Believers: can you tell me some of the bad reasons other believers use to support their belief in God?

Question

That is, have you heard believers other believers (of any faith) give reasons for the existence of God, that you believe are bad reasons... and if so, why?

Or are any and all reasons good ones?

Have you, yourself ever had reasons that you now feel were bad ones.

Please explain.

Thanks in advance.

So Daniel, do you now find Pascal's wager a good argument?

diver down: I actually think the cup is all the way full - half of it is just full of air.

Answer 1

1. The Banana Argument. This one makes me want to bury my head in the ground.

2. The "building: builder" argument *as* it is usually presented. I believe that the underlying concept, if better developed, is a good argument though.

3. What caused the Big Bang? Suffers from the same initial defects of (2), but is still usable if further developed.

4. Because of (). I accept the authority of the Scriptures as being the Word of God, but that acceptance comes from evidence and authorities outside the Scriptures.

5. God does not exist. Both these statements are false. This is, however, an excellent argument for asserting that human language has yet to produce a perfect truth predicate.

6. Various iterations of the "I feel the love of God" argument. Not that this isn't true for many Christians (including myself). In fact, even seeing a vision, however real, is an awful argument in a debate, since it is basically a trump card used to stifle meaningful dialogue. Bound up with this one is "I performed\witnessed a miracle, spoke in tongues, saw an exorcism\demon\angel\saint.

7. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

8. recanted on his deathbed.

9. Einstein believed in God. In fact, Einstein was close to pantheism.

10. Evolution is just a theory. While this is true, it is a misunderstanding what is meant by the word "theory" in scientific circles. I would suggest that those who assert this modify the word "theory" and say "hypothesis", and then present evidence that the modern theory of origins has not risen beyond the level of a hypothesis.

I could probably think of some more, but this is all I can think of right now.

11. I just thought of another one: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Unless there is something such as the time Padre Pio blessed a motorcycle into running for 15 kilometers without gasoline. In this case, it is hard to think of an explanation outside of the supernatural.

Answer 2

Pascal's Wager only works if you assume Christianity is true. Otherwise, there is no God figure to wager against. From a nontheistic standpoint, it is too vague a reasoning to consider. Alright, I contend that it would be better to believe in God than not to, but which God do I choose? Again, Pascal's wager assumes the Christian God is real. Faith is a necessary condition for these arguments to work; arguments that attempt to prove God's existance or necessity in the first place! Behold, the atheist's counter-wager: Live your life well, and do all you can to help mankind. If God does not exist, at least you used your one life well. If God does exist, he will reward your love and kindness. If God does not reward you simply because you did not believe in him, that's not the kind of God you'd like to spend eternity with anyways.

Answer 3

Well, this is a tough question. On face value, many bad reasons could be listed: emotional crutch, tradition, etc. However, I don't think these are the real reasons one actually believes, even if they are the ones given when asked. I think personal experience is the main reason, or it is the reason one "continues" to believe. And this is not exactly a fallacy. So, it is tough question for me.

I could probably answer a similar question better: "What are poor arguments and defenses of the truth of Christian faith?" This allows for more critical distance, it seems.

Answer 4

A weak Christians Reason is to use 'Pascals Wager'

Pascal's Wager


The argument that believing in God is the most logical thing to do since if there is a God and you deny him, then you are in trouble. If there is no god and you accept him, there is no problem because it doesn't matter. Logically, it is better to not deny that God exists than to deny he does. There is truth to this argument, but the problem is that it does not define which "god" to believe in since in many religions, believing in a different god brings a punishing judgment. Nevertheless, this does not excuse a person from at least trying to discover if there is a God or not and who He might be.


This is a weak arguement for Christians that are immature in the faith.

A better reason would be ; Entropy and Causality used as
a proof for God's existence
The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost (mostly as heat) in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.

The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.
It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand; therefore, it is finite in size.
All events have causes.
There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
We've already established the universe cannot be infinitely old.
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state unusable energy, which it is not.
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe.
Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws.
This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.
This uncaused cause is supernatural.
By supernatural is meant completely 'other' than the universe and is not the product of it.
This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.
The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
This means that God is uncaused.
Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.

Answer 5

I have heard people preach the gospel and refer to God as a gift giver and use examples of money and material blessings God has given them like some kind of "Sugar Daddy". While God is a good and generous God and he may very well bless us with nice things I don't agree with God being preached in this manner. To try to prove or disprove God is a waste of time. I believe because of faith, not because of anything that was ever proved to me. My message to non believers is simple...... Repent or Perish! That's it! :o)

Answer 6

A person prays for a new car. They get the new car they want. They think by praying and running their mouth they are a true follower. Not so. The nut got the new car by working every day and saving money. Prayer is not supposed to be please for me card. We often forget that and then we are turned into selfish people who have all the wants and forget what hard work really does.

Answer 7

Lamest: "Because the bible said so."

The next lamest: "Because Brotha Billy-Joe, he's mah pastor down to the First Southern Mishunary Freewill Babtiss church, said to."

Explaining: Because they aren't reasons! They are excuses for not having to use the brain the Good Lord put (supposedly) into your head. These are excuses lazy people with weak faith use to get a "Get Outta Hell Free" card via their denomination.

Answer 8

The 'threat of hell' and 'Pascal's wager' statements really got me p-o'd when I was an unbeliever.

Answer 9

that's a good question. well i don't think there can be a bad reason. if it's enough to convince someone then it must be a fairly good reason.

i hope i didn't misunderstand your question.

Answer 10

your cup is half empty isn't it?