If there is a God, how is that relevant to us?

Question

If you consider the God of the bible to be real (talking about Christianity), then the existence of God is relevant to you because he can do miracles, change your life for the best, and allow you to experience eternal happiness in heaven. The same thing applies to some or most other similar religions.

However, since there is no real proof of God actually interfering with people’s lives directly and granting certain desires that people might’ve expressed through prayer, and there is no proof to confirm the existence Heaven or Hell, we can safely assume that there are no things such as holy miracles, and there is no eternal life following death.

So if we conclude that God does not perform miracles and does not grant access to eternal life in heaven then what is the point of even considering the existence of God?

If God does not interfere with my life in a way that I can somehow influence, then what is the point of even bothering to think about God? I mean, if he does not influence my life, then he's of no importance to me. And if he does influence my life, but I have no influence over his decisions, then even though he is of some importance to me because he affects my life, is still all random, as I cannot predict or influence how God will act. So why would I bother to consider his existance?

LATER EDIT

As Jon Ericson pointed out below, the view I am describing is Deism. I basically make two assumptions: 1. I reject all religious ideologies. 2. I give credit for the formation of life and the universe to a higher power (God) that by design allows only natural processes to govern creation. (Deism).

Considering the assumptions right, then how is the existence of such a God relevant to me? How can I improve my life by understanding him? If I can only know God through reason and the observation of nature (as deism claims) why would I bother to teach my children about the existence of a God? Why would I not stop my reasoning at saying that the world works by the rules of nature and that is all there is to it. Why would I need to know God in such a case?

Answer 1

In the philosophy of religion, the view you are describing is Deism. Your question is a pretty good critique of the position. But that is certainly not the God of either the Bible or of Christianity (in the mainstream).

Most of the religions that believe in one God are classified as monotheism. Christianity, Judiasm and Islam fall under the category of ethical monotheism. Whether or not God does "interfere with my life" is an open question in terms of individual experience, but under these systems of belief the answer is that He does whether we recognize it or not.

---

I think in the final analysis, Deism will be seen as a temporary stopover on the way to pragmatic atheism, which is far more common among contemporary thinkers. Part of the reason Deism is in decline is that God is no longer seen as a necessary hypothesis to explain the world we live in. People who would have tended to Deism in the past, now lack many of the social and philosophical pressures that required belief in some sort of God (no matter how irrelevant it might be). The God of Deism has largely been replaced by a combination of ideas including the anthropic principle and the many-worlds hypothesis. Deism turns out to be a philosophical dead end.

---

As a Christian, I would argue that God (and God alone) is worthy of my worship whether or not He does miracles, changes my life for the best, or allows me to experience eternal happiness. That He did this is an undeserved favor to humanity. The standard Christian belief conforms to what Paul of Tarsus once wrote:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. —Romans 5:6-8 (ESV)

So the orthodox Christian belief is that God did interfere with humanity at least once in human history.

Answer 2

The position you describe is indeed the logical outcome of a Deist position, and does not only apply in monotheist situations; Epicurus founded his philosophy from a similar starting point, which can be summarized concisely in the Tetrapharmakos. I don't much care for the translation in the Wikipedia article, but it is enough to get you started.

Answer 3

Considering the assumptions right, then how is the existence of such a God relevant to me?

You actually cannot say (for sure) that there is no afterlife, as nobody reported that after dying (even though this might be even a good proof for the nonexistence) and therefor you should (in some way) consider an afterlife in which you might be condemned by god for not worshiping him. This problem/way of thinking was already done by Pascal, and he basically pointed out that it is too risky not to believe in god, as you might loose everything if he exist, but not win anything if he doesn't. But he just considered the afterlife in this bet, and did not think about the costs you may have to pay for believing (e.g. limited in your freedom of thinking, spending precious time in church or bible study) during your life on earth.

How can I improve my life by understanding him?

As soon as you start to look at this topic in a scientific way (as you did in your question) I doubt that you will ever get spiritual fulfilled by believing, but you might improve your life, and/or interaction with other people by understanding and studying why people believe, as religion still drives nations and cause wars and conflicts.

If I can only know God through reason and the observation of nature (as deism claims) why would I bother to teach my children about the existence of a God?

If god is known through reason and the observation of nature, then just teaching your children those topics would be enough to teach them how to know God, and you therefore don't need to bother about teaching them the existence as they should recognize it themselves if this argumentation is flawless.

Why would I not stop my reasoning at saying that the world works by the rules of nature and that is all there is to it. Why would I need to know God in such a case?

In the early ages (Stoneage/ancient Egypt) a God (or multiple Gods) represented things people were not able to understand e.g. the sun or lightnings. As human science developed God developed as he no longer represents natural happenings, but some kind of creator which created the whole cycle we are living in, and supplies an easy answer why everything is how it is.

Answer 4

However, since there is no real proof of God actually interfering with people’s lives directly and granting certain desires that people might’ve expressed through prayer, and there is no proof to confirm the existence Heaven or Hell, we can safely assume that there are no things such as holy miracles, and there is no eternal life following death.

Gary Habermas has some good podcast on miracles and near death experiences on his website. I recommend you listen to them before assuming that their is no evidence for miracles.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm

I do not quite get that leap of logic. How do you get from no miracles to their being no afterlife. Even if you have proven that their is no such thing as miracles I do not see how you have proven Christianity (Or a afterlife) false.

At the most you have proven the biblical doctrine of inn errancy false

Answer 5

I think you adopt a profiteering and speculative attitude to the deepest existential and philosophical concepts. You do not believe into anything (family, country, religion included) in order to gain or profit from your beliefs. You believe in order to survive mentally and spiritually. Maybe this is irrelevant if you try to judge and balance things on a scale. History teaches however that people who dont carry deep beliefs/ideals as such, live miserable lives. Again, all this in my humble opinion.