Is belief in a Creator rational?

[roli]

*giggles*

My point is BELIEVING in god is perfectly fine. INSISTING that god is real because folks BELIEVE it IS, does not in fact, make god real. To date, no one has ever produced conclusive evidence of "god". That would indicate that there is no god, however, it doesn't mean that one day evidence may not be discovered that would dispel the myths.

Do you have evidence and full assurance that your money is safe and secure in the bank,that your food is safe, your job is secure.
Look at the creation sun,moon ,stars,gravity,hydological cycle,vegatation, air and telll me man designed that or that science created it all.
We only discover what already exists,that is the process of science ,science = knowledge,not creative power.
That's absurd,look at painting and common sense tells you of a painter's existence
The bible says ,
Rom 1:20 - 21Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

 

[eudaimonia]

Why don't we check and verify that the plane we are about to take 30,000 ft in the air is totally safe to leave the ground.

I get on the plane, not because I believe it is absolutely guaranteed not to crash, but because I am willing to accept the statistically tiny chance that it will.

See? No faith involved at all.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[roli]

I get on the plane, not because I believe it is absolutely guaranteed not to crash, but because I am willing to accept the statistically tiny chance that it will.

See? No faith involved at all.

Mark

Don't be afraid to call it what it is,we won't assume anything
To argue against something that is as self existent as faith in daily life regardless of a strong defence against it is futile
Webster's Dictionary
\Faith\,
to
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is
declared byanother, resting solelyand implicitly on his
authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of
another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he
utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of
any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.

Same faith God requires in order to come to him

If no faith is involved in ,jumping on a plane,trusting the pilot and his skills ,the mechanics and their abilities,eating food some stranger cooks,some person packed and some person transported.trusting in the banks or any investing firm with your money ,than I must conclude your in toal denial,this is merely your attempt to avoid the truth only for arguement sake and it is not even worth my time to debate with you.

You go on the plane with blind faith,no proof, believing it will function as it always has.
Hoping your not that one in a million or whatever the stats are on plane crashes.
We have everything we need to come to God regarding faith and without requiring this emperical evidence and are well experienced because we practice faith everyday and every minute of our lives everyday.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

"Belief" has nothing to do with it. God-knowingness is an intensly personal experience that cannot be meaningfully translated into words. Belief happens when the "finger pointing to the moon is mistaken for the moon itself."

 

[love]

Is it rational to believe in tomorrow? Has anyone ever seen tomorrow? Is tomorrow a man made concept of the extension of now. Is planning for tomorrow an act of blind faith?

 

[UnTheist]

Is planning for tomorrow an act of blind faith?

Not at all.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Belief in a creator seems to me a leap of faith.

The statement assumes the Creator is a being rather than Being itself. Is belief in Being-As-It-Is-Within-Itself a leap af faith?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Is it rational to believe in tomorrow? Has anyone ever seen tomorrow? Is tomorrow a man made concept of the extension of now. Is planning for tomorrow an act of blind faith?

Is accepting reality an act of blind faith? I mean, all we have to go on are our limited senses and how our brains interpret them. Perhaps that isn't blind faith, but it is certainly faith. Our senses are easily deceived, and are often misleading, and are always shaped by the framework of our previous experiences of reality.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Our senses are easily deceived, and are often misleading, and are always shaped by the framework of our previous experiences of reality.

Very true! But what do you do if science makes God-knowingness a possibility? Go with the personal experience or remain skeptical?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Very true! But what do you do if science makes God-knowingness a possibility? Go with the personal experience or remain skeptical?

Science is still personal experience. When a scientific idea is presented to me, it is filtered through my senses 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.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

I'm glad you agree with my conclusion.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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?

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]

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]

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.

 

[roli]

For starters God cannot be comprehended through natural reasoning methods as the philosophical mind tends to use in other areas of study
Many seem to think that God reveals himself through our logic and understanding of his existence.It is his spirit that draws men and not us configuring him into some equation that can be intellectually ascertained and then verified
The human mind has always elevated itself in one way or another above God,thinking God can be deduced by the human mind,such as in the humanist mindset.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God confounds the wise of this age,this is what God see's the world's wisdom as
1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Cr 1:25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Cr 1:18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.