How can someone believe in God without knowledge?

Question

Nobody really knows if God exists or not. How can some people consider God's existence as true?

I myself am an atheist but as a result of my agnosticism. I can't consider God's existence as true when I know that humans will never discover if it's true or not.

What kind of knowledge do believers have? (if the do)

Answer 1

jennifer_bloom | 624 opinions shared on Religion & Spirituality topic.

Influencer

I think some people believe that life or the experience of life or the experience of divinity is presented in them in such a way that his existence is obvious or self evident. One of the reasons I believe is that I am constant communication with God's word and God's will.

Answer 2

jshm2 | 368 opinions shared on Religion & Spirituality topic.

Guru

The same way you can believe in mathematics without knowledge.

Mathematics doesn't exist - it's not a physical thing, but a concept, belief and idea. But you don't need a PhD in mathematics to know some basic maths and concepts to make do and use.

Atheism is just a belief similar to a rock or cat - they don't "believe" either and have little idea how to, or what it's about.

God is eternal - hence "exists" is the wrong word to use as only something created can "exist" as it must also have an "end," which God cannot have.

There really is no good reason to be an atheist. You can either be an agnostic or theist.

Answer 3

Wade8888 | 147 opinions shared on Religion & Spirituality topic.

Xper 5

Pure logic is all you need to prove a Circle is a Circle.

Likewise, Pure Logic is all you need to prove God's existence.

There are least three common Logical Proofs for God's existence, and Atheists never even attempt to disprove the proofs, they just choose to harden their hearts and ignore the proofs.
Look it up, "Logical Evidence for God's existence."

Ontological Argument
Cosmological Argument
Moral Argument

(389) Four Basic Arguments for God's existence plus a personal testimony evidence - GirlsAskGuys

Yaaten

9 d
I wouldn't exactly say I am deeply religious, but I do believe in what we tend to refer to, for lack of a better term, as "God". However, I will attempt to disprove the three arguments you've mentioned here. It's a challenge, and we all should challenge what we believe to be true.
1. The Ontological Argument
Rather than being an argument based upon what is observed about the only reality we know for sure to exist, the Ontological Argument makes the mistake, in my view, of defining God into existence. "That which nothing greater can be conceived" (Anselm) is a VERY weak position to promote, if only because it is so hopelessly subjective.
2. The (Kalam?) Cosmological Argument
The KCA is often applied to the universe as a whole (ex. by W. L. Craig), but causality is something that applies within the universe only. Did the universe have a "cause" in the conventional sense of that term? Almost certainly not. It had a "beginning", but only in the sense that there was a time prior to which it did not exist. The truth of the matter is that we simply do not know how, or why, there is something rather than nothing. Saying that "God did it" isn't an answer (God of the Gaps Argument).
3. The Moral Argument
What determines whether something is right or wrong is the impact that choice, that decision, has upon the well-being of another sentient entity. It really is that simple. God is not required. Ex. it is "bad" to lie and cheat under most circumstances, because in doing so you are effectively violating the rights of others, by providing them with information they cannot utilise, because it is false.
devilman666

9 d
"Athiests never attempt to disprove these proofs" those proofs have all been disproven before so please stop lying.

Ontological argument isn't evidence or logic it is assumption. You assume such a being can exist, then from there you assume it has to exist, which is ridiculous.

If you think that is evidence for God then this is evidence for the lost island:
The Lost Island is that island than which no greater can be conceived.

It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.

If the Lost Island does not exist, one cannot conceive of an even greater island, that is one that does exist.

Therefore, the Lost Island exists in reality.

Cosmological argument assumes just as much, right away it assumes that everything has a cause, which it later refutes itself by stating that God has no cause. Then it assumes the universe began to exist. Therefore it assumes the universe has a cause... but then it also assumes God has no cause because otherwise you would need a God greater than God to create God and it would be an infinite loop of needing a greater God. Therefore the argument refutes itself, because if it's possible for something to not have a cauas then you can't assume everything has a cause.

The moral argument straight up just assumes "attaining the highest good" (whatever that means) is only possible if God exists. Further the final step of this argument doesn't even prove God it only attempts to prove that we need God to "attain the highest good". Here let me show you why assumptions are bad in an argument like this.

Here is my irrefutable argument for athiesm:
1 All things that exist are meaningless
2 God cannot be meaningless
3 therefore God cannot exist in a meaningless world
4 therefore God cannot exist in our world.
devilman666

9 d
Seriously by the way those arguments have been disproven many times and I can link you to websites that hardcore disprove these arguments, if you want.
Show All Show Less
Yaaten

9 d
@devilman666 "... right away it assumes that everything has a cause..."
No, it makes the assumption that everything that "begins" to exist has a cause. You shouldn't try to attack arguments the theists aren't even making.
Yaaten

9 d
@devilman666 If all things that exist are meaningless, then so is your first premise (i. e. that everything that exists is meaningless) and so I can simply ignore your entire argument, because it doesn't even make any sense. A meaningless argument is one I don't have to consider.
devilman666

9 d
It is natural to assume that everything that exists had a beginning. Regardless that seems like nitpicking on your end, in the end the assumption was still made and thus it fails as a logical argument.

Fair enough, but why even take it so far when you know as well as I do that it's not necessarily true that everything is meaningless, that is an assumption I made to help my argument. It's only meaningless if you assume everything is meaningless, otherwise it has a meaning and that meaning is to assume everything is meaningless. Yes, by It's own logic it is meaningless but you would have to accept the arguments logic to come to that conclusion.

Answer 4

Yaaten

I wouldn't exactly say I am deeply religious, but I do believe in what we tend to refer to, for lack of a better term, as "God". However, I will attempt to disprove the three arguments you've mentioned here. It's a challenge, and we all should challenge what we believe to be true.
1. The Ontological Argument
Rather than being an argument based upon what is observed about the only reality we know for sure to exist, the Ontological Argument makes the mistake, in my view, of defining God into existence. "That which nothing greater can be conceived" (Anselm) is a VERY weak position to promote, if only because it is so hopelessly subjective.
2. The (Kalam?) Cosmological Argument
The KCA is often applied to the universe as a whole (ex. by W. L. Craig), but causality is something that applies within the universe only. Did the universe have a "cause" in the conventional sense of that term? Almost certainly not. It had a "beginning", but only in the sense that there was a time prior to which it did not exist. The truth of the matter is that we simply do not know how, or why, there is something rather than nothing. Saying that "God did it" isn't an answer (God of the Gaps Argument).
3. The Moral Argument
What determines whether something is right or wrong is the impact that choice, that decision, has upon the well-being of another sentient entity. It really is that simple. God is not required. Ex. it is "bad" to lie and cheat under most circumstances, because in doing so you are effectively violating the rights of others, by providing them with information they cannot utilise, because it is false.

Answer 5

devilman666

"Athiests never attempt to disprove these proofs" those proofs have all been disproven before so please stop lying.

Ontological argument isn't evidence or logic it is assumption. You assume such a being can exist, then from there you assume it has to exist, which is ridiculous.

If you think that is evidence for God then this is evidence for the lost island:
The Lost Island is that island than which no greater can be conceived.

It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.

If the Lost Island does not exist, one cannot conceive of an even greater island, that is one that does exist.

Therefore, the Lost Island exists in reality.

Cosmological argument assumes just as much, right away it assumes that everything has a cause, which it later refutes itself by stating that God has no cause. Then it assumes the universe began to exist. Therefore it assumes the universe has a cause... but then it also assumes God has no cause because otherwise you would need a God greater than God to create God and it would be an infinite loop of needing a greater God. Therefore the argument refutes itself, because if it's possible for something to not have a cauas then you can't assume everything has a cause.

The moral argument straight up just assumes "attaining the highest good" (whatever that means) is only possible if God exists. Further the final step of this argument doesn't even prove God it only attempts to prove that we need God to "attain the highest good". Here let me show you why assumptions are bad in an argument like this.

Here is my irrefutable argument for athiesm:
1 All things that exist are meaningless
2 God cannot be meaningless
3 therefore God cannot exist in a meaningless world
4 therefore God cannot exist in our world.

Answer 6

devilman666

Seriously by the way those arguments have been disproven many times and I can link you to websites that hardcore disprove these arguments, if you want.

Answer 7

Yaaten

@devilman666 "... right away it assumes that everything has a cause..."
No, it makes the assumption that everything that "begins" to exist has a cause. You shouldn't try to attack arguments the theists aren't even making.

Answer 8

Yaaten

@devilman666 If all things that exist are meaningless, then so is your first premise (i. e. that everything that exists is meaningless) and so I can simply ignore your entire argument, because it doesn't even make any sense. A meaningless argument is one I don't have to consider.

Answer 9

devilman666

It is natural to assume that everything that exists had a beginning. Regardless that seems like nitpicking on your end, in the end the assumption was still made and thus it fails as a logical argument.

Fair enough, but why even take it so far when you know as well as I do that it's not necessarily true that everything is meaningless, that is an assumption I made to help my argument. It's only meaningless if you assume everything is meaningless, otherwise it has a meaning and that meaning is to assume everything is meaningless. Yes, by It's own logic it is meaningless but you would have to accept the arguments logic to come to that conclusion.

Answer 10

Dazed0N0Confused

Xper 7

They need a reward system to justify being a good person. Because "you can't be a good person without believing in God"...
If I have to hear that bullshit line one more time I'm going to fucking lose it...

Answer 11

In_Trance | 234 opinions shared on Religion & Spirituality topic.

Master

They consider it true the same way you don't. Same philosophies; differing perceptions

Answer 12

Gedaria | 578 opinions shared on Religion & Spirituality topic.

Master

Doesn't matter what I believe. You seem to have made your mind up.
So why ask the question.

Asker

9 d
Because I can

Answer 13

Asker

Because I can

Answer 14

Astarlessnightsky | 201 opinions shared on Religion & Spirituality topic.

Guru

Believing without certainty is the only way.

If you know something exists you don't believe.

Answer 15

Ms_Vanderquack

Xper 5

Gullibility

Answer 16

Ilickvulvas

Xper 6

It’s called faith

How can someone believe in God without knowledge?

AI Bot Choice

Most Helpful Guys

Most Helpful Girl

What Girls & Guys Said

Related myTakes