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.

[1213]

... 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 believe Eden was only a small part of the original single continent. When A&E were expelled from there, the place was on the same continent.

I don't think the Biblical flood was small local flood. I believe it was as told in the Bible. But, to understand it correctly, one must understand that before the flood, there was only one continent. And below that one continent was a vast cavity filled with water. And when the flood came, it was because the original continent was broken and sunk.

[TRANSPONDER]

The point is - was all that on a globe or not? I get your picture - Eden is a limited 'circle' of land surrounded by rivers as it says in Gen 2 10-14. And it pretty much encompasses the Ancient middle east because it is between Tigris and Cush ( Africa). That was never a separate Island with an ocean beneath. The geology is that all the continents were combined in one super continent that broke up (more or less around the Flood, but the actual order of events isn't clear cut, and cue science- denial anyway). I don't see this general Mid east area as a compass - drawn circle. I think the description better fits the Babylonian snow - dome, with confining mountains and wind circling around pushing the flood waters back through the sluices of the 'fountains of the Deep', but I can't prove that reading, I can only say that the order of creation conflicts with the science (cue more science denial) and of course the flood water below the Middle east conflicts with the flood waters below the Atlantic, as some other Creationist hypotheses have it. There is an element of 'when you agree what your hypothesis is, come and tell us'

But at least we agree that Isaiah is referring to an apparently flat area of land (circle Of the earth translating as circle ON the earth) and it does not refer to a sphere because the Hebrew indicates a compass -scribed circle.

I don't know where that fits into the argument, but it isn't 'science in the Bible' because it is just talking about what people knew at the time, or thought they knew.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Cause some folks think whoever - not whatever - caused the universe gets to decide how we humans oughta live.

They declare that they, by their creator god, have the right to restrict the rights and freedoms of others.

[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.

Cause some folks think whoever - not whatever - caused the universe gets to decide how we humans oughta live.

They declare that they, by their creator god, have the right to restrict the rights and freedoms of others.

That's why I don't get riled up over the flat-earthers. I find the idea of a flat earth absurd, but as long they don't start telling us spherical-earthers that we can't marry each other or stuff like that, I doubt I'm gonna pay much attention to the movement.

Another thing that might change that would be if they started claiming that if one joins them, they'll attain the glorious and perfect eternal flat earth. I don't find it healthy to ignore the here and now and concentrate on a future that almost certainly will never come.

Not all, but some who find it reasonable to believe in God make similar claims. Perfectly unsupportable claims. Oddly, a great many overlook that fact as long as the promised future payoff is grand. I suspect that payoff is why some are willing to overlook the unreasonableness of being certain gods exist.


Tcg

[Tcg]

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).

One would have to do some very serious editing of the Bible to reach that conclusion. And not just of the O.T., the N.T. as well. Jesus reportedly made plenty of horrible statements about the destiny of those who refuse to follow him. Love? Far from it.

But beyond that, I'm not sure how this addresses the O.P. question.


Tcg

[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.)

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.

Yah, that's where I was going.

But look, we need to find a way to organize our world. That is a fact. I really don't care what we call it or what influences it (the bible, Marx, etc.), so long as it yields the intended result. Which to me is a world where everyone / everything can be. Where life of every kind and form can flourish.

Out of everything I've encountered and judged, the bible best expresses that view and provides a path. I think it shares a lot of the good heart, for example, of Western ideals and ethics, but also corrects its bad. Like, if we truly exhibited Christian love, or love of God even, our abuses of the environment should not occur. The wanton oppression and destruction of any people or thing would be abhorrent.

So yah, we would not be in the situation we are in or at least, once known, the appropriate correctives would have been applied. But I totally agree with your drift. That's why I tried to emphasize before this can't be unquestioningly. And we always have to watch out for the slip into tyranny.

[Tcg]

Like, if we truly exhibited Christian love, or love of God even, our abuses of the environment should not occur. The wanton oppression and destruction of any people or thing would be abhorrent.

That's a tough sell considering the following:

Joshua 6:21

"Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword."

Deuteronomy 20:16-17

"But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded,"

Joshua 10:40

"So Joshua struck the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, just as the Lord God of Israel commanded."

Isaiah 13:15-18

"Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished. Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them, who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold. Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb; their eyes will not pity children."

Exodus 34:11-14

“Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst. You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),"

1 Samuel 15:3

"Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

1 Peter 2:18

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust."

Numbers 31:17-18

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves."

Acts 5:1-11

"But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. ..."

2 Kings 19:35

"And that night the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies."

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Matthew 13: 40-42

"Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The wanton oppression and destruction of people is standard operating procedure in the Bible.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

But look, we need to find a way to organize our world. That is a fact. I really don't care what we call it or what influences it (the bible, Marx, etc.), so long as it yields the intended result. Which to me is a world where everyone / everything can be. Where life of every kind and form can flourish.

Out of everything I've encountered and judged, the bible best expresses that view and provides a path.

Cause, "Don't be a jerk, and help here and there where ya can" is too complicated?

The problem with accepting the bible as some kinda proper moral guide is that ya gotta accept the immoral bits right along with it.

Unless we consider stoning folks to be some great moral gift to us all.

[theophile]

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.

Cause some folks think whoever - not whatever - caused the universe gets to decide how we humans oughta live.

They declare that they, by their creator god, have the right to restrict the rights and freedoms of others.

I understand that. My questions were more about why we insist on thinking God in this way, i.e., as the creator of all that is (and all the mess that follows from such an idea). I get that Christians claim it, and I get that atheists rightly disclaim it. What I don't get is why right-minded folks (Christian and atheist alike) don't just get on with it and start thinking God anew already. (Or frankly, in ways that are more in touch with original biblical expression, which does not show a God who created all that is).

There are some benefits if we do:
1. It frees Christians of a tired argument / dead 'God', and opens the horizon for a new (/more original) Christianity.
2. It gives atheists a fresh challenge in the form of next order 'Gods' and Christian thinking to debunk. Ones that don't come with the baggage of unreasonable attributes like God being the creator of all that is, and all the trouble this gets God into...

But hey, I totally get there is Christian extremism out there, and that should stop. I just don't think we should let such nonsense (or associated ideas) be the final word on God.

[Tcg]

[Replying to theophile in post #49]

2. It gives atheists a fresh challenge in the form of next order 'Gods' and Christian thinking to debunk.

It is not the duty of atheists to "debunk" anything. If one comes up with a next order God and Christian thought, it is their duty to provide evidence such things are valid and actually exist. They'll also need to justify their rejection of the Bible's explanation of God which reveals that what is being describe is clearly a monster.


Tcg