Why do we Need A God?

[IMAMONKEY!]

I must be misinterpreting your misinterpreted misinterpretation.:)

 

Alright now your just bein' smart. :)

 

No but seriously. My question to you BEAKER is why should we need a God? You are a theist am I not correct? So I ask you. Why do you need a God to believe in? Because obviously none of us atheists are going to be able to answer that. :cool:

[pgrmdave]

I think that is a mistaken question. It's like asking "Why do you think that your house exists?". To a theist, God exists. It isn't like we think "Hey you know what? I can't explain this, so I'm going to say that God exists". While I understand that there have been times in history when it seemed that way, the people who believed that way simply saw the natural phenomena as proof of God, not something necessitating a god.

[Lancaster]

I think that is a mistaken question. It's like asking "Why do you think that your house exists?". To a theist, God exists. It isn't like we think "Hey you know what? I can't explain this, so I'm going to say that God exists". While I understand that there have been times in history when it seemed that way, the people who believed that way simply saw the natural phenomena as proof of God, not something necessitating a god.

 

Think of it as "why do I need a house?" Answer: It provides you shelter.

 

Lancaster: pgrmdave, why do you need a God? (think in the context above)

pgrmdave: [insert answer here]

 

 

I find it disappointing, that, despite my clarification of the point, no one has actually addressed the question (not counting atheists).

[pgrmdave]

Does the house exist regardless of whether it is needed though? Would the moon exist if there was no 'need' for it? What is the need of pluto? Why do you need other galaxies? My point is that for theists, God is as real as anything else - gods are not dependent upon our need for them to exist.

[IMAMONKEY!]

Does the house exist regardless of whether it is needed though? Would the moon exist if there was no 'need' for it? What is the need of pluto? Why do you need other galaxies? My point is that for theists, God is as real as anything else - gods are not dependent upon our need for them to exist.

 

Then if there is no need for them to exist I see no reason to believe they exist. That's what I interpret your answer to mean.

 

Seriously. Are you trying to tell us there is a God because there is no reason he should exist? That kind of backfires. :)

[pgrmdave]

Why does there need to be a need for something for it to exist? That's my question. Unless you are defining 'need' differently than I am. I believe God exists. I don't need him to exist to explain why things are here - science does a perfectly good job of that (until we get before time, but I don't believe that a god is needed for the creation of the universe). However, this lack of a need for him to exist does not make him any less real to me. I understand that this does violate occam's razor, but that doesn't mean that I think I'm wrong. I am not saying that he exists, merely that I think he does, and that I don't think that a 'need' for him to exists is why I believe he exists.

[Lancaster]

Forget existence. Sure the house exists. For the purpose of this question, God exists. Why do you need to worship him? Do you feel a need for him to help you? Why do you need him. This is getting rather frustrating. :)

[pgrmdave]

Ah, now that's a different question. Well, I suppose it depends on what worship is, and how he helps. I believe strongly in determinism, so what's the purpose in trusting in god? Well, long before I was ever a christian, I strongly felt that "it will all be right in the end". When I was twelve years old, I noticed that everything in my life tended to work out for the better in one way or another, even if it didn't seem like it would at the time. I learned to trust that it would be right if I just waited long enough and didn't try to fix everything immediately. This is, without having understood it at the time, faith. I had faith in the universe, in fate, whatever you call it. Now, I have faith in God. I trust that he knew what he was doing when he created the universe, and that he does make sure that things will be right. That means that things may not be good now, but they are happening for a reason and good will come out of them.

[IMAMONKEY!]

That seems to me to be a feeling of invincibility. More present in teenagers than adults it's the belief that you can do anything and will not get hurt, killed, maimed, etc.

 

Granted I am a teen and feel this same way I realize I am not invincible and can/will die eventually. Why trust a God? It would be far more efficient and reliable to have faith in yourself and true courage rather then reaching to an outside source for what you may or may not have.

 

People suffer. Theists and Atheists alike. God gives no advantage. There is no proof of his existence, no reason for him to exist besides making up for lack of character in those that need it. I have a friend like that who uses God as a mental "polish" you might say. So if there's no reason he should exist, no evidence to scientifically prove his existence, and no clear-cut advantage to believing in him, then he simply should not exist. Period.

 

So what is God? A human being's mental Teddy Bear? Something he can turn to when the real world and his own character fails him? God is a representation of an ideal care-giver implanted into our brains simply because we cannot deal with the many stresses of life. My mother is a VERY stressed person, and is also very religious. She turns to God for whenever she can't control her emotions.

 

So God would seem to me to be an emotional outlet. Nothing more. That is how I see him.

[pgrmdave]

I don't think I'm invincible - I take far fewer risks than many of my friends, and I don't think that God will save me from my own stupidity. However, like I said before, I had faith before I recognized God. There is no advantage except in how I feel, and that's enough for me. God doesn't stop people from dying, he gives purpose to it. I don't expect everybody to believe in God, but I don't expect my beliefs to be trod upon. Atheism is more logical, more empirical, more believable. But that doesn't mean it's better for me. Believing in a god can be more fulfilling (studies have shown that religion makes people happier as much as being wealthy) but that doesn't mean it's for everybody.

[TruthChaser]

How can you have faith in something that no one else has ever seen or attested to the existence of?

 

Ok. I think you missed the point of the original post. Like he/she said, people were thought crazy who once pondered the idea of the internet before it existed. If no one ever had faith in their imagination or speculation we would not be inventing anything. nor discovering and exploring... hence no computers to have an internet to have this discussion! Wake up to yourself!

 

The existence of God is not proven, nor disproven. Like many other aspects of science that remain in the speculation and assumption box, and are yet to be given a solid foundation of proof, God remains a plausible possibility.

 

If God is a plausible possibilty we need to know how we know what God is like and what, if anything, He wants from us.

 

Would the question be not so much why we need God (like, dah, why do I need a parent?) but more, why does God want us? If he does exist he is very patient with us and our crudeness and rudeness that we mask as intelligence (but really seems a refusal to accept a possibilty).

 

People may laughed at who refuse to have faith (and that's all that can be proposed at this point) in unprovable scientific possibilities (the unexplainable like whatever was going on before the Big Bang), yet the same is laughable at those of you who equally refuse the possibility of God's existing when no proof is for or against.

 

Either way, if I am to accept point zero, a vacuum of energy, or whatever else is proposed and speculated (yet unprovable) for whatever nothingness was before the big bang, I must do so only on the basis of speculation, imagination, and faith. Or, I could swing the other way and do exactly the same and conclude that God was the one who was there. No proof can persuade me either way.

 

Either way, in the regress, there comes a point when science, physics and mathematics do not provide a solid logical premise. One must move to an "outside science" phenomenon. Either energy and matter spontaneously existed in a way that was long lasting (like billions and billions of years - as opposed to a tiny instant as quantum mechanics proposes -), or God is a being who, as the name Yahweh suggests, always was, always is, and always will be.

 

What if Jesus really was God in the flesh? (Let history speak up here). Wouldn't we then be able to find some place to begin to understand?

 

Not all scientific assumptions are fully explained. This does not mean that they never will be. It just means that they are as yet within the realm of speculation.

 

Christians, Jews, whoever you want to pick on, have chosen to believe God exists. Others, who like to think they are more intelligent, have merely chosen another form of faith: that God does not exist.

 

Until there is evidence either way... faith is the only thing any of us have to stand on whether we believe or not.

[jedaisoul]

I'd like to suggest an answer to the question "Why do we need a God?", which does not seem to have been suggested so far. But first I'd like to stress that this suggestion is not intended as a "put down":

 

We need a God because we've lost faith in the one(s) we used to have; our parent(s) or guardian(s).

 

Think about it. When we came into the world we were totally dependent on our parent(s). They looked after our every need. To us they were omnipotent and omniscient, and all loving. Of course, that doesn't last. Soon we realise they are only too human. But consciously or subconsciously we remember what it was like to have a mother/father figure(s) who were all powerful and loved and protected us. So:

 

Belief in God fills the need to have a mother/father figure who is all powerful and love and protect us.

 

Now, I'd repeat, this is not meant to be a put down. I'm suggesting that belief in God fulfills a very real psycological need for many people. And that need is not about to go away. Also trying to convince the believers that God does not exist is:

a) pointless.

:doh: not very kind or thoughtful.

 

Similarly, it is pointless for those who believe in God to proselytise to non-believers. There is no benefit in believing, if you do not have the need to in the first place!

 

So lets just learn to live with each other, and respect each other's needs and beliefs.

[TruthChaser]

That may only be true if you began with a belief that your parents were all good and all powerful. That is an assumption that does not ring true for all of us. Some people actually go the other way and refuse to believe in God because they had such bad experiences with their parents.

 

Secondly, just believing or disbelieving based on what I think I want or need, or what I assume is beneficial is just as silly as someone who refuses to look into evolution based on a repulsion to believe it is true. All things should be investigated, and rejected or accepted after careful investigation, or at least given the status as a possibility until proven otherwise.

 

What you have said sounds interesting but is not acceptable. There may be said that there are also some aspects of evolution that may not be beneficial. This is an argument outside of science. Science is not for moral judgment, but for finding the truth about what is or is not.

[jedaisoul]

That may only be true if you began with a belief that your parents were all good and all powerful. That is an assumption that does not ring true for all of us. Some people actually go the other way and refuse to believe in God because they had such bad experiences with their parents.

You are right. I intended the comment to be generally applicable, not universal. It is a generalisation, and I should have made that clear.

 

Secondly, just believing or disbelieving based on what I think I want or need, or what I assume is beneficial is just as silly as someone who refuses to look into evolution based on a repulsion to believe it is true. All things should be investigated, and rejected or accepted after careful investigation, or at least given the status as a possibility until proven otherwise.

We are discussing belief, which is essentially a non-rational act. Even rational people have beliefs, however silly that may be.

 

What you have said sounds interesting but is not acceptable. There may be said that there are also some aspects of evolution that may not be beneficial. This is an argument outside of science. Science is not for moral judgment, but for finding the truth about what is or is not.

In what sense is it unacceptable? This is a scientific site, but we are discussing theology. I believe that my comments are aposite in a thread entitled "why do we need God?". Can you elaborate?

[TruthChaser]

In what sense is it unacceptable? This is a scientific site, but we are discussing theology. I believe that my comments are aposite in a thread entitled "why do we need God?". Can you elaborate?

 

 

First of all I apologise, I was thinking more in the science realm (having just ripped my neurons from the cosmology thread... so humble apologies for the tone) :),

 

but may I just add... I don't think belief is essentially an irrational act. If I look at all the indicators on a weather chart and believe it will rain tonight is that irrational? Or if I believe in quantum mechanics, even though we can't get passed the Heisenberg law of uncertainty, is that irrational?

 

Ok, so those beliefs can be grounded. What if religious belief could be grounded? I mean, we're all looking at the beginning of the beginning etc. What if God has intereacted with history and what if that can be proven? If we base our beliefs on that it is no less rational than believing that Julius Ceasar ended the Roman Republic and founded the Empire. The point is, that some people believe God did do that in Jesus and have more historical basis for that than we have for the Julius Ceasar thing.

 

So, if belief is irrational then I can't be a believer. But, on the other hand, if it is, than I would want to be a believer. :eek_big: o... what to do.

[jedaisoul]

but may I just add... I don't think belief is essentially an irrational act. If I look at all the indicators on a weather chart and believe it will rain tonight is that irrational? Or if I believe in quantum mechanics, even though we can't get passed the Heisenberg law of uncertainty, is that irrational?

I did not say belief is irrational. I said it is non-rational. On the other hand some beliefs may be irrational, such as the belief that the universe was created in seven days, in the order described in the bible. There is so much scientific evidence to the contrary that to interpret that part of the bible literally could be considered irrational.

 

What if religious belief could be grounded? I mean, we're all looking at the beginning of the beginning etc. What if God has intereacted with history and what if that can be proven? If we base our beliefs on that it is no less rational than believing that Julius Ceasar ended the Roman Republic and founded the Empire. The point is, that some people believe God did do that in Jesus and have more historical basis for that than we have for the Julius Ceasar thing.

Yes, religious belief could be grounded. I think that most people who have studied theology accept that Jesus, Mohammed and Siddhartha were real people who lived at specific times in specific places. As you say, there is adequate historical evidence to support this.

 

Also, the bible story of the creation of the universe could be grounded if it accorded with scientific evidence. The trouble is, it doesn't. Not even close. And once you have one claim in the bible that is not sustainable, the claim that the whole of the bible is the literal truth, fails.

 

You might claim that the bible is spiritually the truth, as opposed to scientific fact. That would take it outside the scientific sphere. There would still be those who disagreed, but at least they would not have the weight of modern science on their side.

 

So, if belief is irrational then I can't be a believer. But, on the other hand, if it is, than I would want to be a believer. :shrug: o... what to do.

As I've said, I would suggest that belief in God is not irrational. It lies outside the sphere of science, so is unprovable. Therefore it is neither rational nor irrational. It is non-rational. What may be irrational is some of the baggage that accompanies the established faiths. My advice would be to seek the wheat, and discard the chaff. Oh, and to let your God (if you have one) guide you in this, as in all things...

[TruthChaser]

I did not say belief is irrational. I said it is non-rational. On the other hand some beliefs may be irrational, such as the belief that the universe was created in seven days, in the order described in the bible. There is so much scientific evidence to the contrary that to interpret that part of the bible literally could be considered irrational.

 

Also, the bible story of the creation of the universe could be grounded if it accorded with scientific evidence. The trouble is, it doesn't. Not even close. And once you have one claim in the bible that is not sustainable, the claim that the whole of the bible is the literal truth, fails.

 

"So much scientific proof" is quite a general claim... when so much of that scientific "proof" can itself be questioned by science... so much science. Unfortunately many people who have been taught evolution regurgitate it as if it were unquestionable. I do not mean Natural Selection (which is different to evolution)... I am talking about basic laws of science which must be broken in order for evolution to be true (biogenesis, conservation of mass/energy etc). How about the basic testimony of DNA which flies in the face of evolution (again, not Natural Selection).

 

It is bold, and common, for people to say the Bible is not supported by science... but there is plenty of evidence that such "science" (should I say pseudo science) is not supported by science.

 

I know I have opened myself up for shots by all the hard line fundamentalist evolutionists but if you do look at it honestly, and deeply, you will see that there are many discrepancies in "the scientific evidence" that significantly reduce its sting against the creation narrative.

 

It could be said, therefore, that belief in so many various areas of the evolution story could also be non-rational (sorry I misunderstoof your original meaning).

 

TC