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.

[Diagoras]

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.)

Agreed, and well put, thank you.

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.)

Isn't such a view at odds with the idea of God creating the physical world (and people) though?

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).

I hadn't actually meant 'gods' as equating to 'god as gestalt', but I see where you are going. No, I was wondering about all the other gods that have been worshipped over time: Thor, Vishnu, etc. Any thoughts on that?

I do think it's pretty reasonable to think that aliens 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.

I've posted this link a couple of times, as it's an interesting thought experiment that addresses the issue of 'God = aliens'. Personally, I found the idea of a 'type Omega' civilisation - one that could even have created our universe - to be unlikely, but as an extension of a scale of civilisation, it still seems reasonable. A commonly heard phrase is "the mind of God is unfathomable", and I think it's reasonable to assume such a powerful alien would be the same.

[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.

[1213]

...At one end nobody surely thinks the earth is flat and the sun was made after daylight....

And Bible doesn't claim earth to be flat. And there is no reason to think that light could not have existed before the sun. I think it is interesting how weak arguments atheists have against God. Would expect more from people who like to be seen as scientific and truthful.

[brunumb]

And there is no reason to think that light could not have existed before the sun.

There is every reason if one is familiar with light, the earth we inhabit and the universe. Oh, wait. Are we talking God-magic now?

[TRANSPONDER]

...At one end nobody surely thinks the earth is flat and the sun was made after daylight....

And Bible doesn't claim earth to be flat. And there is no reason to think that light could not have existed before the sun. I think it is interesting how weak arguments atheists have against God. Would expect more from people who like to be seen as scientific and truthful.

I think the Bible is written with a flat earth in mind. The 'circle of the earth' is a flat circle, because (as I recall) the Hebrew word chwug signifies a flat circle as scribed out by a compasses as described elsewhere in the OT. The compasses is in Hebrew 'Meshugennah' or something of the kind. I might check that up. If a sphere was really intended, 'ball' (dur') is available. This is pretty clearly patterned on the Babylonian flat earth and dome -cosmos.

Now everything becomes clear about the 'chaos' split into waters above and below by the Hebrew god, derived from the Babylonian myth of Tiamat, just as each nation made their tribal god the one who split the 'dragon' into the waters above and below. The ring of mountains around the circular earth had sluices in as per the Babylonian myth, and if those are 'the fountains of the deep' (waters below the earth) the mechanism for the Flood (with the trapdoors in the sky dome opening to let the waters pour in) and the winds blowing in a circle around the flat circular earth, pushing that waters back through the sluices, the puzzles make sense, just like the celestial objects attached to rails, or something, to trundle around the interior of the dome, the sun and moon made (Genesis says) to mark day and night, which were already there.

That light - light and dark, morning and evening, could not have been there before the sun.

Your miserable excuse that there was light before the sun (starlight, sure, but that won't account for day and night, morning and evening, as Genesis says) will not do, wash or make the cut. I have only one question: do you not know what's in your own Bible, or are you supposing that I don't? I try to be both patient and cheerful, but it's a bit of pressure when Bible apologists seems to be saying: "This fellow is an idiot, I can tell him anything, and he won't know better" (1). It's disrespect for your opponent as well as disrespect for Bible, misrepresenting what it actually says.

But yeah, I know, you are trapped between maintaining Genesis as true, but not denying the science with a round earth and sun made before the earth, not after or you would be laughed t, so what can you do other than try to make Genesis fit the science, which it contradicts? You do your best, but it obliges you to say silly and dishonest things like 'there was light before the sun' which is true, but nothing to do with the daylight that Genesis speaks of.

I do feel a bit sorry for Believers, but not much, as they purport to feel sorry for me because I don't know "The truth", so pity is wasted on a drunk who thinks I'm the one missing out. But I am very glad that I'm not a Bible literalist or rather a Genesis literalist - and my advice to you (not that you want it ) is accept that Genesis is myth. Appeal to 'metaphor', if you must, but give up trying to make the Bible say things it doesn't say..

(1) Quite apart from your obnoxious and mean -spirited attempt to bully, shame and intimidate me into rolling over and going comatose.

[Tcg]

...At one end nobody surely thinks the earth is flat and the sun was made after daylight....

And Bible doesn't claim earth to be flat. And there is no reason to think that light could not have existed before the sun. I think it is interesting how weak arguments atheists have against God. Would expect more from people who like to be seen as scientific and truthful.

That which is under consideration here is not an argument against God per se. It is an argument that documents where Genesis is flat wrong. It is an argument against the Bible. You suggested the Bible provides a reasonable reason for why you believe in God, so the discussion shifted to the Bible and the Bible fails to provide a reasonable reason.

As far as being scientific and truthful? Which is more scientific and truthful, to suggest that light on earth could have existed before the creation of the sun or to admit that is an impossibility? An additional problem discussed elsewhere is that there was never a time when the earth existed, and the sun didn't. Genesis has that wrong as well. None of this is an argument against God, it is however a scientific and truthful explanation for why claiming the Bible provides a reasonable support for belief is deeply flawed.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

...At one end nobody surely thinks the earth is flat and the sun was made after daylight....

And Bible doesn't claim earth to be flat. And there is no reason to think that light could not have existed before the sun. I think it is interesting how weak arguments atheists have against God. Would expect more from people who like to be seen as scientific and truthful.

That which is under consideration here is not an argument against God per se. It is an argument that documents where Genesis is flat wrong. It is an argument against the Bible. You suggested the Bible provides a reasonable reason for why you believe in God, so the discussion shifted to the Bible and the Bible fails to provide a reasonable reason.

As far as being scientific and truthful? Which is more scientific and truthful, to suggest that light on earth could have existed before the creation of the sun or to admit that is an impossibility? An additional problem discussed elsewhere is that there was never a time when the earth existed, and the sun didn't. Genesis has that wrong as well. None of this is an argument against God, it is however a scientific and truthful explanation for why claiming the Bible provides a reasonable support for belief is deeply flawed.


Tcg

That does point up the "Which God?" aspect. Disproving Genesis doesn't disprove a creator, or even Biblegod, though it does make a dent in cover to cover credibility of the Bible.It's why atheists can reject the reality of Biblegod with a high degree of confidence, but as to some sorta god, that is less cut and dried, though material physics is the first choice theory rather than an intelligent creator.

[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.

Though this is a straight forward question, one may want to flesh this out a bit deeper. Meaning... What is your definition of 'god'. If it's merely a 'first causal agency', then maybe....?..?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?....???? ---> (First provided you can DEMONSTRATE that the 'universe' had a true beginning?)

However, if your definition suggests that God is 'good' <and/or> 'love' <and/or> wants/seeks a personal relationship with his creation, then this may be a much harder 'pill' to swallow --> (reasonably)?

[Tcg]

...At one end nobody surely thinks the earth is flat and the sun was made after daylight....

And Bible doesn't claim earth to be flat. And there is no reason to think that light could not have existed before the sun. I think it is interesting how weak arguments atheists have against God. Would expect more from people who like to be seen as scientific and truthful.

That which is under consideration here is not an argument against God per se. It is an argument that documents where Genesis is flat wrong. It is an argument against the Bible. You suggested the Bible provides a reasonable reason for why you believe in God, so the discussion shifted to the Bible and the Bible fails to provide a reasonable reason.

As far as being scientific and truthful? Which is more scientific and truthful, to suggest that light on earth could have existed before the creation of the sun or to admit that is an impossibility? An additional problem discussed elsewhere is that there was never a time when the earth existed, and the sun didn't. Genesis has that wrong as well. None of this is an argument against God, it is however a scientific and truthful explanation for why claiming the Bible provides a reasonable support for belief is deeply flawed.


Tcg

That does point up the "Which God?" aspect. Disproving Genesis doesn't disprove a creator, or even Biblegod, though it does make a dent in cover to cover credibility of the Bible.It's why atheists can reject the reality of Biblegod with a high degree of confidence, but as to some sorta god, that is less cut and dried, though material physics is the first choice theory rather than an intelligent creator.

Right. The flaws in Genesis don't disprove Biblegod and certainly not other gods. What it reveals is that presenting the Bible as a reasonable reason to believe in God is fallacious.

Additionally, it's not valid to state that atheists have very weak arguments against God. We don't need any. All we have to do is point out the fact that none of the reason presented for the existence of God are valid. To answer the O.P., no it is not reasonable to believe in God because there is no sufficient evidence for which to do so.

If God (any god) exists it is a master of covering all the tracks of its existence. Some native scouts had that skill. Maybe they learned it from God.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

...At one end nobody surely thinks the earth is flat and the sun was made after daylight....

And Bible doesn't claim earth to be flat. And there is no reason to think that light could not have existed before the sun. I think it is interesting how weak arguments atheists have against God. Would expect more from people who like to be seen as scientific and truthful.

That which is under consideration here is not an argument against God per se. It is an argument that documents where Genesis is flat wrong. It is an argument against the Bible. You suggested the Bible provides a reasonable reason for why you believe in God, so the discussion shifted to the Bible and the Bible fails to provide a reasonable reason.

As far as being scientific and truthful? Which is more scientific and truthful, to suggest that light on earth could have existed before the creation of the sun or to admit that is an impossibility? An additional problem discussed elsewhere is that there was never a time when the earth existed, and the sun didn't. Genesis has that wrong as well. None of this is an argument against God, it is however a scientific and truthful explanation for why claiming the Bible provides a reasonable support for belief is deeply flawed.


Tcg

That does point up the "Which God?" aspect. Disproving Genesis doesn't disprove a creator, or even Biblegod, though it does make a dent in cover to cover credibility of the Bible.It's why atheists can reject the reality of Biblegod with a high degree of confidence, but as to some sorta god, that is less cut and dried, though material physics is the first choice theory rather than an intelligent creator.

Right. The flaws in Genesis don't disprove Biblegod and certainly not other gods. What it reveals is that presenting the Bible as a reasonable reason to believe in God is fallacious.

Additionally, it's not valid to state that atheists have very weak arguments against God. We don't need any. All we have to do is point out the fact that none of the reason presented for the existence of God are valid. To answer the O.P., no it is not reasonable to believe in God because there is no sufficient evidence for which to do so.

If God (any god) exists it is a master of covering all the tracks of its existence. Some native scouts had that skill. Maybe they learned it from God.


Tcg

Yes. Theoretically, we could just do what the theists do (but with better reason) - just reject all the arguments and say 'we win'. But intellectual honesty requires that we give good reasons why we reject the god - apologetics. Theists just fall back on Faith.