Why do people believe in the existence of 'God'?

Yes, there is a God, but of course simply saying that God exists does not mean there is one. The existence of God has been debated for centuries. Atheists deny him, or say they “lack belief in God.” We Christians, of course, not only believe in God but also claim to have a relationship with him through the person of Jesus Christ who has been revealed in the four Gospels of the New Testament. These four Gospels are historical documents http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-histori...

that tell us who he was and what he did. They let us know that he claimed to be God in flesh. Consider Exodus 3:14 of the Old Testament when Moses asked God what his name was, God responded with, “I am that I am. Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I am has sent me to you.” In John 8:58 Jesus said, “...before Abraham was, I am.” Whatever you might think of Jesus, according to the Gospels he claimed to be God. So, if you believe Jesus, then God exists.

Proving that God exists is another matter. But, you see, proof is for mathematics and logic. How do you “prove” there is a Great Being outside of our universe? Do we look for footprints in a riverbed? Do we examine evidence under a microscope and say, "A ha! There's God!"? That would be the wrong approach. If God exists, he would be beyond our universe, non-material, and transcendent. So, wewould have to look for evidence that is consistent with a non-material and transcendent being. (See the article Atheists err when asking for material evidence to prove God's existence). http://carm.org/atheist-error-asking-for-material-...

Some have proposed that the Transcendental Argument for God’s existence (TAG)http://carm.org/transcendental-argument

demonstrates that God exists. Others have stated that the Cosmological Argument is sufficient. Check out the links and judge for yourself. http://carm.org/cosmological-argument

you believe in God or not. Atheists, of course, presuppose that God does not exist - by faith. They can't "know" he doesn't exist, nor can they prove that in all the universe (or outside of it) there is no God. But, their atheism means they will deny any evidences or explanations used to affirm his existence. On the other hand, Christians who claim to have an encounter with God rely on the revelation of Scripture to tell them who Christ is and who God is.

I have to ask, how could there not be a God? Look around you. The heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). Consider the vastness of the universe, the perfection of the balance of life, and the incredible complexity of the information structures in DNA. Are we to believe that the super-complex information structures in the DNA molecule are the result of chance? Is life an accident? What about beauty? Is it nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain? What about morality? Are there any moral absolutes such as, “It is always wrong to torture a baby to death merely for one’s personal pleasure”? Or, is such a moral absolute nothing more than the result of chemical reactions in our brains? If so, how does one chemical reaction which leads to another chemical reaction produce moral absolutes or even logical absolutes? Is it easier to conclude that such truths are the result of chemical reactions and brain wiring, or that they are authored by God? Is morality merely the situational-based whims of people’s preferences? Is the beauty of a sunset and the wonder of a new born baby's precious life a byproduct of the survival of the fittest?

Ask yourself if you believe that the miracle of life is produced from the purposeless motion of atoms that have led to the incredible super-complexity of DNA (it cannot happen by chance). Ask yourself if the universal revulsion to murder is an evolutionary byproduct or an innate obligation to do what is right. If morality has absolutes, it implies an absolute moral giver. But if morality is not absolute, then everything is subjective and there is no right and wrong. What do you think?

The vast majority of people all over the world believe there is a God – but of course, that doesn’t mean God exists. Still, there is something within us, something that cries out for meaning, purpose, and direction, and we naturally look to God for their fulfilment. Atheistic evolution doesn't do it.Some people have said that the reason people believe in God is because societies have brainwashed children into believing he exists. But how do we know it isn’t the other way around? What if atheists are brainwashed by societies into believing that God does not exist? Which is it?

Again, is our universe and our existence the product of randomness in chance, or is it the product of purpose and design? Which makes more sense when we look at beauty, purpose, morality, compassion, kindness, grace, and love?

Read More:

http://carm.org/does-god-exist

G*D is Eternal Infinite, does not exist in any tangible way.

One cannot say about G-d that He is an existence, because then He would need a cause that brought Him into existence. So G-d, basically is a non-entity. He's responsible for everything else existing, but He Himself cannot be called an existence. Existence is just one of those great ideas He came up with one day.

Hey, next time you're in an argument with an atheist, tell him for me, "Yeah, we also believe that G-d is not an existence." That'll send 'em reeling.

As for all these descriptions of kindness, wisdom, etc you can't say that He isn't kind, right? Or that He isn't wise. Or that He doesn't have any particular quality. If He is infinite, He must have all of that, as well. That's called negative theology and a lot of philosophers, including Muslims and Christians, really got off on that idea. (For one thing, it answered that prickly issue of the big rock that even You-Know-Who can't lift.)

So back to our question, if G-d, the Ein Sof or whatever we will call Him, has no descriptors and can't even be called an existence, then in what way is He/It any different than nothing at all?

Let's talk in terms of information: Nothing contains no information. Yes, you can read that two ways. Let's try again: Whatever you say about nothing just isn't true. That's basically what nothing is: A vacuum of information.

The Ein Sof, on the other hand, can provide you with oodles of information. In fact, infinite information. Like what? Like the fact that existence extends from it. And it extends through the medium of ten sefirot, four worlds and all that engineering stuff. Really all the information there is and ever could be. The caveat is that none of that information tells you anything about the Ein Sof.

So we have three, not two, categories:

Something provides a limited set of information, which accumulatively describes that something.

The Ein Sof provides unlimited information, which accumulatively gets you nowhere. It's information. It's information about the Ein Sof. But it never gets around to telling you what the Ein Sof is.

Get this: All of reality is nothing but G-d's fingerprint. A fingerprint is information. It's a unique identifier that extends from one individual alone to point to only one place and tell you whodunit. But it tells you nothing about this person whodunit. Zilch. Just like any of those numbers they use to identify you in some privacy-intruding database: A number that points uniquely to you and only you, but says absolutely nothing about you (even if those bureaucrats believe that number is you). So the entire universe and all the higher ones, too, all the way up to the very first emanation, they all point to a single, ultimate Source of All Being--and tell you absolutely zilch about what that Whatever-It-Is is.

Ein Sof is not a three-letter but a four-letter one, translated into modern-think as "That Which Causes Being."

So is G-d Wisdom? Or Compassion? Or Love? Of course not. He is the Ein Sof, infinitely beyond any description. But if you want to find Him, you will study His wisdom, pray for His compassion and learn to love as He loves.

One reason is that the Bible foretells the future hundreds or even thousands of years in advance with accurate precision. Some examples are found here:

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102012208

Another reason is that scientists have all sorts of theories as to how life came about. Not one has ever been demonstrated empirically. The truth is that scientists are still confused as to how the first living cell came about. There are many conjectures and disagreements between themselves. Under the heading "abiogenesis", Wikepedia says the following:

"There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures."

From the link below: "All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.

"In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”"

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010343

I have insufficient proof there is or isn't one. All I have to go on is theory based on observable facts. Therefore, I neither believe nor disbelieve in it's existence. As to whether or not one does exist, I'm going with the Electric Universe Theory, reincarnation and the mathematical order of the Universe as the most plausible evidence that one exists.

That's the difference between faith and belief. Knowledge based theory.

I would say the evidence for a deistic God is actually very good; the origin of the universe in the Big Bang, fine-tuning of physical constants, and so on.

To plausibly explain the origin of the universe, you must appeal to something beyond the universe. If this is the case, then both the naturalist and supernaturalist must add in some extra layer of complexity to explain such an origin. It strongly appears that the Big Bang gave rise to the natural world itself, and natural causes cannot be used to explain the origin of nature since this presupposes that some part of nature already exists. Hence, to explain the origin of all space, time, matter and energy at the time of the Big Bang, we need to appeal to something not limited by space, time, matter and energy.

Nature is to some degree self-creating and evolutionary. However, to say that nature is totally self-creating and self-explanatory makes no sense and leads to absurd conclusions: nature would have to spontaneously create itself, without cause, with precisely the right laws of physics, right values for physical constants, and so on, to allow the development of complex life and indeed complex structures of any kind.

Many atheists think that the advance of science makes God and supernaturalism unnecessary, or that using God as an explanation for anything is necessarily a fallacy. While science shows that naturalistic explanations can be used for phenomena that were once regarded as supernatural, this does not mean that supernatural explanations are worthless, but rather they were being used to explain the wrong things. Natural and supernatural explanations are not in conflict if they are both used at the appropriate levels.

Finally, a comment on God-of-the-Gaps: Using God or supernaturalism as an explanation for phenomena is only a fallacy if the phenomena can be in principle explained using naturalism. In order to say that any and all supernatural explainations must be wrong, one would also have to say that naturalism can in principle explain everything. But if naturalism could explain everything, how could one know this? This advance of science or the past success of naturalism doesn't imply this.

Acceptance of a supernatural claim tends to promote cooperative social relationships. This communication demonstrates a willingness to accept, without skepticism, the influence of the speaker in a way similar to a child's acceptance of the influence of a parent. By encouraging this kind of behavior where the most intense social relationships occur it facilitates the lack of skepticism and deters more open minded thinking.

They are christian, Muslim or the other religions depending where they were born simply because they were indoctrinated by their parents as very young children. They will go on to indoctrinate their own children and those will go on to indoctrinate their grandchildren!

Atheists have the intellect to see through the conditioning and escape into the real world!

Agnostics have the intellect to see through the conditioning but lack the courage to throw of the conditioning entirely.

Sadly Christians, muslims and others are still held firmly prisoner by the self perpetuating brainwashing!

well, why do some people believe that God doesn't exist?

The Bible book of Romans chapter one verse 20 provides one good answer

his invisible+ [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s* creation onward,+ because they are perceived by the things made,+ even his eternal power+ and Godship,

So the existence of Jehovah God, the creator is shown in his creation. From the smallest living thing tp the largest star, the creation is magnificent.

For the greater number of people it's simply their ancient memories from childhood of the all-knowing, all-powerful parents. If their parents were angry morons - like a lot of people are - then the person believes in the Hell-Fire/Brimstone God thing.

God is the protective umbrella... for the 'insecure' and the 'needy' ..... along the high n low echelons in society.....