Why I Believe in God

[Mi2mi2a]

Okay so to belive in God against stereotypical assumptions need a logic behind it. So I thought why not write my own logic that I think is the more powerful for me. Of course I know there may be some loopholes in my logic so I wanted to put it on Gag to get opinions and different views from different people.

1- Religion and Belief in God are separate

Before I start I should make some points to explain my logic. For me before you get into in any religion, you should first understand why you belive in God. Religion can never be an argument for the faith in God. That's why I saparate them. Yes they are intricate but not the same nonetheless.

2- The boundaries of Science, and what is the alternative?

Science has boundaires, which is a very known fact. What kind of boundaries?

1- It can only explain what is physical, and materialistic. Why? because the job of science is the physical world, it's not that it has not and may be able to in the future, It just CAN'T. Ex: The metaphysical, birth, death, morality...

2- It can not explain it foundations: the foundations of science can not be explained by the science itself like LOGIC.

3- It can only explain the How (how does this work?) and not the why ( why are these set of laws and not others. )

Then if science is unable to explain these subjects knowing human nature we must have attempted to undertsand it, and here comes phylosophy. Phylosophy also relies on logic but doesn't bind iself by the physical world instead goes onto more complicated matters.

3- The existence or non existence of God CAN'T be proven by Science

In accordance to what I said before science has boundaries, and among those boundaries existnce of God. why? If you assume there is God, you would give God a set of charasteristics according to the definition. Since God created the universe, that means God is absolute of the Laws of the universe. And what I mean by universe isn't the mere universe that is composed of galaxies in space, but any bigger physical existence that may or may not exist (waiting until science discovers anythig more).

That's why as God that created the universe, He can not abide by the rules he created, thus he is outside the realm of understanding of Science. Without forgetting that the existence of God or non existence of God is among the 'why' and not the 'how'.

Ex: take for example a game of football as the simplified version of the universe. If you have scientists that are bound by the world of football, and trying to explain the laws that goes in there, from that will they be able to deduct an undertsanding if the creator of the Game?

4- The logic of causality and the problem of infinite regression

a- Logic of causality:

it's a simple logic that I'm sure you have heard if countless times. According to this universe and its laws, anything that has come to existence has a cause, and from that we conclude there is a cause to the universe

b- Problem of infinite regression

From that comes the question: then that cause has a cause which has a cause..... and that's the problem of infinite regression. the problem here is that we can't have this going on as without an uncaused cause the universe wouldn't have come to be.

Why? take for example a sniper that will take a shot at a target. the sniper needs to ask for permission from its supervisor who himself will need the permission from the supervisor ... and so on. If there isn't a a boss that will need not ask for that permission the event won't set forth and the sniper will not shoot the target.

That means there must be an uncaused cause of this universe. And that uncaused cause is what we call God. why? because God is the one who created the universe = the uncaused cause that created the universe.

[Deathraider]

The boundaries of science doesn't mean we resort to believing things without evidence. That's called a god of gaps fallacy, something people have been doing throughout history:
"What causes the storm?"
"God did it."

"What causes the plagues?"
"God did it?"

"What created the planets?"
"God did it."

You see, the "God did it" claim is just an easy back door. But here's the thing, how does one know god did it? If we can't conjure up evidence for an explanation, it doesn't mean we should use the "God did it." The answer that would be best is "We don't know." It is better to unanswerable question than unquestionable answers. If an answer is unquestionable, how are you sure that it's correct?

Furthermore, your claim that it doesn't explain the metaphysical is predicated on the assumption that there is even one. Where's the evidence?

Science method of gaining reliable knowledge through observations and experiments. It's foundation can always be challenged. That's what makes science strong. If we manage to show that we were wrong, we gain a deeper understanding of the cosmos. Whereas religion is against people proving their claims wrong and sometimes condemn people for it, if sufficient evidence proves science wrong, the person is praised such as Einstein. In science, being proven wrong doesn't mean that the method is unreliable, it shows the method is working.

As for your argument it doesn't explain a why, you're committing a begging the question fallacy. Firstly, you need to ask "Is there a why?" You're making assumptions for things.

And here's the thing, god's existence cannot be proven or disproven by science. But the existence of a Flying Spagetti Monster cannot be proven or disproven either. The existence of a teapot floating somewhere between Earth and Mars cannot be proven or disproven either. We should apply the burden of proof to these and god. Until evidence can be conjured up to show claim X is true, we shouldn't think claim X is true.

Why can't the Big Bang be an uncaused causer? Why is god specifically uncaused? Why do we make a special pleading for him? Do we know the universe had a beginning? The Big Bang doesn't prove a beginning by Ex Nihilo. The thing is without sufficient evidence, we can only say "We don't know." We don't know about what happened before the universe, if there even if a before, or even a beginning.

[Mi2mi2a]

Boundaries of science and God of the gaps are two separate matters. I didn't try to explain any phenomena or physical existnce by God, if I did that's what it is God of the gaps. I just named the first cause of this universe (physical creations) God, as god has a definition of the creator of this universe and the first cause is the creator of the universe.

There may be a flying spagetti existence in a parallel universe (i mean here the scientific meaning of universe) or any other existence, just because science hasn't proven its existence doesn't mean it doesn't. Maybe we will find a planet holding life and mechanisms that are drawn only in fairytales. That's not an argument agaisnt the existence of God, it's an argumant against science. Yet I chose not to believe in the existence of flying spagetti because there is no logic that can push me to it.

[Mi2mi2a]

If you are against causality you are against science. 'there must be a cause 'is what started science and ignorance is saying there is no cause just becase it will lead to a result you would rather not believe in.

If you are against a beginning you will fall in the problem of infinite regression that I explained why we can't accept.

[Deathraider]

No, you have not adequately shown that the universe had a beginning. You're argument is non sequitur. We have no evidence energy or matter had something that created it. As far as we know, things in the universe is Ex materia.

Sorry, but in science, there are things that are without cause. What causes certain photons to go through polarising lens and others to not? Experimentally, we could expect 50% to come out of a lens. If we had two lens, one of which is turned 90 degree while the other remains the same, 0% can actually get through. Which so far makes sense. If we have a lens turned 45 degrees instead, we can expect 50% goes through. Nothing counterintuitive as 45 is halfway of 0 and 90. But what if we turned it to 22.5 degrees? 85% goes through which is much higher than what we would expect. It should be 75% because it's halfway in between 45 and 0. But this has profound implications!

Suppose we had a setup. We had the first polarising lens, and another behind it that...

[Deathraider]

is turned 22.5 degrees. The next one is turned 45 degrees. So it goes 0, 22.5, 45. Now, imagine if we sent through 100 photons. After the first slit, we expect 85% to make it through. And after the second slit, since the 3rd lens is turned 22.5 degree relative to the second lens, we expect 85% of 85, which is about 72 photons. If we removed the second lens, we would have 50% of the photons making it through the 45 degree lens.

Now only 15% of the photon from the first lens gets block by the second lens. 15% of those from the second lens get block by the third lens. But then how many photon that make through the first lens get blocked by 45 degree lens? 50%.

That absolutely doesn't make sense if you draw out a vent diagram. This 50% is suppose to be contained within these two 15%, which isn't mathematically true.

So the proof by contradiction to be easier seen is:
Assume that these photons have an underlying cause that cause them.

[Deathraider]

[we'll call 0 degree lens A, 22.5 degree lens B, and 45 degree lens C]
So 15% of these photons that make it through A will get blocked by B.
15% of these photons that get through B will get blocked by C.
How many photons pass through A get blocked by C without lens B?
Well the thing is that it has to be less than or equal to the sum of photon blocked by B and sum of photons that get blocked by C.
Yet, we measure 50%.
50% > 15% + 15%

Contradiction!

The conclusion is that the assumption that photons have an underlying cause is false.

This is something known as bell's theorem:
"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

[Mi2mi2a]

Okay I totally didn't understand your example it's not a subject I'm proficient in XD. But just because hasn't yet discovered the cause yet doesn't mean there is no cause. I will give an example in cancer (wich i can understand) simplified: cancer is caused by a mutation in the DNA leading to a disorganised division of cells, while searching for the sause as to why a great number of cell undergo this mutation there are many assumptions (as you've read numerous times) enviroment, radiations, food, but still they haven't found a cause that actually explains why. Right now it's due only to hazard, but that assumption is used until we find an actual cause in science. So just because we haven't found a causse doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Deathraider]

Well it's not that there isn't a cause found, it's that these experiments show there isn't a cause. If there was a cause, since the photon that go through lens A that don't make it through lens C is a subset of the photon that go through lens A that don't make it through B and the photons that go through lens B that don't make it through lens C, the subset should be less than or equal to the sum of the two subset. Yes we know 50% > 15%+15%

[Mi2mi2a]

I don't understand the subject you are giving me an example in. I'm not following.

[Deathraider]

This should help explain it:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs&t=639s

[irrationally97]

That's a good argument friend! You study Physics?

[Deathraider]

@irrationally97 Yeah. Well I self taught myself

[Anonymous]

I mean the only argument you've put forward as to why you believe in God is 4. That also has problems, why does the law of causality have to apply to the conditions of the Big Bang? Even so, the Big Bang theory doesn't attempt to explain the cause of the universe, it only explains the evolution of the universe and what it was like very near t=0 (i. e the start of time as we know it). We don't know what happened "before" it (or even if the concept of before even applies) and so science hasn't yet found a cause for the universe. Saying that the universe either came from God (a creator being) or from nothing is fallacious, as there are lots of other options that could be explored and verified to be right or wrong in the future.

[Mi2mi2a]

the question isn't what created the universe. It is what started this creation. What i mean by universe isn't just (as I said) space encompassing galaxies, even something bigger that may exist and science hasn't discovered it yet. so when I say the cause of universe I mean wathever that encompasses all what exists in this physical world.

[Mi2mi2a]

also if you deny the causality logic you deny science in its root. Science assumes there is a cause to everything without it science actually wouldn't exist.

[Opinion Owner]

"The question isn't what created the universe. It is what started this creation"

That's the exact same question, just rephrased differentyl.

"Science assumes there is a cause to everything"

No it doesn't. It only makes testable predictions about the universe and then experiments to find out whether it is true or not. I guess you could make the argument that there needs to be a cause for something in order to replicate it in experiment, but surely you make the point that this is where philosophy comes in, to try and explain that which is beyond science. Then give me a reasonable philosophical argument that proves causaility applies in ALL circumstances, especially at the quantum scale where even time itself doesn't behave like we'd expect (with our limited macroscopic view).

[Mi2mi2a]

Rephrasing differently gives two slightly different meanings. In any discussion I try to make my definitions as clear as possible because it affects the result greatly. So no those are two different things. If science finds a cause for Big Bang it will still be within the realm of this physical world, and that cause if they find its cause will also be within what exists in the physical realm, that's why I said wathever would be the beginning of this physical world is what I mean by the first cause, one that started this succes of events happening in the physical realm.

"No it doesn't. It only makes testable predictions about the universe" but why does it try to make these predictions? because it assumes there is a cause.

On a second note do they teach phylosophy in western countries. I don't know why but it seems that western people are lacking in the understanding of what science works for and what it can't, there are many phylosphers who discussed this and outlined the boundaries

[Mi2mi2a]

and priciples that sciencs relies on.

[Opinion Owner]

So then why does the first cause have to be metaphysical? Why does there even have to be a first cause? All physical things could exist in a loop of causation, or just an endless cycle of creation and destruction ad infinitum.

It makes the predictions so we can have a better understanding of how the world works. Not all of these predictions assume a cause. For example, you could go with Galileos prediction that two objects of different mass would reach the ground at the same time if dropped from the same height. It doesn't mention anything about a cause or a reason why these objects fall (that would come later with Newton), it just deals with HOW these objects fall. You don't need to immediatly assume a cause to make testible predictions about things.

[Mi2mi2a]

Do you understand what metaphysical is? it is outside of the physical. If something physical was the cause of the physical then according to the laws of the physical it will need a cause as well, it will never end if the cause is physical. that's why the cause is metaphysical to create the physical.

Well you said it, Newton came later on to explain that phenomena. Gallileos did a description of a phenomena, he didn't bring anything new, Newton later on used science to explain that phenomena.

[Opinion Owner]

The laws of Physics say nothing about physical things requiring a cause. That's the law of causality, which is a philosophical law.

Galileo's work is still scientific at it's heart though. He made a prediction, tested it and proved it with evidence. That's the point I'm trying to make, you don't need a cause to make testable predictions about things.

[CountessSarah]

Your argument is just Special Pleading.
"Nothing can be an Uncaused Cause. Except god, for no reason."

God is not a solution to infinite regression.

[ladsin]

These are just my responses to your points, and I’ll point out where I disagree if I do. Thanks for writing.

1) Yeah, sure nothing I disagree with here.
2) Yes, science is by definition the study of the natural world, but that includes life and death. We agree the scientific method has not demonstrated any supernatural realm, thus someone claiming it does has the burden of proving it, and thus far I haven’t seen any convincing reason to believe. Lastly, I don’t understand your consternation. The scientific method has been arrived at just because it works, you don’t need a philosophical background to ground it in, it’s just a methodology. If you’ve got a better one then by all means present it.
3) Right, I don’t think anyone argues that science can prove a god does not exist, it can simply disprove certain claims about it, or rather give us a better explanation than the god hypothesis. For example when the Bible says that god sends the winds we can show that we have a better explanation that doesn’t require a god.
4) Causality is necessarily temporal and thus having a cause “outside of time” makes no sense. It’s like trying to determine what’s north of the North Pole. We don’t have an infinite regression, so it’s rather pointless although in set theory we can have an infinite past.

“That means there must be an uncaused cause of this universe. And that uncaused cause is what we call God. why? because God is the one who created the universe = the uncaused cause that created the universe.”- this entire section is an unevidenced assertion and an tautology.

[ThisDudeHere]

"The metaphysical, birth, death, morality..."
Because those are human-made artificial concepts that have no physical basis and thus their explanation by default will always be subjective.

2- You do realise that there is a dictionary definition of the word logic, right? Or did I miss your point?

"why are these set of laws and not others."
Because then we wouldn't be living in the same universe if the laws would be different. At any rate, this is a null-question. As in, there's no point in asking it. It's like asking why was Harry Potter named Harry and not, say, Robert.

Because that's just how it is.

"He can not abide by the rules he created,"
Except that makes no sense, hence why I can't believe in god. This whole thing sounds like "my favourite character can do this because I and the author said so."
Well Goku can destroy whole planets with a spirit bomb and Superman can shoot lasers from his eyes, so now what?
The whole idea of god being outside the rules of the universe is just a cheap and highly convenient way of avoiding giving any explanation for him.

"there is a cause to the universe"
Ther indeed probably is, except I'm more willing to accept that humanity may likely never know this cause, than just accepting some imaginary one.

And infinite regression is also one of the primary reasons I can't believe in God. You can't just tell me to stop at God and say, "he needs no creator."

Yes he does. And that creator needs one. And that one too. And on and on.

Uncaused cause is a paradox that goes against itself and can not be taken seriously as it, again, is a cheap excuse.

PS - I'm not bashing your take or your views, just giving my opinions on your points.

[PsychoKiller]

While there are a lot of things humanity can't explain yet, you need to understand that providing god as the answer to those questions is nothing but a product of human imagination. We had thousands of gods on this planet, and yet there was never anything that at least implied any of them ever existed. The fact we can't disprove god doesn't mean shit, because by the same logic, we can't disprove the tooth fairy either, but that bitch isn't real either. I dont know how old you are and where you live, but I used to be religious too, until I turned 20. I lived in a shithole, lots of crime, drugs, prostitution, and all those great things, no good people, no jobs, no prosperity, no justice etc. But a lot of religious people. And just watching all the suffering and injustice of the good people, and all the ease and comfort of the assholes, watching myself and others pray every day, and none of those prayers ever being answered, at one point I just realized I was talking to myself all those years. I hope you never have to reach disappointment in a such painful way like me, but if you are at least somewhat intelligent, over time, you will probably come to the same conclusion...

[markscott]

Science can answer a lot of questions, but it can't answer the most important questions. Where science fails, is when it tries to speak with authority about what it's incapable of knowing, due to it's limitations. Science also fails in it's lack of understanding and acknowledging it's own built in biases. None the less, science is a very useful tool, and gives a great deal of understanding to us.

[Mi2mi2a]

yes I agree with you. but you can't use a weighting scale to calculate height, in the same way you can't use science to undertsand the metaphysical

[BesrkirAstrid]

Your somewhat right here is mine:
The Gods are bound by spirit law and thus cannot and will not interfere in earthly matter due to consent, In pagan times the "science" we know comes form them and ritual is the "science" of the universe given to us by the universal mind or God, Gods, spirit. One must seek to use Science to explain the spiritual before jumping to conclusions for example i used fire deviation and use paper, I write a question on the paper if it burns then its a yes and if it doesn't then no, so i used the same paper and emptied the dish (fire proof) some times the paper burned and sometimes it didn't i didn't once shot it instead i asked the question three time (three is a holy number mother, maiden, crone) so that would bring into question why would it burn to one question all three times and for no it wouldn't burn at all?

[sawno]

I like your way of thinking as i use the same liberating philosophy by exploring possibilities in your own mind rather then being bound by sources or citation.

There is one point where i agree but feel like you missed one important aspect and that's point number 3. There exists evidence and you can encounter it if you need it (Thats different from wanting it) but this evidence purposely can't be proven by science to make sure there aren't accidental blind followers as the evidence doesn't tell you what is true merely that something is there. From it i observed there are beings not bound by the laws of physics or time. Personally i don't believe in God as a singular entity but as a group of souls just like us except not in physical form as a soul does not have to be attached to a body that's merely a tool to interact with the physical world.

[Kaneki05]

Tons of plot holes i hope one day you see them and realise this ain't good reasons to believe him at all and maybe one day you realise ain't real or at lesst come up with a better logic.

Also just gonna point out the existance of god not been able to be proven by sience is a very dumb point that's like me saying well, since they cannot prove zombies are not real or real they exist, or same could be said about everyone elses gods in there religions, so that means everyone could be right which that wouldn't make sense at all, also it is like saying because we cannot prove that i will win a lottery tomarrow it is a good point that i will win.
Basically that can only be a point for that he don't existed not that he does.
Also humans are very good at understanding things.

[Jack_L_andTurn]

There is no rational basis to argue that zombies are a necessary precursor to existence. Whether one agrees with the idea of God or not, there is a rational basis for the argument which is why I an agnostic and not an atheist.

[sawno]

There is evidence of beings beyond what we can traditionally observe and even simple logic would completely back this up as with our senses and technology we can simply not yet measure everything as we are still researching the underlying fabric of the universe. To contrast that with zombies, zombies are something we can observe with our usual senses and the fact they aren't being observed indicates they are currently not around (I don't deny zombies being a possibility, if something caused a brain to severely degrade so only there core functions are working and they operate on there primitive brain alone i can imagine that being quite zombie like).

[Kaneki05]

you guys are missing the point yes zombies could become a thing in the future but what i am saying is if something can't not be proven or disproven it is more of arugment that whatever is it don't exist like geek mythology are we gonna say that is real because we cannot prove that it isn't but that means we believe that earth had sex with the sky to create gods but that sounds completley dumb but yet someone would use the arugment that we cannot prove that it didn't happen so it must a be a legit possibleilty.
You see how dumb that sounds which is why i think that is more of argument that something don't exist.

[ENTP_EMO]

Very clever analysis. I have similar views.
1. 100%
2. Science is more about explaining how things happen and improving on them. It normally struggles with explaining how things came to be.
3. Science never went against god, Some of the greatest logicians and scientists of the past believed in God.
4. Similar to how we used to think time is universally constant, we could be looking at this wrong. The logical of causality leads to the next problem you mention.

b) Infinite regression argument is pointless at this point because it can be used against the god..

Why do want to believe in something?
To gain favors? To predict our own future? For power? For peace?
If I was a god and my creations chose to believe in me so they can share my powers? Then I would look at them as playthings and insects unless I'm narcissistic.

So belief in a god or not won't make a difference if God doesn't care about you.

Atheist!

[slatyb]

That's fine but it's not useful. I don't think much about whether or not God exists because 1) I can't tell and 2) Whether or not there is a God doesn't help me make decisions for my life. It's a long way from "There must be a Creator" to "I should pray/attend services/make offerings at the temple".

[Jack_L_andTurn]

The only point I would argue against is that the universe must have an uncaused cause. While ultimately whatever started everything must posses the inherent characteristic of aseity. it is not logically necessary that the immediate cause of THIS universe be that entity.

[Aquarius19777]

While I believe there must be some sort of creator I also believe we have to use logic and the only logical explanation is we don't know and that is why I am an Agnostic. When people come at me preaching about the bible its just nonsense to me I wasted years being Catholic going to church and for what? It was a total waste of my time.

[Anonymous]

Religion is the only belief that doesn't require any evidence so if you want to believe then believe I will choose to wonder because neither Christians or any other kind of religion or Atheists really know the truth none of us do but being Agnostic for me is the most logical thing I could be.

[Anonymous]

there is a dome over the earth GOD exist there it's over
you don't need to explain yourself to these idiots

you can see for yourself
most of them will be going to hell anyway
god is above the dome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4

[Anonymous]

im an agnostic jew that believes god may or may not have created the idea of the singularity. so, while i believe in the big bang, i believe god may have created the singularity, for it to happen, over and over again. thats what i choose to believe

i don't go to temple

[Gedaria]

I like your reasoning , but the order and the symbiosis or inter reliance of each object whether on earth or in the cosmos , shows us a force of intelligence , ie GOD,, ,...

[Anonymous]

Your reasons were quite interesting, thankyou for sharing them.
But I have to say that some religions do agree with today's modern science.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Very well written and thank you so much for sharing your MyTake with us :)

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Why I believe in God? Because my brain actually works to reason with knowledge unlike atheists and agnostics who are mentally slow retards.

[sawno]

And yet time and time again you fail to provide a concrete argument on the matter without resorting to a book that may or may not be true. Don't call people retarded because they know how to practice critical thinking especially if you can't defend from an argument without the "They wrote that" argument.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@sawno: Did I mention the Bible?

[slatyb]

The Bible isn't evidence for anything except that at some time some people wrote it. You keep calling disbelievers stupid but I think you have your own private definition of intelligence and it's not what intelligence tests measure.

[Salmon4056]

Agree and Believe in Father too

[AnnieBabe]

Amen sista!!! I am in love with this take.