How do I believe in God?

[Anonymous No.12264221]

I've read the Bible. I had a christian education growing up. My parents are Catholics. I want to believe, but the idea of an omnipotent creator doesn't make sense to me.

[Anonymous No.12264227]

Where do you think the world came from then?

[Anonymous No.12264248]

>>12264227
Where did god (lowercase deliberate) come from?

[Anonymous No.12264267]

>>12264248
Well God is the conclusion to the question "where did the world come from?". The world is contingent and can't bring itself into being, so some being who is not contingent had to bring it into being.

[Anonymous No.12264270]

>>12264248
Beyond our comprehension. If God exists, he would be 10th dimensional. Its impossible for anything in our realm to fathom such behemoth.

[Anonymous No.12264280]

Once you obtain critial thought it is hard to sumbit to theological indoctrination.

[Anonymous No.12264283]

>>12264280
So what do you believe? Let's apply some critical thought to your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.12264285]

>>12264221
stop. with. these. religitard. threads.

this is in no way /literature/. seriously where tf did all this crap come from? this board didn't use to be a hotline for """"christians"""" going through a crisis in faith.

Is Jordan Memerson really to blame?

[Anonymous No.12264296]

>>12264267
Besutifully put
Can anyone refute this?

[Anonymous No.12264311]

>>12264296
PHILOSOPHY DUMB!!! SCIENCE GUD!

[Anonymous No.12264322]

>>12264285
You get one guess at which board the underage Memerson Patreon subscribers and LARPing Christcucks come from.

[Anonymous No.12264329]

>>12264322
uhhh /m/?

[Anonymous No.12264333]

>>12264221
read kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.12264404]

>>12264267
Why is the world contingent?

[Anonymous No.12264414]

>>12264404
Because it can't bring itself into being. If you disagree then cause yourself to not exist and then bring yourself back into existence.

[Anonymous No.12264698]

>>12264221
Read more anon.
Pensées and Kiekergaard are two good ones that helped me find faith.

[Anonymous No.12264714]

>>12264221
I knew all the atheist arguments, but a little curiosity and humility led me to read pic related, and I became Christian before finishing the book.

[Anonymous No.12264722]

>>12264227
I dont know, but I have never seen an exploration of this question that led me to think God was a more reasonable explanation than mere accident.

[Anonymous No.12264724]

>>12264722
What do you mean "mere accident"? What did the accident happen to? What cause the accident to happen?

[Anonymous No.12264739]

>>12264724
Okay, I agree with where you're coming from in terms of exploring these basic assumptions. So why would the world have to "come from" anywhere? Why would the universe need to be created? Why couldn't it just exist?

[Anonymous No.12264751]

>>12264739
You’re exploring the possibility that the universe wasn’t created by a God. But reason won’t fix your problem. You can’t pile up proofs for God and believe that way. Reason cannot decide.

[Anonymous No.12264754]

>>12264739
Do you really think that all of this just exists? Galaxies, planets, living beings, all this complexity "just is". For me it's mainly a matter of incredulity, it's absurd to think it "just is". Of course, there are many philosophical arguments attempting to demonstrate that God exists and what sort of God he is (Feser has a good book called "Five Proofs"), but for me just looking around is enough. Do you genuinely believe that all of this just existing just because is a reasonable explanation?

[Anonymous No.12265694]

>>12264754
What necessarily is "God", then? Would he even be comprehensible to us? What if everything in the Bible and all other religious books and practices are bullshit and God has nothing to do with any of that, and is a completely different thing (aside from perhaps being considered a 'creator')? Is he even rational, as we would understand? Or more instinctual? What if, in a way, there are multiple gods? Perhaps thousands?

We can't explain it,and I prefer to admit it. Attributing what's so beyond our grasp to a concept we created with our imaginations (god) is way too much of a stretch to me.

[Anonymous No.12265709]

>>12264698
>>12264714

Is Pensees really that good or is this a joke? Every time I've heard an atheist mention Pascal and his wager, he's been btfo.

[Anonymous No.12265726]

>>12265694
Well there's really two broad conceptions of God that are possible.
1. an impersonal God, or some sort of impersonal transcendent principle
2. a personal God

I find the latter more plausible because of the existence of this world. Why would an impersonal principle at some point suddenly create a world? One could argue that he creates eternally, but we already know our world is not eternal. Secondly, it's a very particular world. It has characteristic features. Why would an impersonal principle create this world rather than that world. This world has the markings of a "personal touch". As for, why the Christian God, largely because of the resurrection of Christ, but also because of the profundity of his words, which I think surpass anything said by any other man. And I agree that we can't explain God. According to Orthodox teaching the essence of God is unknowable. The essence of something is its whatness, what it is. That means we don't know what God is. We can, however, know WHO he is, and we can also participate in his "uncreated energies", his actions, his operations.

[Anonymous No.12265751]

>>12265726

based

[Anonymous No.12265764]

>>12264221
>I want to believe
>the idea of an omnipotent creator doesn't make sense to me.

[Anonymous No.12265813]

>>12265726
This is where we diverge. I do not believe this world has any particular 'meaning', and that we reached this current state through a whole lot of years of life evolving and competing (which is why each creature has its strengths and weaknesses, and developed favoring certain characteristics). Through adaptability and natural selection, we reached an ecosystemic balance. Humans, similar to primates, developed favoring hierarchy and cooperativeness. There's plenty of things that gave us an edge compared to those similar to us, like the inverted thumbs mutation, that allowed us to use tools. Among many things we can't fully explain, is how exactly we evolved to the extent we did, Many mysteries (such as lightning) that were attributed to the divine before, now have a scientific explanation, though.

An impersonal God that simply creates for its own sake (akin to life existing and evolving without an apparent abstract 'meaning' that would satisfy our existential crisis) would fit like a glove with my point of view, but as you said, definitely not yours.

[Anonymous No.12265832]

I've never understood about why people are so torn apart by this.
If god truly is ultimately forgiving for even the gravest of sins, then he should be completely understanding of people being skeptic of his existence, and he would also be happy that his creation is even enlightened enough to critically think about things to this depth.

[Anonymous No.12265857]

>>12264285
>jordan peterpostate
>aka the gnostic heretic
pfffffffff

[Anonymous No.12265871]

>>12264221
you don’t. Embrace Epicurus.

[Anonymous No.12265874]

>>12265871
The guy whose whole life purpose is to avoid pain? nah

[Anonymous No.12265964]

>>12265709
The wager is taken out of context and misinterpreted. I used to be an atheist, I know what you mean. The arguments seem pretty scathing, but they’re ALL false, it’s amazing.

[Anonymous No.12266202]

Understand that God is the divine nature in humans then read religious texts from this perspective.

[Anonymous No.12266215]

>>12265832

Honestly I don't know, it's even more difficult when you realize St. Paul was a self-confirmed murderer of early christians before converting

[Anonymous No.12266234]

>>12264221
>omnipotent creator doesn't make sense to me.
unless you are omnipotent it wouldnt make sense to you

[Anonymous No.12266251]

>>12264221
Pascal's Pensées
Augustine's Confessions
The Bible

[Anonymous No.12266254]

>>12264754
>For me it's mainly a matter of incredulity, it's absurd to think it "just is."
>Do you genuinely believe that all of this just existing just because is a reasonable explanation?

Yes, because I think reason is a human attempt to understand the universe, not a fundamental physical principle by which the universe is obligated to abide. Our reason should be (and largely is) based on our perception of universal principles, but our perception is not only fallible but has a biological construction contingent on particular evolutionary circumstances. The narrative methods we use to explain the world are very difficult to seperate from cause and effect because cause and effect are so central to our perception. But that in no way means that everything we percieve is subject to the principles of our perception, why would it?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, I don't mean to misrepresent what you're saying. But it sounds like: "according to my own human sensibility it seems that the universe is an effect, so therefore must have a cause." Which seems strange coming from Christians who so often invoke the inadequacy of human perception to understand the will and actions of God.

[Anonymous No.12266275]

>>12265709
If you read the entire book the wager becomes a lot more convincing

[Anonymous No.12266287]

>>12266275

You are supposed to have an actual relationship with Jesus and God, the gospels are very clear on that one, you have to actually believe and pray

[Anonymous No.12266295]

>>12266287
Of course, Pascal even says this in Pensées, the wager is just a starting point. Pascal says that reason can't be a part of faith, but someone who doesn't believe can only be convinced by reason, so he made the wager. It's purpose is to start a nonbeliever on the path towards true intuitive faith

[Anonymous No.12266318]

>>12264221
Read the medieval theologians.

[Anonymous No.12266538]

>>12264221
Why would you want to brainwash yourself into believing something that is so obviously false?

[Anonymous No.12266731]

>>12266538
God in himself isn't obviously false.