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]

What part of the life of Jesus is false?
Jesus is before all things.

Hold on, I thought we were talking about God. Jesus is another conversation all by itself.

It's not hypo, it's literal.

His name is Jesus
ever heard of him?

We are,
Jesus is God!

Well, if you don't bother to define God, what am I supposed to think it is that you are saying Jesus is?

And if you are going to keep on with these 'arguments' that sound like bad t-shirt slogans, I don't see how we can have a serious conversation.

[Thought Criminal]

First of all,
it's NOT my claim
so get your facts straight.
You are the one accusing the biblical testimonies.
How is the gospel unsupported?
Why do you think that you still have to fight the message of Jesus off today?
Why be ignorant that there is evidence?
Are the scriptures not historical writings?
Obviously they were written by man right?
Why do you easily disregard them without proof against them?
According to what you preach,
if you don't have proof against something,
it can be possible.

It's your claim, because books don't make claims, people do. There's nothing in that book that constitutes evidence, so pointing at it is useless. It's historically inaccurate, and it does not support the claim that God eists.

TC

[cnorman18]

But you see, I tend to put my belief in God in the same category as the flower. I have even described it as a matter of taste, as opposed to an objective belief. I have also called it "nonrational," as opposed to "irrational."

I have run into this before. I do not think like a Christian. Few Jews do.

+

Well, of course that's true; but in a situation where no evidence is available--or, in my opinion, possible--as with God's existence, why is it irrational to come down on one side but not the other? I would agree that nonbelief is the "default" position, but if one has a subjective sense that tends toward belief, why is it irrational to regard that as a "tiebreaker"?

=
I like how you describe your belief in God here. And I do think 'nonrational' is a good term to use. Reason would seem to be able to only get us so far in our pursuit of knowledge, and choosing to believe in God is, IMO, a nonrational choice since no evidence gets us there. However, making the claim that many theists do make, that God's existence is evident, is, I think, irrational.

I quite agree. I believe in freedom of thought and speech, and I think that anyone may believe whatever they choose, and speak of it as often as they like. If one claims that one's belief is objectively true, though, or especially that another ought to share that belief, then one should be prepared to offer objective evidence.

I'm not sure what the nature of your subjective experiences or feelings are that cause your belief scales to tip in favor of God, but I know that I have some of my own that tip me in a different direction. For a long time now I have found the notion of something coming from nothing, *poof* out of 'nowhere,' to be aesthetically pleasing, even exciting. For some reason it feels incredibly 'right.' Maybe it simply provides a final piece to the puzzle that refuses to be solved and thus gives me a feeling of satisfaction. Whatever the reason, I can't shake the feeling of awe and wonder that such a thought gives me. It's almost religious.

But I know that I don't know whether or not there is any truth to such an idea. So I keep that as my own nice little thought, all to my lonesome. If I were to tell people that it is true, that it is evidently true, then I would be running into problems of the irrational kind. Right now I simply take pleasure in some nonrational notions.

Interesting. Creation ex nihilo doesn't have that kind of resonance for me, and I don't know that that whole issue--"Where did everything come from?"--has as much importance as some around here give it. I admit that that, too, is most likely a matter of personal taste. I don't spend a lot of time wondering what will happen to me after I die, either. I figure I'll find out when it happens. If the answer is "nothing," I'll be in no position to complain.

The Big Bang seems to come up a lot around here, and I think it strange that no one has mentioned a common theory that that was not the beginning.

It works like this; the Universe, since the Big Bang, has been expanding. At some unimaginably distant time in the future, that expansion must stop, since the residual gravity of the other objects in the Universe is acting to slow it, and there is no force that is adding acceleration. When that expansion stops, the Universe must then begin to contract, again because of gravity. The Universe will accelerate it contraction as it shrinks, and again at some point, it will crash together into a single point and form another Primal Atom, from which another Big Bang will arise. Some think that the Cosmic Crash will actually cause a Big Bang in some other dimension of space, as if the contraction continued "inside-out" on the "other side." because of its almost literally infinite force.

The Big Bang may not have been the beginning of everything, but only the beginning of the present cycle, one of an infinite number of cycles of Bang, expansion, contraction, and Crash over enormous chasms of time. In a sense, that theory takes is back to "the Universe has always existed," a theory that has fallen out of favor in recent decades.

[Catharsis]

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

No.

[Cathar1950]

First of all,
it's NOT my claim
so get your facts straight.

It is a claim and by claiming it is true it is now your claim.
Don't pass off your identifying with it on someone else as you choose to accept that claim now all that is required of you is an explanation if you claim the claims are true. Otherwise the only reasonable thing to do is stop debating and state you do not have sufficient reasonings for us not to be doubtful or skeptical.

You are the one accusing the biblical testimonies.

I don't accuse the biblical writings of anything, it is your claim that they are even "testimonies " is loaded with personal and doctrinally assured meanings that you expect others to assume without reasonable skepticisms or reasonable explanation on your part . Your claims are what accuses the writings not others. I am not sure if that is a red herring or a straw man that is leveled at skeptics when they are but in a false Choice that you have created.
I can say you crated it as you are part of a traditional interpretation with its own history.

How is the gospel unsupported?

How is it supported and what does it support?
You are asking us the question you refuse to answer by asking for a negative to what you can;t not clearly define or agree upon putting your reasoning and experience in an even more skeptical light.
Even within your traditions of which you are part you have disagreements that all claim Biblical, reasonable and personal experience as evidence. Not only is there variation among your own traditions other cultural interpretations are mostly disregarded.
I must question anyone that makes claims about the “Ultimate� as it would not be possible for finite by their own accepted definition of God or Ultimate reality including the possibility there is or isn't a God there is still Ultimate reality. Not only have you made claims about Ultimate rality but you claim that your interpretation among all the others is literal. You totally disregard both metaphorical language and analogy.

Why do you think that you still have to fight the message of Jesus off today?

Who is fighting the message of Jesus off?
I see many interpretations of the Message of Jesus. All we have of the Message of Jesus is that which the followers interpreted and understood. The history or evolution, variation along with use of metaphor, analogy, the LXX and other influences is varied. Yet you are the one that is selecting which message or messages and you should be asking yourself what messages of Jesus do you fight off and why?

Why be ignorant that there is evidence?

How do you know his ignorance?
Where is your evidence to support your claim�
Why do you not see why we should be skeptical that you know enough about ultimate reality that our normal doubts should be in question?

Are the scriptures not historical writings?

Are they?
How are they historical writings and what does being historical have to do with your claims?

Obviously they were written by man right?

As far as we know, many men and maybe some women.

Why do you easily disregard them without proof against them?

How do you think we should regard them and why do you disregard other writings or even more ancient stories and myths?

According to what you preach,
if you don't have proof against something,
it can be possible.

I suppose anything that could happen is possible as well as the impossible from what I can see of you explanations. I am jut wondering why you doubt everything else that is possible.

It's not hypo, it's literal.

His name is Jesus
ever heard of him?

We are,
Jesus is God!

This has been fun and I believe most of us here are knowledgeable when it comes to Jesus.
Littlepig has a point when he says you make your message “sound like bad t-shirt slogans�
Are we to equate your message to that of Jesus too?

[Thought Criminal]

The Big Bang seems to come up a lot around here, and I think it strange that no one has mentioned a common theory that that was not the beginning.

It's been mentioned. I've also explained how it fails to support the idea of a god anymore than the non-cyclical BB does.

It works like this; the Universe, since the Big Bang, has been expanding. At some unimaginably distant time in the future, that expansion must stop, since the residual gravity of the other objects in the Universe is acting to slow it, and there is no force that is adding acceleration. When that expansion stops, the Universe must then begin to contract, again because of gravity. The Universe will accelerate it contraction as it shrinks, and again at some point, it will crash together into a single point and form another Primal Atom, from which another Big Bang will arise. Some think that the Cosmic Crash will actually cause a Big Bang in some other dimension of space, as if the contraction continued "inside-out" on the "other side." because of its almost literally infinite force.

It's called the Big Crunch, actually, but the evidence we have strongly suggests it will never happen. Look up dark matter and dark energy.

The Big Bang may not have been the beginning of everything, but only the beginning of the present cycle, one of an infinite number of cycles of Bang, expansion, contraction, and Crash over enormous chasms of time. In a sense, that theory takes is back to "the Universe has always existed," a theory that has fallen out of favor in recent decades.

Yeah, but there's no evidence to support it and it's not parsimonious.

TC

[cnorman18]

The Big Bang seems to come up a lot around here, and I think it strange that no one has mentioned a common theory that that was not the beginning.

It's been mentioned. I've also explained how it fails to support the idea of a god anymore than the non-cyclical BB does.

Sorry, I hadn't seen it. I don't go to the threads that are of exclusively Christian concern much, nor to others that don't interest me, and I suppose I missed it.

I didn't present it as an idea that supports God. I don't see how it could.

It works like this; the Universe, since the Big Bang, has been expanding. At some unimaginably distant time in the future, that expansion must stop, since the residual gravity of the other objects in the Universe is acting to slow it, and there is no force that is adding acceleration. When that expansion stops, the Universe must then begin to contract, again because of gravity. The Universe will accelerate it contraction as it shrinks, and again at some point, it will crash together into a single point and form another Primal Atom, from which another Big Bang will arise. Some think that the Cosmic Crash will actually cause a Big Bang in some other dimension of space, as if the contraction continued "inside-out" on the "other side." because of its almost literally infinite force.

It's called the Big Crunch, actually...

Thanks. I didn't think that "crash" sounded right, but I couldn't remember the term.

...but the evidence we have strongly suggests it will never happen. Look up dark matter and dark energy.

Yeah, I think I read that recently too, as in the last four or five years. I just thought it was an interesting idea. Nothing to do with God.

The Big Bang may not have been the beginning of everything, but only the beginning of the present cycle, one of an infinite number of cycles of Bang, expansion, contraction, and Crash over enormous chasms of time. In a sense, that theory takes is back to "the Universe has always existed," a theory that has fallen out of favor in recent decades.

Yeah, but there's no evidence to support it and it's not parsimonious.

TC

Okay. Like I said, I just thought it was interesting, and I hadn't seen it mentioned.

It's not of any particular importance to me, other than as a matter of general interest and curiosity, and it has nothing to do with my religion. The details of creation, or the origins of the Universe, whatever, aren't especially important to my theology. Like most Jews, I fully support the findings of science across the board and without reservation..

As far as our earlier conversation is concerned, by the way, I think we're at an impasse. I may reply to it in part later, but in general, I don't agree with your definition of "irrational," and you don't agree with mine or give credence to any of my ideas, so I don't see that we have much to talk about.

That's okay; I have never expected everyone to agree with me, and as I've said elsewhere, I don't think theological beliefs are of any great importance anyway. I respect your position and you personally, and that's all to the good. Maybe we can have a conversation sometime where we can find some common ground. If not, I'm sure it'll still be interesting.

Peace to you. The rationality issue aside, I'd be interested in your reaction to the thread I mentioned earlier on the Chat forum. Maybe you can give it a squint sometime.

[Taneras]

I understand what you're saying, but the reality of the matter is that there is evidence which you choose to ignore. Why are you assuming a conspiracy that all the testimonies given by many different men are lies? What proof do you have against all the different eye witnesses? You believe the books were written by men right? So how do you know that their testimonies are lies? Why should I believe you (no proof of your accusation) over someone who put there life on the line to tell us that the gospel is real?

“Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.�

- Matthew 2:16

Herod died in 4 BC, therefore, according to Matthew, Jesus had to have been born before 4 BC. Herod couldn't have given this order if he was dead, so if Matthew is correct, Jesus was born before 4 BC.

“And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be gathered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David.�

- Luke 2:1-4

The event Luke is describing took place in 6 AD, its well documented that this is when Rome took over this area and installed Quirinius as governor. So, if Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem when Quirinius was governing Syria (which included Judaea), then it had to have taken place after 6 AD.

Matthew, according to historical events, says that Jesus was born on, or before 4 BC.

Luke, according to historical events, says that Jesus was born on, or after 6 AD.

At very least, a 10 year difference.

I have many reasons for my disbelief, this is just one of the Bible's contradictions...

[McCulloch]

Why do you think that you still have to fight the message of Jesus off today?

Because so many people still base their political and social decisions on it.

Why be ignorant that there is evidence?

Please, what evidence?

Are the scriptures not historical writings?

Yes they are. Just like many historical writings of the ancient world, a mixture of fact and myth.

Jesus is before all things.

What does that mean?

It's not [a] hypo[thesis], it's literal.

His name is Jesus
ever heard of him?

We are,
Jesus is God!

I've read about Jesus. Jesus was a human. Like all humans, he died.

You say "Jesus is God". What does that mean? To me that has as much meaning as saying, "McCulloch is vertible."

[Beastt]

You asked me to define the God in question.

As long as you're talking about the God of the Holy Bible, I see no reason why we can't just go ahead with the mix of contradicting properties the Bible presents for that God.

First of all, if you believe that there is no God, why do you ask which one?

Do you believe in Yeti, Sasquatch, The Abominable Snowman, Big Foot or any of the other large hairy humanoid creatures yet to have been confirmed to exist? If I wanted to talk about one of them, but didn't specify which, would it not be of some assistance to you to know which one we were talking about?

There is only one God, the maker of all things, so what proof of falsehood do you have against him?

This is a claim, not a supported conclusion. If we look to proclaimed divine writings we find many gods, three of which are constructs of Christianity. Christians are generally taught about all three of these gods and are then told their religion is monotheistic when it's really demonstrably polytheism.

What part of the life of Jesus is false?

We can be fairly certain (as certain as I am that Leprechauns and fairies don't exist), that Jesus was not born to a virgin, his birth was not marked by the appearance of a special star, that kings did not follow a star to his birthplace (ever try to "follow" a star), that he didn't walk on water, turn water into wine, raise people from the dead, heal people, cast out demons or any of the other things we find to be extremely common claims about various gods dating back at least 3,000 years prior to Jesus.

Jesus is before all things.

That's a rather meaningless statement. Jesus was said to have been born about 2,000 years ago. Men have existed for millions of years and religion dates back to the tens of thousands of years, at least.

The claims made about Jesus are not exclusive nor are they original. A number of earlier pagan gods were said to have been born to a human mother and a father who was a god and these births customarily occur without sexual union. Many others have been suggested to have been born on December 25th which is more of a astrological suggestion than anything else. There are also other gods who are said to have raised people from the dead, turned water into wine, cast out demons, healed the sick, offered salvation, were executed on a cross or tied to a tree and were later resurrected. These are all pretty standard god-claims and originate, in many cases, thousands of years before the first grumblings about Christianity.

Whenever we find extraordinary claims in any book about anything, and find the document to be devoid of supporting evidence, the most reliable thing to do is to search for corroborating claims in other writings of the time and location. Fortunately, we're not without a number of potential sources. Christian apologists often look to the writings of Flavius Josephus with far less frequent references to other historians of the time/location such as Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger.

Taking the last three first, we find brief references to "Christ", "Chrestus" or "Christus". Each of these is but a title meaning "the anointed one" which could be anyone in the church to which special attention was provided, often through a ceremony utilizing special oils. As an argument for the veracity of Jesus in the Bible, it falls short of even touching on the subject.

The most compelling writings are those of Flavius Josephus. In a single paragraph among his translated texts, there exists mention of the brother of Jesus who is called "Christ" as well as comments concerning his divinity and even the outright affirmation that Jesus was the Messiah. So without further analysis, it would appear that Christians do have a source of extra-biblical confirmation concerning their claims about the character of Jesus.

But if we look a little deeper, we find all of that credibility quickly crumbles away. Firstly, since all of the Jesus support to be found among the writings of Josephus exist within a single paragraph, this has been taken to be called the "golden paragraph". And it appears in a rather odd place among the writings. The paragraph directly before is talking about the plight befalling the Jews as does the paragraph directly after. It's completely out of place and out of context. Although the writings do claim that Jesus was the Messiah, it should be noted that the author -- Flavius Josephus -- was a Jew. He also served as the Mayor of Galilee a few decades after Jesus was said to have been walking the Earth. But Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah and Flavius was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, wrote as a Jew (with one proposed exception), and died a Jew. So how do we explain the "golden paragraph"?

Well, there are some interesting events surrounding these writings. Firstly, there are no references to this "golden paragraph" prior to the 3rd century, even though Josephus lived in the 1st century. And during the rule of Constantine (the same Emperor who was trying to use Christianity as a uniting factor to hold Rome together), a bishop by the name of Eusebius, (A.D. 260-339) was enlisted to translate the writings of Josephus. And it is only after this translation that any mention is ever made of this "golden paragraph". These are among the reasons that many scholars, among which are; Schurer, Zahn, von Dobschutz, Juster, Karl Kautsky, S.G.F. Brandon, Charles Guignebert and Twelftree, consider the "golden paragraph" to be an obvious and poorly disguised forgery.

But hope is not lost for the Christian. We have mentioned only four of the known historians of the time and yet we know of many others. So we have quite a list of names from which to choose. I have at least a partial list which contains;

• Aulus Perseus (60AD)
  Coumella (1st Century AD)
  Dio Chrysostom (112AD)
  Justus of Tiberius (80AD)
  Livy (59BC - 17AD)
  Lucanus (63AD)
  Lucius Florus (1st-2nd cent AD)
  Petronius (66 AD)
  Phaedeus (15BC-50AD)
  Philo Judaeus (20BC - 50AD)
  Phlegon (1 cent. AD)
  Pliny the Elder (23BC - 69AD)
  Plutarch (119AD)
  Pomponius Meta (40AD)
  Rufus Curtius (1st Cent. AD)
  Quintillan (100AD)
  Quintus Curtlus (1st Cent. AD)
  Seneca (4BC - 65AD)
  Silius Italicus (25-101 AD)
  Statius Caelicius (1st Cent. AD)
  Theon of Smyrna (70-135AD)
  Valerius Fiaccus (1st Cent. AD)
  Valerius Maximus (20AD)

Unfortunately, for the Christian, none of the known writings of any of these historians -- people who had taken the responsibility of documenting the important events and people of their time -- show any mention of anyone consistent with Jesus or mention any events consistent with any of his proclaimed miracles.

I would suggest that there is no credible extra-biblical support for any of the claims about the character of Jesus or any of the miracles said to surround him. The most likely conclusion in my opinion is that the man never existed, though the character drafted in the Bible may well be a mix of a number of real people along with a few myths, some of which were ancient even during the initial rise of Christianity. If Jesus actually existed as claimed in the Bible, then he must be considered to have been the most important person ever to have walked the Earth. If any of his miracles actually occurred they would be the most astounding events ever beheld by men yet they seem to have completely escaped the notice of all of the historians of the day, just as did the very existence of Jesus.

It's important to remember that the gospels of the Bible all have exactly the same agenda, and yet do not always find agreement among themselves. It's equally important to remember that the council who proclaimed they had the ability to observe a sampling of documents, and to extract from those documents the ones which were divinely inspired and those which were not, were also harboring exactly the same agenda as the authors of the writings they chose. (How does one differentiate a divinely inspired writing from one which isn't, when there exists not a single example of a confirmed divine writing?) Had Jesus actually existed and anyone who knew him actually documented his deeds, teachings and life; it's highly likely that those selecting documents for inclusion in the Bible would have passed right over them, because they may not have fit their agenda or personal preferences.

When we look to the writings of Paul, we find no reference to any of the proclaimed miracles of Jesus. Paul doesn't even claim to have known Jesus. Instead he references only a vision. And it's not surprising that Paul had visions as the Bible makes references to his ailment which is described as being fully consistent with epilepsy. And when epilepsy affects the visual cortex of the brain, visions are the result.

When Mark's writings are examined we find a list of miracles unknown to Paul as well as mention of the fall of the Jewish temple which dates his writing to later than 70 A.D. Jesus was said to have died around 33 A.D. so for the interim 37-years, it seems even Mark saw nothing notable enough about Jesus or the miracles to dedicate them to documentation. The gospels of Matthew, Luke and John appear to post-date those of Mark and some expand on the list of miracles from Mark's writings.