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.

[JehovahsWitness]

WILL THERE BE ANY LONG LASTING NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE PERMISSION OF EVIL?

Biblically speaking, no. The bible promises

ISAIAH 65:17, 18

“The former things will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart. But exult, you people, and be joyful forever in what I am creating”

So while this might be understood to mean certain facts of one's past might be remembered or recounted, there will be no emotional or psychologically pain caused by the after effects of one's past experiences. There is no reason to believe those who suffered horrific deaths will remember the actual experience, given the above promise and the fact that the brain tends to shut down when the body is subjected to extreme pain or shock.


CONCLUSION There is nothing negative that an omnipotent God has allowed that he cannot repair.


RELATED POSTS

What is the issue of universal Sovereignty?
viewtopic.php?p=1031210#p1031210

Should not a loving God have ignored the issues in order to avoid suffering?
viewtopic.php?p=908722#p908722

Will there be any long lasting negative effects of the permission of evil?
viewtopic.php?p=1108143#p1108143

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SATAN , HUMAN SUFFERING and .... THE ISSUE OF UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGNTY

[Yozavad]

The world is full of clever arguments for and against god. There's never been a polemic so powerful that it forces the opposition into obeisance. Why should we expect a verbose champion to resolve this contention and free humanity at last from this ancient battle of witts ? Not only does humanity suffer from mood swings, but it slides the slippery slope of logic as well. Faith cannot be sustained by intellectual plausibility, because the intellect constantly wrestles with itself. "I'm a million different people from one day to the next", Richard Ashcroft, bitter sweet symphony. Nonetheless, the world can't seem to rid itself of the ultimate mental nag: Is there a god? Is it realistic to believe (have faith) in a god, or to disbelieve (have no faith) in a god? Fortunately, this quest of logic to ascertain the degree this "unknowable god" merits belief or disbelief is unwarranted. No need to be befuddled with strategic discourse. No need to be bewildered in the philosophers' playpen. "Come to me all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest", Matthew 16:28. The divine-tug that leads people to Christ is beyond my understanding, but the confusion that mental aptitude leads to is not. Nobody can muscle their way to 'is-there-a-god-or-nope' and expect to retain their "finding" for long. Their mental assertion will eventually forsake them when something more clever comes along. Alas! The ineffectiveness of our mental faculties to settle the score. Oh, the utter emptiness of all Earth's sages to remedy our dilemma: is-there-a-god-or-nope? "Futility of futilities. All is pointless! What advantage does humanity have from all its labor under the sun", Solomon.

[historia]

[Replying to Yozavad in post #252]

So you'd say, then, that it's reasonable to believe in God?

[Yozavad]

No, I'd say it's unreasonable to imagine that unadulterated, raw human willpower, coupled with intellectual resolve, could even remotely determine any degree of accuracy in which we could confidently affirm belief is reasonable or otherwise. Humanity is too cunning for that, and the generic god of conjecture isn't worth the trouble.

[brunumb]

If worship is the fitting response to acknowledging of the reality of having received life from one's Creator; why would said Creator not desire his subjects do the right thing?

IF. It is perfectly reasonable that your creator would desire his subjects to do the right thing, but you have not established that worship is the right thing. Please demonstrate worship is the fitting response.

[Yozavad]

I am a Christian, but I would never advocate that Christ is the spoils of intellectual warfare, or a trophy obtained through studious speculation. Falsehood never glorifies Christ, and its false when pseudo-intellectuals present Him as rationale's only conclusion. Logic may be praised as humanity's most noble endeavor for acquiring knowledge, but logical contemplation no matter how austere will disappoint its peddlers at every turn. It will make your head spin around in perpetual frustration, as to how and why, everyone's individual logic leads in every direction but the " fabled bullseye " our hubris fancies it should. " I praise You Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants", Matthew 11:25.

[JehovahsWitness]

It is perfectly reasonable that your creator would desire his subjects to do the right thing, but you have not established that worship is the right thing. Please demonstrate worship is the fitting response.

What is right and proper is of course subjective; it is not "demonstratable" outside of a person's personal moral compass. Biblically however, that which is right is that which reflects divine standards. Worship is essentially acknowledging the Creator as the source of our life and feeling appreciation towards Him for that fact. According to scripture this is the right and proper thing to do. Arguably even the godless and the atheist sees the value of appropriate feelings of gratitude, even if they find such feelings morally redundant.



JW

[Purple Knight]

Arguably even the godless and the atheist sees the value of appropriate feelings of gratitude, even if they find such feelings morally redundant.

I'm a godless atheist and I do. Gratitude is important. And showing it is not always easy. Where I draw the line though, is acknowledging that because I was created (assuming that I was) I owe the creator moral deference. It would be simple to get that from a creation and have everything in perfect harmony: Just don't create beings with a moral compass that points against your Way or worse, without a moral compass at all. Then you, as a mortal, bloody know somewhere in your heart that you're doing the wrong thing resisting any of this.

There are people who have done genuine soul-searching and disagree. That means their moral compasses were made that way: To go against what is right. That's something I that I feel there is no explanation for if this is really The Way.

Everyone can be saved, right? Theoretically? Let's say sociopaths need to exist for whatever reason. I can think of some actually. They might choose the right way for some reason other than being righteous to start with. What is the best outcome for them? To have a moral compass installed in Paradise as a reward for living righteously even though it went against their nature every second to do so? If this happens it's going to feel like they won a gameshow, picked the right door, not did anything because it was right. To them, it wasn't.

[brunumb]

What is right and proper is of course subjective; it is not "demonstratable" outside of a person's personal moral compass. Biblically however, that which is right is that which reflects divine standards. Worship is essentially acknowledging the Creator as the source of our life and feeling appreciation towards Him for that fact. According to scripture this is the right and proper thing to do. Arguably even the godless and the atheist sees the value of appropriate feelings of gratitude, even if they find such feelings morally redundant.

Respect and gratitude are fine, although I don't see why I should show gratitude for a life I never asked for and the misery associated with that 'gift'. As for worship, nah. Any deity that expects worship is an unworthy deity, and based on his biblical exploits, Jehovah is decidedly unworthy as far as I'm concerned. But you go ahead and debase yourself to this being if you think it will get you a better reward in the long run.

[TRANSPONDER]

The world is full of clever arguments for and against god. There's never been a polemic so powerful that it forces the opposition into obeisance. Why should we expect a verbose champion to resolve this contention and free humanity at last from this ancient battle of witts ? Not only does humanity suffer from mood swings, but it slides the slippery slope of logic as well. Faith cannot be sustained by intellectual plausibility, because the intellect constantly wrestles with itself. "I'm a million different people from one day to the next", Richard Ashcroft, bitter sweet symphony. Nonetheless, the world can't seem to rid itself of the ultimate mental nag: Is there a god? Is it realistic to believe (have faith) in a god, or to disbelieve (have no faith) in a god? Fortunately, this quest of logic to ascertain the degree this "unknowable god" merits belief or disbelief is unwarranted. No need to be befuddled with strategic discourse. No need to be bewildered in the philosophers' playpen. "Come to me all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest", Matthew 16:28. The divine-tug that leads people to Christ is beyond my understanding, but the confusion that mental aptitude leads to is not. Nobody can muscle their way to 'is-there-a-god-or-nope' and expect to retain their "finding" for long. Their mental assertion will eventually forsake them when something more clever comes along. Alas! The ineffectiveness of our mental faculties to settle the score. Oh, the utter emptiness of all Earth's sages to remedy our dilemma: is-there-a-god-or-nope? "Futility of futilities. All is pointless! What advantage does humanity have from all its labor under the sun", Solomon.

That'd be a No, then, or I reckon you would argue that it IS reasonable to believe in God, but pointless as - so I gather - Faith the only valid way to believe.