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

[Thought Criminal]

Dr. Hovind? Which Dr? I know a Bishop who claims the Bible is false. Depends on who you ask? Care to share the name?

Either way, the beauty of science is that your "Dr" can claim all he wants. It is still testable by YOU.

Why don't YOU make your own determination? Go to a University that is testing Evolution and ask them questions.

I must concede that you beat me to it; you identified Hovind before I did. I do insist that my efforts, however tardy, were independent.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

This has happened to you because you have allowed yourself to become completely overwhelmed by science.
While I admire and respect and encourage science, I fight the temptation to become consumed by the brilliantness of it, not forsaking the brilliantness of God at the same time.
God is science. He has created all and holds in His hands the laws of the universe, understanding that He has created them for us.

Something happens to us when we uphold the findings of our simple selves as anything other than the truth of God's creation. We lose our souls in the search for them.

God has generously given us our lives to do with them what we will. Will we spit in His face and call the discoveries "science" instead of His creation?

I've read this over a few times, and while I do see some moderately polite bashing of science and a good deal of proselytizing, I simply can't find the part where you answer my question.

To remind you, I asked: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis? If so, how?

You might also notice that I didn't mention science, as such, just rationality. Given this, do you care to offer an answer?

TC

[Thought Criminal]

Chew on this!

1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
[...]
25. Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown. Most dating techniques actually indicate that the earth is "young", not "old".

Is this preaching?

Not only is it preaching, it's plagiarism!

You stole it from http://www.creationmoments.net/articles ... a=111&c=18.

And you shouldn't have bothered, because every last bit of it is utter nonsense and despite attacking biology, it does nothing to answer the topic question or otherwise further the discussion. It's spam.

TC

[InTheFlesh]

edit!

[daedalus 2.0]

Dr. Hovind? Which Dr? I know a Bishop who claims the Bible is false. Depends on who you ask? Care to share the name?

Either way, the beauty of science is that your "Dr" can claim all he wants. It is still testable by YOU.

Why don't YOU make your own determination? Go to a University that is testing Evolution and ask them questions.

I must concede that you beat me to it; you identified Hovind before I did. I do insist that my efforts, however tardy, were independent.

TC

Care to comment on the 25 points I posted by DR Hovind?

Not at all. He is a hack.. You should be embarrassed to reference him. Why do you hate science so much that you accept the word of a discreditted, disingenuous religious nut who lied about his taxes and evolution?

You are judged by the company you keep. Noted.

[InTheFlesh]

Chew on this!

1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
[...]
25. Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown. Most dating techniques actually indicate that the earth is "young", not "old".

Is this preaching?

Not only is it preaching, it's plagiarism!

You stole it from http://www.creationmoments.net/articles ... a=111&c=18.

And you shouldn't have bothered, because every last bit of it is utter nonsense and despite attacking biology, it does nothing to answer the topic question or otherwise further the discussion. It's spam.

TC

First of all, it's not stealing.
I pointed this out and someone asked me to post it here for debate.

Should I accept your comment in bold as truth?
Can you back it up or will you just say it's BS?

[InTheFlesh]

Dr. Hovind? Which Dr? I know a Bishop who claims the Bible is false. Depends on who you ask? Care to share the name?

Either way, the beauty of science is that your "Dr" can claim all he wants. It is still testable by YOU.

Why don't YOU make your own determination? Go to a University that is testing Evolution and ask them questions.

I must concede that you beat me to it; you identified Hovind before I did. I do insist that my efforts, however tardy, were independent.

TC

Care to comment on the 25 points I posted by DR Hovind?

Not at all. He is a hack.. You should be embarrassed to reference him. Why do you hate science so much that you accept the word of a discreditted, disingenuous religious nut who lied about his taxes and evolution?

You are judged by the company you keep. Noted.

I don't keep comany with that DR.
I put it up for debate.
Why is it that you put up absolutely no debate but you say it's BS?
You are worse than the God preachers!

[McCulloch]

God is science. He has created all and holds in His hands the laws of the universe, understanding that He has created them for us.

And I thought that God is love. No, God is Spirit.

So why would a God of science tell us that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and then let us observe stars which are orders of magnitude more than 10,000 light years away?

[McCulloch]

Not at all. He [Hovind] is a hack.. You should be embarrassed to reference him. Why do you hate science so much that you accept the word of a discreditted, disingenuous religious nut who lied about his taxes and evolution?

You are judged by the company you keep. Noted.

I have to call you on this. There is no refutation here just ad homs. The fact that he is a law breaker and a discredited religionist does not make his claims about science wrong.

[Thought Criminal]

First of all, it's not stealing.

You quoted it verbatim without attribution; that's plagiarism by definition. Or, in layman's terms, stealing.

By the way, it's not from Kent Hovind. You stole it from Creation Moments, which took it (with attribution) from a ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation, which is basically just Walt Brown. Amusingly, Brown actually has a doctorate, though his writings are not in his field of competence and have been routinely debunked.

I pointed this out and someone asked me to post it here for debate.

Then attribute it properly, without forcing us to track it down and catch you stealing.

Should I accept your comment in bold as truth?
Can you back it up or will you just say it's BS?

Well, let's look at the very first claim. If it's not total garbage, then the rest deserve consideration.

1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).

The Law of Biogenesis dates back to Pasteur, and in fact has nothing to do with the modern concept of abiogenesis. Rather, he was talking about the spontaneous generation of flies and rats. So, in other words, this point is a bald-faced lie.

I rest my case.

TC