Is this a good reason to believe in god?

Question

Is "you can't DISprove god" a good, logical reason to believe in god, and do some people believe based simply upon this?

What about "better to believe and be wrong than to not believe and be wrong"? Even if Pascal's Wager actually had some merit (50/50 chance, hypothetically speaking)- would this even be an honorable position to hold?

Both "reasons" just seem like knee-jerk reactions to a challenge to one's faith. How strong would a person be to that faith if it was one of those two things their faith clung to?

why do we need to have evidence for everything?

What If I told the police you brutally killed my uncle Bill and his family, then they just came over and executed you- taking only my word on faith?

I would think you'd be wishing the Cops took a look at the evidence in said circumstances.

Lion: so... because the universe doesn't work the way a human understands it to- we should assume the supernatural- isn't that ultimately what ALL of those long-winded boring arguments state? Isn't that the mentality that got us questioning in the first place?

Answer 1

Faith is the only legitimate reason to believe in gods.

I'm glad to see that some believers answering your question have showed that they understand that.

Answer 2

Pascals wager at any rate is an absurd reason to propose. Simply put assuming one is a fundamentalist Christian--then by the same logic put forward as to a reason to be a Christian (pascals wager)--the fundamentalist should run right out and convert to Islam-for, of course, what if Allah is the one true God and Islam the only way--via Pascals logic a prudent man would thusly convert to Islam. Not much difference in logic there (atheist---> christian) or (christian --->islam). For the other you can't prove or disprove god, you can only use rational thought. To be an atheist simply requires a belief in the fundamental properties of mass and energy and their interactions. To be a religious person requires suspension of causality and a belief in magic. If we could point to examples where causality was suspended or magic was verifiable it would butress the god position. However, in the entire history of humankind--neither an example of magic nor suspension of causality was ever verifiably observed.

Answer 3

I think these are more tactics to use in conversation with someone to which they never occurred. I don't think all by themselves they are much to cling to. But they aren't incorrect. If the Bible is true and there is an afterlife with rewards and judgments that are everlasting, that is something important enough to consider when weighing in all the evidence. Often it is the will that is denying the evidence rather than good reason for disbelief. So it kind of helps to turn that state of rejection into one of reflection. There is a lot more to apologetics or the defense and reason for faith, but what you have mentioned are sometimes alll that a well-meaning Christian can get out, in this age of one-sentence soundbites. More than this actually requires a little time and most people won't sit still to hear reasonable explanations.

Answer 4

For those who believe, their faith speaks to them as fact. Having come from a Christian background, I can appreciate well the mindset that finds validation in the personal investment of faith.

You see, back when I believed, it seemed inconceivable that what spoke to me as obvious fact would be viewed in any other way by someone else. I accepted what I was taught, what was my faith--as fact.

With such a perspective, the believer feels they have much more to go on than just the idea that God cannot be disproved. To the believer, God IS proved, and they accept articles of faith as the proof.

Faith will seek out and verify its own facts, it seems.

Answer 5

I dont think those reasons are good reasons to believe in God, you should believe in him because in your heart you have the faith and you have studied your religion enough to believe that is truly is real not simply because someone told you that you can't disprove him, or better to believe than be sorry. If you were really secure in your faith than people that tried to test you all the time wouldnt phase you. You would hear it and just let it go in one ear and out the other.

Answer 6

I think a person should do some serious studying of the bible and believe 100%. I dont think it's smart/right to not know 100%. You can't be lukewarm with God, it's either all the way or not at all. At my Christmas Eve service on Monday night, my pastor talked about the book of Revelations and how when Jesus goes up against Satan for the last time, there wont be anyone on the sidelines: you've either chosen him or chosen hell.

Answer 7

If you cannot disprove that a more supreme being requires you to do violence unto others would you go out and assault people simply because you cannot prove it is not true??!!!

Of course you would not and that is why these sort of questions always bring ridicule on the asker and sadly the Christian religion!!!!!!

Answer 8

God gave us free-will. This is because He wants us to love Him on our own. just like you would want your children to love you. He could of made us robots and commaned us to love Him, but that does not fit the character of God.
Now if you believe in God because its the most resonable choice, thats okay, because once you are saved, God will free you from the bondages of this world, and you wont be able to NOT love God. It is all a heart issue, and whether or not you have God in your heart or not.
Why take a chance. I pray God will give unbelievers a glimpse of what hell is, somehow, in dreams however.
Then you would jump right in the "boat".
Look at the people who thought Noah was foolish for building the ark......They probably wished they had not taken the chance.......
God loves you.

Answer 9

How about "I just believe" as a reason. Otherwise known as faith.

And I would say the two examples you gave are not common "reasons" that people believe in God. I think they are two common retorts people give when they are told they are wrong for believing in God. That doesn't make them any more valid of an argument...I just think you are confusing their purpose.

Answer 10

It seems that many use "You can't disprove" as a defensive mechanism to their beliefs, I am not sure if they believe because of this. However, Pascal's Wager is utter BS as it assumes there are only 2 sides unlike reality where there are 1000's of officially celebrated religions.