Is belief in a Creator rational? (Earth, beliefs, choice, creation)

[TurkeyOnRye]

Considering the infinite possiblities, it is not rational to believe in a god. It is rational to believe that a creator is possible though. It is no more possible that a god exists than anything else that cannot be proven exists.

We don't know.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

Science is still personal experience. When a scientific idea is presented to me, it is filtered through my sense and, as I stated before, shaped by the framework of my brain and past experiences. Everything is personal experience.

A person formulates a hypothesis in their head. Even in collaboration, a hypothesis is an amalgam of ideas colored by the bias of personal experience. Test results are interpreted through our colored senses and our biased brains.

This is not to say that science isn't accurate; it is indeed the most accurate interpretation of reality we know of, since it is an almagam of experience. But we are still taking the accuracy on faith. A person's experience of God is also taken on faith, but as a personal experience it must remain. Still, that personal experience of God is powerful indeed, and cannot be ignored by that person.

Frubals for that! I totally agree.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by TurkeyOnRye

Considering the infinite possiblities, it is not rational to believe in a god. It is rational to believe that a creator is possible though. It is no more possible that a god exists than anything else that cannot be proven exists.

We don't know.

YOU don't know. Personal experience prevails where science and reason allow. As I said in other posts, God-knowingness is an intensly personal experience that cannot meaningfully translated into words. Just because you have never had such an experience, that doesn't mean others haven't.

[TurkeyOnRye]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

YOU don't know. Personal experience prevails where science and reason allow. As I said in other posts, God-knowingness is an intensly personal experience that cannot meaningfully translated into words. Just because you have never had such an experience, that doesn't mean others haven't.

Please, do not assume that you know what I have and have not felt. I used to be a Christian myself. I thought I felt God. I thought I heard him speaking to me. I know what it's like to be a religious person. I've been there.

Having said that, I have learned much from that experience and the path that led me out of unshakable belief and into the world of skepticism. I am very comfortable here and I feel more alive then I ever did.

I understand the rush of feelings humans have in a divine moment; it's overwhelming and there isn't a thing in the world that can devalue that moment or the "truth" that one thinks they percieve. What I learned is that we will never know. It doesn't matter how sure one thinks they are. Belief, assurance and profound experiences prove nothing. I'm not saying people don't have them, I'm questioning their association with God. Haven't you ever wondered if your mind is playing tricks on you? Haven't you ever thought there might be some other possibilities or reasons why? How can a limited being such as ourselves truly know what we are perceiving, especially God? What an arrogant thought. Certainly the mind itself is a variable in our grand quest for knowledge.

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

This is not to say that science isn't accurate; it is indeed the most accurate interpretation of reality we know of, since it is an almagam of experience. But we are still taking the accuracy on faith. A person's experience of God is also taken on faith, but as a personal experience it must remain. Still, that personal experience of God is powerful indeed, and cannot be ignored by that person.

The faith in science you're talking about is totally different from that of the faith in God through personal experience. Science is a fully tangible, observable process. Divine experience is only partially tangible. We not only see the variables and the results, but we also get to see what we are testing. The only real conclusion a believer can come to is that prayer results in divine experiences. What they are attrubuted to is still a mystery, though there are some very interesting theories.

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

[science] is indeed the most accurate interpretation of reality we know of,

I'm glad you agree with my conclusion.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by TurkeyOnRye

The faith in science you're talking about is totally different from that of the faith in God through personal experience.

Not necessarily. In fact, if someone does personally experience a god in some way - perhaps through a vision, a dream, or whatever other way one experiences such things - it is probably much more tangible for them than some scientific concepts. Not everyone will or can test out every single concept for themselves. The knowledge they gain is secondhand. They learn it through lecture or by reading about it, in much the same way most people learn about religion. The person who goes out and tests the concept is much closer to the truth, as is the mystic who through experience, learns about god.

Really, what I am doing is challenging assumptions of knowledge. Is there a difference between scientific knowledge and religious knowledge? Both are most often learned secondhand through books or lecture by authorities on the subjects, and both can be experienced through various methods, be it scientific or mystical.

So how is the faith in one different from the other?

Originally Posted by TurkeyOnRye

Science is a fully tangible, observable process. Divine experience is only partially tangible. We not only see the variables and the results, but we also get to see what we are testing. The only real conclusion a believer can come to is that prayer results in divine experiences. What they are attrubuted to is still a mystery, though there are some very interesting theories.

Exactly! We see what we are testing. As I wrote in the previous post, our senses are limited. We put our trust in them because they are all we have. Anything we use to test something is either based on our senses, enhances our senses, or is interpreted to be understood by our senses. Our brains are limited. They are certainly powerful, but the information they store and interpret must fit into the framework of their capabilities - much of which is determined by our previous experiences. So our scientific information, while the most reliable, is still based on faith.

[TurkeyOnRye]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

Exactly! We see what we are testing. As I wrote in the previous post, our senses are limited. We put our trust in them because they are all we have. Anything we use to test something is either based on our senses, enhances our senses, or is interpreted to be understood by our senses. Our brains are limited. They are certainly powerful, but the information they store and interpret must fit into the framework of their capabilities - much of which is determined by our previous experiences. So our scientific information, while the most reliable, is still based on faith.

I agree with you on many different things but I think you are missing the fact that science will amend itself if it finds that there are other possibilities, which faith in God does not do. God is not a tangible, observable thing that has been verified by science. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, but believing that it is the conclusion is being irrational. Divine experiences are associated with many other things. Divine experience is evidence that is left open to discussion. If it were put through the scientific method, it would fail even on the level of faith that you claim science uses. Attributing divine experience to a God is pulling a conclusion out of thin air. Again, no one denies that people have divine experiences, but there is nothing to link it to God...or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Thor or aliens.

[Rolling_Stone]

Please, do not assume that you know what I have and have not felt.

Sorry, TurkeyOnRye, but nothing you said invalidates what I said. I did not assume anything. I do not know what you have or haven't experienced. Maybe you experienced what you thought was God. Maybe you thought you were religious. Maybe what to you is "religion" is to me nothing more than an emotional attachment to second-hand ideas. I don't know. BUT, you also said

Considering the infinite possiblities, it is not rational to believe in a god.

Your use of the word "a" (as in "a God") points to a dualistic notion of God, which is contrary to reason if God is truly infinite. If I am to believe what you said, it is only natural to conclude that your "experience" was nothing at all like what I experience. For my experience of God is not that of a being at all, but Being-As-Is-Within-Itself, the Unity of Infinity.

As far as science is concerned, push the study far enough in any field and you will come to a point where you are bound to make a leap from the material to the immaterial. Physics will meld with metaphysics--which, in fact, it has. (I can suggest some books, if you like.) So, I ask again, if science and reason allows God-knowingness and offers a possible explanation, should one go with the personal experience or remain skeptical?

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by TurkeyOnRye

I agree with you on many different things but I think you are missing the fact that science will amend itself if it finds that there are other possibilities, which faith in God does not do. God is not a tangible, observable thing that has been verified by science. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, but believing that it is the conclusion is being irrational. Divine experiences are associated with many other things. Divine experience is evidence that is left open to discussion. If it were put through the scientific method, it would fail even on the level of faith that you claim science uses. Attributing divine experience to a God is pulling a conclusion out of thin air. Again, no one denies that people have divine experiences, but there is nothing to link it to God...or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Thor or aliens.

I think I agree with you on most of what you say. Except that I don't see a belief in God as being irrational. For something to be rational, there must be a premise(s) that soundly agrees with a conclusion. A premise for God could be, "The Universe is complex and ordered. In order for there to be order, there must be a director." The conclusion could be, "Therefore there is a director (God)."

Obviously, there are other, more scientific conclusions, and its validity can be argued. There are irrational arguments for God, such as, "There must be a God, because the Bible says there is." But not every reason is irrational, and believing in God for irrational reasons is rational, since humans are prone to irrationality anyway (well, I am anyway ). And desiring a belief in God is in no way irrational. Saying, "I believe in God because I want to," is not an irrational statement.

There are some things in science I understand and accept, and some things I don't. There are some things in religion I understand and accept, and some I don't. I change my ideas and beliefs according to my experience as I build the framework of my existence. I put my faith in my senses and my mental framework because that is all I have. I accept what works best within it.

Thanks for the engaging conversation, btw.