Postulate:
People believe in god because they have experienced the 'godly hand'. People is experiencing a 'godly hand' when; they've encountered 2 or more improbable event that lead them to believe that "the world is against them" or "the world is helping them". It is like; constantly winning lottery, or similar.

Obviously; the world cannot "behave" toward helping you or punishing you, because it is not alive. For example; a gas is not alive, a gaseous atoms in a gas chamber will get hit from all direction randomly hence, the net distance traversed by this atom is zero (but, oppositely... when a gas chamber is being evacuated by a user, the gas atom will experience a net movement outward. Because, a net hit on one direction had became less than the net hit from other direction).

But, lets say that the world really did 'help' you or 'punish' you. You can say that the world is 'helping' you because you're experiencing a net increase toward 'happiness' (the reason is on next paragraph), and, you can say that the world is 'punishing' you because you're experiencing a net increase in 'sorrowness'. -You can characterize this experience by examining this quote: "despite all odds, we are triumphed!" (it means that; despite all the random force that push you backward, you still move forward).

However, did you notice this? we have undisputedly assumes that; 'helping' is related to 'increase happiness', while 'punishing' related to 'decrease happiness'. The reason why we understood the meaning of 'punish' and 'helping' in relation to 'happiness' is because we understood morality. For example; when you do 'wrong', you'd expect to be punished. If you were punished, then you will experience a decrease net of happiness.

For conservatives, the definition of 'wrongness' came from the god Himself. The reason why they believe this is so is because the 'godly scripture' had tell them almost all of the idea about wrongness, and this 'wrongness' can always find justification to be true. For example; lets say you learn from religious teacher that circumcising is 'good',and not circumcising is 'wrong'. Then 50 years later, you discovered a scientific studies that say; circumcision reduce HIV related infection by 60% in Africa. (hence... 'good' justification achieved)

Obviously (for most people), if god's teaching is true then god must exist. The reason is soo obvious; "if modern people didn't believe in circumcision, then that must be because ancient people were generally more genius than us" (which is not true). For example; lets say you read in newspaper about a truely novel scientific finding, you will credit this findings to the scientist that is working on it, not the writter.

The point is:
When you've experienced 2 or more improbable event that lead to something, then you could be experiencing a 'godly hand'. And, because of all of the above reasoning (paragraph 1-6)... then god must have existed. -For example; Charlie Bellow meet Jordan Roark because of ~godly hand~.

People believe in God because:


1] they are brainwashed as children to believe
2] they want to live forever
3] they want access to Salvation
4] they want access to Devine Justice
5] they want access to Scripture
6] they want rationalizations to endure pain and suffering

Is it really any more complicate than that?

Personally, I have nothing at all against embracing or espousing a religious sense of reality. The profoundly mysterious nature of existence itself is such that anyone who spends any amount of time going out to the very edge of such metaphysical speculation [either as a philosopher or a scientist] can't help but be deeply moved by the astonding antinomies embedded in human existence. It is nothing short of a vertiginous vortex of questions without answers.

Consider Zorba's, for example:

Zorba:

Why do the young die? Tell me, why does anyone die?

Basil:

I don't know.

Zorba:

What's the use of all your damn books? If they don't tell you that, what the hell do they tell you?

Basil:

They tell me about the agony of men who can't answer questions like yours.

Zorba then spits on this agony....and he endures. What other option is there?

This sort of religious pondering is always intriguing. And that's because it is always intelligent. It is the pondering of minds like Baruch Spinoza and Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein.

Einstein:


The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.

Dear neither/nor,
Do you believe that this universe has morality?
Is there really a 'hand' that punish and reward?
Does coincidence and moral-plot, a sign of that 'hand'?

What about Job?
Is he a righteous man?
Would righteous man be punished?

IF righteous man is punished, why?
Is punishment and reward just a mere random event?
fluctuating, up-down, pain-happy... again and again?

I'm seriously baffled.

"Do you believe that this universe has morality?"

I believe this universe is unimaginably violent. Is this violence a manifestation of morality? Perhaps. How would I know? It seems difficult though to reconcile this violence [whether from a super nova somewhere out in the Milky Way galaxy or the movement of tectonic plates in Haiti] with a God, Supreme Being, Creator etc. said to be "loving just and merciful". Many do though. But I suspect that is because of the rationales I noted above. As Lennon suggested, "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Seems reasonable to me.

"Is there really a 'hand' that punish and reward?"

I've never encountered any hard evidence that would lead me to believe there is. But then I am an infinitesimally tiny and insignificant speck in the context of "all there is".

Like you.

Whatever that might possibly mean.


"Does coincidence and moral plot a sign of that 'hand'?"

You tell me.

"What about Job.
Is he a righteous man?
Would righteous man be punished?"

This seems to be something you should take up with God. I don't believe in God.

"If righteous man is punished, why?
Is punishment and reward just a mere random event?
fluctuating, up-down, pain-happy... again and again?"

I am an existentialist. "Righteousness" is just a subjective/subjunctive point of view. You know what they say: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter"

So true, right?

<strong>neither/nor wrote:</strong>
"Does coincidence and moral plot a sign of that 'hand'?"

You tell me.
If god taught us our moral value, then... any indication that this moral value is 'righteous' will prove the existent of god. This is because god is "loving, just and merciful", any indication that His' moral value can lessen our pain is thus considered righteous. For example -like the circumcision case mentioned earlier; initially a person name X religiously believe circumcision is 'right', but it is only recently that X saw an empirical work that shown how circumcision can really work against bacteria and HIV infection.

What's more;
people do not deny that; coincidence and somekind-of-'invisible hand' do work over us all, revealing our flaw and moral degradation in disaster and failure, and perhaps also helping us in our dire moment; making us survive in situation where we believe we are doomed (which, when re-enacted back into motion-picture, sounded more like fictions). -If somethings is moralistic and "loving, just and merciful" and powerful like this occur, then it must be godly. (And amazingly, for a disaster to happen; a chain of event which have a very low chance of happening at once need to happen all at once. Why not a train wheel exploded and be replaced rather than caused a massive derailing and death at once? -we can always find moral value in this, right?)

If there's morality, then there should be god. "Our moral value originate from god", ...and that's how average people justify the existent of god.

"If god taught us our moral value, then... any indication that this moral value is 'righteous' will prove the existent of god. This is because god is "loving, just and merciful", any indication that His' moral value can lessen our pain is thus considered righteous".

Which God? The Christian God? The Muslim God? The Jewish God? The Hindu God? The Shinto God?

Besides, your argument is rather tautological. It is circular. It is like saying, "the Bible must be true because it is the word of God; and it must be the word of God because it is in the Bible".

Do you see indications of God, of a particular God, a denominational God? I don't. And I am not so much interested in what people assert or deny about the relationship between God and Man. I am interested more in what they can demonstrate empirically is true about this alleged relationship. Everything else is more or less a slippery slope of pure speculation. We can say "if" with respect to just about anything.

"If there's morality, then there should be god. 'Our moral value originate from god', ...and that's how average people justify the existent of god."

No, it doesn't follow necessarily that morality is linked only to God. Morality, instead, is linked to a practical need on the part of human beings to devise rules of conduct rather than let the law of the jungle prevail. Humanists have moral codes. No more or less relevant to them than those of religious folks.

I don't know much about the "average person" and God. But what I do know often scares the hell out of me.