<p>Exactly Pramirez14, thats why I keep wondering who created God?</p>
<p>&& kyledavid, you stated God exist? again, how do you know this?
What if we were created by some atom that just started to multiply or we originated from the whole "Big Bang".</p>
<p>Hey pramirez184, but why is what you propose anymore illogical than an 'eternal God beyond our understanding?' </p>
<p>Furthermore, much of the Quinquae viae is based infinite regression, which on premise, has to be considered 'illogical' in order for the first three 'proofs' to work. (In essence, there has to be a terminator in the chain of infinite regressions.) Let's ASSUME for a moment that this is true. (If it's false, then there is no supreme God, since there's just, as you proposed, an endless string of higher creators) Why does the being we consider OUR creator have to be the natural terminator of the chain? Can't the actual terminator be God's creator? Nothing can disprove that.</p>
<p>WindCloudUltra, but then God's creator must have a creator also and so on && so forth. I highly doubt nothing can start out of the ordinary. Unless its the atom thing i was talking about</p>
<p>and who is Quinquae viae?</p>
<p>Quinquae viae is the five proofs Thomas Aquinas uses to prove the existence of God. Part of his reasoning uses the infinite regression. Here's an example:
The argument of the first cause (ex causa).</p>
<pre><code>* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.
</code></pre>
<p>(St. Thomas Aquinas I should say....another system completely illogical. The system of sainthood of course...)</p>
<p>I'm about to google Thomas Aquinas right now</p>
<p>"* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things."</p>
<p>Is God refered to as the Uncaused thing or the caused thing because that sentence just bewildered me.</p>
<p>God is the Uncaused cause. Which means that God is the origin of everything, yet he has no origin. He just had to be. (Or is...forever apparently)</p>
<p>I believe in a god that connects the human race together, but no other god beyond that. </p>
<p>We cannot understand how the universe was created because we are bound by its effects, and thus cannot think without those limitations of the laws of physics and science, etc. </p>
<p>It's like trying to think to yourself what it is like to be dead - we cannot, because if we put ourselves into a state of imaginitive death, then we would be dead. So, being alive, we cannot experience afterlife. </p>
<p>The same is true with time, as we cannot imagine what it would be like without time as we are restrained by time, and same like how we cannot imagine the world anyway besides in 3-D, because we are 3-D. </p>
<p>and the same is true with imagining what came before us in the modern world of our reality. </p>
<p>that is why I attribute no proof to the christian god, even though its not an invalidation of his existence.</p>
<p>you're so right WindCloudUltra and Rootbeerceaeser.
so basically things like aliens and celestial beings are all nothing but myths</p>
<p>Some people try to imagine and predict what heaven is like. I used to also but felt it wasn't necessary since hopefully we'll all get there one day</p>
<p>
[quote]
and same like how we cannot imagine the world anyway besides in 3-D, because we are 3-D.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, it possible to accurately represent 4 dimensional and higher dimensional space, although it is counterintuitive. There are several books on it.</p>
<p>Well I'm not familiar with dimensional theory in general so I was just generalizing I guess, lol</p>
<p>I guess I could fix that by saying that since we are 3-D, you cannot truly imagine in your head what 2-D (Length and Width) and 1D (Either Length or Width) would be like in existence, even though we can pretend to but in reality its still 3-D. Like writing on a piece of paper may look 2-d, but its infact 3-d since the ink particles are moving depthwise into the paper and sometimes sticking out of the paper by an atom or two.</p>
<p>i don't understand why some people can't fathom the idea that nothing happens after death...nothing lasts forever</p>
<p>To answer the original question, I'm not sure why I believe in God. I just do. Not believing in God would be like not believing in trees or birds. </p>
<p>It's just that... this world is so horrible. I'm struggling with this right now. I'm unafriad of hell, because my life has been hell, and I know others whose lives have been worse. And I'm only 17 and I'm jaded and fighting bitterness.</p>
<p>But I have to believe there is something more. Certain things have happened in certain ways... that make me believe SOMEONE is out there taking care of things. And since my mom died when I was 13, I like to believe she is in some sort of heaven.</p>
<p>^^Chamilitary Mayne, how do you know nothing lasts forever if it hasn't been forever yet? :)</p>
<p>Admittedly, the following is a bit limited since there are only two choices for religious belief, but still:</p>
<p>There are four options: A)God exists and you believe in Him, B)God exists and you don't believe in Him, C)God doesn't exist and you agree with that, D)God doesn't exist but you believe He does. The results, in the end, are, assuming you act according to your beliefs, A)you are eternally rewarded, B)you go to Hell, C)nothing happens and it doesn't matter b/c your life was pointless anyway, and D)same as C.
So, in the end, you're better off believing that there is a God b/c the best that happens is you go to Heaven and the worst is nothing, while for the latter option the best is nothing happens and the worst is you're damned (literally).</p>
<p>Pascal's Wager </p>
<p>Of course, taking that into account, people would want to believe in God (as I do). </p>
<p>Just the problem is that Pascal didnt realize that people actually --- BELIEVED IN OTHER RELIGIONS OTHER THAN CHRISTIANITY OMGOMGOMG (his biggest blunder) ----- so it is rather difficult to sort out among the hundreds of religions which one to pick, and hope that you get the lucky one. Thus the probability of pascals wager goes from 3/4 to 1/1000, making it still a very difficult and improbable move, which leads us back to the point of rational evaluation again instead of just saying "best chance for me is to believe in (insert religion here)" </p>
<p>As each God would clearly be very angry with you for believing in a different God (ex. Believing in Satan or Brahma instead of Yhwir the Hebrew God), so each of those other probabilities except for one will earn you a good old eternal damnation. </p>
<p>With equally divided religions across the world, if God gave one religion material success (which he prob. hasnt) then it would be very difficult to decipher if that has been Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity. >_<</p>
<p>Wow...we're getting a lot of people who are first time posters on this forum...regarding this topic...</p>
<p>Odd...</p>
<p>yea I just noticed that too</p>
<p>I'm not actually a first time user (although I am admittedly relatively new) but for some reason it shows me as such. I have been having problems with my account, so maybe that's it. </p>
<p>Why do I believe in God? (If the capitalization of "He" didn't tip you off, nothing will) This is part of it:
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." ~C.S. Lewis (he's back!)</p>
<p>To go further, why do I believe that Jesus Christ is God? Once again, C.S. is the man of the moment:
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."</p>
<p>Im personally unsure of what religion specifically (if any) to call myself, (even though I lean towards christianity) but as for counterarguments I'd say that any Islamic, Hindu, or Jewish scholar would say the same about the specific worship of their prophet.</p>
<p>I'm sure a Orthodox Jewish Scholar would say "yes, Jesus was a lunatic" while other people might disagree or agree. Most of these texts from all the various religions (Bhaghtid Gitva, Bible, Koran, etc.) are so old as well that its hard to distinguish between fact and fiction, for if all of them were true (at least the physical events supposedly), then why would God fill the Earth with so many prophets such as Muhammed, Jesus, Abraham, Buddha and all of em (if the acts which could have only been done by God in the texts are true)? So if this is not so, it can assumed that the reality-to-writing correlation of some of these works is false, and thats where the problems begin with religious verification.</p>
<p>So, I suppose in the absence of this verifying knowledge one has to just throw one's lot in the one that oneself says is the most reasonable and most true.</p>
<p>I am a little late entering this conversation, but I think I can add to the discussion. To begin, I am an agnostic on the extreme atheist end. It really is only by a small technicality I do not consider myself a full fledged atheist. The technicality is that there is no such thing as non-evidence. Evidence only suggest that which was or is. There will never be evidence that shows something that never was. The best way evidence will show there was not something is by a lack of evidence. Well, I hope this made sense. It is kinda of tricky.</p>
<p>The part of the discussion that interested me was about ethics/morals/right/wrong for people who do not believe in god. I will just use the word morals to sum all those words from here on. From my perspective morals are actions that are in the best interest for the survival of the group, and the actions are usually from a relatively immediate perspective. Additionally, morals seem to be actions that bring people together through social norms. </p>
<p>Well, here is probably a lame attempt to explain what I mean. I will begin with why morals are actions in the best interest for the group in the immediate future. I suppose this would come down to survival of the group. Killing people would detrimental to the group. Killing one individual is probably not going to do much to to hinder the groups survival, but if the idea of killing off people becomes to easy to do it could become detrimental to the group. That is why I think it is so important that if why are to execute people through law it should be so tough to do. It should take extreme measures, and a very real threat for the group if someone is to be killed (I am not trying to get into a discussion of whether or not it is right to do, but I am using it to illustrate my idea). If the act of killing people became an easy thing to do morally I imagine anarchy and a state of war. How could that in any obvious sense be good for the group?</p>
<p>I add the qualifier in the immediate future because actions that provoke things such as global warming will probably prove to be detrimental to the group in the long run, but it is hard to base any moral grounds for not driving a car when in the immediate future it provides such an immediate benefit. Actions that kill the group in a slow subtle way are usually ignored. Like eating at McDonald's all the time. Another example would be e everyone having kids when it seems as if the world is over populated if want to sustain our standard of living (at least the standard in America).</p>
<p>Killing people is one extreme end of the moral spectrum, but taking 100 dollars found on the floor with no obvious owner to claim around is a gray area morally. If you worked hard for 100 dollars you would want your money back. You contributed to the group to earn those 100 dollars, and if you lost it over and over and never got it back why would you continue to contribute to the group when you gain nothing. If you decide to take the 100 dollars you are deciding to cause a loss of incentive in other to work for the group, but if you attempt to return the money you are trying to keep the group functioning.</p>
<p>Social norms are necessary so individuals can understand the group. How can you know how to act if you are not aware of what actions will benefit the group. Thus social norms should help make it obvious what actions work in a positive way for the group.</p>
<p>Just to note, you can define the group however you like. I have observed most people also include a ranking system with in their group.</p>
<p>Hope this made sense, and point out any holes you find so I can try to improve my thoughts/argument.</p>
<p>I suppose the next question is why do I care about the survival of the group.</p>
<p>Well, what if most or many of the most populous religions are all different ways of looking at the same Truth, with a few possible contradictions due to the perversion of religion (its old or it has been changed constantly,etc.). After all, I think it was Susskind who said found that the five different string theories were actually just different ways at looking at the same thing. Hence, believing in SOME religion will probably make you better off than believing in NO religion, as stated by someone above. The worst that can happen is nothing for the devoutly religious.</p>
<p>On a similar note, I just went to the library for the first time in like 6 months and came across a book Susskind published in 2006 called "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelegent Design." I believe in God 99.999%, but I cant wait to start reading this book. Maybe Susskind (father of string theory and biggest opponent to Steven Hawking) will present a beautiful but thrashing arguement to disprove God. I doubt it, but I'll try to update you guys if I can finish before this subject dies out.</p>