Nothing Follows From a Belief in God

[_John Larsen]

There is a lot of time and energy spent debating the existence of God. This might be fun and all, but it seems to me that it is not as useful as many people think. Even if you could prove, definitively, that God existed, nothing follows from that belief. By this I mean that the establishment of the existence of an entity does not provide any conclusion about the entities nature, purpose or intent.

For many, once they have established, in their mind, the existence of God, they immediately jump from that conclusion to a whole bunch of justifications about their own beliefs that aren't predicated on the mere existence of a God. If we were to prove God's existence, we would still be left to prove that God is benevolent, malevolent or indifferent, for example.

So if you believe in God, which is a reasonable thing to do, you still have the problem of proving any other belief about the nature of God or the Universe from that belief.

[_Some Schmo]

There is a lot of time and energy spent debating the existence of God. This might be fun and all, but it seems to me that it is not as useful as many people think. Even if you could prove, definitively, that God existed, nothing follows from that belief. By this I mean that the establishment of the existence of an entity does not provide any conclusion about the entities nature, purpose or intent.

For many, once they have established, in their mind, the existence of God, they immediately jump from that conclusion to a whole bunch of justifications about their own beliefs that aren't predicated on the mere existence of a God. If we were to prove God's existence, we would still be left to prove that God is benevolent, malevolent or indifferent, for example.

So if you believe in God, which is a reasonable thing to do, you still have the problem of proving any other belief about the nature of God or the Universe from that belief.

Yep.

It seems to me that if there really were a god, he'd be neither benevolent nor malevolent, given the fact that the world we live in is neither benevolent nor malevolent. It just is. How people view the world depends on the tiny view they have of it, or on what they choose to focus. I suspect that when some people say they don't believe in god, what they're really saying is that they don't believe in the common version of god (loving) because the world just doesn't seem that loving to them, for example.

But yeah, it's just as arrogant to make claims about the nature of god as it is to claim knowledge of god's existence in the first place. And any beliefs one might have about a god are as arbitrary as the personality one was assigned by nature.

[_the road to hana]

There is a lot of time and energy spent debating the existence of God. This might be fun and all, but it seems to me that it is not as useful as many people think. Even if you could prove, definitively, that God existed, nothing follows from that belief. By this I mean that the establishment of the existence of an entity does not provide any conclusion about the entities nature, purpose or intent.

For many, once they have established, in their mind, the existence of God, they immediately jump from that conclusion to a whole bunch of justifications about their own beliefs that aren't predicated on the mere existence of a God. If we were to prove God's existence, we would still be left to prove that God is benevolent, malevolent or indifferent, for example.

So if you believe in God, which is a reasonable thing to do, you still have the problem of proving any other belief about the nature of God or the Universe from that belief.

Very insightful, and quite true.

Most of what civilization has done historically regarding God has to do with either God speaking to them or God coming to them. The Old Testament is a good example of the former, and the New Testament the latter. The Book of Mormon/Joseph Smith story tries to combine both.

[_Sam Harris]

It seems to me that if there really were a god, he'd be neither benevolent nor malevolent, given the fact that the world we live in is neither benevolent nor malevolent. It just is. How people view the world depends on the tiny view they have of it, or on what they choose to focus. I suspect that when some people say they don't believe in god, what they're really saying is that they don't believe in the common version of god (loving) because the world just doesn't seem that loving to them, for example.

John, nice post, and I agree, even as a theist. Schmo, I liked your post as well and bolded the part that stood out to me, as I believe this in a way. I think that humans make God in their image. Those who believe in God tend to believe in a God that is like them, that has their attributes, even when they are not willing to admit this. I truly believe that those who believe in a wrathful God are wrathful inside, or believe that they are deserving of such behavior towards themselves.

[_Runtu]

Humans tend to create God in their own image, don't they?

[_Ren]

There is a lot of time and energy spent debating the existence of God. This might be fun and all, but it seems to me that it is not as useful as many people think. Even if you could prove, definitively, that God existed, nothing follows from that belief. By this I mean that the establishment of the existence of an entity does not provide any conclusion about the entities nature, purpose or intent.

I guess it would depend on the nature of the proof perhaps.
...let's say that we discovered the 10 commandments - over and over, in every language known to man - encoded into the human genome (amongst the 'junk' code say).
Then well - that'd narrow the possibilities down a little bit :)

But even then - the question past that is - even if reality is as a particular 'faith' describes it to be - would I still 'go along' with what it said I 'should do'?

In the 'traditional' version of hell... If good people really are going to go to hell for not believing in a certain faith, then I actually wouldn't consider it 'good' or 'noble' to follow along. I'd WANT to go somehere else other than heaven - in sheer protest.
Of course, if it's a literal binary choice (heaven or hell - take ya pick), then well - maybe the threat of eternal suffering would persuade me!
...but then - to be 'saved', don't you have to 'love' God? I don't think I could bring myself to love such a God. So... I think I'd be shagged either way to be honest...

[_Moniker]

There is a lot of time and energy spent debating the existence of God. This might be fun and all, but it seems to me that it is not as useful as many people think. Even if you could prove, definitively, that God existed, nothing follows from that belief. By this I mean that the establishment of the existence of an entity does not provide any conclusion about the entities nature, purpose or intent.

For many, once they have established, in their mind, the existence of God, they immediately jump from that conclusion to a whole bunch of justifications about their own beliefs that aren't predicated on the mere existence of a God. If we were to prove God's existence, we would still be left to prove that God is benevolent, malevolent or indifferent, for example.

So if you believe in God, which is a reasonable thing to do, you still have the problem of proving any other belief about the nature of God or the Universe from that belief.

John, I agree with your points on it not following that the existence alone correlates to characteristics prescribed to God. A few others spoke upon the image of God reflects humanity, and I agree, fully.

I have seen theists speak of blessings that are given to them from charity (or tithing) and then in another thread discussing God being a petty messenger boy to deliver curses.... I don't quite understand this! If God is all the good in the world and none of the bad, then that would certainly be a way to view God as being a loving heavenly father type of being. Yet, for believers to justify this belief they must push aside that the blessings that are given to them and others are not extended to the rest of humanity. That doesn't quite work for me! If God smites those that are bad (somehow intercedes) and brings curses upon the sinful then that would certainly too play into a human looking about at the world and recognizing the horrors -- yet, this too fails in recognizing that horrid things happen to good people.

It would appear to me, that to be consistent, one would have to recognize that God is both "good" and "bad" if he truly were interacting at any level. Yet, if that is done, then what is the justification of that? That he willy nilly intercedes at some point, and not at others? Then, of course I've been told that God is mysterious and I can't attempt to understand -- well, if I can't attempt to understand why are others so certain that they DO understand "God's will"?

For me, the only thing that relatively makes sense, if you were a theist, is to say God does not intercede at any time. If you admit to him interceding to retrieve car keys, or find lost kitties then you've made a God into a servant to bless a few and deny the many of humanity.

I've also heard from theists that the love they feel from God allows them to carry on and emulate him -- that he does not necessarily intercede and that it is left up to humanity to act on God's behalf with other humans. That is the only thing that could work for me, if I were a theist.

But, of course, none of it can be proven -- which is your point. And I agree.

[_Sethbag]

Look at the whole Intelligent Design thing. The ID proponents try to mask the fact that they're using this "theory" to support the Biblical God by saying that ID doesn't require that the Designer be any particular, specific, God. But it's transparently obvious that they don't really believe that. For them, the Designer is the Biblical God, and not Vishnu, or Emperor Xenu of the Galactic Confederation, or the gods of any of the old pagan religions, etc.

And your average Joe thinks this same way. If they can satisfy themselves that a God exists, they immediately jump to the conclusion that this God who exists is in fact the God posited by their particular religion, for no good reason. It's all a colossal non sequitur.

[_mentalgymnast]

It seems to me that if there really were a god, he'd be neither benevolent nor malevolent, given the fact that the world we live in is neither benevolent nor malevolent.

Could you run by me again your reasoning as to why the creation must match the creator in its characteristics? As you can readily see, it is very possible that God could be benevolent while the creation itself could be neither benevolent or malevolent.

Regards,
MG

[_solomarineris]

So if you believe in God, which is a reasonable thing to do, you still have the problem of proving any other belief about the nature of God or the Universe from that belief.

I fail to understand what is so reasonable about belief in God any more than belief into "Spagetti Monster", "Alien Abductions".
Could you elaborate what you see as "Reasonable"?