Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis?

[Thought Criminal]

Many theists will tell you that their belief in God is based on faith, or on something equally nonrational or irrational, such as a special feeling they have, or their unshakable trust in their parents, or an ineffable experience.

Fine, but none of this carries any weight for me because, as a secular humanist, I have a commitment to believe only what is rationally justified, what a logical analysis of the evidence compels me to believe. It's possible that I might miss out on some truths this way, but I do avoid many, many falsehoods. Of course, I do want to believe whatever's true, so I'm always open to evidence.

Anyhow, this leads me to the obvious question: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis? If so, how?

TC

[LittlePig]

I don't think we need religion, either.

Do you need a car, or is it just useful?

When you invent the clean machine of the sparkly future, you'll have a lot of customers. Until then... back to real economics.

[Thought Criminal]

Ill give you an argument for the general idea of God as a higher power. I'm not going into any specific religion's Gods, as it becomes more of a personal inkling at that point.

Your question was, can a belief in God be justified by a rational basis. The one thing that always keeps my belief rational to me is that humans are kind of in the dark about what happened before the Big Bang. There might be two general stances one could take. You could either believe that the energy or matter of the universe simply always existed, or you could believe that a higher power aka "God" created the universe and the energy and matter that goes along with it.

I'm not an astrophysicist, but I've heard people argue that there was no "before" the Big Bang. They simply say that the Big Bang was the beginning, and that God should be out of the picture. I find there arguments to be weak because Ive yet to hear a reason from them on why the Big Bang had to be the absolute beginning, and it still leaves us asking the question "Why was there a Big Bang in the first place? What caused this universe to be filled with something rather than just being nothing?" I think that it's a complete mystery to us. And if it's a complete mystery, than I believe one is rationally justified in believing a higher power "God" started everything, just as much as one in justified in believing that this natural physical world somehow always existed on its own.

Finally, if one is rationally justified in believing in a higher power just as much as one is justifed in not believing in one, than the person who does believe is also rationally justified in trying to seek out this higher power and learn more about them. That is where specific religions come in; it is people trying to come closer to this higher power.

You answered your own question: since the Big Bang is the first moment, there is no "before". The universe is all of space and time, and at the first moment, so it doesn't even make sense to try to speak of a time when there was no space. Instead, we start at t=1, where all of space was in a single location, from which it then expanded.

But even if we somehow find a way for the universe to have been created by something "outside" or "before" it, this has nothing to do with God. The sole attribute required for something that created the universe is that it somehow exists independently of it (how is unclear, but whatever) and has the power to create it. In no way does it require omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence or any of the other attributes associated with God. It doesn't even require consciousness. In short, this is not, even in principle, an argument for God. It is, at best, an argument for the logical possibility of a God, and even then it fails due to false premises.

If something is truly a mystery, then the only conclusion you can justify from that is that you don't know. You can't pretend to fill this gap in your knowledge by saying God did it. This is the old "God of the gaps" fallacy, and it's as dishonest as it is unparsimonious. What you're doing in all of these cases is starting with your desired belief and working your way backwards to selectively ignore whatever gets in the way of finding some excuse to believe what you want to. Rational people start with the entirety of the evidence and believe only what it forces them to. In no way are atheism and theism/deism equally justified.

At this point, I have soundly refuted all of the arguments you made, and even a few that I anticipated but you've yet to make.

TC

[LittlePig]

Ill give you an argument for the general idea of God as a higher power. I'm not going into any specific religion's Gods, as it becomes more of a personal inkling at that point.

I think your argument is more of an argument for human ignorance of ultimate origins than specifically for God/s/higher power/s as an explanation for what we experience.

I'm not an astrophysicist, but I've heard people argue that there was no "before" the Big Bang. They simply say that the Big Bang was the beginning, and that God should be out of the picture.

They probably shouldn't. You might find this article interesting. There might be time before the Big Bang.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... _bang.html

But I do think that god/s and time-less scenarios don't mix well.

I find there arguments to be weak because Ive yet to hear a reason from them on why the Big Bang had to be the absolute beginning, and it still leaves us asking the question "Why was there a Big Bang in the first place? What caused this universe to be filled with something rather than just being nothing?" I think that it's a complete mystery to us. And if it's a complete mystery, than I believe one is rationally justified in believing a higher power "God" started everything, just as much as one in justified in believing that this natural physical world somehow always existed on its own.

You would be justified in believing there is a mystery, but you propose that God is the clarification of that mystery, a clarification you can neither define nor explain and that doesn't clarify anything. Might as well keep calling it a mystery.

Finally, if one is rationally justified in believing in a higher power just as much as one is justifed in not believing in one, than the person who does believe is also rationally justified in trying to seek out this higher power and learn more about them. That is where specific religions come in; it is people trying to come closer to this higher power.

This is not accurate. One can disbelieve any explanation involving god/s that are at least partially defined simply by self-contradiction. One can ignore the rest as non-statements. This is the rational justification for denial of god/s. It is not mere whim. Atheism, however, is not a positive theory about the origins of the universe. Believing in god/s is meant to be, but it is not rationally justifiable. So the two really aren't equivalent in the way you say they are.

[jgh7]

You answered your own question: since the Big Bang is the first moment, there is no "before". The universe is all of space and time, and at the first moment, so it doesn't even make sense to try to speak of a time when there was no space. Instead, we start at t=1, where all of space was in a single location, from which it then expanded.

But even if we somehow find a way for the universe to have been created by something "outside" or "before" it, this has nothing to do with God. The sole attribute required for something that created the universe is that it somehow exists independently of it (how is unclear, but whatever) and has the power to create it. In no way does it require omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence or any of the other attributes associated with God. It doesn't even require consciousness. In short, this is not, even in principle, an argument for God. It is, at best, an argument for the logical possibility of a God, and even then it fails due to false premises.

If something is truly a mystery, then the only conclusion you can justify from that is that you don't know. You can't pretend to fill this gap in your knowledge by saying God did it. This is the old "God of the gaps" fallacy, and it's as dishonest as it is unparsimonious. What you're doing in all of these cases is starting with your desired belief and working your way backwards to selectively ignore whatever gets in the way of finding some excuse to believe what you want to. Rational people start with the entirety of the evidence and believe only what it forces them to. In no way are atheism and theism/deism equally justified.

At this point, I have soundly refuted all of the arguments you made, and even a few that I anticipated but you've yet to make.

TC

Thank you for refuting all of my arguments. If you would be so kind, Id like to ask a few more questions to clarify things.

1) In your first paragraph, you say that the Big Bang is the first moment, and that all of space was in a single location from which it expanded at the first moment. My question is: Why was there even space there to begin with, what caused it to be there?

2) You start your second paragraph off by assuming that it's possible that space wasn't the beginning, but that there was something before it that could have caused it to come into existence. It looks like your contradicting your first paragraph. In any case, you say that whatever this power might be, it need not have the characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I'm afraid humans honestly have no way of knowing what sort of power or intelligence is required to create the universe. You closing remarks are correct however. I was arguing for the logical possiblity of God. That's all that there is: possibilities. I said this was a mystery, and that there are multiple possibilities. You obviously have chosen the possibility of there being no God, while I have chosen otherwise. What exactly was your argument for why my possibility is irrational while yours is rational?

3) In your last paragraph, you state that I'm being dishonest by attempting to use a God of Gaps argument. Believe me, I have no intention of being dishonest, I'm trying to be as honest as I can in my arguments. If this really is a complete mystery, than all anyone can do is fill in the gap with something. You're entitled to fill in the gap with your hypothesis of a natural cause where the universe always existed. I find your hypothesis to have to many unanswered questions. But at the same time mine also has unanswered questions. As of now it just seems to be personal preference as to which hypothesis one wants to explore. But I think you're the one who is ultimately dishonest and deceptive when you try to discourage people from trying to find God.

[McCulloch]

Ill give you an argument for the general idea of God as a higher power. I'm not going into any specific religion's Gods, as it becomes more of a personal inkling at that point.

Thank you for your bravery. Up to now this debate thread seems to have been a lion's den with no believers willing to venture in.

I'm not an astrophysicist, but I've heard people argue that there was no "before" the Big Bang.

You should read up on the subject. Weird but fascinating. You see, the Big Bank is a colossal misnomer. The image one gets is that all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a small point which exploded into the space surrounding it. This is a false image. Not only was the universe's matter and energy compressed into a tiny ball, but so was all of space. Space itself expanded with the Big Bang. You can no more ask what came before the big bang than you can ask what is beyond the edge of the universe. There is no beyond the end of the universe.

To look at it another way, time implies causation. Movement is a change in spacial position with regard to time. If there is no spacial position, then there can be no time. If there are no events and no causation, then there need be no time.

it still leaves us asking the question "Why was there a Big Bang in the first place?

So let's not make up a nonsensical answer and call it God.

Finally, if one is rationally justified in believing in a higher power just as much as one is justified in not believing in one, than the person who does believe is also rationally justified in trying to seek out this higher power and learn more about them. That is where specific religions come in; it is people trying to come closer to this higher power.

How is that done? How can you tell the difference between true information from or about this higher power and silly stuff that people make up?

[jgh7]

it still leaves us asking the question "Why was there a Big Bang in the first place?

So let's not make up a nonsensical answer and call it God.

Aww, why couldn't you give me a nice explanation for why it's nonsensical? You did such a nice job explaining how time doesn't exist without space, but now it seems like you just decided to toss this question in the garbage. Why is the idea of a higher power so nonsensical to you? Also, you seemed to just dodge the question I asked, so I'll ask it again. Why was there a big bang in the first place, why was there space in the first place?

Finally, if one is rationally justified in believing in a higher power just as much as one is justified in not believing in one, than the person who does believe is also rationally justified in trying to seek out this higher power and learn more about them. That is where specific religions come in; it is people trying to come closer to this higher power.

How is that done? How can you tell the difference between true information from or about this higher power and silly stuff that people make up?

It's hard to tell the difference, maybe impossible without divine guidance. But that doesn't mean one can't try, maybe divine guidance will come someday for those who are honestly trying to come close to God. You are very quick to dismiss anything religious and call it juvenille. A lot of it might be false. But if there is a chance that something is actually true and that there actually is a higher power, than I'm happy to investigate it.

[LittlePig]

You answered your own question: since the Big Bang is the first moment, there is no "before". The universe is all of space and time, and at the first moment, so it doesn't even make sense to try to speak of a time when there was no space. Instead, we start at t=1, where all of space was in a single location, from which it then expanded.

But even if we somehow find a way for the universe to have been created by something "outside" or "before" it, this has nothing to do with God. The sole attribute required for something that created the universe is that it somehow exists independently of it (how is unclear, but whatever) and has the power to create it. In no way does it require omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence or any of the other attributes associated with God. It doesn't even require consciousness. In short, this is not, even in principle, an argument for God. It is, at best, an argument for the logical possibility of a God, and even then it fails due to false premises.

If something is truly a mystery, then the only conclusion you can justify from that is that you don't know. You can't pretend to fill this gap in your knowledge by saying God did it. This is the old "God of the gaps" fallacy, and it's as dishonest as it is unparsimonious. What you're doing in all of these cases is starting with your desired belief and working your way backwards to selectively ignore whatever gets in the way of finding some excuse to believe what you want to. Rational people start with the entirety of the evidence and believe only what it forces them to. In no way are atheism and theism/deism equally justified.

At this point, I have soundly refuted all of the arguments you made, and even a few that I anticipated but you've yet to make.

TC

Thank you for refuting all of my arguments. If you would be so kind, Id like to ask a few more questions to clarify things.

1) In your first paragraph, you say that the Big Bang is the first moment, and that all of space was in a single location from which it expanded at the first moment. My question is: Why was there even space there to begin with, what caused it to be there?

Or, better yet, why was there God? Adding God doesn't get you past the problem of 'why was there anything at all?'

2) You start your second paragraph off by assuming that it's possible that space wasn't the beginning, but that there was something before it that could have caused it to come into existence. It looks like your contradicting your first paragraph. In any case, you say that whatever this power might be, it need not have the characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I'm afraid humans honestly have no way of knowing what sort of power or intelligence is required to create the universe. You closing remarks are correct however. I was arguing for the logical possiblity of God. That's all that there is: possibilities. I said this was a mystery, and that there are multiple possibilities. You obviously have chosen the possibility of there being no God, while I have chosen otherwise. What exactly was your argument for why my possibility is irrational while yours is rational?

God is only a logical possibility if it is logical. Is the God you propose a logical one? I think everyone here would be interested in seeing this proposal.

The question isn't whether or not God/s is an option to consider, it is whether or not that option is a good one. Atheism says it isn't on the basis of self-contradiction. Atheism makes no claim to explain the universe in the way your proposal of God does, so atheism is not one of the 'possibilities.' It is simply a rejection of your chosen option.

3) In your last paragraph, you state that I'm being dishonest by attempting to use a God of Gaps argument. Believe me, I have no intention of being dishonest, I'm trying to be as honest as I can in my arguments. If this really is a complete mystery, than all anyone can do is fill in the gap with something. You're entitled to fill in the gap with your hypothesis of a natural cause where the universe always existed. I find your hypothesis to have to many unanswered questions. But at the same time mine also has unanswered questions. As of now it just seems to be personal preference as to which hypothesis one wants to explore. But I think you're the one who is ultimately dishonest and deceptive when you try to discourage people from trying to find God.

You do not need to arbitrarily fill in the mystery gap with anything at all, let alone God/s. You can do so if you wish, but calling it 'rational' doesn't make it so. 'Wishful' is the better adjective.

Again, atheism isn't a hypothesis as it does not hypothesize anything at all. It only rejects your wishful hypothesis. There is a difference.

[McCulloch]

Why couldn't you give me a nice explanation for why it's nonsensical?

The word God is nonsensical. It is a word with no meaning. Any attempt to define it, simply gets you into more abstract and meaningless words. The best that I have seen is a vague description of what God is not. I don't know what created everything so I'll imagine something that created the first thing that existed. But wait! Where did that first thing come from? Oh, it did not have a beginning. It just always was. How is that a more satisfying answer than I don't know?

Why was there a big bang in the first place, why was there space in the first place?

I'm sorry, I did not mean to dodge the question. My answer is, I don't know. And rather than invent a being with unknowable attributes so that I can pretend that I am not ignorant, I remain honestly ignorant.

It's hard to tell the difference, maybe impossible without divine guidance.

So now you expect this unknowable, impossible being to help you to understand it. Tall order.

But that doesn't mean one can't try, maybe divine guidance will come someday for those who are honestly trying to come close to God.

Or not. Do you have any rational basis on which to even start to try? Something without a cause must have caused everything else. How do I find out what this something is and whether I should do or be some way to please it? I'll close my eyes, pretend that I know that it exists and speak to it. Sounds rational to me.

You are very quick to dismiss anything religious and call it juvenille. A lot of it might be false. But if there is a chance that something is actually true and that there actually is a higher power, than I'm happy to investigate it.

How?

[Thought Criminal]

I don't think we need religion, either.

Do you need a car, or is it just useful?

When you invent the clean machine of the sparkly future, you'll have a lot of customers. Until then... back to real economics.

I can't drive my religion to work, load it up with groceries, or use it to cross the country, so how exactly is this a meaningful analogy?

I say we don't need it because people seem to get by just fine without it. Better, even, that they do with it. Who actually needs a lie?

TC

[Thought Criminal]

They probably shouldn't. You might find this article interesting. There might be time before the Big Bang.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... _bang.html

But I do think that god/s and time-less scenarios don't mix well.

I just want to comment that Steinhardt and Turok have been pushing this cyclical model for years now, but have gained no traction. As for LQG, it's an interesting idea, independently of this attempted application, but it does little to support cyclical theories on the whole. One thing it does get right, I suspect, is that the BB didn't involve anything infinite. Then again, this is common to all the theories that have had any success at all integrating QM with GR.

Rather than getting entirely side-tracked into a discussion on cosmology, I'll simply agree that a cyclical model is no more useful for theists than a one-shot universe.

TC