GOD

[indianasmith]

That's a very valid question that Paul explored in the first two chapters of the Book of Romans. 
I don't remember the exact verse, but the gist of it is this:
"When those who do not have the law instinctively do the things of the law, they become  a law unto themselves, and God Himself with judge them." 
That's not exactly it, but it's late and I'm too tired to look it up right now.  I know he also introduces the passage by talking about how God reveals Himself and His will through creation to all men. 

At any rate, it is a very good question.

[alandhopewell]

     It's really hard to explain, but I don't "believe"; I know.

[lester1/2jr]

There's a saying about Mormons that is something like: their beliefs are pretty bizarre but as people they are by and large really nice. Nassim Taleb, of whom I'm a fan, has noted that polytheistic faiths tend to be less strident. Islam is the most straightforward religion and also the most violent one. Basically, the more embarrassing your belief system, the less likely you are to be an a hole about it.

[Allhallowsday]

http://youtu.be/jknynk5vny8
	Small | Large

[Zapranoth]

I do believe it takes more faith to argue against the existence of a creator than it takes to believe there is one. 

It's really not arguable, in my opinion, that even an organelle in our cells would have arisen by chance.  (The concept of "irreducible complexity.")     So if  you just look at what all there is, and how complex it is.. how do you argue against some kind of creator, something that intelligently designed it all?        Working as a physician repeatedly makes this hit home for me.   Over and over, I see how impossibly well designed lifeforms are, humans and others.   And ecosystems.

Others find this kind of faith in, say, mathematics, or music.

Once you believe that there's a creator, then you have to struggle with what the creator is, and whose description of this creator is accurate (if any of them are).    That's a lot of muck to wade through, given that humanity doesn't represent even itself well, much less represent a being that is capable of creating everything we see (and everything we don't see).   

My, my... what was RC's original question again?  Why? Why do I believe?

The short version is that in high school I was exposed to the Catholic church, and I decided that I definitely am not going to be Catholic.    I was living in a podunk little place in southern Michigan (Edwardsburg, MI!   Hi, RC!).  I had moved away from all my friends where I grew up (in Mason) and was in a new high school sophomore year.  I was depressed and lonely as I've ever been, and I was not good at making friends.  I was not Catholic, and I was in a Catholic, college prep high school.  I wasn't fitting in, and my parents'  marriage wasn't doing so great, and my two older brothers were out of the house, and I was pretty close to becoming one of those disenfranchised kids who goes south in some way.   I tried to find solace in the liturgy of Catholicism, but I wasn't buying it.

But... one night.  One of those stiflingly sticky hot summer nights, lying in my upstairs room by myself, God answered my prayer by making me feel him in the room with me.   Don't know how to describe it to you all, exactly.  I didn't see anything, but I could feel the presence of God in the room with me.  Absolutely certainly, someone powerful and imposing filled the air around me, and it was someone who was there with me in my hardest time.   I got through, and although I didn't start saying rosaries and going to mass, I did become a Christian and I still am to this day (non-denominational).          I've been part of a very great church indeed, and I've seen that same church crumble and become nothing.    But God is the same, always.  I've not felt His presence again like I did that one night, but I've seen His work, both outside of myself and inside myself.   That, that's too much to post.   :)

Thanks for reading, RC.  I've lurked and posted and watched for years on this board.  I'm very, very glad you're still with us.

[dean]

I'm on a 'we're just living in a simulation' bandwagon myself. 

[RCMerchant]

I do believe it takes more faith to argue against the existence of a creator than it takes to believe there is one. 

It's really not arguable, in my opinion, that even an organelle in our cells would have arisen by chance.  (The concept of "irreducible complexity.")     So if  you just look at what all there is, and how complex it is.. how do you argue against some kind of creator, something that intelligently designed it all?        Working as a physician repeatedly makes this hit home for me.   Over and over, I see how impossibly well designed lifeforms are, humans and others.   And ecosystems.

Others find this kind of faith in, say, mathematics, or music.

Once you believe that there's a creator, then you have to struggle with what the creator is, and whose description of this creator is accurate (if any of them are).    That's a lot of muck to wade through, given that humanity doesn't represent even itself well, much less represent a being that is capable of creating everything we see (and everything we don't see).   

My, my... what was RC's original question again?  Why? Why do I believe?

The short version is that in high school I was exposed to the Catholic church, and I decided that I definitely am not going to be Catholic.    I was living in a podunk little place in southern Michigan (Edwardsburg, MI!   Hi, RC!).  I had moved away from all my friends where I grew up (in Mason) and was in a new high school sophomore year.  I was depressed and lonely as I've ever been, and I was not good at making friends.  I was not Catholic, and I was in a Catholic, college prep high school.  I wasn't fitting in, and my parents'  marriage wasn't doing so great, and my two older brothers were out of the house, and I was pretty close to becoming one of those disenfranchised kids who goes south in some way.   I tried to find solace in the liturgy of Catholicism, but I wasn't buying it.

But... one night.  One of those stiflingly sticky hot summer nights, lying in my upstairs room by myself, God answered my prayer by making me feel him in the room with me.   Don't know how to describe it to you all, exactly.  I didn't see anything, but I could feel the presence of God in the room with me.  Absolutely certainly, someone powerful and imposing filled the air around me, and it was someone who was there with me in my hardest time.   I got through, and although I didn't start saying rosaries and going to mass, I did become a Christian and I still am to this day (non-denominational).          I've been part of a very great church indeed, and I've seen that same church crumble and become nothing.    But God is the same, always.  I've not felt His presence again like I did that one night, but I've seen His work, both outside of myself and inside myself.   That, that's too much to post.   :)

Thanks for reading, RC.  I've lurked and posted and watched for years on this board.  I'm very, very glad you're still with us.

Thats the whole thing-relgion and God helps some folks-but-like all things-it can be twisted.You had an honest relgious experiance-lotsa folks just use it as an excuse for predjuce. So I choose NOT to choose-and if you think thats a cop out-no-it isnt-choosing NOT to choose from popular thought is a CHOICE-and not a popular one. I respect folks who use religion for good-the rest can go to their respective hells.

[Jim H]

It's really not arguable, in my opinion, that even an organelle in our cells would have arisen by chance.  (The concept of "irreducible complexity.")     So if  you just look at what all there is, and how complex it is.. how do you argue against some kind of creator, something that intelligently designed it all?        Working as a physician repeatedly makes this hit home for me.   Over and over, I see how impossibly well designed lifeforms are, humans and others.   And ecosystems.

To me, that immediately begs the question of what created god.  If he always existed, created himself, exists outside our universe, or whatever, it's just "irreducible complexity" by a different name and is essentially the same problem.  If that makes more sense to you, I can't argue further with you about it, but for me it's actually an extra degree of complexity, and thus is actually harder to believe.

[ER]

It's really not arguable, in my opinion, that even an organelle in our cells would have arisen by chance.  (The concept of "irreducible complexity.")     So if  you just look at what all there is, and how complex it is.. how do you argue against some kind of creator, something that intelligently designed it all?        Working as a physician repeatedly makes this hit home for me.   Over and over, I see how impossibly well designed lifeforms are, humans and others.   And ecosystems.

To me, that immediately begs the question of what created god.  If he always existed, created himself, exists outside our universe, or whatever, it's just "irreducible complexity" by a different name and is essentially the same problem.  If that makes more sense to you, I can't argue further with you about it, but for me it's actually an extra degree of complexity, and thus is actually harder to believe.

To say God cannot exist since it cannot be explained how God had a beginning is like saying the universe cannot exist because we cannot explain its beginning either. How can the universe, the "all that is" have a pre-existing state if it is the "all that is" is really the same puzzle that arises in any deep contemplation of God. Aquinas's "uncreated creator" comes closest to providing the only logical explanation that can co-exist with the notion of there being a God. He argued God had no beginning and has always existed. Ultimately that s the same conclusion science draws about the universe, that its matter had no beginning. To chase a thread of logic is a fine pursuit, but at some point we have to be willing to concede that "we don't know" is where we are destined to end up.

[Jim H]

It's really not arguable, in my opinion, that even an organelle in our cells would have arisen by chance.  (The concept of "irreducible complexity.")     So if  you just look at what all there is, and how complex it is.. how do you argue against some kind of creator, something that intelligently designed it all?        Working as a physician repeatedly makes this hit home for me.   Over and over, I see how impossibly well designed lifeforms are, humans and others.   And ecosystems.

To me, that immediately begs the question of what created god.  If he always existed, created himself, exists outside our universe, or whatever, it's just "irreducible complexity" by a different name and is essentially the same problem.  If that makes more sense to you, I can't argue further with you about it, but for me it's actually an extra degree of complexity, and thus is actually harder to believe.

To say God cannot exist since it cannot be explained how God had a beginning is like saying the universe cannot exist because we cannot explain its beginning either. How can the universe, the "all that is" have a pre-existing state if it is the "all that is" is really the same puzzle that arises in any deep contemplation of God. Aquinas's "uncreated creator" comes closest to providing the only logical explanation that can co-exist with the notion of there being a God. He argued God had no beginning and has always existed. Ultimately that s the same conclusion science draws about the universe, that its matter had no beginning. To chase a thread of logic is a fine pursuit, but at some point we have to be willing to concede that "we don't know" is where we are destined to end up.

I wasn't arguing against God's existence wholesale nor did I say he cannot exist, I argued against the specific argument of "So if  you just look at what all there is, and how complex it is.. how do you argue against some kind of creator, something that intelligently designed it all?" in regards to irreducible complexity.  Basically, I think that's circular as god himself is, obviously, complex - begging the same questions as the complex world does.  That's not an argument against god's existence, just that specific line of thought.  I agree with you otherwise.

[indianasmith]

Plato said, "That which has a beginning has a cause."  If God has no beginning, He requires no cause.

[Ash]

I was raised Christian but as I've grown older I've begun to question my beliefs more and more.  Nowadays, I'm an agnostic.  

There are two types of agnostic: Strong and Weak.

A strong agnostic thinks: "The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

A weak agnostic thinks: "The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

I consider myself a weak agnostic.
I also have some belief in Intelligent Design.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[Zapranoth]

RC's question was why do I believe...  That is what I answered.

[Allhallowsday]

Then there is nature.  The natural world is amazing, perplexing.  It is all we know, yet, is that the only way of knowing, and, is there more to know? 

[voltron]

I think religion in general is for the weak to be honest. Atheists unite!
EDIT: I recall some eastern religions basic belief if that "once you have found yourself you have found god". That was interesting to me.