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.

[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

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.

I don't consider it an issue of winning or losing. Additionally, I think I have provided good reasons why I reject the god apologetic that the Bible provides reason to believe. Those reasons however aren't based on presenting arguments against God, but rather addressing one specific and flawed argument given in favor of believing in 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.

I don't consider it an issue of winning or losing. Additionally, I think I have provided good reasons why I reject the god apologetic that the Bible provides reason to believe. Those reasons however aren't based on presenting arguments against God, but rather addressing one specific and flawed argument given in favor of believing in God.


Tcg

Yep...it' isn't primarily about winning or losing but debating a case. There is going to be an element of 'well, who won that one? That is if the bubblegum -seat occupiers are reading any of it.

Oh and thanks a thousand five hundred times, Friends for the Thanks. I print them out and paper my walls with them

[Purple Knight]

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.

I think what you're fishing for here is that it's perfectly reasonable whether or not it's terribly likely to be true or whether you can prove it.

I say the opposite. God might well exist.

But our human standard of reasonability... well... such a belief doesn't pass. In fact it fails so hard that the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) has to write an exception for religious beliefs, because without that exception, those beliefs would fully qualify as delusional.

Delusional. In other words, crazy. This is not me calling religious people crazy, this is the DSM (if it didn't have that exception for religious beliefs) calling religious people crazy. And if you take the DSM from today back to 33AD when Jesus died and rose from the dead (here, you can use my TARDIS), but before Christianity is officially a religion, it absolutely is calling anyone crazy who claims that Jesus rose from the dead, even if he did!

This should show you the standard of reasonability that a belief must pass before it is simply considered sane. It's actually quite a high one. Frankly if it were up to me I would see it lowered at least a bit, but it's not up to me what's reasonable. And religious beliefs are, on the front of pure reasonability without adding culture to the mix, unreasonable enough to qualify as delusions.

[1213]

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. ...

Circle can be drawn also on a surface of a sphere. Like shown in here:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Kuvat/Earth.jpg

...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:...

And you say no other light than sun and star light is possible?

[TRANSPONDER]

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. ...

Circle can be drawn also on a surface of a sphere. Like shown in here:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Kuvat/Earth.jpg

...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:...

And you say no other light than sun and star light is possible?

Clever. so you argue that a 'flat' circle was shall we say 'Eden' and the rest of the globe not? Now you mention it, wasn't Adam driven out of Eden? So they had to have somewhere else to go. So let's go with that. After all it matches up with the Sumerian Flood which (arguably) was local, came from the mountains and the skies and was limited to the local land. It would even make the Flood work as you wouldn't need all the critters, only the local domestic ones, and let the vermin look after itself. How does that grab you? I will not deceive you, however, as a Local flood suffers from the same problem as the Black Sea Flood - it wasn't global. Can you live with a local wipeout of creation but not a Global one?

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. ...

Circle can be drawn also on a surface of a sphere. Like shown in here:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Kuvat/Earth.jpg

...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:...

And you say no other light than sun and star light is possible?

No, Mr Strawmaster, I say that there is no reasonable source for daylight, shut off as evening as it says in the Bible, before the sun was made.

I got the wrong quote..let me fix that.

[theophile]

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?

Very much so. But I also don't think the physical world was created by God. It's not a reasonable concept. I also don't think the bible depicts such a God (for what that's worth).

In the beginning, per Genesis 1, the situation we find is God, or at least the ruach elohim (by which I mean the wind / breath / word / spirit of God) in the midst of some cosmic ocean (tehom / the deep). Which means, both water and space (and some non-physical aspect of God) already exist before anything actually gets created. There is already a physical world in flux. It just is...

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 think that all such traditions (including biblical), are 100% made up. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to them. Common threads even. I think some god-concepts are more reasonable than others though. Like, the biblical God. Not so much for the made up story the bible relays, but the underlying notion of God being conveyed.

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.

See, I don't think the mind of God is unfathomable. To me it's all about the Word. Unlike some alien being out there, we can decipher it.

[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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Lacking the particulars, count me down for no.

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.

Considering how many different gods've been claimed to've existed, this amateur paleoanthropologist sees merely tales. Tales designed to explain everything from the mundane, to the incredible - with not the first bit of confirmable data in support.

What constitutes reasonable is subjective, and I ain't here to say folks're off their rockers for holding god beliefs. I just think they've come to em the wrong conclusion.

[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.

[JehovahsWitness]

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. Not to mention the logical inevitability of a first cause.



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,