Why do I believe?

[john9blue]

So, I’m starting my first class in philosophy, and decided that I ought to sort of marshal my arguments as to why I believe in God, because the first chapter of our book is about “Reason And Religious Belief”, and I suspect there are quite a few atheists in my class. I had most of this in my head yesterday and probably left out a few details. I figured I’d run it by the CC forums, since there’s a greater percentage of atheists here than in most other demographics that I come across. Tell me if there's some kind of flaw in my reasoning. I know that this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, or ad barfeum for that matter, but this isn’t just another thread. I’m not out to prove God’s existence here. I’m just telling you why I choose to believe.

So, why do I believe in God? If you asked a Christian how the universe began, or how life originally formed, they would tell you that they believe there is a God responsible. But if you asked an atheist these questions, they’d tell you that they don’t know. And the Big Bang/multiverse theories are not good enough answers, as they had to have causes as well. However, I think we can agree that there must be answers to these questions. So now the atheist has to make a choice. They can claim that humans will someday find the answers, or they can claim that we will never know the answers. If the former, then they are putting their faith in a bunch of evolved monkeys, and assuming that the answers we find will not involve God in any way. If the latter, then they have no basis to claim that God did not do it. Both are leaps of faith, and both still do not rule out the possibility of God. The fact that theists are putting forth the theory of God’s existence does not make them any less credible than the atheists, who quite simply do not have an answer at all. They criticize an idea but offer no alternatives, other than the unscientific notion that something must have come from nothing. This is why I claim that a belief in God is not only rational, but is more scientific and makes more sense that not carrying a belief at all.

But why the Roman Catholic God? Let’s start with Pascal’s Wager: the fact that if you believe in the Christian God, you have an eternity of happiness to gain and a bit of your time on Earth to lose. I maintain that there is simply no way not to hold a belief about the question of God (just as there is no way to prove your viewpoint). So, now that I have a good reason to be a theist, I have to decide what kind of God I want to believe in. In accordance with the Wager, I will want to pick the religion that has the greatest reward for believing relative to not believing. Sure, I could make a religion up on the spot, but it will not have any evidence or support. Besides, it doesn’t get much worse than an eternity of Heaven vs. an eternity of Hell. Catholicism has a number of benefits- it offers eternal paradise, has millions of supporters, lines up fairly well with my personal values, has a largely positive impact on today’s society, has a holy book that clearly outlines the belief system, and demands relatively little of me. No other religion that I have heard of can match this. Therefore, I choose to be a Catholic.

Some might say that having a logical reason for my beliefs hardly makes them beliefs at all, or that my self-interest is not morally sound. That’s really just a matter of opinion, and besides, I can’t go back to blind faith unless my reasons are disproven. And remember, this isn’t a proof of God’s existence, it’s a reason why I choose to believe in God.

[CrazyAnglican]

Paschal's Wager, in the way that you use it may open up the "Well, I should just choose the religion with the worst punishment in the afterlife" counter. I do not find your basis for believeing immoral as we are all out for our own self-interest on some level (you just breathed, that was in your own self-interest, no crime there.)

[MeDeFe]

So...


A sentient, intelligent being with the power to create matter and energy out of nothing just exist. With no prior cause or process how it got there. That sounds very likely.

This being decides to create the universe with everything in it and we, we badly designed intelligent monkey on this ball of rock that will probably be uninhabitable within at most a few 100 million years (compared to the 15 billion or so the universe is old) are the pinnacle of creation and made unto the image of the previously mentioned being. Give me a break.

This being can't think of any better way to demonstrate its existence than to inspire some bronze age nomads to jot down stories rather haphazardly, at times it even looks like they're copying each other. Now seriously.

Some guy who claimed to be the Messiah (at the same time as approximately another dozen people made the same claim) is executed and has more stories written about him.

Roughly 300 years later all these stories are put into various orders depending on which cult is doing the editing. With absolutely no politicking or vested interests whatsoever.

This is now "The word of God".



Look, "God did it" is not an explanation, it is a cop-out. How do birds fly? God lets them. Why do trees grow? God makes them. Why do people get sick? They sinned, God punishes them. Why does the sun shine? God made it that way for us.
None of that actually explains anything. It's just a handy reply that lets you avoid giving an actual answer. Those questions I mentioned have been largely answered by now, but the principle is the same as for "How did the universe begin?" Claiming divine interference is not an answer, it's merely a fancy way of saying, "I have no fucking idea".

I already hinted at it early on in my post, but god is a rather unlikely concept, even if you keep it very general and leave out "just", "good", "loving" and so forth. Tell me, what're the odds of a sentient, intelligent being with the power to create matter and energy existing? And then suppose that this being exists without a prior cause.

As for Pascal's Wager. You're joking, aren't you? Because the promised rewards are good and the punishment severe (no matter how improbable) you choose to believe? And because Catholicism is one of the top dogs you go with that particular group? You're weird, I can't put it any other way.

[Iliad]

So, I’m starting my first class in philosophy, and decided that I ought to sort of marshal my arguments as to why I believe in God, because the first chapter of our book is about “Reason And Religious Belief”, and I suspect there are quite a few atheists in my class. I had most of this in my head yesterday and probably left out a few details. I figured I’d run it by the CC forums, since there’s a greater percentage of atheists here than in most other demographics that I come across. Tell me if there's some kind of flaw in my reasoning. I know that this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, or ad barfeum for that matter, but this isn’t just another thread. I’m not out to prove God’s existence here. I’m just telling you why I choose to believe.

So, why do I believe in God? If you asked a Christian how the universe began, or how life originally formed, they would tell you that they believe there is a God responsible. But if you asked an atheist these questions, they’d tell you that they don’t know. And the Big Bang/multiverse theories are not good enough answers, as they had to have causes as well. However, I think we can agree that there must be answers to these questions. So now the atheist has to make a choice. They can claim that humans will someday find the answers, or they can claim that we will never know the answers. If the former, then they are putting their faith in a bunch of evolved monkeys, and assuming that the answers we find will not involve God in any way. If the latter, then they have no basis to claim that God did not do it. Both are leaps of faith, and both still do not rule out the possibility of God. The fact that theists are putting forth the theory of God’s existence does not make them any less credible than the atheists, who quite simply do not have an answer at all. They criticize an idea but offer no alternatives, other than the unscientific notion that something must have come from nothing. This is why I claim that a belief in God is not only rational, but is more scientific and makes more sense that not carrying a belief at all.

Firstly I suggest you learn more about the Big bang theory.
Secondly you are only shifting the burden. If a god had created the universe who created god? If god could exist by himself for infinity why couldn't the universe?

But why the Roman Catholic God? Let’s start with Pascal’s Wager: the fact that if you believe in the Christian God, you have an eternity of happiness to gain and a bit of your time on Earth to lose. I maintain that there is simply no way not to hold a belief about the question of God (just as there is no way to prove your viewpoint). So, now that I have a good reason to be a theist, I have to decide what kind of God I want to believe in. In accordance with the Wager, I will want to pick the religion that has the greatest reward for believing relative to not believing. Sure, I could make a religion up on the spot, but it will not have any evidence or support. Besides, it doesn’t get much worse than an eternity of Heaven vs. an eternity of Hell. Catholicism has a number of benefits- it offers eternal paradise, has millions of supporters, lines up fairly well with my personal values, has a largely positive impact on today’s society, has a holy book that clearly outlines the belief system, and demands relatively little of me. No other religion that I have heard of can match this. Therefore, I choose to be a Catholic.

Well done, you think exactly how the religions want you to think. They offer you rewards and scare you with punishments. And you buy into it, and even more you think you are being smart and beating the system. But if you are truly catholic, do you really think your god will accept you? You are more akin to a scheming nobleman deciding to ally with which king then a loving follower. I doubt your god will approve of such antics.

Monotheistic religions are so popular because of the afterlife, where they are rewarded if they followed the religion or punished if they didn't. The polytheistic religions did not have this and were taken over because of thinking like Pascal's wager.

You don't have to follow the crowd. You don't have to be a theist to be a good person, you don't need to have a 2000 year old book telling you what to do, and you definitely should not have said 2000 year old book demanding stuff of you.

And as medefe mentioned "god did it" has just been religion's biggest tool, before science could come along and explain the real reason behind the actions around us.

[OnlyAmbrose]

You don't have to follow the crowd. You don't have to be a theist to be a good person

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

(For the record I can think of much better reasons to be Catholic than fear of eternal hellfire )

[MeDeFe]

You don't have to follow the crowd. You don't have to be a theist to be a good person

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

I disagree.

The theistic definition of "good" usually boils down to "what god says". Well, but what criteria does god apply? Does god base his decision regarding what's good and what's not on some other standard than himself? Then he's not necessary for the definition of "good".
Or does god not apply some external standard? That would mean he makes it up as he likes it. Neither alternative is particularly satisfying.

[lgoasklucyl]

You don't have to follow the crowd. You don't have to be a theist to be a good person

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

(For the record I can think of much better reasons to be Catholic than fear of eternal hellfire )

You do not in any way, shape, or form need to be a theist to have a workable or reasonable definition of 'good'.

You need to be a theist to let someone else write that definition for you.

[Iliad]

You don't have to follow the crowd. You don't have to be a theist to be a good person

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

(For the record I can think of much better reasons to be Catholic than fear of eternal hellfire )

Well it's nice to know that you think we are all mass-murdering psychopaths at heart, the godless heathens that we are.

I'm sorry if I do not follow a 2000 year old book, but I don't need it to decide what is a good act and what is not. Especially considering the context of when the book was written.

[mpjh]

You don't have to follow the crowd. You don't have to be a theist to be a good person

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

(For the record I can think of much better reasons to be Catholic than fear of eternal hellfire )

Hummmm, "fear of eternal hellfire," is that anything like the fear of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction?

[OnlyAmbrose]

You don't have to follow the crowd. You don't have to be a theist to be a good person

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

I disagree.

The theistic definition of "good" usually boils down to "what god says". Well, but what criteria does god apply? Does god base his decision regarding what's good and what's not on some other standard than himself? Then he's not necessary for the definition of "good".
Or does god not apply some external standard? That would mean he makes it up as he likes it. Neither alternative is particularly satisfying.

Monotheism boils down to this: God is. He doesn't "make it up" nor is he subject to "external standards." He just is.

Well it's nice to know that you think we are all mass-murdering psychopaths at heart, the godless heathens that we are.

Where did I ever say that? I believe all humans are perfectly capable of following "good behavior", because all humans are God's creation.

What I said was that in order for you to have any useful definition of "good" you must be a theist. Otherwise, we are left with exactly what you and your buddy lgoasklucyl are saying: Everyone is free to make up their own defintion of good because "you don't need a book" to tell you what's good and what's not. If that is the case, then the word "good" is pointless for all intents and purposes because it is purely subjective. Unless of course you have a perfect standard, which theists claim to.

[john9blue]

I'm gonna address your points from a sort of pantheist point of view, since I don't feel like debating Catholicism and don't know enough about it anyway.

A sentient, intelligent being with the power to create matter and energy out of nothing just exist. With no prior cause or process how it got there. That sounds very likely.

Well, generally speaking, it doesn't have to be sentient or intelligent. And it is likely- at least, more likely than the explanation that the universe is here without prior cause or process. That's part of what defines God, anyway... he doesn't need a cause (he's too much of a badass).

This being decides to create the universe with everything in it and we, we badly designed intelligent monkey on this ball of rock that will probably be uninhabitable within at most a few 100 million years (compared to the 15 billion or so the universe is old) are the pinnacle of creation and made unto the image of the previously mentioned being. Give me a break.

This being can't think of any better way to demonstrate its existence than to inspire some bronze age nomads to jot down stories rather haphazardly, at times it even looks like they're copying each other. Now seriously.

Some guy who claimed to be the Messiah (at the same time as approximately another dozen people made the same claim) is executed and has more stories written about him.

Roughly 300 years later all these stories are put into various orders depending on which cult is doing the editing. With absolutely no politicking or vested interests whatsoever.

This is now "The word of God".

That's a Christian point of view, and isn't really necessary for belief in a "watchmaker" God. I know many like to use Christianity as a straw man, but it doesn't rule out the possibility of any God whatsoever.

Look, "God did it" is not an explanation, it is a cop-out. How do birds fly? God lets them. Why do trees grow? God makes them. Why do people get sick? They sinned, God punishes them. Why does the sun shine? God made it that way for us.
None of that actually explains anything. It's just a handy reply that lets you avoid giving an actual answer. Those questions I mentioned have been largely answered by now, but the principle is the same as for "How did the universe begin?" Claiming divine interference is not an answer, it's merely a fancy way of saying, "I have no fucking idea".

I would say that questions about the origin of the universe fall under an entirely different category than those listed above. You may think that the principle is the same, but here's my point: that's just your opinion. You may think that mankind will someday produce a complete explanation of the universe that doesn't involve any sort of diving being using the scientific method, but if I think otherwise, it's not unreasonable in the least.

I already hinted at it early on in my post, but god is a rather unlikely concept, even if you keep it very general and leave out "just", "good", "loving" and so forth. Tell me, what're the odds of a sentient, intelligent being with the power to create matter and energy existing? And then suppose that this being exists without a prior cause.

As puerile as this might sound, I could turn this question back at you. What, then, are the odds of a universe like ours that can produce life existing without a prior cause? And are you really sure that it's more likely that there's no designer behind it all? Both of our positions are beliefs... I just think my belief is more reasonable.

As for Pascal's Wager. You're joking, aren't you? Because the promised rewards are good and the punishment severe (no matter how improbable) you choose to believe? And because Catholicism is one of the top dogs you go with that particular group? You're weird, I can't put it any other way.

Yes, yes I am. And no, I'm not joking. Again, I don't feel like getting too deep into Catholicism, but I've already shown that God has a reasonable chance of existing, and Christianity has a reasonable chance of being the religion closest to the truth. It's good enough for me.

Firstly I suggest you learn more about the Big bang theory.

How come? Elaborate...

Secondly you are only shifting the burden. If a god had created the universe who created god? If god could exist by himself for infinity why couldn't the universe?

Well, because that is part of how God is defined- as the eternal being. Also, scientists are able to roughly date the universe and give predictions as to how it might end. It's pretty clear that the universe isn't infinite.

Well done, you think exactly how the religions want you to think. They offer you rewards and scare you with punishments. And you buy into it, and even more you think you are being smart and beating the system. But if you are truly catholic, do you really think your god will accept you? You are more akin to a scheming nobleman deciding to ally with which king then a loving follower. I doubt your god will approve of such antics.

Well, I don't know. Self-interest isn't a totally bad thing, you know. If it was, I would be applauding the atheists for risking their potential souls for their beliefs.

Monotheistic religions are so popular because of the afterlife, where they are rewarded if they followed the religion or punished if they didn't. The polytheistic religions did not have this and were taken over because of thinking like Pascal's wager.

You don't have to follow the crowd. You don't have to be a theist to be a good person, you don't need to have a 2000 year old book telling you what to do, and you definitely should not have said 2000 year old book demanding stuff of you.

I didn't say this in the first post, and I probably should have. There are some parts of the Catholic faith that I disagree with. I find it hard to believe that the Pope is really infallible, for instance, or that everyone else besides Christians go to hell. But that doesn't stop me from, as you say, "buying into" the Christian faith in general and "thinking how they want me to think"... even though I'm choosing to do it.

And as medefe mentioned "god did it" has just been religion's biggest tool, before science could come along and explain the real reason behind the actions around us.

I addressed this above.

[john9blue]

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

I don't think so... lots of atheists have their own set of personal values, as do I. Like I said, most of what Jesus calls "good" I do also, but who am I to say that anyone's code of ethics is "wrong"?

[Iliad]

I'm gonna address your points from a sort of pantheist point of view, since I don't feel like debating Catholicism and don't know enough about it anyway.

It's a good thing you believe in it, anyway.

[Snorri1234]

You don't have to follow the crowd. You don't have to be a theist to be a good person

No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

I disagree.

The theistic definition of "good" usually boils down to "what god says". Well, but what criteria does god apply? Does god base his decision regarding what's good and what's not on some other standard than himself? Then he's not necessary for the definition of "good".
Or does god not apply some external standard? That would mean he makes it up as he likes it. Neither alternative is particularly satisfying.

Monotheism boils down to this: God is. He doesn't "make it up" nor is he subject to "external standards." He just is.

Wow, that is such a bad argument I think my face just melted.


"Say Jack, is it right that we kill every foreigner we encounter?"
"Yes."
"But why?"
"BECAUSE!"

[Snorri1234]

Otherwise, we are left with exactly what you and your buddy lgoasklucyl are saying: Everyone is free to make up their own defintion of good because "you don't need a book" to tell you what's good and what's not.

Because that is exactly what they are saying!

[OnlyAmbrose]

who am I to say that anyone's code of ethics is "wrong"?

Ummmm... you're a Catholic?

CCC 1749: Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

Otherwise, we are left with exactly what you and your buddy lgoasklucyl are saying: Everyone is free to make up their own defintion of good because "you don't need a book" to tell you what's good and what's not.

Because that is exactly what they are saying!

Then what exactly are you saying?

[john9blue]

Ummmm... you're a Catholic?

CCC 1749: Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

I didn't say this in the first post, and I probably should have. There are some parts of the Catholic faith that I disagree with. I find it hard to believe that the Pope is really infallible, for instance, or that everyone else besides Christians go to hell. But that doesn't stop me from, as you say, "buying into" the Christian faith in general and "thinking how they want me to think"... even though I'm choosing to do it.

Otherwise, we are left with exactly what you and your buddy lgoasklucyl are saying: Everyone is free to make up their own defintion of good because "you don't need a book" to tell you what's good and what's not.

Because that is exactly what they are saying!

Then what exactly are you saying?

I think the difference between you and us (I would say that I'm on Snorri's side for this one) is that we view morality as subjective, whereas you view it as objective. Again, it's just a matter of opinion. Of course, when you get something like murder, which almost everyone can agree is wrong, we need governments to enforce it. But for issues like free love and drug use, which only have potential negative effects on the people making the choice, I feel it should largely be up to each individual person what they believe is right.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I didn't say this in the first post, and I probably should have. There are some parts of the Catholic faith that I disagree with. I find it hard to believe that the Pope is really infallible, for instance, or that everyone else besides Christians go to hell. But that doesn't stop me from, as you say, "buying into" the Christian faith in general and "thinking how they want me to think"... even though I'm choosing to do it.

Well then I'm sorry to say that you're not Catholic "Catholic" means "universal," not, "subject to individual interpretation."

I think the difference between you and us (I would say that I'm on Snorri's side for this one) is that we view morality as subjective, whereas you view it as objective.

I'm quite aware of that...

Again, it's just a matter of opinion... I feel it should largely be up to each individual person what they believe is right.

Otherwise, we are left with exactly what you and your buddy lgoasklucyl are saying: Everyone is free to make up their own defintion of good because "you don't need a book" to tell you what's good and what's not.

And that is different from what I said you are saying... how?

Seems like you and Snorri don't agree, because Snorri disagreed with my above statement.

[john9blue]

Well then I'm sorry to say that you're not Catholic "Catholic" means "universal," not, "subject to individual interpretation."

Why do we have biblical scholars then? I don't understand what gives the Pope the right to interpret Christianity if we don't all have that right in the first place.

Keep in mind that the Church once persecuted homosexuals and scientists. You're saying that every action is either right or wrong on one hand, but you maintain that the Church can change its views and still always be correct on the other hand.

I assure you that I'm Christian, though, as I believe that Jesus was the Son of God and am in accordance with just about all of His teachings. Feel free to correct me if you don't think so... you seem to be more familiar with the Bible than me.

And that is different from what I said you are saying... how?

Seems like you and Snorri don't agree, because Snorri disagreed with my above statement.

Maybe I misread, but I think Snorri actually did agree with it. You were stating his views correctly, you just clearly didn't like them very much.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Maybe I misread, but I think Snorri actually did agree with it. You were stating his views correctly, you just clearly didn't like them very much.

Trust me when I say that Snorri was being sarcastic:

Otherwise, we are left with exactly what you and your buddy lgoasklucyl are saying: Everyone is free to make up their own defintion of good because "you don't need a book" to tell you what's good and what's not.

Because that is exactly what they are saying!

Moving on:

Why do we have biblical scholars then? I don't understand what gives the Pope the right to interpret Christianity if we don't all have that right in the first place.

This would be a rather long discussion. But let me leave it with this, the bare-bones, because getting into said discussion would be off topic:

Matthew 16:17-19: Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

If you want a more extensive discussion on the topic of papal infallibility, please feel free to PM me.

I assure you that I'm Christian, though, as I believe that Jesus was the Son of God and am in accordance with just about all of His teachings. Feel free to correct me if you don't think so... you seem to be more familiar with the Bible than me.

If you don't believe in good and evil, I would hesitate to call you a Christian, as if good and evil don't exist in an objective sense then there is no reason for Christ to have died. (not to mention Christ mentions "evildoers" all the time)

[john9blue]

This would be a rather long discussion. But let me leave it with this, the bare-bones, because getting into said discussion would be off topic:

Matthew 16:17-19: Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

If you want a more extensive discussion on the topic of papal infallibility, please feel free to PM me.

This is one of those things that I should look deeper into. I'll see what I can find.

If you don't believe in good and evil, I would hesitate to call you a Christian, as if good and evil don't exist in an objective sense then there is no reason for Christ to have died. (not to mention Christ mentions "evildoers" all the time)

I think, ultimately, actions fall on a sort of good/evil continuum. While it's hasty to lump them into two categories, it's plain stupid to say that actions have no real righteousness value at all.



However, I do believe that the value is "context-sensitive".

Regardless of my Christian status, though, I'd like to hear any objections to some of my arguments on the first page.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Regardless of my Christian status, though, I'd like to hear any objections to some of my arguments on the first page

I would argue that Pascal's Wager is a poor method of finding truth and contrary to the values of most if not all of the religions on earth.

I think, ultimately, actions fall on a sort of good/evil continuum. While it's hasty to lump them into two categories, it's plain stupid to say that actions have no real righteousness value at all.

Well, in that case, it's not subject to personal opinion? Make up your mind my friend! Between "it's a personal choice" and "there is a good/evil continuum" is quite the gap...

[john9blue]

I would argue that Pascal's Wager is a poor method of finding truth and contrary to the values of most if not all of the religions on earth.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. That's why I stated a few times in the OP that this is by no means a "proof" of God. It's just why I believe. As for being "contrary to the values" of a religion, well, there's not a whole lot I can do about that, is there?

Well, in that case, it's not subject to personal opinion? Make up your mind my friend! Between "it's a personal choice" and "there is a good/evil continuum" is quite the gap...

My bad, I should have been more specific. The reason I think each person should decide their own morals is because I don't think anybody really knows where an action falls on the spectrum, and therefore nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they should be doing with their lives. That's why I said "ultimately". This works fine for personal morality, but I'll admit that when it comes to decisions involving others, the common opinion of humans is usually the best course of action (i.e. no murder, no rape, etc.). Basically, in a perfectly free world, people should decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

[dewey316]

The reason I think each person should decide their own morals is because I don't think anybody really knows where an action falls on the spectrum, and therefore nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they should be doing with their lives.

IF (I will qualify that, so Snorri and crew don't jump into this, I am only addressing John here...) you beleive that the Bible is in fact the inspired word of God, then you do have a way "know where an action falls on the spectrum". There is most certainly a very clear moral code that is writen down in the Bible.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I don`t usually get into these topics any more, but since you asked for opinions, what the hell.

A sentient, intelligent being with the power to create matter and energy out of nothing just exist. With no prior cause or process how it got there. That sounds very likely.

Well, generally speaking, it doesn't have to be sentient or intelligent. And it is likely- at least, more likely than the explanation that the universe is here without prior cause or process. That's part of what defines God, anyway... he doesn't need a cause (he's too much of a badass).

How does it make it more probable if you`re adding another factor to the equation? I can never understand this viewpoint.
it`s like having the question "a=?", and you respond by saying "a=3b", but you don't know what b is. So instead of having to find a, you now have to find b and prove that a=3b. If we were to continue the analogy, you would now say b is always 7, cause he's a badass like that. This is neither rational or logical.

Look, "God did it" is not an explanation, it is a cop-out. How do birds fly? God lets them. Why do trees grow? God makes them. Why do people get sick? They sinned, God punishes them. Why does the sun shine? God made it that way for us.
None of that actually explains anything. It's just a handy reply that lets you avoid giving an actual answer. Those questions I mentioned have been largely answered by now, but the principle is the same as for "How did the universe begin?" Claiming divine interference is not an answer, it's merely a fancy way of saying, "I have no fucking idea".

I would say that questions about the origin of the universe fall under an entirely different category than those listed above. You may think that the principle is the same, but here's my point: that's just your opinion. You may think that mankind will someday produce a complete explanation of the universe that doesn't involve any sort of diving being using the scientific method, but if I think otherwise, it's not unreasonable in the least.

Just because the beginning of the universe makes no sense to us doesn't mean it is any different than any other scientific question. "it doesn't make sense" as in "I don't intuitively find this possible" is irrelevant in science, just read about quantum mechanics and physics if you don't believe me, but don't blame me for the headache

Imagine we still thought the Earth was flat and the stars were holes in the sky. Would not the same argument you are using now also apply to the existence of planet earth in such a scenario? I can see it now: "well, as we see, everything has a cause, plant a seed and a tree grows, how then would it be possible for this great disc of rock to exist without an initial cause? Only a fool would deny the existence of Haggis the great."(I'm a god in this alternate timeline, you see)

I already hinted at it early on in my post, but god is a rather unlikely concept, even if you keep it very general and leave out "just", "good", "loving" and so forth. Tell me, what're the odds of a sentient, intelligent being with the power to create matter and energy existing? And then suppose that this being exists without a prior cause.

As puerile as this might sound, I could turn this question back at you. What, then, are the odds of a universe like ours that can produce life existing without a prior cause? And are you really sure that it's more likely that there's no designer behind it all? Both of our positions are beliefs... I just think my belief is more reasonable.

Well, if according to you adding a God to the mix makes it simpler why don't you go crazy and add three. The universe was created by God#2 who was in turn created by God#1 who was in turn created by God#0(who has always existed).
The point is that any God capable of creating the universe would have to be more complex than the universe, therefore it is unlikelier for that God to "just be" than it is for the universe.

Secondly you are only shifting the burden. If a god had created the universe who created god? If god could exist by himself for infinity why couldn't the universe?

Well, because that is part of how God is defined- as the eternal being. Also, scientists are able to roughly date the universe and give predictions as to how it might end. It's pretty clear that the universe isn't infinite.

It could easily be on a loop though.

But why the Roman Catholic God? Let’s start with Pascal’s Wager: the fact that if you believe in the Christian God, you have an eternity of happiness to gain and a bit of your time on Earth to lose. I maintain that there is simply no way not to hold a belief about the question of God (just as there is no way to prove your viewpoint). So, now that I have a good reason to be a theist, I have to decide what kind of God I want to believe in. In accordance with the Wager, I will want to pick the religion that has the greatest reward for believing relative to not believing. Sure, I could make a religion up on the spot, but it will not have any evidence or support. Besides, it doesn’t get much worse than an eternity of Heaven vs. an eternity of Hell.

Catholicism has a number of benefits- it offers eternal paradise, has millions of supporters, lines up fairly well with my personal values, has a largely positive impact on today’s society, has a holy book that clearly outlines the belief system, and demands relatively little of me. No other religion that I have heard of can match this. Therefore, I choose to be a Catholic.

I admire your honesty, i don't think many religious folk would ever admit to this.
Having said that, there are quite a few problems with this line of belief.
What if i found a religion with significantly better benefits and worse punishment, would you buy it? If not why? You say that it probably can't get much worse, but just for the purpose of this argument, assume that it could get much much worse.



Now on to what is a bigger problem, you're telling me that you just decided "well i'd hate to go to that hell thing so sign me up as a catholic". Well, i for one can't force myself to believe something simply because I want to. I mean maybe i want to be rich. Now i can take a loan, rent a big house and an expensive car and pretend to have the millions, but i know i don't, i know it's all a ruse, i don't actually start believing i'm a millionaire.
Or perhaps a tyrant arises that declares that anyone who doesn't believe that 2+2=5 will be killed. I'd sure as hell show my devotion to this new wonderful theory of his, perhaps even help him with some mumbo-jumbo proofs, but i wouldn't really believe it, i'd be just pretending.
Now, are you saying that you can just decide something would be beneficial to you and start believing it "with all your heart" to paraphrase the believers?
Because if you can't you're basically trying to swindle a being that you believe is omnipotent and omniscient, not a good move.
Don't you think your God would figure out that your only "believing" in him to hedge your bets. And what kind of being would actually like that. "this guy over here that searched for the truth his whole life and ultimately came to the conclusion that i don't exist, he's burning in hell. this other guy on the other hand just thought he'd rather be in heaven so what's the point in all that searching for truth crap, welcome my son, you will now be rewarded." If there is a god i'm really hoping his reasoning wouldn't go like that.