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

[InTheFlesh]

Jester wrote:

"I offered the concession that Christianity is not absolutely proven, but maintain that it is no less rational a position than atheism."

This is my whole argument.
The Christian applies reason and logic as well
and comes to the conclusion that God is true.
Scientists are just like Religion.
If you ask 2, you get 2 different answers.
For every Scientist,
there's another that disagrees.
So alot depends on which Scientist you believe in
just like which preacher you believe in.
Either way,
Christians and Atheists alike,
reach their conclusions
on REASON and LOGIC!


"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" = Big Bang!

[daedalus 2.0]

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.

Your argument is an Argument from First Cause and Using the Argument from Ignorance to support it.

Your last paragraph doesn't follow from the preivous andmakes fallacious assertions.

In fact, I'm not even sure if you know what you are trying to say: You mention "a" higher power, then say "learn more about them". Is there more than one higher power ? How would you know whether there is one or a trillion? Or one at all?

I think this post is as good as any to show the irrational position of the "God Hypothesis".


Again:

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.

Unfortunately, trligions vary in how their God is presented. Even Xians can't decide if their God is Omnipotent or not, exists within infinity or not, or is timeless or not. THey also can't decide if the Universe was made by god, outside of him, or from within and as part of him. So, first, the OP has not even defined his terms which makes his use of the phrase "god" nebulous and meaningless for any serious discussion. What he is attempting to do is make "god' mean some minimal thing in order to fit it into any gaps that ,ay arise - and they will - especially since he claims he is not an astrophysicist (but apparently doesn't trust or care enough of what actual astrophysicists say about the matter.)

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.

And the second one makes a Special Pleading to suggest that contrary to the proven 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - that energy didn't always exist, but that not only did "god" create it, but some supernatural matter and energy in the form of "god" always existed.

That is. The 2nd Law states that Matter and Energy can't be created or destroyed, and , Lo!, everything we have ever witnessed in this Universe has held to that. EVERYTHING. Everything we have ever seen - the ONLY thing we humans have any evidence of, or baseline understanding is that Matter and Energy can only convert.

The God Hypothesis not only contradicts this knowledge, but puts up in its stead some arbitrary explanation by proposing a fully formed intelligent being in some completely unknowable substance (supernaturalism).

It is as if you have a computer and say: "I'm not a technical guy, but they say only radio waves or Magic can transmit information over long distances. Since my computer doesn't have any radio waves, it must be Magic"

Is the proposition of Magic irrational? Yes, it is. It contradicts everything we know about the world.

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?"

This argument is weak because it is just an argument from Ignorance and a horrible Straw Man. Maybe the OP should read some of what actual astrophysicists are saying. Perhaps quote one of them (in context) and address their point.

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.

This is a complete non sequitur.

And here we see the irrational turn in living color.

1. I think that it's a complete mystery to us.
2.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.

1. If it is a complete mystery to us - what possibly can be said about it?

1200 years ago a little girl went out to get water and saw a unicorn. What song was the unicorn singing when she saw it?

It is a complete mystery. It would be irrational to pursue this line of questioning. We've already establish (as has the OP) that it is a total mystery, forever lost to us. Is it rational to say "Purple Haze" and form religions and churches around that claim?

Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent."

2. But now the OP is claiming things: that a higher power exists, that it can and did start the universe, that it etc. Why "higher power"? Why not lower? Why not a mere blip of proto-energy? Why not a unicorn? Why not something that is more like out universe? Or like an atom? After all some of these things we actuall know about (the others, not so much).

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.

Here is the glaring error.

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.

One is justified in believing that "this natural physical world somehow always existed on its own." Why? Because we see that it exists! We all agree it is here! It is obvious and self-evident.

To claim a god is just as rational to posit - right after he claims that NOTHING can be known before the BB - shows the irrationality!

If all we know is the Natural World (which he agrees exists), and he claims that anything beyond it (if "beyond" is even a meaningful term in this regard) is unknowable - then WHERE DID HE GET THE IDEA OF A GOD IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Just because you don't know something this doesn't mean you get to make up things willy-nilly. You can't say something is unknowable and then claim to know something about it (AND claim that religions are trying to get to know it BETTER!).


jgh7's post is a perfect example of the irrational position of the "god hypothesis".

[Beastt]

I offered the concession that Christianity is not absolutely proven, but maintain that it is no less rational a position than atheism.

This is my whole argument.
The Christian applies reason and logic as well
and comes to the conclusion that God is true.
Scientists are just like Religion.
If you ask 2, you get 2 different answers.
For every Scientist,
there's another that disagrees.
So alot depends on which Scientist you believe in
just like which preacher you believe in.
Either way,
Christians and Atheists alike,
reach their conclusions
on REASON and LOGIC!

I ran into a similar assertion on another thread and thought it might be interesting to put the assertion to a little test. It is my stance that theists do utilize logic, reason and evidence, exactly as do non-theists... EXCEPT, when it comes to their theistic beliefs. For their theistic beliefs they build a bubble within their logical world, to protect these beliefs from having reason, logic and evidence applied. Without that protective bubble, such beliefs cannot be maintained.

So I put forth a few multiple-choice questions and the person making the assertion refused to even attempt an answer. Perhaps you two, (InTheFlesh and Jester), will practice a bit more intellectual honesty and provide the answers to my five questions. Edit: Note that these questions are best applied to Christian theists as the context of the key question has to do specifically with Christian doctrine. While being less familiar with other theistic beliefs, I would suggest that a properly constructed series of questions would reveal the same problem when it comes to most (if not all), other forms of theism.

1. Your car won't start. The gas gauge reads empty. You would;

• A. Change the spark plugs
  B. Add air to the tires
  C. Beg the car to start
  D. Put gas in the car

2. You return home and note that the door knob to your front door won't turn. You would;

• A. Sprinkle dust on the door knob and recite an incantation
  B. Unlock the door with your house key
  C. Dig a hole in your yard in which to bury the neighbor's cat
  D. Buy new carpet

3. You flip a light switch in your home. The light flashes on and then goes off. Flipping the switch more does not cause the light to come on. You should;

• A. Replace the bulb
  B. Call an electrician to re-wire your house
  C. Add air to the tires on your car
  D. Offer the light a bite of your sandwich

4. You notice that your throat is sore, you're starting to sneeze a lot, you feel weak and you've been coughing a lot. You would;

• A. Catch two birds, kill one in an earthen vessel over running water and dip the live bird into the blood of the dead bird to sprinkle on your body, shave your whole body and remain outdoors for a week.
  
  B. Purchase some vitamins, get some extra rest and avoid over-exertion.
  
  C. Call a locksmith to change the locks on your doors.
  
  D. Count the tissues you use and carefully burn each one in an earthen urn.

5. You read a story in a book about a person who is claimed to have been Biologically Dead for days, then was claimed to have been seen alive by many people who had, previous to his death, proclaimed he was God. You conclude;

• A. These people are similar to those who claimed to see Elvis alive after his death
  
  B. The authors of the book were writing fiction or deluded
  
  C. Despite our knowledge of Biological Death and the awareness that there has never been any confirmed instance of a Biologically Dead body being restored to life and that for this to occur, much of what we understand about biology would have to be incorrect; the account is all true.
  
  D. That the lack of external historical references to any such person or any such event provides a more likely conclusion than does the claim of a single source suggesting that it presents the actual experience of hundreds of people.

Non-theists are welcome to answer the questions as well so that we might make a comparison. I would suggest that all will answer the first four questions the same way. The discrepancy will occur on the fifth question which has to do with theism. It might help us all to see what happens to the individual's logic should you choose to illustrate the logic you use in selecting each of your answers. As is standard, always choose the answer which best suits the question, even if you disagree that an absolutely correct answer is present.

[center]- - - < | > - - -[/center]

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" = Big Bang!

This is a perfect example of how theists will attempt to shape what they read in the Bible to say something other than what it says.

Take another look at your Bible. Open to Genesis One. Find your quoted verse (Genesis 1:3). Now back up two verses to Genesis 1:1 and read what it says.

• "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Now keep reading;

• (Genesis 1:2) And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now we finally come to what you propose to be the Big Bang.

• (Genesis 1:3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Do you see the problem?

The Earth didn't come into existence prior to the Big Bang. Much to the contrary. The Big Bang would likely have formed only the expanse of space-time and quantities of hydrogen and perhaps a bit of helium. Earth could not have been formed from these two elements. Instead, gravity would have drawn clouds of hydrogen, perhaps with some helium, into large spheres which continued to compress under their own gravity.

In the instances where the spheres were of sufficient size, the hydrogen atoms were drawn so closely together that combined with two of the observed laws of physical matter (defined as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Tunneling), the hydrogen atoms began to combine to form more helium. When the star fused most of its hydrogen into helium, the outward force caused by the fusion process would cease equaling the force of the gravity drawing inward. The result would be the collapse of the matter to a relatively small sphere which would then rebound with such force as to rip the sphere apart violently. We call such an event a "super-nova". The forces inherent within a super-nova are sufficient to fuse the remaining hydrogen and helium into new elements and this matter is flung from the point of the original mass.

It is only after the formation of massive quantities of these new elements that the material exists from which the Earth formed.

If you learn a bit about science it becomes readily apparent that biblical scripture is diametrically opposed to what appears to have happened; rather than being in agreement with it.

We can hone this to a finer point if necessary by looking at the proposed six-day creation which non-fundamentalists have abandoned. And they have done so despite the very clear and well-defined claims in the Bible. Not only does it claim that all of this happened in six literal days, but it defines these days three times in the first eight verses (twice in Genesis 1:5 and once in Genesis 1:8).

The Bible then goes on to claim that Earth was formed covered in water but devoid of an atmosphere (firmament). Science shows that the atmosphere would have to come first. It is a planet's atmosphere which captures and retains water from inbound comets. Without the atmosphere there is no atmospheric pressure and without that pressure, water quickly vaporizes and is lost back into space. So now you have to swap the chronology between Gen 1:2 and Gen 1:6-7. I'm not sure how you propose to justify the claims about the water above the atmosphere but the Bible most certainly claims that this existed and required separation.

Genesis 1:9 tells us of the first dry land emerging which suggests that the planet not only contained water, but was completely covered with water. And yet the planet continues to capture and retain water meaning that there is more water on Earth now than ever before. And there isn't nearly enough to cover the whole planet. Theists like to propose a more uniform topography but if anything, the topography now is likely somewhat less irregular than shortly after the formation of the planet. Gravity is the force which draws a planet or a star into a spheroid shape and the work of gravity doesn't stop.

When we reach Genesis 1:11 much of the real trouble begins for theists. Here we see the claim that the Earth is bringing forth plants. And they're not the simple plants which likely formed in the transition from the pre-biotic Earth. Instead we see the claim of highly-evolved species such as herbs, grasses and fruit trees -- the same highly-evolved species which were known to the authors of the Bible but would not have been known to the early Earth.

When we reach Genesis 1:14-16 the entire story falls apart because this is where the Bible proclaims the sun, moon and stars were created (Day 4). So if we now back up to Genesis 1:11 again (Day 3), we find we have the Earth bringing forth plants in total darkness and without any source of heat, save that small amount produced by the pressure and friction of Earth's gravity. And when we consider the mean temperature of space (-454°F), even with that minor warmth produced by the planet, we find we'd have grasses and fruit trees growing in purely cryogenic temperatures and without light to feed the process of photosynthesis.

For those who wish to reach back to Genesis 1:3 and point out that it claims this is when God created light, note that there is no source for the light, nor does it specify that the light was in the region of Earth. Light is the existence of photons and photons require a source. For the Earth, this source is primarily the sun which releases photons and heat in the process of fusing hydrogen into helium. (The lost photons and heat account for the .03% difference in weight between 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 helium atom.) Light produced on the far side of the universe would be useless to plants growing here for billions of years. It is the very fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium which produces these photons so the Bible's claims are again refuted. The stars had to exist first. Today's stars, such as the sun, contain quantities of elements not present shortly after the Big Bang so the sun is at least a second-generation star.

[cnorman18]

I ran into a similar assertion on another thread and thought it might be interesting to put the assertion to a little test. It is my stance that theists do utilize logic, reason and evidence, exactly as do non-theists... EXCEPT, when it comes to their theistic beliefs. For their theistic beliefs they build a bubble within their logical world, to protect these beliefs from having reason, logic and evidence applied. Without that protective bubble, such beliefs cannot be maintained.

So I put forth a few multiple-choice questions and the person making the assertion refused to even attempt an answer. Perhaps you two, (InTheFlesh and Jester), will practice a bit more intellectual honesty and provide the answers to my five questions.

I'll play. For the record, I'm Jewish.

1. Your car won't start. The gas gauge reads empty. You would;

• A. Change the spark plugs
  B. Add air to the tires
  C. Beg the car to start
  D. Put gas in the car

D.

2. You return home and note that the door knob to your front door won't turn. You would;

• A. Sprinkle dust on the door knob and recite an incantation
  B. Unlock the door with your house key
  C. Dig a hole in your yard in which to bury the neighbor's cat
  D. Buy new carpet

B.

3. You flip a light switch in your home. The light flashes on and then goes off. Flipping the switch more does not cause the light to come on. You should;

• A. Replace the bulb
  B. Call an electrician to re-wire your house
  C. Add air to the tires on your car
  D. Offer the light a bite of your sandwich

A.

4. You notice that your throat is sore, you're starting to sneeze a lot, you feel weak and you've been coughing a lot. You would;

• A. Catch two birds, kill one in an earthen vessel over running water and dip the live bird into the blood of the dead bird to sprinkle on your body, shave your whole body and remain outdoors for a week.
  
  B. Purchase some vitamins, get some extra rest and avoid over-exertion.
  
  C. Call a locksmith to change the locks on your doors.
  
  D. Count the tissues you use and carefully burn each one in an earthen urn.

B.

5. You read a story in a book about a person who is claimed to have been Biologically Dead for days, then was claimed to have been seen alive by many people who had, previous to his death, proclaimed he was God. You conclude;

• A. These people are similar to those who claimed to see Elvis alive after his death
  
  B. The authors of the book were writing fiction or deluded
  
  C. Despite our knowledge of Biological Death and the awareness that there has never been any confirmed instance of a Biologically Dead body being restored to life and that for this to occur, much of what we understand about biology would have to be incorrect; the account is all true.
  
  D. That the lack of external historical references to any such person or any such event provides a more likely conclusion than does the claim of a single source suggesting that it presents the actual experience of hundreds of people.

A.

Non-theists are welcome to answer the questions as well so that we might make a comparison. I would suggest that all will answer the first four questions the same way. The discrepancy will occur on the fifth question which has to do with theism. It might help us all to see what happens to the individual's logic should you choose to illustrate the logic you use in selecting each of your answers. As is standard, always choose the answer which best suits the question, even if you disagree that an absolutely correct answer is present.

Just for the record, very few modern Jews take the Creation story as having anything to do with scientific or historical fact.

[Beastt]

I'll play. For the record, I'm Jewish.

1. Your car won't start. The gas gauge reads empty. You would;

• A. Change the spark plugs
  B. Add air to the tires
  C. Beg the car to start
  D. Put gas in the car

D.

2. You return home and note that the door knob to your front door won't turn. You would;

• A. Sprinkle dust on the door knob and recite an incantation
  B. Unlock the door with your house key
  C. Dig a hole in your yard in which to bury the neighbor's cat
  D. Buy new carpet

B.

3. You flip a light switch in your home. The light flashes on and then goes off. Flipping the switch more does not cause the light to come on. You should;

• A. Replace the bulb
  B. Call an electrician to re-wire your house
  C. Add air to the tires on your car
  D. Offer the light a bite of your sandwich

A.

4. You notice that your throat is sore, you're starting to sneeze a lot, you feel weak and you've been coughing a lot. You would;

• A. Catch two birds, kill one in an earthen vessel over running water and dip the live bird into the blood of the dead bird to sprinkle on your body, shave your whole body and remain outdoors for a week.
  
  B. Purchase some vitamins, get some extra rest and avoid over-exertion.
  
  C. Call a locksmith to change the locks on your doors.
  
  D. Count the tissues you use and carefully burn each one in an earthen urn.

B.

5. You read a story in a book about a person who is claimed to have been Biologically Dead for days, then was claimed to have been seen alive by many people who had, previous to his death, proclaimed he was God. You conclude;

• A. These people are similar to those who claimed to see Elvis alive after his death
  
  B. The authors of the book were writing fiction or deluded
  
  C. Despite our knowledge of Biological Death and the awareness that there has never been any confirmed instance of a Biologically Dead body being restored to life and that for this to occur, much of what we understand about biology would have to be incorrect; the account is all true.
  
  D. That the lack of external historical references to any such person or any such event provides a more likely conclusion than does the claim of a single source suggesting that it presents the actual experience of hundreds of people.

A.


Just for the record, very few modern Jews take the Creation story as having anything to do with scientific or historical fact.

Okay, you got me. I should have specified "Christians" rather than "theists" due to the context of the fifth question. I do, however, find similar dismissals of logic among other theists but I'm far less familiar with their doctrines. I'll go apply the appropriate edits to my post.

Well done. Thank you.

[cnorman18]

I am reposting my last message on the "Does "God exists" have meaning?" thread here, because I think it is relevant to this conversation as well:

After some considerable thought, I have concluded--tentatively, since thought continues--that the difficulty with this whole conversation, and others like it, lies in the difference between two very basic approaches to the understanding of the fundamental nature of reality, and that that difference may be irreconcilable and unresolvable.

Atheists assume that there is nothing more to reality than that which is material, concrete, and/or objectively provable and verifiable; that nothing else exists, and any claims referring to anything outside of that concrete reality are meaningless and/or nonsensical.

Theists assume that there is more to reality than that; that there are dimensions and modes of existence that are not confined to the material realm, and that are not, or at least not necessarily, objectively provable or, often, even expressible in concrete, material, verifiable terms.

It seems to me that demanding that the non-concrete and non-material be proven or even expressed in terms that relate only to the concrete and material amounts to begging the question. That demand assumes, and rather explicitly, the answer to the question which is under debate:

"Prove to me that there is a nonmaterial realm, but you must do so by referring only to the material."

"Tell me how many oranges you have, but you must do so by counting only your apples."

That is clearly an impossible demand, and an unreasonable one. How can one prove ANY assertion if one is required to assume its falsehood at the outset?

I don't think that the question is resolvable under these conditions. I have said, and often, that I do not think that the existence of God is provable in objective terms, and this is why. When two persons bring diametrically opposing a priori assumptions to the table that negate the very terms of each other's arguments, how can there be any resolution? There is quite literally nothing to talk about, no common ground upon which to stand and reach agreement about anything.

Note that I do not say, or profess to know, which of these assumptions is ultimately correct. I have my own opinion, but I acknowledge, and always have, that it is an opinion and not (obviously) a provable fact.

On the other hand, I regard the opposing opinion as equally unprovable; one cannot, by referring only to the concrete, material and objectively verifiable, show that there is nothing outside that realm. One is only assuming that by confining oneself to those terms. By asserting that there is "no evidence," one is assuming that objective evidence is the only thing that applies, which of course is assuming the answer to the question; that there is nothing outside the realm of the objectively provable and concrete.

I have no solution to this problem.

[Beastt]

Atheists assume that there is nothing more to reality than that which is material, concrete, and/or objectively provable and verifiable; that nothing else exists, and any claims referring to anything outside of that concrete reality are meaningless and/or nonsensical.

It should be noted that there is no credible evidence consistent with any assertions that anything exists outside of what is objectively provable and verifiable. So this is much more than an assumption. It is evidence-based. Were there vast unanswered questions (as existed in biblical days), atheism would be an assumption. Today atheism is the objective conclusion.

Theists assume that there is more to reality than that; that there are dimensions and modes of existence that are not confined to the material realm, and that are not, or at least not necessarily, objectively provable or, often, even expressible in concrete, material, verifiable terms.

But theists can present no argument consistent with the existence of anything beyond the objectively provable and verifiable. Nearly all of the things once attributed to spirituality, gods and the supernatural have now been fully explained and demonstrated via naturalistic means. If any god existed and cared whether or not we believe, why cover all of the evidence of his existence and provide us with nothing but dozens and dozens of man-made books, all claiming different gods from which to choose?

"Prove to me that there is a nonmaterial realm, but you must do so by referring only to the material."

Were there anything else to refer to, I'd be happy to oblige. But no matter how often I ask, all I get are claims of subjective feelings and subjectively interpreted experiences. Were I to assume that these offered any real evidence of anything, I'd be equally compelled to accept all god assertions and all assertions concerning the supernatural because the same things are offered as evidence regardless of what the person claiming them as evidence, believes.

Those who believe Allah exists and the Christian God doesn't, provide exactly the same proclaimed evidence as those who believe the Christian God exists and Allah does not.

[Thought Criminal]

Jester wrote:

"I offered the concession that Christianity is not absolutely proven, but maintain that it is no less rational a position than atheism."

This is my whole argument.
The Christian applies reason and logic as well
and comes to the conclusion that God is true.
Scientists are just like Religion.
If you ask 2, you get 2 different answers.
For every Scientist,
there's another that disagrees.
So alot depends on which Scientist you believe in
just like which preacher you believe in.
Either way,
Christians and Atheists alike,
reach their conclusions
on REASON and LOGIC!


"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" = Big Bang!

A haiku filled
with errors is
not persuasive.
Please stop
leaning on the
enter key.

It's one thing to say that "The Christian applies reason and logic as well and comes to the conclusion that God is true" but an unsupported conclusion does not constitute an argument. Besides, Christians most often admit that they believe on faith, not reason or logic.

Science is radically different from religion, not only in that there is a huge overlap of uncontroversial agreement, but that the few controversies are amenable to resolution through evidence and argument, particularly by running experiments or generally gathering data. In contrast, theological disputes are interminable, because there's simply no way to ever find out just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is because pins exist but angels don't.

I don't "believe in" scientists the way you follow a preacher, because science doesn't work that way. The only reason we have any confidence in scientists is that we can check their results. This is because science is just the execution of the scientific method, which is objective and open to third-patty confirmation. The recent censure of the scientist who falsely claimed to have performed tabletop fusion is a fine example of this.

Either way, restating an unsupported conclusions still doesn't make it an argument. Finally, I have already explained how the BB neither needs a God nor has any room for one.

TC

[daedalus 2.0]

I think this rebuttal of cnorman's argument and mine in the other thread he posted it stand as the challenge for Supernaturalists to come up with a counter.

The ball is in cnorman's court (and all the other Supernaturalists) to answer WHY we should assume the existence of something undetectable.

[Goat]

This one:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... highlight=

Thank you. Rarely do I get to see so many epistemological errors in one place. It turns out that, since truth is objective, none of what you wrote there is correct.

This is a huge list of mutually contradictory ideas, varying from harmless and loony to scary and nuts.

Thanks for the advice. If I ever decide to abandon my intellect entirely and believe something scary or nuts, I'll keep it in mind.

Well, you've already abandonded it to believe in something harmless and loony. You call it "God".

TC

Tell me, can you show that 'truth' is objective? I would like to see objective evidence that 'truth' is objective.