Is it reasonable to believe in God?

[historia]

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Note, the question here is not whether you think it is true that God exists, but simply whether such a belief is reasonable or not.

[JoeyKnothead]

I cannot see how it can be anything BUT reasonable. We have a life in a complex universe that can only have come about with forethought and purpose.

I fear your reasoning'll never have truth put to it.

Not to mention the logical inevitability of a first cause.

What do you propose caused God?

[Tcg]

I cannot see how it can be anything BUT reasonable. We have a life in a complex universe that can only have come about with forethought and purpose.

I fear your reasoning'll never have truth put to it.

Not to mention the logical inevitability of a first cause.

What do you propose caused God?

That's the rub isn't it. Some look at the universe and claim it's way too complex to not have a creator. But then propose a creator, which would have to be way more complex than the universe to have created it, and suggest no creator needed. Double standard anyone?

Reasonable? I could sleep through half the class and still answer that one correctly and do so with only two letters.


Tcg

[Miles]

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

I cannot see how it can be anything BUT reasonable. We have a life in a complex universe that can only have come about with forethought and purpose.

"Prove" it. Show us your evidence. Because from what science has discovered there's excellent evidence that the universe as we know it can, and did, develop all on its own, and without the help of one of a thousand flawed, supernatural beings.

Not to mention the logical inevitability of a first cause.

Just what form of logic are you using that concludes a first cause was inevitable? I ask because, as it stands, there's no inevitability to it at all. But maybe a better question is, why does there have to be a first cause anyway? While we have a scientific understanding of the beginning of our universe with the B.B., we can't say anything about what came before that, including the existence of god, for which we only have anecdotal evidence. God is no better a supposition than that a multiverse spawned our particular universe. Or that our universe cycles in and out of existence, and right now we're in one of its "in existence" phases. Or that our universe is eternal and currently only happens to expresses itself because of a shift in its physics. Thing is, there is absolutely no scientific evidence, the best kind of evidence we have going for us, that suggests the supernatural even exists much less one that spawns gods, demons, and other deities.

So, other than some personal comfort derived from trusting in an imagined being, I find it extremely unreasonable to believe in god.

.

[JehovahsWitness]

DOES THERE HAVE TO BE A "FIRST CAUSE"?

Yes, it is a logical inevitability. Philosophers call this the "uncaused cause" scientist refer to "singularity" and theists call it "god" but whatever we call it, it must exist.


There can never have been absolutely nothing, since if there ever was nothing, there could never be ... something. That which has always existed, preventing absolutely nothing ... is the "uncaused cause"


source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... e-universe

• Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

• If the universe began to exist ; it was caused

• If the universe(s) or singularity, did not begin it therefore *IS* the uncaused cause /first cause/god

Either way there is a god, as in, "a first (uncaused) cause".

Logic,



FURTHER READING (personal blogs)

Logical Possibility and the Existence of God
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... f-god.html

The case for God
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/03/

bible sciense guy
https://biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2 ... od-exists/

RELATED POSTS

Why believe in any gods at all?
viewtopic.php?p=998032#p998032

Is it reasonable to believe in God?
viewtopic.php?p=1091339#p1091339

Does there HAVE go be a "first cause"?
viewtopic.php?p=1091348#p1091348

For further reading please go to other posts related to...

GOD , EVIDENCE and ... EVOLUTION,

[Tcg]

• If the universe (or singularity) did not begin it therefore *IS* the uncaused cause /first cause/god

You are suggesting that the universe is god? So much for Jehovah I guess then.

The fact is we simply do not know. Not knowing doesn't equate to god/God/GOD/gods/Jehovah/YHWH etc., etc., etc. It means one thing; we do not know. Some are not comfortable with the fact that we do not know. Inventing a god as a solution to resolve discomfort is not actually a solution.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

DOES THERE HAVE TO BE A "FIRST CAUSE"?

Yes, it is a logical inevitability. Philosophers call this the "uncaused cause" scientist refer to "singularity" and theists call it "god" but whatever we call it, it must exist.

So I ask those who claim to know this 'first cause' to show they speak truth. Lacking such ability the most prudent, the most honest answer, is, "I don't know."

There can never have been absolutely nothing, since if there ever was nothing, there could never be ... something.

Or, we observe the universe, and conclude it's the something from which it's made.

Or, we propose an invisible, sentient entity is the thing from which that invisible, sentient entity arose.

source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... e-universe

Paywalled.

I'm curious to know if your source claims or supports the notion of a god's involvement.

• Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

• If the universe began to exist ; it was caused

• If the universe(s) or singularity, did not begin it therefore *IS* the uncaused cause /first cause/god

Either way there is a god, as in, "a first (uncaused) cause".

Logic,

JW

Religion.

Logic is only as useful as its premises.

According to that 'logic', however, we can properly conclude the universe always existed in a prior form, and we're observing an apparent expansion for which we don't know the cause.

Gods are only ever shown to be a product of the human imagination.

[theophile]

I cannot see how it can be anything BUT reasonable. We have a life in a complex universe that can only have come about with forethought and purpose.

I fear your reasoning'll never have truth put to it.

Not to mention the logical inevitability of a first cause.

What do you propose caused God?

That's the rub isn't it. Some look at the universe and claim it's way too complex to not have a creator. But then propose a creator, which would have to be way more complex than the universe to have created it, and suggest no creator needed. Double standard anyone?

Reasonable? I could sleep through half the class and still answer that one correctly and do so with only two letters.


Tcg

Why so preoccupied on the question of who created the universe? Why do we insist on thinking God in this way? I think we should all move on from such an unreasonable notion.

[theophile]

I think there are certain notions of God that are entirely reasonable. But we'd have to clarify what God is, and what the argument is, to answer your question…

Would such ‘notions’ include things like ‘God is in all things’ (i.e. simply calling the laws of nature, ‘God’)?

We should for sure consider the reasonableness of such notions. There is something extremely important about God's relationality to things, and whether God is in all things or is the causal force behind them. Some notions of God related to this are far more reasonable than others.

For example, I don't think it's reasonable to believe that God is the causal force behind all things. There's nothing we know about the universe that requires such a notion of God and lots of reasons to think that it isn't the case. (There is too much wrong with the world.)

This doesn't, however, mean that God has no causal power... I think a far more reasonable notion of God's causal power is one that limits it (at least originally) to moral causation (versus, say, physical). Which is to say, God's causal power is literally the Word, which can only cause things to happen much the same way as any other word (e.g., by influencing, commanding, etc.). As such, the only physical power God has (with such a notion) is what we physical beings give God by listening and doing what the Word says. (Which I think is perfectly reasonable.)

What about multiple gods? Is it still reasonable to allow for them?

Depends what you mean by 'gods'. I do think it's reasonable to think of God as a multitude of things, or potentially as such. God's Word is meant to be lived / done. All things are meant to take part in it. And when something takes part in it they essentially become God (or members of the body of Christ to use an NT formulation of this notion).

Again, all perfectly reasonable I think. And results in a notion of God that includes a multitude of 'gods'.

And how about advanced alien civilisations? Is it reasonable to believe they exist, and by virtue of their ‘godlike power’, deserve to be described as gods?

I do think it's pretty reasonable to believe that more advanced civilizations exist given the sheer size of the universe. But their physical power (per above) is not what would make them deserve to be called gods. Again, it's more about what 'word' they devote that power to.

Interesting take and 'reasonable' in that it recognises that postulating 'God' (a creator) occasions the question 'which god?'. It could be anything from intelligent nature or what I call 'the god of Einstein' (though I now doubt that Einstein actually saw physics order as intelligent), a race of gods (a bit as the LDS see it) or indeed ET aliens. Post - Daainiken, Sumerian myth was 'Interpreted' as a bunch of ET scientists genetically creating humans, or tinkering with the DNA of monkeys.

So 'Which god?' is reasonable. But to postulate any such creative force other than the natural, non -intelligent and unplanning evolutionary force of physics on matter is merely hypothetical and not the default hypothesis. The 'Material default' is, and to argue that it is, is not, in my view, reasonable.

I agree. But per the point I've been making, there are other far more reasonable (and deeply biblical) ways to think God that don't require postulating a God that is the maker of all that is.

Yes, if I get your drift and as I hinted (somewhere) as indeed it's the basis of the 'Chariots of the gods' argument, that God was a flying saucer pilot (or a bunch of them) who did the Godly stuff, not with miracles, but with suitably advanced technology. Which works along the Sci Fi level, it has to use understandable but cutting edge technology and at least sci fi level, like ray guns and anti - gravity. But they mustn't do magic (or 'technology indistinguishable from magic' (Azimov, as i recall), as then the whole illusion would collapse. Like the unwritten rule of Creationist apologetics; it has to work with nature - God can do little miracles to make it work, but not replace it with a miracle or - of course - none of it is necessary and the "illusion collapses". So yes, other ideas of gods, like a race of cosmic minds politicking away and poor ol' humans caught in the crossfire., can be covered by the god -claim

The thing is, those have no place in the discussion, other than a side note as part of the argument (e.g "Which god?"). Sortagod, Deistgod or the Cosmic Mind is really not important; it is academic (1). Because the not so invisible elephant in the debating - chamber is organised religion, and particularly Christianity. The reason there are atheist activists at all is because of the pushy, pernicious and pervasive polemics of evangelical Christianity. If Christianity was confined to church, family, books and video channels of religious enthusiasts, you wouldn't hear from atheists at all.

.(1) though anti - atheists of all kinds find it a possible soft sell Theism to discredit atheists.

I may be taking what you say too far, but I tend to think that Christianity should be allowed to play a broader role in the public realm than you say here. It should definitely be limited, and not just applied unquestioningly, but I have no issue with it, for example, having political representation, influence on governing policy, or that kind of thing.

At heart Christianity is all about love, and taking care of others (including plants, animals, the earth, and any aliens that may be out there). I tend to think that certain realities today would not exist if a more true Christianity was at the heart of our society (like climate change for example. Or war.)

[Miles]

DOES THERE HAVE TO BE A "FIRST CAUSE"?

Yes, it is a logical inevitability. Philosophers call this the "uncaused cause" scientist refer to "singularity" and theists call it "god" but whatever we call it, it must exist.

In three words, No They Don't. If nothing else, you're way out of your element when asserting your "logical inevitability" is philosophically "the "uncaused cause," or is science's "singularity." I suggest you stop pulling terms out of thin air when you don't understand them.

There can never have been absolutely nothing, since if there ever was nothing, there could never be ... something.

Very likely, but so what? I never mentioned "absolutely nothing," now did I. Positing another red herring doesn't help your posting at all.





And another, "So What? red herring." Reminds me of the admonition that a little learning can be a dangerous thing.

• Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

• If the universe began to exist ; it was caused

• If the universe(s) or singularity, did not begin it therefore *IS* the uncaused cause /first cause/god

I certainly hope this wasn't an attempt at a syllogism.

Either way there is a god, as in, "a first (uncaused) cause".

You can claim whatever you like as long as you like, but claims still don't amount to evidence much less a convincing argument.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think there are certain notions of God that are entirely reasonable. But we'd have to clarify what God is, and what the argument is, to answer your question…

Would such ‘notions’ include things like ‘God is in all things’ (i.e. simply calling the laws of nature, ‘God’)?

We should for sure consider the reasonableness of such notions. There is something extremely important about God's relationality to things, and whether God is in all things or is the causal force behind them. Some notions of God related to this are far more reasonable than others.

For example, I don't think it's reasonable to believe that God is the causal force behind all things. There's nothing we know about the universe that requires such a notion of God and lots of reasons to think that it isn't the case. (There is too much wrong with the world.)

This doesn't, however, mean that God has no causal power... I think a far more reasonable notion of God's causal power is one that limits it (at least originally) to moral causation (versus, say, physical). Which is to say, God's causal power is literally the Word, which can only cause things to happen much the same way as any other word (e.g., by influencing, commanding, etc.). As such, the only physical power God has (with such a notion) is what we physical beings give God by listening and doing what the Word says. (Which I think is perfectly reasonable.)

What about multiple gods? Is it still reasonable to allow for them?

Depends what you mean by 'gods'. I do think it's reasonable to think of God as a multitude of things, or potentially as such. God's Word is meant to be lived / done. All things are meant to take part in it. And when something takes part in it they essentially become God (or members of the body of Christ to use an NT formulation of this notion).

Again, all perfectly reasonable I think. And results in a notion of God that includes a multitude of 'gods'.

And how about advanced alien civilisations? Is it reasonable to believe they exist, and by virtue of their ‘godlike power’, deserve to be described as gods?

I do think it's pretty reasonable to believe that more advanced civilizations exist given the sheer size of the universe. But their physical power (per above) is not what would make them deserve to be called gods. Again, it's more about what 'word' they devote that power to.

Interesting take and 'reasonable' in that it recognises that postulating 'God' (a creator) occasions the question 'which god?'. It could be anything from intelligent nature or what I call 'the god of Einstein' (though I now doubt that Einstein actually saw physics order as intelligent), a race of gods (a bit as the LDS see it) or indeed ET aliens. Post - Daainiken, Sumerian myth was 'Interpreted' as a bunch of ET scientists genetically creating humans, or tinkering with the DNA of monkeys.

So 'Which god?' is reasonable. But to postulate any such creative force other than the natural, non -intelligent and unplanning evolutionary force of physics on matter is merely hypothetical and not the default hypothesis. The 'Material default' is, and to argue that it is, is not, in my view, reasonable.

I agree. But per the point I've been making, there are other far more reasonable (and deeply biblical) ways to think God that don't require postulating a God that is the maker of all that is.

Yes, if I get your drift and as I hinted (somewhere) as indeed it's the basis of the 'Chariots of the gods' argument, that God was a flying saucer pilot (or a bunch of them) who did the Godly stuff, not with miracles, but with suitably advanced technology. Which works along the Sci Fi level, it has to use understandable but cutting edge technology and at least sci fi level, like ray guns and anti - gravity. But they mustn't do magic (or 'technology indistinguishable from magic' (Azimov, as i recall), as then the whole illusion would collapse. Like the unwritten rule of Creationist apologetics; it has to work with nature - God can do little miracles to make it work, but not replace it with a miracle or - of course - none of it is necessary and the "illusion collapses". So yes, other ideas of gods, like a race of cosmic minds politicking away and poor ol' humans caught in the crossfire., can be covered by the god -claim

The thing is, those have no place in the discussion, other than a side note as part of the argument (e.g "Which god?"). Sortagod, Deistgod or the Cosmic Mind is really not important; it is academic (1). Because the not so invisible elephant in the debating - chamber is organised religion, and particularly Christianity. The reason there are atheist activists at all is because of the pushy, pernicious and pervasive polemics of evangelical Christianity. If Christianity was confined to church, family, books and video channels of religious enthusiasts, you wouldn't hear from atheists at all.

.(1) though anti - atheists of all kinds find it a possible soft sell Theism to discredit atheists.

I may be taking what you say too far, but I tend to think that Christianity should be allowed to play a broader role in the public realm than you say here. It should definitely be limited, and not just applied unquestioningly, but I have no issue with it, for example, having political representation, influence on governing policy, or that kind of thing.

At heart Christianity is all about love, and taking care of others (including plants, animals, the earth, and any aliens that may be out there). I tend to think that certain realities today would not exist if a more true Christianity was at the heart of our society (like climate change for example. Or war.)

I an unsure whether you mean that without Christianity, there would be no climate change happening or that there would be no discussion about it as it would simply be ignored or denied. Either way, it says exactly why we might be better off if Christianity had no influence on society or politics. Or rather i am sure, as you apparently playing the 'Christianity has never been tried' card. In what respect has Christianity never been tried? Wherever Christianity has had the upper hand (where it doesn't it is easy to play the martyred and saintly victim) it has persecuted those who disagreed and has been only to willing to throw itself behind war. The claim that 'if we did it as it should be done, it would be perfect' is one that should be given short shrift. I remember when I was battling evangelical marxism in my office in the 70's pointing out the harm it caused, it had the same excuse 'If everyone did it it as it is supposed to be, it would be a marxist utopia' ("never mind that it turned into repression and violence every time, it is going to be perfect This time"). I don't believe that and I don't believe the claim that a perfect and idealised Christianity could work.