"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. "?

[paarsurrey]

Wouldn't that require a definition of "God" such that if we found a real one we could tell whether it were God or not? As far as I know there's no such definition to which the word 'real' can be applied.

One cannot see G-d with the naked eyes in this world. Eyes see the material and physical things. G-d is attributive so He is known with the reflection of His attributes. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
The purpose of my threads* these days is that both non-believers and believers should turn to G-d, while the scientists are set to find some vaccine or cure of the Corona-Virus

Huh. I thought that the purpose of this thread was to discuss whether believing in a god makes one irrational. So it was really to recommend that I turn to your god. You actually asked, "Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. Being irrational makes a person irrational. Does one agree with the sentence ... above? If not, why not, please?"

So I answered you: "Believing in anything without sufficient supporting evidence is irrational, not just a god belief" Turns out that you weren't interested in discussing answers that you didn't like. Right, please?

No, that is not the case. I have discussed that in many a thread I started in these forums before the outbreak of the corona-virus, one may read them if one likes.
Is one 100% sure that G-d does not exist, please?

Regards

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This multiverse thing. People imagine that it "explains" the universe. It doesn't. My understanding is that the universe didn't so much expand like a balloon but as a foaming bubble. This doesn't "explain" where the space time foam comes from.

This subthread began when you posted, "Believing that something just popped out of Utter Nothing for no
reason whatsoever....... is irrational." I answered, "Yes, because there are other possibilities that cannot be excluded logically such as the multiverse hypothesis and the god hypothesis. Ruling those possibilities out without sufficient evidence is irrational."

I also wrote, "Science's understanding of causality applies to processes within the universe. If the universe has a cause, it is either conscious, which I call a god, or unconscious which I call a multiverse. The hard part to grapple with is that either of these things either has existed infinitely long already or came into existence uncaused. All of those ideas seem impossible, yet apparently one is the case," to which you replied, "A multiverse doesn't "explain" creation. Instead of having to explain how the universe just magically popped into existence you now must explain how a plethora of them appeared - and for what reason."

I answered,

"I don't have to explain how a multiverse might create universes. I merely called it a logical possibility that our universe had an unconscious source that, like gods and another mechanism, I could neither rule in or rule out."

I also wrote,

"If you disagree that it is possible that such a thing exists, you need to show why it is impossible."

You didn't.

I also added,

"Do you apply that same standard to your beliefs? I assume that you have concluded a god did it. If so, and since you require mechanisms from others, perhaps you should tell us how a god "explains" creation any better or differently than a universe. How did a god make a universe magically pop into existence? I'm guessing that you use a different standard for your own beliefs than you do for the ideas offered by others."

You ignored that as well, repeating your complaint that the multiverse hypothesis doesn't come with a mechanism. I'm discussing logical possibilities or candidate hypotheses for the origin if any of our universe, and you keep deflecting back to one of those possibilities, the multiverse, and demanding a mechanism for it when none is available or offered

Since you haven't even addressed or acknowledged my position much less rebutted it, that position remains unchanged. And I know that that will continue to be the case, as it appears impossible for you to address what is written to you. You have ignored the request to either agree that a multiverse, by which I explained I mean any source outside of the universe itself which is not conscious (i.e., not a god), is either a logical possibility or to explain why it is impossible, and instead repeatedly deflected to there being no mechanism known for how such a thing would have occurred, also ignoring the claim that (I am assuming that you are a theist here based on past posts of yours) you have a double standard since you offer no mechanism for how a god could act to create a universe, either.

Sorry, but this discussion is over. You're not doing your part. You're not reading what is written to you and providing responsive answers either acknowledging and agreeing with what is written to you explicitly or disagreeing and explaining why you disagree. Consequently, there's nothing here for me.

Thank you for your time, but I'm looking for a different kind of discussion - dialectic. It's the pursuit of knowledge by two or more people exchanging information and opinions on the same problem. That's not happening here.

 

[Milton Platt]

"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. Being irrational makes a person irrational."

It is a "winner" sentence( written by our friend @HonestJoe in his post #104 ) . I appreciate it.
Does one agree with the sentence colored in magenta above?
If not, why not, please?

Regards

It entirely depends upon the person's definition of the god he believes in.

 

[blü 2]

Well, one way to do it, is to admit that if there is a cause to the universe, that it appears unknowable and that creator gods are thus a part of the unknowable.

Real creator beings, that's at least coherent. The idea that a lab somewhere in an überverse brought our universe into being for study purposes or as a routine exercise for a primary school class or accidentally or to manufacture matter of our kind, that will only fail as a theory because (at least for now) it's unfalsifiable.

But God can't be simply a superscientist, because one worships a god, whereas one doesn't worship a superscientist ─ or at least I wouldn't. Yet no one so far has been able to define for me the quality of "godness" that the god has and the superscientist lacks.

 

[blü 2]

One cannot see G-d with the naked eyes in this world. Eyes see the material and physical things. G-d is attributive so He is known with the reflection of His attributes. Right, please?

That's to say, God has no objective existence, is not part of reality ─ the world external to the self ─ but instead exists only as a concept in individual brains, something imaginary.

 

[Tiberius]

"... in you for the past, that doesn't make sense to you now."
I think changes in personal outlooks are covered there.

Look forward to another post.

Regards
Mikkel

So you think that me not thinking to take my phone with me when I went out as a child is irrational?

 

[paarsurrey]

It entirely depends upon the person's definition of the god he believes in.

G-d is attributive so He is known with the reflection of His attributes. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

G-d is attributive so He is known with the reflection of His attributes. Right, please?

Regards

I have no idea. Which god and which attributes?

 

[PruePhillip]

Sorry, but this discussion is over. You're not doing your part. You're not reading what is written to you and providing responsive answers either acknowledging and agreeing with what is written to you explicitly or disagreeing and explaining why you disagree. Consequently, there's nothing here for me.

Thank you for your time, but I'm looking for a different kind of discussion - dialectic. It's the pursuit of knowledge by two or more people exchanging information and opinions on the same problem. That's not happening here.

Sorry if there's a misunderstanding.
The dialectic is this - the universe (call it a super-verse if you like) cannot create itself.
It has no laws, no energy etc and most importantly, no reason.
Whatever created this super-verse lies outside of it. You can call it God, gods or something
else.
The multiverse, like the quantum and everything else people think could have created the
super-verse, lie within this super-verse and are a product of it.
Hope that answers my point - even if you don't agree.

 

[Thief]

"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. Being irrational makes a person irrational."

It is a "winner" sentence( written by our friend @HonestJoe in his post #104 ) . I appreciate it.
Does one agree with the sentence colored in magenta above?
If not, why not, please?

Regards

It is irrational to NOT believe in God

what?...….top of the line life form are we?

nothing greater than being human?

7billion copies of a learning device and we all end up as dust?
not ONE chance in billions of surviving the last breath?

and in the scheme of superlatives...….
bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.....
and WHAT stands at the top of the list?

 

[Tiberius]

Sorry if there's a misunderstanding.
The dialectic is this - the universe (call it a super-verse if you like) cannot create itself.
It has no laws, no energy etc and most importantly, no reason.
Whatever created this super-verse lies outside of it. You can call it God, gods or something
else.
The multiverse, like the quantum and everything else people think could have created the
super-verse, lie within this super-verse and are a product of it.
Hope that answers my point - even if you don't agree.

The dialectic is this - God cannot create itself.
Whatever created this God lies outside of it. You can call it Super-God, gods or something
else.

See the problem?

 

[Thief]

The dialectic is this - God cannot create itself.
Whatever created this God lies outside of it. You can call it Super-God, gods or something
else.

See the problem?

and the problem has no solution?

 

[PruePhillip]

The dialectic is this - God cannot create itself.
Whatever created this God lies outside of it. You can call it Super-God, gods or something
else.

See the problem?

Here's the Super Problem
We cannot comprehend what lies outside of our universe.

We have it on good opinion that "nothing" can exist outside of the universe.
Anymore than there's north of the north pole, or a time before time existed etc..
So all bets are off. The logic, physics and reason we apply in our universe
can't work outside of it. So we can't even begin to ask "What created God"
or "What created the machinery that created creation."

 

[Spice]

A belief in God is simply a belief in the greater unknowns, therefore it is irrational NOT to believe.

However the theories, speculations, and imaginings of those greater unknowns can become irrational if one tries too hard to make them concrete. To remain rational is to remain flexible. To remain flexible is to remain thoughtful.

And the discussion goes on . . .

 

[Mock Turtle]

A belief in God is simply a belief in the greater unknowns, therefore it is irrational NOT to believe.

However the theories, speculations, and imaginings of those greater unknowns can become irrational if one tries too hard to make them concrete. To remain rational is to remain flexible. To remain flexible is to remain thoughtful.

And the discussion goes on . . .

But this is meaningless when one can seemingly define God how one wants.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Real creator beings, that's at least coherent. The idea that a lab somewhere in an überverse brought our universe into being for study purposes or as a routine exercise for a primary school class or accidentally or to manufacture matter of our kind, that will only fail as a theory because (at least for now) it's unfalsifiable.

But God can't be simply a superscientist, because one worships a god, whereas one doesn't worship a superscientist ─ or at least I wouldn't. Yet no one so far has been able to define for me the quality of "godness" that the god has and the superscientist lacks.

Well, that the god is fair and will not mesh with the universe and let it be.
Here:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis."
The minimum requirement of a creator god or the universe as such is as per the cosmological principle fairness as to no Botlzmann Brain, simulation or what not.

And that will be a philosophical claim and not a scientific fact.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you think that me not thinking to take my phone with me when I went out as a child is irrational?

No, because it makes sense to you now. It is more like - "What was I thinking..."

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

Well, that the god is fair and will not mesh with the universe and let it be.
Here:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis."
The minimum requirement of a creator god or the universe as such is as per the cosmological principle fairness as to no Botlzmann Brain, simulation or what not.

And that will be a philosophical claim and not a scientific fact.

The cosmological principle is a nice clear statement of how science (hence I) looks at these matters.

But it's a claim capable in principle of being falsified by evidence, even though it's in use on the basis that so far it hasn't been falsified and it works well enough.

But I still have no idea what "godness" is.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

HonestJoe is a loser. Just because someone votes him a winner doesn't make him a winner.

Atheism is irrational.

Atheism Is Irrational

Note the source. A psychiatrist, which is a reliable authority for two reasons
1. They tend not to have bias in favor or religion
2. They tend to be experts on the mind and what constitutes rational behavior.

Are you suggesting this particular psychiatrist speaks for all psychiatrists?

They clarify to say that there are certain types of atheism that are rational but what is called Gnostic Atheism ("we know there is no God") is irrational.

But I will expand this to include all atheism, aside from agnosticism. Why? Well...

Wait...you claim this psychiatrist is an expert, but then disregard their conclusion in favour of your own anyway?
Interesting logic.

1. An agnostic claims to not know for certain about religion, while an atheist claims to not believe in God but if often closer to an antitheist.

Accepting your premise for a moment, saying 'often' means 'not always'. So how does that support no atheism being rational?
Whilst I don't agree with your arguments, even accepting this it's not consistent with your conclusions.

2. In fact, an atheist cannot consistently decide anything about itself. Is it a religion or not? Well, the answer seems to be "when it's convenient." It's a religion when such discussions are that only religions are allowed to debate, but it's not when it wants to claim that religions have special priorities that atheism doesn't have. Or when atheism pretends to be "scientific." In actual fact, despite claiming it is not religious, it has official dogma (stuff like climate change, Darwinian evolution, etc) and punishments for adherents opposing the official views. It has clerics (mostly men in white coats or military uniforms). It has sacred scripture, of sorts. It claims to be religious and then supports big government and secular politics.

You're conflating atheism and atheists. That's about as valid as me saying 'Theists believe in a single Supreme Being'. Sure, some do. But theism...and atheism...is an umbrella term not specifically tied to dogma. Theists...and atheists, can have various beliefs, prejudices and dogma.

3. It claims to be on the side of science, but when used to oppose the notion of God, it willfully dismisses laws of science when they no longer are convenient. So "matter cannot be created or destroyed" except when it comes to the Big Bang, then it can just do whatever it wants. Or we have evolution, only in every case where society tried to impose a survival of the fittest model, it has been a tyranny, and its days are number.

Atheism makes no such claim, and this is a repitition of the previous claim. Atheism is a simple and basic claim. Atheists, on the other hand, are human, varied, and full of beliefs and experiences far beyond mere atheism.

4. The idea of atheism is inherently irrational. Anything that exists comes from an origin, and there are no known exceptions to this. While the idea of a old man may not be how things went down, every rock comes from igneous/sedimentary/metamorphic causes, every tree comes from a seed, every chicken from an egg, every rain/snow from water condensation, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc! And yet, an atheist wants to spin a fairy tale where the universe has no origin (aside from a laws of nature explanation, which fails immediately because of this):
God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational?

I'd merely suggest I don't know. It's particular theists...including yourself...who argue for a being without cause, a being who's purpose is...well. that's a topic for a different thread. Suffice to say you arguing that all items are created only works if you allow an out. Special exception for God.

You see, the problem of Big Bang, which was originally proposed by a scientist named Lemaitre who was also a theologian (then Stephen Hawking takes credit for it, and everyone decides he's brilliant rather than a crippled bitter old man) is that tbh the entire theory cannot work without the existence of God. Why is that? Well, we have a series of scientific laws that don't exist until after the universe does (since such a thing as magnetism is meaningless if there is no matter and especially no metal to interact with), but a universe that cannot exist without the aid of such forces. So one or the other had to come into play first, but without a third part to this equation, it would be locked forever in a Mexican standoff.

You're actively arguing for a God of the Gaps?

5. The Bible says that the unbelievers are under a "powerful delusion." I know this to be true for certain, as I've seen atheists reject pages and pages of information contrary to their opinions, and they simply ignore this to continue saying what they think is true. There is evidence in the scientific world to disprove atheism. There is evidence in the natural world. There is evidence in observed coincidence, and in the change in people's lives. There is evidence in history, since despite clever plans, dictatorships have always fallen.

All governments and all societies have fallen in time. But 'disproving atheism' is only possible by proving God. I get that you believe in God, but it's a special kind of hubris to believe you can prove him. Still, have at it if you like.
I, for one, wouldn't suggest I could disprove deism, for example.

6. During this disease hysteria, the least fearful have been (real) theists, who insisted that it's just a bug going around, and it's fairly mild. The atheists I've talked to ignore completely any reasoned attempts to convince them that hoarding and job loss caused by an extreme fear reaction are at least as dangerous, deciding to literally buy 50 rolls of toilet paper and collapse the supply chain. One of these people is able to get back to life as normal, they other wants to completely upend modern society because they can't deal with something that isn't even in their area yet.

That's one helluva claim, but I'm sure you're comfortable with it. Which should be an alarm for you. It's...again...an amazing level of hubris. I love in a society that's far more secular and with higher levels of non-religion than yours. If anything, the reaction here...with notable idiotic exceptions...has been far too underwhelming. 'She'll-be-right-mate' is a very Australian reaction.

If we were to describe this delusion, it would be a pervasive sense that human beings are alone and cannot trust each other, that the church is out to judge people, and that there is no God yet believers are telling atheists they are damned (dude: pick - either you don't believe in God and therefore what believers believe is not a concern, or you do believe in God in which case God forgives sins).

That's absurd. I don't believe in God, so what God believes is not a concern. What believers believe absolutely impacts on me.

That the state as a cult is to be revered, and that death has final say yet life somehow has purpose if that is the case (if death has the final say, then life has no purpose because nothing you create will last).

I mean...you're rambling. I don't revere any 'state', life has subjective purpose in my opinion (rather than objective) and permanence can't be conflated with 'purpose'.

Do you honestly think a mother's love for her child is without purpose?
That only life eternal makes it meaningful?