God, whether He exists or not, is an all-pervasive influence in our lives. — TheMadFool

Because, as you are no doubt aware, religionists keep bringing God up to back up whatever views they have with respect to some particular "domain of human experience". We might want god to exist (in whatever form we like) but, as far as we can tell, he does not exist.

Since God doesn't exist, and therefore plays no real role, his influence remains very plastic -- god can be shaped to any form needed--hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin.

Humans are the creators of the gods. Our gods have been given the necessary characteristics which keep them from showing up at inconvenient times in incontrovertible physical form to intervene in our wretched affairs. Like, they never show their face. They never come and chat with us face to face. They don't send e-mails. It is necessary for priests to interpret them (because otherwise, the gods would be complete non-entities.

We want god around to back us up. So, come on god, I need support on global warming, pollution, plastic in the oceans, over population, and the anti-religion program. I'd also like you to do away with postmodernists. I'm sure you'll get right on it.

I checked yes when I meant to check no when I couldn't decide whether I wanted god to exist or not. Unfortunately you didn't provide an "I can't figure it out" option.

What do you mean by "God"?

Sorry. I had in my mind the Omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient god.

There's something about God that impels us to abandon our rationality - it becomes an exception to the rule of evidence based worldviews. — TheMadFool

That is debatable, especially the more specific and complex the particular conception of god that is being used. Theists may have evidence and reasons to back them up, and their opponents will have reasons to back their position up. Certain god concepts are just less likely to be true than others because they are less coherent, conflict with reality, and have no supporting evidence. Some god concepts are actually much better than others. The issue of "conclusion" in regards to god concepts is twofold: one, we cannot even agree what "God" is, and two, we are talking about a being who draws criticism by being so incomprehensible that is next to impossible even discuss in any meaningful way.

The reason that most people get irrational when discussing god concepts and related topics is that the parties involved have a lot of psychological baggage and investment into the subject. People who are ignostic, apathetic to the discussion, or possess a conception of god that really has no impact on their lives really do not really participate that much beyond fleeting curiosity. Most theists have belief systems that go beyond just the philosophical notion of the god of classical theism; people's whose entire lives are built around a particular god. Atheists (at least the ones who are active in the discussion) are usually ex-theists or people who have to deal with theists regularly: they have made specific life claims relating to certain gods, often in direct contest to their ex-god. As such, we have a recipe for a lot of angry and shouting people. The only thing that even compares is possibly politics. Though, I'm sure that some people have philosophical topics that they love or hate just as much as some people love or hate the philosophy of religion.

Of course theists want God to exist and atheists don't want God to exist. It's because that given position is so deeply intertwined with the fabric of each side's very lifestyle and outlook. This is why it remains such a controversial topic. There's a social component; if an atheist becomes a theist, they'll likely lose many friends and circles. If a pastor becomes an atheist he'll be cast out.

Buddhism is not founded on the existence of God or gods. There are many polemical passages in Buddhist commentarial literature, showing how belief in an eternal unchanging being is self-contradictory and dismissing belief in 'Isvara', the idea of a personal deity. That said, Buddhism is also not atheist, in the Western sense. (This is explained in more detail in Buddhism and the God Idea). I mention it because the ethics and attitudes of Buddhism are similar to those of Christianity - showing that such principles are not necessarily dependent on belief in God.

In Western culture, however, the situation is different. Because of the seminal influence of the Christian religion on Western history, the traditional wisdom of the various cultures from which it was formed - for example, Greek philosophy - was absorbed into Christian theology and philosophy. Christian belief became the catch-all for all kinds of ethical and cosmological ideas. For most of Western history, belief in God, along with all of the associated virtues and principles, was simply assumed to be the foundation of both nature and man.

That is why the so-called 'death of God' announced by Nietszche was such a profoundly revolutionary idea at the time. It was deeply shocking, even unthinkable, to many people, who felt that the world had been in some sense torn from its mooring by this development. As David Bentley Hart mused in his analysis (or post-mortem) of the 'new atheist' movement:

Nietzsche understood how immense the consequences of the rise of Christianity had been, and how immense the consequences of its decline would be as well, and had the intelligence to know he could not fall back on polite moral certitudes to which he no longer had any right. Just as the Christian revolution created a new sensibility by inverting many of the highest values of the pagan past, so the decline of Christianity, Nietzsche knew, portends another, perhaps equally catastrophic shift in moral and cultural consciousness. His famous fable in The Gay Science of the madman who announces God’s death is anything but a hymn of atheist triumphalism. In fact, the madman despairs of the mere atheists—those who merely do not believe—to whom he addresses his terrible proclamation. In their moral contentment, their ease of conscience, he sees an essential oafishness; they do not dread the death of God because they do not grasp that humanity’s heroic and insane act of repudiation has sponged away the horizon, torn down the heavens, left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become.

I think it is difficult to understand how deep that sense was, for many born in a secular age. For us, it's simply a matter of belief - the religious have beliefs, which we don't share, so the only real difference between the religious and us, is that they have beliefs, which we're unencumbered by.

However, from their viewpoint, that is a rather asymmetrical analysis. According to them, we're not unencumbered - we see things from a different kind of perspective, namely, that of scientific secularism, which functions as religion does for them, as a guide to what right-thinking folks ought to believe. However,

The main problem with our usual understanding of secularity is that it is taken-for-granted, so we are not aware that it is a worldview. It is an ideology pretending to be the everyday world we live in. Many assume that it is simply the way the world really is, once superstitious beliefs about it have been removed. Yet that is the secular view of secularity, its own self-understanding....

David Loy, Terror in the God-Shaped Hole: A Buddhist Perspective on Modernity's Identity Crisis.

So, whereas, for the religious, their worlview, conduct, outlook, attitudes and way of life are all part of what they see as a coherent whole, which is related to the very 'author of the Universe', for the scientific secularist, there is no such narrative or meaning, all of which can only ever be human or social projections on the backdrop of an essentially meaningless universe. If we are to find meaning in that, it is up to us, as Camus said in his novels, to devise it.

I can't answer your pole because I regard my whimsical want to be irrelevant. Also God is far to undefined and limited by any pronouncement. Also I am of the opinion that the omni's are a nonsense dreamed up by medieval theologians.

The reason why my whimsical want is irrelevant is that I am in a position of ignorance, ignorance of the form a universe with, or a universe without a God would take, etc etc. Also any choice someone makes in this pole is likely to on irrelevant, or naive premises.

Regarding philosophy, the existence of God is perhaps given to much weight due to the historical link between philosophy and theology. This is not because there is in some way less likelihood that a God exists than is suggested in philosophy, but rather in the accepted and engrained conceptual framework of a Christian God.

Personally I follow a mystical approach to philosophy, in which the existence of God is irrelevant. Although I suppose I would say on balance that I do regard that there is a spiritual reality with beings equating to gods present. But even here this is irrelevant for me as I am concerned with practice, service and living a fulling life in the world.

I checked yes when I meant to check no when I couldn't decide whether I wanted god to exist or not. Unfortunately you didn't provide an "I can't figure it out" option. — Bitter Crank

Decide, even if only in play-mode.

I can see that forum members aren't interested in God-debates. Is it because it doesn't lead us to anything concrete? That's why I specifically avoided initiating an argumentative tennis match.

What I want to know is if you want God to exist and also your reason why you want God to exist or not.

This is relevant because the logic you offer may have implications on why some are theists and others theists.

Your choice, even if it seems whimsical, IS relevant. It could explain why some believe and others don't.

Obvisouly theism and atheism can't be explained in terms of rationality. It's like two people put in the exact same environment (our world) and one sees God and the other doesn't. Clearly the fault is not in logic. I want to know if perhaps desire has a role in this.

Fear is a powerful motivator in humans. Especially fear of the unknown. Historically, and even today, God has provided for us something to explain the 'unknown', and to provide meaning to the 'unknown'.

Additionally, the idea of there being no God can be quite confronting, particularly considering its implications - that there is no purpose in life, that there is nothing after death, that 'good' and 'evil' are only social contracts which serve no purpose other than to continue the survival of our species. That there is nothing that we can ever do in life which has any effect on anything rather than the physical world, which, ultimately, is meaningless.

This is why theism is such a ubiquitous and prevailing belief, and why it is so hotly contested. People who believe in a God don't want the security of its belief to be questioned and/or taken away, because it casts everything they value beyond the material world into doubt. Hence, to answer your question, the idea of a God can be considered of fundamental psychological importance to Humans.

Obviously theism and atheism can't be explained in terms of rationality. It's like two people put in the exact same environment (our world) and one sees God and the other doesn't. Clearly the fault is not in logic. — TheMadFool

I agree with you 100%. Neither theism nor atheism can be considered more 'rational' than each other.

Linking to my previous post, you can say that both theists and atheists alike fiercely debate their beliefs as they provide the security from which they perceive the world. Psychologically and sociologically, everything we do is influenced by our beliefs and stigmas, including whether or not the existence of a God is included in our worldview.

In other words, belief in a God helps us determine our actions, as it is part of the inherent societal attitudes influencing our decisions.

Thanks for the post. Do you want God to exist? Why?

The answer is complicated.

God could not be 'something that exists' - because everything that exists has the possibility of not existing. Everything you can name has a beginning and an end in time, is composed of parts, and might not exist. So to say that the First Cause is something that exists, is already to misidentify what is being discussed; it is to reduce the First Cause to the 'flying spaghetti monster' or 'orbiting teapot' of atheist polemics. That is why the first step in any real contemplation of the question has to be the 'great unknowing'. It is something we really, deeply don't know.

Second, I certainly would like to think that existence is animated by purpose. I have never seriously entertained the idea that life is a fluke, a happenstance, but there are many who do; actually it is an important theme in 20th century literature, and the belief of many educated people. So, if 'believing that existence is animated by a purpose' means belief in God, then the answer is yes. But I remain agnostic, it's something that I know that I don't know.

there is no purpose in life, that there is nothing after death, that 'good' and 'evil' are only social contracts which serve no purpose other than to continue the survival of our species. That there is nothing that we can ever do in life which has any effect on anything rather than the physical world, which, ultimately, is meaningless. — Javants

Question for you - if you believe that is the case, why bother saying anything? Whatever you say must be like everything else - meaningless.

Before there were security and surveillance cameras, the best alternative was to make people believe in an all-seeing God.

More precisely, enable people to be aware when they are committing sin. Cut out the middle man. Remember God (via the Christ) will forgive you when you sin, so why worry. By not committing sin people were guaranteeing an entry into heaven, otherwise they can't be certain what will happen when they arrive at the pearly gates.

Obvisouly theism and atheism can't be explained in terms of rationality. It's like two people put in the exact same environment (our world) and one sees God and the other doesn't. Clearly the fault is not in logic. I want to know if perhaps desire has a role in this. — TheMadFool

Since God is supposed to be immaterial, theists don't actually "see" God with their eyes. So I think the discretionary difference must be the result of some form of logic. Of course there must be some type of desire involved, as all choice requires motivating factors.

Since God is supposed to be immaterial, theists don't actually "see" God with their eyes. So I think the discretionary difference must be the result of some form of logic. Of course there must be some type of desire involved, as all choice requires motivating factors. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think it's a question of logic. Why? Because, one thing we do know is that evidence for and against god is unavailable. The simple reason for this, upon even a superficial analysis, is that if the evidence was there, either for or against, one of the warring factions (theists, atheists) wouldn't exist. So, the issue isn't logic at all. What I suspect is that there's a desire/hope/abhorrence that determines which side you choose.

Obvisouly theism and atheism can't be explained in terms of rationality. It's like two people put in the exact same environment (our world) and one sees God and the other doesn't. Clearly the fault is not in logic. I want to know if perhaps desire has a role in this. — TheMadFool

While I understand and sympathize with your viewpoint of two people disagreeing about a given topic is odd (one of my interests is the philosophy of peer disagreement), two people disagreeing, in and of itself, is not a problem. Think of the number of conspiracy theories, science denialism, and other positions that are clearly false. People who are otherwise rational and capable believe these things. You can be talking with someone who appears completely rational and who has track record of giving out good advice and judgement, and suddenly it turns out that they believe vaccines cause autism and such. Just because there are people who believe the world is run by the Illuminati or space lizards does not mean the positions on those topics are without logic, or that the positions are of equal epistemic value. Disagreement is par for the course.

As I said, religion is like politics: it is a deeply pervasive aspect of our reality and most people's lives. Because people have a lot of investment into their position, beliefs related to religion are they most prone to psychological barriers. Most people do not actually look into the subject with any intellectual rigor or even attempt to make an effort to question their ideas beyond the most basic and bare way, the intellectual equivalent of Google's old "I'm feeling lucky" button. Furthermore, both sides have reasons to doubt the other. Within the Christian perspective, there are Bible verses that indicate that people who deny God after understanding the topic are lying to themselves. I am sure you can find similiar passages in the Quran. On the flip side, some theists indicate that their faith takes precedence over reason; that when a philosophical line of thought conflicts with their already held positions, the line of thought must be in error.

Even if there is valid peer (two equals with the same evidence and capabilities) disagreement and we assume that it is not rationally possible to have one peer be justified while his disagreeing equal is wrong, the correct response would be for both sides to suspend judgement. In other words, if the theist-atheist divide cannot be resolved by known and valid epistemic means, the correct response is agnosticism on all parties involved.

the correct response would be for both sides to suspend judgement. — Chany

And yet they ignore this perfectly reasonable option and become theists and atheists. What is the cause of this? Are theists a cowardly bunch afraid of death or are they idealistic dreamers with a poor grasp on reality? Are atheists fiercely independent thinkers or do they hate what god has to say about their, say, sexual preferences?

What is the root cause of atheism/theism?

I wonder - would there be anyone here who doesn't believe in God, yet want one to exist? Or vice versa?

In other words, belief in a God helps us determine our actions, as it is part of the inherent societal attitudes influencing our decisions. — Javants

But do you want God to exist? Why?

I wonder - would there be anyone here who doesn't believe in God, yet want one to exist? Or vice versa? — StreetlightX

I don't believe in Santa yet, for the sake of children around the world who think he's real, I'd want him to exist.

Theists may believe in Satan but, for the sake of all who may be harmed by Satan, don't want the devil to exist.

I don't think it's a question of logic. Why? Because, one thing we do know is that evidence for and against god is unavailable. — TheMadFool

Logic doesn't operate on evidence though, it operates on rules. Adhering to rules produces a logical conclusion. Logical conclusions may be used as evidence.

The simple reason for this, upon even a superficial analysis, is that if the evidence was there, either for or against, one of the warring factions (theists, atheists) wouldn't exist. — TheMadFool

Whether a given occurrence is evidence for, or evidence against, a particular proposition depends on how one interprets the occurrence. We interpret according to rules, and this is a use of logic. So whether a given occurrence is evidence for, or evidence against, depends on what logic one uses. There is lots of evidence for both sides, but that is because each interprets existence in different ways. Therefore each side is supported by different logic.

What I suspect is that there's a desire/hope/abhorrence that determines which side you choose. — TheMadFool

Of course it is true that our logic is greatly influenced by what we desire, because we use logic to determine the means for obtaining what we desire. But the thing desired is often far removed from the logical conclusion, the decision. So for example, if I decide to take the bus to work instead of driving, this could be for many different reasons, perhaps I want to do some reading on the bus. The reason why I decide to take the bus represents the desire (to read), but the choice (to take the bus), is not very closely related to the desire. Likewise there would be a reason why one would choose to be theist or atheist, and this would be related to some desire, but it's probably not very closely related to that choice itself. Therefore I think the question of whether or not one desires for God to exists is a rather irrelevant question, for the purposes you've expressed.

P.S. The God I'm referrig to is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God — TheMadFool

So you are referring to the Laws of Nature?

... impels us to abandon our rationality

I have no idea how one does this.

I believe what you are saying is that you disagree with a point of view and in order to gain some perceived advantage (among those who perceive some superiority of the so-called rational whatever that might be) for your perspective you label the opposing view as irrational. Would this be a valid way at looking at your statement?

Therefore I think the question of whether or not one desires for God to exists is a rather irrelevant question, for the purposes you've expressed. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are two antagonistic views on God, to wit theism and atheism. Why? Each contradicts the other. That there's such a situation can only mean the arguments from both sides aren't conclusive. The rational thing is then to be agnostic. However, there are theists and atheists engaging in endless debates. Surely, it isn't logic that drives them to hold such strong views. I think there's something else and that is what I want to find out.

Are you referring to the 3 omnipowered god by ''Laws of Nature''? If you are then yes.

If you are saying that there are outside forces that are entirely deciding our direction in life (i.e.we have no say in what the direction we would like to take), whether they be called God or Laws of Nature,

then you are asking the question:

"Do you want God or Laws of Nature to exist? Would that be your question?

And yet they ignore this perfectly reasonable option and become theists and atheists. What is the cause of this? Are theists a cowardly bunch afraid of death or are they idealistic dreamers with a poor grasp on reality? Are atheists fiercely independent thinkers or do they hate what god has to say about their, say, sexual preferences?

What is the root cause of atheism/theism? — TheMadFool

First, I never said that the only rational option was to embrace agnosticism. There are different positions within peer disagreement, and only some of the stronger conciliatory views (when faced with peer disagreement, the correction option is to suspend judgement or somehow meet in the middle, so to speak) require us to abandon our beliefs. Everyone has a different life, and from the viewpoint of specific person, it may be epistemically justified to hold a position. People can be justified in believing false ideas, depending on their circumstances. Even when it comes to equal peers who have studied the issue, there is one notion to keep in mind: good epistemic reasons may not be convincing epistemic reasons. Telling the conspiracy theorist who thinks the world is run by space lizards that their ideas have no good evidence behind them will probably not convince the person, but the criticism is still valid. People, even the best of us, make mistakes in their judgement. As such, there may be situations where one peer is right and knows the opposing peer is in error, but the evidence against the opposing peer will not convince them. Telling a person that their argument for or against the existence of a particular god is based more in psychological and emotional appeal, and not so much in logic, evidence, and reason, will probably not be very convincing to the person, even if that person is highly intelligent and otherwise might be good at philosophy.

Second, you are effectively asking the question: "why do certain people believe what they believe?" We would be broadbrushing atheists and theists if we said their reasons for belief were x,y, and z. People hold various beliefs for a variety of reasons. The reasoning of one theist can be vastly different from another theist. One atheist may put stock into the problem of evil, while another atheist thinks the problem of evil is not a problem at all, but thinks of god concepts as being empty and without actual support. Some might believe on purely psychological reasons, while others may have arguments that have convinced them to believe their position. To me, the question is like asking: why do some people support Republican policies while others support Democratic policies? The reasons are so varied that the answer is: the same reasons people believe a bunch of different things.