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.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #140]

I'll stick with logic on this'n.

What makes you think that the scientists are not sticking to logic? The math shows it to be the case that the fundamental nature of what we call reality, is different from how we experience it.

Search "Spacetime is doomed" as one example. There are others.

[btw - who's 'fretting'?]

[POI]

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.

Or, is it reasonable to believe life exists on other planets? But there exists a HUGE disparity between me reasonably believing, verses being reasonably convinced. Same goes for 'god.' 'Reasonable' seems to be a very low standard, when faced with the question of supposing a "life-changing god'.

So, your answer to my question is 'Yes'?

I guess it would depend on the claimed God in question. Which one are you referring to?

[JoeyKnothead]

What makes you think that the scientists are not sticking to logic? The math shows it to be the case that the fundamental nature of what we call reality, is different from how we experience it.

Which is why I specifically mentioned our perception, or as you say, experiences having no bearing on reality.

Search "Spacetime is doomed" as one example. There are others.

A matter of degrees. Something either exists as a part of reality, or it doesn't.

[btw - who's 'fretting'?]

"Fretting" is the act of considering, worrying about, fussing with, all such as that, so it’s me and you doing the fretting here.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is hilarious gents. We have seen our god apologists (or sorta -god apologists) trying to wangle, manouver and lead Joey and Poi up the garden path and out the garden gate into Lalaland (1) and they failed.

Joey bought the term non-theist. Ok, no harm done. In fact while 'Brights' sticks in my craw, I'm ok with non -theist which is just a synonym for atheist.

But the stuff about scientists believe in some sort of 'Fundamental reality' which seems to be based on Aristotle, who famously had the Vatican lock Galileo up, because they couldn't accept that science had changed its' mind, and apply that to all scientists and they 'probably'...believe something .. "fundamental reality" (#135) is pretty blatant, and Joey is too smart.

Similarly Poi reasonably supposing there is life on other planets is peddled the idea that by analogy, God is a reasonable supposition. But he ain't buying it either.

The chain of faithbased suppositions from Aristotle to a cosmic mind (which is where William is always going, folks) is made of links of plastacine. Aristotle devised the method, but science is always changing its' mind and philosophy needs science to validate its' guesses. Fundamental reality is either the stuff of matter (whatever that turns out to be) and reliable physics, and I suspect may turn out to be both. What I have not seen any indication of science finding (despite sortatheists who would dearly like them to find it), is a cosmic intelligence, aka 'God'.

And on the other discussion, what we know about life and planets makes it statistically likely that there are (on evidence) very very very few planets that can host any form of life, as a percentage of stars with planets, but there are so many stars, that the tiny percentage credibly means a LOT of life, and evolutionary processes (from matter to bio-matter) being a physical Law, folks, even if the scientists in different fields (atomic physics and biological genetics) haven't realized that it is the same process, some of it having become intelligent and even technologically advanced is probable.

It's like the common creationist misunderstanding of fossils: they are very rare, but also very common. What? They really think this is a contradiction. They are very very rare as a percentage of dead critters becoming fossilized, but there have been so many critters (another evidence for geological deep time) that the tiny and rare percentage of fossils amounts to museumsful, with annex warehouses full of more.

But what is the evidence for a Cosmic mind Aka God as there is for Life, which exists, the water and Biomatter of life, which exists and goldilocks planets which statistically must exist? I'll tell you folks, though Joey and Poi know it already, I'd guess.

None. No ID evidence, no real evidence of any kind. Just unknowns and gaps for God, and attempts to peddle a cosmic mind through appeals to an unknown and undefinable 'fundamental reality' and analogy with possible ET life.

You wasted a lot of posts, Theists, on red herrings, false analogies and speculations about unknowns, but it was interesting to watch.

(1) I mean, good grief, the blatant equivocation of 'atheism is of the spirit realm'. There's taking mental processes (which we know exist) and equating them to a cosmic mind which we don't know exists. Never mind researching collapse of spacetime, research 'black swan fallacy'.

[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.

Or, is it reasonable to believe life exists on other planets? But there exists a HUGE disparity between me reasonably believing, verses being reasonably convinced. Same goes for 'god.' 'Reasonable' seems to be a very low standard, when faced with the question of supposing a "life-changing god'.

So, your answer to my question is 'Yes'?

I guess it would depend on the claimed God in question. Which one are you referring to?

I just mean God in the general (philosophical) sense, without regard to any specific religious conceptions of God.

[POI]

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.

Or, is it reasonable to believe life exists on other planets? But there exists a HUGE disparity between me reasonably believing, verses being reasonably convinced. Same goes for 'god.' 'Reasonable' seems to be a very low standard, when faced with the question of supposing a "life-changing god'.

So, your answer to my question is 'Yes'?

I guess it would depend on the claimed God in question. Which one are you referring to?

I just mean God in the general (philosophical) sense, without regard to any specific religious conceptions of God.

Well, it depends... What does the term 'god' mean exactly? I mean, really... I have to circle you back to (post 129).

Let's flesh this out for a minute...

If the inquisitive question asked is... "Do you believe life exists on other planets?" I'd say, it is 'reasonable' to state (yes). As "Transponder" has already pointed out, based upon the number of star/planet combinations we have in our universe, it seems 'conceivable and/or reasonable'. But really, that just becomes a talking point, as I find it less conceivable any such 'alien life' has ever made contact with earth -- EVEN THOUGH we have countless documented 'sightings', testimonials, writings, etc.... Sound familiar? Hint hint -- (the specific god you likely believe exists/interacts)....But yea, there may exist intelligent or unintelligent life elsewhere, besides earth?.?.?.?

Are you getting the picture yet?. If you are curious as to whether I could get on board with mere "deism" and/or "theism"? Well, I 'guess' it is 'reasonable/conceivable/possible/other'? But how 'reasonable/conceivable/possible/other? But the question almost becomes too generic, until you start digging a bit... You need to clarify 'reasonable' and 'god', for starters. And once you do this, we can have a real discussion. Otherwise, it's about as useful as asking "is (this or that) even possible/reasonable? It depends....

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Or, is it reasonable to believe life exists on other planets? But there exists a HUGE disparity between me reasonably believing, verses being reasonably convinced. Same goes for 'god.' 'Reasonable' seems to be a very low standard, when faced with the question of supposing a "life-changing god'.

So, your answer to my question is 'Yes'?

I guess it would depend on the claimed God in question. Which one are you referring to?

I just mean God in the general (philosophical) sense, without regard to any specific religious conceptions of God.

Well, it depends... What does the term 'god' mean exactly? I mean, really... I have to circle you back to (post 129).

Let's flesh this out for a minute...

If the inquisitive question asked is... "Do you believe life exists on other planets?" I'd say, it is 'reasonable' to state (yes). As "Transponder" has already pointed out, based upon the number of star/planet combinations we have in our universe, it seems 'conceivable and/or reasonable'. But really, that just becomes a talking point, as I find it less conceivable any such 'alien life' has ever made contact with earth -- EVEN THOUGH we have countless documented 'sightings', testimonials, writings, etc.... Sound familiar? Hint hint -- (the specific god you likely believe exists/interacts)....But yea, there may exist intelligent or unintelligent life elsewhere, besides earth?.?.?.?

Are you getting the picture yet?. If you are curious as to whether I could get on board with mere "deism" and/or "theism"? Well, I 'guess' it is 'reasonable/conceivable/possible/other'? But how 'reasonable/conceivable/possible/other? But the question almost becomes too generic, until you start digging a bit... You need to clarify 'reasonable' and 'god', for starters. And once you do this, we can have a real discussion. Otherwise, it's about as useful as asking "is (this or that) even possible/reasonable? It depends....

Very good - as one would expect. It is a point i didn't consider. Yes, ET life is a logically and evidentially good bet (like the Higgs -Boson, Black holes and Tiktaalik until they were actually found, and Abogenesis, Dark Matter, and something from nothing, which is not yet proven. The possibility opf an intelligent ET that might contact us is far lower, but stiill quite plausible. And ET Saucer -pilots actually being here, though anecdotally ought to be compelling has actually turned out to be not, Crop circles having failed, the research methods flawed (never mind so many that look fake) and even the Big Three (Socorro, Villas Boas and the Hills (1) being debunked.

Now with 'God' we can deal with 'what does 'God' mean. Either a religious (name your own) or non religious Cosmic mind. Simple - like atheism. Either of those cover all manner of sub- divisions, remote deist or interative intelligent nature? In either sae, the argument is the same. The evidence that one would exect isn't there and the evidence is, remarkably like the UFO evidence - debunked, delusionary, or spurious.
Not that Deistgod -theist or even Intelligent nature fanciers have to be (as irreligious theists) at odds with atheists (or non -theists) as regards religion. But sooften they want to use deism or ireligious theism (aka "Agnostic") as alaughable attempt to debunk atheism, "If a Deistgod is real, atheism is false". Yes, dudes, but you haven't a damn' scrap of evidence to prove that it Is true. You are only invited in the atheist summer -camp, precinct because you are irreligious; Dammit, we even give day -passes to religious humanists and Christian evolutionists, providing they don't deface the atheist books in the Library.
.
The arguments for Deistgod or intelligent nature are no better than the Christian (or Islam) ones, (Kalam, Anselm or Ontological arguments) though we don't get the leap of Faith to a Holy Book.

That is perhaps the equivalent of possible ET life. But Religious evidence is - like UFO evidence - initially persuasive. But under examination, turns out to be far less so. The Bibler debunked, miracles debunked, various extra biblical claims debunked. In fact nothing and less than nothing. But that said, it's more the case for Deistgod that is operative here, and we goddless have no quarrel with those good sir knights, but if they will stand in our way, they rish losing an arm or two, even though they keep coming back totally legless, trying to battle atheists.(2)

(1) I intended to resist this, but out of respect to Betty and barney Hil - they were sincere, but got talked into it, just as people get talked into thinking they were abducted or that there was (or Is) a Satanic cult in the UK (an infamous example of loonies being put in charge) . Villas boas may have believed what he claimed, but (at least to out local UFO Thinktank a few decades ago) was not true, and Soccorro has been shown to be (credibly) a hoax.

(2)... you know this was coming...

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #143]

What makes you think that the scientists are not sticking to logic? The math shows it to be the case that the fundamental nature of what we call reality, is different from how we experience it.

Which is why I specifically mentioned our perception, or as you say, experiences having no bearing on reality.

Never what I say Joey.

We do not know in what manner our perceptions affect/effect fundamental reality, because we do not know the fundamental nature of reality.

A matter of degrees. Something either exists as a part of reality, or it doesn't.

Which reality are you speaking about here? Your perception of reality or fundamental reality?

It would have to be your perception of reality. It exists because you perceive it to exist, but just because there are things which we do not perceive to exist, does not mean those things do not fundamentally exist.

It is a sensible reason as to why I refer to my position is neither theist of nontheist as I am not obligated to form the beliefs those other two position are obligated to form and adhere to.

"Fretting" is the act of considering, worrying about, fussing with, all such as that, so it’s me and you doing the fretting here.

They are also good device for learning guitar, and being able to play it effectively.
However, there are also fretless guitars but exceptional skills are required...

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #143]

What makes you think that the scientists are not sticking to logic? The math shows it to be the case that the fundamental nature of what we call reality, is different from how we experience it.

Which is why I specifically mentioned our perception, or as you say, experiences having no bearing on reality.

Never what I say Joey.

We do not know in what manner our perceptions affect/effect fundamental reality, because we do not know the fundamental nature of reality.

A matter of degrees. Something either exists as a part of reality, or it doesn't.

Which reality are you speaking about here? Your perception of reality or fundamental reality?

It would have to be your perception of reality. It exists because you perceive it to exist, but just because there are things which we do not perceive to exist, does not mean those things do not fundamentally exist.

It is a sensible reason as to why I refer to my position is neither theist of nontheist as I am not obligated to form the beliefs those other two position are obligated to form and adhere to.

"Fretting" is the act of considering, worrying about, fussing with, all such as that, so it’s me and you doing the fretting here.

They are also good device for learning guitar, and being able to play it effectively.
However, there are also fretless guitars but exceptional skills are required...

You are teasing us. Pointing up the equivocation of 'Fret' was fun but essentially pointless other than as an illustration of equivocation.

Not that it was relevant, as 'Reality' is what it is, and obtains, no matter how we see it. E.g a bush as a dark shape at night may look like a menacing beast to us, but it still aint gonna attack.

So perceptual reality (1) or 'fundamental reality (which it is aside from the illusion of human perception) it still works the same way, no matter how it looks to us. The appeal to how humans see reality is irrelevant and a red herring - it still works the same way.

"Damn' I could have made everyone believe in Gods if it wasn't for you interfering kids ripping my disguise off!".

(1) damn' can't help it - must be a foopnote... and the use of science to overcome misperception is what makes science reliable and the theist (or at least anti -atheist) argument from imperfect human perception fails, in fact it debunks Theism, as human Theist beliefs are more likely the product of flawed human perceptions and atheism is based on the more reliable researched data of science.

[William]

It is the more reliable researched data of science which I am pointing to in regard to the existence of a fundamental reality from which our reality derives [not the other way around importance-wise.]

Nontheistic use of science is a different matter and need not be confused with the actual science.