Christians, an honest question?

Question

All I'm asking is a reasonable question. Why should someone believe in God. I'm asking it earnestly. I'm asking it in good faith.

Now, I'm not asking for proof of God by using his definition as proof. Please don't use the Bible as evidence, in that I have not yet accepted it as a divine testament. In fact, if you don't know what the term circular logic means, please refrain form answering.

I want to know. This isn't a taunt. this isn't a trick. I don't want you to doubt your faith. I would just like a clear, well reasoned argument for the belief in God.

James,
I can see how your faith is a comfort to you.

Audex,
You seem to have put some thought in to this. I notice however, that you final statement has this flaw, "God is the only answer.". There are other, if less comforting, viable answers.

I will read each answer and respond to most. Thank you for you thoughts.

Answer 1

There are at least 5 philosophical proofs of the existence of a Supreme being, what we call God.

The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Answer 2

You could start by what you know about yourself. Here you are on Yahoo Answers questioning things about the world around you.

Why do you have these questions? Animals don't question. Rocks don't question.

You are thinking, and reasoning. What or who put those processes in motion? It was not you, because science tells you that you did not create yourself.

You were created by someone else. Your parents helped, but they only joined an egg and sperm. Where did your "life" come from? You know, the force that animates your physical body? Your soul?

Only a being greater than a man could have created man. There has to be a "first cause" if you will because everything in the universe has a physical cause.

And if part of you, your soul, is an unseen (non material) thing then nothing material could have created it.

That only leaves God as the answer. An eternal or infinite being alone has the ability to create something immortal (i.e. a human soul).

This is what has traditionally been called the cosmological argument. It basically aserts that everything must have a cause, except God.

The ontological argument utilizes reason and logic alone to prove God's existence. Basically the argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God, then God exists — it is thus self-contradictory to state that God does not exist.

There is a third argument, the teleological, that is also useful. It is based upon the reality of order, purpose and principles within nature.

Answer 3

I believe in God but think the Bible is a story book. I do not believe in that god nor do I think any god 'inspired' the writing of the Bible..

My real belief in God simply comes from life experiences. I realize that many will say that the events I attribute to God could easily be caused by some other force. That's fine. I still believe that which makes the most sense to me.

I accept evolution (and all that science has gifted mankind with). Yet I believe that God is the force behind it all.

I have, on occasion, tried to convince myself that such a belief is illogical. But then I remember things that have happened and seriously cannot understand any other cause.

If you choose to write that off as substituting God for that which I do not understand or mere coincidence, feel free. I still believe.

Answer 4

I simply believe in God because I do. I have faith that there is a God. Based on what I see around me, I completely believe that there is a creator. Based on what I have felt, I believe that there is a Holy Spirit. Based on my understanding, I believe there was a Savior.

To me, the Bible is not "proof" of God. The Bible is a grouping of books/letters, etc that was written by people thousands of years ago.. Some of it is books of history, others books of poetry, etc. I know that some people look at it as an unfailing piece of proof of God.. but to me, that's not what it is. It's a way to learn more about what I believe, but not something that leads me to believe what I believe.

It may sound strange, but I believe what I believe, because.. simply .. that's what I believe. God did not come down from the skies and stand in front of me and say "see! here I am".. But I do believe he is there, and believe I have felt his presence, etc. I believe that the things I see, the way things work, the fact there is life, is proof to me.. But to some people, that isn't what they consider as "proof". (Though I don't understand how they can explain the intricacies of life then, but yah...)

I appreciated the way that you asked the question.. I didn't think that it was a way to drag people into an argument or anything like that.. And I thought that I would answer to the best of my abilities.

Answer 5

It's faith, and everyone has it in some form or another. If you think about it, even atheists have a faith. Since faith is essentially a conscious belief in something that you cannot prove, it works for those who believe in a god, afterlife, reincarnation or even those who think nothing happens when you die. Either way, there's only one way to find out, and none of us reading this are there yet, therefore, it's faith.

Now, if you wanted to question the Religion, that's another story, as it's just the vessel in which one practices their faith. Religion can be questioned a little bit easier than faith, as there are at least a few concrete ideals in religion.

Answer 6

There was a fantastic debate on ABC Night line the other night between Kirk Cameron, and another guy (both hardcore christian evangelists), vs. The Rational Response Squad (two atheists), and the point of the debate was that the christians can prove the existence of god without using the bible. Of course, the debate didn't actually solve much, but some points were made, and it was an interesting debate to watch. You can catch some of it on youtube or search on the ABC website where the video of the debate is posted. (I kind of thought the moderator was a little biased, but whatever)

Answer 7

For the same reason I believe in you.

I can't see you, but, I can see what you have obviously done.

Of course I could be having a psychotic episode and you really don't exist. Of course, then there would be no history.

Since history does exist I must admit that Herodotus does in fact exist, even if I never met him.

PS: Only one Pascal, Church Music Girl, so far. Looks like you are losing marbledog.

PPS: Two Pascal's, Child of God has jumped in with both feet.

You do realize that pontificating about Pascal's wager is fairly droll, in addition to showing everyone that your predictive abilities rank right up there with phone psychics.

Answer 8

In Year, 1550 or there off, there was Man, the catholic church will consider to canonize, He build the first Bus line in Paris, as well that he invented the first calculator, base in gears, each gear in multiples of 10th. Born in France, he did, as well many experiments, measuring the weight , of Air, inside of a vessel, in top of a mountain, and under water in the Ocean, he dedicate his life to God, he die at 33 year of age. his Name Blaise Pascal, Was famous for the letters that he will send to King's and Queens, as well that politicians and church bishops, His most famous writhing where Les Pensess, (The Thoughts), in where he said something, like this "I believed in God, because there isn't a problem, and it doesn't cost me anything, it doesn't may me feel uncomfortable either, to do so" and if he exist, I can be a bit prepared to accept HIM, as if I don't believed, less will be my chances, for me to talk too HIM. ". They call this Pascal's wagers. Although I think there is a lot more behind, his Genius. Check, Number 33, of The Best Western Books ever writing, Encyclopedia. I consider him to be the first exponent of the Existentialistic Philosophy.<

Answer 9

Please know that I am only stating my belief. I am not wanting in a war with anyone. I went through a time that I doubted God's existence. Then I came to realize that I needed something to believe in. I started researching various religions: protestant, catholic, Judaism, Muslim Buddha, everything I could find. I found things in all of them that I could accept as well as things that didn't make sense. My faith is one of combined beliefs. I am not died in the wool anything. I just needed to know that there was something more to life than what I had going. One might say that my life changed because I got right with God. One might say that my life changed because I started making better choices. Either way, for me, and for me alone, it has made a difference to have God in my life.

Answer 10

A friend of mine (another Catholic) and I were talking about this, oh, ten years ago. He had an interesting take on the subject. If there is no God and when we die there is nothing else, we won't know it, will we? So what have we lost by believing?

For me personally, belief gives me a certain sense of comfort, the assurance that there is something more to life than work and sleep and doing the dishes... and YA. ;-)


[and I finally looked up Paschal's Wager... huh, didn't realize this was so close to it, except that I don't think that non-belief is an automatic ticket to hell. Must do more reading on the subject!]

Answer 11

My question to you is what is your definition of God? Is it god as the Christians believe, or God as the Muslims, Buddists, Jews etc. believe. So are you talking a definite "God " according to someons definition; or are you talking about "a god".

I say the universe is here, the earth is art of the universe and we are part of the earth. Something, "someone" set the creation process in motion. What that something, or someone is, "a god" or "god" for the want of a name, I don't know. But the mere fact that we exist is for me proof that there is something almighty powerful out there.