Why Should I Believe in God?

[Mog]

happywarrior wrote

If He does exist and gives us the ability to reason, He also gives us the ability to believe (faith) and He will reward us accordingly. (If God doesn't exist then all you have is reason.)

If He gives us "reason" to stay in the box, He also gives us "faith" to step outside the box.

I prefer a god that tends to reward reason (even if that reason involved a non-belief in god) over a god that rewards faith.

Logical thinking takes you much further than blind obedience. The box is a lie!

ghoulslime wrote

Wrong orifice! That's the carrot ear. I think you must have misread something somewhere. We don't detect gods with our ears. We detect gods with our rears.

what ever works for you, that would explain a lot of things.

Mog wrote

I prefer a god that tends to reward reason (even if that reason involved a non-belief in god) over a god that rewards faith.

Logical thinking takes you much further than blind obedience. The box is a lie!

Yes, I agree. The box is a lie, why do you want to stay in it?

[Kate]

[Mog]

happywarrior wrote

Yes, I agree. The box is a lie, why do you want to stay in it?

Its a lie, there is no box. Or rather, I'm the one that's out of the box, and you are the one that is in it, being that its a lie.

[anthonyjfuchs]

happywarrior wrote

If He does exist and gives us the ability to reason, He also gives us the ability to believe (faith) and He will reward us accordingly.

If a god exists, why would He (blessed by His immaterial penis) reward faith over reason, having given both?

If He gives us "reason" to stay in the box, He also gives us "faith" to step outside the box.

Or, He (blessed be His immaterial penis) gives us the faith to trust in our ability to reason. If He (blessed be His immaterial penis) exists.

[Irreligious]

happywarrior wrote

If He does exist and gives us the ability to reason, He also gives us the ability to believe (faith) and He will reward us accordingly. (If God doesn't exist then all you have is reason.)

If He gives us "reason" to stay in the box, He also gives us "faith" to step outside the box.

What kind of tortured logic is this, happywarrior?

You have twice already in this thread acknowledged that logic will not suffice when it comes to believing in God. I have to assume you mean your personal god. That is, the one who simply allows, otherwise, dead people to spend an eternity in torment for the heinous crime of not believing in something that is illogical, namely him.

Just to refresh your memory, I've dredged up your words:

happywarrior wrote

Thanks. I think that a lot of Christians think that they have to defend their belief by using logic to prove God exists. I think most people here can attest to the fact, it is pretty hard to use human logic to explain something that is supposed to be outside our experience. We just don't have the frame of reference to do it on our own.*

Which, of course, begs the question: How are you doing it, then?

happywarrior wrote

Why should you believe in God? Don't, see what happens. There will never be that "logical" explaintion for you to believe.* If one did exist then it would have used over and over and there wouldn't be any "unbelievers". I can only believe that God has given us all enough information to believe, some will step outside the box and some will not. Don't expect God to make you believe, but don't expect Him to accept some lame excuse for not believing.

bolding, mine
So where does reason enter into this process of believing if logic is not a criteria for belief?

By what other process have you arrived at your belief in an alleged deity that you, yourself, have acknowledged defies reason and logic? If you don't have a solid reason to believe, why do you?

Honestly? I'm beginning to think your faith is just willful. And, if that's the case, how can you, in good conscience, place it above the faiths of Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists and that of other theists or supernaturalists, which are just as illogical?

Is yours credible to you only because it's yours?

[dogpet]

Mog wrote

Its a lie, there is no box. Or rather, I'm the one that's out of the box, and you are the one that is in it, being that its a lie.

Here's what I meant Happy.

off one's box

Phrs. 1. Intoxicated by drugs or alcohol. E.g."I was so off my box last night that when my brother walked in the room I didn't recognise him." Cf. 'out of one's box'.
2. Out of one's mind, crazy.

anthonyjfuchs wrote

If a god exists, why would He (blessed by His immaterial penis) reward faith over reason, having given both?


Or, He (blessed be His immaterial penis) gives us the faith to trust in our ability to reason. If He (blessed be His immaterial penis) exists.

Mog wrote

Its a lie, there is no box. Or rather, I'm the one that's out of the box, and you are the one that is in it, being that its a lie.

I think Mog answers your question.

[Irreligious]

happy, truly, I am not trying to insult you, personally. However, I am gingerly traipsing around the edges of questioning your ability to reason.

If sound logic and reason are merely superfluous appendages in your mental vocabularly, then that, at least, somewhat explains your position on an alleged god figure that would punish those who dare use reason in an attempt to understand the world.

[Mog]

happywarrior wrote

I think Mog answers your question.

Not really. I'm just saying nonsense, or am I? I'd say you've erected a box around your faith which is preventing you from seeing the pesky logical problems that surround the concept of a Christian god. Since your faith isn't of sound logic, its a lie. Hence the box is a lie.

Irreligious wrote

What kind of tortured logic is this, happywarrior?

You have twice already in this thread acknowledged that logic will not suffice when it comes to believing in God. I have to assume you mean your personal god. That is, the one who simply allows, otherwise, dead people to spend an eternity in torment for the heinous crime of not believing in something that is illogical, namely him.

Just to refresh your memory, I've dredged up your words:

Which, of course, begs the question: How are you doing it, then?

bolding, mine
So where does reason enter into this process of believing if logic is not a criteria for belief?

By what other process have you arrived at your belief in an alleged deity that you, yourself, have acknowledged defies reason and logic? If you don't have a solid reason to believe, why do you?

Honestly? I'm beginning to think your faith is just willful. And, if that's the case, how can you, in good conscience, place it above the faiths of Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists and that of other theists or supernaturalists, which are just as illogical?

Is yours credible to you only because it's yours?

This has got to be the best post I have yet seen here, sincerely.

The reason to believe comes from seeing faith work, not only in my experience but in others. How faith has moved men (and women kate), and countries and how it has effected the world. If the God of the bible is the correct one (and I believe He is) then it is not reasonable for Him to show compassion on such a cosmic dust ball, for Him to sacrifice so much for so little. It is not reasonable for Him to send His Son to pay for our unbelief, it just defies reason, yet I am convinced that He did. many times we do not see the reason for things that happen because we are short sighted and can onlly see as far as our own existance. If my faith were only willful I would have given up long ago when the way became a bit disturbed. Those who want to believe in other gods and such are perfectly welcome to them, they are responsible for what they believe just as I am and just as every one else here. I can only give the best answer I am able, everyone here has seen argument after argument about why God exists etc etc etc and all those "logical" arguments had changed how many? zero. So I must assume the answer must lie somewhere else. If not in reason then . . . . faith I suppose. That's all that I can give.

[Kate]

[Mog]

happywarrior wrote

This has got to be the best post I have yet seen here, sincerely.

If the reason you give that follows is your reason, its seriously flawed.

The reason to believe comes from seeing faith work, not only in my experience but in others. How faith has moved men (and women kate), and countries and how it has effected the world.

If the God of the bible is the correct one (and I believe He is) then it is not reasonable for Him to show compassion on such a cosmic dust ball, for Him to sacrifice so much for so little.

Hold it. the God of the bible is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. and he created the cosmic dust ball, so hypothetically speaking, this cosmic dust ball is his responsibility, right? And being a supposedly eternal, infinite being, its actually impossible for him to really sacrifice all that much. Subtracting anything smaller than infinity still leaves infinity.

It is not reasonable for Him to send His Son to pay for our unbelief, it just defies reason, yet I am convinced that He did. many times we do not see the reason for things that happen because we are short sighted and can onlly see as far as our own existance.

Actually it sounds a bit irresponsible, since our own unbelief is god's own doing so for him to send his son out. Of course, the whole religion states that this son is also god, but then again the whole sacrifice idea is mumbo -jumbo. Consider this. If you committed a robbery, and someone offered to take your place in prison for it, does that pay your debt to society? Of course not! The sacrifice is just an elaboration of the old idea of scapegoating. As romantic as the story is, its highly illogical.

If my faith were only willful I would have given up long ago when the way became a bit disturbed.
Those who want to believe in other gods and such are perfectly welcome to them, they are responsible for what they believe just as I am and just as every one else here.

At least you are tolerant, albeit illogical. Don't go "Martin Luther" on us, and you'll be OK.

I can only give the best answer I am able, everyone here has seen argument after argument about why God exists etc etc etc and all those "logical" arguments had changed how many? zero.

Wrong, we've actually had some deconversions in here. The last one was a Muslim. He thought of what we said and returned as "the Awoken One".

We don't get as many as we'd like though, unfortunately. So many people prefer to attribute their success to their faith rather than to themselves.

So I must assume the answer must lie somewhere else. If not in reason then . . . . faith I suppose. That's all that I can give.

Well, for people like me, faith isn't enough, or even wanted, really.

[Irreligious]

happywarrior wrote

... everyone here has seen argument after argument about why God exists etc etc etc and all those "logical" arguments had changed how many? zero. So I must assume the answer must lie somewhere else. If not in reason then . . . . faith I suppose. That's all that I can give.

But they're not logical arguments, happywarrior; you said so, yourself.

I am puzzled by the quotation marks you placed around the word logical. Were you being sarcastic? That is to say, you were trying to convey to us that you see the logic, but you think we are being willfully blind to it? If that's what you meant it, perhaps, would have been better to have just said that, for clarity's sake.

Otherwise, I am totally nonplussed here.

Could it be that I am totally misunderstanding your definition of the word logical? I am using the American Heritage Dictionary definition:

log·i·cal (lŏj'ĭ-kəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions;* reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.

*bolding, mine

Now. What definition are you using (if you weren't being sarcastic in the first place)? According to the definition I am using, you would have to, at least, have some "genuine" knowledge of God. I honestly don't see how this is possible if the God in which you believe is immaterial, invisible and incomprehensible to ordinary humans. At least that's my understanding of your understanding of this alleged entity. This section of your post #638 would appear to suggest that you believe this alleged entity is inherently inscrutable:

happywarrior wrote

...I would think that some christians think that human logic can actually describe God who isn't constrained or circumscribed by human logic.* Like heaven is a logical place for mankind

*bolding, mine
Perhaps, I misunderstood you here, too. If I have not, and you literally mean that God is not constrained by logic, how on earth are you comprehending this entity in which you claim to believe?

Then again, I should, perhaps, let this conversation drop. You've already said several times that it's not supposed to make sense.