Why Do YOU Think People Believe in God?

[Miles]

.

.... Any god!

"Why do people believe in God? For most people in the world, the answer seems obvious: Because it’s self-evident that God exists. From the point of view of the believer, the really puzzling question is how anyone could not believe.

And yet, as University of California at Irvine psychologist Brett Mercier and his colleagues point out in a recent article, there was once a time in the prehistory of our species when nobody believed in a god of any sort. Our evolutionary ancestors were all atheists, but somewhere along the way they found religion. So we’re back to our original question: Why do people believe in God?"
source

So, why do you think people believe in god?


.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

I don't presume to have the capability of reading another person's mind to know what they are thinking or believing about anything at any particular time. However, I will speak to what was in my mind when I used to identify as a believer in the Christian god:

Though I wasn't conscious of the distinction at the time, I've since realized my former belief in the Christian god was actually me mistakenly believing that I believed in the Christian god. After much critical thinking on the matter, it occurred to me that I was fundamentally incapable of choosing or controlling the belief formation process in my head because I cannot choose or control what evidence or arguments will convince my brain to develop a sincere belief. The available facts, evidence, and arguments for a claim will either be sufficient or insufficient to convince my brain to form a compulsory belief about its truth value. There is no third option of choosing to sincerely believe a claim when my brain is unconvinced by the available facts, evidence, and supporting arguments or lack thereof. Any attempt on my part to choose to believe a claim that my brain is unconvinced of will amount to me pretending to hold a belief.

Accordingly, as someone who values intellectual honesty, I was compelled to acknowledge that belief in a claim about the existence of a god was not a cognitive state I could choose for myself if my brain was not convinced by the available facts, evidence, and supporting arguments or lack thereof. Since my brain was not convinced, it was impossible for me to have ever sincerely believed the god claim was true. Therefore, the cognitive state I experienced as a Christian was not a sincere belief in god but more accurately described as my strong sense of loyalty to the idea that I ought to believe in god. While I can't read minds to demonstrate this is the case for other people who claim to believe in a god, is it reasonable to infer from my personal experience that it is possible they could be making the same reasoning error? Is it fair to ask if they may be unintentionally conflating belief in a particular god with their ideological commitment to believe in a particular god?

[TRANSPONDER]

No. We cannot read minds. But we don't have to. We can read what people say. And deconversion stories (really, that should be a regular thread) and see how they cam to understand that religion really did not stack up.

I also hear a lot of conversion stories and they fall into three main categories - bad reasons, being sold a bill of goods, and dubious; specifically, claiming to have been an Informed atheist who nevertheless came to realise that the case for religion was compelling - but when you discuss with them, they know none of the arguments. They may have been converted, but it was selling a bill of goods to the unwary (if they are even being honest about that) and now their minds are closed to the actual arguments.

We are all sold a religious story - the one particular to where we live. It depends on the individual whether they can listen to the arguments and realise they have been peddled a pack of twaddle, or they can stick their fingers in their ears and deny everything. because part of the pack of lies is the tale that is they stop believing somehow their whole life will collapse, never mind the afterlife.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]
First of all, because they can see his works all around them. Everything we can see is complex and usually beautiful. These things testify to a God's involvement.

"Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20, NASB)

Your argument was completely debunked at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

I doubt that. No one can debunk the fact that there is Intelligent Design in everything that exists. Anyone who says otherwise is treading on slippery ground. There is no excuse for their faulty assessments.

[POI]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]
First of all, because they can see his works all around them. Everything we can see is complex and usually beautiful. These things testify to a God's involvement.

"Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20, NASB)

Your argument was completely debunked at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

I doubt that. No one can debunk the fact that there is Intelligent Design in everything that exists. Anyone who says otherwise is treading on slippery ground. There is no excuse for their faulty assessments.

This is your second time putting forth your baseless claim. I, on the other hand, have evidence. You obviously have not researched this court case. I.D. was placed on trial, and lost miserably, due to the presented evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]
First of all, because they can see his works all around them. Everything we can see is complex and usually beautiful. These things testify to a God's involvement.

"Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20, NASB)

Your argument was completely debunked at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

I doubt that. No one can debunk the fact that there is Intelligent Design in everything that exists. Anyone who says otherwise is treading on slippery ground. There is no excuse for their faulty assessments.

Wrong. There is apparent design in natural things, sure, but to claim there is a thoughtful intent behind it that does not stack up. Take for instance the apparent design of a shell whorl or flower calyx. It is what we would expect from a progression of growth and the design - intent is just how it looks to humans who don't know any better.

Intelligent Design is a claim without merit. It has been debunked in a court of law as not science, but merely a religious claim. It will get you nowhere.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]
First of all, because they can see his works all around them. Everything we can see is complex and usually beautiful. These things testify to a God's involvement.

"Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20, NASB)

Your argument was completely debunked at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

I doubt that. No one can debunk the fact that there is Intelligent Design in everything that exists. Anyone who says otherwise is treading on slippery ground. There is no excuse for their faulty assessments.

Reminds me of a saying about pride and falling...

Just for giggles (because this statement has already been debunked):
Three engineers are discussing the human body: an electrical engineer, a hydraulic engineer, and a civil engineer.
The electrical engineer says "The human body was designed by an electrical engineer. Look at the complex of wires that carry electrical impulses that are the nerves and brain." The hydraulic engineer says "No, the human body was designed by a hydraulic engineer. Look at the magnificent pump that is the heart and the series of pipes that are the blood vessels." The civil engineer then says "You're both wrong. The human body was designed by a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipe through the middle of a recreation area?"

[TRANSPONDER]

Why Do YOU Think People Believe in God?

"Have you ruled out stupidity?" (Lucy van Pelt).

I know. We atheists must not be rude, and Christians are Very touchy about being called stupid.

But, like 'There is no God'., this is over - simplified to where it is misunderstood.

Christian apologists are often very smart. We know this because half of the atheists (ballpark figure to defuse the 'where did you get those figures?' nitpick a Bible apologist may play instead of a proper argument) used to be believers and apparently became smart overnight, when they converted.

How come?

It's obvious. They stopped compromising their smarts trying to fiddle stupid arguments.

And by stupid, I mean illogical, irrational and not based on the best evidence.

That is not Why people believe in God, though it is another matter and equally based on exploited ignorance that brainwashes people into Godfaith. Thereafter it becomes a battle against logic, reality and evidence to keep the Faith afloat, because it becomes the validation of the believer, their place in society, Life and the universe, and gives them meaning, validation anf happiness. No wonder they fight for it so much; and because there are no really good logical or evidence - based arguments for Theism. religion or Christianity ,the smart ones compromise themselves by abusing their smart brain to prop up bad arguments.

The admired and feared Lane Craig for instance. His Kalam argument is dumb; childish. Infantile.

"There must have been a start to the universe (cosmos) therefore a god must have dunnit, never mind which one. What is worse, he knoiwqs this is a bad argument as God is NOT the only possible origin of the universe. Which is why he never mentions a god in Kalam, just an uncaused cause. Which only implies an eternal cosmic stuff or an eternal Nothing that can produce stuff, which is the same thing.

So Lane - Craig is not dumb, but he is dishonest. Because he knows that Kalam is horribly flawed, but it doesn't matter.

Like pretty much all Theist, religious and Christian apologetics, it doesn't matter whether the arguments are logical, evidence - based or even honest; they only exist to prop up what is known to be true on Faith, and you may sell your Troth Sential Bitcoin and invest in that as a sure thing.

[JehovahsWitness]

Like blue, I don't presume to have the capability of reading another person's mind to know what they are thinking or believing about anything at any particular time. However, I will speak as to my own mind and who I believe I God. I know the OP doesnt as about me but "people" but I am a person and my example arguably contribute to the thread theme.

From conversations I have had I know I am not alone in believing in God because an intelligent creator seems to be the most logical explanation to me for the existence of the universe and the life in it.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS


RELATED POSTS

Why believe in any gods at all?
viewtopic.php?p=998032#p998032

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, EARLY EARTH and .... THE BIBLE & SCIENCE

[onewithhim]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #88]
People believe in God because they can see His awesome works all around them. It's difficult, IMO, to not see God in the creations around us.

[Tcg]

It's difficult, IMO, to not see God in the creations around us.

This amounts to an argument from incredulity:

Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce. They are also frequently used to argue that something must be supernatural in origin or even the contrary. This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_ ... %20imagine.

Tcg