Belief in God and Existence of God: which is the most important of the two?

[LuisDantas]

And why?

 

[Acim]

Existence - more important.

Without existence, the belief would be implausible.

Without belief, the existence is certainly plausible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And why?

I started to jot down a quick reply only to discover that I was not at all sure ...

 

[LuisDantas]

I feel that belief is by a large margin more significant, at least in this life.

Belief has easily demonstrable consequences, while existence and inexistence both would presumably be simple recognition of a situation that exists already.

 

[Thanda]

And why?

Existence. If he doesn't exist then any belief in him will be fruitless in the grander scheme of things - the grander scheme being the eternity that will exist after our death.

Any benefit in this life that might be derived from a belief in God must surely be nothing but a placebo effect which could as well be accomplished by some other means

 

[Ouroboros]

What does "belief in god" exactly mean? Doesn't imply "belief in God's existence" or does it mean something else?

 

[LuisDantas]

What does "belief in god" exactly mean? Doesn't imply "belief in God's existence" or does it mean something else?

For the purposes of the OP of this thread, that is exactly it: belief in God's existence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Existence. If he doesn't exist then any belief in him will be fruitless in the grander scheme of things - the grander scheme being the eternity that will exist after our death.

Any benefit in this life that might be derived from a belief in God must surely be nothing but a placebo effect which could as well be accomplished by some other means

"Placebo" is a bit too strong a word IMO.

Even taking for granted that there is an afterlife where God may reward one's piety, surely there is some worth and meaning to the attainments that are possible in this life, don't you think?

 

[LuisDantas]

Existence - more important.

Without existence, the belief would be implausible.

Without belief, the existence is certainly plausible.

Why is plausibility important?

 

[Acim]

Why is plausibility important?

Do you feel that I implied that it is? If so, where?

 

[Thanda]

"Placebo" is a bit too strong a word IMO.

Even taking for granted that there is an afterlife where God may reward one's piety, surely there is some worth and meaning to the attainments that are possible in this life, don't you think?

Some but very little (especially since life is very short). In truth at times it pays to be humble and at other times it pays to do what you need to do to get ahead. If there is no God one can simply live life in the moment (i.e. do whatever feels easiest to do at the moment without regard long term implications). In particular one wouldn't be overly worried about what kind of character one develops since they would soon realise that to develop a good character would likely take their whole life - and that should one be so lucky in achieving that goal (i.e. having a good character) you would only be able to enjoy those fruits for a couple of years before you die for eternity.

So if you are not naturally disposed to a good character (e.g. you enjoy lying) why should you struggle for so long to develop something you will use for a shorter time than the time it took you to develop it?

 

[Augustus]

Belief I'd say. I think God's existence is pretty much irrelevant.

Religions are about the here and now. Belief systems that have survived for millennia are likely to have tangible benefits, it's not like they survived because God actually was intervening in people's lives.

If he doesn't exist then you are dead and won't care anyway.

 

[Laika]

Existence. If God objectively exists, that means it is regardless of my beliefs. If my beliefs are going to be false/inaccurate that means they will be a bad guide in dealing with "the guy upstairs". If there is no god, "belief" only matters in terms of its demonstrable consequences for being false/inaccurate way to make decisions, but that's just my problem. God's existence is "everyones" problem.

 

[LuisDantas]

Some but very little (especially since life is very short). In truth at times it pays to be humble and at other times it pays to do what you need to do to get ahead. If there is no God one can simply live life in the moment (i.e. do whatever feels easiest to do at the moment without regard long term implications).

One who disbelieves in an afterlife will have a somewhat more tangible understanding of "long term implications" than you seem to.

I think you are overestimating (and arguably inverting) the significance of belief in God's existence for moral motivation.

In particular one wouldn't be overly worried about what kind of character one develops since they would soon realise that to develop a good character would likely take their whole life - and that should one be so lucky in achieving that goal (i.e. having a good character) you would only be able to enjoy those fruits for a couple of years before you die for eternity.

Again, I think you are thinking a bit too much about eternity and afterlife.

For quite a few people who disbelieve in an afterlife the ephemeral nature of human existence is all the more reason to strive to make the most and the best of it.

People often spend decades of their lives to attain conquests that they have no reason to expect to last for eternity (or to somehow play a role in an afterlife).

It is entirely possible, even commonplace to acquire joy from the pursuit of a worthy goal even before it is fully attained. That is certainly the case for human morality as well. Moral people tend to have a better quality of life, if for no other reason because they give reason to be trusted.

So if you are not naturally disposed to a good character (e.g. you enjoy lying) why should you struggle for so long to develop something you will use for a shorter time than the time it took you to develop it?

I think you are misjudging human nature here. People don't enjoy lying for lying's sake. A virtuous life is indeed its own reward (wasn't it a Christian who classically said such a thing)?

Do you feel that I implied that it is? If so, where?

Yes, I do. Your previous post says that existence is more important than belief because it grants plausibility to the belief, doesn't it?

Did I misunderstand you?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And why?

Belief is more important.

It does not matter if god exists. What he has done in Abrahamic view is not a "person" I would not think many would associate with. (Especially if he wasnt a deity just a human but did the same actions as in scripture and all other Creator holy text)

However, one's belief in something shapes the character of his or her being. So, if they have belief in god, their experiences will bounce off their belief. Its a self-prophecy, type of thing. So, god's existence becomes real and, logically, because its based on belief, it has a falicy which is it cant be proven as a consequence.

If one knew god was real without belief and actually experience his anger with the sinners in the old testimony, their view may change to probably confusion, but not really love. Its like a mother saying "I love you" then slapping her other child dead because he stole a cookie.

While belief is beyond all that. Its a personal conviction. Its something that one finds a definition within him or herself and no one can counter it. Its not tangible and because it has to do with the persons life, it is personal.

So, god's existence is not as important as belief in god.

Any entity can exist that doesnt mean people will care and do what it says.

People usually place their religious belief in what/who they feel will enhance their spiritual wellbeing. God becomes their life rather than an entity need to be proven to float in the sky.

 

[Thanda]

One who disbelieves in an afterlife will have a somewhat more tangible understanding of "long term implications" than you seem to.

The issue stems from the fact that evil consequences for evil actions are not a given. It often takes a while for the chickens to come home to roost on our actions - just like it usually takes a while for a good (or bad) investment to mature. Time is what is at issue here. Once you've made the decision - let's say a good decision - the question remains whether there will be enough time to recoup that investment.

So is there enough time in life to reap the rewards of a virtuous life?

Again, I think you are thinking a bit too much about eternity and afterlife.

For quite a few people who disbelieve in an afterlife the ephemeral nature of human existence is all the more reason to strive to make the most and the best of it.

The most and the best - those are words which depend on context in order to take on proper meaning. If I know that I will be stopping by in Spain for only two days I may not consider learning the Spanish language before-hand necessary for me to make the most or the best of the my time there. However if I know I will be spending a year there, then I will consider every Spanish word I can learn (as soon as I can learn it) to be an extremely essential factor in my ability to "make the most and the best" of my time there.

So we come back to the significance of time. Clearly what is good and best cannot be judged without reference to time. If a man has only a day to live he is better of buying a loaf of bread than buying a bag of seeds.

It is entirely possible, even commonplace to acquire joy from the pursuit of a worthy goal even before it is fully attained. That is certainly the case for human morality as well. Moral people tend to have a better quality of life, if for no other reason because they give reason to be trusted.

Again you use words which cannot exist in a vacuum - the word "worthy" can take on entirely different meanings with variations of time. Never mind that what we can consider moral also depends heavily on the time frame under consideration - if an asteroid is coming to hit destroy the earth in 10 years time than maybe it is not so moral to clamour about climate change.

I think you are misjudging human nature here. People don't enjoy lying for lying's sake. A virtuous life is indeed its own reward (wasn't it a Christian who classically said such a thing)?

Some do but obviously most don't - but most people consider the advantages that lying gives them to be a good reason to keep dishonesty as a weapon in the armory of life-coping tactics. And why should these people struggle to learn other (better as some may judge them) ways of dealing with their problem if there is no certainty they will ever be able to use those better ways?

It is very important to understand that good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, worthy and unworthy are all words whose interpretation in a given situation has a close link with time.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Existence is definitely more important. If I could have knowledge God's existence and nature, it would have actual consequences. Whether or not myself, or anyone else believes without such knowledge? That makes nearly no difference by my estimation.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Thanda : I find it interesting that you emphasize time so much.

Do you realize that many of us expect to contribute for some lasting change in this world, even if we won't be around to reap the rewards?

People can, do, and arguably should hold their own views on what is worth pursuing. Not necessarily "in a vaccuum", but neither necessarily in relation to a deity or afterlife.

You give me the impression that you fully expect people to lack reason to be moral without a belief in God and/or an afterlife. Such is hardly the case.

 

[Ouroboros]

For the purposes of the OP of this thread, that is exactly it: belief in God's existence.

So I'm not sure I understand the question. "Belief in God and Existence of God: which is the most important of the two?"

You mean, the juxtaposition between believing in God's existence and God's existence as a truth? One has to choose one or the other? I'm not sure how a person decide what is more important. That food exists, or that I eat food? Both are equal for my preservation. So when it comes to belief, I can only guess that the believers would consider both God's actual existence and the belief in God as existing are both equally important to them. For atheists, neither is important.

 

[LuisDantas]

Existence is definitely more important. If I could have knowledge God's existence and nature, it would have actual consequences. Whether or not myself, or anyone else believes without such knowledge? That makes nearly no difference by my estimation.

Such knowledge might perhaps be better described as valuing your beliefs about God more than the matter of His existence.
I am honestly not sure which would be more accurate, if any. Just presenting it for you to consider.