Why would there be a God?

[Ten oz]

Human intellect strives to answer questions. Most of humanities greatest steps forward have started by first understanding why. Why apples fall, lighting strikes, or why to sun goes away at night. Why has been a cornerstone in critical thinking. Yet I seldom see it applied to God. Religious people agrue that science can't disprove God or that the beauty or the universe requires a creator but no one ever attempts to explain why there is or would be a god in the first place. To say God loves, has faith, or is infinite is not an explanation for WHY. Assuming there is a god..... WHY?

[Delta1212]

Although I don't have any particular belief in a deity, I feel like this is a question that wouldn't necessarily have a satisfactory answer even if a god did exist.

[davidivad]

the reason why a god exists is to allow people religious freedom granted to them by the constitution.

this is not a question for science but the humanities.

[Marshalscienceguy]

Human intellect strives to answer questions. Most of humanities greatest steps forward have started by first understanding why. Why apples fall, lighting strikes, or why to sun goes away at night. Why has been a cornerstone in critical thinking. Yet I seldom see it applied to God. Religious people agrue that science can't disprove God or that the beauty or the universe requires a creator but no one ever attempts to explain why there is or would be a god in the first place. To say God loves, has faith, or is infinite is not an explanation for WHY. Assuming there is a god..... WHY?

That is like asking why the universe exists. Perhaps how god is possible would be a better question. Asking why to something like this would be very subjective and completely differ on who you ask.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[Ten oz]

That is like asking why the universe exists. Perhaps how god is possible would be a better question. Asking why to something like this would be very subjective and completely differ on who you ask.

 

In "A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" Lawrence Krauss does basically ask why the universe exists. When something is real asking why mostly creates useful dialogue. Why are there stars, why does earth have an atomesohere, why do people get cancer, why does the ocean have tides, and so on are all questions humans asked long before the answers were known. Many of the questions humans asked seemed unanswerable at one time or another.

In the case of God asking why is useless. This implies God isn't real. We can't ask why because they is nothing to study and investigate to satisfy the question. Krauss can ask why is there a Universe rather than nothing because there is a Universe that can be studied. I can't ask why there is a God because there isn't a God.

Although I don't have any particular belief in a deity, I feel like this is a question that wouldn't necessarily have a satisfactory answer even if a god did exist.

If God existed why would most certainly apply. If I asked you why you exist the answer would be straight forward as saying because your parents had you. Deeper still you could explain the entire biological process of your conception and birth. As for why life exists at all science is constantly working on that question. There are numerous working theories for why life exists.

God doesn't exist so asking why God exists just falls flat.

[Auresius]

Why would there be a God?

 

I think for there to be a God, there would have to be a necessity for His existence, or the proposition of His nonexistence would have to be plausibly untrue.

 

Several arguments have been developed throughout history to back the idea of the necessity of His existence: cosmological argument, epistemological argument, ontological argument, moral argument, etc.

 

If these classical arguments do not hold in your opinion, then you must conclude that God does not exist or at least is unlikely to exist. Thereby you would have answered the question of "why would He exist?" by "for no reason", which translates to: a God that would exist for no reason is a useless God that is disproved by its triviality.

[Ten oz]

Why would there be a God?

 

I think for there to be a God, there would have to be a necessity for His existence, or the proposition of His nonexistence would have to be plausibly untrue.

 

Several arguments have been developed throughout history to back the idea of the necessity of His existence: cosmological argument, epistemological argument, ontological argument, moral argument, etc.

 

If these classical arguments do not hold in your opinion, then you must conclude that God does not exist or at least is unlikely to exist. Thereby you would have answered the question of "why would He exist?" by "for no reason", which translates to: a God that would exist for no reason is a useless God that is disproved by its triviality.

This is close to the point I am seeking to make by creating this thread. No one, including religious folks, ever agrue why there would be a god. They merely argue that there is one. To attempt to explain or understand God is seen as futile. Blind faith is insisted upon as a substitute for answers. The implication is obvious. God doesn't exist.

[Auresius]

No one, including religious folks, ever agrue why there would be a god. They merely argue that there is one. To attempt to explain or understand God is seen as futile. Blind faith is insisted upon as a substitute for answers. The implication is obvious. God doesn't exist.

Thanks for your answer.

 

I have to say that I disagree with your comment. I am myself religious and I do not think that no one ever argues substantially for or against the existence for God, whether they're religious, atheist or otherwise.

 

Perhaps I have provided in my previous post an example of how a religious person can fully entertain the possibility of there being no God. Perhaps that shows that not everyone is dogmatic.

[Ten oz]

Thanks for your answer.

 

I have to say that I disagree with your comment. I am myself religious and I do not think that no one ever argues substantially for or against the existence for God, whether they're religious, atheist or otherwise.

 

Perhaps I have provided in my previous post an example of how a religious person can fully entertain the possibility of there being no God. Perhaps that shows that not everyone is dogmatic.

I agree people often agrue that god does exist. Very passionately at that. My question isn't if there is a God, it's why? If I were to ask why there are mountains posters most like answer by exampling tectonic plate movement. This is of course because mountains are real and have been studied. Even for things that aren't real like the Loch ness monster there are theories for why. People study the origins of the loch and attempt to explain how a large animal may have come to exist there. Others study fish populations and the Loch's mineral content looking for an explanation. For God why is not explained or explored.

You disagree so I challange you, a polite challange of course, to make a case for why.

[Phi for All]

My question isn't if there is a God, it's why?

 

You're also saying:

The implication is obvious. God doesn't exist.

 

I don't think it's intellectually honest to base your conclusion on the fact that you can't think of a reason why a god might exist. It's not that much different from assuming one does exist just because you can think of a reason, and isn't that what you're suggesting here, that if there was a good reason for a god to exist, it would?

[Ten oz]

You're also saying:

 

 

I don't think it's intellectually honest to base your conclusion on the fact that you can't think of a reason why a god might exist. It's not that much different from assuming one does exist just because you can think of a reason, and isn't that what you're suggesting here, that if there was a good reason for a god to exist, it would?

The agrument for the Big Bang and evolution has been made a million times over. I am not looking to argue about if the Big Bang happened or how life evolved without a creator. Religious debates always get steered in that direction. It is always science put on trail and never God. My question reverses that.

My conclusion that there is not a god in based on not seeing any evidence of or reason why there would be one. Asking the question of why provides an opportunity for a reason to be presented. As of yet no reason has. Arguments against my question have been presented but that isn't a reason for a god.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Ten oz

[Phi for All]

My conclusion that there is not a god in based on not seeing any evidence of or reason why there would be one.

 

Religion and philosophy are concerned with "why", science seeks the "how". You're applying a scientifically rational concept like supportive evidence to a perspective that isn't based on rational thought. Faith in a god isn't based on evidence at all. Arguing that god(s) can't exist because you can't think of a reason why is fallacious, an Argument from Incredulity.

 

There is no scientifically valid supportive evidence for god(s), but there's also no scientifically valid supportive evidence for "why" anything works the way it does. Science seeks the how, the understanding of the mechanisms.

 

Why? What's it all for? No way to know for sure.

[Auresius]

I agree people often agrue that god does exist. Very passionately at that. My question isn't if there is a God, it's why? If I were to ask why there are mountains posters most like answer by exampling tectonic plate movement. This is of course because mountains are real and have been studied. Even for things that aren't real like the Loch ness monster there are theories for why. People study the origins of the loch and attempt to explain how a large animal may have come to exist there. Others study fish populations and the Loch's mineral content looking for an explanation. For God why is not explained or explored.

You disagree so I challange you, a polite challange of course, to make a case for why.

 

 

First of all, the question (Q1) "why would God exist?" in my opinion is really just a reformulation of (Q2) "is there a reason/need for the actualisation of the concept of God?", which I believe is the essence of your question. After all, when you ask "why?" you expect to be answered with "reasons for why".

 

If after careful consideration you decide to answer Q1/Q2 with "there is no reason/need for the actualisation of the concept of God", then you will inevitably be led to answer another question (Q3) "does God exist?" with "no" or with a modest "most likely not", for the simple reason that a superfluous God that fulfills no need and no reason is a self-contradictory self-refuting concept (a useless God is no God by definition).

 

This logical connection is why I am more or less equivocating your question (Q1) with my own (Q3).

 

As to your challenge, I think if i were to make a case for why God would exist it would most likely be a reiteration of classical arguments that you may already be extensively familiar with. (some of which I mentioned in a previous post) I would be surprised if they haven't been brought up and dealt with in great detail in these forums before this time...?

 

I'll be submitting one argument at a time if that's where you see your thread going. (sorry, a little bit short on time right now)

[Ten oz]

Religion and philosophy are concerned with "why", science seeks the "how". You're applying a scientifically rational concept like supportive evidence to a perspective that isn't based on rational thought. Faith in a god isn't based on evidence at all. Arguing that god(s) can't exist because you can't think of a reason why is fallacious, an Argument from Incredulity.

 

There is no scientifically valid supportive evidence for god(s), but there's also no scientifically valid supportive evidence for "why" anything works the way it does. Science seeks the how, the understanding of the mechanisms.

 

Why? What's it all for? No way to know for sure.

You are correct that how and why aren't the same thing. However if I were to start a thread that asked WHY the sun goes away at night and returns in the morning I doubt anyone would argue the semantics of the question. Posters would just explain the answer. For the context of this discussion I think asking why would there would be a god is relatively the same question as how could there be a god.

 

I am not looking for a solely scientific answer. I would gladly read a philosophical one. Thus far all I have seen are rejections to the question. If god can't be questioned, can't be studied, can't be understood, and can't be known than god must not be real. That isn't to say that a good agrument for god spontaneously would make god real. A good agrument for god at least makes god a viable thing. Even people with blind faith developed that faith for a reason. Faith doesn't equal infinity.

 

First of all, the question (Q1) "why would God exist?" in my opinion is really just a reformulation of (Q2) "is there a reason/need for the actualisation of the concept of God?", which I believe is the essence of your question. After all, when you ask "why?" you expect to be answered with "reasons for why".

 

If after careful consideration you decide to answer Q1/Q2 with "there is no reason/need for the actualisation of the concept of God", then you will inevitably be led to answer another question (Q3) "does God exist?" with "no" or with a modest "most likely not", for the simple reason that a superfluous God that fulfills no need and no reason is a self-contradictory self-refuting concept (a useless God is no God by definition).

 

This logical connection is why I am more or less equivocating your question (Q1) with my own (Q3).

 

As to your challenge, I think if i were to make a case for why God would exist it would most likely be a reiteration of classical arguments that you may already be extensively familiar with. (some of which I mentioned in a previous post) I would be surprised if they haven't been brought up and dealt with in great detail in these forums before this time...?

 

I'll be submitting one argument at a time if that's where you see your thread going. (sorry, a little bit short on time right now)

Good post. I appreciate it. I agree with the connection you have made between questions.

[Phi for All]

You are correct that how and why aren't the same thing. However if I were to start a thread that asked WHY the sun goes away at night and returns in the morning I doubt anyone would argue the semantics of the question. Posters would just explain the answer.

But you aren't really asking "why" the sun goes away at night. You're asking for an explanation of the mechanism, and that's a "how" question. "Why" asks for the reason behind the mechanism, and we just can't know that, or if there even is one.

 

For the context of this discussion I think asking why would there would be a god is relatively the same question as how could there be a god.

 

 

Do you really believe that?

 

Why there could be a god: The universe needs a powerful being to oversee its functions and make it look completely natural and ungoverned to intelligent observers so that a non-intuitive goal or state can be reached.

 

How there could be a god: An extremely deep understanding of the most complex physical laws of the universe allows a being or species to develop abilities that would appear godlike to observers.

 

I don't think you can conflate the two at all. This is not nitpicking.

[Ten oz]

But you aren't really asking "why" the sun goes away at night. You're asking for an explanation of the mechanism, and that's a "how" question. "Why" asks for the reason behind the mechanism, and we just can't know that, or if there even is one.

 

 

 

Do you really believe that?

 

Why there could be a god: The universe needs a powerful being to oversee its functions and make it look completely natural and ungoverned to intelligent observers so that a non-intuitive goal or state can be reached.

 

How there could be a god: An extremely deep understanding of the most complex physical laws of the universe allows a being or species to develop abilities that would appear godlike to observers.

 

I don't think you can conflate the two at all. This is not nitpicking.

 

As previously posted I happily accept philosophical responses. This discussion is open to be about whatever posters choose to make. Whether that is the purpose of god as an idea, purpose of god as actual being, or the physics that could possibly allow for a god.

 

You say I can't conflate the two but that assumes something about either is already known.

But you aren't really asking "why" the sun goes away at night. You're asking for an explanation of the mechanism, and that's a "how" question. "Why" asks for the reason behind the mechanism,

When humans first looked to the sky and asked why the sun went away at night they did not know there was a mechanism behind it. Their why question was legitimately a why question considering they had no concept of how. I have no concept of god and am asking why. I am also open to why coming in any form just as explanations for where the sun went at night once came in the form of gods battling in the sky and etc.

 

As Auresius posted why is asking for a reason which leads to the next question which is "does god exist". That reason can be anything the poster finds compelling. How demands a linear response IMO.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Ten oz

[Phi for All]

You say I can't conflate the two but that assumes something about either is already known.

 

No. The only assumption here is the definitions of how and why. You're mixing science, philosophy, and religion here, and I think it's important that you maintain a distinction between a reasoned and rational explanation for a particular phenomenon, and a guess as to the ultimate purpose of that phenomenon.

 

Right now, you're using how and why interchangeably. It makes things confusing. Do you hear what I'm saying?

 

If you don't take this analogy too far, it's like cleaning something dirty. How you clean it is completely different from why you clean it. Science looks for the best HOW to clean things, religion and philosophy looks for the reasons WHY we clean. Does that make sense?

[Ten oz]

No. The only assumption here is the definitions of how and why. You're mixing science, philosophy, and religion here, and I think it's important that you maintain a distinction between a reasoned and rational explanation for a particular phenomenon, and a guess as to the ultimate purpose of that phenomenon.

 

Right now, you're using how and why interchangeably. It makes things confusing. Do you hear what I'm saying?

 

If you don't take this analogy too far, it's like cleaning something dirty. How you clean it is completely different from why you clean it. Science looks for the best HOW to clean things, religion and philosophy looks for the reasons WHY we clean. Does that make sense?

I don't believe in god and as such do not believe there is a scientific answer to questions pertaining to god. The question is primarily a philosophical one. A religious one if you consider religion as it own form of thought. The how can not be answered. I am not seeking a scienctific response. If it could that would mean god were real or at least there was a high probability that he/she/it existed. I think it is normal in our society to ask why when we don't understand something we can make sense of. I don't understand god. I don't understand the need for a god. So am asking why. When someone behave oddly I ask why. I am looking for a reason for the behavior. When I see something work I ask how. I am looking for the process.

 

I apologize if the question isn't stated as clearly as you think it should be. Unlike god I am limited in my ability to express my thoughts, lol. I think, by now, you have an idea of the type of discussion I am looking to have. I will concede to which ever question you'd prefer to move things along.

[Phi for All]

I am not seeking a scienctific response.

My conclusion that there is not a god in based on not seeing any evidence of or reason why there would be one.

 

See, this is what threw me off, made me think you were mixing scientific and religious methodologies.

 

 

 

 

 

So, if you scientifically don't believe in god(s), and you know there are reality-based explanations for every phenomena, and any beliefs based on faith are going to be completely subjective and therefore worthless for the purposes of a universal reason that god's exists, I guess I'm not sure why you want to talk about them.

 

Do you think someone could give you a non-scientific reason to believe in god(s)? Sorry if I'm just being dense here, but you seem to be setting up the same circular argument that a religious person does. You need a reason why before you'll believe, but you start with the premise that there is no reason why, so you go in futile circles. How is this substantially different from, "I believe in God because the Bible says He's real, and God wrote the Bible so it must be true"?

 

Whatever your personal beliefs aside, I think asking why there would be a god(s) is even worse than trying to justify Its existence. Over 9000 sects of Christianity and they can't agree on the how, much less the why.

[Ten oz]

See, this is what threw me off, made me think you were mixing scientific and religious methodologies.

 

 

 

 

 

So, if you scientifically don't believe in god(s), and you know there are reality-based explanations for every phenomena, and any beliefs based on faith are going to be completely subjective and therefore worthless for the purposes of a universal reason that god's exists, I guess I'm not sure why you want to talk about them.

 

Do you think someone could give you a non-scientific reason to believe in god(s)? Sorry if I'm just being dense here, but you seem to be setting up the same circular argument that a religious person does. You need a reason why before you'll believe, but you start with the premise that there is no reason why, so you go in futile circles. How is this substantially different from, "I believe in God because the Bible says He's real, and God wrote the Bible so it must be true"?

 

Whatever your personal beliefs aside, I think asking why there would be a god(s) is even worse than trying to justify Its existence. Over 9000 sects of Christianity and they can't agree on the how, much less the why.

No, I am not looking for a reason to believe. I enjoy seeing how others think. I find trying to understand people useful. I don't need to believe or agree with an agrument to enjoy it.

I don't believe in ghosts but I love a good ghosts story. I grew up in this predominately religious and superstitious world so I have a lot of feelings about those things despite having zero belief in them as literal realities.

[usmanishaquecdz]

becuase this universe is created by God. Everything belongs to him. look at the earth is revolving around the sun, every plannent is moving in their own path. someone is controlling them.

[Phi for All]

becuase this universe is created by God. Everything belongs to him.

Circular reasoning. "The reason why there is a god is because it created the universe" assumes god(s) exist already. It explains nothing.

 

look at the earth is revolving around the sun, every plannent is moving in their own path. someone is controlling them.

 

 

Or a god set them in motion a long time ago and now they're still moving but not being "controlled". Like you can turn on your dishwasher and set that process in motion without actually physically controlling the way the dishes get washed.

 

Or a natural force set them in motion a long time ago and now they're still moving but not being "controlled". Like when an earthquake makes a big rock roll down the mountain, it's going to keep going without anyone "controlling" it until it has no more energy.

[Delta1212]

If it is impossible for a universe to exist without having been created by a deity, then God is necessary and must exist.

 

If God does not exist, then it is not necessary and it must be possible for the universe to exist in the absence of a creator God.

 

We don't currently have the knowledge needed to declare unequivocally whether or not God is necessary for the existence of the universe. Every argument I've ever seen to the contrary has assumed one position or the other as a premise.

 

Either God is necessary and we do live in a universe with a God or we do not live in a universe with a God and God is not necessary.

[dimreepr]

In answer to the OP, god exists to create a focus, in order to teach valuable lessons to those who need them and given the amount of evidence that ‘superstition’ is not merely a human trait but shared with, a lot of our animal cousins, the question of why is, therefore, self explanatory.

[Ten oz]

If it is impossible for a universe to exist without having been created by a deity, then God is necessary and must exist.

If God does not exist, then it is not necessary and it must be possible for the universe to exist in the absence of a creator God.

We don't currently have the knowledge needed to declare unequivocally whether or not God is necessary for the existence of the universe. Every argument I've ever seen to the contrary has assumed one position or the other as a premise.

Either God is necessary and we do live in a universe with a God or we do not live in a universe with a God and God is not necessary.

There are any number of claims made by people that can not be disproven. No one in here can unequivocally say there is no Lochness Monster. That is not a reason to imply the Lochness Monster may in fact exist. Different cultures have invented any number of Gods. Most people only take the ones they grew up with seriously. If I say Apollo is not real very few if anyone would debate that. If I say Jesus or Allah isn't real that would be met by strong debate. Apollo can not be disproven anymore than Jesus or Allah can. There isn't real evidence any of them so what is the difference?

In answer to the OP, god exists to create a focus, in order to teach valuable lessons to those who need them and given the amount of evidence that ‘superstition’ is not merely a human trait but shared with, a lot of our animal cousins, the question of why is, therefore, self explanatory.

Isn't superstition just a way for the brain to make quick, safe, or constant choices when it is confused? You are alone in the dark and here a noise. Your brain imagines something terrible so you act by leaving or turning on a light. To me that seems like a basic evolutionary function. Without superstition throughout evolution man would've been paralyzed by perpetual confusion about their surrounding world.