, it actually is any wonder atheists feel they can stand up and proclaim their lack of faith.



What things did he manipulate? And have you yet proven that "spirit" is even a thing? Also, if you can believe a God created something from his "spirit", then why is it a stretch to suggest the big bang came from nothing?
Click to expand...
Obviously, spirit is power used in the service of the creator's will. You demand a detailed explanation or description of what it is in order to believe in it yet you don't demand it in relation to dark matter or dark energy. Instead you accept their existence based on what your scientists glibly tell you based on observe observations. This is the identical explanation provided in reference to spirit. Yet you choose one over the other? So once again, just as in the case of the DNA code, you are guilty of double standards or an inconsistency of policy. As for manipulation, he initiated the Big Bang. Does that qualify as manipulation?
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
However, exposing false beliefs and practices is part of obeying the above quoted commandment to teach.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I mean. "False beliefs" are not wrong behaviour but supposedly wrong thinking. Considering the various religions of the world, and not just taking the words of missionaries without question, there are rich traditions that have a depth that modern Christians just do not achieve. Believing in God is about believing in an underlying reality that has brought us forth and remains ineffable and mysterious but also inspires awe or dread because of the consequence of that.

The command to love each other, our neighbours and even our enemies is daring because it isn't a command to like them, but to admit them to the family of humanity. The question of incarnation is also exclusive in Christian thought, but if one human being is an incarnation of the divine, we all are. That is our "sin": We don't live up to that, and excluding others from their divine origins is part of that. Compassion is a component of most traditions and not just Christianity, only the way Christianity spread, compassion wasn't the face that most people were met with.

Namaste is an ancient and sacred Sanskrit word that means “I bow to you.” In Hinduism, it also means “I bow to the divine in you.” It is also a spiritual reminder to connect to the mind, body, and spirit, focus on the present moment, and be grateful. That is a sign of love and reverence that includes someone rather than excludes them. Surely, this should be the initial attitude before having the audacity to condemn others, especially since we are all aware of our "shadow," the side of our character that we keep hidden.

We cannot know God like we know each other, and you do not know God because we don't even know what is in the hearts of our neighbours. We know, however, that our scriptures are written, translated and copied by human beings, some of whom had a far different cultural background, and the original language of Jesus was reportedly Aramaic, which has many connotations. A transliteration of the Lord's Prayer from the Aramaic might sound something like this:

O cosmic giver of all radiance and vibration.

soften the substance of our body

and create a space within us where your presence can dwell.

Fill us with your creativity

that we may have the strength to bring forth the fruits of your calling.

Let our every action bear fruit as we desire.

Give us the wisdom to bring forth and share

what every being needs to grow and thrive.

Untie the tangled threads of fate that bind us

just as we free others from the entanglements of past mistakes.

Let us not be seduced by what distracts us from our true purpose,

Which illuminates the possibilities of the moment.

Because you are the original cause,

the true calling,

the birth and the strength and the fulfilment,

When everything is reunited and whole,

So be it.
Click to expand...
 
VaughanJB said:
But a God that has always been, who created a Universe from..... nothing... answers nothing. I think it's simply a method of avoiding answering these fundamental questions, it's obfuscation. So how can one go about answering such questions? Well, for one, I ask for evidence. We don't have all the answers regarding the origins of the universe, and in fact it may be unknowable - but we should strive to answer the big questions rather than write them away, hiding behind yet another mystery.
Click to expand...
What if we were submerged in the reality of God? What if we are part of the reality of God? What if, our brains were not just limited, but inhibitors, protecting our physical being from imploding when we see reality as it is? We hear of people taking psychoactive drugs, thereby preventing the inhibitory function, who are literally shocked at the world they see, but are incapable of living in that condition and would die if it lasted. That is the way I view the obscurity of God.
VaughanJB said:
Let's be clear - the human brain is a wondrous thing. I live in what I perceive to be reality. I dream of amazing events and worlds. At the same time, our minds aren't perfect. We have animal brains, and they're designed to live on the plains hunting and gathering. Somehow we've elevated our brains to be able understand incredibly complex things, but our animal ancestral brains will, eventually, become a hindrance. Hell, we still struggle to clearly define consciousness!
Click to expand...
Yes, and if consciousness is what we are, albeit limited in a physical body and inhibited by our cerebral functions, rather than consciousness as a product of material processes, we might indeed find that our bodies are suited best to hunting and gathering, which may be the best physical way to live. But because we are consciousness in a physical form, that consciousness is curious and seeks to know things. We see it in children before they are conditioned, and wisdom traditions have strived to retain that childlike curiosity, albeit tempered by experience. I think that we are limited by what we think we know rather than what we do not know.
 
The teachings of Christ in the Gospels often emphasize love, compassion, and inclusion. Jesus reached out to marginalised groups, embraced those who were considered sinners, and challenged the religious authorities of his time. In many ways, his message seems more focused on transcending boundaries than enforcing them.

However, as Christianity became institutionalised, especially after the Roman Empire adopted it as the state religion, the faith became intertwined with political power. The development of doctrines and creeds, such as the Nicene Creed, helped solidify certain theological positions and introduced a more rigid framework that sometimes contrasted with the open-heartedness seen in the Gospels. This formalisation arguably made Christianity more exclusive, emphasising orthodoxy and creating sharper distinctions between believers and non-believers.

The institutional church's emphasis on orthodoxy often marginalised more mystical or universalist interpretations of Christ’s teachings. Figures like Meister Eckhart or even St. Francis of Assisi, who emphasized a more inclusive and experiential understanding of the divine, were sometimes seen as outliers or even heretical.

I suggest that a return to the essence of Christ’s teachings—focused on love, unity, and compassion—could offer a more inclusive approach. I think modern movements within Christianity, like progressive Christianity, which emphasize social justice, inclusivity, and a more mystical understanding of faith, are moving in the direction I'm envisioning.
 
Stoppelmann said:
What if we were submerged in the reality of God? What if we are part of the reality of God? What if, our brains were not just limited, but inhibitors, protecting our physical being from imploding when we see reality as it is? We hear of people taking psychoactive drugs, thereby preventing the inhibitory function, who are literally shocked at the world they see, but are incapable of living in that condition and would die if it lasted.
Click to expand...
All of these "what if's" are not just theoretical thought experiments. It is a function of the ego to shelter itself from things that put ourselves in the light of reality, where we have to deal with odious task of admitting we don't see things that make us uncomfortable.

This is the root cause of hypocrisy, where we believe we are models of integrity and ethics, while we lie, satisfy our greed, and fornicate with our neighbor's partner.

Psychotherapy deals with this very issue of uncovering flawed thinking that causes personal turmoil. It's what logic and science does as it attempts to explain rationally how things are, even if we would rather it be otherwise.
 
Stoppelmann said:
This is exactly what I mean. "False beliefs" are not wrong behaviour but supposedly wrong thinking. Considering the various religions of the world, and not just taking the words of missionaries without question, there are rich traditions that have a depth that modern Christians just do not achieve. Believing in God is about believing in an underlying reality that has brought us forth and remains ineffable and mysterious but also inspires awe or dread because of the consequence of that.

The command to love each other, our neighbours and even our enemies is daring because it isn't a command to like them, but to admit them to the family of humanity. The question of incarnation is also exclusive in Christian thought, but if one human being is an incarnation of the divine, we all are. That is our "sin": We don't live up to that, and excluding others from their divine origins is part of that. Compassion is a component of most traditions and not just Christianity, only the way Christianity spread, compassion wasn't the face that most people were met with.

Namaste is an ancient and sacred Sanskrit word that means “I bow to you.” In Hinduism, it also means “I bow to the divine in you.” It is also a spiritual reminder to connect to the mind, body, and spirit, focus on the present moment, and be grateful. That is a sign of love and reverence that includes someone rather than excludes them. Surely, this should be the initial attitude before having the audacity to condemn others, especially since we are all aware of our "shadow," the side of our character that we keep hidden.

We cannot know God like we know each other, and you do not know God because we don't even know what is in the hearts of our neighbors. We know, however, that our scriptures are written, translated and copied by human beings, some of whom had a far different cultural background, and the original language of Jesus was reportedly Aramaic, which has many connotations. A transliteration of the Lord's Prayer from the Aramaic might sound something like this:
Click to expand...

The sophistic idea that morality is subjective, and that all behavior is morally OK was ethically discarded long ago as being morally unacceptable.


Instead, modern ethics is based on our common humanity and the duties that such a humanity places on our behavior. What duties? Well, the duty not to inflict unnecessary pain but to alleviate it, the duty to respect others' property, the duty of truthfulness in order to enhance community survival. etc.

Of course, these duties are not amenable to deontological, or the rule-thinking which you are proposing. In fact, the strict adherence to rule-thinking inevitably leads to injustices due to its inherent inflexibility which doesn't allow the exceptions that certain situations demand.

As for the unchristian behavior of those claiming to be Christians which you mention, well, the mistake is to consider such devilish individuals Christians despite their unchristian Satanic behavior. We are clearly instructed not to.

Example: The cruel behavior of the Spanish Conquistadors towards Native Americans in the name of Christianity. Also the horrible cruelties that were inflicted on the black slaves under the English slavery system into USA. Jesus said that such behavior disqualified people as being his followers. So he wasn't as all-inclusive as you imagine him to have been.

Matt 7: 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

BTW:

Please note that I am not striving to evangelize. The main stance I am taking is that the existence of a creator is evident in nature via the DNA code. All these other religious doctrinal issues, such as the hypocrisy of those claiming Christianity, whether the original biblical languages have been translated accurately or not, whether the Bible leaves God's personality unknown, whether that personality is indeed knowable, how Christianity stacks up in comparison to other religions, or whether the Bible is the creator's inspired message to mankind, although they are indeed worthy of discussion, are totally irrelevant to this logical conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Grace4 said:
As Brain is to the body (the body does not feel the Brain).
So is God to the world (the world does not feel the God).
Click to expand...
An interesting analogy, and I like it.
However, it does have limitations depending on what is meant by "feel".
If it means "feel" as being aware of, or sense it's presence, it could be because the body doesn't have "feelings" as we think of them, and is therefore incapable, although the body is always under the influence of the brain.
The world (inhabitants), on the other hand, do have awareness, and over half the population claim to feel (Or sense) the God.
Not sure where that leaves the saying, but as I said, I still like it.
 
Stoppelmann said:
What if we were submerged in the reality of God? What if we are part of the reality of God? What if, our brains were not just limited, but inhibitors, protecting our physical being from imploding when we see reality as it is? We hear of people taking psychoactive drugs, thereby preventing the inhibitory function, who are literally shocked at the world they see, but are incapable of living in that condition and would die if it lasted. That is the way I view the obscurity of God.

Yes, and if consciousness is what we are, albeit limited in a physical body and inhibited by our cerebral functions, rather than consciousness as a product of material processes, we might indeed find that our bodies are suited best to hunting and gathering, which may be the best physical way to live. But because we are consciousness in a physical form, that consciousness is curious and seeks to know things. We see it in children before they are conditioned, and wisdom traditions have strived to retain that childlike curiosity, albeit tempered by experience. I think that we are limited by what we think we know rather than what we do not know.
Click to expand...
I really enjoy reading these philosophical/scientific arguments but spinning heads don't affect my thinking. I guess something like a stubborn child digging in her heels.
 
Radrook said:
Obviously, spirit is power used in the service of the creator's will. You demand a detailed explanation or description of what it is in order to believe in it yet you don't demand it in relation to dark matter or dark energy. Instead you accept their existence based on what your scientists glibly tell you based on observe observations. This is the identical explanation provided in reference to spirit. Yet you choose one over the other? So once again, just as in the case of the DNA code, you are guilty of double standards or an inconsistency of policy. As for manipulation, he initiated the Big Bang. Does that qualify as manipulation?
Click to expand...
Spirit referred to is the Holy Spirit, part of the triune God. It is not a "spirit" for use.
 
Olivia said:
I really enjoy reading these philosophical/scientific arguments but spinning heads don't affect my thinking. I guess something like a stubborn child digging in her heels.
Click to expand...
That's okay. Dig in your heels. Fight, argue, disagree. But go to God in prayer with your fight. Argue with him, disagree with him.
Moses, Abraham, Job, Jonah to name a few argued with God.

God invites us into a dialogue with Him, even when we are struggling with our faith. He desires a genuine and honest relationship with us, where we bring our questions and concerns to Him.

Through the examples of Moses, Abraham, Job, Jonah, Jacob, Elijah, Gideon, and Jeremiah, You can learn that it is possible to maintain a steadfast faith, even when facing challenging circumstances.

I am not going to try and convince you of anything.

REALLY want to know! Go to him. No cell phone, no internet. Just close your eyes and speak.

If I am wrong then I am a fool but I don't believe that to be the case.
bob
 
Stoppelmann said:
This is exactly what I mean. "False beliefs" are not wrong behaviour but supposedly wrong thinking. Considering the various religions of the world, and not just taking the words of missionaries without question, there are rich traditions that have a depth that modern Christians just do not achieve. Believing in God is about believing in an underlying reality that has brought us forth and remains ineffable and mysterious but also inspires awe or dread because of the consequence of that.

The command to love each other, our neighbours and even our enemies is daring because it isn't a command to like them, but to admit them to the family of humanity. The question of incarnation is also exclusive in Christian thought, but if one human being is an incarnation of the divine, we all are. That is our "sin": We don't live up to that, and excluding others from their divine origins is part of that. Compassion is a component of most traditions and not just Christianity, only the way Christianity spread, compassion wasn't the face that most people were met with.

Namaste is an ancient and sacred Sanskrit word that means “I bow to you.” In Hinduism, it also means “I bow to the divine in you.” It is also a spiritual reminder to connect to the mind, body, and spirit, focus on the present moment, and be grateful. That is a sign of love and reverence that includes someone rather than excludes them. Surely, this should be the initial attitude before having the audacity to condemn others, especially since we are all aware of our "shadow," the side of our character that we keep hidden.

We cannot know God like we know each other, and you do not know God because we don't even know what is in the hearts of our neighbours. We know, however, that our scriptures are written, translated and copied by human beings, some of whom had a far different cultural background, and the original language of Jesus was reportedly Aramaic, which has many connotations. A transliteration of the Lord's Prayer from the Aramaic might sound something like this:
Click to expand...
You don't need to know your neighbors. You need to know God then you will know your neighbors.
 
Mitch86 said:
How could ONE God service trillions of humans who have lived on Earth for the last 6,000 years?

I believe the Word in MUSIC calms the soul and that is where I worship Jesus. However, when we die, we simply CEASE TO EXIST! Modern science has not yet figured out how to give us new bodies to exchange for the old ones when we grow old.
Click to expand...
obviously your definition of God has limitations. God defines himself as "I AM".
Which means what to you?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top