Why is belief necessary?

Hi Morte, This is the biggest question on my mind right now, so I'm glad you asked it.I can come up with several ways that faith in itself has undeniably benefited me. I can come up with a few more reasons why God might have deemed it good and necessary, but this still doesn't completely answer the question.I have a few friends and acquaintances who have experienced personal proof of God in speaking in tongues and discerning spirits, but only after they had completely surrendered themselves to God in faith.I wish that God could appear to everyone and break the natural laws he created over and over again so that everyone would have no doubt that he exists. But then the world wouldn't work the same way, and who can ask why the world must work this way and not another when we cannot even fathom anything outside of this world?Perhaps this is one reason for faith: those who will be with God always, will always be discovering something new and unexpected from Him. Perhaps faith is inherently necessary for finite beings to deal with an infinite God.But there are a million "perhapses" and we can never know a fraction of all the answers. If we are to know anything at all we must have at least some faith.I have a friend who has recently become an agnostic and this is one of her problems with Christianity as well.When asked who can be saved and how, Jesus gave a variety of different answers. Being saved is not a formula of semantics or works or solely faith for that matter. It is an individual matter between God and man. If we do not meet God when he comes to us, we are no different than the animals who simply fall asleep and turn back to the dust they came from. "...all have the same breath."

Thanks for your reply. I drew this from your statement that historically when people let go of superstitious beliefs then society progressed. While this is true, it doesn't mean belief in God is a bad thing. I figured you were making parallel the belief in God and other superstitions. Sure, they are suspect, but not proven false. And I have enough information to reasonably believe my beliefs are true. It is not necessary for having an understanding, but that understanding may not be the right one. No it is not. How do you prove that the two of my friends never saw supernatural revelations from God? How do you prove that Paul or the prophets or Moses or Jeremiah or Abraham never did either? How do prove Jesus did not perform miracles? How do prove that all the believers throughout the centuries who spoke in tongues were never directed by God to do so?I think there is a rule in logic that says simply because you cannot prove empirically the positive true doesn't mean the negative must be true.We simply can't prove anything therefore it IS an ASSUMPTION to say that God is only based in the imagination of our minds. That's correct. The only assumption I make is that the above mentioned people and others were telling the truth. That is where I have placed my faith and trust. I agree! But I have heard many here argue against the existence of God with rational arguments based on assumptions. My point is that this is meaningless. I REALIZE this. I've already shown in another thread that it is impossible to rule out the supernatural. Let's say you have three friends that just went on a vacation to the Rockies. They come back after a week and start telling you all about what happened on their trip. Would you believe them? Sure, why not. It is possible that they are simply lying to you or exaggerating and it is just as possible that they are telling the truth. They could show you pictures, but even these are not beyond forgery. Heck, your friends might even be figments of your imagination. You could be schizofrenic. You can't be 100% sure of anything. We could be "computer" programs in a matrix. We could be characters in a dreamer... There are an infinite number of possibilities.But you choose to believe that you are in fact what you seem to be and that your friends are real and that they did go on a trip to the Rockies and that they did do and see all the things they claim.Trusting your friends to tell you the truth about their vacation is no different than me trusting my friends who have told me about what God has shown them or no different than me trusting the revelations of all the hundreds of other people who claimed divine revelation from the one true God of Israel, the Lord Jesus Christ.I can't prove any of it, but I believe it is true just like I believe we are two real sentient beings having this conversation.(as a side note: I should probably look into Descartes and Descartes error... wasn't he the guy that decided the only thing he could be %100 percent sure of was that he existed? That is sort of where my thoughts have led me.) Nothing! It is a possibility that you and I and all of us are dead wrong about everything. But there are certain things I BELIEVE to be true. Yep. That is what I was saying. If the universe is not structerd by human expectation, why should God be?

Thanks for the reply and your link and info. Just curious, what exactly is the ego? Or is that another word for what scientists are still somewhat baffled by: consciousness. Well, yes I spose Iagree... but if they really did go to the rockies, it is true to say that they were there. Of course we are assuming again that we are not living in some dream-like illusion or matrix. But even if we were, could we really say it wasn't true?So are you saying you don't like true/false type scenarios? If so, you must abandon pretty much all human logic, which is okay with me, but you won't get anywhere debating Sidelined. I'm sticking with Christ because I believe in Christ, not because I feel smug, self-righteous, and special.Obviously there are a great many truths found in other religions, but I simply disagree with some of their doctrines and find Christ more worthy of placing my trust in than others. I agree. EVERYTHING is a picture. All the rituals and laws of the OT were there to show the Israelites a picture of theological truths because they were too dense and lacking of the Spirit get the picture. In the NT with the exception of Christ's parables there's quite a bit more of abstract principles to give us understanding, but still only semantics to convey something beyond the words. Christ's life was a picture as well of many things. Our lives and the world we live in and the struggles we go through and the blessings we are granted are pictures too of something greater.When Christians get lost in the semantics and the formulas and the traditions of Christianity they "have a form of godliness, but deny it's power." To keep in harmony with the cultural community, sometimes it is a misuse. To trust in the veracity of certain stories... I don't see how you can say that is a misuse if you have no way of knowing whether they are true or not. I completely agree and its a tragedy and its not what Christianity is about. Well, like I said I do realize that everything is to some degree a picture and the truth does not lie in the words, thoughts, or even the pictures in our mind's eye, but it lies beyond.

Thank you for your reply. Well you can argue that all you want, (BTW you said an atheist does not argue this) but simply because you do not believe God is a real entity does not make it so. And yes I realize simply because I DO believe God is a real entity that does not make it so. Come on Sidelined! I thought we were getting somewhere.Can't you spot the assumption in your statement?Simply because the universe is 'big' and we are 'small' doesn't say anything as to whether God exists and cares. Just because you think that a caring God would create a universe just big enough for us in order to make us feel important doesn't mean he would act as such. It is if you're going to discount these things as reason to believe. If you choose to explain all of those things with the mental disorder schizophernia, that is your choice even though there are certain correlations with reality that would make it very difficult to explain away by this disorder. I wouldn't want to start a thread unless I'd witnessed or experienced it myself. I used to believe it was ALL fake emotional mumbo jumbo. But that's changed. However, I still think there is probably a great deal of that. I know what science is and why it is necessary and helpful, but this topic is about belief. I still believe it to be all God's work. From the thunder head that rises under principles of convection and evaporation to the supernova in the farthest galaxy. Just because we know how God does a thing doesn't mean God is not the one doing it. What? How does belief in God in any way detract from one's ability to understand anything of a scientific nature? (unless of course one is arrogantly over-confident in one's particular interpretation of a creation hymn... (hanging head)) Well, obviously I am trusting that they are not. It depends on if the activity you are investigating is fake or not or if it is from God or not. And wrong assumptions or over simplified statements and logic created in order to rationally defeat an assertion is called a strawman argument. EVERY argument against God is a strawman argument. Your talk of probability and likelihood is meaningless! Have you understood anything I've been saying this whole time?Probablity has nothing more to do with the existence of a supernatural phenomena than does the existence of the universe itself. Dude... I understand why science is valuable and where it is useful, but we are not dealing with science.What if God had to be found through science? What about all our poor dumb predecessors? How would they learn of God? What if God were cold impersonal probabilisitic and predictable like science? He would cease to be God.I understand exactly what you are saying, but I'm afraid you've understood nothing of what I've said. Thanks for the argument though.

Thanks for your reply. Nor do I. I don't base my faith in God on "holes" in our scientific understanding of the universe. If I did, I wouldn't have any ground to stand on. Can you please explain why it is not? Well, that is all fine and dandy, but as I've already shown there is a spectrum of skepticism. On the left end you can accept nothing as true except the fact that you exist, and on the other end you can believe everything you hear and be some kind of conspiracy theorist. You obviously are not the perfect skeptic since you believe in certain things outside yourself. And I simply place my bar a little right of yours. What if the believer is a scientist? If I resented criticism to my beliefs I would not be debating you but rather stomp off in a huff. I enjoy this philosophical battling more than just about anything else! I can somewhat understand this, but then I can also somewhat understand your position since I've lost my faith and regained it during all my debating here. What I find distasteful is a smug self-assurance of the veracity of one's beliefs coupled with an inability to understand the opposing view, which is often exhibited by both sides.

Thanks for your reply. Oh no... I've just never known exactly what to think of the ego. I always picture it as sort of a sort of metaphysical waffle inside our heads that gets chewed up a bit when somebody hurts our feelings (seriously!). But as far as what it actually is I'm uncertain. I think that makes sense. I suppose you could say that the thinker is the brain and the thoughts it thinks are the picture of the real spiritual being. How's that for mucking about in uncertainty? Yes! That is what I was trying to say above.Get some sleep and come back tonight.