Why do Humans believe in the Existence of God?

[Fino]

Why know the truth when you can give amateur, cliche psychoanalysis instead?

 

[SeanF]

My husband and I both were atheists most of our marriage. Four years ago, we met my pastor on the side and he was highly educated. Had multiple doctorates and knew the original Greek and Hebrew, particularly the Greek.

My pastor is ADHD so he's stubborn and into debating, just like me. We went back and forth for months.

He won, mostly on the principle that he gave irrefutable proof that the New Testament is the best attested event in antiquity. Nothing comes close. I'll let ChatGPT explain it:


Bert Ehrman who is perhaps the most famous NT scholar and is not a Christian - says the NT is the best attested book in all of antiquity, and there is zero doubt the apostles believed in Jesus' resurrection, and concludes that the apostles had a "vision" which cannot be explained. If the events weren't supernatural, they'd be in the realm of fact. But they're supernatural, ergo, much of the NT academic field is necessarily dedicated to figuring out alternative explanations.

There are (many, many) other reasons why I converted, but this was the "clincher" for me.

Incidentally, my pastor a couple of years later made my conversion a subject of a sermon as a lesson in being patient and not giving up on witnessing. I was that bad.

That is interesting. I think it is cool that you both are capable of changing your entire worldview based on the rationality of an argument. Maybe it is an autistic thing. I have found this scenario to be in the minority. Usually people's eyes glaze over the second you start discussing the intricacies of theology. Either that or they angrily disagree based solely on "what they feel."

 

[Neri]

Ultimately, I think humans are responsible for themselves and figuring out what questions to ask and going on their own quest to determine what is true and what isn't.
No body can tell you what to believe. Anyone that does is being dogmatic, because your answers lie in figuring the right questions for yourself and being open to receiving answers. If you just "believe" you aren't open anyway, "knowing" is superior to "believing". And Noone can take your knowing away from you. You earned that. It's yours to keep and one can't deny anyone what they know to be true. Believing is accepting a belief system, knowing is knowing and what is known can't be unknown. And yes, people do know. If you want to know, figure out the right questions to ask and find out for yourself.

 

[Au Naturel]

Humans usually fear the void. They don't want to accept the randomness of it all. They are intolerant of uncertainty. They need the notion of free will. It is easier to believe a comforting story than to accept reality. So religion springs up to answer the questions in a way that comforts us.

Why does the universe exist? How should I live my life? And most importantly: How can I pretend I'm not really going to die because the thought of a true end to my existence is terrifying?

 

[Fino]

Humans usually fear the void. They don't want to accept the randomness of it all. They are intolerant of uncertainty. They need the notion of free will. It is easier to believe a comforting story than to accept reality. So religion springs up to answer the questions in a way that comforts us.

Why does the universe exist? How should I live my life? And most importantly: How can I pretend I'm not really going to die because the thought of a true end to my existence is terrifying?

Do you at least see that your hypothesis' are no less baseless than any religion? I'd argue they're more baseless, but we can settle for them being the same for now.

 

[Au Naturel]

Do you at least see that your hypothesis' are no less baseless than any religion? I'd argue they're more baseless, but we can settle for them being the same for now.

I never said that God couldn't exist. There's just nothing in the universe that requires a God to exist. If it something isn't required, then Occam's Razor suggests leaving it out. Don't add in unnecessary elements.

For humans, God is an explanation for the currently unknowable. God takes away the chaos that people don't want to accept. Rather than acknowledging that we don't understand something or that we are the product of die rolls, we say that God did it. (It is kind of like the ultimate conspiracy theory.) But in the end, God is not satisfactory as an explanation either. Where God came from is every bit as unknowable as what happened before the Big Bang.

Ultimately science and religion falter at the point of why anything should exist. At least science admits the problem.

 

[jsilver256]

I think you can come up with an unified quasi-scientific argument. If you apply the principles of information entropy and second law of thermodynamics, then whatever spawned this universe is strictly greater than us. And whatever spawned that universe is strictly greater, and so on.

At some point, you arrive at a singularity, and that singularity, being the source of all information, is self-aware and possesses something like a self-awareness. Oh, hey, maybe the singularity kicked off the whole chain reaction of multiverses in the first place. So, "turtles all the way down" argument with the last turtle being a singularity and thus a God.

The only other secular argument I know for the formation of this universe is the computational universe hypothesis but that too might also necessitate the existence of a God if it is possible within a mathematical construct.

 

[Magna]

There's just nothing in the universe that requires a God to exist. If it something isn't required, then Occam's Razor suggests leaving it out. Don't add in unnecessary elements.

^ I was thinking about this very thing last night and to the point that I jotted the thought down in order to remember it.

Other than a traumatic religious upbringing, two things stand out for me making the idea of God very challenging for me:

1) Your point: I was thinking similarly that everything that's happened on the earth and everything that humans have done, created, destroyed, discovered, etc are/were as they are/were. Buildings are built without a component of unexplainable mystery. Seasons change without a component of unexplainable mystery, etc. All of it happens without having to attribute it to an unseen deity.

2) Aside from a few uncorroborated (not backed up by other unrelated texts) accounts in the Bible of "God's voice" being heard by more than one person at the same time, every single instance throughout history of a person saying something like: "God spoke to me.", "God revealed to me in prayer....", etc.....has always, always been in the person's mind. They "hear" God in their own head. Groups of people haven't and don't hear God speaking outside of themselves. While believers would likely argue that the notion isn't problematic for them, it has to be acknowledged that "hearing" God in one's own mind could simply be thoughts and ideas imagined by the person themselves. Even believers would have to concede that it's possible "hearing God" in one's own mind is just a fabrication of one's own mind.

 

[Dagan]

God is the word for explaining one set cause for what otherwise can't be explained. It's the ultimate form of humans accepting defeat to keep finding more facts / reasons through experimentation...and sometimes, rightly so because we can only figure out so much before any kind of enlightenment, education and/or tech further come along. In the cases of people saying or believing such per all of the fortunate experiences in their lives, I can tolerate it and live just fine without much fear at all.

What I find to be problematic, though:

"God" has and still does become a well supported and enabled excuse for people to never fully take responsibility for their words or actions or overall failures. "...there's always forgiveness..." That shouldn't be a thing. In this area of mentality, it can breed narcissists, it can breed quitters to however many degrees, as it breeds the wrong kind of humbling and stunting the further education and/or success of some people... and worst, to me anyway, it can breed everything that so many cultures in this world say they "don't" like or want regarding communism...because people often let God(s) be used to create dependency (way more often than not) and then leads to taking advantage and/or exploiting said people. --- In every case of these such occurrences, I have no choice but to fear such people and can't therefore be carefree and enjoy every waking moment. I have to be on guard.

 

[TBRS1]

Test:

If (and ONLY if) a deity exists, observable and measurable event "X" will occur.

Tell me what "X" is, then show it to me.

I know this is boring science, vague metaphysics is a much larger playground, but science offers testable proof, which is better, and doesn't require vagueness to work.

 

[Judge]

Occam's Razor? That some humans prefer a broad sense of optimism to pessimism.

 

[Au Naturel]

Occam's Razor? That some humans prefer a broad sense of optimism to pessimism.

That's only true if you think God is a source of optimism. Or that Not-God is a source of pessimism.

 

[Judge]

That's only true if you think God is a source of optimism. Or that Not-God is a source of pessimism.

No. It's isn't a conditional perspective from my own point of view. Especially when you consider varying beliefs of God. Particularly those who believe in God out of fear and retribution.

I have a different interpretation of God. One without fear, vengeance or retribution. For me this reflects optimism as opposed to pessimism. God means different things to different people.

Recognizing that atheism can reflect either as well. For some having no God is a source of optimism. In essence, Balance in the universe...

It's just a matter of perspective.

 

[Dagan]

You both can / can't use the ant farm analogy / formula. It'll give you a headache, of course. The idea that ants in an ant farm can and will do whatever they can to get your attention, but you may still just tump them over or destroy them all, etc. because you can't hear or understand them fully because they can't truly, 100% effectively communicate to you (their chosen God). This is both a good / bad take on things: good because it does a great job of the communication / knowledge / power discrepancies.......but.......it's bad because of the key specific that these ants can absolutely see their God and see their God physically do things, make choices, etc.

Solving for X would be absolute physical proof per our five senses. Solving for X doesn't solve the entire equation, though, per the ants never being able to truly communicate or understand said God. Then again, at least they could have a physical proof / standard to keep shooting for - they would know what path to stay on and advance towards for science, tech and hoping to eventually communicate properly.

Once again, though, the God of the bible (I keep using this one because the bulk of you mention this God more than any others)... the God of the bible ruined the tower of Babel, which was simply just such an attempt at better communicating with God per a technology build, if you will. All were scattered, etc. You know the story. The lesson overall, though, seems to be that this God only wants you to pray instead...don't you dare use technology to do better. That's how it reads to me anyway.

 

[The Pandector]

Wow. Lots of answers. Obviously, not all true.

I’m a Bible believer, and a read of the New Testament informs that not everyone who claims belief in God has a relationship with him. In fact, few ‘believers’ know God, to hear Jesus tell it. So my answer to the question doesn’t include everyone who believes in God. To think that everyone who believes in God believes for the same basic reason demonstrates a bias of ignorant assumptions.

That said…
Many people - I did not say ‘most believers’ - believe in God because God has revealed himself to them. That is the answer that Jesus gave, and it makes perfect sense me.

My parents were always stinky-against religion. All foolishness that makes you forfeit the pleasures of the flesh, they said. Until dad got bladder cancer. Quick as spring showers, everyone believed dad would be waiting on the grass in heaven, with their old dog, until we all caught up. What a load of bungwally.

God’s self-revelation aside, people profess a belief in God for all kinds of reasons.

 

[Fino]

Essentially, whether a person believes in God or not is the result of their experiences. If someone hasn't experienced evidence of God, then of course they would naturaly conclude there is no God. I don't think it's common, though, for many people to believe in God simply to explain something they don't understand. It would difficult to muster any sort of real faith from such a weak motivation. And for billions to believe the same faith even more odd.

 

[Chris12345]

Essentially, whether a person believes in God or not is the result of their experiences. If someone hasn't experienced evidence of God, then of course they would naturaly conclude there is no God. I don't think it's common, though, for many people to believe in God simply to explain something they don't understand. It would difficult to muster any sort of real faith from such a weak motivation. And for billions to believe the same faith even more odd.

I think the original question was trying to get to the root of the belief in god. It may have been that people were reasoning by analogy. We know that certain things come into existence because we create them - chairs, tables, etc. They may have reasoned that they themselves and nature generally must have come into existence similarly - through a divine, or super creator, god.

Believing in modern religions is quite a few steps forward from that simple argument by analogy.

This idea of the personal experience of god I find dubious. I'm not sure what can really pass for such an experience. The question can always be asked: are you sure you're not just imagining it? Or are you sure it isn't just wishful thinking?

I know people have strong faith, including people I respect, like Carl Jung. But the sceptical atheist will always be wondering at the authenticity of such experiences.

And now that we know about evolution and the fact we evolved from non-human animals, it all seems that science is marching in a direction away from religious belief. The religious are fighting a rearguard action with the advance of science.

I've got no personal axe to grind in this debate. If there was a god of some sort that would be interesting (to put it mildly). If there was reincarnation, or a heavenly realm waiting, then I'd be happy with that. I'd rather carry on in some form than not.

But I have to go where my reason takes me, while also acknowledging that I could be wrong and could be missing something important. I don't have such faith in my rational powers that I think I must be right. I get things wrong all the time and this is far too difficult and abstract a question for there to be any guarantee that my train of thought is correct.

 

[Fino]

I think the original question was trying to get to the root of the belief in god. It may have been that people were reasoning by analogy. We know that certain things come into existence because we create them - chairs, tables, etc. They may have reasoned that they themselves and nature generally must have come into existence similarly - through a divine, or super creator, god.

Believing in modern religions is quite a few steps forward from that simple argument by analogy.

This idea of the personal experience of god I find dubious. I'm not sure what can really pass for such an experience. The question can always be asked: are you sure you're not just imagining it? Or are you sure it isn't just wishful thinking?

I know people have strong faith, including people I respect, like Carl Jung. But the sceptical atheist will always be wondering at the authenticity of such experiences.

And now that we know about evolution and the fact we evolved from non-human animals, it all seems that science is marching in a direction away from religious belief. The religious are fighting a rearguard action with the advance of science.

I've got no personal axe to grind in this debate. If there was a god of some sort that would be interesting (to put it mildly). If there was reincarnation, or a heavenly realm waiting, then I'd be happy with that. I'd rather carry on in some form than not.

But I have to go where my reason takes me, while also acknowledging that I could be wrong and could be missing something important. I don't have such faith in my rational powers that I think I must be right. I get things wrong all the time and this is far too difficult and abstract a question for there to be any guarantee that my train of thought is correct.

With that reasoning, nothing at all can be proven, as it may all be imaginary. And I wouldn't say we "know" about evolution. It's widely believed in the scientific community is the furthest we can get with that claim.

 

[Chris12345]

With that reasoning, nothing at all can be proven, as it may all be imaginary. And I wouldn't say we "know" about evolution. It's widely believed in the scientific community is the furthest we can get with that claim.

Some things have more prima facie plausibility than other things. If I'm standing in front of a tree and say "that's a tree" and other people are standing near and can see it too - it's a safe bet that I'm seeing a real tree. It can be questioned, philosophers say I could be a brain in a vat, or it could be some kind of collective hallucination.

So, it could be imaginary. But it probably isn't, there's strong evidence to say it isn't. Whereas with these personal experiences of god the whole thing is internal, subjective. No one else can verify it.

And how can the person himself be so sure his experience is indicative of god? He might be mentally ill. He might be hallucinating. It might be his mind playing tricks on him. Maybe he just wants to believe it so badly that he's having the experience.

So no one else can verify his experience. And he himself will struggle to verify it if he takes into account other explanations.

I think a lot of the belief in god these days comes down to people not wanting to accept death. Either that or having been brought up and conditioned in a religious family or community and holding that belief as part of their identity which they're loath to let go regardless of the evidence.

Though I recognise that there are sincere believers too. Eckhart Tolle, who I have a great deal of time for, uses the word god, though I think his meaning isn't the same as traditional Christians. And I mentioned Carl Jung, the great psychoanalyst, who said he knew there was a god, rather than just believing it. That would have been through some kind of inner experience most likely. Though again I'm not certain what he meant by the word.

But the amount of people who have had real inner spiritual experiences (leaving aside the question whether those experiences prove there is a god) will be very slim in comparison to the amount of people who just dogmatically assert there is a god because they've been brought up and conditioned to believe that.

 

[Au Naturel]

With that reasoning, nothing at all can be proven, as it may all be imaginary. And I wouldn't say we "know" about evolution. It's widely believed in the scientific community is the furthest we can get with that claim.

That quite true. You cannot "prove" anything except your own existence. The entire universe could be your imagination. Once you make the assumption there is something else in the universe, you can start building an understanding of it.